Thread: The Perfect Government

I don't think it is possible.
The perfect Government would be an absence of the government. By that I do NOT mean anarchy either.
I mean a self sustaining society that does not need a big brother.

Freedom fosters so many things that are needed. But accountability, leadership and aid are also requirements, but they are always taken advantage of in a free society. So again, you would need the society to provide you with the criteria for no government.

Not really an answer is it?

Enlightened Absolutism run by me.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Enlightened Absolutism run by me.

I do think that is what would be needed. One true leader that is unbiased, intellectual, this that and all the rest.
I could go into greater detail, but I think they were on to something when a lot of mankind chose Jesus.
That is some pretty tough company Carôusoul.

Originally Posted by Howie

I do think that is what would be needed. One true leader that is unbiased, intellectual, this that and all the rest.
I could go into greater detail, but I think they were on to something when a lot of mankind chose Jesus.
That is some pretty tough company Carôusoul.

I'll be fine. Humanity's new God.

Cool.

A "pure" human being is impossible though. No-one is perfect, and everyone is good and bad to varying degrees. I don't think anyone is pure "good" or pure "bad" - everyone, you'll see, acts differently from situation to situation, and with different degrees of pressure, desperation and mental instability your actions will vary. A perfectly "good person" who seems perfect does terrible things. So I say no-one is entirely good or entirely bad, and for what you've suggested you need an entirely good person.

Also, if you give someone power they start changing in many different, wholey unforseen ways. The same thing happens when an "authority" figure gives orders (check out the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment). And everyone is controlled by social influence.

Of course, those were the philosophical problems. Practically, anyone who thinks he is the ultimate ruler of mankind is going to be lynched by a million other people who either object or think they should have the position.

Oh, and even if he is just and fair etc, etc, if his word was law he'd still be a tyrant, because at some point or other, someone would disagree with him.* And that person would have no say whatsoever in how his life was run because his opinion would be ignored totally.


I don't think there is a perfect system of government. The best you can do is get a good one. I think Democracy is very, very good. But, although it says it's about everyone letting their voice be heard, either that isn't used often enough or you can't really let your voice be heard. So the ideal system would be Democracy but accomplishing what it promises to a greater extent. But that would be a) perfect, again, and impossible, and b) there would be something wrong with it.

Basicallyt my intellectual opinion is: screw perfection. Democracy is still excellent and it actually works, which would be c) it wouldn't work.

*By the way, in case anyone here is one of those Democracy-is-stupid-look-at-the-mistakes-it's-made kind of person, I'd remind you that it's only because of democracy that you're allowed to say that without anyone who disagrees with you ignoring your opinion totally or breaking your legs into tiny little pieces.

The perfect government is where I am supreme leader.

If not, I dont think its possible. Everyone has such different ideas and views on how it should be ran and if it should be monarchy or democracy or dictatorship or some type that hasnt even been invented yet. There would always be revolt, or some sort of resentment against who is leading, that there could be no perfect government.
Unless, of course, you lived in the Aeonflux way without all the conspiracy, then THAT may be perfect...

Originally Posted by A Humble Sinner

A "pure" human being is impossible though.

Of course it`s impossible, which is why a perfect government is impossible (along with nearly everything attached to the word "perfect"), it`s just a thought experiment...


Hypothetically speaking, I also agree that the best form of government is one where all powers are given to some beneficial, all-knowing, perfect being.


The best thing we can probably come up with in practise is a good absolute ruler. The more people that are in charge of the government, the more opportunities there are for muck-ups, so if only one person is in power, and he`s very good at his job, then the government is at its most efficient. There`s no way to guarantee any longevity to this type of government, but it has happened in the past.

Originally Posted by DeadDollKitty

The perfect government is where I am supreme leader.

I already reserved it.


Sorry darling.

"It's just a thought experiment..."

What difference does it make? The experiment was about a perfect king, I pointed out sooner or later he would corrupt.

Originally Posted by A Humble Sinner

"It's just a thought experiment..."

What difference does it make? The experiment was about a perfect king, I pointed out sooner or later he would corrupt.

I know, that`s why the discussion is hypothetical !

government is not needed where perfect people lives.. or almost perfect..

Originally Posted by roguext22

government is not needed where perfect people lives.. or almost perfect..

Anarchy is by no means perfect.

how you managed ro read i was talking about anarchy? lol...
dont go wild in imagination, cheers..

Socialism.

Or, any other form as long as there is a "philosopher king" as Plato explains. For example, Marcus Aurelius as emperor of Rome.

These give room for conscious freedom.

Paternalism and absolute sovereignty is possibly the worst government which I adamently dispise. (ie. 1984, Brave New World, etc.)
~

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I know, that`s why the discussion is hypothetical !

Well, that's basically saying that as this is hypothetical, you were just pointing out one way to govern and so normality doesn't apply. Because it's a thought experiment. I can see the point, I can see how hypothetically you could have a perfect king.

But using that logic, I could say that a group of psychotic monkeys with ultra-beam lasers should wipe out humanity and thus create the perfect form of government by not actually governing anything. And I'd be right, because hypothetically that scenario would be perfect (I was trying to think of something ridiculous to show my point, but horrendous as it is, logically that would make a very good system of government. Horrible, but efficient . Pretend that as an example I've given something totally ridiculous that wouldn't work).

If you just trim any bad aspects of an idea by saying "hypothetically, such and such would be the case" and make the idea hypothetically perfect, why bother with a thought experiment? There's no way to discuss it. There's nothing wrong with it, because you've decided that it is perfect. Any such situation could be made perfect.

But it completely destroys the idea of the thought experiment.

I understand that it hypothetically works. I understand that it's a thought experiment and that is a valid suggestion. I'm just saying it doesn't result in a discussion with much depth or thought in it. Everyone lives happily ever after.

But, a discussion about perfect ways of governing while still being possible, unlike the head-honcho just-and-kind guy, would be interesting and it looks as though that's what the creater of this thread wanted because in his first post he mentioned policies, ways of dealing with things, and they only occur in forms of goverment that are, even if minutely, possible.


What do you think about the monkey idea? You might not like it as an individual and it'll be totally unfair, but it will be totally unfair in a very fair way because it'll be unfair to everyone. Even I admit that sometimes democracy sucks.

Originally Posted by roguext22

how you managed ro read i was talking about anarchy? lol...
dont go wild in imagination, cheers..

Dictionary definition of anarchy:

"Anarchy, in its broadest sense, refers to the situation in which a human society exists without Government."

What you said:

"government is not needed where perfect people lives.. or almost perfect.."

See. Anarchy.

sorry.. my misunderstanding..

Originally Posted by A Humble Sinner

Well, that's basically saying that as this is hypothetical, you were just pointing out one way to govern and so normality doesn't apply. Because it's a thought experiment. I can see the point, I can see how hypothetically you could have a perfect king.

But using that logic, I could say that a group of psychotic monkeys with ultra-beam lasers should wipe out humanity and thus create the perfect form of government by not actually governing anything. And I'd be right, because hypothetically that scenario would be perfect (I was trying to think of something ridiculous to show my point, but horrendous as it is, logically that would make a very good system of government. Horrible, but efficient . Pretend that as an example I've given something totally ridiculous that wouldn't work).

If you just trim any bad aspects of an idea by saying "hypothetically, such and such would be the case" and make the idea hypothetically perfect, why bother with a thought experiment? There's no way to discuss it. There's nothing wrong with it, because you've decided that it is perfect. Any such situation could be made perfect.

But it completely destroys the idea of the thought experiment.

I understand that it hypothetically works. I understand that it's a thought experiment and that is a valid suggestion. I'm just saying it doesn't result in a discussion with much depth or thought in it. Everyone lives happily ever after.

But, a discussion about perfect ways of governing while still being possible, unlike the head-honcho just-and-kind guy, would be interesting and it looks as though that's what the creater of this thread wanted because in his first post he mentioned policies, ways of dealing with things, and they only occur in forms of goverment that are, even if minutely, possible.


What do you think about the monkey idea? You might not like it as an individual and it'll be totally unfair, but it will be totally unfair in a very fair way because it'll be unfair to everyone. Even I admit that sometimes democracy sucks.

Then I think we should do away with the word "perfect", as to not cause such confusions... How about "What is the most effective form of government?" (which wouldn't be limited to existing forms)?

Exactly. That sort of discussion would be way more fun because it would have a lot more depth to it, and be really interesting.

By the way, the Pure King idea could work if it was adapted slightly. How about two (or more) kings?

Because they would ultimately corrupt, and one of them would corrupt first, you would have to make them watch each other. That way you ensure continued purity (and of course, proof is required when making accusations to ensure that one of them isn't just trying to get rid of the other. A system where they cary out their tasks together and in the public eye could help with that). You would have to put them in a situation where they would each prosper individually should they remain uncorrupted, but should they both corrupt and think of working together (thus eliminating any safety measures) then they would both lose out massively.

Of course, that's the basics. They're are a hundred of other ways they could abuse power. But the principle works - make sure that, if they watch each other and remain "pure" they prosper, and if they don't they get thrown to the wolves. Literally or politically speaking, you choose.

There are other practical problems, but they could easily be dealt with.

Why would one eventually corrupt?

Originally Posted by Keeper

Why would one eventually corrupt?

Power corrupts. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.


Power and money are two things that, with time humans struggle to remain - humble.

Originally Posted by Howie

Power corrupts. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.

Wrong. Two quotes: "You have heard that Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. In fact, it is Power that draws the Corrupt, and Absolute Power draws the Absolutely Corrupt."

"Power Exasperates the Corruption of a man, but does not create it."

Those quotes are real, but I can't recall from where.

Don't hit me!

Originally Posted by Howie

Power corrupts. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.


Power and money are two things that, with time humans struggle to remain - humble.

you are so wrong you cant imagine how...

keeper is wrong too...

They say it all.

http://www.prisonexp.org/ *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments


*Sure, the Stanford Prison Experiment deals with a lot of issues but it does show what happens when totally ordinary boys get authority, power and big sticks. Go through the slide show.

Even the psychologists cracked in the end...

Like I said, people react in unexpected ways depending on their situation. Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things.

Originally Posted by roguext22

you are so wrong you cant imagine how...

keeper is wrong too...

If he's unimaginabley wrong there's not much point telling him about it, is there? Unless - what an idea! - you actually explain what you mean and back it up with something.