NationStates Jolt Archive

I know for a fact this has shown up here before, but not in a while.

It's pretty simple: which is the best form of government and why? Despite what the title says, the answer should be realistic, not idealistic. A poll will be here soon.

Minimal representative democracy.

What do you mean, form of government?
You know, democracy, monarchy, etc. The choices in the poll are the most popular, at least, there the ones most real nations have adopted.

What do you mean, form of government?

The best (there is no ideal) form of government is a benevolent dictator. The problem with that form is when he dies there is usually not a benevolent heir to take over.

The next best depends on the culture of the people. Some people want freedom to choose their leaders, others want leaders that insure safety to the masses. The more freedom the less safety the more safety the less freedom. And the mix varies from one time to another. In the '60's the US wanted freedom since 1980 and especially since 9/11 the population has chosen safety over freedom. In Iraq the people chose safety (for the masses) over individual freedom. Following the invasion, for a while they decided to try freedom over safety, now they seem to have decided that they would like safety back.

In a sense there is no such thing as a nondemocratic government. There is no government that can stand if even a significant minority decide to fight. So, at least over the long run, the people get what they and their culture has decided is best for them.

Preferably none. But if you have to have one, an absolute monarchy is best. Any other government, given the same people, will be worse.

Representative, proportionally-elected, use of referendums for important issues, democratic, with a parliamentary legislative system.

Socialism would be a factor in who I would vote for, it's not really inherent in the form of government, more like inherent in the people.

A society that makes heavy use of the "Benevolent" Dictator, Absolutist, And Similar Lies Remover (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Knot-hangmans-noose.jpg/450px-Knot-hangmans-noose.jpg) would score many points in my book.

Add to that extreme decentralization and direct democracy and I'm happy. See, the trick is size.

Worrying about system of government first is putting the cart before the horse; it will also eventually require heavy use of the aforementioned Remover.

(I would have selected "anarchy," but unfortunately the poll appears to consider that option as an absence of government. This is incorrect. Any group of people two or more will require "government" of some sort. Instead, the poll should have just excluded the "anarchy" option and added an option emphasizing the direct democracy with extreme decentralization.)

simple democracy is direct democracy?

personally I wouldn't know, there probably is none. I guess it depends on numerous amounts of external factors.

(I would have selected "anarchy," but unfortunately the poll appears to consider that option as an absence of government. This is incorrect. Any group of people two or more will require "government" of some sort. Instead, the poll should have just excluded the "anarchy" option and added an option emphasizing the direct democracy with extreme decentralization.)
Anarchy is defined (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anarchy) as "absence of government."

Dictatorship FTW!

You know, democracy, monarchy, etc. The choices in the poll are the most popular, at least, there the ones most real nations have adopted.
Fair enough. I just had to ask, people use the phrase 'form of government' to mean quite a lot of different things.

In the short term (to be Anglo-centric) I'd go for reform of our constitutional monarchy and government very similar to Ireland, albeit with a monarch, not a President (yet) and a federal system. Of course, any kind of reform that puts Joe Public in the driving seat is quite beyond the vested interests in government and the traditionalists that think incest s a better way of filling a legislature than an election.

In the long term, something more decentralised based upon direct democracy in small communities in a confederal form.

How are you gentlemen?
All your form of government are belong to us
You are on the way to posting on NS thread
You have no chance to elect a new leader, make your time

Anarchy is defined (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anarchy) as "absence of government."

the dictionary isn't a political handbook.

the dictionary isn't a political handbook.
I'm not an anarchist, and this poll doesn't have an anarchist slant. I am defining anarchy the way most people use it, and the way the dictionary defines it. Democracy is not necessarily a government where everyone votes, but that is how most people use it, so that is the definition I'm sticking to.

I know for a fact this has shown up here before, but not in a while.

It's pretty simple: which is the best form of government and why? Despite what the title says, the answer should be realistic, not idealistic. A poll will be here soon.

Hmmmm.....you backed me into a corner with the whole "not idealistic" thing, but I'd still say a government-less "nation" is the way to go. Anyone who believes this, however, must also believe that people are basically good, and will take care of one another; not in a socialist sense, of course (socialism assumes the worst in people, which is why it forces citizens to pay for the various expenses of those less fortunate), but in the sense that an individual WILLINGLY cooperates with another individual out of mutual respect and a sense of obligation (though no obligation exists). I believe this, and thus I believe that an anarchist "civilazation of independent egos" would be much more effective than, say, that closet tyrant called democracy or its 1st cousin, republicanism.

Anarchy is defined (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anarchy) as "absence of government."

An analysis that goes a little bit beyond "wut does the dictionary sez?" ( :D ) would reveal that, in fact, when an anarchist says "I oppose government" he or she really means "I oppose that government."

Indeed, the State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) is currently the dominant form of government employed around the world. This common and widespread use is the reason why anarchists (fundamentally opposed to the State) use the more general phrase "government;" 99.9% of the time, that "government" is of the kind that they oppose.

However, even in the absence of the State, some kind of means of organizing and coordinating society and its members is necessary. This is the sense in which the word "government" is correctly used.

In fact, Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon), commonly cited as the first to refer to himself specifically as an "anarchist," defines "anarchy" as thus:

"...a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune"

(Emphasis is mine. The quote, with attendant citations, is found on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon). Also note that Proudhon was French; thus "the commune" means "the municipality." Proudhon was anti-communist as well as anti-capitalist.)

The actions of all of the elites who stand to lose much should the anarchist agenda ever come into fruition aside, the anarchist's insistence on using a general term ("government") to refer to a specific form ("the State") when stating their opposition is probably their greatest obstacle. They should consider being more careful.

An analysis that goes a little bit beyond "wut does the dictionary sez?" ( :D ) would reveal that, in fact, when an anarchist says "I oppose government" he or she really means "I oppose that government."

With all due respect to myself and my poll, I didn't put that much analysis in. I am using anarchy the way people use it in normal day-to-day discussion. The way you are defining it, while true, is a more technical term associated with anarchists. Just as when I say "beyond all reasonable doubt" I don't mean it the same way a lawyer does, when I say "anarchy" I don't mean it the way an anarchist does.

I am defining anarchy the way most people use it, and the way the dictionary defines it.

(unfortunately, this approach to processing reality is vulnerable to the possibility that people, including those which labor to produce dictionaries, might be wrong.)




:D

...when I say "anarchy" I don't mean it the way an anarchist does.


What other way is there to "mean it?"

Besides, I cannot answer your poll. A situation which, I presume, is contrary to your purpose in having the poll to begin with, yes?
(I could multiple choice some of the other options in order to get a rough approximation, but that option was left out too. :D
Polls. Almost as bad as dictionaries.)

I believe that a Representative Democracy, a Republic, is likely the best choice of Government.

Benevolent dictatorship.

Anarchy, or Tribalism.

To those that have said 'Benevolent dictatorship', how would you propose the leader becoming the leader, and how would the benevolence be ensured?

To those that have said 'Benevolent dictatorship', how would you propose the leader becoming the leader,


"It doesn't matter as long as it's me."

Those who see "benevolent" dictatorship (a concept almost as silly as "God") or absolutism as an ideal or preference do so only because they have slated a very specific individual for taking said absolute authority.


...and how would the benevolence be ensured?


"Hello...it's me."

I'd prefer a Representative Democracy, but really how the leaders are chosen doesn't matter as much as having a Bill of Rights or some similar institution. So long as certain rights (Speech, assembly, fair trial, equality before the law, ect.) are absolutely sacrosanct, even the worst government will be incapable of any real oppression. The greatest mistake America has made in recent years is to allow the government to trod over these inalienable rights.

Ideally, the best form of government would be no government. People would be able to do as they would, and still be able to get along well.

However, unfortunately, humans seem to need some form of authority and order, and tend not to just "get along".

Thus...balancing freedom and order, a direct democracy is the best bet.

Still, IDEALLY, "anarchy" is best.

I also like the idea of a meritocracy, but that would only work if everyone has an equal chance from the ground up...something that is VERY unlikely to happen. Too many variables.

Ideally, the best form of government would be no government. People would be able to do as they would, and still be able to get along well.

However, unfortunately, humans seem to need some form of authority and order, and tend not to just "get along".

Thus...balancing freedom and order, a direct democracy is the best bet.

Still, IDEALLY, "anarchy" is best.

The problem with direct democracy is that the average person, in the heat of the moment, can be moved to act in an unconscionable manner. For instance, if the US was a direct democracy, after 9/11 some charismatic speaker might have had some success in motivating the American people to basically declare war on most of the Middle East. There are times when we need leaders, leaders who understand the matter at hand, to direct us.

Also, direct democracy without a powerful bill of rights would become a horrible sort of mob rule, where "trial by the media" might be more than a euphemism.

The problem with direct democracy is that the average person, in the heat of the moment, can be moved to act in an unconscionable manner. For instance, if the US was a direct democracy, after 9/11 some charismatic speaker might have had some success in motivating the American people to basically declare war on most of the Middle East. There are times when we need leaders, leaders who understand the matter at hand, to direct us.

Also, direct democracy without a powerful bill of rights would become a horrible sort of mob rule, where "trial by the media" might be more than a euphemism.

direct democracy doesn't really work good in a large society. Secondly you should also consider that people who vote should also fight themselves, that's something different than you senators who vote to send your children to war while their own stay safe.

I voted for meritocracy. But, obviously the ideal system of government is a benevolent dictator. Problem is, when he dies his successor usually isn't so benevolent.

Best situation? Me on top, of course. :p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12700488&postcount=1
My government would basically have two parts:

Public Welfare Administration

No, it doesn't hand out welfare cheques. This administration makes sure that the market can function properly and there is sufficient security and stability in the world for people to live proper lives. It is made up of the following departments:
Public Security & Conflict Resolution
Police and courts are run by this department. One part of the police will be "external security" which will take care of border protection against other governments, the "internal security" will worry about enforcing court decisions and making sure that no one initiates violence against anyone else or their property. The courts take care of sentencing people who do initiate violence as well as settling disputes, enforcing contracts and making sure people aren't conned or defrauded out of their money.
Public Goods Provision
Things that the market wouldn't normally provide by itself efficiently will be taken care of by this agency. It would recognise "yes, we will need a lighthouse there" and put the project up for tender for someone to build a lighthouse somewhere. The same would go for roads (and depending on the road in question it could be a toll road making a profit for the firm that built it or transfer control to the people who actually live by the road).
Market Watch
This agency exists to make sure that the market functions as smoothly as possible. There are three main things to take care of: anti-trust decisions, making as much information as possible public about products, services and markets (to prevent market failures caused by asymmetric or incomplete information) and creating markets where there normally wouldn't be any, particularly to deal with externalities like pollution. Basically it would be a pollution trading scheme that would have to be administered.

National Charity Organisation

You may have noticed that the above doesn't require politicians at all. This second part of government is where politicians can be their usual lovable self. They propose programs (like "free healthcare" or "unemployment benefits"), get them through parliament and onto the tax proposal sheet.

Every citizen will be getting a tax proposal sheet at the start of the financial year. On it will be the flat tax needed to run the Public Welfare Administration (which you have to pay) as well as all the programs which parliament has passed, with a price next to them. You tick the boxes for the programs you like enough to pay for and pay the flat tax plus all the services you order. The trick is: if you don't tick the "free healthcare" box, you won't be getting free healthcare if you get sick. If you end up unemployed and didn't tick the box, you might just have to tighten your belt a bit.

The whole thing will be run by an incredibly strict constitution that limits the things the NCO can actually do. As you see, the courts, police and the politicians are kept away from each other, such that proposals which require the police to work (such as "kill all Muslims!!!111010!, "make war on Iraq!!!!111one1!") are impossible, since the police has no obligation to enforce NCO decisions, especially if they run against the constitution (which would have something about no "killing all ..." or "make war on..." in it). In short, the NCO will be a giant charity organisation which benefits from a national fee-paying system and a wide scope.

How things will be organised

The PWA wouldn't have politicians in it, just public servants. You wouldn't elect anyone, it would be a career choice. People would start with the PWA if they get hired and work their way up if they're any good. The guidelines by which the PWA operates (for example, "how much pollution should the permits allow") are set by the constitution. Every time they might need changing the PWA will appoint a council of experts in the field, get some recommendations and then put them up for referendum (with lots of information material). If the people agree, the changes will be made. There's no policies in the PWA, just set targets to be reached.

The NCO will be the usual parliamentary system. MPs will be elected, where proposals first have to pass the scrutiny of parliament before they can make it onto the tax proposal form. You can see that being an MP isn't quite as important as it is in our world right now, so I don't see a problem with MPs having other jobs as well.

So there we go, I think I covered everything. A government with the discipline of politics being removed from economics. There's as much choice as possible both on a voting- and a personal action level.

An enlightened dictatorship. But that'll never happen.

So, representative democracy, I guess.

No government like no government! :p

Nah, actually, I like a kalesic system of representative democracy.

An ideal government of any type is the best type. Sadly every one of those will end up not being ideal so I would go with other=any of them.

The closest to ideal and reality is representative democracy.

Also, direct democracy without a powerful bill of rights would become a horrible sort of mob rule,

A bill of rights wouldn't do anything, seeing as how it cannot rise up and enforce itself. Constitutions are ultimately meaningless in any kind of democracy, because their enforcement lies upon the majority continuing to obey said document- so much for minority rights. And even then they will subtly corrupt the constitution so as to make it into a bludgeon of domination instead of a guarantor of freedom; see the rise of central state power in the USA, and not just with this president.

Dictatorship. A Benevolent Dictator is theorectically the best form of rule.

Democracy? Please. Since when has majority rule been fair or just? 51 racist thugs out of a hundred people doesn't make their decisions fair or just.

A bill of rights wouldn't do anything, seeing as how it cannot rise up and enforce itself. Constitutions are ultimately meaningless in any kind of democracy, because their enforcement lies upon the majority continuing to obey said document- so much for minority rights.

True, but hardly an effective objection. Absolute monarchies only last until the revolutionaries tear it down or a gradual neuterization of constitionalism eventually ending in parliamentary democracies. Anrcho-capitalism will fail if and when a state appears, from within or without, that can impose any restrictions that aren't purely contractual.

Enlightened monocracy.

Direct democracy, exactly like Athens' Constitution but with universal suffrage, I figure if you give people that kind of radical power, the majority will enact laws for economic equality naturally against the oligarchic minorities. I totally reject all notions of liberal democracy as instruments of minority control and limitations of the exercise of popular sovereignty.

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

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12700488&postcount=1My biggest problem with your idea, is that public services are elective for everyone. I've been in the no-income group, and it's no more realistic to think health care will take precedent over shit like dogfood and beer, than it is to think can rely on alternatives.

Since your social organisation enables the existence of both rich and poor, I don't see how it's morally defensible for it to leave the poor to rot. I think it's that 'self-made man' myth rearing it's fugly face again. There's no such thing in a capitalist society. If you're doing well, your doing it at the expense of someone else. It's just the way it works.

EDIT: Forgot to say; on the poll itself, I vote #2 - because I'm an anarchist. Nice going there, poll maker...

Direct democracy, exactly like Athens' Constitution but with universal suffrage, I figure if you give people that kind of radical power, the majority will enact laws for economic equality naturally against the oligarchic minorities. I totally reject all notions of liberal democracy as instruments of minority control and limitations of the exercise of popular sovereignty.

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

Idealistic twaddle. For those of us fortunate enough to have studied ancient history, Athenian democracy is little more than warning of why direct democracy is to be avoided. Such were the suffrage laws in Classical Athens that only those who tended to be educated were enfranchised, thus ensuring a rather more informed, erudite electorate than that of a modern state. Moreover, Athenian sensibilities held political apathy to be something of a no-no; by contrast, the modern electorate, whilst being politically ignorant, is also politically disinterested.

Given the disparity between the Athenian electorate and that of contemporary western society, do you believe the demagoguism and ruin democracy pitched Athens into would be avoided? One hopes not.

Idealistic twaddle. For those of us fortunate enough to have studied ancient history, Athenian democracy is little more than warning of why direct democracy is to be avoided. Such were the suffrage laws in Classical Athens that only those who tended to be educated were enfranchised, thus ensuring a rather more informed, erudite electorate than that of a modern state. Moreover, Athenian sensibilities held political apathy to be something of a no-no; by contrast, the modern electorate, whilst being politically ignorant, is also politically disinterested.

Given the disparity between the Athenian electorate and that of contemporary western society, do you believe the demagoguism and ruin democracy pitched Athens into would be avoided? One hopes not.

Demagogism is an excuse used by oligarchs, in reality people can make up their minds on their own initiative. If you studied Athens you'll know it actually worked and the society was the freest ever. The Constitution was excellent, and the only thing was that the franchise was not allowed for womens, slaves and immigrants, it's easy enough to make it universal. The only reason political apathy exists today is because of the imposition of liberal democracy, in which conservative governments try to limit popular power to keep themselves as a minority in power. Minority special 'protections' of modern constitutions are an excuse to limit the sovereignty of the people are their direct exercise of said power.

you'll know it actually worked and the society was the freest ever. The Constitution was excellent, and the only thing was that the franchise was not allowed for womens, slaves and immigrants, it's easy enough to make it universal

Now be aware I have not studied athens all that much but wasn't that guy Socrates put to death for "polluting the minds of children" or something. Obviously not too free if that is correct and the law can trump up a charge like that.

True, but hardly an effective objection.

How is the fact that bills of rights have no power to preserve said rights not an effective objection?

Absolute monarchies only last until the revolutionaries tear it down or a gradual neuterization of constitionalism eventually ending in parliamentary democracies.

The intrinsic fault of absolute monarchies is that they tend to foster feelings of egalitarianism in order to tear down rival natural elites, such as through pitting the bourgeiosie against the nobles. These feelings of egalitarianism, taken to their logical conclusion, also work to destroy the king as well. However, this is simply evidence that centralization tends towards more and more degenerate government, with the absolute monarch changing a decentralized system of government into a more and more centralized state, until it becomes a system of mob rule where the government does not reside as an observer of precepts in private law but as a manufacturer of public law, thus liberated from any real constraints.

Anrcho-capitalism will fail if and when a state appears, from within or without, that can impose any restrictions that aren't purely contractual.

I don't see why a state will necessarily appear, nor even if this is so why this makes a state preferable to anarcho-capitalism.

Click Stand;12984314']Now be aware I have not studied athens all that much but wasn't that guy Socrates put to death for "polluting the minds of children" or something. Obviously not too free if that is correct and the law can trump up a charge like that.

The majority chose it, so it's democratic.

We have the same principle today, it's called trial by peers, but in the case of Athens it literally was by all your peers.

Demagogism is an excuse used by oligarchs, in reality people can make up their minds on their own initiative. If you studied Athens you'll know it actually worked and the society was the freest ever. The Constitution was excellent, and the only thing was that the franchise was not allowed for womens, slaves and immigrants, it's easy enough to make it universal. The only reason political apathy exists today is because of the imposition of liberal democracy, in which conservative governments try to limit popular power to keep themselves as a minority in power. Minority special 'protections' of modern constitutions are an excuse to limit the sovereignty of the people are their direct exercise of said power.
But Athens eventually did fall into mob rule.

But Athens eventually did fall into mob rule.

Cicero waxed eloquent on the horrific failures of the ancient direct democracies.

But Athens eventually did fall into mob rule.
So what, that is good, it's democratic.

Cicero waxed eloquent on the horrific failures of the ancient direct democracies.

The only reason they didn't work, as modern Greek commentator Fotopoulos correctly put it:
'In other words, representative democracy, within the framework of the capitalist organization of production, not only is it not a democracy, but, objectively, it is also being used by the ruling elites so as to cover up the true character of a social system based on concentration of political and economic power. On the contrary, the participatory economic democracy transcends class interest, precisely because it entails the abolition of the unequal distribution of economic power. Direct local economic democracy, in conjunction with the development of forms of direct local political democracy, could become the basis for a new form of democracy that might constitute, after 2,500 years, the real completion of the Athenian democracy.'

It didn't bridge the gap between political and economic democracy, that is the bulwark of liberal democracy which must be torn down for true democracy to be realized.

Idealistic twaddle. For those of us fortunate enough to have studied ancient history, Athenian democracy is little more than warning of why direct democracy is to be avoided. Such were the suffrage laws in Classical Athens that only those who tended to be educated were enfranchised, thus ensuring a rather more informed, erudite electorate than that of a modern state. Moreover, Athenian sensibilities held political apathy to be something of a no-no; by contrast, the modern electorate, whilst being politically ignorant, is also politically disinterested.

Given the disparity between the Athenian electorate and that of contemporary western society, do you believe the demagoguism and ruin democracy pitched Athens into would be avoided? One hopes not.

Can you rewrite this so it contains even more archaic words?

The only reason they didn't work, as modern Greek commentator Fotopoulos correctly put it:
'In other words, representative democracy, within the framework of the capitalist organization of production, not only is it not a democracy, but, objectively, it is also being used by the ruling elites so as to cover up the true character of a social system based on concentration of political and economic power. On the contrary, the participatory economic democracy transcends class interest, precisely because it entails the abolition of the unequal distribution of economic power. Direct local economic democracy, in conjunction with the development of forms of direct local political democracy, could become the basis for a new form of democracy that might constitute, after 2,500 years, the real completion of the Athenian democracy.'

It didn't bridge the gap between political and economic democracy, that is the bulwark of liberal democracy which must be torn down for true democracy to be realized.

Seeing how bloodthirsty and irrational Athenian democracy was concerning foreign policy (eternal war) and civil rights (Socrates), economic democracy would have only resulted in an even more spectacular implosion of these societies through the destruction of economic and social capital, including the mass-murder of the rational segment of the population to sate the bloodthirsty masses' irrational envy.

My biggest problem with your idea, is that public services are elective for everyone. I've been in the no-income group, and it's no more realistic to think health care will take precedent over shit like dogfood and beer, than it is to think can rely on alternatives.
So in reality they're leaving themselves to rot. I agree that it's stupid and morally reprehensible of them, but I don't see how anyone is required to save people from their own stupidity.

Since your social organisation enables the existence of both rich and poor, I don't see how it's morally defensible for it to leave the poor to rot.
My organisation doesn't leave anyone to rot, that's the beauty of it. People could leave each other to rot if they so choose, but I don't think they would. And besides, welfare, healthcare and similar programs would actually benefit from funding limits because it would force them to look for 'bang for the buck' rather than just throwing money out the window (or more accurately, towards bureaucrats and their cronies).

Since no one is forced to work for anyone else's pleasure against their will (and having money I received for my work taken and given to someone else is precisely that), it's the most morally "clean" system. It doesn't require anyone to make judgements on what is right or wrong for others to do, everyone is free to make their own calls on everything: their own lives, the level of safety net they need, how much they want to spend on other people's safety nets.

If the outcome isn't what you personally like, it would be not because of my social organisation but because people don't behave as you want them to. It would force you to recognise the pointlessness of ranting against "the system" and instead get people to hand over their money by their own free will, on the strength of your arguments.

I think it's that 'self-made man' myth rearing it's fugly face again. There's no such thing in a capitalist society. If you're doing well, your doing it at the expense of someone else. It's just the way it works.
Capitalism is just a collection of trades. And by definition, a voluntary trade doesn't leave a party worse off than if it had not occured.

So I'm afraid the causation not only has not been proven, but cannot exist by definition.

The only exception are trades made under duress, when one party threatens the other. Note that economic duress is very rigidly defined within the law and doesn't include "I'm poor, therefore I had to accept this job under economic duress". Being poor and therefore having limited options is the same as being a caveman "being forced" to hunt for food, it's part of material existence.

Oh, and by the way...who did he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_Washington) achieve is success at the expense of?

Frist set up of local government. You have council's that aer like 20 sets por house hold the aer 20 house hold's to ech.There aer 20 of the council's to ehc repasentateve zone i will get to these later.So let is talk about these council's 19/20 of the council's have to vote the same way for a reolution to pass.If there is just 1/20 of the consal vote in the other way to the rest the reolution is debated and revoted on.Council's fallow smaler rule's to these.now let me talk the laevel up from these.Zone's these also rueld by council's these can overrule the lower council's so zone concil's can over rule the repasenteve council's and so on.Zones the aer 20 of these per city.All council's leders aer elcted by the councils and the vote to elect them has to be atlest 80% of the council's vote.In order to win the ledership of the council.and also move up to reparsent theme in the higher council's we will. let us talk about regional council's the aer maed up of the city council's same rule's apply for passing a reolution's and electing lerder's. Now regions there aer 100 regions menam per nation. Now ech region has its own council's now ther is one exra step to the counil's on the regional laevel. The miltegeional council there aer 1 of these for every 20 region's the resentive of these come from regional council's. And the same rule's apply for the matiregional council's. Now the leder's from the councils go to be the five or more leder's for the elite council wich lieds the contry and act's as the suprem cort and can stric down any law by any council below also it can decler war and set up government agentes. The leders of these level of the goverment have a 6 month tarme that rowates so everyone woud be able to have time to have there vision see.These council has a lifetime tarm and all come frome the council's stated. Now impechment is cered out here and all of the repesenatives have to argee to impech someone but the one that is being impech dos not have the riet to agree or disagree. Now diagram to ledership. local -city-regional-matiregional-elete council.

Demagogism is an excuse used by oligarchs, in reality people can make up their minds on their own initiative. If you studied Athens you'll know it actually worked and the society was the freest ever. The Constitution was excellent, and the only thing was that the franchise was not allowed for womens, slaves and immigrants, it's easy enough to make it universal. The only reason political apathy exists today is because of the imposition of liberal democracy, in which conservative governments try to limit popular power to keep themselves as a minority in power. Minority special 'protections' of modern constitutions are an excuse to limit the sovereignty of the people are their direct exercise of said power.

Because naturally the poor sodding proles should have everything done for them? How dare one expect them, much like anybody else, to simply take an interest in politics?

In any case, your knowledge of history is flawed. Contemporary historical analysis would hold that the death of Pericles in the 429BC plague, and the concomitant rise of demagoguism following it, was a key contributor to the defeat of Athens at the hands of Sparta.

Can you rewrite this so it contains even more archaic words?

Hardly my fault I have an education is it?

Because naturally the poor sodding proles should have everything done for them? How dare one expect them, much like anybody else, to simply take an interest in politics?

In any case, your knowledge of history is flawed. Contemporary historical analysis would hold that the death of Pericles in the 429BC plague, and the concomitant rise of demagoguism following it, was a key contributor to the defeat of Athens at the hands of Sparta.

A demagogue can only suggest, I think people thinking the Athenian populace were a bunch of stupid rabble who could be convinced by any charlatan with a bag of tricks is a lie, this is the same Athens that chose to use a newly found silver mine to fight Persia rather than have a tax cut.

There really isn't all too much wrong with a social democracy made up of educated, politically interested individuals.
Maybe that's boring. Whatever.

there is no 'ideal form', but economic and idiological fanatacism, of ANY idiology or economic perspective, is the worst, most backward headed, and harmful.

and THAT includes america's forign policy of demonizing everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, or otherwise, its own.

and while i might not wish to live under some idiology i'm less familiar with, the truth is, i wouldn't want to live under ANY idiology, INcluding the one that i already do.

i also firmly believe that better, in every sense of the word, forms then any planet earth has as yet seen, are waiting to be discouvered and invented, and will, eventually, should the human species live that long, replace every one anyone is now familiar with.

my appologies too, for so far mentioning only the negative.

what i would LIKE to see, is issues being decided by those who are interested in them, reasonably knowledgable about them, and motivated by that 'altuistic self intrest' in avoiding the causing of suffering so essential in reducing the likelyhood of their own.

by this i mean, something like free community wide 'lan's' in every village and neighborhood, to which anyone can log in and not only voice an oppinion but actually cast a vote, just as if they were a memeber of some parlementary body, on any and every such issue, that interests them.

it IS actually possible for a person to understand an issue. choosing another person to represent their intersts on the entire spectrum of issues, well it's just kind of mythical to immagine any such thing is in reality possible.

being able to vote someone out of office who displeases enough of us, well i'd certainly feel insecure to see that thrown out with the bath water. and yet, in supposedly democraticly representative america, we seem to be seeing exactly that taking place.

there's a lot more involved with the results of governments and the policies of those governments and the resaults of those policies, then their supposed, on paper, puttative form.

the biggest problem with ANY idiology, though, even potentially these future ones, is fanatacism about it, either way.

=^^=
.../\...

There is not a wide enough choice out of those political ideologies.

I chose anarchy, though I too agree there is various definitions to the term anarchy.

I think, socialism is a good alternitive, though it requires too much reliance of government. Which then introduces the possibility of being misled, brainwashed, and turned into conformist sheep.

So, I better option, would be anarcho-syndicalism (anarchist-unionism)

This would be (i think) of most benefit to the people.

A demagogue can only suggest, I think people thinking the Athenian populace were a bunch of stupid rabble who could be convinced by any charlatan with a bag of tricks is a lie, this is the same Athens that chose to use a newly found silver mine to fight Persia rather than have a tax cut.

Wrong. This is the Athens that thoroughly wanted a tax cut, and was convinced otherwise only by the best exertions of Themistocles, an orator far beyond any modern politician.

Moreover, I refer you to what I actually wrote, not what suits. I would hold that the Athenian electorate were rather more erudite and considered than the modern electorate, yet they were unable to resist the cacophony of demagogues. In light of this, what hope would such a system have of enjoying success given the stupidity of the average modern voter?

The ideal government is one under Our Glorious President For Life, George Walker Bush. No one would dare question His infallible rule. [ /neocon ]

OK, sorry about that. The ideal government is one with a well-educated populace that is able to make decisions directly. The problem with direct democracy in today's society is that no one is interested enough or knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions on a continuous basis.

Y'see, ideally, people would come home from work one night a week, have dinner, watch the news, play with their dog, and vote. It might be something that takes up, say, 30 minutes of one's evening one night a week. The educated would take a great joy in doing so.

Of course, we don't do too well with education, and look at the mess we have now.

There really isn't all too much wrong with a social democracy made up of educated, politically interested individuals.
Maybe that's boring. Whatever.
Oh, how bourgeois.

How is the fact that bills of rights have no power to preserve said rights not an effective objection?

The fact is property rights have no power to preserve said rights, but generally institutions of different kinds are created to preserve them. Similiar with bills of rights. Generally governments with seperation of powers, check and balances, and politicians and citizens who believe in limited government all help preserve the bill of rights.

The intrinsic fault of absolute monarchies is that they tend to foster feelings of egalitarianism in order to tear down rival natural elites, such as through pitting the bourgeiosie against the nobles. These feelings of egalitarianism, taken to their logical conclusion, also work to destroy the king as well. However, this is simply evidence that centralization tends towards more and more degenerate government, with the absolute monarch changing a decentralized system of government into a more and more centralized state, until it becomes a system of mob rule where the government does not reside as an observer of precepts in private law but as a manufacturer of public law, thus liberated from any real constraints.

Basically you're fucked. :D

I don't see why a state will necessarily appear, nor even if this is so why this makes a state preferable to anarcho-capitalism.

I didn't say either was necessarily true, but anarcho-capitalist property rights fail if their enforcement mechanisms fail.

My organisation doesn't leave anyone to rot, that's the beauty of it. People could leave each other to rot if they so choose, but I don't think they would. And besides, welfare, healthcare and similar programs would actually benefit from funding limits because it would force them to look for 'bang for the buck' rather than just throwing money out the window (or more accurately, towards bureaucrats and their cronies).

I'm guessing that various forms of collective action problems would limit welfare, healthcare insurance, and similiar programs. If any one taxpayer doesn't pay in to a general fund thats nothing, if all or most don't the program's probably sunk . A prisoner's dilemna type game.

Since no one is forced to work for anyone else's pleasure against their will (and having money I received for my work taken and given to someone else is precisely that),

This is untrue if any absolute pacifists or anarchos' live in your ideal country. Its untrue if the government is funded by any kind of involuntary taxation.

I would like not to be governed - but not due to a collapse of society, rather the opposite - humans being sufficiently respectful and responsible to not need one.

With this as an aim, an ideology is unnecessary.

Failing that, rule by someone who has the same views as me (but isn't me, because I'd find it frustrating).

You know, for all its problems, I'm pretty content with the style of government in the US. It needs some changes, and a few judicious reforms at various levels, but by and large it works quite well. I'm happy with the government system we have.

The ideal forms of government are:

Anarchy
Communism (pure communism, not that Russian stuff)
Enlightened Dictatorship (one person in charge, orders what is best for the whole group)

Of the three, Anarchy is the best, if we ignore the effects of people.

I know for a fact this has shown up here before, but not in a while.

It's pretty simple: which is the best form of government and why? Despite what the title says, the answer should be realistic, not idealistic. A poll will be here soon.

Republican (representative) Democracy.

Political voice is much more important than social rights; you can gain the latter through the former, but without the right to choose the government, you cannot affect change except through violence.

I'm guessing that various forms of collective action problems would limit welfare, healthcare insurance, and similiar programs. If any one taxpayer doesn't pay in to a general fund thats nothing, if all or most don't the program's probably sunk . A prisoner's dilemna type game.
Except that in this case, taking the action that is good for me (eg paying so I can access unemployment benefits if I need them) is also good for others. So really, it's not at all like the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which doing what is good for you leads to a worse outcome for others (and ultimately everyone).

Unless you see paying into an unemployment benefits scheme as a bad thing, in which case I don't see the need for it in the first place.

This is untrue if any absolute pacifists or anarchos' live in your ideal country. Its untrue if the government is funded by any kind of involuntary taxation.
You're right on the first count, but I would like to think that my government not only allows for free movement out of the country, but also the establishment of whatever communities people want on private property. Of course, that would require the anarchist to first go through the pain of acquiring a property, which some may reject outright...but I'm not sure I can help them.

The alternative is pure anarchism, which conjures up images of Mogadishu in my head moreso than Utopia.

On the second point, you're only partly correct. The distinguishing feature that seperates the voluntary taxes from the compulsory ones is that the the latter are absolutely necessary for creating the framework within the individual can exist safely and successfully in the first place. That is where the tragedy of the commons would kick in if they were completely voluntary as well and we wouldn't have to be geniuses to know that an inferior outcome comes out.

I suppose you could argue that what goes for unemployment benefits also goes for police...but I think the scope for damaging others by making a personal mistake is big enough to justify the differentiation.

Except that in this case, taking the action that is good for me (eg paying so I can access unemployment benefits if I need them) is also good for others. So really, it's not at all like the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which doing what is good for you leads to a worse outcome for others (and ultimately everyone).

Unless you see paying into an unemployment benefits scheme as a bad thing, in which case I don't see the need for it in the first place.

The Prison's Dilemna was meant for any collective action problems where free riding could occur. Paying fewer taxes and possibly getting the benefits of the program will likely make sure the program wont be funded.

In other cases adverse selection will occur. Those who are young and healthy won't pay in to the government healthcare insurance program., and those with job security or the ability to regain employment quickly wont pay. The sick, old, and frequently unemployed will flock to the programs making the benefits relatively stingey for those of average risk and therefore not worth paying into.

You're right on the first count, but I would like to think that my government not only allows for free movement out of the country, but also the establishment of whatever communities people want on private property. Of course, that would require the anarchist to first go through the pain of acquiring a property, which some may reject outright...but I'm not sure I can help them.

I'm not sure how this greatly differs from most developed countries or how it compensates the anarchos.

The alternative is pure anarchism, which conjures up images of Mogadishu in my head moreso than Utopia.

You're still using coercion. Basically from most governments you only differ in degree and not in kind.

On the second point, you're only partly correct. The distinguishing feature that seperates the voluntary taxes from the compulsory ones is that the the latter are absolutely necessary for creating the framework within the individual can exist safely and successfully in the first place. That is where the tragedy of the commons would kick in if they were completely voluntary as well and we wouldn't have to be geniuses to know that an inferior outcome comes out.

I don't see how I'm only partly correct. Even if you are correct about coercive taxation being neccessary for a safe framework for society, which I think you are, you are still taking money from one man for the pleasure of others who get collective security.


I suppose you could argue that what goes for unemployment benefits also goes for police...but I think the scope for damaging others by making a personal mistake is big enough to justify the differentiation.

Actually I'd argue that what goes for unemployment insurance goes for education vouchers and public fire departments.

*Bump*

*Bump*
Don't worry, don't worry, I get the message. :D

I just don't have the time now to write a longer post, so you'll have to wait until tonight some time.

Ugh, it just really all depends.

I like what Singapore does, but that would never work in the United States.

Technically the best government would be an absolute monarchy run by the perfect person. Unfortunately, Earth has no perfect people.

Tecdhnically all of the choices (except a theocracy) would work fine if there was no corruption. Unfortunately, corruption is as common as Bush's idiotic statements and bone-headed mistakes.

We'll have to settle for democracy. Yes, it's a bad choice, but the alternatives are worse.

None in general.

Idealistically, anarchy with city-states having minimal powers, but introducing some limited amount of laws, with people free to move between them.


As for representative democracy, a worse scam has yet to be invented. Vote for the mystery.

Cicero waxed eloquent on the horrific failures of the ancient direct democracies.

...from his privileged position as a patrician, slave plantation owner, and virtual master of the Roman Senate.

...from his privileged position as a patrician, slave plantation owner, and virtual master of the Roman Senate.

Cicero was A) An Equite, not a patrician and B) Was consul only once and was forever the sidekick of Pompey, who himself would better fit the title of "Master of the Senate"

I chose Social Democracy. It combines leftist politics with practicalities.

Cicero was A) An Equite, not a patrician and B) Was consul only once and was forever the sidekick of Pompey, who himself would better fit the title of "Master of the Senate"

I chose Social Democracy. It combines leftist politics with practicalities.

A) If so, that's even worse. All the money and power of the patricians, and none of the cultural restraints.

B) Cicero may have been consul only once, but he pulled the strings of dozens of senators.

Seeing how bloodthirsty and irrational Athenian democracy was concerning foreign policy (eternal war) and civil rights (Socrates), economic democracy would have only resulted in an even more spectacular implosion of these societies through the destruction of economic and social capital, including the mass-murder of the rational segment of the population to sate the bloodthirsty masses' irrational envy.

What you have to realize about Athenian democracy is that it was still a system of minority rule. It was not a true direct democracy, but it provides an important model for one. Their were no "blood thirsty masses" in Athens. The masses were noncitizen residents, women and slaves disenfranchised from the system.

Even so, the model that Athens provides gives us some very important ideas. It discouraged political professionalism, and required that all citizens listen to all arguments before they could vote on an issue. Every citizen was expected to do his fair share of delegated tasks.

What is at fault with the system is the sexism and callous attitudes of the Athenian people. They held slaves, and denied the majority a right to participate in the Ecclessia. Even worse, they held cultural belief that domination was natural to the human condition, and also had an intense culture of militarism.

If the Athenian system could have excised these decidedly undemocratic and unlibertarian ideas, it could have been a grand example for human rights and liberty.

A) If so, that's even worse. All the money and power of the patricians, and none of the cultural restraints.

He was actually in a lot of debt all his life. Mostly due his political career. Where as Patricians had the cash to support this Cicero did not really. Power wise he was popular with the mob but lacked the connections with the Patricians due to being an outsider. Lastly by Roman standards he was more humanitarian and compassionate than most, although he was obviously pretty deplorable by our "higher" standards.


B) Cicero may have been consul only once, but he pulled the strings of dozens of senators.

No he didn't. Cicero was a moderately popular popularies. He was a minor figure throughout his life. The reason he is so well known post humously is due to his brilliant oratory and literary skills. He was always a bit of a lackey to Pompey politically.

That government governs best which governs least. Unfortunately, human nature puts "governs not at all" out of the running.

I believe the best form of government is the Constitutional republic with representative democracy, wherein the powers of government are sharply limited and strictly enumerated along these lines:

"The Government may do the things enumerated herein and no other, unless the Constitution be amended...why yes it is very hard to amend the Constitution, it's not a bug it's a feature."

Frankly, with adequate technology and rigorous, well-constructed limits on the ability of the government to get up to mischief, I'd be okay with direct democracy. The venal and corrupt would be less likely to seek office if public office paid badly and offered little or no power.

Enforcing the limits on the enumerated powers of government would be a citizen militia composed of the entire body of the people not requiring a custodian, and armed in any way their resources permit short of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological). Yes, that does specifically mean machine guns, artillery, jet fighters, and Stinger missiles are to be permitted private citizens. Among the weapons the King's soldiers sought to seize at Lexington and Concord April 19, 1775 were at least two privately owned cannon.

Don't worry, don't worry, I get the message. :D

I just don't have the time now to write a longer post, so you'll have to wait until tonight some time.

:D

Actually this thread was metaphorically medically dead. I just wanted to keep it stable till you got around to answering before major necromancy was neccessary.:p

The Prison's Dilemna was meant for any collective action problems where free riding could occur.
No, in the Prisoner's Dilemma there is no freeriding. It's where the two prisoners each do the best for themselves by confessing and end up in a worse position than if they both had kept their mouths shut.

In other cases adverse selection will occur.
I agree with you there. But that's how insurances work, there is no way around it. At the moment by paying taxes I spent loads on insurance-type schemes that I won't use for another 60 years (actually, in Oz it's a bit different, but that's another story), not because I want to but because they make me.

Making everybody worse off is not a solution to adverse selection.

I'm not sure how this greatly differs from most developed countries or how it compensates the anarchos.
Well, to be honest I don't understand why there aren't more communes on private property if people are so keen on them. You're right, there aren't many restrictions on them.

Other than that developed countries have rules about citizenships and my country wouldn't (residency would equal voting rights and that's it) and that my country has no immigration law whatsoever, it is fairly similar, you're right. I mean, with the exception of taxes, it works at the moment, doesn't it?

You're still using coercion. Basically from most governments you only differ in degree and not in kind.
Yes. However, I only tax the things people actually use. I don't think I ever said that the fire brigade would be funded by compulsory taxes, by the way. The police will be, but that's a different story.

My compulsory taxes go to keeping a free market functioning, protecting people from physical harm and threats and major public goods like roads. These are all things that we use all the time, we can't get around it (at least not if we participate in the economy and if we didn't, we wouldn't get taxed). These are the things where there is a guaranteed freerider problem if it wasn't compulsory.

I don't see how I'm only partly correct. Even if you are correct about coercive taxation being neccessary for a safe framework for society, which I think you are, you are still taking money from one man for the pleasure of others who get collective security.
The collective part is an externality. Normally I wouldn't mind everyone paying for their own security, but I don't think that privately hired police could actually prevent crime - unless it monopolises a certain area for patrols and crime prevention. And in that case, all you have is a mini-government.

So it's not so much for ideological reasons that I provide public security as for practical ones.

Actually I'd argue that what goes for unemployment insurance goes for education vouchers and public fire departments.
I'd agree with you on the vouchers, and that's where my own bias comes out. I guess there's no justification for making paying for education vouchers compulsory (though if it isn't, you can scrap the whole system). I just like everyone to have a chance to make it, and one can only make it through education. Excluding poor kids from the chance to go to a half-decent school and give it their best shot strikes me as really unfair because it's inequality of opportunity rather than inequality of outcome.

I suppose that's where I differ with most ancap/radical libertarian types. I think all the freedom to achieve and enjoy achievement is pointless if some never get the chance.

No, in the Prisoner's Dilemma there is no freeriding. It's where the two prisoners each do the best for themselves by confessing and end up in a worse position than if they both had kept their mouths shut.

I'm generalizing of course. Paying the voluntary tax is more less cooperating, and not paying is more or less defecting. I guess, though, that its far from a perfect example of the Prisoner's Dillema so let's just ignore this.

I agree with you there. But that's how insurances work, there is no way around it. At the moment by paying taxes I spent loads on insurance-type schemes that I won't use for another 60 years (actually, in Oz it's a bit different, but that's another story), not because I want to but because they make me.

Making everybody worse off is not a solution to adverse selection.[QUOTE]

Well generally mandatory social insurance is explained as a way way to fix market failure. If you disagree with that premise or the actual results of social insurance I'm wondering why you are offering an avenue that is no better or worse than what the market or private charities can provide.

[QUOTE]Well, to be honest I don't understand why there aren't more communes on private property if people are so keen on them. You're right, there aren't many restrictions on them.

People apparently don't like communes that much. They often fail in the first few years or the successive generations tend to abandone the idea of communal living. Meh.

Other than that developed countries have rules about citizenships and my country wouldn't (residency would equal voting rights and that's it) and that my country has no immigration law whatsoever, it is fairly similar, you're right. I mean, with the exception of taxes, it works at the moment, doesn't it?

The social contract theory where one is able to opt out of through emmigration generally isn't considered a legitimate mechanism for consent by most libertarians I know, and even people who do don't like the potential connotations that as long as a country allow emmigration it can do whatever it wants, cuz its contractual after all.

Yes. However, I only tax the things people actually use. I don't think I ever said that the fire brigade would be funded by compulsory taxes, by the way. The police will be, but that's a different story.

My compulsory taxes go to keeping a free market functioning, protecting people from physical harm and threats and major public goods like roads. These are all things that we use all the time, we can't get around it (at least not if we participate in the economy and if we didn't, we wouldn't get taxed). These are the things where there is a guaranteed freerider problem if it wasn't compulsory.

I think you said you didn' think fire brigades were a privitizible industry. forgive me if I misconstrued your meaning.

Other than defense and policing I don't see why any public goods should be provided, even if it does make everyone better off, with a philosophy where all coercion is wrong and should be a minimized. Will you regulate any natural monopolies? How do you justify it?


The collective part is an externality. Normally I wouldn't mind everyone paying for their own security, but I don't think that privately hired police could actually prevent crime - unless it monopolises a certain area for patrols and crime prevention. And in that case, all you have is a mini-government.

So it's not so much for ideological reasons that I provide public security as for practical ones.

Well given that there is no standard of law under anarchy I don 't think there is any crime under anarchy. Still, I get your point.


I'd agree with you on the vouchers, and that's where my own bias comes out. I guess there's no justification for making paying for education vouchers compulsory (though if it isn't, you can scrap the whole system). I just like everyone to have a chance to make it, and one can only make it through education. Excluding poor kids from the chance to go to a half-decent school and give it their best shot strikes me as really unfair because it's inequality of opportunity rather than inequality of outcome.

I suppose that's where I differ with most ancap/radical libertarian types. I think all the freedom to achieve and enjoy achievement is pointless if some never get the chance.

I would think many nonlibertarians would agree with you on the appove on the above. I would call for various social programs, and human captial investment so that more people could enjoy freedom, which I'm sure our definitions are a bit different. :)

The ideal government is a government controlled entirely by me! And LG.

Frankly, I think the ideal form of government would have to be somewhat of a toned down representative democrary. Establish smaller, community based governments, which feed into larger ones, which feed into larger ones, etc. The effect is that everyone's opinion is heard, and equally represented, while it remains enough of a representative democracy that ideas don't take forever to function.
Also, I'd like to point out that an anarchy can also, in fact be a small, direct democracy government- not just how you define it. Figured I should point it out.

Democracy? Please. Since when has majority rule been fair or just? 51 racist thugs out of a hundred people doesn't make their decisions fair or just.

I LOVE YOU, PSYCHOTIC MONGOOSES! Except for the "dictatorship" part....how's abouts every person govern him/herself? That way, there's no tyranny of the majority NOR is there tyranny of one.

What other way is there to "mean it?"

Besides, I cannot answer your poll. A situation which, I presume, is contrary to your purpose in having the poll to begin with, yes?
(I could multiple choice some of the other options in order to get a rough approximation, but that option was left out too. :D
Polls. Almost as bad as dictionaries.)

Um, wouldn't anything you want be covered by "Other, please explain in your post"?

No, in the Prisoner's Dilemma there is no freeriding.

Yes, there is. There's free-riding whenever one prisoner decides not to confess and the other does.

This, indeed, is precisely the point of the dilemma. Each prisoner benefits from the other's non-confession regardless of whether it is reciprocated... and as a consequence they have no incentive to hurt themselves by not confessing.

Why is there an option for socialist "democracy" and not a limited government? The ideal government is our Constitution where the 9th and 10th ammendments are actually honored and without the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

Or as Rand proposed, a more strictly worded additional ammendment to reiterate and enforce the last two directives of the Bill of Rights.

Why is there an option for socialist "democracy" and not a limited government?

Part of the reason is that the phrase "limited government" doesn't implicitly invoke particular limits on government. Most to all political parties in the West would say they believe in limited government. They just disagree on what particular limits.

Several people have mentioned the Prisoners' Dilemma. Here is a game matrix of it, hopefully it will clear up any questions:

____________A_____B
_________A (R,R) (T,S)
_________B (S,T) (P,P)

Option A is staying quiet. Option B is confessing. T is Temptation, R is Reward, P is Punishment, and S is Sucker. T>R>P>S. If the first prisoner chooses to stay quiet, there is a chance he will be suckered, while he will only be punished if he confesses. Not only that, there is a chance he will get Temptation. Because neither prisoner has a reason to change his choice, this is an example of a Nash Equilibrium.
The reason it is called a dilemma is because if each prisoner is logical, they will only get the second worst option.

Yes, there is. There's free-riding whenever one prisoner decides not to confess and the other does.
Yeah, but that's not what I would see as free-riding. Free-riding is when you can get the benefits of something without having to pay for it, which isn't quite what's going on in the prisoner's dilemma.

Let's just say there are better examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Positive_externalities) to illustrate what was talked about.