Your Government

[northtexan]

Quote by: Nicole I definitely say Democracy. But I do strongly oppose throwing our hard-won freedoms out the window for a teaspoon of temporary safety. Communism- it's never worked and it never will. Dictatorship- there is no one man out there who can be trusted. I mean, whoever you trust I sure as hell won't trust and vice versa. Great topic and I'm interested in everyone else's views...

Well, nearly half chose either democracy or whatever is meant by the compromise between Communism and democracy. Still, half want something other than democracy. Of course, we don't know what is hidden among the one-third who chose 'other.'

[Dirty Name]

The best form of government is obviously a benevolent dictatorship. But only if I get to be dictator.

Anyone ever played the videogame "Tropico?" It's like Sim City, except it takes place on a Carribean Island. You are a dictator who has taken control of the local government.

I played that game, and I tried to allow elections, but they always wanted to vote for the kooky Communist nutjobs instead of me. So I always ended up sending one of my agents to stuff ballot boxes, intimidate voters, etc. Unfortunately, over time, I became so unpopular with the people that I couldn't stuff enough ballot boxes.

Sadly, my opponents were mysteriously assassinated, and the elections were postponed indefinitely while the El Presidente's Office of Special Investigations looked into those inexcusable acts of cowardice.

Being a dictator is not easy. But as long as the dictator would make better decisions than the average person in a pure democracy, wouldn't that be a better choice of government?

LOL. Of course, I prefer a representative republic over all other forms of government, but alas, that choice wasn't given.

[Dirty Name]

And I would just like to add that a Pure Democracy is probably the stupidest form of government EVER.

Just think of someone with "average" intelligence. Once you understand that HALF of the people in a pure democracy are more stupid than the person you are thinking of, you begin to understand the problems with this form of government. Even most of the smart people don't have a clue on certain issues, and so it becomes a matter of how well informed the voters are. Pure democracies are doomed. That's why our founding fathers decided on a representative republic. The people choose their leaders, and the leaders make the choices. That's a pretty doggone good form of government.

[zynner]

Hey, new to the forum. Here's my take:

Monarchy and Dictatorship - one person rules - all depends on the ruler. Tells us nothing about how they get into office, what kind of economy they have, or how much freedom is in the society.

Oligarchy - a few rulers - same as above but with several people.

These systems are not inherently good or evil, but have a high potential for abuse due to the concentration of power. It all comes down to other factors.

Democracy - majority rule - can become nothing but mob rule as the majority rules over the minority and violates their rights (even killing them, such as ethnic cleansing).

Republican - limited majority rule - majority can rule, but their power is limited (at least in theory), usually by a written constitution, such as in the USA; but, is only effective if it is enforced.

Communism - economic and/or social system that eliminates private property - can never work because it separates the pricing mechanism from production. When a good or service is produced, there must be a way to figure out how much of it to produce. It is the pricing mechanism that does this, but is absent in communism. That's why you had bread lines in the USSR and the Tragedy of the Commons all throughout the former Soviet empire.

Capitalism - an economic system where private property rights are primary - because the pricing mechanism is maintained, you do not have shortages like under communism; and as long as the government is never granted the power to favor one person or group over another, all people can prosper to the best of their own abilities.

Merchantilism - an economic system where the government favors one person or group over another and uses taxes collected by one group to give to corporations in favor; Japan is an example, as well as the USA under Bush's administration

Socialism - the state owns all property and production - ultimately, becomes a brutal dictatorship as the state gains more and more power

Fascism - the private sector owns, but the state controls all property - ultimately, becomes a brutal dictatorship as the state gains more and more power

Anarchism - absence of government

So, the answer is...

Monarchy is best, as long as I get to be King.

Otherwise, the primary questions have to do with LIBERTY rather than the specific form of government. You can have a dictatorship with captialism and limited government, or you can have a democracy where the majority votes to kill the minority and where the state has total control over production.

The US Constitution was pretty good. Take out slavery and the Post Office and it's pretty close. The BIG problem with it is that it was never self-enforcing. The politicians in office are never held accountable for their actions.

In California, the governor was recalled. If the US Constitution allowed for the people to somehow review the actions of the politicians and strip them of their citizenship and/or throw them in jail for violating the clear (it would have to be written clearly) provisions of the Constitution, then it might work -- as long as we get rid of this insane idea of "democracy" as the be all end all.

The main focus should be LIBERTY and how best to accomplish that. A limited government, probably in the form of a constitutional republic, with laisse-faire capitalism (meaning: NO corporate welfare or other favors) and we would be pretty damn close.

~ zynner

[PatrickHenry]

I like you zynner...