Doing the belief survey thread, I came across an interesting position of my own. I believe that the opposite ends of the political spectrum are the only options that truly work. Not democracy, monarchy, etc. Anarchy and communism (totalitarianism) work in the right conditions. If humans were pure and not corrupted by current and previous governments, then anarchy would work because humans would essentially "govern" themselves. Communism, the closest thing to the opposite end of the spectrum, is also a perfect government. In it, everyone contributes and everyone gains. It's just that in its previous institutions, the military has been too harshly implemented. In a true communist government, all people would comply, and it would closely resemble early Socialist France, which had few problems. Or New-Deal era- America. Take your pick. Any points to be made in response to these? What do you see as the perfect form of government? Patriot
I'd pick anarchy over communism any day. But the best we can come up with for now? A federal republic, implemented in a libertarian way.
Democracy Our current form of government would be fine with me if we could give our elections back to the people instead of allowing politicians to be bought and paid for by the highest bidder. A free democracy if left in its purest state, with no undue influence from special interests, is a highly flexible form of government which can adapt itself to meet changing social and economic conditions. The "opposite extrems" mentioned above only work in specific situations and are so rigid in structure that they can not adapt to a changing world.
Democratic Republic for the moment is the best we can do. Anything else that has been tried has been too slow, too unstable, or it resulted is massive oppression. Dictatorship or monarchy would work beautyfully until an evil bastard came under the crown. Ethics is not genetic and power would corrupt anyone in such circumstances. Democracy takes forever to work and would involve way too much attention from the populace. Gosh, how would you figure out bugets? Come home, feed the dog, and vote for 5000 things. Dosnt work well in anything bigger than a city state. Also average citizens dont know the facts as well as elected leaders and would thus be likely to do stupid things. (moreso han leaders, Im sad to say) Anarchy flat out dosnt work. Immediatly you will have gangs form and essentially set up a tribal system. It is then no longer anarchy. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
I think Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for those that have been tried". I concur.
The only form of pure democracy successfully tried on a scale larger than a tribe was the city-state of athens. And in that era there wasnt as much to manage.
The one where all of you are my minions and obey my biding to my every word. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Be nice if we could have a REAL theocracy. One where a diety directly rules without any intermediaries.
Representative Democracy Perhaps the question is which form of democratic government is best. For instance, in America, an elected president alone is responsible for executive decisions and elected representatives of congress determine legislation and public funding. In commonwealth countries, under the so-called Westminister system, the people elect representatives of parliament and the party or coalition with a majority in the lower house forms government with the leader of the party or coalition as the prime minister. The executive body is essentially the cabinet or in other words a collection of senior ministers. And under a Westminister system, the head of state, whether a monarch, a governor general or an elected president is largely a figurehead with little power.
None government is a best solution. I always say that democracy is a best solution for organization of people's community, but democracy works well in smallest community (up to 100 - 200 habitans). Bigger community worse democracy - see Russia, China and USA. Therefore If any government should be established for our prosperity it is only a chief of the village. Chris
Anarchy is best. Just curious, but what is some other peoples definitions of anarchy, esp. those who favor it?
SOCIALISM. the only way in which it still might work is if it's implemented in countries of small area and population.
Anarchy is the absence of laws. In this situation it would be the rule of the strongest. People would gradually form into groups and these groups would fight and ultimately one group and in the end person would rule as a despot or dictator. Example is what happened in Iraq after the fall of its government. Imagine a world where every person would have to spend time and energy defending property.
I think we have to look at other species to start debating on the best social structures. -- Including the dominant species here on earth - ANTS. Ant and bee colonies are definetly not democracies.
But they have members willing to die for the good of the colony. This is humans were talking about. Stupid selfish humansPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe a republic of city states is good too. That way there would also be tons of diversity in social and economic policies, and everyone could find a city that offers thier ideal situation. Each city would have to have no restraints upon what kind of policies it has though, and if a city sucks, everyone will leave it, or overthrow the leader and change things.
