Best System of Government

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah I live right on the dividing line of the poor and rich side off town. I walk
late at night(to avoid, heat, cars, people(social fear)) as I walk that dividing line its funny how often the police cars are headed to or from the rich side.
My thought on communism and property rights is while I am a libertarian the
truth of the world is :
You have no property rights if you can be tax 1% you can be taxed 100%
theirs nothing in the constution preventing the government from micro-managing your
life to look idenical to some one living in a maxium security prison.
I'm not for taking from the rich directly. I want for one the scum bag credit card
companies a$$ put under a fire. And the thousands of other scum bag companies
screwing over the workers.

Most people vote for a political party, not a government. I never voted for a republic yet I live in one. The use of such a list is just for the heck of it, some people believe in less political freedom than others and they believe in different governmental structures.

>>You have no property rights. If you can be tax 1% you can be taxed 100%<<

You gotta be fair- fundamentally, our tax dollars go towards paying the police and libraries and museums and so on. I do think, however, that we are definetly overtaxed- over 50% of every dollar you earn goes to taxes. We need to get that lower- a lot lower, like 33%.

That would mean delegating a lot of laws back to the states... ending a lot of federal programs. The state would have to pick up the slack.

But more importantly, if we cut our military spending by a modest 10%, we are saving over 180 BILLION dollars!


>>There's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from micro-managing your
life to look identical to some one living in a maximum security prison.<<

The tenth amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means anything there is no law against is legal.

>>I'm not for taking from the rich directly. I want for one the scum bag credit card
companies a$$ put under a fire.<<

As much as I hate to say it, it's not the credit card company's fault. It's the fault of people who grab FREE MONEY by the wheelbarrow never realizing they have to pay it back one day. I bet they don't make as much as you think they do- there's lots of bankrupcies in America.

>>And the thousands of other scum bag companies screwing over the workers.<<

We need laws to correct this. And raising the minimum wage is not progress, all that does is further devalue American dollars/ speed up inflation. Effective laws have to come from the top down... affect as few people as possible until a degree of fairness is achieved. Giving everyone $100 doesn't solve anything.

You know, it is theoretically possible to have a democracy with no taxes altogether and still be a democracy. I know it's nuts but it works on paper.

sorry... double post.

Right and if few people make this much money then it won't support the government in terms of education, police, and military. Not even top execs of corporations necessarily make this much because of the fact that it is really high up there.
I see it as playing the politics of envy. It is not the rich's society, it is everyone's society and although the rich should pay more tax money, money wise and percentage wise too, they should not pay all tax money.
Very few people make $35 million a year and not enough to keep any government program running. I do agree that we should simplify our tax structure but arbitrarily attaching all of the tax to the rich seems a bit extreme. Especially considering that the nature of your program would almost certainly draw in less money than our current program.
I don't really think it will affect this, they don't pay Fred to avoid giving the government any money, they pay Fred because they want to pay Fred for whatever reason. If paying Fred were unjustified then given competition a company would realize that paying Fred is hurting them. Frankly, I don't really care what Fred is paid so long as Awesomely gets paid too.
Once again I really think that you are playing the politics of envy. I really don't care what a corporate CEO makes so long as the playing floor is fair for competition. It is not my business what other people get paid.
Some of the taxes are state and local taxes... however, I wouldn't mind reducing that tax.

Yes, I believe that fairness is needed to help people have their opportunities, however, I don't believe in fairness of outcome. The outcome will not be fair and people are entitled to what they earn from whatever employer they have, whether it be their boss or their customer. I believe that freedom trumps fairness and that property rights are a necessary part of that freedom.

You just mentioned a loaf of bread and a bunch of people. If nobody did more to earn the bread than the other than they are all equally entitled to it. What is fair is that all people be entitled to their earnings, not on special duties based upon earnings. We are all individuals and have our own boat. It is the fascist that believes that the state trumps the individual and it is the free man that believes the state is meant to protect the individual. I would say that if we give the minimum wage earner better education and such then he wouldn't earn minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are meant to be a first step on a greater ladder of success. Fair is indeterminate by a government authority.


Anyway, I am going way off track. I did not create this thread to talk about economic systems but rather systems of government.

I used to debate about this, but at this point I don't care about the system; I care about the execution. From what I can tell, dictatorships can be good when they're done right, and democracies can be horrible when they're done wrong, and you could say the same for any system. It's not so much about the concept.

Also, where's Absolute Monarchy or Totalitarianism? They're different from dictatorships (usually worse IMO).

Well the concept is important because it shapes the result of the system. If you have a bad result in a dictatorship then there is not much to stop this evil, if you have a good result in a democracy then despite that good there will always be people fighting against it. Part of the issue is how much restraint you want from your government. More democratic systems have to listen to the people, less democratic leaders listen more to their own desires good or evil. What it comes down to is: do you trust that this system will have good results in the long run? If you expect to only have good dictators then go for a dictatorship, if you expect to only have good democratic decisions go for a democratic government, if the government cannot be trusted at all then give more power to the people through big limits on governmental power.

Totalitarianism is simply a form of rulership, you can have a totalitarian oligarchy or a totalitarian dictatorship. I didn't distinguish them as different as all that it shows is high governmental interventionism from an oligarchy or dictatorship.


Also, I am sure that well less than 1% of the people make above 2.25 million a year. 1.5% make above 250,000 and the mean of that 1.5% ends up being about $438,338 meaning that a clear majority of those people don't make a million dollars a year or above. I don't think that a tax plan that uses the wealth of those making above 2.25 million a year would work because of the sheer lack of people making that level of wealth.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/h ... 06_000.htm

"The only good government is a dead government."
But seriously folks, I advocate technocracy. I’m fascinated by what the Chinese are doing. They seem to have avoided some of the shortcomings of American democracy. Of course there’s a trade off. In the future I’d like to see some nation develop a system of government that is a hybrid of Chinese and American styles.

Awesomelyglorious- I read your post several times and simply have to agree with what you said. I also did more research and found out that most multi-millionaires in America are seniors and most of them got it from real estate, not businessmen. Excellent points you brought up.

As I see it, if the government is just and fair, and you have the same rights? Then it doesn't matter how the leaders got to be leaders.

If it's injust, then again, it doesn't matter.

The issue to me is more of effectiveness than what form it takes.


So far, Democratic Systems seem to have been the most fair. And are the most effective at managing large numbers of people.

I really am frightened by them. The chinese government is not a kind thing at least from my view, perhaps it has decided to do better through the promotion of capitalism, "it doesn't matter whether or not a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice" or something like that. However, I just can't help but forget the Tiananmen Square incident as well as the strict control over the media that exists over there. I guess it is a personal thing, if you are a person that believes in philosopher kings and that good leaders must lie to their people then the Chinese government might be closer to your ideal, however, such governments are too capable of danger to their people in my view. However, that's the trade-off, I suppose.

Thanks. I do respect the fact that you research your views as well. I think that is important for an individual to do so, I also find that I am often in error but I try to educate myself.

I chose anarchy but I would prefer a kind of republic where anyone intelligent enough to live responsibly without being dominated could discover that the system actually allows for it. I have no idea how that would work but I don't think anarchy or minarchy could protect us from groups who gang up on the individual. So I choose "Individualist Anarchism".

Just thought I'd mention that anarchy is actually a socialist ideology that was renamed libertarianism before conservatives and capitalists "borrowed" the term.

Of the options, I will go with democracy. It is really the only fair way. It still leaves the options of creating small political factions as in a republic, but they still won't create a monopoly like the Democrats and Republicans. However, these governments tend to rebellion and civil unrest when 49% don't get their way and the majority 51% try to enforce a law.

If I were the ruler of a country, I would go for a dictatorship-oligarchy.

Well, I guess I should probably vote as well. I was between minarchy and republic, I like the former because it has significantly less government intervention, however I went with the latter because I got tails twice in a row.(Minarchy was heads, Republic was tails, best 2 out of 3) I like the idea of a Republic because the people deciding the issues are still likely to be smarter than average(I have a low opinion of the intelligence of the average person) and society would benefit from the competition between self-interested forces. A republic also has more adaptability than a minarchy which is somewhat important. I know that republics are not perfect, but I did not make a horrible choice as most modern systems are just republics and most modern systems are doing relatively well.

Edit: Ok, I have mixed feelings on this matter... which is why I used to coin toss.