What assumptions should an ideal government make?

[Feliks]

I purposely made no middle of the road option, so please answer which one would work the most when designing a government or social structure.


I think to use the first assumption leads to the lease effective system, while the later might lead to the most oppressive.

[Irishman]

Man is inherently bad, irresponsible, irrational, self-serving.

I see no reason to assume otherwise, it is the truth.

[Da Skinna]

Man is inherently self-serving, but maybe not irresponsible, bad, and only irrational when emotions and religion come into play.

Self-serving is really the only one that applies, and it goes both ways, people need to be aware that their government officials can be just as bad as they are...

[Feliks]

Ah, there's my poll.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but still, wouldn't a government based on that assumption lead to a populous with no responsibility and limited freedoms?

[TheKwas]

I am inclined to believe that the truth is somewhere inbetween. Obviously we care to a certain extent as dicated by evolutionary kin selection relics of the past, while we still retain a level of selfishness that is/was need for evolution. The Evolutionary Stable Strategy decided on a level of moderation.

Humans are obviously rational to some degree (anyone who disagrees would have a hard time defending that view without rationality), that provided its evolutionary aspects while in other areas (sexuality) we are dominated by irrational erges.

Good and Evil are social constructs to begin with, so I doubt that there is anything inherent about either.

As for what assumptions should a Government make in order for it to be ideal? Most likely a moderate assumption.

That said, I don't see how it can have any real significant impact on goverance.

If man was the former,the Libertarian would still say:
"If Man is good, then he doesn't need government or regulation to control him"
While the authortarian would still say:
"If Man is good, then we can trust man-controlled governments to regulate and control society"

If the assumption is that of the latter, the Libertarian would merely inverse his logic:
"If man is bad, how can we trust a few bad men to hold such powers like the government?"
And the Authortarian would inverse his own:
"If man is bad, then we need the few good to control Man's evil tendencies".

Ideology is a tricky thing.

[Mathias]

An ideal government shouldn't assume anything.

[Tom Paine]

The first as a basis for government leads it to be socially and economically freedom-creating; it leads the government to give the people as much voice as possible in governance; and it leads the government to facilitate helping each other and the existence of society, rather than forcing people to be ground down to nothing. The latter is the Hobbesian assumption and leads almost directly to oppressive and totalitarian dictatorship where the people have no voice to prevent them doing wrong. I prefer the former, for obvious reasons.