What's your ideal governement?

[David Deas]

Capitalism? Socialism? Dictatorship? A personnal idea for a system of governement you had in mind? What?

I think the mix of capitalism and socialism we have is likely the best system of government possible. The only problem is that shielding idiots from influencing the country under our system of governement is nearly impossible.

Sometimes I imagine that if the Presidency were a office held by two individuals instead of just one, a lot less partisan decision making in favor over objective decision making would take place. I know there are things wrong with implementing that, but it's just a thought.

[Shadows]

My ideal government is communism/socialism, not the dicator getting to power under the pretences of communism, but true communism. A government without government that is. My idea of communism would eliminate racial and religious differences and make people appreciate what they already have, not dream of what they want to have. Of course, in a world ruled by material possesions, actualy getting people to work into the communsit system would be nigh on impossible.

[GambleFish]

My ideal government is communism/socialism, not the dicator getting to power under the pretences of communism, but true communism. A government without government that is. My idea of communism would eliminate racial and religious differences and make people appreciate what they already have, not dream of what they want to have. Of course, in a world ruled by material possesions, actualy getting people to work into the communsit system would be nigh on impossible.

No, it will be impossible.

Socialism, I think, a moderate democracy with socialist economic values is the way to go.

Of course you could always take America.

I would say a united world government to **** off mike but I won't.

[mike^_^]

I would say a united world government to **** off mike but I won't.

lol you are evil

hey I got an idea, how about a constitutional republic, where the rights of the individual are protected from the majority!

[GambleFish]

Sure, that sounds fine. I'm saying socialist economic values are the way to go, for the economy. Not complete and hardcore socialism, but a moderate government control of the economy, like light planning etc. Kinda like European style.

Constitution sounds fine.... never said it didn't?

[hellheaven1987]

Nazi withought racism part... and the economy part needs to change a bit also.

[Bwaho]

Wouldn't the ideal government be no government? I would band together with a few friends and kill other people and demand tribute from the weak.


seriously though, at the moment I'm skeptical about our so called democracy. You have the liberty to elect a worthless scumbag every 4 years and watch him break all his election promises. The politians who make it to the top get there because they have connections in corporations and freemason orders...oh the glory.

There must be a better system, our current one is disgusting...or maybe I should just shut up and keep electing filthy scumbags? yeah you're right, that's what i'll do.

[Last Roman]

Mine is a representative democracy with a heavily regulated capitalist economy.

[Kanaric]

Mine is a representative democracy with a heavily regulated capitalist economy.

Sounds good, i think our form of government is fine. They just need to watch corporations, corruption, favors, and things of that nature far more than they do. They simply give the people free reign since they all graduated from Yale or some place together or vote depending on who pays for the campaign...

[Last Roman]

Sounds good, i think our form of government is fine. They just need to watch corporations, corruption, favors, and things of that nature far more than they do. They simply give the people free reign since they all graduated from Yale or some place together or vote depending on who pays for the campaign...

well, thats basically what I said. Current form of government (some very minor changes here and there) and a keep watch over corporations (hell, I wouldn't mind getting rid of them all together)

[Cyrvak]

a sort of quasi democratic dictatorship. Goverment lead by a single individual, but he would be 'reelected' every few years, hopefully it would eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy and fast track a lot of the processes, only problem would be if the leader got out of hand... like they did in Imperial Rome. Guess there would need to be some sort of check for that though Im not exactly sure what.

[David Deas]

You people don't see a problem with the fact that an individual as inept as Bush was able to become President? And for *two* consecutive terms? That doesn't represent a flaw in the system to any of you?

[Last Roman]

You people don't see a problem with the fact that an individual as inept as Bush was able to become President? And for *two* consecutive terms? That doesn't represent a flaw in the system to any of you?

no, that's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the people who voted for him

[David Deas]

no, that's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the people who voted for him

Yes. But it's also a system flaw because voting only ensures that the majority of the population favors the guy holding office. It addresses the popularity issue. It does not, however, address the quality of the leadership. 'Anybody can become President' hasn't always been such a good thing in American history.

[Last Roman]

Yes. But it's also a system flaw because voting only ensures that the majority of the population favors the guy holding office. It addresses the popularity issue. It does not, however, address the quality of the leadership. 'Anybody can become President' hasn't always been such a good thing in American history.

then how do you suggest we change that? Do we limit the presidency to those above a certain IQ? how do we gauge what qualifies and what doesn't?

If we're going for ideal government (utopian settings and outcomes) then I would decide on adopting an enlightened monarchy/dictatorship ala Voltaire

I suppose in a ideal world, then a benevolent dictator would suffice.

[Nazi Fuhrer]

A fascist dictatorship in support of the state. One Government. One Leader. One State. The strongest and most effiecient government. No bureaucracy to slow down progress, and the government would always benefit the people. Anyone who resists will be dealt with. Any person or group who impedes the prgoress of the state is threating the common good. Common good will always stand above personal freedom. One race will dominate the government while others will be deported. This will unify the state in a sole purpose.

[Perikles]

A fascist dictatorship in support of the state. One Government. One Leader. One State.

You don't know how much I disagree with this, so when this 'One Leader' is elected (or barges) into power is that it? No opposition or parliament?

The strongest and most effiecient government. No bureaucracy to slow down progress, and the government would always benefit the people. Anyone who resists will be dealt with. Any person or group who impedes the prgoress of the state is threating the common good. Common good will always stand above personal freedom. One race will dominate the government while others will be deported. This will unify the state in a sole purpose.

So the government will always benefit the people but if the people don't like it they will be 'dealt with'.
That is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard!
You don't get people that are just 'one race' any more, nearly every country has been invaded at some time and these people bring their genes with them, creating a mixed race.

So what will this 'one race, one government' do? Launch an attack on all other inferior states? Sounds familiar to me.....

Gee, couldn't see that coming

As soon as I saw he had posted in this thread I knew what was coming....

The best form of government to me is a social capitalistic democracy, or in other words a democracy with a government which looks after the best interests of the ALL of the people and a somewhat free market economy.

This would be the best form of government in my eyes too. A government that looks after the people, while having very limited restrictions on trade.

[Sétanta]

You people don't see a problem with the fact that an individual as inept as Bush was able to become President? And for *two* consecutive terms? That doesn't represent a flaw in the system to any of you?

This my friends is the one and only thing I would change in America.

Give it a populace capable of making intelligent arguments to back up outrageous claims.
I am not calling you unintelligent, meerly stating that such claims are really old and I am getting tired of them without good points to back them up

[.Socrates]

U.S. is fine with me.

[David Deas]

Give it a populace capable of making intelligent arguments to back up outrageous claims.

This is where we agree. If the majority of the population were capable of intelligent arguements, there would be no such thing as President Bush.

I am not calling you unintelligent, meerly stating that such claims are really old and I am getting tired of them without good points to back them up.

Which part of that do you need assistance on? The well documented ineptitude of the Bush administration? Or the flaw in the system that allows a clearly inept administration to serve for two consecutive terms?