NationStates Jolt Archive

Which government system is the best for society, socialist/communist dictatorship, socialist/communist democracy, capitalist democracy, fascism(not nazism), or anarchy. Give reasons for your choice

Leftist Libertarianism just cause.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Which government system is the best for society, socialist/communist dictatorship, socialist/communist democracy, capitalist democracy, fascism(not nazism), or anarchy. Give reasons for your choice

Socialism works best for some societies, capitalism works better for others. It is hard to say.

A free market with a safety net. Which punishes those that take the piss, in a fair and equal manner.

What exactly is "society as a whole"?

You could well build an argument that the best government for society as a whole is some sort of totalitarian collectivist state which leaves absolutely no freedom to the individual. But that's hardly what we want to advocate, is it?

But if you ask what form of government I want, it's this: a minarchist state, heavily regulated by a constitution and where taxes (beyond a certain minimum flat rate) are voluntary. The economy would be a liberal free market system.

Any government where I'm in charge.

A free market with a safety net. Which punishes those that take the piss, in a fair and equal manner.

I agree.. the free market is indispensable to the economy although freewheeling capitalism would hurt a lot of people.. Limited government may be good in highly developed countries but in states with huge social and economic gaps there has to be a certain amount of government intervention to help ease those gaps. I would have voted for a German-style system. Social market system i think it's called.

It would have to be a combination system that in the end, is "leftist". Capitalism to help the flow of the market with some regulation to ensure the workers aren't exploited. While at the social level, the government is progressively social, in that people are granted a certain level of privacy, all people have equal rights and equal access to full healthcare and education.

Depends on the size. Once we're talking about it on the national level, then a democratically elected republic government.

Depends on the size. Once we're talking about it on the national level, then a democratically elected republic government.
Scandinavia seems to be doing fine with royalty, you know.

I would have to say a capitalist law-and-order democracy where you are responsible for your own decisions and the police do a good job of keeping crime rates down and the streets clean, while the legislators keep the taxes low. People will argue this would be abusive. However, may I remind you that there is no need for an increase in the minimum wage if no one's being paid it, and labor, like any commodity, will raise in price when the supply is low in comparison to the demand, and considering the unemployment rate is currently only 4% in the United States, this is not unimaginable. And for those who speculate that unemployment is a neccesary condition, if the cost of the worker goes up, but the amount of revenue that the worker generates keeps pace or increases faster then his wage, the profit balance remains stable or perhaps even better for their business.

It should be noted, however, that this system would have to do just as good a job, if not better, at catching business people who commit crimes like putting mercury in to the air or sulfuric acid in to the river as it did at catching those in rundown neighborhoods stealing wallets and shanking their momentary enemies.

A Fascist society as it was originally conceived. A society where the classes are in harmony and where everybody works for the good of the hole rather than themselves. Without racism.

...and where everybody works for the good of the hole rather than themselves.
Frankly, I think we should work together to fill the hole.

I nearly fell in it the other day.

A fascist dictatorship with exceptional military strength that would unite the entire world under one banner and systematically remove all the problems of society in a productive and efficient way.

Ultimately, of course, a dictatorship is the only recourse. The people cannot govern themselves as long as the desire for power and greed remain present, or else the people will remain ignorant and pliable, thusly manipulated into deception.


... Though, thinking about it, that sounds disturbingly like a certain nation that existed already, so I'll qualify it by saying it isn't full of hate, bigotry, racism, and such because that is a problem of society.

A dictatorship. 's long as I'm the dictator, heh, heh. (Boo G.W. NOT funny. NOT funny.)

Which government system is the best for society, socialist/communist dictatorship, socialist/communist democracy, capitalist democracy, fascism(not nazism), or anarchy. Give reasons for your choice

Why not Nazism?

A stateless, classless society where the workers control the means of production.

Which government system is the best for society, socialist/communist dictatorship, socialist/communist democracy, capitalist democracy, fascism(not nazism), or anarchy. Give reasons for your choice

Depends entirely on the society in question, really.
Me, as an individual, I prefer living in a democratic social capitalist society.

A stateless, classless society where the workers control the means of production.
Communism, yes? Do you believe that this kind of society will happen tomorrow if the people declare it? Or do you think that contradictions exist in society so it would never work without a transition?

Frankly, I think we should work together to fill the hole.

I nearly fell in it the other day.
lol, but then where would we throw our opponents?

Why not Nazism?
Well, when you get right down to it Fascism =/= Nazism. They're similar, but the only reason they are considered the same is because people like to categorize things and because Italy and Germany were allies in WWII and it's a lot easier to rally the public behind a single term rather than the names of each country's political party.

A free market with a safety net. Which punishes those that take the piss, in a fair and equal manner.I've never understood the latter sentiment. I've always found not being able to work at something decent punishment enough. Sure it's nice to have a break after a huge project is finished, but after a while I just start getting bored out of my mind.

Meritocracy always seemed like a good idea, although how exactly you determine 'merit' would always seem to be a problem.

There are few things more unfair than a small government which fails to contain the worst aspects of a so-called "free" market. I'm very much in favour of a strong government. And while I'm wary of that ridiculously dysfunctional mess we call "democracy" (power to the mob of the senseless, uneducated, selfish and prejudiced masses), I do agree that a non-democratic system would, in most ways, be a lot worse (if only because it would sustain itself by stifling freedom of expression and by limiting people's access to/ participation in the free flow of ideas).

Therefore I would favour a democracy with a strong government, and a strong Constitution to prevent the law-makers chosen by the people from running wild.

Communism, yes? Do you believe that this kind of society will happen tomorrow if the people declare it? Or do you think that contradictions exist in society so it would never work without a transition?

Of course you need a transition, and an abrupt change is completely unfeasible. But I think you and I disagree on the nature of that transition.

I think socialist/communist government, though this would be very difficult to make it would be the ideal, as it's a government for the people.
Having said that there are alot of downsides to this type of government, the main one being it's easy for a dictator to overthrow it, by using business owners to fund a "corporate state".

Scandinavia seems to be doing fine with royalty, you know.

as do Thailand, and the BeNeLux by the way...

on the topic, I voted a Democratic socialistic (NOT Communistic) government.
It's the kind of state that makes sure that everyone prospers when the times go well (preventing the form of an "Elite" class on the expence of it's employees, and giving bread and roof to the homeless) healthcare without looking to insurance first, and an infrastructure that is maintaioned properly (yes I do think that the government should hold those important sectors --infrastructure, healthcare and wather and light, yet the private enterprises do need to exsist, in order to prevent collaption)

yes, socialistic government might be the most expancive in taxes, but the best for society... that's what I think

It would have to be a combination system that in the end, is "leftist"... all people have equal rights and equal access to full healthcare and education.

And it falls apart when we press for a definition of "full".


People like to think that the words they use have absolute meanings with no fuzzy edges, but the universe chooses not to oblige. There is no "full", there is only "enough, in the opinion of some" which is inevitably not enough in the opinion of others. In the end, how much is "full" is settled by market forces, by bureaucrats backed by police, or by the Molotov Cocktail. Take your pick.

IMHO, in a way, Communism and Socialism are incompatible ideals.

Socialism tends to put a high degree of individual maintanence (and therefore control) in the hands of the government. That tends to stifle self-sufficiency and personal empowerment.

On the other hand, an (ideal) Communist society would be one in which EVERY single individual was self-sufficient so that they could contribute to the collective. The collective, as a whole, would then thrive because all of its members are producing.

In actual practice, both Communism and Socialism fail for, ironically, similar reasons. Neither system forces the individual to be self-sufficient as they can subsist either on the government or the collective. What happens is you tend to have the population broken roughly into two groups: those who produce and those who consume. Human nature tends toward laziness so no matter how string you start, sooner or later the consumers outnumber the producers.

Right now, Capitalism is the best we've got because it forces a certain sink or swim scenario. People either produce or they die. In our Capitalist society, we have a small amount of socialism to enable the state to carry individuals during times of economic or personal hardship, but we're seeing what happens when systems like that become a way of life rather than a temporary solution. We're creating a subclass of consumers who produce nothing and increase the burden on the producers.

This is why ultimately Socialism, even in an ideal environment, must fail. Socialism exists on the idea that people NEED to be cared for/managed by the government which by its very nature is an obstacle to individual excellence by forcing individuals to rely on government rather than themselves.

Well, when you get right down to it Fascism =/= Nazism. They're similar, but the only reason they are considered the same is because people like to categorize things and because Italy and Germany were allies in WWII and it's a lot easier to rally the public behind a single term rather than the names of each country's political party.

That's not the question I'm asking.

Why are we allowed to present 'fascism' (in whatever context) as an answer, but the OP specifically prohibits 'nazism' as a response?

Communism, yes? Do you believe that this kind of society will happen tomorrow if the people declare it? Or do you think that contradictions exist in society so it would never work without a transition?People would have to build the framework with which the society could happen, so it couldn't happen tomorrow.
With that said, breaking away from current societies is the last step in the transition, not the first.

In actual practice, both Communism and Socialism fail for, ironically, similar reasons. Neither system forces the individual to be self-sufficient as they can subsist either on the government or the collective. Says who?

Aristocracy.

A stateless, classless society where noone works (they do whatever they want when they want; it does not necessarily mean that the things that would otherwise be work do not get done.) and the societies are quite small to provide variety and to make sure that people are not detatched from other people in their society so much that they don't care about the other members.

IMHO, in a way, Communism and Socialism are incompatible ideals.

Impossible. The former is a form of the latter.

Socialism tends to put a high degree of individual maintanence (and therefore control) in the hands of the government. That tends to stifle self-sufficiency and personal empowerment.

It's not individual maintenance but wealth and property which are controlled by the community as a whole or the government in socialism. Wealth and property are not essential items.
an (ideal) Communist society would be one in which EVERY single individual was self-sufficient
...
Neither system forces the individual to be self-sufficient

This lookes like a bit of contradiction to me.


In actual practice, both Communism and Socialism fail for, ironically, similar reasons. Neither system forces the individual to be self-sufficient as they can subsist either on the government or the collective. What happens is you tend to have the population broken roughly into two groups: those who produce and those who consume.

In no society do you have entirely self-sufficient people. If people were to be self-sufficient, then they wouldn't need to live in societies but people do need to anyway because they are social animals.

Human nature tends toward laziness

I call false premise

so no matter how string you start, sooner or later the consumers outnumber the producers.

The closest evidence we have either way on that is unemployment rates. All the communist countries have unemployment rates as low as if not lower than capitalist countries.

one that hasn't been invented yet, has no idiological, economic, religeous or any other bias, puts environment (and survival, they ARE joined at the hip, which is why) first, civil rights second, education and infrastructure and keeping everyone fed, sheltered and prevented from beating each other over the head third, and everything else catch as catch can after that.

any government that begins and ends with kissing the ass of economic interests serves no usefull purpose, with at the same time being no less of a burden then one that does.

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

Says who?

History.


Impossible. The former is a form of the latter.


I disagree. Look at the U.S.A. It has some elements of socialism and yet no elements of communism.


It's not individual maintenance but wealth and property which are controlled by the community as a whole or the government in socialism. Wealth and property are not essential items.


In a strictly theoretical sense perhaps, but in reality both are essential even if to a minimal degree. A worker in a factory can't simultaneously grow food to feed his family thus he needs to be able to buy it using what wealth he earns. Property is essential even if it's barely more than the clothes on your back and a plow in the yard.


This lookes like a bit of contradiction to me.


Not at all. The former states the ideal (explicitly) and the latter states the tendency in the real world.


In no society do you have entirely self-sufficient people. If people were to be self-sufficient, then they wouldn't need to live in societies but people do need to anyway because they are social animals.


There needn't be a contradiction between self-sufficieny and society, if self-sufficiency is defined as the ability to maintain one's self financially rather than directly. (I buy my food rather than growing it.) In such a case, it is absolutely critical t hat there be a so ciety (so that I have someone to buy my food from.)


I call false premise


Duly noted, but it's still true.


The closest evidence we have either way on that is unemployment rates. All the communist countries have unemployment rates as low as if not lower than capitalist countries.

It has very little to do with unemployment, especially in a communist society. If you and I lived on a collective farm and you do 95% of the work and I do 5%, that makes you a producer and me a consumer. The same goes with a Socialist construct where heavy bureaucracy can make consumers out of people who draw a paycheck but do little for the society. (For excellent examples of this phenomenon one need look no further than Washington D.C.)

Given only those 5 options, I have to go with fascism. It's the only one with a chance of having the guy in charge have any idea what he's doing.

None of the above. The best course lies somewhere in between.

rule by our Ape Gods :)

Capitalism ensures the rapid growth of economy, and with longer scale it pays many times off the money that isn´t taxed.

That's not the question I'm asking.

Why are we allowed to present 'fascism' (in whatever context) as an answer, but the OP specifically prohibits 'nazism' as a response?

I think the point the OP was making was that fascism and nazism are not equivalent. He is speaking of fascism, not the particular instance of fascism known as nazism.

By that same token, he could have said "communism (not Stalinism)."

Does that make sense?

History.History says that the lazy can simply sponge off of the commune? Really?

History says that the lazy can simply sponge off of the commune? Really?

Yes.

And it's worth mentioning that historically, it hasn't been ONLY laziness. Sometimes a lack of morale is just as crippling.

Not indefinitely, of course, and not without crippling the economy of the state in which they live, but we've seen it happen where a lack of incentive (or an abundance of the wrong kinds of incentive) equates to a lack of production.

What government system is better for society as a whole?
Me.

Yes.

And it's worth mentioning that historically, it hasn't been ONLY laziness. Sometimes a lack of morale is just as crippling.

Not indefinitely, of course, and not without crippling the economy of the state in which they live, but we've seen it happen where a lack of incentive (or an abundance of the wrong kinds of incentive) equates to a lack of production.Do you have specific (widespread) examples of this?

History says that the lazy can simply sponge off of the commune?
Given the option, that's what I'd do.

Given the option, that's what I'd do.

Then you'd be shot.

Then you'd be shot.
Then it's not much of a free society, is it?

Then it's not much of a free society, is it?

Eureka is an authoritarian.

I think the point the OP was making was that fascism and nazism are not equivalent. He is speaking of fascism, not the particular instance of fascism known as nazism.

By that same token, he could have said "communism (not Stalinism)."

Does that make sense?

Maybe - but again - it implies you couldn't 'choose' Stalinism.

A person might think that fascistic governments WOULD be the 'best' thing - and even that a Nazi government would be the best-est. The OP seems to be removing that option.

Given the option, that's what I'd do.

Okay. What about not given the option?

If - for example - (just throwing it out there) your 'income' in terms of food and necessary items, was dependent on you being productive in some form?

Capitalism ensures the rapid growth of economy, and with longer scale it pays many times off the money that isn´t taxed.

until it reaches the point of diminishing returns where its circular disconectedness to anything by its own growth become a real and present danger to the very means of real people and things existing and real places being worth a dam.

whatever the shortcomings of anything else, and this is not to deny that everything has them, no government that begins and ends with kissing the ass of economic intrests, serves any useful purpose what so ever, while at the same time, being no less of a burden, what so ever, then any government which actually does serve any usefull purpose.

and what are these useful purposes? infrastructure, keeping infrastructure environmentally harmonious, and keeping people from starving, freezing or beating each other over the head.

and no government creates freedom. some just rob more of it then others. and not really because of their forms or idiologies, but because of the incentives created by the cultural values people actually live by, often without realizing what ones they actually do, as opposed to what they tell themselves or want each other to believe.

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

and no government creates freedom.

The one thing that is beyond argument.

No government creates 'freedom'... because there is no such thing. It is an artificial concept used to describe what we want and don't have.

well there is, or can be, freedom in one sense, and that is in not barring or inhibiting access of anyone to what nature otherwise freely provides.

but as far as it being something that any idiology or economic system or anything else can guarantee, then yes, in that sense it is certainly a mythical concept.

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

Take any system.
Place RL humans in control of it.
Watch them ruin it...

:(

Yes.

And it's worth mentioning that historically, it hasn't been ONLY laziness. Sometimes a lack of morale is just as crippling.

Not indefinitely, of course, and not without crippling the economy of the state in which they live, but we've seen it happen where a lack of incentive (or an abundance of the wrong kinds of incentive) equates to a lack of production.

Your ideas are patently false. Finland (and most of Scandinavia) is a heavily socialist/democratic state where the governments has a big hand in both the economy and social well-being of it's people. Despite this "government intrusion", Finland has a solid GDP which spends LESS than we do in the U.S. on healthcare, education, and so forth while being MORE productive.

one that hasn't been invented yet, has no idiological, economic, religeous or any other bias, puts environment (and survival, they ARE joined at the hip, which is why) first, civil rights second, education and infrastructure and keeping everyone fed, sheltered and prevented from beating each other over the head third, and everything else catch as catch can after that.

any government that begins and ends with kissing the ass of economic interests serves no usefull purpose, with at the same time being no less of a burden then one that does.

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

Now that sounds like a sensible suggestion.

I disagree. Look at the U.S.A. It has some elements of socialism and yet no elements of communism.

That just means it has elements of other forms of socialism but none of that particular sort.
Look at the liger. It has some elements of big cats and yet no elements of jaguar. Therefore, a jaguar is not a form of big cat. ;)

In a strictly theoretical sense perhaps, but in reality both are essential even if to a minimal degree. A worker in a factory can't simultaneously grow food to feed his family thus he needs to be able to buy it using what wealth he earns.

Possible alternatives would be for them to be given food as part of their pay or for them or for food to be given automatically to all citizens. In such circumstances they could still be socialist

Property is essential even if it's barely more than the clothes on your back and a plow in the yard.

Why so?

Not at all. The former states the ideal (explicitly) and the latter states the tendency in the real world.

True

There needn't be a contradiction between self-sufficieny and society, if self-sufficiency is defined as the ability to maintain one's self financially rather than directly. (I buy my food rather than growing it.) In such a case, it is absolutely critical t hat there be a so ciety (so that I have someone to buy my food from.)

Even when people maintain themselves directly, they still live in societies. I took a definition of not requiring any outside aid at all thus not from society either.

Duly noted, but it's still true.

What basis do you have for this? What evidence do you have for this?

It has very little to do with unemployment, especially in a communist society. If you and I lived on a collective farm and you do 95% of the work and I do 5%, that makes you a producer and me a consumer. The same goes with a Socialist construct where heavy bureaucracy can make consumers out of people who draw a paycheck but do little for the society. (For excellent examples of this phenomenon one need look no further than Washington D.C.)
But then if I do 95% of the work and you 5%, that makes me earn 19 times what you earn. Communist societies don't have flat rate incomes.

and no government creates freedom. some just rob more of it then others.

I dunno.. the Social Contract guys like Rousseau and Hobbes speak of individuals giving up their rights and freedoms to the State in such a manner that they don't really give up their rights since the State was created to protect their freedom.. Whew!! It's kinda confusing, I know but it makes sense to me.

ANARCHY!!!!

*loots and pillages*

I dunno.. the Social Contract guys like Rousseau and Hobbes speak of individuals giving up their rights and freedoms to the State in such a manner that they don't really give up their rights since the State was created to protect their freedom.. Whew!! It's kinda confusing, I know but it makes sense to me.Well, that just kinda goes to show the social contract guys were wrong. People are born into societies. They don't just go off and form new ones all the time. If there really was any such agreement it waslong ago before any of the current inhabitants of most societies were alive.

Well, that just kinda goes to show the social contract guys were wrong. People are born into societies. They don't just go off and form new ones all the time. If there really was any such agreement it waslong ago before any of the current inhabitants of most societies were alive.

People may be born into societies in a social unit (such a family if we are discussing pre-'societal' times) however there is nothing preventing someone from breaking off from the state and forming a new one. The formation of a new one begins the social contract, even if it consists of one person. People tend to stick to a group of similar ideas and beliefs, if not dissent occurs.

People may be born into societies in a social unit (such a family if we are discussing pre-'societal' times) however there is nothing preventing someone from breaking off from the state and forming a new one.

The fact that there is barely anywhere else to form the new society is something preventing people.

The formation of a new one begins the social contract, even if it consists of one person.

But the formation still begins with different people from its later inhabitants so the state was not created to protect their freedom but the freedom of their predecessors. Very often, borders of states change also according to the result of a war not as a result of the will of the people living the changed regions. Because of this, the original area may have been supportive of the social contract but there's no reason to suppose that the people living in the new area would be. There is not exactly any evidence for being the basis of a state, at least in most states. United States is perhaps a counterexample but it still has the problem of being older than a generation, having annexed most of its current area and having only appealed to the descendants of Europeans not to Native Americans or to slaves.

People tend to stick to a group of similar ideas and beliefs, if not dissent occurs.

By these groups, do you mean societies as a whole or mini-societies within them?

The fact that there is barely anywhere else to form the new society is something preventing people.

Depends on how the society is being formed, such as secession. However I do generally agree that it is much more difficult with the whole world being explored and all. But space is pretty big....


But the formation still begins with different people from its later inhabitants so the state was not created to protect their freedom but the freedom of their predecessors. Very often, borders of states change also according to the result of a war not as a result of the will of the people living the changed regions. Because of this, the original area may have been supportive of the social contract but there's no reason to suppose that the people living in the new area would be. There is not exactly any evidence for being the basis of a state, at least in most states. United States is perhaps a counterexample but it still has the problem of being older than a generation, having annexed most of its current area and having only appealed to the descendants of Europeans not to Native Americans or to slaves.

Regardless of how the formation of the state begins, it's a mutual contract (at least between the people who support as you point out, creating conflict) to lay down the ground rules, such as rights. Without rules, you don't have 'rights' as those are purely a social construct. There is no such thing as a 'right' in nature, only so far as what you are willing to defend and fight for. I suppose then that rights are only so good as far as you protect them, however a state (such as the U.S.) can write these down explicitly.

By these groups, do you mean societies as a whole or mini-societies within them

All.

Depends on how the society is being formed, such as secession. However I do generally agree that it is much more difficult with the whole world being explored and all. But space is pretty big....

And Antarctica's not very welcoming either and I'm not too sure but I think the treaty would hinder such attempts. This is partly why I support all secession movements.

Regardless of how the formation of the state begins, it's a mutual contract (at least between the people who support as you point out, creating conflict) to lay down the ground rules, such as rights. Without rules, you don't have 'rights' as those are purely a social construct. There is no such thing as a 'right' in nature, only so far as what you are willing to defend and fight for. I suppose then that rights are only so good as far as you protect them, however a state (such as the U.S.) can write these down explicitly.
Exactly.

Back to my original point, Visayan peoples said that social contract people said that people do not actually give up their rights because the State was created to protect their freedom. This was true for the people who created the society but not for anyone else who ends up being part of the society. Thus, the exact same mutual contract that the original signatories agreed to should not be applied to new members.

Dissent always occurs in society, regardless if people group together with like-minded people or not. Less dissent will occur if the society is made solely of like-minded people though.