NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just curious as to what the NS community believes would be the ideal form of government?

I personally think the ideal government is a dictatorship/empire, something like that. However, the only problem is the dictator. In order for this form of government to work well, you'd have to have a dictator who didn't want the power in the first place (and would continue not wanting it).

I'm just curious as to what the NS community believes would be the ideal form of government?Syndicalism. The free organisation of individuals, voluntarily cooperating to solve common problems. What else is needed?

For the UK? In the short run a federal system like Australia/Canada, but with direct democracy and proportional representation.

Well, an ideal goverment would be no goverment at all. Unfortunately that won't work so I'll have to go with a representative democracy.

The ideal government is the one where I am in undisputed control with the adoration of my people.

Or, did you want a real world idea?

I am absolute dictator. I think that is by far the best way to go.

Syndicalism. The free organisation of individuals, voluntarily cooperating to solve common problems. What else is needed?

That's fine when there are only six people involved. I'll go with representative democracy, realizing that any human government is going to be flawed and have problems like corruption and partisanship and the like.

I'm just curious as to what the NS community believes would be the ideal form of government?

I personally think the ideal government is a dictatorship/empire, something like that. However, the only problem is the dictator. In order for this form of government to work well, you'd have to have a dictator who didn't want the power in the first place (and would continue not wanting it).

Ideal form of government? A clown with loaded dice. :D

That's fine when there are only six people involved. I'll go with representative democracy, realizing that any human government is going to be flawed and have problems like corruption and partisanship and the like.Spanish Civil War. Bit more than 6 people involved there. The reason it didn't work, was because the ruling minority & their allies refused to accept they weren't needed.

... I wonder why it's such a crime to think we're more capable of ruling ourselves than we are at ruling others. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, yet it's an almost universal mantra that you & I aren't fit to govern ourselves, but that perfect strangers are.

Federal Constitutional Democracy

Collectivist, direct democracy.

A dictatorship is a rather poor idea. Any idiot with some sway over the military can get into power and start doing really damaging things.

As for the best form of government, I concur with Plato: a meritocracy of the most intelligent and informed people, those least likely to be ruled by emotion and most likely to make rational and just decisions for the good of all. The people could be put to work on an intensive schedule, so much so that they would not have time for thoughts of rebellion or similar stupidity; however, affording them too much freedom would lead to their overthrowal of the rightful government, whereas not enough would cause them to grumble and aspire to an egalitarian society. Thus, they would be granted social and economic freedom, to a certain degree; not enough freedom, for instance, to be in any position in which to control others, as that could only be done by the informed élite, the only ones smart enough to do so.

This is the only form of government that takes into account and eliminates stupidity and corruption, two problems which plague every other form of government, from syndicalist democracies to communist dictatorships to corporatist oligarchies to theocratic autocracies.

The current parliamentary system in Canada, except more socialist, with no conservatism allowed, except in the form of fiscal conservatism.

... I wonder why it's such a crime to think we're more capable of ruling ourselves than we are at ruling others. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, yet it's an almost universal mantra that you & I aren't fit to govern ourselves, but that perfect strangers are.

Not entirely true. Ordinary people are fit to govern themselves and only themselves. Only the informed, intelligent, rational, and not-corrupt visionaries should be granted control over others in any way (for instance, making laws by which others should abide [i.e. don't kill, steal, or rape], or defending the people against external or internal enemies).

A quasi-evil panda.

*nods sagely*

Oh if you're talking Ideals then it's easy.

No government (anarchy) because idealy everyone would be selfless and altruistic and would do jobs because they needed doing. No government would be necessary because people just would get on with things and wouldnt commit crimes.

Benevolent Dictatorship, if you can guarantee that your dictator is a nice guy and will do stuff that is best for everyone then you're onto a winner with this one. This is in fact what we try to gain to a greater or lesser extent when we have our democratically elected persons. We just have the elections so we can unseat them again peacfully if they turn out to be turds (which they often do).

Democracy and capitalism.

But with more power to non government organizations, who could use some of the money from taxes.

Also, I think government institutions should have workers with a high sense of nationalism and desire to improve their country.

I'm really liking a lot of these ideas. Perhaps some sort of conglomerate of all of these ideas could form the ideal government...well, maybe not all since some forms of government are direct contradictions of each other, but you get the idea. Too bad we don't actually have the power to draw up the outline for this government and enforce it in today's countries.

Not entirely true. Ordinary people are fit to govern themselves and only themselves. Only the informed, intelligent, rational, and not-corrupt visionaries should be granted control over others in any way (for instance, making laws by which others should abide [i.e. don't kill, steal, or rape], or defending the people against external or internal enemies).Rubbish. Unless a society empowers the individuals, to their benefit, there's no justification for maintaining one. Repressive demockery like most of us have now, for example, is nothing more than an advanced for of the chaos mass-media prefer calling anarchy. It's simply the rule of the strongest, and it always will be, as long as it's merged with mercantilism.

Supposing you're a hell of a lot smarter & better educated than I (which isn't unlikely), do you really think that gives you the right to define which of my actions constitutes a crime, and what sort of punishment I should recieve for reeling against these constraints you've put on me without my consent?

If you seriously think so, then you might be smart & educated & covered in fucking sugar, but you're absolutely anti-human. I'm an autonomous human being, same as you. If you & I need rules to function together, then we need to define them together. Anything else is simply rape of autonomy of one or the other, and no different from slavery or imprisonment.

Too bad we don't actually have the power to draw up the outline for this government and enforce it in today's countries.

There's the rub.

"Enforce."

What if they don't like the idea?

A country run with a socialist social welfare system/education system (and the like) and a slightly more capitalist-run economy. Like, allow businesses to be run privately but privatize heavy industry.

There's the rub.

"Enforce."

What if they don't like the idea?

Then it sucks to be them.

Personally I would say benevolent dictatorship based on utilitarianism, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Rubbish. Unless a society empowers the individuals, to their benefit, there's no justification for maintaining one. Repressive demockery like most of us have now, for example, is nothing more than an advanced for of the chaos mass-media prefer calling anarchy. It's simply the rule of the strongest, and it always will be, as long as it's merged with mercantilism.
"Empowering individuals"? Individuals don't know what's best for the country. They know what's best for themselves and maybe their families and friends. They may think they know best for society, but in practice, it usually won't work.


Supposing you're a hell of a lot smarter & better educated than I (which isn't unlikely), do you really think that gives you the right to define which of my actions constitutes a crime, and what sort of punishment I should recieve for reeling against these constraints you've put on me without my consent?
Not in particular. I, or the group of intelligent people ruling the country, could decide on a set of rules for society (society defined as an organisation that uses its resources for the benefit of those selfsame resources -- in resources, i include people) that would work out better than that pretty much any random idiot could, but it still would not be a perfect system. Rule by the intelligent is not a perfect system; the perfect system would be rule by sentient AI to totally remove human imperfections from the system.


I'm an autonomous human being, same as you. If you & I need rules to function together, then we need to define them together.
Not in particular. People are selfish and will always try to define rules in such a way as to give themselves the advantage and others a disadvantage. If everyone could create their own rules, the society would be in chaos; resources would be wasted, inefficiency and corruption would be everywhere, and the stage would be set perfectly for a dictator to seize power or a foreign nation to invade. The natural state of human living is not harmony, it is competition; competition, moreover, to ensure your survival over that of the other person. It's called survival of the fittest. And it's the one law that determines human behaviour.


Anything else is simply rape of autonomy of one or the other, and no different from slavery or imprisonment.
With animals as base as human beings, slavery and imprisonment sometimes seems like a good idea.

Cynicism aside, in a perfect world the rules would be determined not by a human -- prone to the same flaws as the rest of them -- but by some kind of sentient AI. Rule by the intelligent -- the scientists, philosophers, thinkers etc. -- is only a poor approximation, but it is the best we can do until our technology has developed enough that we can create a form of artificial intelligence without human concepts of emotion, greed, hypocrisy, corruption, or ambition -- but with human or superhuman reasoning.

radder radder radder

surely wise politicians are superior?

Elder councils FTW!

Technocratic Socialism

Individualist oligarchy, or, as some people like to put it, market anarchism. Basically runs on the idea of mutually beneficial exchange and voluntary association so as to put the most able in place so as to do the most good with all whom they have dealings with.

Spanish Civil War. Bit more than 6 people involved there. The reason it didn't work, was because the ruling minority & their allies refused to accept they weren't needed.

... I wonder why it's such a crime to think we're more capable of ruling ourselves than we are at ruling others. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, yet it's an almost universal mantra that you & I aren't fit to govern ourselves, but that perfect strangers are.

You make my point in your first three words. Some portion of the Spanish people objected enough to take up arms, and they defeated the syndicalists, the free association of individuals.

Anarchistic participatory direct democracy based around a balance of individualism and collectivism.

Anarchistic participatory direct democracy based around a balance of individualism and collectivism.

Sounds like a Tootsie Roll Pop ... hard candy outside, a chewy soft center inside! :D

A quasi-evil panda.

*nods sagely*
Why quasi ? Full bore evil pandas for everybody:p

As for the best form of government, I concur with Plato: a meritocracy of the most intelligent and informed people, those least likely to be ruled by emotion and most likely to make rational and just decisions for the good of all.

Where meritocracies always show themselves as useless is at this point. No meritocracy (Granted there are few) has ever been able to avoid corruption at this level. Once there is a group of people who possess the power to rule without the consent of a larger and lower class, they will limit the membership to whoever they want. No matter how smart or charitable someone in the lower class proves themselves to be, they will never be allowed to rise, for the fear of the upper (ruling) class will hold them there.

The people could be put to work on an intensive schedule, so much so that they would not have time for thoughts of rebellion or similar stupidity; however, affording them too much freedom would lead to their overthrowal of the rightful government,

What exactly makes it rightful? How could it lose this position? How is any government that rules without the consent of its governed masses rightful?

whereas not enough would cause them to grumble and aspire to an egalitarian society. Thus, they would be granted social and economic freedom, to a certain degree; not enough freedom, for instance, to be in any position in which to control others, as that could only be done by the informed élite, the only ones smart enough to do so.

Here, you almost directly say "Once these two classes are created, there will be no mobility." Even if this is not what you intended to say, it would be a consequence thereof. The best way to keep the masses docile is to limit their education, wouldnt you say?

This is the only form of government that takes into account and eliminates stupidity and corruption, two problems which plague every other form of government, from syndicalist democracies to communist dictatorships to corporatist oligarchies to theocratic autocracies.

It does no such thing. I'd love to see you defend this statement.

One comprised of sexy naked people. For the lulz.

Where meritocracies always show themselves as useless is at this point. No meritocracy (Granted there are few) has ever been able to avoid corruption at this level. Once there is a group of people who possess the power to rule without the consent of a larger and lower class, they will limit the membership to whoever they want. No matter how smart or charitable someone in the lower class proves themselves to be, they will never be allowed to rise, for the fear of the upper (ruling) class will hold them there.
That is the primary problem with such a society. In fact, it is the problem with all societies. Rather than attempting to fix it, which is impossible, all we can do is try to ensure that the people who get to the elite ruling class are smart, informed people who will try to make good decisions for everyone else. It's a hell of a lot better than some popularity contest (representative democracy), the guy with the most money (corporatism), the guy with the strongest control over the army (dictatorship), the most psychopathic person present (collectivism), or utter chaos (anarchism).

Ideally of course, as I already mentioned, we'd have a sentient AI ruling us. A Hive-mind, à la Borg, is also looking like a good idea -- if all humanity were a single organism, it would work as well as organisms work today, which is perfectly.

Of course, neither of those is possible at the moment, so we should stick with intelligence-based meritocracy -- the only one that ensures that smart people will be the ruling class, as opposed to the most popular people, the people with the most money, or whoever led the last revolution. There is, of course, no option for an egalitarian society in which everyone's voice counts or everyone is capable of making decisions: human nature doesn't work that way. Human beings will never achieve equality until they are all dead.

Let me put it in big letters for the rest of the egalitarians out there:

Human beings will never achieve equality until they are all dead.

Thank you, thank you.

I'm just curious as to what the NS community believes would be the ideal form of government?

A republic which has a constitution that provides strong safeguards for individual rights, including private property rights, for the sake of the possibility of personal flourishing of each and all.

Just a thought: the republic could have a bicameral legislature in which the Senate legislates and is voted in by the small percentage of the public that passes a civics test, or gets above a certain IQ threshold, and the Commons only reverses legislation and is voted in by anyone of voting age.

More speculatively, anarchocapitalism.

-snip-

Sorry, but while the smart would rule for the first generation (maybe), they would quickly be followed by their dumb and corrupt realtives -in following with the phenomenon I explained earlier- and it would fall just as fast and just as hard as any other government.

And what is with the reference to AI? Is that some kind of Kierkegaardian government except with a robot replacing a creator? :confused:

Ideally of course, as I already mentioned, we'd have a sentient AI ruling us. A Hive-mind, à la Borg, is also looking like a good idea -- if all humanity were a single organism, it would work as well as organisms work today, which is perfectly.


you're frightening me now, a hive mind is what you'd want? i don't know if i'd enjoy my ant-life. that sounds even worse then a dictatorship.

Sorry, but while the smart would rule for the first generation (maybe), they would quickly be followed by their dumb and corrupt realtives -in following with the phenomenon I explained earlier- and it would fall just as fast and just as hard as any other government.
The only way I could see it working would be if some virtually unbreakable law code was set up beforehand, with a few enforcers in each generation to execute anyone who fails to administer the every X years IQ testing adminstered to all students. Those with a certain IQ or above would then be able to vote, and elect those of their own kind to various offices.

Well, meh.


And what is with the reference to AI? Is that some kind of Kierkegaardian government except with a robot replacing a creator? :confused:
Pretty much. It makes more sense, we can create an AI, and soon we may be able to create one capable of reasoning and understanding. A Creator is on the other hand a dubious perception at best.

you're frightening me now, a hive mind is what you'd want? i don't know if i'd enjoy my ant-life. that sounds even worse then a dictatorship.
You wouldn't enjoy it because by then concepts of enjoyment would have left your brain. All you'd have left is the sensation of doing duty and a feeling of pride when you accomplished something to help the entire mind.

Well... ok.... that's a bit fanciful, and I have coincidentally been watching too many sci-fi movies lately.... but shush. :p

Constitutional republic, with a government of enumerated (and sharply limited) powers concerned primarily with the prevention of force and fraud from within or without. Standing military should be limited to naval/coast guard, aerospace, and "special operations" forces, backed by the militia, the body of the people in arms. Franchise would be extended to all adult citizens, since there would be few things on which to vote (because there are relatively few things the government would be permitted to do).

The only way I could see it working would be if some virtually unbreakable law code was set up beforehand, with a few enforcers in each generation to execute anyone who fails to administer the every X years IQ testing adminstered to all students. Those with a certain IQ or above would then be able to vote, and elect those of their own kind to various offices.

Well, meh.

so your not only going to surpress the stupid but also kill them 'o'

Pretty much. It makes more sense, we can create an AI, and soon we may be able to create one capable of reasoning and understanding. A Creator is on the other hand a dubious perception at best.
as far as i know technology is only good in doing repetitive tasks wich require a lot of calculations and memory. that's why we leave the creative stuff to real people.
on the other hand, technology would increase the efficiency of a direct democracy a lot.


You wouldn't enjoy it because by then concepts of enjoyment would have left your brain. All you'd have left is the sensation of doing duty and a feeling of pride when you accomplished something to help the entire mind.

Well... ok.... that's a bit fanciful, and I have coincidentally been watching too many sci-fi movies lately.... but shush. :p

i like the things i enjoy.
and have you read (or seen, if they've made a movie out of it) a brave new world? what you just described reminded me a litle bit of that.

so your not only going to surpress the stupid but also kill them 'o'
No, I'll just kill the people who try to gain power they shouldn't have. A theofanatical secret police à la Aunts or Inner Party should do it.


as far as i know technology is only good in doing repetitive tasks wich require a lot of calculations and memory. that's why we leave the creative stuff to real people.
Yeah, right now... soon enough it may be different.


i like the things i enjoy.
and have you read (or seen, if they've made a movie out of it) a brave new world? what you just described reminded me a litle bit of that.
I've read Brave New World. I agree, to some extent; of course, the system does fall victim to a certain amount of inefficiency, but meh.