NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking and reading past threads on the subject. Can the population as whole rule competently? I have no problem with someone ruling themselves, it's when the will of the majority favors restricting freedom that I distrust the general population. The current politicians aren't exactly Philosopher Kings. What do you think? What government would work best to gurantee free? (In practice)
Technocracy, meritocracy, democracy, republic, kervosky*, tyranny, monarchy?

*Rule by me.

Small-scale direct democracy, maybe.

If the majority favours outlawing the sale of alcohol, let them...

But then you can just go over to the next suburb and buy your booze there.

Everyone is happy!

I think. Meh.

In practice, a technocratic meritocracy would be the best. The meritocracy ensures equality of opportunity (and the freedoms that stem from it to ensure equality), while the technocracy aspect provides the technological expertise needed to maintain and expand the services necessary to ensure freedom. The leaders would be meritocratic and undoubtedly drawn from the technical or scientific components of society, which would help ensure that the leaders follow the most logical and effecitve path as opposed to the politically proper one.

Of course, there would have to be laws to check the negative effects of these systems, but overall they seem the best.

Minarchy - the government rules only as little as possible...

Minarchy - the government rules only as little as possible...
What sort of minarchy? Small scale republic, democracy, what?

I think in general, the best government is what politicians like to call a 'democratic republic' - a republic in which elected are held very accountable to the populace and where many local issues as well as very serious issues are put directly to a popular vote.

I guess I'm becoming more and more elitist.

Small-scale direct democracy, maybe.

If the majority favours outlawing the sale of alcohol, let them...

But then you can just go over to the next suburb and buy your booze there.

Everyone is happy!

I think. Meh.

Direct democracy? No.

A person is smart; people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Tyranny of the majority:
Issue: What's for dinner?

Votes:
Sheep: wolf1, wolf2, wolf3

Grass: sheep

I guess I'm becoming more and more elitist.
all you have to do is look at countries that are ruled by the elite. they dont do a good job. the elite are not immune from doing the wrong thing.

i guess my suggestion is a contitutional repubic where the constitution has a strong guarantee of individual freedoms.

Anarchy. Voting only leads to idiotic decisions & majority dictatorship.

Ensuring everyone has a chance to argue their points equally & debating those points untill a satisfying (to all) compromise can be found, is the only way to guarantee people's freedoms & selfless policies.

Kervosky
I trust ya.;)

Seriously, some sort of dictatorship where there was some way to guarantee that the ruler respected liberty, private property, the non-initiation of violence, etc. The vast majority of people do NOT respect these things, at least for other people. The vast majority of people have some sort of morality that they wish to force on everyone else. Therefore, the majority is unfit to rule, in my opinion.

I think the only solution is a direct democracy. No rulers. Participation mandatory. Laws proposed by elected council; you vote on them. Taxes collected by Treasurer-General, elected from the council by the council. People select where they want their taxes to go on the tax forms. T-G has the money paid to what the people vote for. Everyone goes home happy, except the authoritarians. Simple.

The best possible government? Meritocracy.

The rule of the best. Makes sense, doesn't it?

I think the only solution is a direct democracy. No rulers. Participation mandatory. Laws proposed by elected council; you vote on them. Taxes collected by Treasurer-General, elected from the council by the council. People select where they want their taxes to go on the tax forms. T-G has the money paid to what the people vote for. Everyone goes home happy, except the authoritarians. Simple.
What if I don’t want to vote, or if the majority wants to take my property?
I’m not very happy then.

What if I don’t want to vote, or if the majority wants to take my property?
I’m not very happy then.
I don't think that's what he meant by direct democracy. Why must such a thing necessarily entail a majority's right to trample all over you?

Anyway, this is why Anarchy is the only good way to run a community.

I don't think that's what he meant by direct democracy. Why must such a thing necessarily entail a majority's right to trample all over you?
Why would it not be able to?
Anyway, this is why Anarchy is the only good way to run a community.
Not the way you described. There is no way to get absolute consensus on anything, nor is it even required if people have the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want on their property, barring the nonconsensual harm of someone else.

all you have to do is look at countries that are ruled by the elite. they dont do a good job. the elite are not immune from doing the wrong thing.

i guess my suggestion is a contitutional repubic where the constitution has a strong guarantee of individual freedoms.

I'm tempted to agree, but then again, what is a constitution without the will of the people to abide by it? A worthless scrap of paper. So there needs to be something more than that; there also has to be an overarching respect for the rule of law.

Overall, I'd say that the best system of government is a meritocratic republic. It should be noted, however, that I said "best", not "most free", because the two are not coeval terms, and in my way of thinking freedom is only valuable insofar as it makes the lives of the people who enjoy it better.

Issue: What's for dinner?

Votes:
Sheep: wolf1, wolf2, wolf3

Grass: sheep
The obvious flaw in this argument is that the wolves need to eat the sheep to survive as they cannot survive on grass. The sheep would probably last for a shorter time then the wolves anyway, due to its inferior survivability. Thus this argument illustrates a situation in which you would allow the rights of the minority to lead to the complete extinction of the majority.

Now, as far as my ideal ruler? No one. I want a system where the highest government rank is middle-management (judges, police, etc). The law of the land is determined in direct Constitutional form, and the only way it could be changed is through a 2/3s vote of the judges and then a 80% vote of the masses. If either vote fails, then said amendment (and any amendments that would have similar effect) can't be voted on for one decade.