NationStates Jolt Archive

Which government is best for the country?
Which is best for the people?#
Choose and debate please

GO ELECTED EMPERORSHIP!

Depends of the definition of the above.

And there was no place to choose "Pancakes!" I voted "Republic" though I could have gone for "Representative democracy."

Depends of the definition of the above.

Feel freee to offer your own interpretation and definition
As long as you dont claim that "My interpretation of a military dictatorship is that we elect our rulers" or the such, its all good

how is republic distinct in this usage?

Benevolent Oligarchy.

how is republic distinct in this usage?

Ermm... it sounded neat?

Benevolent Oligarchy.

That would have been "Roman Republic." Sometimes more than 10 choices would be nice.

That would have been "Roman Republic." Sometimes more than 10 choices would be nice.

Feel freee to suggest your own, but the poll only takes ten :(

how is republic distinct in this usage?

republic is rule be representatives (ie: the people don't have the time or inclination to make their own laws, so another group of people do it for them)

there is no guarantee, however, that the representatives be elected. it could be as simple as a council of elders, or the 100 richest people, or any other way of deciding who makes the laws that does not include the majority of the nation to vote for them.

democratic republic (representative democracy) is where the people vote in for others to make the laws for them, and direct democracy (Which I took to mean Athenian Democracy above) is where all the people have a direct say and vote in the passing of laws.

republic is rule be representatives (ie: the people don't have the time or inclination to make their own laws, so another group of people do it for them)

there is no guarantee, however, that the representatives be elected. it could be as simple as a council of elders, or the 100 richest people, or any other way of deciding who makes the laws that does not include the majority of the nation to vote for them.

democratic republic (representative democracy) is where the people vote in for others to make the laws for them, and direct democracy (Which I took to mean Athenian Democracy above) is where all the people have a direct say and vote in the passing of laws.

Thats what i said.. but with more facts and less waffling

I don't see SOCIALISM!!!

I don't see SOCIALISM!!!

Socialism isnt a governmental method, its a style.

I am teh emperor, i shall be socialist.

We are the senators, we shall be socialist.

Socialism can exist in many forms.

Republic is my vote.

Eh, which one would "One Penis, One vote," fall under?

I liked that system. Very straightforward :D

Thats what i said.. but with more facts and less waffling

what?

you said "it sounds neat"

I voted for republic, but if I'm going to be precise (which I am) I think a Christian constitutional monarchist theocracy is best.

A free association of autonomous self-governing communes, with economics based on radical socialist principles.

republic is rule be representatives (ie: the people don't have the time or inclination to make their own laws, so another group of people do it for them)

there is no guarantee, however, that the representatives be elected. it could be as simple as a council of elders, or the 100 richest people, or any other way of deciding who makes the laws that does not include the majority of the nation to vote for them.

precisely my point - without some other distinction, it applies to a number of other options on the poll.

A free association of autonomous self-governing communes, with economics based on radical socialist principles.

make that a double

I voted for everything. Sure, it'll end in annihlation, but it'll be fucking hilarious.

I voted for everything. Sure, it'll end in annihlation, but it'll be fucking hilarious.

does the everything apply in athens, or do the athenians get to go do their thing by themselves while the rest of the world fights it out?

A free association of autonomous self-governing communes, with economics based on radical socialist principles.

Sounds teh pownzor. I guess that would follow as a vote for "communism."

direct democracy (like in athens) now if only that could be done in todays countries. wait... it can, because of a little thing called the internet.

I voted for republic, but if I'm going to be precise (which I am) I think a Christian constitutional monarchist theocracy is best.

no. not everyone is christian. i guess you went to a catholic school, and thus were never taught about the BENEFITS of separation of church and state. really, its not the governments job to influence ppl with their religion.

...the government which governs best is that which governs least, and by that interpretation we are establishing a fine one in Iraq.
-Ah, Stephen Colbert

I voted for a Representative Technocratic Monarchy, otherwise known as the Elected Rule of the Robot King!

A mostly non-elected technocracy.

Only those with an IQ of 115 or more should be able to vote, and before nomination, candidates should have to meet the approval of a council of top professionals and educators of various fields. Governors and mayors of major municipalities should be appointed by the central government, and other state and municipal officials hired by them in turn. County officials and special district officers should be chosen through competitive exams and other application processes.

all governments are just as good as any other it depends on the situation really

That being said the current constitutional monarchy is what’s best for Britain I guess

What about gerontocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy,and benevolent dictatorship?

Oh ... and theocracy.

None.

None.Minarchy or Anarchy?

I voted for a mix between communism and representative democracy.

Minarchy or Anarchy?

Menarche?

Minarchy or Anarchy?

Minarchy

I'm a proponent of liberal democracies, however any government form which maximizes peace and prosperity for the populace, without the headaches of violent transfer of power. This usually means a government with at least a modicum of representation.

no. not everyone is christian. i guess you went to a catholic school, and thus were never taught about the BENEFITS of separation of church and state. really, its not the governments job to influence ppl with their religion.

No I went to public school where I saw all the problems caused by the separation of Church and state. And I just turn on the television.

Which government is best for the country?
Which is best for the people?#
Choose and debate please

GO ELECTED EMPERORSHIP!

I'm going with Aristotle and Machiavelli on this one - it will depend on the nature of the people, or what modern political scientists call the "political culture".

Ermm... it sounded neat?

LOL! What a way to choose poll options! ;)

I don't see SOCIALISM!!!

Probably for one of several reasons, primarily:
1) The OPer seems a bit confused about his definitions.
2) That's an economic system, not a political one.

What about gerontocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy,and benevolent dictatorship?

I think he misspelled it as Platocracy on the poll. Of course Platocracy would be government by Plato, which may or may not mean that lined out in The Republic.

Of course Platocracy would be government by Plato, which may or may not mean that lined out in The Republic.

either that or rule by platypus

which, coincidently, was also laid out in 'the republic'

No I went to public school where I saw all the problems caused by the separation of Church and state.

Have you ever been to a religious private school?

Have you ever been to a religious private school?

Getting to the point of this:
Imagine that there was religion in schools, and that religion was Hinduism.
Doesn't sound that great now, eh?
Now you realize why you can't put Christianity in schools either.

Judging by what the majority of people seem to declare, during my lifetime the very best government always seems to be the one that was not put into power during the previous election.

The best system of governamce is that which is best able to motivate people toward common goals. This will depend entirely on the circumstances ... what works for one community or nation will not necessarily work for another. People will only be mobilized by a government whose modes of governance conform with people's expectations of how things ought to be done. And that will vary from community to community and culture to culture.

No I went to public school where I saw all the problems caused by the separation of Church and state. And I just turn on the television.

that is how it should be... so don't say that is a problem, please. You can have your morals, but if you try to make mine yours, don't expect me to oblige.

As for my favorite government style...
VIVA LA SOCIALIST LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!

Minarchy

I've always thought that "That which governs best is that which governs least" is a fine slogan for those unable to govern.

I've always thought that "That which governs best is that which governs least" is a fine slogan for those unable to govern.
so your saying EVERYTHING should be the overnments resposibility? you disgust me.

"There's no government like no government."

Really, I pick what Soheran said.

A free association of autonomous self-governing communes, with economics based on radical socialist principles.

Yeah, that.

so your saying EVERYTHING should be the overnments resposibility? you disgust me.

No ... I am talking about governance, which is a broader concept than government. It is about how communities define desirable outcomes, and then set about achieving them. It may or may not involve the government at all.

Have you ever been to a religious private school?

No.

Correction: I've never been a student enrolled at a religions school. I've been to a couple, but only after hours to drop someone off or pick something up etc.

I fully support Democracy, but only as long as everyone agrees not to vote. However, if someone is going to insist on holding power, then I'd prefer it be held by a very small group of elites so that, when everything spirals into corruption and totalitarianism (and it will, that is the nature of government), there is a clearly defined group that can be blamed, resisted and executed for their failures.
Democracy (and especially the Representative forms that are practiced by the West) is just used as an excuse for everyone to avoid taking responsibility for what happens in a country.

Me. Your God.

I hate to say it, especially as an American, but I think Democracy is not the way to go.

See, in most countries, the only requirement to be elligible to vote is to be a certain minimun age and have a pulse. That means that at best, every informed voter is going to be countered by a uninformed one. That means that on the long run, the best you can hope for from your Government is a bunch of average people expected to do an above average job.

And they will do anything to stay in office, including passing laws that may or may not even be necessary. Whatever it takes to look busy on election year.

Think about it. the USA is the land of the free yet I bet we have more laws governing our daily activities than any other country in the world.

-I wake up in the morning and turn on the Television, the content of which is regulated by a library of federal laws.
-I get into my car, which in order to drive legally I have to have a license, registration, current insurance, safety inspection and emissions inspection, all mandated by state law.
-The car had to be parked in accordance with local city law.
-There's a series of laws I have to observe as I drive from Maryland (oberying Maryland law) into Washington DC (obeying DC law) and into Virginia (oberying Virginia law)
-Must park my car in accordance with local municipal laws
-all the while I'm listening to the radio which is regulated by federal law
-If I talk on the cell phone while I drive, I'm breaking the law in 2 out of the 3 areas I drive in.
-I can be cited for jaywalking by municipal law as I walk from my car to the building in which I work
-There are laws to govern what exactly I can and cannot do with the computer I work on all day
-There are laws that govern what I can and cannot say to my co-workers
-At the end of the day I go home, with the same series of legalities as when I came to work.
-Incidentally, the home I live in must meet building standards and codes set down by state and municipal law
-If I go out for the evening, I pay a sales tax on whatever I buy so that the state can pay to enforce all these laws, as mandated by law

I'm sure there are plenty of examples I left out, and I agree that some of the above mentioned laws are reasonable, but some are not. In any case, you can bet these laws were enacted by politicians who got in because the average of the intelligence of their voting constituents thought they'd do a good job.

Remember, a mob is only as smart as its dumbest member.

By definition, a meritocracy has to be the best government. Your rulers will be the people best suited to rule, and they'll make the best possible decisions all the time.

How we identify those people I have no idea, but once we have we're guaranteed to have an excellent government.

No I went to public school where I saw all the problems caused by the separation of Church and state. And I just turn on the television.
What problems?

It's called freedom; some of us like it.

What problems?

It's called freedom; some of us like it.

It's called immoraltiy and debauchery masquerading as free thinking.

It's called immoraltiy and debauchery masquerading as free thinking.
Or it could be free thinking that happens to be immoral and debauched.

But, since I don't share your religious beliefs, I don't object to immoral or debauched behaviour.

By definition, a meritocracy has to be the best government.

"By definition"?

Your rulers will be the people best suited to rule,

No one is "suited to rule."

and they'll make the best possible decisions all the time.

They will become a ruling class that deprives the people of freedom - a capability that will be enhanced by a disproportionate impression of their worth on the part both of the rulers themselves and those who follow them.

Or it could be free thinking that happens to be immoral and debauched.

But, since I don't share your religious beliefs, I don't object to immoral or debauched behaviour.

That's the key. You are in way obligated to share my beliefs. But I am in no way obligated to share yours. A lot of people miss that reciprocal relationship (that made sense in my head, but I don't know if it really does).

My religious beliefs say that the civil government is to enforce the Law.

It's called immoraltiy and debauchery masquerading as free thinking.

"Immorality" and "debauchery" are rather vague terms. Some clarification would be helpful.

"Immorality" and "debauchery" are rather vague terms. Some clarification would be helpful.

I have to run: I'm going to be late for class again! But I'll clarify as soon as I get back. Around 8:45 here, so in about 3 and 1/2 hrs.

An aquatic woman handing out swords (apologies for the misquotation but I haven't seen that in a fair while)

By definition, a meritocracy has to be the best government. Your rulers will be the people best suited to rule, and they'll make the best possible decisions all the time.

How we identify those people I have no idea, but once we have we're guaranteed to have an excellent government.

I know ... we can just select those that happen to be born into "good" families. We know that they always turn out well. :)

"By definition"?
Yes. It's a meritocracy; you're choosing rulers based on merit.
No one is "suited to rule."
The existence of a meritocracy presupposes that someone is.
They will become a ruling class that deprives the people of freedom - a capability that will be enhanced by a disproportionate impression of their worth on the part both of the rulers themselves and those who follow them.
Then they would lack the merit, and would cease to rule. Such is the nature of a meritocracy.

I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to say. A meritocracy is necessarily the best form of government because it is defined such that the people making the decisions are the people best able to make those decisions.

I am not suggesting that it's possible to identify those people, or even that those people exist. But in a meritocracy, they would have to, and thus the government would always be excellent.

That's the key. You are in way obligated to share my beliefs. But I am in no way obligated to share yours. A lot of people miss that reciprocal relationship (that made sense in my head, but I don't know if it really does).

My religious beliefs say that the civil government is to enforce the Law.

And yet you want a government that will force him to share youir religious beliefs. Hypocrisy much?

"Immorality" and "debauchery" are rather vague terms. Some clarification would be helpful.

Sorry I was much longer than I thought I would be.

Basically, immorality is not following God's commands and debauchery is enjoying that state of sin. Not that you enjoy the sin (we all enjoy sin) but that you continue to sin, because you enjoy being in that state, spereated from God in your actions.

And yet you want a government that will force him to share youir religious beliefs. Hypocrisy much?

Umm, no. They are not required to accept Christianity as the truth. But they are expected to live by the Law. Some would apply to Christians only, which would not be enforced by the civil government (not attending worship) and others would apply to all and be enforced (death penalty for rape).

Viva la Bastiat!

Sorry I was much longer than I thought I would be.

Basically, immorality is not following God's commands and debauchery is enjoying that state of sin. Not that you enjoy the sin (we all enjoy sin) but that you continue to sin, because you enjoy being in that state, spereated from God in your actions.

And where, precisely, do you think these are prominent in public schools? How would religious schools prevent them?

And where, precisely, do you think these are prominent in public schools? How would religious schools prevent them?

All you need to do is look.

Ask a high schooler or even a middle schooler about his or her sex life. There's the immorality. Then ask them would they change their behavior if they knew that Christianity (or any other religion which forbid sex outsied or marriage) was the truth? The answer that I most often received was that they would not change, because they didn't care: they wanted the sex regardless of what God commanded. There is the debauchery.

Relgious schools do better by being allowed to say to nearly everything: A is right and B is wrong. Public schools aren't allowed to say that for most things regarding religion or morality.

All you need to do is look.

Ask a high schooler or even a middle schooler about his or her sex life. There's the immorality. Then ask them would they change their behavior if they knew that Christianity (or any other religion which forbid sex outsied or marriage) was the truth? The answer that I most often received was that they would not change, because they didn't care: they wanted the sex regardless of what God commanded. There is the debauchery.

I have no objection to consensual sex outside of marriage, so I don't see this as a problem.

No one should feel obligated to follow the commands of other beings; the fact that they assert this independence is a great thing, and should (if anything) be encouraged.

Relgious schools do better by being allowed to say to nearly everything: A is right and B is wrong. Public schools aren't allowed to say that for most things regarding religion or morality.

I have gone to a religious school. I didn't go for high school, but I knew people who did; I bet if you asked them about their sex lives, they would have given similar answers.

By definition, a meritocracy has to be the best government. Your rulers will be the people best suited to rule, and they'll make the best possible decisions all the time.

How we identify those people I have no idea, but once we have we're guaranteed to have an excellent government.Excellent synopsis of the problem with meritocracy; a meritocracy is impossible because it's impossible to objectively define merit.

Sorry I was much longer than I thought I would be.

Basically, immorality is not following God's commands and debauchery is enjoying that state of sin. Not that you enjoy the sin (we all enjoy sin) but that you continue to sin, because you enjoy being in that state, spereated from God in your actions.So?

So?

Ooooo... You're from Pittsburgh; so am I.

Anyway, the dicussion was about the immoral and depraved society that is only made worse by the separation of Church and state. In my opinion.

Ooooo... You're from Pittsburgh; so am I.Oh, cool; though it does seem as though I have nothing in common with other Pittsburgh NSers; I think this is proving to be the case, as well. :)

Anyway, the dicussion was about the immoral and depraved society that is only made worse by the separation of Church and state. In my opinion.Well, you did qualify this statement with "in my opinion", so I don't have a huge problem with it; personally, I feel that sexual liberation makes for a better society, not a worse one.

Oh, cool; though it does seem as though I have nothing in common with other Pittsburgh NSers; I think this is proving to be the case, as well. :)

Well, you did qualify this statement with "in my opinion", so I don't have a huge problem with it; personally, I feel that sexual liberation makes for a better society, not a worse one.

Well, that's for a different thread.

Ooooo... You're from Pittsburgh; so am I.

Anyway, the dicussion was about the immoral and depraved society that is only made worse by the separation of Church and state. In my opinion.

The separation of church and state saves us from the immorality and depravity implicit in religious fundamentalist tyranny.

I didn't feel like actually voting, so I picked the Myrth option.

Oh, wait, that says Militocratic... hmm, same thing?

Well, that's for a different thread.True...okay, to make what I said more relevant, the separation of church and state allows us to escape the religious repression that would be prevalent in a theocracy.
Or, what Soheran said.