What Form Of Government Would You Prefer?

[castille]

Militia?

So basically, its left to mob rule? Instead of using an organised police force with absolute rules and regulations, we just arm a bunch of people with guns and let them loose.


Mob rule, the great inspiration for happy situations such as lynching blacks, Inquisition, witchhunting, and other various "lawful" behaviour.

[Waychel]

The one where I am Supreme Queen of the world and get my own harem! :D Now that's the government for me~!

I'd have to go with Laissez-Faire Capitalism (United States), personally. Then again, I'm sure many of us are going to go with the government of the country we live in being that that is all we know (have lived with). I would someday like to experience Sweden and Norway for myself.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Militia?

So basically, its left to mob rule? Instead of using an organised police force with absolute rules and regulations, we just arm a bunch of people with guns and let them loose.


Mob rule, the great inspiration for happy situations such as lynching blacks, Inquisition, witchhunting, and other various "lawful" behaviour.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Why should a militia be mob rule? The militia would be under the control of local councils that are fully accountable, the people have permanent power of recall over, and there would be rules and regulations set forth in each area regarding the powers of the militia, to be ratified through referenda by the public.

And as someone who has been on the end of a police baton, trust me, the police you say follow rules do not. As long as they suit them, they do, but they don't mind bending them if they don't get their own way. Under the accountable militia system I have proposed any such actions would have them out of the militia, whereas nobody listens to complaints against the police, at least in Britain.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
The militia would be under the control of local councils that are fully accountable, the people have permanent power of recall over, and there would be rules and regulations set forth in each area regarding the powers of the militia, to be ratified through referenda by the public.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Thats what they said of the Red Guard, until the Red Guards started killing each other (instead of counter-revolutionaries such as teachers and pro-Western people)

[G. Adams]

So a similar policy failed in China 30 years ago, what is to say it will fail again? How many times has democracy failed and reverted to authoritarianism? That is no argument against trying to build a democracy. It is the same with the militia, we will try again, if it slips it can be ended (the populace are armed remember for precisely this reason) by the citizens.

[castille]

History repeats itself.


Democracy has never failed and reverted to a dictatorship. Dictatorships have claimed to be democracies, but none ever started off as a democracy.

Communism is a different story. Many countries began as true Communist countries. Even Mao said he had plans to turn China into a true Communist country. Until he realised how lovely that power looked....

Heil Mao? He loved it.

[G. Adams]

Democracies never revert? Where HAVE you been? Guatamala, in 1949 it became a democracy for the first time ever. However it was dirt poor and its people hungry, so it wanted to nationalise the agriculture to at least feed its population. However the United Fruit Company wasn't happy, so complained to the US government. Weyhey, the US sponsers local warlords to overthrow the elected government and 40 years of military dictatorship ensues. Or how about Venezuala
Colombia
Bolivia
Peru
El Salvador
Ecuador
Argentina
Uruguay
Surinam
Chile
Paraguay
Okay, thats Latin America, actually that almost all of Latin America that tried democracy but succumbed to authoritarianism (often because the US sponsered that general to start a coup), but its not restricted to that continent.

How about Spain
Portugal
Germany
Italy
Austria?

Well, thats only 2 continents, but is there more? Surprisingly yes! In Africa we have Zimbabwe
Kenya
Nigeria
Uganda
I know there is more in Africa but, well we'll be here all day.


I havn't studied any collapses in Asia or Australasia yet but I bet my tuition fees I could find some.

[Section 8]

Actually, communism is democracy, I think you should refer to the US's government as representative republic. This is a common misconception of most American citizens due to government propaganda.

[TwoShanks]

I think you'll find that Nazi Germany rose from a (quite advanced) democracy as it happens. On the other hand, democracy is clearly the most fair governmental system available. Communism simply doesn't work.

[eXploiTeD]

G.Adams can continue to spout off his vague understanding of a dead ideology, but I think we all rest assured of what you said, Twoshanks... ;D

[Section 8]

Did you even bother to read my post?

[G. Adams]

I know communism is the most democratic system, which is why I try and always say liberal democracy or representative democracy.

And can you tell me how communism can't work? It has never been tried so far, so its difficult to prove your statement.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
And can you tell me how communism can't work?  It has never been tried so far, so its difficult to prove your statement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Its been tried a few thousand times. Some of the great attempts were made in Cuba, China, and the USSR. Oh, and North Korea.


Communism has been *tried*. Its just never succeeded.



Before you claim those countries were not *real Communists* (a very lame excuse), I could claim the US isn't a *real* capitalist country either. The US has very high tariffs on their agriculture and steel import.

[Section 8]

The system which I believe has never been tried, communist anarchism. The result is mostly the same as communism, but the revolutionary process is much different. It might be better for you to say that socialism has been tried.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
And can you tell me how communism can't work?  It has never been tried so far, so its difficult to prove your statement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Its been tried a few thousand times. Some of the great attempts were made in Cuba, China, and the USSR. Oh, and North Korea.


Communism has been *tried*. Its just never succeeded.



Before you claim those countries were not *real Communists* (a very lame excuse), I could claim the US isn't a *real* capitalist country either. The US has very high tariffs on their agriculture and steel import.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Look, if you dip into left wing politics you will see that no-one but the ill informed calls the nations communist. USSR and NK have been termed Marxist-Leninist because they follow Lenin's adaptations to Marx. So they aint communist, they are someone's modifications. Lenin had to radically adapt Marx's ideas to Russia because it had a small proleteriat and a massive peasent population. The majority on the left would argue that he was wrong to do so, the proleteriat has to develop under capitalist conditions.
Mao's interpretation's were even more skewed. He argued that the strength was in the peasents, not the prole's, and was also based around nationalism. Very few consider Maoism to be communist, even if he developed his ideas from communist works.

Communism has never been tried, some have tried various routes towards communism, but have never reached communism.

[nature of reality]

as a note, american is not Lassiez faire Capitalism. We were almost at our conception, but due to religous influences and altruism we have been a mixed economy for most of our existance.

Curious when the mix was mostly Laissez faire (early 19th century) the standard of living had the most exponential growth. But the strength of capitalism is not its justification.

also curious that every war can be traced to alturistic intents.

[RebelWithanAK]

Altruistic intents? The rest of your post is misleading enough, but altrustic intents?! Are we talking about the same definition of altruism, here? As in the altruism that means "an unselfish concern for the welfare of others"?

You're weird.

[nature of reality]

Indeed, altruism.

Unselfish. What makes rational decisions, but the self (or Ego)? if you make a decision without yourself in mind, your acting irrationally.

And irrational actions cause chaos, and thus destruction.

[G. Adams]

As I've said, those 'altruistic' influences were made out of neccesity, not selflessness. If the welfare state wasn't introduced by government, the people would have eventually revolted and created their own government that did. All those benefits and workers rights came as a result of either socialists in office, or reactionaries fearing socialists would get in office.

[darwinist]

Searching for a perfect form of goverment. Is like searching for the perfect person. They do not exist. Nor ever will. As with all forms of power. It is the person least wanting to do the job, that will do a good job.

The problem of democracy is two fold. One it is supposed to be majorijty rule. Well we all now that is not the case. Now days of about 50% of the people able to vote do so. So the winning party is always a minority party. Anyone that says, yeah well they could have voted. It would have made a difference. The majorijty of the people that do not vote. Are being excluded from the economic society. So it makes no difference to them who they vote for. Vote for devil one or two, please!
Two, the nature of democracy. Is short term economic society change. So the powers that be, never will tackle the big problems.

I think the best form of goverment, would be:

Unanimousisam.

No polictical parties. Only people who think they could make a difference. There would be a step by step process. Anyone who put themselves foward for power. Would have to sart at the bottem rung. Lets say local council. Then mayor, chief whip, transport minstor, leader of the county.

The voting process would also be different. A fom of proportional representation, where the poeple who do not vote. Get counted against every runner in the vote. The winner must have, lets say 60% of the voters behind him to get the job. By doing this you make sure that the person who gets voted in. Has enough of the mandate of the people. Also that everyone thought he was a good candidate. How many times have we thought that the candidates where all a waste of time. Look at the less of two evils in the USA. G. Bush, please give me a break. Even the Americans think he is an idiot. An idiot running the most powerful, most armed nation in the world. If this is the best democracy has to offer. Then it is bunk.

The tender for people in power would be say 10 years. To give them enough time to think about the long term. But to stop power going to there head. There direct collegues could vote him out. At the 60% margin mentioned. To make sure that there where no crack pots. Running around, demadning that we wear underpants on our heads on tuesdaus amd thursdays.