NationStates Jolt Archive


Ideal Government?

Pyscotia
21-07-2004, 15:16
This is mine..

Completely totalitarian government, with one party rule (membership requires frequent high-fiving, among other things). One of the lads at the top should be of a higher rank than all the others, and he should be elected during a meeting of all the party members. In order to qualify for election, you must have some evil tendency, perhaps a re-occuring impulse of letting hungry bears out in public marketplaces.

The party should have an ideology that it constantly purports day in and day out, perhaps communism or some other positive concept, but in reality it should only love the people so long as they are helpful. Welfare is non-existant, as that is like pushing money into a pit and burying it. What, for example, is the point of having a nursing home for the elderly? There is no possible chance of recouping your losses, so instead they should be just worked harder until their bodies fail, or perhaps just go through compulsory euthanasia under some political movement like "food for young slave labour, not elderly dirtbags who are physically incapable of working. GLORY TO THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC! WOOOOO #1!".

If you aren't part of the secret hand-shake club at the top, you oughtn't have any political voice whatsoever, and are just treated as another resource of the state. The real goal of the party should merely be the perpetuation of the party, and the increase of its power base. By power, I don't necessarily mean internationally recognised finances, but rather real resources, like millions of people who can goose-step in time with one another, and actual power over what happens in the world. Constitution musn't tie the government's hands from doing what's best, and the only laws set in stone should be ones that deliniate party positions so that there is some order in the men's club (no women in government, am i rite boys?).

Things like music and art should be outlawed, unless it is for propoganda purposes, because in their spare time from the fields and factories, people should be sleeping not composing. Almost all education needs to be abolished for the vast majority of people, as for the most part they won't be needing to know how to operate computers outside of the one stored in their suicide bomb truck that they will crash into foreign countries. Foreign language classes would also be completely obliterated for the majority, as what good is it? People would require passports to leave the country, and they should be nigh on impossible to obtain, as allowing expatriates would be like the state allowing its resources to run outside of its borders (which is dumb).

The only way to get ahead in the society should be through war and scientific or legal erudition. If you are an awesome soldier, or have a particularly impressive rifle thrusting style, then your life should be improved from that of the common lot. Military service is a way of getting ahead, and the only way for anyone who isn't a rocket scientist, and therefore war should be glorified. When war is glorified, and the people do their utmost to be fearless soldiers, then who will win in a fair fight? The brigades of Walmart employees who have been drafted, or the endless columns of desperate peasants who know that their only chance at a meal that day is if they kill the weak liberal sissy and gnaw on his arm? I know who to place my bet on.

People should be grouped into packs of five and ten, and be forced to police each other for fear of group punishment. That way if a person reports one of the members of his group for a crime, and can present a minimal amount of evidence, then he should be rewarded as though he took part in a successful military campaign. If a person in the group commits a crime, and the other members of the group failed to realise it, then the criminal should be executed and the others severely tortured for their ineptitude. If they do know about a group-member commiting a crime, and fail to report it, then they should all be punished as thought they all took part in the crime. As time progresses and the system is put into place, practically every crime should be punished by death, as when the people realise that there is no way of escaping the long arm of justice, only the suicidal will dare to commit a crime. That way, the need to punish people will be abolished by the use of punishments. All people should carry ID cards too, and if they don't have their ID card on them and they don't have a good excuse, they should be shot and their organs should be donated to sick party members.

Finally, the only other way to get ahead should be that of showing remarkable intellectual capacity. Science and political erudition should be valued just as much as the military field when it comes to selecting who to progress, as what good are soldiers in a modern conflict if they don't have millions of nuclear bombs to back them up? When I suggest political erudition being a promotable point, I say so because a good law can be a most precious treasure, as can a new way of enforcement. More effective forms of taxation, better ways of discovering seditious activities, all these are very important for a state. This educational erudition should also be required for party membership, although obviously you don't need to be the greatest rocket scientist to join if your daddy owns the clubhouse.

That is just an extremely brief outline of my ideal government. I'm not saying anyone else's government is wrong, and I'm not trolling because I really do like this form of government. If you think I'm lying and couldn't possibly think that the above is a good idea, it's worth noting that I would like to be in the party ranks. No way am I ploughing fields, *****es.

Whats yours?
Strensall
21-07-2004, 15:27
I think you pretty must just summed it up for me. :D
Kanabia
21-07-2004, 15:36
Hmm, I was going to ignore this completely until I saw:

Things like music and art should be outlawed

F*** that.
Dark Fututre
21-07-2004, 16:17
A working Communism, But that will never happen so iam a capitalist.
Catholic Europe
21-07-2004, 16:20
Mine would be a non-secular government, a government which realises the importance of religion in everything.
Ice Hockey Players
21-07-2004, 16:37
An elaborate democracy with checks, balances, and independent groups to ensure that those are being followed. Not to mention that the government shall exist to aid its people, not legislate them to death, thus making education and health care a basic right with defined minimum standards that are far higher than they are now.
Bodies Without Organs
21-07-2004, 16:41
Whats yours?

...ain't no government like no government...
P4lladia
21-07-2004, 16:46
Why, Technocracy (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm), of course. I bet you don't know what Technocracy is, and you should read the contents of that link.
Demo-Bobylon
21-07-2004, 16:53
Ahh! Completely dystopian future. I like it.

By the way, I loved 1984. :) My ideal government...bottom-up run socialist state. Kind of direct democracy. I'm still deciding, though.
Letila
21-07-2004, 17:03
Why, Technocracy, of course. I bet you don't know what Technocracy is, and you should read the contents of that link.

I hate technocracy and those transhumanists like Filamai who want to have Coördinators for children.

As for Pyscotia, he needs his brain checked.

My ideal government is none at all. More specifically, a society without a government, markets, money, hierarchy, and most forms of advanced technology. I'm tired of coördinator-soybeans.
Dischordiac
21-07-2004, 23:07
...ain't no government like no government...

hear the word of the lord!

Vas.
Keruvalia
21-07-2004, 23:09
As long as I'm God and King and Law, nothing else matters.
Forum Feline
21-07-2004, 23:17
Direct Democracy on most issues, a monocameral legislature to handle classified and day-to-day issues, a moderately-powered executive branch, very light compared to legislature, and a judicial branch filled with Liberal activist judges.

The government in power would be committed to promoting social and technological change, liberty around the world, welfare capitalism, and Utilitarian policies.
Santa Barbara
21-07-2004, 23:21
Ideally? Well of course, ideally there'd be no need for government, because everyone would get along naturally with no negative consequences, there'd be no war or any OTHER governments. Ideally there'd be no markets, because there'd be no economics, because nothing would be scarce and everything would be in infinite quantity.

Ideally, we'd all just sit around and smoke weed all day and roast marshmellows at night, except that requires burning wood which is both pollution and tree-killing, and so the other idealists look at you like you're a criminal and you're forced to leave the idealist commune, form your own conservative empire, and conquer those dirty tree-huggers through force of arms. Ideally, it'd be recorded on TV, so you could watch it later.
Conceptualists
21-07-2004, 23:28
...ain't no government like no government...

Seconded.

(Well Thirded to be techncal)
Dischordiac
22-07-2004, 00:05
Seconded.

(Well Thirded to be techncal)

Actually, Letila, myself (my answer may have been a little obscure), and Santa Barbera (I think) - that would make it fifthed.

Vas.
Santa Barbara
22-07-2004, 00:17
Heh. Well my point was I thought anarchism would be the ideal government, in an ideal world where everyone and everything was ideallic.

Doesn't mean I support that viewpoint though, in the real world. I may be naive in some ways, but naively optimistic isn't one of them..
Shinkar Prime
22-07-2004, 00:37
Look at my NS country shinkar prime.

absolutist regime headed by benevolent dictator.

Why?

Because I'm the only person you can trust to allow you to be free.
Less government = potential for more personal freedoms.

Anarchy is like communism... good on paper but in practice... human nature screws it up.
Not to mention that we live in a world where goods and resources are finite, and it'd eventually simply devolve into survival of the fittest or most cunning.
Drum Corps Purists
22-07-2004, 02:47
I submit that it's not good on paper, either.
Kanabia
22-07-2004, 04:21
Actually, Letila, myself (my answer may have been a little obscure), and Santa Barbera (I think) - that would make it fifthed.

Vas.

Sixthed.
imported_Animal
22-07-2004, 05:46
hahaha, no democracy and fear, interesting...

sounds a lot like plato's republic
Free Soviets
22-07-2004, 05:53
Actually, Letila, myself (my answer may have been a little obscure), and Santa Barbera (I think) - that would make it fifthed.

Vas.

thirtyseventhed
BLARGistania
22-07-2004, 06:06
Social Libretarian/Economic Socialist

A vast, sprawling government that uses its huge resources to actually help the people, not just sit there and stare at them as they slowly die. People would have generall the freedom to do whatever they wanted with thier bodies (smoke pot, have sex, drink, get tattoos etc. . .) Standard things like or even mor eexotic. If they can think of it, they should be allowed to do it.

The government has a vast series of social programes the provide a safty net for those that find themselves unemployed suddenly or the victim of some other financial disaster. The government would also provide free health care, free education through college, subsidized housing, subsidized housing, support for farmers, road+transport care and public safety.

In economics, there would be a private sector (out of necessity) but it would be highly regualted. The businesses would be under high scrutiny to assure business honesty, they would not be permeitted to form monopolies and they would have to gain governmental approval before merging. In short, business would be observed by the government in every aspect to assure honesty.
Dischordiac
22-07-2004, 11:41
Anarchy is like communism... good on paper but in practice... human nature screws it up.

Based on what historical evidence? The two most successful anarchist societies (Ukraine and Catalonia) were destroyed by external forces (and the Red Army and the Axis coalition were the biggest and baddest external forces of the last century). Power corrupts, which is why anarchism removes the institutional power arrangement, thus reducing the potential for corruption.

Not to mention that we live in a world where goods and resources are finite, and it'd eventually simply devolve into survival of the fittest or most cunning.

Like what we have now? This is daft, your argument is, basically, a society that focusses on co-operation is more likely to devolve into a social darwinist state by specifically creating the circumstances to avoid that than a society that promotes its very ideas - the fittest and most cunning become the economic and political elites.

The only difficulty with anarchism is how to get from here to there. If an anarchist society exists, it means enough people want to live within it to maintain it. The problem is convincing enough people that there is an alternative to what we have now, that having no faith in politicians is a good reason to abolish government, that fearing hugely powerful multinational corporations is a good reason to abolish capitalism, that there is an alternative.

Vas.

Vas.
Vitania
22-07-2004, 11:58
My ideal government is none at all. More specifically, a society without a government, markets, money, hierarchy, and most forms of advanced technology.

Get off the internet, you hypocrite!
The Holy Word
22-07-2004, 13:03
Mine would be a non-secular government, a government which realises the importance of religion in everything.Would you see that as a democratic goverment with a strong spiritual dimension or more of a goverment run on theocratic lines? (Genuine question, not flamebait). And are there any goverments that would currently meet your requirements- say Ireland or Vatican City?

More specifically, a society without a government, markets, money, hierarchy, and most forms of advanced technology. Personally I quite like indoor plumbing, the internet and not dying of Diptheria.

It's noticable that primitivism only really exists as an anarchist strand in the most industrialised societies.
Rejistania
22-07-2004, 13:19
Social Libretarian/Economic Socialist

A vast, sprawling government that uses its huge resources to actually help the people, not just sit there and stare at them as they slowly die. People would have generall the freedom to do whatever they wanted with thier bodies (smoke pot, have sex, drink, get tattoos etc. . .) Standard things like or even mor eexotic. If they can think of it, they should be allowed to do it.

The government has a vast series of social programes the provide a safty net for those that find themselves unemployed suddenly or the victim of some other financial disaster. The government would also provide free health care, free education through college, subsidized housing, subsidized housing, support for farmers, road+transport care and public safety.

In economics, there would be a private sector (out of necessity) but it would be highly regualted. The businesses would be under high scrutiny to assure business honesty, they would not be permeitted to form monopolies and they would have to gain governmental approval before merging. In short, business would be observed by the government in every aspect to assure honesty.

seconded
Kroblexskij
22-07-2004, 13:27
Why, Technocracy (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm), of course. I bet you don't know what Technocracy is, and you should read the contents of that link.
A technocracy is a government made up of engineers and architects and people like that


Nobody will know what a Kakistocracy is
Kanabia
22-07-2004, 13:39
I can guess, but it'd be...crude. :p
Dischordiac
22-07-2004, 16:52
Nobody will know what a Kakistocracy is

Rule by combat trousers?

Vas.
Vagari
22-07-2004, 17:02
Nobody will know what a Kakistocracy is

Kakistocracy: Rule by the Republican Party.
Unified West Africa
22-07-2004, 17:12
My ideal government: an Industrial Commonwealth with full worker control of industry (as opposed to Bolshevik-style party or state control), and a minimal central government whose role is primarily to check attempts to destroy the democratic system from within or without. Such a central government would have at best minimal police or military powers and could not possibly impose rule without the consent of the individual at large, as opposed to the monopoly on violence the state in all its forms has currently to protect its existance. Most decisions would be made at the local level, preferably by consensus or majority rule.

Again, the problem is getting from here to there, so my REAL political tendancies lead more towards democratic socialism.. it's not my ideal, but change has to start somewhere.
West - Europa
22-07-2004, 19:35
Kakistocracy: Rule by the Republican Party.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Kakistocracy

Correct!