NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?
Poll coming.
Will edit this when I get the poll up.

EDIT: Poll up.
I tried to put choices up there that people would actually vote for, with the exception of omniarchy and kakistocracy, because I ran out of choises and wanted to include some joke ones.
And I mean form of government, not political party. Political parties only exist in two or three of the options anyway.

Libertarian! Small government, a healthy size of private sector and low taxes!

Jennifer :D

Again, there is no one universal best form of government. The best form of government is the one that will be most effective in meeting the goals of the community which it governs. That will depend on how well it fits the local culture and conditions, and that community's sense of how things ought to be done.

I'm tempted to say 'none at all'.

Whichever one follows natural law.

Whichever one follows natural law.

Natural law is generally whatever people deem it to be.

Minarchy

Whichever one follows natural law.

Anarchy?

I like the idea of democratic socialism the most, I suppose.

Libertarian! Small government, a healthy size of private sector and low taxes!

+1

Turkeybastarchy; rule by the Turkey Basters. Or Turkey Bastards ... let me look it up again ...

Minarchy

Menarche?

Proportional representation over any two-party system. A government system that places its people's freedom over its own interests, including security.

I'm a huge proponent of transparent government and empowering people to participate in the political process, which I believe more people would do if their interests were represented. PR is better at that than first past the post I believe. Parties need to cooperate as a coalition in order to govern.

Note: Yes, I'm in the U.S. military and sworn to uphold the Constitution. But that doesn't mean I can't believe this Constitution is needs to be replaced with one that I think works better for modern society.

I'd have to say Democracy as long as it's done right and is true. It's supposed to be by the people and for the people but I feel after it gets started the politicians get off track with self interests, special interests, and loses the focus of who they are supposed to be representing.

You forgot kleptocracy (government by thieves), gerontocracy (government by the aged), oligarchy and plutocracy.

Menarche?

ew.. bloody panties... image won't go away... seared into brain... ARGGGH!

So, is Sociocracy something that one can find on Wikipedia, or is Sociocracy government by Wikipedia? Because the second one might just be the most bizarre dystopia I have ever heard of.

Either way, I'm in support of Annearchy, that is to say, rule based on a literal interpretation of the lyrics from "Anne's Song" by Faith No More.

Iztatepopotlacy.

Whichever one follows natural law.

You mean one big alpha male controlling a group of about 10 to 15 females, weaker males and juveniles?

ew.. bloody panties... image won't go away... seared into brain... ARGGGH!

ROFL!

Finally someone figured out what I was confused by!

Minarchy

yep. ;)

yep. ;)

?

?

:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

You forgot theocracy.

is Sociocracy government by Wikipedia? Because the second one might just be the most bizarre dystopia I have ever heard of.

That would be awesome.

You forgot theocracy.

because everyone knows that's bad news.

because everyone knows that's bad news.

Theocrat here. But, I'm not in a debating mood, so I'm just going to lock myself away before the attempts on my life begin. :p

Theocrat here. But, I'm not in a debating mood, so I'm just going to lock myself away before the attempts on my life begin. :p

May I ask why a nation should be ruled by religion, one of the most dividing, horrifying, most disgusting things humanity has ever invented? What an idiotic idea, if I may say so.

Theocrat here. But, I'm not in a debating mood, so I'm just going to lock myself away before the attempts on my life begin. :p

you can't see how a theocracy could be bad?

Natural law is generally whatever people deem it to be.

That's 'positive law', according to natural law theory the laws people make are what contrast natural law.

you can't see how a theocracy could be bad?

I can see how it could.

But I can also see how all the other forms of government could be bad also. Some of them lend themselves to more corruption and problems than theocracy does.

But I really don't want to debate this right now.

I can see how it could.

But I can also see how all the other forms of government could be bad also. Some of them lend themselves to more corruption and problems than theocracy does.

But I really don't want to debate this right now.

alrighty then, I am just saying if a bunch of Mormons took control over the government I sure wouldn't want to live under their rule.

That's 'positive law', according to natural law theory the laws people make are what contrast natural law.

Yes, according to natural law theory.

In practice, Evil Cantadia is quite right; "natural law is generally whatever people deem it to be."

alrighty then, I am just saying if a bunch of Mormons took control over the government I sure wouldn't want to live under their rule.

No. But there are always people who don't like the system they live under. They have the responsibility to try to change it to something they find better.

And if I find that theocracy is better, I have the responsibility to try to bring it about.

Libertarian! Small government, a healthy size of private sector and low taxes!

Any party that falls in with the views (not just the manifesto (still needs to be revised)) of the Defenderist Party.

No. But there are always people who don't like the system they live under. They have the responsibility to try to change it to something they find better.

And if I find that theocracy is better, I have the responsibility to try to bring it about.

but a minarchist government gives everyone what they want.

but a minarchist government gives everyone what they want.

How so?

but a minarchist government gives everyone what they want.

Which is impossible. Some people don't want a minarchist government, and therefore, are not getting what they want.

But enough with this debate. I'm tired and I'll see you all tomorrow.

How so?
well, the governement (in my utopia) provides basic infrastructure and pretty much leaves you alone to do whatever else it is you want.

well, the governement (in my utopia) provides basic infrastructure and pretty much leaves you alone to do whatever else it is you want.

I'm drowning in a lake, and no one wants to help me. I want to be rescued, but I cannot do this myself.

I'm severely sick, but I can't afford health care costs. I want to be treated, but I cannot do this myself.

I'm unemployed, but I can't find a job. I want to feed my family, but I cannot do this myself.

See the problems?

I'm drowning in a lake, and no one wants to help me. I want to be rescued, but I cannot do this myself.
call an ambulance?

I'm severely sick, but I can't afford health care costs. I want to be treated, but I cannot do this myself.

local charity?
I'm unemployed, but I can't find a job. I want to feed my family, but I cannot do this myself.
local charity?

See the problems?
not really, they could all be solved by moving into a community that offers the things you find important.

I'm tempted to say 'none at all'.

Well, if you don't I will;

NONE AT ALL

:p

call an ambulance?

Without a phone?

local charity?

local charity?

Insufficient.

not really, they could all be solved by moving into a community that offers the things you find important.

"Offers" them how? By violating the principles of minarchism?

Without a phone?
you are drowning in a lake and you have a phone?



Insufficient.
currently, yes.



"Offers" them how? By violating the principles of minarchism?
it doesn't, small communities can make their own rules, the larger federal government has minimal power over local government.

If you want a socialist welfare state, have one, just don't force it on everyone, have likeminded people do it together.

I can only say "none". It's not like any of these forms actually works in the real world as intended.
Instead of democracy people get choice between two evils.
In a republic you don't really know whom you elect.
Meritocracy would be fine, but who will select the best?
Aristocracy actually worked, but it worked for the minority.
Sociocracy is fine for small society, not a nation in the modern world.
And so on.



BTW, this poll includes very obscure forms while ignoring such popular ones as monarchy/aristocracy, anarchy and theocracy.

Democracy. I would have voted geniocracy, but I don't want to be in charge of all you boneheads.

Me on a island by myself. Like Tom Hanks' character in the movie "Castaway." Honestly couldn't understand why he disliked the situation. Extraverts are strange indeed.

Me on a island by myself. Like Tom Hanks' character in the movie "Castaway." Honestly couldn't understand why he disliked the situation. Extraverts are strange indeed.

Wouldn't it get boring after a while, with no one to talk to?

Wouldn't it get boring after a while, with no one to talk to?

Good point. I'll take a notebook computer with a copy of GNU Backgammon. (http://www.gnubg.org/) Once I figure out how to make a power generator out of a coconut. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Johnson)

Talking to sports equipment (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Wilsoncastaway.jpg) is, again, just weird.

None of those on the poll. Autocracy, when ruled by a good autocrat.

A libertarian republic is appealing but I voted for meritocracy because with that people are valued and gain or lose power by their actions rather than a popularity contest.

Why isnt technocracy up there?

democracy. and i mean real democracy, not this 2-party nonsense in america.

Why isnt technocracy up there?

what is technocracy?

what is technocracy?

Rule by the most technologically adept I believe. Also know as Government by Nerds

it doesn't, small communities can make their own rules, the larger federal government has minimal power over local government.

If you want a socialist welfare state, have one, just don't force it on everyone, have likeminded people do it together.

Umm isn't big government, ie non-minarchic government, still big government if its local? If not why not?

May I ask why a nation should be ruled by religion, one of the most dividing, horrifying, most disgusting things humanity has ever invented? What an idiotic idea, if I may say so.

Hmm... I was thinking maybe war, or intolerance. But I can see how prayer would hurt those around one immesurabley.

Plato's Republic has a fairly good system, with the "philosopher-king". It is not actually a republic in the modern sense of the word, but it is, in theory, the best. In practice, the best government would be thecracy (I'm pretty sure that's a real word), that is, government by God.

In practice, the best government would be thecracy (I'm pretty sure that's a real word), that is, government by God.

In practice theocracies are governments by priests. They protect their own interests, not the people or God's.

you can't see how a theocracy could be bad?

And most people can't see how one would be good. *sighs and shakes head.* Tsk tsk tsk. It's a shame.

And most people can't see how one would be good. *sighs and shakes head.* Tsk tsk tsk. It's a shame.

It's an impossibility.

That's 'positive law', according to natural law theory the laws people make are what contrast natural law. No, positive law is whatever the sovereign deems it to be. Natural law is inherent ... but humans still have to figure out what it is, and at the end of the day, it is pretty much whatever humans say it is as well.

Natural Law = ...

Nah, I'm not going to say it, I'll just get in trouble.

And most people can't see how one would be good. *sighs and shakes head.* Tsk tsk tsk. It's a shame.
It can have its strengths, however, most people fear that such a government would have too much power and be able to rule against them. A theocracy is only good if you are the perfect representative of the X religion in power, if you are imperfect or of a different religion then you suffer. As well, churches have historically experienced corruption which makes the system even less appealing as it allows for even the perfect representatives to find themselves screwed over by their government.

Natural Law = ...

Nah, I'm not going to say it, I'll just get in trouble.

I'll say it... Natural Law = ANARCHY!

I'll say it... Natural Law = ANARCHY!

Bah, anarchy's too organized.

Let's see if you can guess what I think natural law means? :D :D :drunk:

Bah, anarchy's too organized.

Let's see if you can guess what I think natural law means? :D :D :drunk:

Natural law equals eat or me eaten, survival of the fittest?

Metalitarian Meship.

A minarchist, republican, highly decentralized government with a federal system of government and a 100% laissez faire economy.

Michaelocracy; Rule by the judicious wisdom of a Council of Mikes.

The best form of government is Geniocracy combined with aristocracy.

1 emperor.

At the age of 25 he is cloned. the next 25 years he governs.
When the clone (Having been educated and prepared non-stop for government for 25 years) reaches 25, it assumes command.
When (which is likely) a being emerges from outside the loop MORE fit to command, this being becomes the new leader.

I had to vote for robotocracy. It's not that robots would be more intelligent or wise than people, but the idea that robots would be more consistent in that they could make decisions and enforce them consistently.

Then, of course, people would be hacking the government.