Best forms of government

**Britisocialist** · May 31, 2006, 01:31 PM

I will not be wanting a poll for this thread as I think it could limit options to mainstream politics. But my real question is:

1) What do you believe is the best form of government?

2) Why do you believe what you answered for number 1?

Feel free to debate but dont discredit other's beliefs.

**the Black Prince** · May 31, 2006, 01:38 PM

well to answer in a roundabout way

democracy is the worst, except for all the others we've tried...

personally, in theory, a benevolent dictator would be the best, though in practice, i gfully realise it has all kinds of problems... like what happens when he dies...

**Denny Crane!** · May 31, 2006, 01:45 PM

Elitist democracy is the only form of government that will work.

Unfortunatly because of the history of disenfanchisement of certain classes or ethnic/racial groups disenfranchising based on intelligence would not be accepted.

Peter

**Tom Paine** · May 31, 2006, 02:36 PM

Meritocracy. The rule of the best. Its self-explanatory; those best suited to do something, can and do do it, without anything interfereing with this. The reasoning behind it is obvious.
Of course practically that cannot happen; how do we assess people's abilities accurately? So I'd practically go with democracy, but direct democracy; true rule of the people by the people and hopefully for the people.

**Denny Crane!** · May 31, 2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

Meritocracy. The rule of the best. Its self-explanatory; those best suited to do something, can and do do it, without anything interfereing with this. The reasoning behind it is obvious.
Of course practically that cannot happen; how do we assess people's abilities accurately? So I'd practically go with democracy, but direct democracy; true rule of the people by the people and hopefully for the people.

Not representative?

So you accept if instituted capital punishment would become a reality since it has popular support.

Peter

**Tom Paine** · May 31, 2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by El Guapo

Not representative?

So you accept if instituted capital punishment would become a reality since it has popular support.

I accept that; I don't like it but I accept it. Of course people supporting it is not the same as saying they'd legislate for it, but yes. Rule of the people... rather than elected dictators.

**Denny Crane!** · May 31, 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

I accept that; I don't like it but I accept it. Of course people supporting it is not the same as saying they'd legislate for it, but yes. Rule of the people... rather than elected dictators.

In a direct democracy one assumes the will of the people will be legislated. That is of course the big difference is it not. That is why it is an inconvenient form of political philosophy, it already expresses itself partially in the form of our representative government pandering to the whims of popular opinion.

The majority of the people have uninformed extreme opinions, about politics. Direct democracy is a scary prospect to me. Capital punishment is not neccessarily the scariest legislation I can think of which people would vote for in a referendum.

Peter

**Tom Paine** · May 31, 2006, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by El Guapo

In a direct democracy one assumes the will of the people will be legislated. That is of course the big difference is it not. That is why it is an inconvenient form of political philosophy, it already expresses itself partially in the form of our representative government pandering to the whims of popular opinion.

The majority of the people have uninformed extreme opinions, about politics. Direct democracy is a scary prospect to me. Capital punishment is not neccessarily the scariest legislation I can think of which people would vote for in a referendum.

Then maybe we should change or inform these opinions rather than writing them off completely? And of course, if the government panders to popular opinion why does it also push through unpopular reforms and measures? While not soo unpopular as in the US, same-sex marriage of any kind doesn't have great popularity here, for example...

**Erik** · May 31, 2006, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Britisocialist

1) What do you believe is the best form of government?

Democratic Technocracy: policies are designed by a panel of experts and a democratically elected parliament picks out the policies they like best.

2) Why do you believe what you answered for number 1?

Because I want my policy makers to actually know what they are talking about.
I don't want a bunch of incapable politicians who only got the job because they looked good on camera to run my country on a day to day basis.
For example: I want my minister if finance to be a geek with a calculater in his breast pocket, not a smooth talking pretty boy with only a degree in sociology in stead of economics.

Final decisions should always be made democratically, but politicans should stay in parliament where they belong, and not pretend they know the first thing about running a ministrial department.

**Harlanite** · May 31, 2006, 09:23 PM

1.) An elitist liberal democracy as has been mentioned.

2.) The masses are dumb.

**Farnan** · May 31, 2006, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Britisocialist

1) What do you believe is the best form of government?

Military Dictatorship....

Just kidding. Representative Democracy

(Reminds me of a question during my NG interview, "Did you ever attempt to overthrow the government." I replied "Not Yet," then remember I was talking to a military man, luckily he took the joke though he told me to be careful about saying that to other people)

2) Why do you believe what you answered for number 1?

Feel free to debate but dont discredit other's beliefs.

It enables people's opinions to be felt without an unweildy government that comes with direct democracy.

**Tiwaz** · June 01, 2006, 12:54 AM

Following example of Erik... Technocratic Meritocracy. I think I have told this before.

Those who have the personality/abilities are searched from population using thorough personality checks done anonymously by several control groups and those who fit the definitions of "leader" (which can be voted by people) get the position.

Last thing that should ever be done is to give power to those who actively seek to have it.

**danzig** · June 01, 2006, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Following example of Erik... Technocratic Meritocracy. I think I have told this before.

Those who have the personality/abilities are searched from population using thorough personality checks done anonymously by several control groups and those who fit the definitions of "leader" (which can be voted by people) get the position.

Last thing that should ever be done is to give power to those who actively seek to have it.

Who defines what personality is suited for a leader? Also what happens to someone who doesnt fit the model, someone like (from an American pov of course) Lincoln wouldnt fit many models as a good leader but yet he proved to be a great one. And what happens when you define someone as having leadership quality and they let it go to their head? You say people who want power are the ones who shouldnt be given it, fair enough but arent you basically creating a class that will eventually hold itself above everyone else creating basically a new level of social elitism?

**Tiwaz** · June 01, 2006, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by danzig

Who defines what personality is suited for a leader? Also what happens to someone who doesnt fit the model, someone like (from an American pov of course) Lincoln wouldnt fit many models as a good leader but yet he proved to be a great one. And what happens when you define someone as having leadership quality and they let it go to their head? You say people who want power are the ones who shouldnt be given it, fair enough but arent you basically creating a class that will eventually hold itself above everyone else creating basically a new level of social elitism?

People. I think I mentioned it. People can vote on attributes they wish to see in their leaders. After that it is blame of the people if they permit poor leaders to get into power. Also, leadership should not be permanent but rather timed. If someone who is closer to ideal of the people is found they replace lower ranking ones.

This prevents the lying and childkissing from having effect and rather only places those with who ARE what people want their leaders to be have the power.

And it necessarily is not bad to have social elite in existence. At least when they actually have the brains to be step above the rest instead of likable personality. Also, this takes money out of equation. No longer can you "buy" your way to top by having bigger and flashier election campaigns or any form nepotism where relative can smooth the way into power. You have to stand or fall on your own abilities.

By the way, about Lincoln, what makes you think there wasn't (perhaps in his immediate vicinity) people who would have performed far better in his shoes? You don't. Those guys did not have same ambition so they remained in the background, and perhaps gave good advices to Lincoln.

**Turnus** · June 01, 2006, 01:51 AM

El Guapo has the idea. When you are ill you consult a doctor, when your plumbing is ineffective you consult a plumber. Why then, when deciding how a state should be ran, would you consult a populace that has no expertise in this area? (And anybody who pulls Plato on me shall be shot)

**MoROmeTe** · June 01, 2006, 04:58 AM

Sincerely I have been thinking lately of something new... I always admired the idea od direct democracy. The problem is that sheer numbers of citizens in modern times destroy the idea. yet, there might be salavation in information technology. But there is also the question of apathy of the modern citizen and unwillingness to become involved in politics... My idea is:

Direct democracy, tehnologically driven.

1) No representatives. So no people that can do almost anyrhing as long as they look good on TV and mumble some populist speeches (I know there are places where it is not that bad, but still, the situation is degrading rapidly...)

2) All interested (I can't stress this enough) citizens are capable of expressing opinions and vote on all significant subjects. One important point: only those involved count. So if out of 100 people only 34 take the time to comment on a bill and/or vote, then the other 66 loose their right to attack the bill as "not representing the will of the majority". This will a little weird at first but then I will create responsability and promote people to care about politics...

3) Small, administrative oriented and meritocratic executive. All posts voted on and clear provisions of getting people out of office if they underperform. Most of the decisions very transparent, governmental information readily available.

Comments? If so, I'll try and reply and add more...