NationStates Jolt Archive

Does one exist? This is what I ask of you all. If so, what is it like?

Self-government...can't beat it.

Self-government...can't beat it.
I second this - full autonomy for everybody!

Does one exist? This is what I ask of you all. If so, what is it like?

Many people have said that 'government' is a necessary evil, some, an unnecessary one. I think if we can incorperate the freedom of democracy, the wisdom of aristocracy, and the stability of a monarchy (Plato, not me) then a perfect government could be achieved. We also need the right people for the job. I personally do not believe that power corrupts. I believe that power corrupts those who have the drive to gain power because the corruption was always there. The greatest leaders (of nations, excluding war leaders) have not gained power, but had it thrust upon them (The Dalai Lama for example).

My government

ohhhh let create one lets get all the bright minds to come here and agure all night until we create the prefect one. ....... GET THE COMMIES, CONSERVTIVES, DEMACRATS, REPUBLICANS.............LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE............... :rolleyes: :p

in theory communism is best but men are easily corrupted, thats why every system has its flaws

There's a catch 22 in government. People are just to stupid for any to work perfectly.

Democracy? Ha. Who likes Mob rule? Mobs don't act rationally.

Communism? Lol, if only it could pass the dictarship "phases" and pass the fact that people are lazy fucks.

Socialism? Sure, that'd be perfect if EVERY TAX PAYER WANTED TO HELP PEOPLE OUT, BUT THEY DON'T

Anarchy? Lol, it can't exist. A government of some sort will spring up. Some faction or another will take control.

I second this - full autonomy for everybody!
If everyone could just govern themselves...what wrong with people? Why can't you people just learn how to control yourselves...that way you wouldn't need others to control you.

in theory communism is best but men are easily corrupted, thats why every system has its flaws

Weak men are easily corrupted. Granted, most men are weak.

No, as people are not perfect, we cannot create something that is.

No, as people are not perfect, we cannot create something that is.

Maybe not perfect, but it would work. More than I can say for democracy.

No, as people are not perfect, we cannot create something that is.
Imperfection is a choice people make, people keep on telling themselves that everything is imperfect and that they are imperfect so what do you get....an imperfect world. I am just not buying this " we are all imperfect" shit no more.

Imperfection is a choice people make, people keep on telling themselves that everything is imperfect and that they are imperfect so what do you get....an imperfect world. I am just not buying this " we are all imperfect" shit no more.

Hey, yeah! *Stands up straight, right fist raised* We CAN be perfect, I'm not going to put up with this crap anymore either. From this point on, I am perfect! :)

Hey, yeah! *Stands up straight, right fist raised* We CAN be perfect, I'm not going to put up with this crap anymore either. From this point on, I am perfect! :)
And the easiest way to do it is to redefine perfect!
Quick, let's go get jobs with Merriam-Webster!

Hey, yeah! *Stands up straight, right fist raised* We CAN be perfect, I'm not going to put up with this crap anymore either. From this point on, I am perfect! :)
Yes you are!

I have always believed that a dictatorship with me as dictator would be the perfect system.

If everyone could just govern themselves...what wrong with people? Why can't you people just learn how to control yourselves...that way you wouldn't need others to control you.
People invest in government for protection and progression mostly, because if no one at all worked together, the human race wouldn't be able to respond to threats quick enough to save themselves, or progress far enough in science and technology to make lives bearable and liveable. That's really the only purpose for government in my eyes, the rest of it are just things that happen along the way.

And the quizzes all call me a socialist :p.

Hey, yeah! *Stands up straight, right fist raised* We CAN be perfect, I'm not going to put up with this crap anymore either. From this point on, I am perfect! :)

...now, what did I walk into this room for? ...I'm sure I wanted to do something... Oh well. :D

People invest in government for protection and progression mostly, because if no one at all worked together, the human race wouldn't be able to respond to threats quick enough to save themselves, or progress far enough in science and technology to make lives bearable and liveable. That's really the only purpose for government in my eyes, the rest of it are just things that happen along the way.

And the quizzes all call me a socialist :p.


People don't just invest in government to be protected and for "progress' (If government actually help people progress we wouldn't need it)...people in invest in governemtn to be told what to do, what to believe and how to act

People don't just invest in government to be protected and for "progress' (If government actually help people progress we wouldn't need it)...people in invest in governemnt to be told what to do, what to believe and how to act
Well yeah, if we're thinking practically and not idealistically. I agree that most people do it for that purpose because they're afraid to be left out of the crowd and fear the idea of not being controlled to some degree, but in ther "perfect" government we wouldn't have a nation made of idiots who think that way to govern, which is the fundamental flaws in all government in that their based around ideal rather than practicality, but those without ideal are viewed as non-moral and corrupt.

Well yeah, if we're thinking practically and not idealistically. I agree that most people do it for that purpose because they're afraid to be left out of the crowd and fear the idea of not being controlled to some degree, but in ther "perfect" government we wouldn't have a nation made of idiots who think that way to govern, which is the fundamental flaws in all government in that their based around ideal rather than practicality, but those without ideal are viewed as non-moral and corrupt.

that is why I favor minority rule (very select minority rule). As long as they look after the majority also, they can progress without the nonsense.

Believe me if we let everyone just govern themselves...the idiots would just weed themselves out...happens in nature.

People don't just invest in government to be protected and for "progress' (If government actually help people progress we wouldn't need it)...people in invest in governemtn to be told what to do, what to believe and how to act

Government is needed to protect the basic rights of people. That is it. Anything else that government does would be through exploitation by the powerful.

Government is needed to protect the basic rights of people. That is it. Anything else that government does would be through exploitation by the powerful.

So is that the reality?

Socialism? Sure, that'd be perfect if EVERY TAX PAYER WANTED TO HELP PEOPLE OUT, BUT THEY DON'T


The wonderful thing about socialism is that tax payers don't have to want to help people out.

I'm dead serious.

Believe me if we let everyone just govern themselves...the idiots would just weed themselves out...happens in nature.
Mmmm... eradicate the idiots. Yes, idoits can't survive as self-governing individuals, they'd become a dying race. Best of all, the idiots who will try to preserve the endangered human species will be dying out with them! :p

Government is needed to protect the basic rights of people. That is it. Anything else that government does would be through exploitation by the powerful.

What about representing the will of the people on the world stage?

So is that the reality?

The thread title is perfect governmental system. So no it isn't, mainly due to the fallibility of people.

Believe me if we let everyone just govern themselves...the idiots would just weed themselves out...happens in nature.
Yeah but it would happen for all the smart ones too, unless they organized while the smart ones were left to die, and organization of ourselves is still a government, even if it just be economically. Let's say, for instance, you have to build a house to save yourself from the occasional hurricane. That would require miners to get the raw materials, manufacturers to create the machinery (unless you want to do it by hand), builders to build the house unless your skilled, which you won't be because there is no school system because that would require some sort of organized effort.

Now let's say you spend your whole life building this house by hand. It takes years and years, and when your finally done with your hurricane worthy house, a tsunami hits (I have the utmost respect for victims of this tsunami, just using it as an example) and everything get's destroyed, not to mention your whole life gets wasted away in the boring and tireing act of building a house.

I'd be fine with all the idiots dying out, but without some form of economic cooperation among the smart ones it's just going to be a long, boring life. And if there is economic cooperation, something is going to manifest itself to ensure everything stays "fair" within the economy.

What about representing the will of the people on the world stage?

If it provides for the basic rights of the people, then yes. That would include maintaining the military for defense and managing trade agreements to provide for consumers and protecting the workers.

Yeah but it would happen for all the smart ones too, unless they organized while the smart ones were left to die, and organization of ourselves is still a government, even if it just be economically. Let's say, for instance, you have to build a house to save yourself from the occasional hurricane. That would require miners to get the raw materials, manufacturers to create the machinery (unless you want to do it by hand), builders to build the house unless your skilled, which you won't be because there is no school system because that would require some sort of organized effort.

Now let's say you spend your whole life building this house by hand. It takes years and years, and when your finally done with your hurricane worthy house, a tsunami hits (I have the utmost respect for victims of this tsunami, just using it as an example) and everything get's destroyed, not to mention your whole life gets wasted away in the boring and tireing act of building a house.

I'd be fine with all the idiots dying out, but without some form of economic cooperation among the smart ones it's just going to be a long, boring life. And if there is economic cooperation, something is going to manifest itself to ensure everything stays "fair" within the economy.

Government decides what one cannot do, not what one can do. It governs, it does not (necessarily) organise.

Government decides what one cannot do, not what one can do. It governs, it does not (necessarily) organise.
I'm not so sure about that. Can a government really be considered a government if it doesn't organize the people in some way? I can't think of a system other than anarchy that implements these methods. And that was what I was referring to when I was talking about the government manifesting in order to control the economy.

I like this logic...We are all imperfect indiividuals who don't know how to govern ourselves therefore we need a group of imperfect people to govern us.

I like this logic...We are all imperfect indiividuals who don't know how to govern ourselves therefore we need a group of imperfect people to govern us.
Good point...I wonder how hard it would be to make a computerized government...hmmm. It probably wouldn't work because the imperfect people would have programmed it. Not to mention idiots won't want it to rule them. Oh well that idea went down the drain quick.

-edit-

Here's (http://phrontistery.info/govern.html) a nice little list of governments I found if you want to get ideas from them.

No government, everyone just magically treats each other well.

I'm not so sure about that. Can a government really be considered a government if it doesn't organize the people in some way? I can't think of a system other than anarchy that implements these methods. And that was what I was referring to when I was talking about the government manifesting in order to control the economy.

Maybe not, I'm just saying we can be organised and prosperous without a 'government' as such.

Maybe not, I'm just saying we can be organised and prosperous without a 'government' as such.

I hate to tell you this, but that organization you are speaking of...ahem...is government

I hate to tell you this, but that organization you are speaking of...ahem...is government

Not if it is not an entity in and of itself. Organised anarchy can exist. (OK, that's a bit paradoxical, but you know what I mean.)

Not if it is not an entity in and of itself. Organised anarchy can exist. (OK, that's a bit paradoxical, but you know what I mean.)

What keeps a hierarchy from establishing itself? What keeps the powerful from exerting their power over others?

infantocracy.
beerocracy.
cryptarchy.
Baby, beer, and a secret cabal.... which one to chose?

What keeps a hierarchy from establishing itself? What keeps the powerful from exerting their power over others?

The inherant problem with anarchy. Oh, not 'the powerful', but 'the power hungry'. We need someone capable of gaining power who is wise enough to hand it over to someone you can handle it when they get it.

The inherant problem with anarchy. Oh, not 'the powerful', but 'the power hungry'. We need someone capable of gaining power who is wise enough to hand it over to someone you can handle it when they get it.

It seems that most anarchists would rather had have an all-powerful government that was benevolent, rather than a small government.

Who is not "power hungry" in some sense? It is human nature to compete amongst each other for the betterment of one's own life. It is the "powerful" who are able to act on their wishes.

It seems that most anarchists would rather had have an all-powerful government that was benevolent, rather than a small government.

Who is not "power hungry" in some sense? It is human nature to compete amongst each other for the betterment of one's own life. It is the "powerful" who are able to act on their wishes.

Human nature? Maybe. At any rate, capitalism only aggravates the problem. What is civilisation? I thought the progression of civilisation was to abandon primitive human nature for the better good of society. It's petty, inconsiderate, and UNCIVILISED. It's like ill-mannered school children failing to line up for the bus in the senseless rush to get on. If everyone stoped being power hungry, this element of 'human nature' would no longer be necessary to survive, thus becomming obsolete.

I like this logic...We are all imperfect indiividuals who don't know how to govern ourselves therefore we need a group of imperfect people to govern us.

Government is needed to protect the basic rights of people. That is it. Anything else that government does would be through exploitation by the powerful.

Well VO, I think that this is the first time that we have actaully agreed! The general idea is how to give the government enough power to protect the people without also being able to destroy their rights.

Personlly, I think that seperation of powers in a representative democracy with some sort of nearly-inviolable bill of rights works. Which is most of the Western democracies. This is the best there is, or at least the best that we've come up with yet. Seems to me that most of the other things mentioned on this thread have been tried somewhere at least once and failed.

Capitalism works best as an economic system and the best form of governmental system is direct democracy. By which I mean that the elected government only proposes the laws to be passed and that it is the people themselves whom vote on whether or not they are passed. At present this is reletively impractial but it has existed before (the Athenian system) and could exist again if the correct advancements in the field of Data security are made. We could end up in the future with a very advanced internet polling system for every single piece of legislation. The problem is, that it would have to be very advanced as to prevent hacking.

Bump

There isn't one. I would say democracy is the closest, however that depends on who controls the media as to how the candidates are represented.

Capitalism works best as an economic system and the best form of governmental system is direct democracy. By which I mean that the elected government only proposes the laws to be passed and that it is the people themselves whom vote on whether or not they are passed. At present this is reletively impractial but it has existed before (the Athenian system) and could exist again if the correct advancements in the field of Data security are made. We could end up in the future with a very advanced internet polling system for every single piece of legislation. The problem is, that it would have to be very advanced as to prevent hacking.

Direct Democracy is nothing but Mob Rule, if anything would lead to total chaos it would be direct democracy and not anarchy which supposes the responsibility of the individual