Your Ideal Form of Government? (Unless Anarchic) | Forum
MemberI don't think it would be a type of government that would thrive, though, because you'd be able to overthrow it or it wouldn't sustain itself beyond dystopian malaise in society.
Here's one, pretty idealistic: a Utopian-Anarchy, where essentially everything is permitted in society, and language with intellect distinguishes politics to offset cultural laws and regulations, morality and ethics, etc. which are frowned upon because everything is permitted. Responsibility to the responsible but no one is held accountable to anyone but themselves and their own.Well I think if the people in an Anarchic society were smart and armed, they'd defend their territory from anyone trying to take over.
I don't think it would be a type of government that would thrive, though, because you'd be able to overthrow it or it wouldn't sustain itself beyond dystopian malaise in society.
Member--This is true, but centralized governments can be overthrown subversively without force when everything is permitted. The government would be an armed function of creating order and regulation in an anarchistic society.
Well I think if the people in an Anarchic society were smart and armed, they'd defend their territory from anyone trying to take over.Sure, there is an opportunity, but I'm going more in depth into individual enforcement. Since every citizen has an equal position, neighbors will be looking out for each other. As soon as someone tries to declare a Monarchic/Oligarchic position to oversee the community, the people will know and will take their position down if successful. The people in the community will most definitely outnumber those that try to conform them, so a social uprising will succeed; keeping every citizen equal in their social power.
--This is true, but centralized governments can be overthrown subversively without force when everything is permitted. The government would be an armed function of creating order and regulation in an anarchistic society.
The concept in its most loose form is this: not everyone is created equal: strengths, weaknesses and so on. The working castes will be involved with production and upkeep of the region, the soldier castes will be involved with protecting the interests of the oligarchy inside the region and out, the scientific castes will be the think tank/testing grounds for both the oligarchy's ideas and their own, and finally the oligarch caste, those who have shown remarkable genius and wisdom, devoted to the ascent of the human species to what can be only described as godhood.
Member--Well, in an anarchistic society, individual enforcement has to be based on a perceived equality. In my Utopian Anarchy, everything is permitted, and no one is equal. Language and intelligence (rationality) offset politics and cultural and ethical laws. In layman's terms, There has to be an ideology of justice through language and rational thinking, not through political or cultural or economic power of an individual. Equality is a myth when everything is permitted, it becomes a permanent imbalance.
That's why I said that form of government would inevitably lead to either a feudal land distribution system that favors the wealthy in society (the ones that own the most resources or the ones that have enough to take from without force) or a welfare state that is anathema to a utopian society.
YOUR IDEAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT?And what type of government is that?I could critically examine the various political forms and list their benefits. But to say what "my" ideal form of government is? I'll go with the one I currently have. I thrive in it. I have a roof above my head, have social benefits if something were to befall to my person, have an income and a good amount of social (and personal) security. I can opt different lifestyles and still be entitled to the same amount of security and benefits, sometimes after having to "proof" myself. It's great.
Sure, there are a few down-parts, inconveniences as I say, to it. But all in all, not all that bad. I thrive. That's the most important to me.
Whatever the governmental form, and how it is labeled, the ability to thrive and retain your freedom beats the odds and inconveniences.
As for the totalitarian or authoritarian political systems, we all know how they look like. Socialism and communism were also tried. So I agree with Churchill:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
So despite the fact that democracy so often sucks, other systems seem to suck even more. So I would go with democracy and say it's the best form of government people created so far. In spite of all of its drawbacks, it allows people much more freedom than other political systems.
Of course, the most idealistic form of government would be no government, people governing themselves, with their social status depending solely on their intelligence and skills, but it's wishful thinking.
MemberA Utopian Anarchy, on its face is actually an oxymoron, because you can't govern a society in disorder. But you can glean from the advantageous processes and services that are provided by governments. Some in society will leech off of those benefits, others will use them to maintain social status. Imbalance always leads to a dystopian malaise.
We learn from failed political systems, in my country of residence ('Murica) we actually have the means to install puppet governments during tribal warfare or economic terrorism. We have the power as a country to sanction, embargo, invest, invade, trade, and financially cripple less stable countries. As a taxpayer and citizen I can choose my status in life as opposed to running away from progress or being a self-entitled bum leeching off of the well-off.
Resourcefulness depends on the individual, progress in politics depends on intelligent people with idealistic thinking.
To be fair to the OP, there certainly are ideal forms of government. We all dwell in one, in one form or another. There's nothing wrong with an idealistic approach to creating government.I fully agree that any government ran by intelligent people is the best, but it's risky when you have to choose a new leader or leaders.
A Utopian Anarchy, on its face is actually an oxymoron, because you can't govern a society in disorder. But you can glean from the advantageous processes and services that are provided by governments. Some in society will leech off of those benefits, others will use them to maintain social status. Imbalance always leads to a dystopian malaise.
We learn from failed political systems, in my country of residence ('Murica) we actually have the means to install puppet governments during tribal warfare or economic terrorism. We have the power as a country to sanction, embargo, invest, invade, trade, and financially cripple less stable countries. As a taxpayer and citizen I can choose my status in life as opposed to running away from progress or being a self-entitled bum leeching off of the well-off.
Resourcefulness depends on the individual, progress in politics depends on intelligent people with idealistic thinking.
When you have a government ran by individuals, who knows what they can do? You take a good, smart leader, they die or resign, then are replaced by a tyrant.
You have a zero risk of tyranny when there is no ruling class. Not for all countries though, Democracy is one of the only forms of government that restricts tyranny.
Member--Agreed. That's the precise reason why democracy isn't sustainable in any society. Separate but never equal.
In Democracy (In America, at least), most decisions, propositions, etc made by the leader (president) have to be approved by congress and the supreme court. So trying to declare Marshall Law would be practically impossible.
It does not restrict. The potential is present. All that is needed is a popular man/woman who knows what he/she is doing.
The same applies everywhere. The very same happened when AH was elected. It passed the German equivalent of Congress and supreme court (called Reichstag and Reichsrat). More info can be found on the wikipage of "enabling act of 1933".But Hitler was motivational. He promised to resolve Germany's economic crisis. The people also wanted to find a scapegoat for the whole crisis, Hitler said the Jews and all the other immigrants were the cause. Since he was the only political figure who seemed to have a solution, the people and many political figures gave him much recognition.
As far as I know, there are no laws restricting those legal movements anywhere. In this case it was the far right. I wouldn't be surprised if the far left might be next.
Member
My main issue with utopian anarchies, libertarian paradises and laissez faire, is that it makes no attempt to *achieve* anything. It is, essentially, individualism taken to it's destructive extreme. People, when their position in society is driven purely by selfish motives, end up making decisions inherently destructive to the society in which they reside - companies that cause massive pollution, that pay their workers low wages, CEO's that give themselves hug pay raises, companies dodging taxes, powerful individuals able to weasel out of jailtime for crimes they committed.
We must all behave according to our best interests - however, I believe that this also applies on the societal level. A society must behave in *it's* own interest. Humans are inherently stronger within a collective - I highly doubt that there is a single aspect of any of our live's that isn't in some way enabled by other people. We rely on each other, far more than most of us would like to admit. It's a hard truth to face, that you are not the island of strength that your self-image says you are, but it is one that we must all realize. We by ourselves are not as strong as we are together, and that will never be untrue. It is from that perspective that a society, collectively, would be most self-interested in directing the flow of it's resources and ensuring a healthy, well-off population to advance it's interests. This is most efficiently and directly achieved by a form of Socialist Democracy.
Mankind, I believe, is destined for apotheosis. Godhood is the mantle to which we must all aspire. However, our ascension to the proverbial Ubermensch will not come at the individual level - it won't be the few who rise above the whole, but the whole that is elevated by the few.
MemberThe laws are passed by/amended/reformed in Parliament by the prime minister. In order for a law to pass, there also has to be a substantial majority in parliament. Finally to make sure everything is in order there is the need of a signature from the current President. He/she does not lead but represent the country.
We have various social benefits, free schooling and higher forms of education, schemes, stipends, free healthcare and pensions. The schemes the government offers are in various categories and help one to advance both in career and educational standards.
As for my persona political views I side with the Nationalist Party which is not the same system like the one in the US. The Nationalist Party is part of the European people's party in EU and The Labour Party is part of the social-democratic.
. It is easy in my country for one to enter a political party and become elected of course if the people favour you that is.
My imaginary ideal government would be one in which there is mandated transparency and openness, but maximum freedom.
