NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi there,
I was wondering what you peeps think is the best political system?..
With political systems I mean: Democracy, Communism, National-Socialism, Dictorial regime, Technocracy or any new suggested systems out there? What would you think be the most efficient system, cause less problems and does think of it's peeps. Please let me know.

Niels

I think i'll quote my government teacher for this one.
"The Best from of a political system is a benevolent Dictator."

I do think that if you have a good dictator peeps can be happy, cause tyrannic regimes don't have a slow way of handling things. They react quick, in democratic country's endless debating is usually the way it goes, It takes too much time and most of the times it isn't done for the people but for the politics

Hi there,
I was wondering what you peeps think is the best political system?..
With political systems I mean: Democracy, Communism, National-Socialism, Dictorial regime, Technocracy or any new suggested systems out there? What would you think be the most efficient system, cause less problems and does think of it's peeps. Please let me know.

Niels

Hmm, you are aware that Communism isnt a political system right? its an economic system. The best political system is Parlimentary Monarchy ;)

I think the best is anarchy.

I think the best is anarchy.
Ain't no government like no government ;)

only democracy.
but that interesting, how many people think that dictatorship it's better system and all that shit, but they said that from democracies, when they use benefits like free speech.

I think that will be good time to qoute someone smart:
"everyone can be brave, when he far from the danger,"

Enlightent despotism.

chaos

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill

That about covers it.

There is no scale to measure therefore there is no best system.

There is no scale to measure therefore there is no best system.
you can see that in other ways: what system you want to live? what system is the most moralist? what system you most admire?
there is so much stats you can comprise between the different system. that can't be so hard just choose one.

what system you want to live?Tyranical (when I'm the tyran)
what system is the most moralist?
Opulence and Star trek utopia.

what system you most admire?
Ghengis Khan's.

Tyranical (when I'm the tyran)
and when you the citizen?
Opulence and Star trek utopia.
and back for the real world?
Ghengis Khan's.
what was his system, actually?

Communal anarchy where robots do all the work.

But seriously, what do you mean by "best"? What criteria are you judging it by?

"most efficient system, cause less problems and does think of it's peeps" is a little broad.

I just wrote this for our region headquarter and it sort of fits and it's very nice if I may say so and people just LOOOOVE to skip long replies like this one ;)

Well Westmanland of course you may ask. But I can not give you an answer. I still hold on to my right of none-creative criticism of the current system though.

I agree that market economy was the source to the material strength in the west. I also believe that some kind of market economy will give material wealth to rising countries today. I also recognize the fact that this wealth came and will come at a high price; the price of a severely damaged ecologic system, hampered development of less wealthy states and international conflicts. A price that in a not to distant future will become higher than human kind can afford.

Further on I believe that the market economy is saturating in countries like for example Sweden. It seems like progress of life quality started to slow down a few decades ago and has almost come to halt. Market economy is powerful but it is not very efficient and it seems to have an upper limit in productivity. Konkurrens (economic competition) is a very expensive method to stimulate productivity increases, profit is an investment drive that unnecessarily ties up resources and unemployment is a wasteful and evil method of creating incentives to work. If we want to afford “luxuries” like a sustainable society, 21th century demographics, and reduced workloads with sustained wealth we might have to consider changing system.

On other contemporary systems. In my opinion a politic system is always a heritage of history; strong market economies in countries that could enter industrialism early and exploit the resources of what is now the third world, communism in countries where a majority was suppressed and distribution of huge fortunes were vital, nationalistic oligarchs in crumbled communist states, within which I count China. I don’t see Marxism, the Chinese or other systems as replacements for the one we got, although there are parts of these systems that could be recycled. Ex the full employment aim of Marxism or the semi-private production control in China. But why stay with theories formed in the 19th century.

Yet has no country taken a step from a history of a long running strong market economy. No country has had the platform that we are standing on and consequently the system you are asking me for is still unknown.

On the socialist regime in Sweden: ?? Socialdemokraterna are socialist in more than name?

On cooperating with commies: Never before has Vänsterpartiet been running a less communist policy in their everyday agenda, never before has Vänsterpartiet had such a soft theoretic party program, but since the leader Ohly started to call himself communist people expect a revolution. There is something rotten with political branding in the state of Sweden when Liberals legislate Swedish tongue, Socialdemocrats are scabs against German metal workers and alleged Communists support the withdrawal of inheritance and gift tax.

On beer: Yes please.

and when you the citizen?
then give me some little ass rich country with as few citizens as possible and with as much wealth as possible (like Qatar if you see what I mean). Then give me colonial imperialism as external politics and free oil, free hospital and free pizzas as internal politics.

and back for the real world?
Opulence.

what was his system, actually?
He gathered several tribes together and invaded most of Eurasia. He pillaged and burnt down many towns and village, making mountains of skulls and then moving to the next.

maybe but you don't answer the question. I think he talk about political sistem, not economical system.

edit: and I talked to kulladal.

I wish I could answer his question but I can't due to reasons I state in the reply.
I just want to point at the short comings of the system we have now and that we could be moving towards a saturated system.
I also want readers to think of new choices.

But I guess that I like the scandinavian sytems from the 50-80th. But it didn't seem to be able to last.

democracy is for ancient greeks. personally, i like fascism

No thread should end like that

The best socio-economic system is a constitutional republic combined with mild socialist tendencies to keep businesses in line, as well as good law enforcement to keep individual criminals at bay. Basically some compromise between the system in the US and the system in Europe.

The best system is a benevolent autocracy. But the problem is that most autocracies aren't benevolent and those that are often become tyrannic with a new leader.

The best system is a libertarian Republic with a capitalist economic system that is regulated by the government

A social-liberal system would be perfect.

What it means? Liberal stands for the idea that the government only does what the individual citizens cant do (defence, social security, education), while the social aspect means that the government takes up the responsability of helping the unfortunate (both domestically and internationally).

Management by Perkele!

Seriously, förankring democracy (agree with everyone before making a decision) leads to stagnated consensus politics. Some degree of democratically controlled autocracy, or "expert power" (meritocracy) is better. Many politicians, especially the weaker ones, don't want to get soiled with unpleasant decisions such as cutting overgrown welfare. For that, we need expert government officials, who can't be "just fired". A politician can be such a character, too. (E.g. Sauli Niinistö. Or - I don't know for sure - Dick Cheney could be.)

Democracies aren't very good at governing. But they are safe. That's why we like them, they're supposed to prevent anyone for abusing their power against you.

I personally like technocracy, while it's not the fastest form of government, it is one that makes good decisions. The biggest problem is who to give the power to. Universal democratic election wouldn't work, as people are ignorant. But if it's not universal, it's not 'safe'..

Something between the Anglo-Saxon free market system and European social-democracy. Not as naïve as (some) socialists, not plain evil like (some) capitalist neo-liberal economic libertarians. :P

Moderately authoritarian on economic matters. Honest competition, safety and pollution prevention must be guaranteed.

Libertarian in civil issues.

Laic[sp?] but not kneejerk laic where for example christmas decoration isn't allowed in any public buildings to prevent offending people from other religions.