Non-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and make monkey noises about anything you'd like.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Now I'm not looking to start of political battle where we all start eating each other's throats out, but just a discussion of philosophy and efficiency.

First let me state that I am indeed American. My personal preference would be something similar to the Roman Republic. Having a republic or democracy is a good idea, but whenever there is a major domestic or foreign issue that causes unrest amongst the populace of the country, all the politicians seem to do nothing but bicker and extend the issue for a longer than necessary period of time. Thus, I could see a temporary benevolent dictator appointed in order to see that these issues are dealt with quickly and efficiently without having to worry about politicians passing a bill that won't benefit the majority. Once the issue is dealt with, the dictator is then removed from power and things can resume as normal.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago
I'm staying out of this one... I really REALLY want to debate about this, but I shall hold back due to circumstances I will not tell. *I could say so much and argue so much on both sides ;_; it's the perfect topic for debate, yet I will not give in* *cries*

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Sorry Ford :p It was just something that I and a group of friends would occasionally discuss.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Then whenever said dictator makes a speech, have everyone point their guns at him.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Well technically the US has been in a perpetual state of emergency since 1933 and it never got revoked and it basically "allows" the government to act like a dictatorship if it so desires.

Why it hasn't more often is probably more due to it being a lot easier to keep the average US citizen under control with less oppressive means. Cable and Fast Food really goes a long way.

Of course one might say steps have been taken over the years to tighten control. So one might even say, we've been living under a series of benevolent dictators for years.

Oh well, who wants to see the gladiator fights?

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

*Raises hand*

Anyway personally? I think a Marxist Republic Monarchy would work but it is impossible to function with the way humans are.

Best one we've gotten so far? A Monarchy with a Caring and Competent line of Kings.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

^Impossible, but we're not here to discuss possibility...

...well, we can chatter away all we want on the efficacy of a government, but it's not gonna get us anywhere...

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Thank you, Endmaster, for utterly crushing my outlook on life. In my personal opinion, I think that the idea of emergency powers should be done away with. Yes, things get settled more quickly with one leader, but look at what can happen (i.e. World War II, The Reign of Terror, Star Wars).

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Efficiency? Dictatorship all the way.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I always thought that Dictatorship could be efficient if not for focusing all the power into a single person. I would never be comfortable wondering what happens if this person dies without an heir, as we have seen happen countless times in history.That's why there should be the republic to take over and a dictator with only a circumstantial rule. I never understood Marxism or Lenninism but I know that what Stalin and Hitler came up with was nothing like the original ideals.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Efficiency would imply something productive being done aside from keeping wraps on the people. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

It depends on the group of people, but all governments fall to pieces eventually. A government works like a filter. They restrict people so, broadly speaking, freedom will be available for most. Consider the way traffic laws work. We have stop signs - not Go signs. For people to go, sometimes they have to stop, and no one can go if theres a pile of wrecked cars. To refocus, government as a filter: essentially they force us to yield freedoms for the good of "everyone." But with that potential power and function they slowly collect human contaminant, just as filters become clogged with dust or what have you. A clogged filter begins to slip. Air can't pass through and all manner of problems follow suit. It is usually only by the blood of "patriots" or "heroes" that filters can be replaced. Democratic republics and similar governing systems have metaphorical filter cleaners, but eventually those fall apart too.

Good to see some of you are still active. For reference I'm not. Maybe I'll be around again real soon.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Ugilick posted :O document this foreigner of old!

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Quoting you on this. Nice to see you here again.

In my opinion: Constitutional Monarchy.

10 years ago

I personally believe that having both one representative that can make decisive action and a Parliament to stop them from becoming dictators (see the English Civil War) is the most ideal form of government in my opinion.

Surely true democracy would mean people vote on everything, not just leaders.
I think that people who are uninvolved with matters yet can vote on them as much as experts can would be nasty at best. To put it bluntly, ignorant peasants shouldn't be able to make very big decisions.

 

If you haven't already, please watch "The English Civil War Song" and other such videos By Horrible Histories on somewhere like YouTube, they're great fun and show what a Constitutional Monarchy is like in action!

In my opinion: Constitutional Monarchy.

10 years ago

As seen with America, people don't care enough to vote. I really think we don't truly appreciate the privilege of voting considering that roughly 40% of Americans don't vote.

In my opinion: Constitutional Monarchy.

10 years ago

I figured most people don't bother to vote because it doesn't actually do much for us?

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

My personal opinion is simple. No government. Well, technically an anarchy is a form of government if I remember correctly, which is what I meant.

 

Let the people have free reign over themselves and a one hundred percent free market would increase commerce, and without taxes people would have more money to donate towards things that they feel should be done, as well as having a more proactive approach (a "we need to do this" attitude instead of "someone/ the government needs to do this")

And all of the functions that the government takes care of now would be taken care of by the private sector, which as it would have competition with other companies attempting to do the same thing, would mean that they would have to be more efficient to keep their customers. Except for defense which would best be served by a network of voluntary militias.

In order for this to work properly it would have to be a voluntary removal of the government as compared to a forced one (aka a collapse) which makes it unrealistic in the near future.  But eventually *shrugs*

 

Failing that, as like I said it will be awhile before that is likely, and since this would probably be an intermediate step anyway: A libertarian oligarchy. Many of the same benefits, not all but many, and easier to implement. An oligarchy because dictatorships put the power into too few hands and become oppressive to everyone, and democracy puts the power into too many hands and unnecessary laws crop up like weeds, and the more laws you have the fewer of the benefits you would achieve. As for keeping the oligarchy politicians in check, I would suggest a law saying that they are not allowed to own property, instead being given a discretionary spending fund that they are expected to live on, and this fund should be ten percent less than the average citizens (this would also motivate them to improve the lives of the average citizen)

in this way, someone can wield economic power, or political power, but not both. Additionally, it would make politicians very hard to corrupt (no bribes) And the positions would be for life, so now gaming the system in that way. (I only mention that law as for the oligarchy idea to work its pretty central to it)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

The value of money varies in a country.  If said country has no set value of currency, commerce will be messy, and no one unit of currency will be the same.  Essentially, the farther away you are from one point of the country to another, the more you'd have to exchange (unless a singular currency can be sustained by shooting anyone who thinks otherwise, which is inefficient).  The company vs. company style of government means there's going to be an absolute sh*tload of civil wars in the early years, opening said country to invasion against other, more properly-formed countries with organized militaries.  Even if said scenario didn't happen, then there would be a militia vs.militia sort of thing between giant coalitions.  Heaven forbid if a company gets too large, which would then allow it to purchase weaponry and completely wreck small-time businesses.  Suppose if a giant company monopolizes the country, then we'll have a communist-like scenario ruled by President CEO.

So...anarchy is essentially going to make a government on its own regardless of what happens...

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Hence why I said it would have to be done by the voluntary dissolution of government rather than the forced one. As to the currency, they would already have a currency from the previous government. That one won't sustain indeffinitely, but the new currencies that appear can be measured against the previous one, allowing for a less messy commerce.

When I said that the companies could take over in place of the government I did *not* mean a single company doing everything that government did. I meant, for instance, a road building company that makes roads and profits from the tolls. A fire fighting company that puts out fires and then charges for it. A security company which protects the rights of its subscribers. The only one of those that would even be capable of a civil war would be the security company, and tbh, yea there might be a few SHORT civil wars between them in the beginning, but they will quickly realize that that is one hell of a bad business model. (armed conflict is expensive after all, and these would be for profit companies, not governments grabbing territory, eliminating the competition by force of arms in this case, just opens the door for new competition)

 

As for militia vs militia, what would spark this? I mean, it is possible for some of them to get violent, but as the majority of them would be more defensive in nature, and likely only interested in fighting foreign invaders, I donlt see how massive coalitions would form against each other. 

 

And finally, as to the one giant company taking over... it would have to get VERY big to do so peacefully, and if it did it by force of arms... well actually THAT would get the militias to fight a non foreign invader, as they won't want to be conquered period. As for the peaceful option, considering that these people disbanded an entire government in order to live in a free society, it is highly doubtful that they would let that company get that big, simply taking their business somewhere else before hand. And after, once again they disbanded a government, disbanding a corporation would hardly be any more difficult. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Now that I think about it...

Who takes control over the judicial stuff then?

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Once again, businesses do. Actually, in most of the hypothesis I've read, the same businesses that took over the duty of the police. Now, normally that is a recipe for disaster, the police being the ones who judge you guilty or not, but it wouldn't be the same security company as the ones that made the arrest. Ok, a common example is that Person A's car is stolen by Person B.

Now both are subscribers to security companies. (the easiest way to explain is that they have separate security companies, but it would work just as well if they did not, or atleast almost as well)

Person A calls up their security company, lets call it Private Security, or PrivSec for short. PrivSec launches an investigation (think private investigators) in align with their customer service contract. They can;t just do nothing, or their customer will report this to the news companies, who will launch an investigation on PrivSec via their own private investigators/journalists, and if true, PrivSec will lose customers.

So PrivSec launches its investigation, and tracks the vehicle in question to Person B's house. Now, they go up and talk to Person B who calls their own security firm, lets call them Citizens Security or CivSec for short. CivSec obviously doesn't want to lose their valued customer if he is innocent (read that as "profitable") so they send out a response team to take a look at the evidence. Now, in this case the guilt is clear, the stolen property is in his drive way, but lets say it's not, for some unknown reason there is some dispute as to his guilt. So CivSec launches its own investigation looking to ensure that their customer is innocent. If he is, then PrivSec keeps looking for the actual culprit in accordance with the plan that their customer purchased (presumably this would work somewhat like medical insurance, the customer would have a co-pay, or a set amount the cost could go up to, and would have full access to their files pertaining to the case in order to help/ ensure everything was legit) if they find that he was lying, he would be forced to reimburse them.

If he was not innocent, then CivSec would ensure the vehicles return, or else an equivalent value, and then cover a portion of PrivSec's expenses because it was *their* customer who stole it. Now, PrivSec returns the stolen property and their customer is happy. CivSec, now either raises the coverage cost for their customer, or terminates the contract, or seizes his assets to pay for the cost or something of that nature (the exact punishment someone would face for crimes would of course vary, and without government, we cannot be sure exactly how this would function)

 

But it would work out well because both sides want to keep their customer. And both sides want to find the person who did it, as guilt or innocence would determine whether that customer was continuing to be a profitable venture. 

 

Another theory would be for specialized judicial and prison companies to pop up, to decide on peoples guilt or innocence and detain them appropriately. (although the prisons and judicial companies may or may not be the same ones) but these would work on a by the case basis (as compared to subscribers) similar to if say you needed an exterminator. they would be held to account in the same way as the security companies, as if they were found to be fraudulent no one would trust them anymore.

 

This was much shorter in my head lol... sorry :$

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Hmm, seems flexible.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Thats one of the best things about it. No matter what goes on, it can adapt to handle it. Its the most flexible form of government possible. Or atleast, thats my personal opinion. (its not been tested yet ofcourse so unfortunately I cant say its fact.)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Honestly, I think that this system would only work in the earlier days of men, when we still had neandrathals around.  Well, the concept IS pretty complex to learn...

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Its really pretty feasible actually. Your right, I don't think ti would fit our current society, but I also feel that it is an inevitable result. You see it as primitive and I see it as "our society isn;t advanced enough" kinda thing lol. What I mean is, I don't think any society currently on earth is self reliant enough for the early stages of it (the voluntarily removing the government) but eventually they will be, or perhaps once man leaves earth and can begin colonizing, but eventually...

I think this is the best government and the problems are mostly in its creation is what Im trying to say lol.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Not that I see it as primitive, but rather it would only be feasible if our ancestors were introduced to this thousands of years ago.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Ah yes your right, that would certainly have helped. I still think its feasible, just a bit more difficult (and admittedly not going to happen in the next few days)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I see how that could work out but how would there be order? If there was a faction that enforces order, would it not be any different from a government? When I read this, I picture the Greek States. All of these factions and groups works as independents, but are all part of a whole Greece. In any case, I couldn't see these factions in an anarchy government holding a powerful military individually. In fact, in order to be at war, each of these factions might have to agree to put there forces into the war effort. How would this type of country be able to progress in terms of technology if one is working for the betterment of the individual instead of the whole?

Also, while I have always been interested in this form of government, I just couldn't see it being stable enough to last a long time. Sure everyone would gladly have unity when fighting against someone trying to impose power, but once they have no common enemy what will they do?

I'm not sure how the Greek States operated with their system of governance, but I don't think anything similar could be done in today's modern society.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

The order would come from the private security companies, they would only enforce order for the people who hired them though. See, it wouldn't be just one faction imposing order, it wouldn't even be two or three, but a dozen, a hundred, a thousand maybe. And thats why it would be different. First of all, you could just choose not to have one, and take your chances on your own. You couldn't go rioting, because then you would have to deal with all the security companies of the people you pissed off, but if you were very confident in your ability to defend yourself, you could do so. And if the security company you subscribe to begins to not be one you want to deal with anymore, you are free to switch to another. So that means they have to keep you happy to keep your business (where as governments merely need to control the land you are on).

Admittedly there would be FAR fewer "laws" (actually officially there would be none, but there would definitely be things which if you did would have a similar penalty)

The security companies would primarily just be that, security. They would only look after you specifically, not society. So no, there wouldn;t be anyone enforcing speeding laws, or drug laws, or age limits (actually speeding might have the road building company having its own security deal with that)

They would deal with things like: Theft, murder, assault, rape, contract breaking, trespassing, kidnapping, ect ect.

Technology... I think you've got it backwards. Most technological advancements are made by people trying to make a profit, or else by the military and reverse engineered to make a profit. There would be more businesses then ever to take care of the first, and the weapons companies would take care of the latter. In fact, its possible that some companies free from taxes, would pop up specifically To invent things and sell them to other companies to use. 

As for the military... well mostly that would be up to the militia. there's some debate about how that would be funded but usually the consensus is funded by the members who would do it as a part time job- not full time. They would organize themselves into small coalitions. And then those coalitions would form themselves into larger ones and so on and so on, where each member of the militias vote on representatives to send to the step higher, so what you've got is a bottom up military. It would purely be defensive though, as offense is much more expensive and they wont be able to afford to be the aggressor. 

As for it lasting... what will who do? the only ones physically capable of a forceful takeover would be the security companies, who would have to deal with both eachother and the militias, or else the militias, who will have to deal with both eachother, and the security companies.

 

Your right though, it couldn;t form in any modern society, because no society is ready to dissolve their government by their own accord. I think if it formed, it would last. Actually I think it would possibly be the most stable government possible, because there would be no positions for corrupt people to try and get. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

How would someone who moves into the country be able to start their own business without stepping on the toes of larger businesses? What about the rivalries between these companies? Do you think that all these major factions and organizations will only participate in "friendly" competition? There will inevitably be violence ensuing. The scale of this violence depends though, because I don't think the companies will be looking to make casualties of the people they are trying to sell to.

As for the military defense part, I agree completely. It would be near impossible to successfully take over a country with an organized militia willing to work cooperatively, security forces funded by large organizations, and civilians who in this case all may literally own guns and know the landscape. However, since it is primarily a defensive military, it would have to be an isolationist country in terms of foreign issues. This could lead to problems for groups such as the U.N.

I can't help but feel that this will be something similar to the way New Vegas is run in the game Fallout: New Vegas. If you haven't played it, Vegas is basically ran by the Three Families with the top dog being some guy no one's ever seen. These families are at his beck and call whenever he needs them. The Families care only for themselves however, and plot against each other constantly. They don't care what happens elsewhere so long as it doesn't bother or impede them in any way, to move against them would be fatal.

I figure that there could be a central location of power in a government like this, one that every person knows is neutral territory. That way, all the big players can get together and discuss any major problems such as foreign invasion.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Well, I would imagine in the same way that they could anywhere else. Just move in and start up a business. Except it would be FAR easier since you don't have to worry about things like taxes and licenses. (admittedly on the latter, in some industries it would mean consumers would have to be informed on where they are going...)

As for the friendly competition, your right, some violence might ensue... but I would imagine very, very, very little. Because if they kill hardly any civilians, then they would lose a LOT of business. I mean, would you shop at some place that was known for having killed people? I wouldn't. So will their competition, true. But they will as well. So most of this would be assassins in the dark, not full frontal assault. Not to mention that the business owners would undoubtedly be under the protection of one of the security companies. (admittedly, the security companies would be a little more free to resort to full frontal assaults as they are on their own, however they would also be armed. And the other factors would still apply)

 

Your right that it would have to be fairly isolationist but... to be honest, so long as everyone knows that they are untouchable military wise, it would be relatively unimportant. They could do trade sanctions true... but I doubt they would last long as this would likely be an economic powerhouse. And hard as hell to enforce since there would be no customs officers keeping track of ships entering their waters, so if they wanted to enforce it, they would need a full naval blockade. 

 

I'm familiar with New Vegas... and that is honestly a possibility. I don't think it is the most likely as if you remember the reason he was so powerful was a massive amount of superior firepower. In the real world, theres likely to be a lot more factions, who are all relatively constrained by the others, and going up against anyone in any meaningful way would be a case of mutually assured destruction, as it would force the others to fall upon them like piranha. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

How exactly would they be untouchable military wise? I hadn't thought of this earlier, but the largest military in the world is around 4 million. How large would these militias be? How large would these security forces be? Of course numbers don't always matter when dealing with superior technology, but there could be issues such as gangs and criminal organizations growing. Would these security companies bother to deal with them without being asked, or would they use them to pull in more customers?

What I also realized is the increased number of jobs that would be created by a system like this. I mean there would be a TON of jobs available. Also, how would this government communicate with other countries? I don't doubt that it could be self-reliant, but when you have every other country in the world looking for you to make a mistake, diplomacy will have to become a factor. If this happened, outside influence could bring back the governmental influence that the people worked so hard to get rid of. If meetings happened in secret, it may be too late to stop it, and since the country has no offensive capability (or at least one that can be sustained) they wouldn't be able to take military action against this unless is was covert.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

When I said untouchable, I meant as in "conquering them would be one HELL of a pain in the ass"

The size of the militas... well we won;t know until its tried, but I think we can assume they would total about the same size as the military was prior to the governmental collapse, and the military is really a sucky job so people who join do so primarily to defend their country. The security forces wouldn;t be very large... they wouldn't need to be able to compete on a military scale (think of them more as police, but even more peaceful than that, resorting to violence only as a 100% last resort, in fact they would probably prefer to let people go free rather then resort to violence unless forced to do otherwise)

However, it is likely that they would be nuclear armed. Both the private security companies and some of the militias. (and when I say some of the militias I mean like a bunch of militas going in together on the weaponry, not just one owning them, I don't think they would get that big) The security because they want the maximum deterrent for the minimum cost, and theres nothing more cost effective in that than nukes, and the militas for the same reason as well (although they would be for defence as well) And in this kind of set up, invading means you are HIGHLY likely to get nuked in response. 

They would do things about the gangs... kind of sort of. They would have to protect their clients, and do so efficiently or else lose money to competitors. But unless the gangs trouble their clients, if they only trouble OTHER companies clients, then they really wouldn't care. That said, if they were forced to deal with them... I think we can imagine they would be much more efficient about it than current police. 

 

As to the communications... it really couldn't.Not on any meaningful scale. Diplomacy would literally be impossible, as there would be no one in charge who could talk to others with any degree of authority. Outside influences brining back the government would be equally impossible. Theres no one who could orchestrate a coup because there is nowhere TO coup. I mean, in a standard government, you could simply get your people into enough high up positions, and in a little bit of time, you would control the government. Here however, there is nowhere for them to try and gain control. At best, they might be able to slip in control of the militias, the de facto military, but the problem with that is that these militia men are NOT a military. You can't just transfer them out of their homes and into a military base on the other side of the continent and getting soldier to aid in a martial law take over is MUCH more difficult when you neither have the appearance of authority granted to governments, nor soldiers fighting strangers. Because in this case they wouldn't be firing upon strangers in a take over, but their own friends and family. Their neighbors, their church groups, their school mates... So the only way a takeover could occur would be foreign invasion, or else a corporation hiring mercenaries, which is still an invasion just a more domestic one. And in either case they would have to fight a long, hard war to get any meaningful gains. And it just wouldn;t be worth it.

 

As to your bit about the jobs, I know lol. Thats one of the primary benefits to this kind of government. It would create a system where labor was in demand more than jobs were, and that would give an ever increasing boost to the economy (because so long as this system was in place, it would continue to be a labor value economy, giving an unending rise to more and more commerce)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Yes I could indeed PrivSec sending a a small army to wipe out a gang on the grounds that they are bad for business, which in turn would lead more people to subscribe to them as they get the job done. In turn this would lead to a decrease in large-scale crime groups since they would have to be careful not to give these corps a reason to destroy them.

 

Now I would like to touch back on what you stated earlier with my own twist.

Democracy puts power into too many hands, thus leading to unnecessary laws and easy corruption; Oligarchy puts power into a small group of hands and a leader with limited power, this is more efficient than democracy due to less (but still present) corruption and better ways of dealing with domestic issues; Monarchy in it's various forms puts power in too few hands, thus leading to eventual oppression, and although corruption is very low there will redoubtably grow political schemes and power grabs; Anarchy gives no one person or group power, thus putting emphasis on the ability of the individual, and forces a system of cooperation.

Now, I would personally rule out democracy and oligarchy when it comes to overall efficiency. Which leaves the forms of monarchy and anarchy, power to one and power to none. However, my preference is of course in the style of the Roman Republic. A council of men are in charge, and during any major issue a dictator is appointed. The council could take care of politics while the dictator deals with military issues.

Foreign diplomacy is something that every country will HAVE to have. Could you really see a country as an isolationist in this age? If you have a country that is running effectively without a government do you really think that the other nations won't stick there noses in? They will, especially if this country if somehow self-sufficient.

Then back to the domestic issues. Know that wars have been fought over primarily: greed, religion, territory, and control. There will be a group that falls under this that could rise to power, and as history has shown, charismatic leaders only need to gather a group of people they can easily sway to their way of thinking and reshape the foundation of an entire country.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Actually, PrivSec would probably not be able to just march soldiers in and wipe them out, as this would undoubtedly put them at a miniature war with CivSec (using them as the example of the gang members security company) But what PrivSec COULD do, would be a fairly effective siege of the gang. Not militarily, but economically. PrivSec could for one, send in covert agents to identify which, if any, gang members were without coverage (for that matter they could probably just ask their rivals, their rivals would comply as they would prefer PrivSec didn't start shooting their customers) then they could eliminate the ones without coverage, and if possible, goad the ones that were covered into attacking them or their clients (at which point they would be more than able to send in their soldiers) The economic siege would come in because gangs generally work via intimidation tactics. So they just get the right people into position at the right time, and suddenly those intimidators have become aggressors and they can shoot them, forcing the gang to lose its income, and soon its members.

 

And actually, I could entirely see a nation being isolationist, even in this day and age. It would simply require them to have a strong enough military to not have to worry about invasion. Most of what you absolutely have to have is defense pacts. Now, if your strong enough not to need them, you can gain favorable trade conditions by offering them. But with no government running the show... favorable for who? If you;ve got a dozen different competeing industries, what favors one will hurt the rest... so I am going to politely, yet strongly, disagree as to the need for diplomacy in a nation of individuals. That being said, while the government wouldn't be able to make trade agreements... I see no reason the businesses themselves couldn't. I mean, they already take on the rest of the aspects of government, as a whole, and some coporations have more wealth than some countries, so without the limiting of the government, I see no reason they couldn;t have their own negotiations... just it would only bind the business that made it, no one else.

 

And your right, a charismatic leader can turn the foundation of any country... but thats just it, ANY country. It doesn't matter if it is a monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, democracy, or anarchy, it can still happen. In an anarchy though, I would imagine it would take an especially charismatic leader because they would have to not just take control of a government, but build one, which is far, far harder. Especially in an anti government culture that already dismantled one.

 

And the only one of the war factors that would be likely to... well maybe not the only one likely to spring up, but the only one where the possible benefits outweigh the cost is religion, because that the cost is different from the gain. And I would like to think that a culture like this would be especially tolerant, because bigotry, without the protection of the government, is a bad business move. In a war, you would have to fight off not only the local populace, but the entire nation. And they would be well armed, and probably outnumber you by a truly staggering amount (I expect that in this society, something like 90% of the households will be gun owners and trained to use them. If for no other reason than I expect the security companies would give a hefty discount for that as it lowers their risk to profit ratio)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

@Last Paragraph.

 Are you assuming every PSC would defend the nation instead of joining the invaders? Besides maybe some of the population wants to become part of the invading nation and won't fight back in the first place? 

You assume too much Dracone. People are not simple and that's why every government is a failure.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

You are correct that people are not simple, and you are also correct that every attempted government has been a failure. So I merely am of the opinion we should try something different, an anarchy. 

And I am assuming that, on average, the citizens will want to remain in their own country. This is not going to be 100%, but generally if someone is that dissatisfied with their nation as to allow a foreign occupation, they will pack up and leave. Not always, but generally. You are right that this may not be the case, but this may not be the case with any government as well. Sufficient propaganda will work just as well on other government types.

 

As for the PSC's, I'm not worried about them, they are basically policemen after all. Not quite, and they would probably pack a bit more firepower than police currently do even if they don't use it, but not enough to make a large military difference for the most part. I mean, yes they will probably have nukes as a deterrent, but those are hardly useful for an occupation. And then only the largest would have those, as I stated earlier they are not going to want to engage in armed conflict often because doing so is a high risk low reward situation, not to mention that it is expensive at that. The primary defense of the nation would be in the militias and in the armaments of the average citizen.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I have another question, what exactly is stopping a militia and city from joining a nation? The PSC have no reason to stop them if their income is not remove or lowered. Also how would you get a nation to even recognize the existence of the 'anarchy-nation'? No cooperation is possible with all the free cities and militias without forming some kind of government base. 

(If this was already answered above just direct me to said answer.)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Noithing is stopping them. If a group of people want to join a nation, they can. I don;t think that a large enough portion of the city will want to to make it a real possibility, but it could happen. Same with the militia. 

As for other nations recognizing it as a nation *shrugs* who cares? this nation isn't going to be able to do diplomacy as a whole to begin with, and if they try and invade they will quickly learn that that was a bad idea and withdraw.

 

As for the cooperation, I think I explained it, but maybe not clearly (half the time when I reply to these I'm falling asleep lol)

Ok the citites would cooperate via trade. They wouldn;t really have any official cooperation since there wouldn't be anything official to cooperate on, but they are likely to be trading with businesses in the other cities.

The militia. Well, one group of militiamen would choose a leader (think lieutenant) and he would go to a next door militia and talk to them about possibly cooperating in the case of future crisis. Presumably, before long, all the lieutenants are doing things similar (a military has to have a chain of command... its the only way it will work, so likely all the tiny militias will have elected a leader of sorts)
now the lieutenats from one area get together and elect one of them to be tentatively in charge like a captain, and he goes and talks to the other captains in nearby areas about joint cooperation. And then eventually they elect the next officer and repeat until what you wind up with is a military where youve got a chain of command directing over all strategy but a thousand tiny militias each capable of refusing commands and going their own way. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

And now you've gone from anarchy to a collection of city-states united for protection. 

Or maybe it would be a Stratocracy?

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

except, as there would be no one in charge of anyone except the military, it wouldn't be a collection of city states.

 

It could theoretically become a stratocracy, and unfortunately, theres virtually no way to ensure that it won't. It would require a very, very charismatic leader to convince a populace who just tore down a government for anarchy to build a government based on the military, even if all he had to convince was the militiamen. But unfortunately, no system of defense can work and not have this risk.

 

I would like to point out that the same thing could happen in literally any government however.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

So... If nobody was in charge then who would makes the laws and appoint the judges? (ect, ect...)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

.... thats the point of an anarchy, there would be no laws or judges.

There would be things which if you do your likely to face consequences for, but for economical reasons, not laws. Ie. if you break a contract, no one will go into business with you again.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

>.> Life doesn't work that way. History has said otherwise far to many times to count. What's to stop a corporation from forcing or blackmailing somebody into buying their service or working for them?

Society will form laws and leaders will arise. Anarchy is not a 'stable' setting and not everybody is going to care if they can't be a business. Your society; if it were actually an Anarchy; would collapse due to sheer stupidity, laziness and impracticability. There are real reasons for laws and for government. Here's a few reasons why...

=Nobody would care about each other, shop owners would likely threaten people on sight due to being a potential criminal/murder, the death rate would be insanely high, overpopulation might be a problem if anyone bothers to be a farmer, and since your an anarchy you have no currency unless you count the thousand different currencies that will pop up; so you can't buy any food from outside groups(especially if they don't bother to recognize your 'Anarchy-Nation', there's no reason to join a militia if you have your own gang, the crime rate will also be super high since there is no repercussions for wandering around the 'Anarchy Nation' and changing identities so you can steal from another city/town, slavery would likely become a major economic market, exile and the death penalty would be the only way to really deal with crimes since there is no law/judges. Oh, and war would be constant in the area.=         I highly doubt any corporation would try and push itself in that mess.

So... okay then, the only way your idea would work is if a kind of Stratocracy Council was formed between a group of powerful militias who made laws and enforced them through cooperation between their city-states. At least until a more successful government based out of a neighboring group of city-states invades and conquers them.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Never, and I mean, never has this type of government even been attempted. So therefore, no, history has not taught this lesson. Thats like being a chemist and attempting to create a chemical by mixing other chemicals, and because you've mixed a lot of chemicals together, under the exact same conditions, never changing the tempature or pressure for instance, saying that what you're trying to create is impossible.

What you just described is what happens if a society *collapses* not what happens if a society dismantles the government *voluntarily*. The differences being that in order for the latter to occur, changes have to take place on the societal level. 

Now, as for what would actually happen in this scenario, please see literally every other post I have made. As for the currency issue, there will admittedly be multiple currencies, never said there wouldn't. But they will already have a currency from the previous society, and thus have a standard to measure them against. In the age of information, how the hell will you simply change your identity? That can only be done if there is no communication, and there will be, via the security companies. Which by the way, are already popping up in certain parts of America where the police aren;t offering protection, so we can be relatively certain that under the prescribed conditions, they will continue to pop up. Slavery would only be an issue for the people without a security company, as otherwise your in the exact same boat as trying to enslave someone now, and identifying these people would be very difficult unless you had the cooperation of the security companies. Exile and death penalty being the only available punishments is complete bullshit since privatized prisons already exist. 

 

As for a corporation blackmailing or forcing someone to buy from them... exactly how is that different from a government in the first place? Thats a false argument thats like saying "I'm against x so we should have x so x doesn't happen" Not to mention that they would have to already basically run the nation in order for them to have enough power to do that to a significant portion of the populace.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

What if a terrorist organization threatens to set off a nuke in this little nation of yours? They can't really be nuked back as they have no set country they come from. The PrivateCrop military and police can't just waltz over into other nations and hunt them down.

What would your Nation do then?

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Actually, I see no reason the Private Security COULDN'T hunt them down. they are, after all, purely a business, not a government. In fact, I expect they would already be in most other nations, as some of the best private investigators for hire I would like to think. Then, once located, the PrivSec could demand that the nation let them deal with the problem. You're right, unlike say the US who arbitrarily invades nations that deny us access to terrorists, this nation probably couldn't force its way in. Though they could threaten nuclear reprisals if the nation did nothing and some of its residents nuked the nation. But two things:

One, what could any other nation do in this case? Other than start a pointless war against someone who refused to let the military into their nation? (which in this case would be letting the PrivSec in, and possibly some of the militias)

 

And two, why would a terrorist organization even be interested in this nation? Terrorist organizations are generally motivated by a foreign policy they don't like. So long as you keep to yourself, they tend not to care, unless they are domestic terrorists in which case the PrivSec could deal with them the same way police would.

 

 

 EDIT: ADDITIONALLY: Unless they were using ICBMs in which case while no retaliaition against their nation would be possible, they could still track back and nuke the terrorist base, they would have to set it off inside the borders anyway. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

If a PSC(private security corporation) wanted to deal with terrorists in my nation I would tell them to piss off and I'll deal with them myself. Not every nation in the world will rely on the same military force and just because your nation rely's on them does not mean other nations much allow them in. They have their own militaries and police forces for that.

If the PSC wants to start a war then it will lose on a potential future/current profitable source. A PSC is still a corporation and is only devoted to making more money. Yes, that means they can maintain good relations with their customers but that doesn't mean they won't back-stab them if a long-term risky investment (like not hunting down terrorists and allowing said countries military to do it instead which will make them look better in the long run to other nations for respecting their borders.) shows more profit than the short-term investment.

Perhaps they dislike PSC in general and want to force your nation into forming an actual military? Or maybe they just do it for religious reasons? Why would you hit a person who pissed you off and wouldn't stop what they were doing?

See 2nd paragraph. There would be more than one base if the terrorists were smart. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

As I said, you are right, the PSC couldn;t just invade the company without consent... But tbh, I wouldn;t want my nations military to do so either. In both cases, you are violating another nations sovereignty. So like I said, what could a government do to change it?

Also I said they *could* not they *would*.

 

You are correct that these things could happen, but it's unlikely. Usually religious terrorists focus primarily on their next door neighbors. If it was a next door neighbor nation that had the terrorists and refused to take care of it, or help us to, then in this case the private citizens would likely take care of it, just walking across the border. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I'm still seeing problems with the security of the people living in a country ran by anarchy. How will these security corps operate? Will the constantly be on standby, close to your location? Will they simply have an alarm in/near your place of living? Will they just mark you and/or you place of living with their mark to let others know that they are under protection?

Let's say for instance:

Person B has put a contract on Person A. This contract will be carried out by a private mercenary group, lets call them the Freelance Merc Company, or FMC (sorry I'm not good with names). Now, let's say that FMC fails to eliminate Person A who then informs PSC who will either offer more protection with or without in increase in price. The question is, will PSC then attempt to eliminate FMC. Due to the fact that FMC has it's own firepower, I doubt that they would bother to subscribe to any security company since they could just kill anyone who tries anything. FMC will also have much more numbers, since I'm going to guess being a freelancer is much more appealing then being in a security force. What will PSC do? I don't think they could afford to start a fire fight with FMC. Also, for the sake of adding a why, let's say this happened after the whole car incident (see previous posts).

 

Now with that in mind. This system of commerce, seems independent while at the same time being dependent. As a whole, the country will be completely self-sufficient, but with this web of businesses indirectly or directly depending on each other, what will happen when one of these links disappeared? Competition seems to be vital to a country ran by anarchy, once one of these businesses are gone and/or taken over by another, the company that is growing will begin to gain economical power and possibly sovereignty over other organizations. In another possible scenario, the sudden decline of an organization, lets say the road company, may even leave pure chaos in the areas that they used to occupy.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Theoretically, they would operate in the same way (generally speaking) as police. Except only for their subscribers. And more efficient since unlike police if they fail, they face severe consequences (ie loss of income, where as police will continue either way)

As for the FMC vs the security company... I would imagine that you would have it backwards, ie: I think the security would have the more firepower available. Nothing on a military scale true, but then neither would the FMC, or else they wouldn't be targeting individuals, they would be taking contracts to fight small wars,(which I don't think would happen either, as any war is likely to get the attention of a shit ton of parties going to descend on them like piranha, not only their original opponents, but the security companies, the militia, and looters) or running ops with businesses for instance protecting them (which would end up with them eventually becoming a security company if done often enough) or turning pirate for them.  But any offensive action of that sort is likely to be very limited, because if they're big enough to be worth doing that to, then they're big enough to have their own protection.

And where as one or two might be wanting to assassinate someone, the vast majority of people are going to subscribe to one security company or another. So the security companies are going to have a lot more income than the FMC. But your right, a successful enough mercenary group could theoretically take on the security companies, in the same way that a successful enough mercenary company could take on the government. 

 

As for the company growing... please see my earlier post about how a nation such as this would just shop somehwere else if they became too powerful. And when a link disappears, then some one new will come in and take its place. This is highly competition driven commerce, and power vacuums just get new power seekers. (although since theres no real power to be had, that would be more accurately be "money vacuums/ seekers)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

So what happens if a PSC manages to completely take over the market? What then?

This would easily lead to a kind of Corp-nation where the PSC can force smaller businesses that won't buy their protection to leave their 'national borders' and if a smaller business won't go or won't buy the protection then the PSC has no reason to defend said business against criminals and similar things.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

The entire point of my thing was that the citizens would shop somewhere else long before it got that large. Ie, if a company corners say a third of the market, they're likely to be pissing off the citizens some how, low worker wages, inefficiency, or just plain dickishness. Is it a one hundred percent guarantee? No. But likely. Not to mention that a citizenry that just tore down a government is going to be suspicious of it.

 

Also as for the national borders concept, theres nothing to stop a different group from starting their own security comapny there. And if the bigger one didn't like it theres not much they could do, I mean, they could shoot them down but they would likely lose a lot of customers doing so. Because now they turned themselves into a government/tyranny/corpoprate state, and as they already dismantled one government, they can do so again. This time by just not buying from them. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

You completely avoid the 2nd question. >.> A Corp could wage war on another Corp because there is nothing to stop them besides income loss, which would be greater in the long run if they let competing Corporations into their 'territory'.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I don;t see a second question... the only thing I saw was about a corporation waging war.

As for that, no they would then lose literally all business, because it would destroy their rep and people would start defending themselves instead, or going to outside corporations that weren't in the neighborhood but could still offer a degree of protection. As has already ben stated, it would require this kind of mindset in the populace.So unless they destroy literally every member of the competition, and get a total monopoly across the entire nation, while simultaneously preventing new ones from arriving, I don;t see them being able to combat this.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Monarchy. Parties just seem to make everything worse. Washington wanted to be a uni party governemnt seem what happening now.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

But Washington did not want a monarchy. He wanted a republic, so using him as an example kind of backfires on your own post.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

No it doesn't i was using him to point out the example  how bad a republic is we need one rulers to make our decision. ONE.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Why exactly do you consider a republic a bad government? Please, let me hear your reasons.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago
The corruption of leaders 
 
The refusal to give themselves spending limits (both parties spend like crazy when in control). 
 
Does not always reflect the will of the people and i suppose a monarchy is the same with this as well but hear they are my reason. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

The Monarchy would be the same on all three of those. It's just different in the republic due to limited ruling time and the need for approval from others before some actions can be taken.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Honestly, I like the Oligarchy system.

For those who don't know, the Oligarchy system is a system where like 5,7 people vote on what to do next. When one can no longer be a leader, they vote on who to select next.This system was used by the Greeks. This way, we have more then one opinion, no single person has all the power, plus, shit gets fucking done!

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

The Greeks would be best friends one day, and stabbing each other the next. Plus, Oligarchy isn't immune to corruption as seen with the Spartan statesmen during the Pelponnesian War.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

>implying Sparta was a true oligarchy

>ignoring oligarchy is pretty much the model of renaissance democracies 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

>Not adding to the discussion.

>Sparta was basically an Oligarchy with two monarchs, one for peace and one for war. It was more like a city-state kingdom.

And your third one, renaissance democracies were corrupt too. So I'm not quite sure what your stating here.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Nationalism Socialism

*grabs shield*

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Eh, patriotism would help stabilize a socialist government but from what we've seen(and theorized) a socialist government would likely collapse or alter it's government somehow.

Socialism is not a bad thing, just an impractical one.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

*Mumbles about Tony Benn* 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

In all seriousness, Dracone should make a story out of his ideas. Seems like it would be a good set up for a scifi story.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

True, it's thought out well enough to be a story setting.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Why thank you, Im glad you think so :) I actually would love to... only thing is, I suck at writing :$ I came here to read lol, I don;t really know how to write a story... maybe someday though :)

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I was actually thinking the same thing. You should have writer here make a story based off this if you can't do it yourself. I would suggest EndMaster but I this story seems to be Sci-Fi and I haven't read anything by him in that genre.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

If anyone wants to, I would be more than happy to coauthor it to the best of my ability lol. I think it would make a good story too actually, I just suck at writing plot/dialog. 

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

Bloody computer, I didn't notice it cut off part of my comment until now.

-"True, it's thought out well enough to be a story setting." He would have to change a few things and depending on how his story goes his 'Anarchy Nation' would have to become unified somehow to survive.-

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

I'm going to disagree with you on the latter. In an anarchy nation unification is the enemy not an ally.

But still, thank you that you think its well thought out enough for a story.

What Do You Think is the Best Form of Government?

10 years ago

The problem with the U.S. is that it is too big. I think that a bunch of small democratic states would be best. Everyone could vote on issues, and their votes would be meaningful. The only problem is greed. Greedy people would simply group together, form larger nations, and take the small, democratic ones over.