Best System of Government

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, I was bored so I decided that I might as well come up with a thread and a poll. Anyway, I wondered what these people here would consider to be the best form of government.

Here are the options:

Pure democracy: each man gets a vote on every issue using the internet or something. It gives greater political power to the masses whether or not that is a good thing.

Republic: there are political parties, representatives, and various groups that vie for political attention. It can even have limits on who is capable of voting. It is corrupt, however, it has a greater ability to avoid a tyranny of the masses than a pure democracy.

Minarchy: this is really just a government with minimal influence. It is favored by extreme libertarians who hate government spending and influence. It is too weak to hurt you and too weak to help you as well.

Theocracy: the high priests decide how to run society and make sure that everyone is being moral. It is good for people who believe society is too immoral but bad for people who don't want morality shoved down their throats.

Dictatorship: an individual decides how to run society. The government has unlimited power to change society to its own ends. It can create great positive change or a replica of 1984.

Anarchy: no government really exists. It is a good option for people who think that the government is too evil to even exist in a minarchy. It can end up at some ideal anarcho-whatever society, or it can end up being just a bunch of chaotic death.

Oligarchy: a group of people usually less than a republic decides on policy. It can be a group of the best minds or a group of the worst idiots. It can work if you have some experts and believe that they will do the right thing, however, they could always just improve their way of life and ignore all else.

Anyway, I am bored, vote and post if you want. I am not sure if this has been done before, I don't really care, all I know is that we don't have one of this on the front right now.

None of those sound particularly good.

Well, life rarely has any perfect ideal system without any drawbacks. Is there another system of government that you would like to put forward?

Where do the various forms of socialism fit in to the definitions on your list?

Where you want them to. Socialism is a way to run an economy, not a form of government. You can have a socialist dictatorship and you can have a socialist democracy and of course anything in between. Socialism probably won't fit in with minarchism though.

I went and voted for minarchy. The way I figure, if the gov't isn't capable of enforcing the law, they're not capable of stopping me from taking the law into my own hands. I'd simply move out to West Virginia, build myself a walled compound and wield a shotgun.

Well, being a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I had to go for Minarchy. Since the primary function of a nation is to create the capacity to engage in war, I think that's about all a national government should do. War is usually fasionable, so it's easy for this type of government to still pick a fight.
The only modification I would make to a Minarchy though, is extremely tough anti-trust laws. The only thing I fear more than government bullying, is corporate bullying. It's best to have these two bullies at each others throats so they can't screw with Joe Six Pack.

I think I'll go for minarchy as well.

Any opinions on a geniocracy? What about a secure online democracy where everyone raises the issues online and then proceeds to vote online? A giant polling system.

We have a perfectly good working government, it only needs some tweaking.

As long as we are a money-based society, money defines everything in our country.

The average American household makes about $56,000 a year.
The average American works 40 years from adulthood to retirement.

As such, the average American makes $2,240,000 in their working lifetime.

There should be a federal law the likes of:

Annual Salary Additional tax
$1-$2,250,000.00 0
$2,500,000-$4,999,999.99 20%
$5,000,000.00-$9,999,999.00 40%
$10,000,000 and up 50%

In other words, if you make in one year what the average American makes in his entire working lifetime, you're making too much. Sorry. I know this is the land of oppourtunity and all that, but when one person makes as much...IN ONE YEAR... as the average person makes THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME, it's simply not fair!

When you consider the strength of America itself is in its people, you can't have an upper crust elite making all the money while everyone else eats it- such a system can only collapse from the bottom up.

Imagine you're in a boat in the middle of the ocean with nine other people and there's only one loaf of bread for food. The way things are set up now,
One person will get 25% of the loaf
Four other people would get 10%
And the last 5 people each get 7% of the loaf.

Sure five people can live on 7% of the loaf... if the loaf was cut perfectly, everyone would get 10%... they're only getting 70% of their fair due. But the way things are set up... the way the entire system works is that the majority of people take a cut so the few can have more than everyone else.

This means that the average American (that is, 99% of all Americans) will get 70% of their share of EVERYTHING... food, cars, clothes, iPods and so on.

Now if you really were in a boat with nine other people and there was only one loaf of bread to eat, what do you think would really happen?

If such a law was presented to Congress, it would be shot down. Why? Because our Congresspeople get their money from the rich. Such a law would bite the hand that feeds them.

But if such a law was presented for a popular vote, 99% of the people would vote for it simply because 99% of the American public makes less than a lifetimes-worth of money in one year.

Then all of a sudden our coffers start overflowing with these excess monies. What a bad thing!

Why are we waiting for the law to change, lets go collect baby!! !

I don't think that a geniocracy necessarily addresses the problem, one can be very intelligent and still not know crap about the system. I would really prefer a test on the nature of the current system, on the political parties, and maybe even on some economics concepts. This would make sure that anyone who votes would do so with knowledge, however, the problem is that such a test could be corrupted to exclude unwanted people. It is banned in the states because it was used to promote racism and I could see it promoting biased concepts, the political parties would use it to further their own ends.

I also tend not to like the idea of a secure online democracy simply because I don't like the average voter. I think that our average congressman is smarter than our average voter and even that scares me.


I tend to think that this won't work as I don't think that a large amount of people really make above 2,250,000 a year. Sure there are some top executives and entrepreneurs who do so, however, it won't be a huge number and probably not enough to run a government off of. Also, one must consider that there would be even more offshore bank accounts and attempts to hide money among top earners as well as increasing non-monetary incentives from corporations.

Well, if I win the lotto isn't that completely fair? After all, I did take the risk and any other person could have won it as well. The fairness is not based on how much money you have but rather how you get the money, if you get it from breaking the law then it is unfairly gained, similarly if you get that money from exploiting political connections as many large corporations do then it is also unfair. However, if you receive the money not due to the excessive favor of a government nor do you break the law then that is fair.


I'd say that this oversimplifies things. The way we've set up the system, it works so that those who serve the needs of the people or those who ask from our government for goodies will get the money, the former is good, its the reason why we have many great things is because some person believed we could use it and took it upon himself to go forward and make it, the latter is really bad and screws everyone over.


We'd divide it equally, however that does not match the current system. We don't have a loaf of bread, we have a bread making factory. Those who recognized our need for new ovens and got them made get more bread than the average, and those who pioneered to make better bread get more bread than average unfortunately the overseers(government's) pals also get more bread than they deserve and he makes it easier for them to get more bread through giving them special priveleges, however, no matter what, the amount of bread that people get is increasing as better forms of bread become popular among the average person and as the average person gets more bread. However, the greatest thing we can do to help ourselves get the most bread is to be bread pioneers and find more ways to satisfy the public's need for bread, as well, we should maybe keep our eye on the overseer as he is a bit dumb and corrupt.

I may not trust the masses to run a government but I most certainly think that they have the right to run their own lives.

Meh, sure, I like getting more money for whatever reason. I'm in. Can I kick in Donald Trump's face and steal his hair? That dude is a total bastard!

Most people that I know vote for government based on economic policies. I don't see the use in listing definitions of government separately from economic policies. What is the use of such a list?

I would love to start a cult who gets its rocks off kicking a$$hole CEO face's in.

awesomelyglorious writes:

>>I tend to think that this won't work as I don't think that a large amount of people really make above 2,250,000 a year. Sure there are some top executives and entrepreneurs who do so, however, it won't be a huge number and probably not enough to run a government off of.<<

I agree. This is what makes the law work so well- because so few make that much. It only applies to the top 1% or less... the "stinking filthy rich". Who is going to prevent such a law from passing- a handful of people?

This is designed to "keep everyone on the same page", not finance the country. I'd actually like to see those monies go straight to welfare... that would make the most sense.

>>Also, one must consider that there would be even more offshore bank accounts and attempts to hide money among top earners as well as increasing non-monetary incentives from corporations.<<

Then these things would have to be addressed as well. But in the big picture, the days of making $35 million a year and hiring accountants to make sure you keep it all would be nearly over.

Think of the corporations alone- once they realize that giving Fred a 25 million dollar bonus for a job well done only means half of it goes to the government, the days of sickening bonuses will end. From then, those profits will either go back into the company or as dividends to the stockholders.

It should work simply- at income tax time. And cheaters should go to jail- not the country club jail but "rape you in the ass all day" jail. Wouldn't it be wonderful to drive down the highway and see all those corporate theives picking trash up?

>>Well, if I win the lotto isn't that completely fair? After all, I did take the risk and any other person could have won it as well.<<

Then the lotteries should be tax free... the money comes from taxes and is funded by tax payers... why tax the tax- it makes no sense!

>>The fairness is not based on how much money you have but rather how you get the money, if you get it from breaking the law then it is unfairly gained, similarly if you get that money from exploiting political connections as many large corporations do then it is also unfair. However, if you receive the money not due to the excessive favor of a government nor do you break the law then that is fair.<<

I am glad you agree that some fairness is needed in our system.

>>We'd divide it equally, however that does not match the current system.<<

This is Communism. What is fair is that the richest people support the poorest people. We're all Americans... we're all in the same boat. Why should one person be super wealthy while another is stuck making minimum wage for life? This goes beyond education or connections or investments or whatever- this is fair.

TheMachine1 writes:
>>I would love to start a cult who gets its rocks off kicking a$$hole CEO face's in.<<

That's why I gave the boat and bread analogy. Now instead of a boat, it's America and instead of ten people, it's 335 million. As messed up as it sounds, for the most part, our police force's job is to make sure the poor people don't steal stuff from the rich people. Someone steals a car and goes to jail. Someone else steals 175 million dollars and walks away. It ain't right.