Venusmound
16-10-2005, 20:10
The obvious problem is that ideal things don't exist in reality and that they're a utopia.
But there's another, slightly less obvious problem. It's that countries aren't interchangeable. There is no such thing as an "ideal" country. Each nation has a different history, a different culture, a different way of life, a different worldview, and thus an institution that would be perfect for one country might ruin another.
For instance, the so-called Westminster system of government (a parliamentary regime) has worked pretty well in England for the past 800 years. But in France, just a few kilometres away, each time it was tried it ended up screwing up government, because the French can't stop bickering, so if you give power to an assembly they cannot agree on policy, and trying to implement parliamentary democracy in France directly led to catastrophic events such as the debacle of 1940. Even though the same system has worked wonders for Britain.
So if you're saying "My ideal country has a Westminster system of government" that doesn't mean anything because the system might be ideal for one country, but bad for another. You cannot conceive institutions and judge them without taking into account the history and the culture they evolved from. They are more one than they are separate.
This being said, my ideal country is a republic with a civil law system, a strict separation of powers, elements of direct democracy such as recall elections and petition referendums, and a state with limited scope which encourages private enterprise, welfare and education.
But there's another, slightly less obvious problem. It's that countries aren't interchangeable. There is no such thing as an "ideal" country. Each nation has a different history, a different culture, a different way of life, a different worldview, and thus an institution that would be perfect for one country might ruin another.
For instance, the so-called Westminster system of government (a parliamentary regime) has worked pretty well in England for the past 800 years. But in France, just a few kilometres away, each time it was tried it ended up screwing up government, because the French can't stop bickering, so if you give power to an assembly they cannot agree on policy, and trying to implement parliamentary democracy in France directly led to catastrophic events such as the debacle of 1940. Even though the same system has worked wonders for Britain.
So if you're saying "My ideal country has a Westminster system of government" that doesn't mean anything because the system might be ideal for one country, but bad for another. You cannot conceive institutions and judge them without taking into account the history and the culture they evolved from. They are more one than they are separate.
This being said, my ideal country is a republic with a civil law system, a strict separation of powers, elements of direct democracy such as recall elections and petition referendums, and a state with limited scope which encourages private enterprise, welfare and education.