NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, dont post until i figure out how to make this poll.

Edit:ok poll's done, vote away:)

Edit2:
Did I say Direct-democracy (Sweden)?
My bad, make that Switzerland.
(I don't think I can change the poll option..)

sorry, i don't need a pole to say "service state annonymous".

one that lives up to the only justification there ever is for the existence of any government in any form under any idiology, belief, or anything else.

one whose policies are based on their real avoidance of causing harm, and maybe even occasional real bennifit, to REAL people, places and things, and not the slavish fanatical avoidance of anything that might be construed as resembling some idiology, belief, et al, that politically and culturally has been made some kind of straw dog boogie man out of.

one need not deny there are other ways of screwing everything up, to not deny that putting symbolic value ahead of anything real is very much one of them, and not a damd bit better then any of the others.

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

Best form... well, that depends from country.

I think that Italy could use right now a democracy with stronger separation of powers (so that the electors vote directly for the cabinet too, eliminating confidence vote and, at the same time, making the parliament the sole legislative and representative body - today the cabinet can make some "legislative decrees", and the parliament has always some problems with forming a stable majority that can support the executive), plus wider elements of direct democracy.

the best form of goverment is the one that fits th needs of the people it represents.

Ideally? Anarchy.

Realistically? I'd say Parliamentary Democracy.

Enlightened dictatorship.

A group of people acts as intelligently as the the stupidest quarter of people, hence direct or indirect democracy, communism & various forms of anarchies are doomed for degrees of failure.

I also don't get this option:
Direct-democracy(Sweden type)

I mean wtf? Sweden is a representative democracy which is *much* better than any form of direct democracy where large amount of people are involved.

edit:
One party Republic (People's Republics,one party Socialism)

Would this category involve party-less option where political parties are banned - somewhat similar to Cuba? Concept of party line is IMO a bad thing for democratic process.

edit 2:
Second best alternative hence being partyless representative democracy.

Their are only two forms of government, the dictatorship of the bourgeois and the the dictatorship of the proletariat, I prefer a society run by working people thanks.

I like my government the same way I like my women: small, quiet and away from my wallet.

Ok, dont post until i figure out how to make this poll.

Edit:ok poll's done, vote away:)

Federal Constitutional Republic. It's not in the poll.

Their are only two forms of government, the dictatorship of the bourgeois and the the dictatorship of the proletariat, I prefer a society run by working people thanks.

Ha ha, you'll never defeat our two-pronged strategy of keeping the working class too poor to organise revolution while simultaneously flooding them with shallow entertainment to give 'meaning' to their lives.

We give you...democracy, ah ha ha ha.

Go on, vote, make yourself feel powerful.

*pats head*

The best form of government, in my opinion, is a mixed-proportional parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary, a meritocratic technocratic public-spirited bureaucracy, universal welfare state, means-tested safety net with relatively low marginal tax rates on benefits, and independent public trusts for publically owned natural resources.

I also don't get this option:
Direct-democracy(Sweden type)

I mean wtf? Sweden is a representative democracy which is *much* better than any form of direct democracy where large amount of people are involved.
Yeah we use representative democracy most of the time and that is the least bad form of government.

We do get to vote directly on a specific issue about once every 5th year at most where I live but I think it's more like once every 20th year in most parts of the country. For example we did get to vote on if the municipality should be split in 2 (failed) and also on if there should be a fee for driving a car into and out of the city (passed and did reduce congestion).

GN13:
Enlightened dictatorship as in Voltaire's enlightened despotism?

Yeah my bad, meant Switzerland government type.

I found this on wikipedia:
"The present constitution also ascribes the role of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) to be the "leading force of society and of the state".

So Cuba is a one party republic too.

Yeah I like the idea of a partyless representative democracy. It would remedy some corruption issues and would actually let representatives to vote on conscience. Although I am taken aback that a supporter of dictatorship (no offense:p) prefers partyless parliamentarism over presidentialism:rolleyes:

Best form of government is a Tacocracy. That's when the guy with the tacos makes all the rules.

*munches on a taco*

Monarchies and dictatorships will go down well with the libertarian types round here, which is interesting, considering how historically these monarchs were about as libertarian as Ron Paul, which to say, not at all. And even if they were, I don't want to end up with a Gyanendra or a William II.

I don't think I need to go though a one party People's Republic, we saw how those turned out.

Anarchy/libertarian socialism in its various forms is a nice idea, but having not seen it work in a modern society with a large population for a long time, I can't really vouch for it. If I had evidence that it could/would work, I might go for it a bit more.

Which leaves us with democracy. I have to say I like the Swiss system, but in the UK it would likely turn into Blacks Out, Muslims Out, Goodbye Human Rights Act, Bye Bye Last Vestiges Of The Welfare State and Daily Mail/Telegraph Cumpolsory at Breakfast. So I'll stick with parliamentary democracy, although thinkering with the electoral system and greater federalism among the different bits of the UK could work wonders. As well as reforming the EU.

The best form of government, in my opinion, is a mixed-proportional parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary, a meritocratic technocratic public-spirited bureaucracy, universal welfare state, means-tested safety net with relatively low marginal tax rates on benefits, and independent public trusts for publically owned natural resources.

Lol, u own:D

Although I am taken aback that a supporter of dictatorship (no offense:p)
There's quite a few libertarian types who think that a monarchical dictatorship would be more likely to give them a government with libertarian policy, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. It's little different to the Leninists who think "My ideology is right, thus only it ought to be allowed to govern" and set up a system of government to do that with no regards to what the people want.

I think any form of constitution which puts limits on the power of the ruling elite and any administration that acts in accordance to real public benefit is good enough. It doesn't matter if the government is elected or not.

Yeah I pretty much agree with you Newer Burmecia. Lenin himself after all was an elitist, who thought it is necessary to have a leading vanguard party because the proletariat is too stupid to think for itself and it should be "re-educated" to get rid of the bourgeois brain-wash.

Monarchies and dictatorships will go down well with the libertarian types round here, which is interesting, considering how historically these monarchs were about as libertarian as Ron Paul, which to say, not at all.

What do you base these assertions on, exactly?

I for one don't remember saying anything positive about monarchy, ever.

Yeah I pretty much agree with you Newer Burmecia. Lenin himself after all was an elitist, who thought it is necessary to have a leading vanguard party because the proletariat is too stupid to think for itself and it should be "re-educated" to get rid of the bourgeois brain-wash.
Lenin thought that his ideology had a divine (but not divine) right to rule because they thought he was right. He set up a system of government that meant that no ideology but his could govern. The monarchical libertarians want to to something similar. I don't have a problem with people supporting libertarian policy, but I do have a problem with installing a libertarian monarch with an eternal right to rule. If you want a libertarian government, vote for a libertarian party, and try and persuade others to do the same. Ditto communism, socialism, social democracy, conservatism and all the rest. As far as possible, I want a constituinal framework that is apolitical, and can accommodate any elected government, so long as people's rights are respected.

What do you base these assertions on, exactly?

I for one don't remember saying anything positive about monarchy, ever.

There are some who look to Hans-Herman Hoppe's work of Democracy: The God That Failed where monarchies are positively contrasted to democracies.

The most prominent poster that has positive things to say about monarchy is Venndee, I believe.

What do you base these assertions on, exactly?

I for one don't remember saying anything positive about monarchy, ever.
I was thinking about a few posters I've had debates with who supported libertarian monarchies, Questers and Greill, I think. I think Vendee does too, but I'm not too sure. Sorry, I didn't phrase that particulary well, I wasn't thinking about every kind of libertarianism, just the libertarian monarchy brand.

Technically, a Federal Constitutional Republic (like, say, America) is supposed to combine features from a monarchy (the President), aristocracy (the Senate) and a democracy (congress), but of course they changed the workings of the Senate since.

Questers is also not a libertarian. He's a Tory and admits to it online.

I was thinking about a few posters I've had debates with who supported libertarian monarchies, Questers and Greill, I think. I think Vendee does too, but I'm not too sure. Sorry, I didn't phrase that particulary well, I wasn't thinking about every kind of libertarianism, just the libertarian monarchy brand.

Greill and Vendee are the same person.

Greill and Vendee are the same person.

Well, anyone who used Vendee as a name would be likely to be a monarchist. :p

Technically, a Federal Constitutional Republic (like, say, America) is supposed to combine features from a monarchy (the President), aristocracy (the Senate) and a democracy (congress), but of course they changed the workings of the Senate since.

Depends on the definitions of the words, really... ultimately, all those posts are subject to the voting public, and always have been.

Questers is also not a libertarian. He's a Tory and admits to it online.
I'm fairly sure he supported a powerful monarch as he thought it would lead to lower taxation - something monarchical libertarians make a big deal of. Regardless, he wanted to manipulate the British constitution to ensure it is biased towards his ideology. One doesn't have to be a libertarian to be a monarchist like Vendee, Greill and (going far back) BAAWAKnights, for example.

Greill and Vendee are the same person.
Ah, I see. You'll be telling me Hotwife is Deep Kimchi next.:p

Andaras:

Was Stalin's government bourgeois dictatorship or worker's dictatorship? Did the workers have power during Stalin's government? Cuba, China: Do they have a bourgeois dictatorship or a worker's dictatorship? Monarchies and Theocratic regimes in middle east: Do they have a bourgeois dictatorship or a worker's dictatorship?

I'm not being overly aggressive here, I just want an insight into your way of thinking:)

Far right wing democracy (capitalism). Low taxes, although I have to admit progressive taxing is better than flat taxing. (I´m playing as a communist single-party democracy, though :p) Government should concentrate on education, educatated people make more money. :)

Enlightened dictatorship or classical tyranny. Anything that maintains as great a distance between the huddled, ignorant masses and politics as possible would be expedient, however.

GN13:
Enlightened dictatorship as in Voltaire's enlightened despotism?
An unquestioned absolute leader who is intelligent, wise and kind. :p

Perhaps more akin to Plato's Philosopher Kings than anything else.

Although I am taken aback that a supporter of dictatorship (no offense:p) prefers partyless parliamentarism over presidentialism:rolleyes:
President aims to please majority of his or her voters - alternatively, elected by a public because he or she resembles & represents the majority of voters - and is thus incapable of making good decisions that would be necessary or overall good but unacceptable to too significant portion of voters. Also, the chance that a president turns out to be an asshole should statistically be much larger than 51% of parliament turning out to be assholes. ;)

If you have 200 representatives then the number of voters each has to please in order to be elected is much lower and the shared guilt is proportionally smaller and thus a minority agenda might make it through.

As an example, think of nuclear power - It's safe, relatively green and cheap method of producing electricity. A strong president might not allow construction because it would displease the voting public - On the other hand, representatives in similar political climate might pass a nuclear power bill because a representative might be 1) ambivalent towards it (abstain from voting) 2) nuclear friendly but who gained a seat through other issues (like education) 3) voted in by a minority who regards nuclear power as a good energy solution 4) intelligent enough to discern facts from propaganda.

Yes, there is also a chance that a good issue will fail to be legislated, but the opinion of direct majority of people in a parliament of hundreds doesn't carry as big a weight compared to having only one person take the flak from desicions.

edit: Though, I'm for a (independent) president of moderate power in party based representation.

As for my Cuba reference:
Elections in Cuba have two phases: (1) election of delegates to the Municipal Assembly, and (2) election of deputies to the Provincial and National Assemblies. Candidates for both assemblies are nominated on an individual basis and no political parties are permitted to campaign.

Their are only two forms of government, the dictatorship of the bourgeois and the the dictatorship of the proletariat, I prefer a society run by working people thanks.

Congratulations AP, you have just demonstrated how ignorant you are.

I'm inclined for Parliamentarism.

The legislative power is exercised by the parliament. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch of power is accountable to the parliament.

depends on the nation really. a smaller population would best be served by a direct democracy a larger nation would benefit from a Representative Democracy (Republic). All with a strong constitution of course.

as far as whether the electoral system should be a vote of plurality or proportional, i can't decide.

Democracy is the superior form of government but sometimes it really can be one step away from chaos.

Depends on what you mean by 'Best'. Best at making changes and reforms? stability? economic strength? happiness of the population?

I can say that the standard of living in democratic states (true democracies, not pretend single party dictatorships) are usually good, but dictatorships get stuff done. Need a modernizer or an economic rebuilder? Get a smart autocrat.

Personally, I would like to live in an ideal enlightened dictatorship supported by a meritocracy to serve it. Only the best get to lead, but there's still a chance for everyone if they work hard enough, and no need for petty disturbances of civil liberties by a paranoid government. Plus, no parliamentary steps to be taken to get the right decisions done. It's great. Of course, since power corrupts and idiots can cheat the system in the real world that way, that will probably never happen.

Pragmatically, I'd say a parliamentary system works, but it's still not what I'd say is perfect.

Andaras:

Was Stalin's government bourgeois dictatorship or worker's dictatorship? Did the workers have power during Stalin's government? Cuba, China: Do they have a bourgeois dictatorship or a worker's dictatorship? Monarchies and Theocratic regimes in middle east: Do they have a bourgeois dictatorship or a worker's dictatorship?

I'm not being overly aggressive here, I just want an insight into your way of thinking:)

He's just a rabid Marxist-Leninist, that's all you need to know.

I voted for social anarchism. I like my associations free, my workplaces worker-managed, and my neighborhoods democratic. I like amature, ad hoc structures for administration rather than permanent bureaucratic structures of governance.

Also, I want classless society which I think is obviously impossible with the State (especially a "proletarian dictatorship").

Best form... well, that depends from country.

I think that Italy could use right now a democracy with stronger separation of powers (so that the electors vote directly for the cabinet too, eliminating confidence vote and, at the same time, making the parliament the sole legislative and representative body - today the cabinet can make some "legislative decrees", and the parliament has always some problems with forming a stable majority that can support the executive), plus wider elements of direct democracy.

Before any decisions are made, Italy needs to think about reducing the frequency of national elections. They have had 62 national elections since WWII. Jesus.

Ideally? Anarchy.

Realistically? I'd say Parliamentary Democracy.

QFT

G3N13:
Wow, I couldn't have imagined I could find reason in a supporter of a far-right wing supporter. I thought far-rightists are just obsessed with the image of the leader(see Cult of personality), the feel of almightyness the leader/nation has(well that's true in fascist/militaristic regimes) and their obnoxiousness of, in their view, lack of order.

But in your post, I see that there's actually a good intention. To ensure that good decisions will be made, inspite the fact that they might be in contrast to the people's will. An example to that, could very well be CSA's population view of slavery (assuming that even if black people could actuallly voteon that, they were still a minority).

But does not power corrupt? (and absolute power corrupts absolutely)
Who can assure you that someone with that power won't go nuts and start killing people because they have moustaches or whatever?

I am Greek myself:rolleyes: but Plato after lived in a city state 2500 years ago.

Edit:
I myself voted for Social Anarchism. Specifically in favor of Libertarian socialism and Noam Chomsky's positions. Althought it's probably a secularized if not atheistic view and I'm quite religious(christian anarchist??! go figure), so I haven't yet found a compromise for those two.

As to if it can be applied: I don't know to what extend and how, but according to Chomsky you can't really tell from the beggining what form will it have, you gotta figure it out gradually by trial and error.

The Confederacy was many bad things, but a dictatorship it never was.

Observe the opposition Davis faced throughout most of his, err, term.

The Confederacy was many bad things, but a dictatorship it never was.

Observe the opposition Davis faced throughout most of his, err, term.

I'm not saying it was a dictatorship, I'm just saying it couldn't protect the minorities(and did not want to, for that matter) from the will of the majority.

Come to think of it, it may not was a dictatorship of one or few but one can say it was a dictatorship of the majority. Somethink like wolves and sheep voting on what to eat. (someone said an anecdote about that, but can't remember what it was..)

I like my government the same way I like my women: small, quiet and away from my wallet.

this is sheer genius. thank you, friend. :)

G3N13:
Wow, I couldn't have imagined I could find reason in a supporter of a far-right wing supporter.
You didn't....as I'm quite left wing. ;)

It's just that I'm pretty authoritarian in certain aspects.

To ensure that good decisions will be made, inspite the fact that they might be in contrast to the people's will. An example to that, could very well be CSA's population view of slavery (assuming that even if black people could actuallly voteon that, they were still a minority).
It's not perfect - OTOH some ass kissing goes a long way to dissuade people in power from enslaving 5-10% of the populace. Losing 10-15% of votes to less enslaving rivals would be a political suicide... :D

Of course, in reality, the people itself must have good standards for education and human rights for representation to work adequately in improving - not wealth but - quality of life for everyone in the nation.
But does not power corrupt? (and absolute power corrupts absolutely)
Who can assure you that someone with that power won't go nuts and start killing people because they have moustaches or whatever?
Indeed.

Best form of government, from my opinion, should always be an unattainable utopia - Even my ideal wise dictator can be succeeded by a wiser, more compassionate dictator ;)

In the end though, even a wise dicator would only be a transient - though long running - government model to an ideal world where everyone has his or her material needs fulfilled and is wise enough to govern themselves....It's just that finding one smart and compassionate person is so much easier than transforming entire people into saintly co-operative community :p

I also have my doubts whether the latter would be able to do big projects - at that age it would probably something akin to galactic colonization ;) - which seem to demand some sort of hierarchy in order to be completed. It would also probably be a dull world for the imperfect people we modern day humans are :)

Other: Benevolent Dictator.

i don't think that i've seen it yet, although i think that i've seen bits and pieces of it, laying around.

first off, i'll tell you that i tend heavily toward libertarian, and a bit to the left, as well.

i like democracy, parliamentarianism, republicanism, presidentialism, and i even like me some monarchy.

but, most of all, i care about the principles: libertarianism and georgism---which is limiting the the basis of taxation to whatever is part of the "commons", i.e. land, airspace, airwaves, fishing rights, etc. i want my government to be operating in a narrow tolerance: total protection of civil/political liberty with no infringement, and taxation only on the use of "common" property---never taking money "out of my pocket". however, i want them to be able to use force to protect my liberty, and to tax the hell out of land use, etc.

In my opinion I'd say dictatorship. Of course that choice is heavily dependent about what kind of dictator you get... for a best for of government it would have to be some quite altruistic benevolent guy...

The more realistic choice would go for a direct democracy type government, but there's a problem to it just like with the dictatorship - what if your people is stupid?

I like my government the same way I like my women: small, quiet and away from my wallet.

Oh my goodness.

That had me rolling on the ground. That was amazingly funny.

Kudos.

Hm I should have put absolute monarchy/dicatorship together and add another "Enlightened Dicatorship" option. Seems to be what most people who voted other believe..

I like my government the same way I like my women: small, quiet and away from my wallet.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

The best form is government is the form that is smallest and least intrusive.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

The best form is government is the form that is smallest and least intrusive.
I agree, since it can therefore be easily overthrown.

Peanut Butter on Whole Wheatocracy.

I like my government the same way I like my women: small, quiet and away from my wallet.

:D

To the OP why can't we have a Constitutional monarchy with a strong Parliament?

Democratic Socialism, plain and simple

I agree, since it can therefore be easily overthrown.

:confused:Oo
Then why have it in the first place, if the point is to overthrow it?:D

:D
To the OP why can't we have a Constitutional monarchy with a strong Parliament?

Because, that would essentially be parliamentarism.
Check this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_by_system_of_government#Constitutional_monarchies_with_ceremonial_monarchs)
There are:
* Constitutional monarchies with ceremonial monarchs
* Constitutional monarchies with active monarchs

In the first case the monarch has only decorative value, but in the second one (quoting wiki:) "has considerable political powers that can be used at his/her own independent discretion."

Well, the second type monarchies usually have a weak parliament, with no real power.

Democratic Socialism, plain and simple
Although I admire the sentiment, socialism is by definition a democracy, so as such I'll have to conclude that your putting of the 'democratic' in front of it is nothing but a capitulation to petite-bourgeois-democracy, and not genuine working-class rule. I believe Lenin said it correctly,:

"We cannot speak of 'pure democracy' so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 129).

So until Communism is established we cannot speak of democracy because antagonistic classes exist, we can only speak of the dictatorship of the working class majority over the bourgeois parasites.

Wanting absolute political power for ALL of society straight away after socialist Revolution is impossible because doing so would give power to the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois, so in the short term socialist 'democracy' will have to be the dictatorship of the workers over society.

I find it hard to credit that some people actually think dictatorship is a good idea - I am assuming at least some of them are serious.

I find it hard to credit that some people actually think dictatorship is a good idea - I am assuming at least some of them are serious.

G3N13 had some good thoughts on that.
I find it hard to believe some people want absolute monarchy. At least in dictatorship you must have at least some qualities to be able to take over. Well, maybe they meant absolute monarchy, if I am the monarch, which makes sense:P ..or enlightened absolute monarchy(which must be somewhat rare if you keep in mind that all descendants must fill the criteria).

Andaras:
Has communism ever been established in the world?
Same question about the dicatorship of proletariat.

G3N13 had some good thoughts on that.
I find it hard to believe some people want absolute monarchy. At least in dictatorship you must have at least some qualities to be able to take over. Well, maybe they meant absolute monarchy, if I am the monarch, which makes sense:P ..or enlightened absolute monarchy(which must be somewhat rare if you keep in mind that all descendants must fill the criteria).

Andaras:
Has communism ever been established in the world?
Same question about the dicatorship of proletariat.

I would say any kind of absolute monarch is a dictator, an hereditary one, but a dictator nonetheless. Look at Henry VIII of England - he behaved in the same way as Stalin or Mao.

I would say any kind of absolute monarch is a dictator, an hereditary one, but a dictator nonetheless. Look at Henry VIII of England - he behaved in the same way as Stalin or Mao.

Well, yeah. You didn't watch this at the Tudors series did you?:p
I haven't really checked it, but I think most of the Kings ruled with an iron fist..
that was the whole point of absolute monarchy. Actually their power must was far greater than any modern day dictator's, for the reason that people never questioned it, nor had they ever known any better form of government.

Edit:
Hmm. When the "other" option in the poll has the most votes, that means someone made a crappy poll:/

group think is toxic to human developement, we can't live in troops like monkeys forever, therefore society as a concept is wrong headed. all things must arrise from individual freedom and self determination. individual anarchism is the way forward

whenever this kind of question comes up, there is one thing i feel obsessively compelled to point out, dispite the propiganda value 'both' so called 'side' make of their big lie to the contrary, and that is that real, from the ground up, 'socialism', of, by and for, real people, places and things, has LESS in common with marxism, then marxism and capitolism, especially corporate capitolism, have with each other.

there were some interesting names of options in the poll. several of which i'm not familiar with. maybe one or more have something in common with what i have in mind. or maybe not.

i've used the label:"eco-socialist anarcho-pacafist" to apply to my perspective. any such concatination of terminology, the terminology itself being, the basis of all idiological emotional attatchments being being slippery as a barrel full of well lubed mud wrestling eels, i intend that only as what seems like it might be a resonable approximation.

a ways back, there was a chart of the future, published sometime in the 70, by the wffs. it only ran to the 1990s or so, maybe 2k at most. but anyway the used a term to descibe what i consider reasonable, and that term was/is "service state annonymous".

at any rate, whenever some talks about the best anything, well best always depends intimately on context.

best i think, of government would involve as mentioned before, justifying the existence of government in the only ways in which it can be, while remaining otherwise as completely unintrusive and unobtrusive as it possibly can.

many appologists for and cheerleads of, symbolic value and ways of life based on it, claim that letting the amassing of currecy, equate to that unobtrusiveness. reality has demonstrated this to be an utter error and falsehood. demonstrated it consistently and repeatedly, and yet its fanatical booster fail to see the light, no mater how much reality rubbs their noses in it.

i would even go on to conjecture, that any time you HAVE an aristocracy, you can't, don't and won't, have anything remotely resembling democracy in any rational sense.

the other point that is all too often missed, or simply denied in support of emotional attatchments of all kinds, is that you don't have to deny there are other ways of screwing everything up, to not deny that putting symbolic value ahead of real people, places, and things, is one of them. not only one of them, but no better then any of the rest.

those who say that the complete abscence of government in any form would be some sort of absolute ideal, are not misspeaking. the problem with REAL abscence of hierarchy of any sort, is not the dire consiquences they would have us believe are inevitable, which they are patently not, and many examples abound of their not being, but rather, the level of personal self dicipline that would be required to bring any such thing into existence.

because any time you have even one person, lording it over, even one other person, THAT ideal state, simply does not exist.

i'm not interested in debating the merits of terms, because any and all can be, and always end up being, twisted to suit ends blind to realities beyond human emotional attatchments.

and it just so happens, that many things outside of the coerciveness of human society DO matter. little details like where the air, we couldn't live without comes from. as well as the basis for all the cycles of life, their self renewal, and the very existence of the web of life on any one planet itself.

not to mention that other little detail, that there's a big universe out there. one we have no idea, i don't think most people do, just how big, wonderful and yet to be even imagined, diverse.

so a government, if it wants its existence to have any sort of moral legitimacy at all, needs to be about what have been labled, and again to some degree libled, as welfare and infrastructure.

this is not an expectation that government, any government, can do it all, without some support of its populas, but it does point the direction in which its premary efforts, focus and purpose must lie.

it is of course not ITself 'the environment' needs protection from, but OUR selves. and the best way i feel to go about that is to insure that infrastructure and the tecnologies of infrastructure, inheirently respect the needs of those natural cycles of renewal, all life depends upon.

again the maximum of civil liberties is of the utmost of desired objectives, right AFTER, acknowledging the realities of environment and the dependence of survival themselves upon it.

an ideal govenment would never become so big, nor hidebound, as to preclude local solutions to real local needs and diversity.

so what i advocate, is keeping BOTH politics AND 'money' out of the way, of both real people, and their getting along with their environment comfortably, sustainably, AND gratifyingly.

all that sounds like a tall order, and of course it is. it is one that depends on everyone, but it also depends on staying out of the way of everyone fulfilling it.

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

:confused:
Well, sorry to say but I found your post somewhat unintelligible a some points.
Please use shorter and "to the point" posts.

What is that service status anonymous for a start?

:confused:
Well, sorry to say but I found your post somewhat unintelligible a some points.
Please use shorter and "to the point" posts.

What is that service status anonymous for a start?

something resembling the remainder of the post. one could perhapse look up the meaning of those three words and concatinate those meanings. most people of average intelligence seem to have demonstrated the capacity for doing so.

also if you want simple, you might read my previous post, the one right after the op, or somewhere on the first page, even with the automatic reshufflings.

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

In simple words, are you saying that we should not use certain terminology to describe a political system, because that might lead to logical and emotional associations and positive or negative bias towards it?

Anyway, that's why I asked people's opinion. I didn't ask for the objectively best form of government, because such probably does not even exist.

Because, that would essentially be parliamentarism.
Check this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_by_system_of_government#Constitutional_monarchies_with_ceremonial_monarchs)
There are:
* Constitutional monarchies with ceremonial monarchs
* Constitutional monarchies with active monarchs

In the first case the monarch has only decorative value, but in the second one (quoting wiki:) "has considerable political powers that can be used at his/her own independent discretion."

Well, the second type monarchies usually have a weak parliament, with no real power.

Ah yes I see, thank you for the information, now I know you say Parliamentarism, which is what I will vote for but I still say it is a Constitutional Monarchy

Rechtsstaat, taken to the extreme.

Rule by constitution, limiting the state to some very specific, very technical functions (eg internal and external defense, market-functioning & financial system facilitation and public goods & infrastructure). The rest can be sorted out by elected politicians and parliaments, but their scope would be extremely limited by the constitution, and their pet projects would be of the "opt-in" sort where every taxpayer can choose to take part or not.

It's like a benevolent dictatorship, except there is no one to go mad with power.

Ah yes I see, thank you for the information, now I know you say Parliamentarism, which is what I will vote for but I still say it is a Constitutional Monarchy

Well technically it is. But as far as executive power is concerned, it just has a monarch with no real power, instead of a president with no real power.

Then why have it in the first place, if the point is to overthrow it?

The point is not to overthrow it. You need a little government around the place because "...all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed..."

but just in case "...any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..." and you end up having to "...alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." it's easier if said government is not a monolith.

I find it hard to credit that some people actually think dictatorship is a good idea - I am assuming at least some of them are serious.

Dictatorship no, benevolent yes.


It's like a benevolent dictatorship, except there is no one to go mad with power.

Doesn't it stop being benevolent when someone goes mad with power :D

Direct-democracy(Sweden type)

*points and laughs*

Anyhoo, parliamentarianism sans head of state.

Direct-democracy(Sweden type)

*points and laughs*

Anyhoo, parliamentarianism sans head of state.

:rolleyes:Ehm, read the OP.

Much like the Cyprus system:
"Cyprus is a Presidential republic. The head of state and the government is the President, who is elected by the universal suffrage for a five-year term. Executive power is exercised by the government. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the House of Representatives. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature."

Anyway I don't see much difference if there's a head of state with limited power or not.

:rolleyes:Ehm, read the OP.

I did. I still point and laugh. Confusing Sweden and Switzerland - it's exactly like the stereotype of an uneducated foreigner.

Much like the Cyprus system:

If that was to have something to do with my vote for parliamentarianism sans head of state, then it is nothing like Cyprus. You see, "sans" means "without".

I did. I still point and laugh. Confusing Sweden and Switzerland - it's exactly like the stereotype of an uneducated foreigner.


Are you intentionally xenophobic and nationalistic every chance you get, or does it just come so naturally that you dont even know you do it?

I think we should have a government where everyone gets given pwetty flowers to put in their hair and have a love-in and talk about things like inner empowerment.

Actually, maybe I don't....

In an ideal (utopian) world I would say absolute monarchy. This is not a libertarian or low taxation/non-interventionist point of view. Rather I like the idea, as it allows for centralisation of government. This in turn allows for very effective and efficient control of national resources, and gives unrestricted ability to take national decisions that may be necessary but unpopular (nuclear power, C-charge, water mains renewal, third runway etc). It also gives a very stable and consistent method of government, with a true long term viewpoint and planning possibilites, free of knee jerk reaction, public hysteria, and pandering to the vagrancies of public opinion. In this ideal word the public would be mature enough not be either need or be taken in by pretending to be directly involved in decision making. The right of petition via court would be maintained as I hold this to be important.

In my compromise (current situation) world I would go for a weakened parliament/strong monarchy, with a part royal appointed part hereditary upper house and elected lower house. In this, the monarch must approve legislation and can introduce their own bills which would be voted in under a different rule system to parliamentary bills, whereby they are voted down instead of passed, with a super-majority required in both houses to be defeated. In addition to this, the ceremonial nature of parliament would emphasise that the parliament exists as the monarch permits it, rather than the monarch is allowed to rule because parliament permits it.

In both systems the key parts of the national infrastructure and economy would be state owned and operated. They would be treated exactly the same as crown jewels, in that they belong to the monarch and cannot be seized or owned by any lower authority, and in effectively held in trust. In both cases the monarch would also be the final court of appeal.

G3N13 had some good thoughts on that.
I've been referred to! My first! :fluffle:


Erm...carry on. :cool:

Democratic parliamentary system. In the modern world, the citizenry does not have the time nor the ability to fully comprehend every single piece of legislation. Thus, the need for elected representatives is essential. The fact that the chief executive is chosen by parliament allows for ideological similarity between the two branches, thus cutting back on gridlock and improving effiency. At the same time, the vote of no confidence and the option to dissolve parliament provide for checks and balances. It seems to be the ideal system to me (though, of course, not perfect): democratic and efficient.

Darn close tie between Presidential systems and Parliamentarianism. They are both effective systems, capable of justly representing the will of the people.

I voted for Parliamentarianism because it preceded Presidential alphabetically.

Whichever is the smallest, least intrusive one :).

i voted for individualist anarchy, because even if it is a dream the perfect human society would be no society at all, it's guiding principle would be that of consent, meaning each person was free to live as they wished as long as their actions did not cause un -consensual effects for anyone else. all decisions would be mutually consented and there would be no need for vertical power structures.
all forms of vertical power, representative democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, one party state etc are forms of control, which allow minorities to dominate the lives of majorities. they are a diminishment of human freedom.

I did. I still point and laugh. Confusing Sweden and Switzerland - it's exactly like the stereotype of an uneducated foreigner.

Oh come on, I didn't confuse the nations, I confused the words, what are you five years old?


If that was to have something to do with my vote for parliamentarianism sans head of state, then it is nothing like Cyprus. You see, "sans" means "without".

Well a dictator can still be named president, but that's not the point. The main difference between presidentialism and parliamentarism is that in the first people elect the president directly and he has real executive power.

What I wanted to point out is that cyprus could be parliamentarism with basically the prime minister being the head of state. The prime minister could still be called president or whatever but it would still be parliamentarism.

But Scratch that, the case is rather the opposite, the head of state is given prime minister's power.



Hmm, didn't expect social anarchism to go so well. It's close to parliamentarism.
I surely expected single-party republic to get at least one vote, but hey it's a strange world.

The best government, in my opinion, would be democratically elected president holding executive powers with a democratically elected parliament with legislative powers using a socialist system wherein everybody owns the means of production.

And I don't mind taxes. If it pays for my healthcare and my education, tax away.

Hmm, didn't expect social anarchism to go so well. It's close to parliamentarism.
I surely expected single-party republic to get at least one vote, but hey it's a strange world.
I was happy to see so many votes for social anarchism. :D

National Socialism.

National Socialism.

You know, that's like something Hitler came up with to get votes by both nationalists and socialists:P

You know, that's like something Hitler came up with to get votes by both nationalists and socialists:P
Then clearly people are retarded. National socialism wasn't really socialistic. Should national socialists gain traction in my country, I will go on the war path and shoot some motherfuckers.