Thread: What do you think is the best form of government?

None of those, since i'm a anarchist.
I hate the govorment, but i don't want it to be 100% anachy thogh, but since if 1 single person votes for some of the consignments it will not be antchy. I'm a anarchist just to take it to the extreme to show what i think, just like those racist consignments that people vote for even if they don't want them to win. I don't like that the state got monopoly on the pharmacy as they do in sweden, and lots of other things that the swedish state does here. to many laws. :'(

my choice isnt on there...

lazzie-faire capitalism

Fascism seems to be working alright in the States o.O

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Fascism seems to be working alright in the States o.O

Move to North Korea and find out what fascism really is.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

my choice isnt on there...

lazzie-faire capitalism

This is probably because that isn't a form of government, it is an economic system. A capitalist government is a system in which the government invests heavily in private corporations, but doesn't have any direct control over how they are run.

My vote would be for a Wheel turning Monarch. Look it up.

Representative democracy with a pyramid oriented form of leadership. The person at the top would act no more than as a representative to other nations or while attending multinational meetings. Decisions would be for the most part made by the council just beneath the top representative, with votes going down the pyramid scheme.

Government is all about control. To govern: to control. Totalitarianism sounds like the best way to control.

I approve of this bump! Very good thread.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Government is all about control. To govern: to control. Totalitarianism sounds like the best way to control.

Guess that depends on whether you're thinking about what's good for the people in power or about what's good for the general public.

A new form.

A combo pack.

Capitalism/Socialism/Democracy.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is probably because that isn't a form of government, it is an economic system. A capitalist government is a system in which the government invests heavily in private corporations, but doesn't have any direct control over how they are run.

My vote would be for a Wheel turning Monarch. Look it up.

When will people learn that economics = politics

You missed one....Benevolent Dictatorship.

Hello? Talk this crap and never read Plato?

PQ

All dictatorships are benevolent in the eyes of the dictator.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

A new form.

A combo pack.

Capitalism/Socialism/Democracy.

Basically, that's what China is aiming at... and whatever else they are, they are excellent students and critics of their own work.

See Hu Jintao in the snowed-in trainstation in Guangzhou a few years ago... apologizing for the mess. Compare G. Bush, 2 years earlier, congratulating FEMA on its good work in NOLA.

PQ

Originally Posted by DeathCell

A new form.

A combo pack.

Capitalism/Socialism/Democracy.

I love it. I get to vote, have lenient bosses who don't give a shit, AND take other people's money... until they stop generating money because they quit giving a shit too. When can I get my first robbery check?

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

All dictatorships are benevolent in the eyes of the dictator.

I disagree. I think a dictatorship is nothing to a dictator but power. They know that genocide and selfish aggression are evil, and they don't care.

Like your sig line. But most people just think they're thinking... and are losing while thinking they're winning.

Change it to ... "if you're REALLY thinking...about whether you're thinking ..."

PQ

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I love it. I get to vote, have lenient bosses who don't give a shit, AND take other people's money... until they stop generating money because they quit giving a shit too. When can I get my first robbery check?

You missed my point. Socialism, would be for medicine. That way we don't have so many people filing bankruptcy when they get hit with medical bills.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I love it. I get to vote, have lenient bosses who don't give a shit, AND take other people's money... until they stop generating money because they quit giving a shit too. When can I get my first robbery check?

You're rightly reacting against stupidity, not hi-level economics or politics. Actually, you're rightly reacting against the fact that the stupidity is programmed, procured... not accidental. Really, you go to the heart of our politics and economics.

Guns or butter? Textbooks, or bullets? What will the public provide?

What does the concensus decide (if it does)? Does it? Why?

The people that pay your bosses do so in exchange for something. They do so freely. Free of compulsion. But that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. You think they're being cheated. They are too dumb to know better. Manipulated. Your product a lie.

And...beneath it all... it's intended that way. An intentional accident. Elegant, in that trivial way... to them. Those of them that tend to that.

Your clients were, ab initio, programmed not to notice the lie. Your bosses themselves may not notice. Blame them if you can. Who taught them logic? Formal critical thinking? Method. Who taught you, that didn't need to?

But you do notice.

Now what?

pq

As long as it's the workers controlling production, then I'm happy. Call it whatever strain of socialism you like, I want nothing more and nothing less. I'm not down with communist states, or centralized socialism for that matter, as I think socialism needs to come from below (i.e. the working class) instead of from above (i.e. Hugo Chavez). Direct democracy is also an important aspect, as the community should have the final say in what and how much their factories produce, and how much resources the factories get to produce said goods.

Libertarian Socialism

It is perhaps best summed up Chomsky

"There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past."

"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations."

And my favorite. I couldn't find it so i'll paraphrase.

I think that it only makes sense to identify authoratarian and coercive institutions and to challenge them. If a justification cannot be given for their existence, then they should be dismantled to increase the scope of human freedom.


Of course my choice isn't on the list because it doesn't get talked about in school.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Totalitarianism - works only if the ruler is a good one. It may work or it may not. Either way, it's too much responsibility depending on a single person. #5

Your right. Then he should have a team of advisers. It's best to have a spiritually enlightened person to be the dictator also.

This is the only kind of government that will work. A one world government, might work, and would probably be the best.

There's a philosophy that says "Quickly put a hole in a guy that tries to put 5 eggs in 3 baskets."

There is no such thing as everyone having equal power, because someone will always want more. So you solve this by giving one person all the power. But it's VITAL that he be a good candidate. The people should also have a way to override the king, or dethrone him.

Every continent could have a leader or ruler, that's 7 rulers for 7 continents. Either way, all continents would have to implement pacifism. Violence just isn't the way to get things done..it's too messy.

Thoughtful. Interesting.

But there also needs to be a generally accepted but supersecret superethical super-accountable superforce, within and through the system, that can overrule and counteract evil in the power structure and the public (and without, in coordination with equals - or true betters - in other systems) as it arises. Supersystem power is dynamic, relational, ethically-calibrated - and potentially or actually absolute, as appropriate.

(Maybe I read too much Plato. "The Good" Can it really be as simple as that? Ultimately, yes. It's a digital formula. A cascade, as applied. Why choose the bad, if you know better? Why not know better, if you can? Etc. Etc.)

Superscience and the imperatives of quantum ethics make this sort of supersystem possible ... probable... as a matter of course.

Heinlein called it "BuSab", Bureau of Sabotage, in "The Cat who Walked Through Walls" [sic?]

Robert Anton Wilson hinted at this when in "The Illuminati Trilogy" he had the powerful elite sadistic bad guy take his introduction to the real super-elite Illuminati from his butler.

Basically, the system is such that the very fabric of reality itself is sensitive to the ethics of everything in the system (and many things without), and then systems are designed to tap this sensitivity and monitor all entities and systems within and without (including themselves), in such a way that the total system and everything in it and without (including the monitoring system) is also subject to monitoring and correction (and cancellation).

But what are its limits?

It took awhile to perfect. It is extremely difficult to create (we puny humans could only help evolve it, actually) a system potentially both open and closed, internally and externally directed, that can effectively monitor and correct itself and everything within and without. It is structurally similar to the age old problem of human consciousness and behavior in shared reality: of will vs. desire, self-knowledge, self-control, fate ...justice.

The problem, from a total systems perspective, is that open systems of conscious beings are comprised of more/less interactive and self-referential loops of potentially reinforcing imperfect information. The elements (simple beings) and systems (next-level collectives) have imperfect information as to themselves, as to elements within them, as to external elements in their own fullness, and as to their own significance for external elements and systems.

The same problem would be faced by all active, sentient, co-determined self-referential systems, short of God Almighty. This nested imperfect relational awareness, in extension, is a good basic description of the structure of reality for us humans and anything like us.

You might notice that, in this system design, the whole and the parts are all capable of suicide. Interesting. The right ... the ability ... to die. For all, as they reasonably choose. Nothing to do with Armageddon, actually... just to exclude it, in any unbounded sense. For so long as pain and evil are not patently impossible, and most urgently while they are strongly and possibly persistently present, it is necessary to have non-being (nothing) as an alternative to being. For the avoidance of infinite agony, it is impererative to include the possibility of whole system suicide in the design of any probabalistic self-referential system.

But there are limits, after all... even now.

Because of its completion in the far future where mobilization of power in service of trans-temporal goodness is trivially easy ... it is already here, working, in many ways.

But because of its origins in (and effects from) an earlier and less complete time to which we are also informatically related, it can not yet be disclosed in its fullness.

Unfortunately, paradox prevents full disclosure until ... it was.

Because for us the total system was also self-referential through the time dimension (as iterative cumulative non-commutative sequence) ... it is not just a matter of time ... it's a matter of what we do with it....each and every one.

PQ

I don't think any type of goverment could satisfy me. I don't care about political powers or goverments. Still, politics have proven itself interesting through history. It stirrs world enough to keep people from boring to death.

If one person or group desires to rule over other people, they should make sure they are strong or sly enough to rule succesfully. Otherwise they just get casted aside. Humans are not just that suited for build great kingdoms, they all just crumble because of our nature.

Victims --- Victimize--- Victims--->Victimize--->Victims--->Victimize--->Victims.....

This happens on both sides... at all levels.

S'a rule of nature, so to speak...LOOSELY.

PQ