View Full Version : Best system of government
This is a poll set up to see what the majority of Orgah's believe that the best government model is. Discussions of the like get very heated and do not do any good, so I respectfully ask you to vote seriously on the poll, but not to discuss it in the thread. There is already a thread for such discussion. Please vote seriously so that we can see a numerical breakdown of opinions. The poll is not public, so you do not have to worry about people seeing what you voted. Sorry to sound like a dictator here, but I do not want a bad discussion to come out of this and have the poll closed. :P
CountArach
03-07-2009, 10:59
Edit... nevermind. I should really read the whole OP...
CountArach
03-07-2009, 11:12
What if none of the above match our preferences? Also is this your ideal system or what you think works best irl?
What if none of the above match our preferences? Also is this your ideal system or what you think works best irl?
Then just say what you think is best in your post. I just do not want people arguing. :P Also, what you think works the best, cause that is what makes it ideal, lol.
Crazed Rabbit
03-07-2009, 11:34
Wait, what - I voted for capatalist. I have no idea what that is. I bet you'll take this poll to show support for harvesting tumbleweeds as an alternative energy source or something.
Anyways - capitalist republic. Free markets, free people, small government and lots of liberty.
Everything else is some degree of slavery.
CR
CountArach
03-07-2009, 11:38
Then just say what you think is best in your post. I just do not want people arguing. :P Also, what you think works the best, cause that is what makes it ideal, lol.
Ah fair enough.
Out of the options given it would be a Socialist Democracy, but with some caveats. First off it would have to be participatory - anything else goes against the ideals of Socialism in my mind. Secondly there would have to be something of a decentralised effort to get people to do their own communal work, with the government stepping in for those things that local people aren't capable of. Thirdly, there would still have to be some respect for property rights and a small, highly-regulated, though still 'free' market.
For me it is Capitalist Republic. Mobs too often are carried away on waves of emotions and will reverse their course in times of panic, so I believe that you need smart, level headed people from the people, of the people, for the people, chosen by the people to govern. Also, I believe that the United States system of checks and balances is necassary to make sure that no one person or group of people gets too powerful. I say Capitalist, because I believe that it is everyone's right to work for themselves and their family. I do not think self interest is a vice (despite my sig, but that is talking about British Capitalism, which is a different story), it is what makes us breath, eat, and work so that we can eat. I believe that people can work for themselves without hurting others, and that it is the job of the republic to make sure that everyone does not have their rights to work for themselves infringed on, and that they do not hurt others in the process. It is true that some become wealthier under a Capitalist system (I am not among them :P), but everyone's standard of living improves, those who work harder, risk more and are luckier just have theirs improve more. It is not perfect, because a capitalist republic is exactly as good as its people, and no one is perfect. I believe that societies and governments are like living organisms, they start off small and weak, grow and mature, wither and rot. As this happens to a society with a capitalist republic for of government, the government and economic stability will follow the same trend. That is why I agree with the founding fathers that revolutions are necassary sometimes when governments hit this stage. I believe it is the best form of government because it resists the rot of society best, and if society has a revival and becomes less corrupt, so will the government. In short, it is the perfect chance for everyone, what they do with it is their choice.
Not meaning to start a debate here BTW, simply to state why I chose what I did like everyone else.
pevergreen
03-07-2009, 13:02
I voted Socialist Dictatorship.
To my understanding that means a single power and wealth is distrubuted equally between everyone? Thats what I meant to vote for, if I am incorrect.
CountArach
03-07-2009, 13:07
I voted Socialist Dictatorship.
To my understanding that means a single power and wealth is distrubuted equally between everyone? Thats what I meant to vote for, if I am incorrect.
Yes that would be the correct one under a standard definition of the terms Socialist and Dictatorship.
KukriKhan
03-07-2009, 14:21
Feudal Monarchy, with mandatory elections every 5 years, and a 2-term term limit.
One boss decides all, so it's efficient. But the citizens decide who is boss. Term limits prevent/slow down corruption. This for groups/nations up to 5 million citizens. No group/nation should be larger than 5 mil, as it's too unwieldy to manage/lead/determine a true mandate.
Feudal Monarchy, with mandatory elections every 5 years, and a 2-term term limit.
One boss decides all, so it's efficient. But the citizens decide who is boss. Term limits prevent/slow down corruption. This for groups/nations up to 5 million citizens. No group/nation should be larger than 5 mil, as it's too unwieldy to manage/lead/determine a true mandate.
Kukri, a Feudal system is one in which feudal lords' positions are hereditary. Also, they own everything and the serfs labor for them on the lord's land and get to keep a portion of the produce. The Feudal Lords own the serfs in a literal way also. What you are suggesting is a socialist republic of sorts. Sorry that I did not explain that better.
Banquo's Ghost
03-07-2009, 14:37
The poll misses out a whole series of governmental systems, like being an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for a week.
Feudal Monarchy, with mandatory elections every 5 years, and a 2-term term limit.
You don't vote for kings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI).
pevergreen
03-07-2009, 14:38
The poll misses out a whole series of governmental systems, like being an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for a week.
You don't vote for kings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI).
Dont make me laugh so much, someone is trying to sleep next door! :laugh4:
The poll misses out a whole series of governmental systems, like being an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for a week.
You don't vote for kings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI).
Sorry Banquo's, I listed the major ones and did not know enough about the right terminology to list the others. That is why I said if someone has one not listed they can explain in their post. Also, as this is looking for what you think works the best in the real world, I want people to not post theoretical government systems, as there is no way of knowing how well they will work. Do you know what I mean?
pevergreen
03-07-2009, 14:48
I'm pretty sure it was a joke? Have you seen that video Vuk?
I'm pretty sure it was a joke? Have you seen that video Vuk?
oh, lol. :P Boy am I stupid today. I gotta get some sleep. :P
KukriKhan
03-07-2009, 15:04
Kukri, a Feudal system is one in which feudal lords' positions are hereditary. Also, they own everything and the serfs labor for them on the lord's land and get to keep a portion of the produce. The Feudal Lords own the serfs in a literal way also. What you are suggesting is a socialist republic of sorts. Sorry that I did not explain that better.
Thought you didn't wanna argue or debate.
Thread title is: "Best system of government"
I described what I thought "best" would be: strongman, incorruptible, picked by locals. Build the 'incorruptible' and 'picked' into the system. Said strongman might decide capitalism, or socialism, or something else, will prevail during her 5-10 year reign.
Thought you didn't wanna argue or debate.
Thread title is: "Best system of government"
I described what I thought "best" would be: strongman, incorruptible, picked by locals. Build the 'incorruptible' and 'picked' into the system. Said strongman might decide capitalism, or socialism, or something else, will prevail during her 5-10 year reign.
I was not arguing against you system of government, just telling you that I think you voted for something other than what you wanted. :bow:
seireikhaan
03-07-2009, 16:58
"Best" is an utterly ridiculous concept to apply to governments. There is no "best". Republics, both capitalist and socialist, are quite capable of terrifying oppression. Monarchies are easily abused by a powerful monarch. Democracies are utterly impractical for trying to get anything done, and easily result in mob rule. Feudalism is borderline inherently oppressive, never mind prone to civil war and rebellion. Communism inherently defies human nature, creativity, and will.
In other words, they all pretty well suck.
"Best" is an utterly ridiculous concept to apply to governments. There is no "best". Republics, both capitalist and socialist, are quite capable of terrifying oppression. Monarchies are easily abused by a powerful monarch. Democracies are utterly impractical for trying to get anything done, and easily result in mob rule. Feudalism is borderline inherently oppressive, never mind prone to civil war and rebellion. Communism inherently defies human nature, creativity, and will.
In other words, they all pretty well suck.
But by best I mean the one you think best preserves the basic liberties and human rights of its citizens, and which is least prone to decay. Of course there can be good and bad of both, but the are distinct differences in each which make them fufill their roles in better or worse ways.
If you do not buy that, then just don't vote. :P
Sarmatian
03-07-2009, 17:14
What's with the "republic" and "democracy" options? A republic is a system where head of state is elected, usually for a limited term that lasts 4-7 years, although he/she may be elected for longer, even for life. Although we usually refer to that as dictatorships, it doesn't have to be so. Opposite republic is a monarchy, where the position of the head of state is hereditary and is for life. Democracy/Autocracy is the way power is distributed - in democracy most of the power is held by the people or representatives of the people in reality, while in autocracy power is held by the very small number of people, or even one man. So, a democracy can be either a republic or monarchy and a republic can be democratic or autocratic (and all the shades in between). USA is an example of democratic republic (although we use parliamentary republic more commonly) while let's say Saddam's Iraq was an example of autocratic republic.
Communism/socialism/capitalism refers to how the wealth of the state is distributed, again something totally different. It is entirely for a system to be a socialist democratic republic.
Your poll options are a bit fuzzy.
What's with the "republic" and "democracy" options? A republic is a system where head of state is elected, usually for a limited term that lasts 4-7 years, although he/she may be elected for life. Although we usually refer to that as dictatorships, it doesn't have to be so. Opposite republic is a monarchy, where the position of the head of state is hereditary and is for life. Democracy/Autocracy is the way power is distributed - in democracy most of the power is held by the people or representatives of the people in reality, while in autocracy power is held by the very small number of people, or even one man. So, a democracy can be either a republic or monarchy and a republic can be democratic or autocratic (and all the shades in between). USA is an example of democratic republic (although we use parliamentary republic more commonly) while let's say Saddam's Iraq was an example of autocratic republic.
Your poll options are a bit fuzzy.
A pure democracy is mob rule, like what Athens sometimes used. That is to say that all the power was in the hands of the people and all decisions were voted on. There were people appointed to offices, but the people could vote to do anything at any time.
Capitalist Parlimentary monarchy for me.
But by best I mean the one you think best preserves the basic liberties and human rights of its citizens, and which is least prone to decay.
So now, is this about which form of government I think is best or which one best fits the criteria in you mentioned?
Capitalist Republic for me. I'm inherently allergic to any sort of hereditary rule (even within a democratic framework), as well as socialism, communism and tyranny of any sort.
So now, is this about which form of government I think is best or which one best fits the criteria in you mentioned?
Well, that is how I define best. Vote on whichever you think is best by your criteria.
Sarmatian
03-07-2009, 17:52
A pure democracy is mob rule, like what Athens sometimes used. That is to say that all the power was in the hands of the people and all decisions were voted on. There were people appointed to offices, but the people could vote to do anything at any time.
Athens was hardly a democracy by modern standards, only a very small number of people actually had a say. Women, slaves etc... had no political influence. But if we call that what was in Athens some limited form of democracy, the proper term would be direct democracy ie. where people ruled directly, not through representatives. Of course, that was possible because of the small population. Today that is impractical even in the smallest states like Luxembourg or Andorra. That's why today we have indirect democracies, where people elect representatives to rule in their name and in their interest. I'm not sure if direct and indirect democracy are the best terms to use, but I'm not familiar with better terms, I just translated them directly from Serbian. I think you'll get my drift anyway...
Athens was hardly a democracy by modern standards, only a very small number of people actually had a say. Women, slaves etc... had no political influence. But if we call that what was in Athens some limited form of democracy, the proper term would be direct democracy ie. where people ruled directly, not through representatives. Of course, that was possible because of the small population. Today that is impractical even in the smallest states like Luxembourg or Andorra. That's why today we have indirect democracies, where people elect representatives to rule in their name and in their interest. I'm not sure if direct and indirect democracy are the best terms to use, but I'm not familiar with better terms, I just translated them directly from Serbian. I think you'll get my drift anyway...
In general though, the term Democracy is used to refer to this. In large cities it amounted to whichever crowd could shout the loudest. I think that it would be possible in a larger society, by smaller communities making their own democratic decisions. Some people still believe in this believe it or not. That is why I included it as an option.
EDIT: And btw, democracies can exist in which only certain classes can vote. It is still a democracy.
Yoyoma1910
03-07-2009, 18:03
The one they had in Starship Troopers.
Meneldil
03-07-2009, 18:25
Honestly, all these forms of government would have to be described precisely, because I'm fairly sure nobody has the same definition for Socialist Republic, Capitalist Republic and what not.
We have socialist parties ruling capitalist democratic states called Republics in a socialist fashion. Are those Socialist Democracies, Socialist Republics, Capitalist Democracies or Capitalist Republics?
Anyway, my vote is for
Socialist Republic/Democracy.
I'm tempted to say Anarcho-syndicalist commune a la Paris Commune of 1871, because this one started on a good way, but who is to say it wouldn't have become some crazy totalitarian dictatorship.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-07-2009, 19:49
A demarchy would at least be entertaining.
I'd say EMFM's Democratic Monarchy would be good.
Furunculus
03-07-2009, 19:59
Capitalist - Parliamentary Monarchy
I choose Socialist Democracy. As for real life examples, I'd pick the political hierarchy of the Soviet democratic system. If unabused it is the best system of representative democracy ever created.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-07-2009, 20:29
A parliamentary monarchy is my personal choice as the best option.
Rhyfelwyr
03-07-2009, 20:37
Socialist Republic. There needs to be a bottom-up system evident in even the grass-root levels of politics.
Currently, people are too detached from the governments they elect at a national level, and those governments tend to run the political machine from the top-down. Even local-level elections aren't sufficient for the voters to represent themselves at the lower-level, since the candidates in those are in turn chosen by the larger-scale parties, even voters see these elections in a national context.
Also, I think that the majority of the political power should lie in the lower levels of the political system, whereas a representative body at a national level would simply serve to coordinate the individual communities in the most efficient manner, and keep the leaders of individual communities in check should they oppress their own people.
Since such a system focuses on the local level of politics, I think it would by nature become socialist, or perhaps communalist is a better word. When power lies in the people directly above the voters rather than with a remote ruler somewhere else in the nation, it makes corruption much more difficult, and since local leaders will be largely autonomous, they can't blame their failings on a distant government. Because the system is much more 'pure', and power will clearly lie at the community level, people will act in the interests of their own community. Since liberal politics IMO comes from a disillusionment with the ability of national-level governments to run their countries effectively, when this factor is removed people will no longer vote for liberal capitalist parties which only offer to diminish the power of that government by giving people a bonus at the individual level in the form of low taxes. People will instead realise that their own prosperity is much more tied to that of their communities at a whole, and will vote for a more socialist system accordingly.
I guess my views are pretty influenced by the Victorian liberalism in Scotland, and also the Presbyterian Church model. I also find the ideas of the Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) and Diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) pretty interesting. If you do read those articles though, don't confuse religious toleration, embodied by the phrase 'liberty of consience', as meaning toleration of every religion under the sun. People don't understand what Cromwell was referring to when he said that, read my sig to see what I mean.
Megas Methuselah
03-07-2009, 20:57
Socialist Democracy.
The one they had in Starship Troopers.
:laugh4:
Aemilius Paulus
03-07-2009, 21:05
Since I support Authoritarian rule, and the only two choices for that were Socialist and Communist, I decided to go more moderate, as I am a free-market, fiscal and political conservative. So I chose Socialist Dictatorship, which is still however a hefty misnomer.
Strike For The South
03-07-2009, 21:19
While a caste system would be awesome (even better if we drew straws at birth) Some how I see that ending up in inequality. Call me cautious. So a republic with capitalism.
Mixed republic with a progressive tax structure, many government services, and a strong police/armed forces.
I voted for socialist republic though.
Edit:
Why has education and college turned me into such a lefty?
Communist Democracy.
Oh wait, those terms can't be put toghether. I go with Capitalist Democracy.
CountArach
03-08-2009, 07:36
I'm tempted to say Anarcho-syndicalist commune a la Paris Commune of 1871, because this one started on a good way, but who is to say it wouldn't have become some crazy totalitarian dictatorship.
That would have been my answer as well if it were an option.
Edit:
Why has education and college turned me into such a lefty?
To be honest I did have to check to make sure it was you posting :laugh4:
I won't comment on the education remark :wink:
Edit:
Why has education and college turned me into such a lefty?
Cause they like to indoctrinate students. :beam: Schools today usually teach more what to think than how to think.
CountArach
03-08-2009, 08:05
Cause they like to indoctrinate students. :beam: Schools today usually teach more what to think than how to think.
Sorry to sound like a dictator here, but I do not want a bad discussion to come out of this and have the poll closed. :P
:bow:
Meneldil
03-08-2009, 10:04
Oh, this is some drunkard rant, but to people who mistakenly think that left = big government and less freedom, I advise you to read books about the Paris commune.
Despite Marx, Engels and Lenin claims, the Paris commune, though being a socialist form of government never tried to enforce big government or even communism. I'm not saying it was the best thing ever, but I wish we could know how it would have turned out in the long-term.
I'm a Social Democrat, which is a Capitalist philosophy, with elements of socialism in it. I don't think any poll choice accurately reflects my views.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-08-2009, 10:37
Oh, this is some drunkard rant, but to people who mistakenly think that left = big government and less freedom, I advise you to read books about the Paris commune.
Despite Marx, Engels and Lenin claims, the Paris commune, though being a socialist form of government never tried to enforce big government or even communism. I'm not saying it was the best thing ever, but I wish we could know how it would have turned out in the long-term.
Indeed, while I reject the leftward anarchists' stance on voluntary exchange of goods, they get just about everything else* right.
*Of course, that one little thing isn't so little, but c'est le vie or however you spell it ~;p
CountArach
03-08-2009, 10:40
Despite Marx, Engels and Lenin claims, the Paris commune, though being a socialist form of government never tried to enforce big government or even communism. I'm not saying it was the best thing ever, but I wish we could know how it would have turned out in the long-term.
I personally always saw it as a mish-mash of left-wing groups from Anarchists to various Socialists. Then again I haven't studied it too extensively. I would like to one day.
KukriKhan
03-08-2009, 13:49
Mixed republic with a progressive tax structure, many government services, and a strong police/armed forces.
I voted for socialist republic though.
Edit:
Why has education and college turned me into such a lefty?
Because you instinctively know: chicks (your age) dig it.
Strike For The South
03-08-2009, 19:05
Because you instinctively know: chicks (your age) dig it.
Not here.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-08-2009, 20:06
Why has education and college turned me into such a lefty?
"How is it that little children are so intelligent and men so stupid? It must be education that does it."
Don't worry, you'll become sensible again in a few years, plenty do. ~;)
Meneldil
03-08-2009, 23:14
I personally always saw it as a mish-mash of left-wing groups from Anarchists to various Socialists. Then again I haven't studied it too extensively. I would like to one day.
I'm actually writing a paper on it (for my Marxism class ^_^). The problem is that most sources are completely biased: either the Paris Commune was 'teh most awesome thing ever' (according to Marx or Engels), or the downfall of civilization, a gathering of cannibalistic subhumans (according to contemporary right-wing writers).
Lenin is a bit more critical of the Commune, but only for the fact that he admits it wasn't really a marxist or communist political entity. He still praises it for trying to shaken the old hierarchies.
I'm not sure it could be described as a mish-mash of anything. Of course, some political groups were represented among the Commune (anarchists, marxists, jacobins, proudhoniens, blanquists), but from what I've gathered, the vast majority of the communards did not really try to apply one specific political program, or to fit to a specific political ideology. People were just doing what they felt was good and just (that probably why it would have failed ultimately).
Kralizec
03-08-2009, 23:35
I'm afraid I don't really agree with the poll options...
Republics can be presidential or parliamentary.
The only way having "democracy" as a seperate option would make sense would be to read it as direct democracy (ie Athens)
Parliamentary monarchies don't differ that much from parliamentary republics like Germany or Israel. Granted, I'd rather have a non–executive president than an inbred aristocrat as nominal head of state, but it makes little difference in practice.
I dislike the word capitalism because it's essentially a slur conjured up by Marx, and socialists use it to cover both industrial quasi–serfdom from the 19th century and western welfare states.
My preferred way of government would be a liberal democratic republic. I'm to lazy to write an essay so here's a wiki article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy) I voted capitalist republic because it comes closest, I guess.
Askthepizzaguy
03-10-2009, 11:20
But by best I mean the one you think best preserves the basic liberties and human rights of its citizens, and which is least prone to decay. Of course there can be good and bad of both, but the are distinct differences in each which make them fufill their roles in better or worse ways.
If you do not buy that, then just don't vote. :P
The best form of government is one's own common sense, scholarly learning, and abhorrence to injustice. Education, ethics, morals, philosophy, and sound judgment are the only true forms of government. Everything else is just a method of determining who can legally murder whom.
It is true that some become wealthier under a Capitalist system (I am not among them :P), but everyone's standard of living improves, e.
Well that is simply incorrect.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-12-2009, 00:28
Well that is simply incorrect.
:inquisitive:
Askthepizzaguy
03-12-2009, 00:31
I feel that an unqualified and offtopic debate between capitalism and communism should be moved to a different thread. Not taking sides; just that you won't make ANY headway convincing one another, and it is one of the great unresolved disputes of all time, plus, it's offtopic.
Best system of government, not left versus right economics. :bow:
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-12-2009, 05:27
Is best measured by smallest body count?
Crazed Rabbit
03-12-2009, 08:24
I feel that an unqualified and offtopic debate between capitalism and communism should be moved to a different thread. Not taking sides; just that you won't make ANY headway convincing one another, and it is one of the great unresolved disputes of all time, plus, it's offtopic.
Best system of government, not left versus right economics. :bow:
Well the economics feature prominently in the poll...
:juggle2:
Anyways, how about the Jesuit-led free Indian towns of Paraguay circa 1740?
The cities were pretty independent of each other (though they were ruled by the King of Spain). They did band together in times of war. The Indians were elected as leaders by their fellow citizens, every family was granted a private plot of land to do with as they wish and also required to help the common farming area, the harvest from which was kept for times of need or for those who couldn't feed themselves. Led in theory by Jesuits, but they couldn't make the Indians do something they didn't want to.
Turned out to be very prosperous towns, even with the trade restrictions placed on them by the King to placate the Spanish colonist competitors.
CR
Askthepizzaguy
03-12-2009, 10:09
True enough, the poll does include capitalism and communism.
I just think that it's interesting how often they overlap. What is communism? 100% income taxes? That's not particularly a system I think anyone would enjoy, a totally unfair burden on all. What is capitalism? 0% income taxes? That is a totally unfair burden on the lowest class. No matter what model you think you have, it's a combination of both. Unless you live in a totally authoritarian state where the government owns all your labor, or some kind of tax-free anarchy, you experience a blending of the free market and state control. The quibbling is about how much the state should control, and I find the two sides disagree by a very small margin of percentage points. Look at the current United States partisan bickering: One side is accusing the other of socialism, when the spending is around the same amount, and the tax breaks which were temporary under Bush are now reversed back to Clinton era-levels. So people toss the word socialism around to smear their opponents, when they disagree by a small amount of income tax percentage.
It's totally ludicrous. It's not the difference between Belgium and Mexico, it's the difference between a small order of fries and a large order of fries. Honestly, the hysteria involved boggles my mind. People need to get a grip sometimes.
Sarmatian
03-13-2009, 20:19
No anarchy? :thumbsdown:
Anarchy isn't really a system of government, more of a lack of a system of government.
Anarchy isn't really a system of government, more of a lack of a system of government.
Then the none option is sort of missing. :juggle2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.