Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Some time in the past, I made a thread discussing this. As time goes on however, we get older, wiser (sort of), and fatter. I'm curious to know how you picture the ideal government.

I support benevolent dictatorship. In my opinion, it is far more efficient than democracy due to one person being able to get things done, and less corruption. A benevolent dictator, who still listened to what the people wanted, would probably work better than any government we've seen to date.

What do you think?

Elective succesion monarchy.

Who ensures the dictator remains benevolent?  Actually, whose definition of benevolent is being assumed?

 

 

Who ensures that the guy you elected won't be a chode 4 years from now? I find parliamentary democracy a horrible system which merely promotes populism and inefficiency. 

I'm leaning, like Danaos, towards a more authoritarian regime but dunno how the best way to go around that is.

*choad

Yeah, I bet you'd like one.

Hell no, dicks are hideous, just like every other part of a man. To say nothing of a fucking birth defect. I don't know how women put up with any of them, tbh.

Optimistic: Anarcho-capitalist.

Otherwise, in general, a mostly Libertarian society with a mostly de-centralized state. Have government provide essential goods/services (i.e., police force, fire emergency, etc.) Privatize everything else.

My biggest issue with anarchy is that it may eventually turn into a formation of smaller states as people begin to join together in similar interests.

Yeah, that's the main problem.

The main problem is that Anarchy is a pseudo-utopian society which can't be enforced. 

Are you reinforcing what I am saying or are you under the delusion that you are adding new information to the discussion?

What you and Danaos said is that anarchy is good and all but the main problem is that people may create smaller countries. I on the other hand am saying that the anarchist dream is utter crap and not a real utopia. Pretty sure that our views on this are different.

"The main problem is that Anarchy is a pseudo-utopian society which can't be enforced."

You said it can't be enforced. That is exactly what Danaos was saying and I was affirming. People will glob together and use their combined power to control others. If there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it. Anarchy can't exist, at least not for long periods of time. I never tried to say it was Paradise or anything, but that doesn't matter if it can't even happen. Get your head out of your ass.

If that was your only problem with anarchy then you accept the others and agree that it is a utopia... And I didn't mean it as in "people will glob together", but as in that it needs people to behave in a non-human (or perhaps too human) fashion. 

Can't see the cause of your rage though.

I never said it was my only problem. I said it was the main problem. Suppose you are driving a car down a road and there is a boulder in your way. Behind that boulder are several tack strips. Which do you give priority to? The boulder or the tacks?

"I didn't mean it as in 'people will glob together', but as in that it needs people to behave in a non-human (or perhaps too human) fashion."

I don't see how that is anything but a reiteration of what I said.

Who keeps the dictator benevolent? 

Also, democracy is the only way for the people to have an effective way of communicating. Otherwise we're just hoping our dictator remains benevolent and listens to us. 

Plato's philosopher king might be best, however. 

@Sethaniel

To elaborate, the dictator will be one that is elected into office. Although s/he is put there by the people, all ultimate power rests with him/her. A dictator with a council made up of people representing different regions, and groups within those regions, could effectively bring an end to the needless squabbling that occurs with democracy. With a dictatorship, you wouldn't have to worry about political leaders becoming corrupt, because so long as the big one on top stays true to his/her duties, it won't be a problem. Of course, if the dictator in question becomes malevolent, he can be removed and a new one can be put in his/her place.

The council below the dictator ensures that the people still have a voice.

Actually, if a dictator becomes malevolent and still has the support of the elite / his military, there is nothing you can do about it. He can have all the council members killed and suppress the people, if he so chooses. Also, you seem to believe that combining democracy and dictatorship will give you a product that has both of their benefits but neither of their detriments.

King and Queen (or king and king - no judge) who work for the better of society by taking the most qualified persons to do the most difficult tasks in order to get things done efficiently, effectively, and a way that makes everyone, in some sense, happy or at least not sad/disappointed. However, acknowledging that the minority exists and tending to the needs of the minority groups.

So, monarchy of two in power. They also need to be fairly well-kept-up with society trends and current ideas. Otherwise they're outdated and need to go.

I would follow the example of mohenjo daro or the Igbo. In the case of mohenjo daro they appeared to have no religious base and no social classes. The best we can do is speculate that they had some form of elected council. In the case of the Igbo they gave chose not to give rise to a state ruled by anyone rather a form of social institutions.

Other than those two I would have to say monarchy with a council that can have a vote to deem him/her unfit for office. While the monarch has the power to vote down giving more power to the council. Granted this whole method requires neither to be corrupt, which would sadly be most likely impossible in this day and age.

There is such thing as Dual Monarchy (I know, it's an oxymoron...). The Spartans had a system like that, but with a king for war and a king for peace.

Kings had more of a military genera'sl role. Sparta was far from a monarchy. There was also the Apella and the Gerousia.

Utopian Government without the government part..

What? You asked what the best form of government would be.

Fuck politics, make leading the world like Jury Duty. Fill your houses of government representatives and leaders with random citizens of differing opinions and let them bicker over important issues until they get something done, then send them off without pay, (Because governing is a public fucking service, not a lucrative hobby for Yale Grads. Bosses will have to treat this as a paid vacation, so nobody starves.) and then bring in a new handful of folks and let them bicker, rinse, repeat. It'll keep corrupt shitheads out of our government, at least, it'll keep them from staying there as long as they have...

... that could actually work.

Ignoring the fact that the elite will always be the ones with control.

You kidding? It'll be an isolated world, you can't bribe or lobby it, everyone heads in anonymously at first, and if they want to pretend to be a Nigerian immigrant named Stevino, or say their real identities, so be it. Money will mean positively fuck all there, and anyone trying to get in or out will have their asses arrested, just like a court. Anyone who actually offers a bribe will have their asses thrown out, as well as anyone who accepts. And there will be no influence on who enters the government and who doesn't. It's all randoly selected census names of whoever is elligible to vote and not mentally ill.

Alright, and what body will be arresting people or throwing people out? That is one of the functions of government. How can you guarantee that they won't become corrupted?

Some constitutional and moral sacrifices would have to be made, but a brainwashed-from-birth KGB that kept corrupt bastards OUT of power would be a nice change of pace.

If they are corrupted,then they get swapped out for other guards immediately unless they're proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. No questions asked, no extra paperwork.

And, who would be monitoring the guards, judging them, and replacing the corrupt ones? Who's to say they couldn't be corrupted?

Yet more randomly selected citizens would be monitoring them, of course. Sure, they too can be corrupted, although they will be kicked out if caught, but it won't last for an obscene amount of time like it does now.

And who will be selecting the citizens, monitoring them, judging them, and kicking the corrupt ones out? Is there no clear hierarchy?

Citizens are randomly selected out of a hat, a name-generating computer, or a census machine. If they were hand-picked, it would be a really shitty deal. There would be no hierarchy, just House, Senate, and Judiciary all slapping each other's wrists to keep each other from power-grabbing and everyone weeding each other out and re-filtering from time to time.

So, your system relies entirely on a web of accountability? Also, who is to say that the people selected will have any knowledge of the issue at hand? Also, wouldn't this require disclosing to the public information they probably shouldn't have access to?

1. Yes. Maybe even buddy up 5 people at once, and people are rewarded punished as a group if one of them turns out to be a corrupt shithead and the others failed to inform on them. Like the Cell system in Ancient China, but without neighborhoods being burned down by secret police. Webs of accountability are the key to having a government that fears itself and its people, and keeping it from going the other way around.

2. If they don't know, it's their job, as a government, to learn about it. I assume there's such thing as internet and a Library of Congress. Not to mention, there's probably at least one guy there who has an idea of what's going on.

3. Everyone gets to have access to information. We don't need a country that gets into the kind of shit that comes with other countries finding out you've shoved a recording bug up their prime minister's asshole in order to find the WMD.

1. Good, now the only problem is making sure that each piece that holds another piece accountable is also held accountable, which honestly sounds like a bitch to do.

2. Seems a little risky.

3. Can't disagree with that concept, really.

1. Sounds complicated? Good. That's why the Founding Fathers the three branches of Gvt. we have now into such a bureaucratic Rock-Paper-Scissors clusterfuck. It keeps the government in fear of itself and keeps each branch from getting too big for its britches. unfortunately, once rich bastards get involved, it doesn't matter what power limits your three branches have, since everyone in them has a ridiculous amount of power just because they're a psuedo-oligarch. This system kicks the oligarchs to the curb, and gives the "99%" a slightly better representation free of the sway of Electoral Colleges, since there's more of a chance that 99%-ers will be picked than any one kajillionaire.

2. I feel that having people who recognize that they don't know much about the subject in question and can be swayed one way or another is just slightly better than having a government full of people who think they know everything on the subject and take months, if not years, to come up with a suitable "compromise".

1. Sadly, people can still be swayed by money. That, and your system involves many more components working together, which means a greater chance for error.

Well, the more people in your group are swayed, the more years you get on your prison sentence if you get caught and didn't inform on them. Even if they threatened you with death, there's a witness protection program. People in the government today would never see the light of day again, but they're all too corrupt and insane to inform on anyone who's in the same political party, so it would effectively be a huge-ass raid on Washington. That's also what investigators are for, right?

Unless, you know, they break the system and get away with it. People with adequate resources will take advantage of any flaws in your system, which will be numerous..

That's what Death Sentences and vigilante mobs are for. The Death Sentence is never going to rehabilitate anyone, but it sure will scare the shit out of would-be offenders.

You clearly don't understand what I'm implying. They exploit your system, they take control. You can no longer hold them accountable for their actions. There are so many groups of people being watched over by other groups of people. In a machine, the more parts you have, the more places there are for error. Your system is to easy to exploit, and when someone does exploit it, there is nothing you can do about it.

Of course there is. Just make the Constitution longer and less hole-filled. And, if someone does exploit this system, just have a rebellion. Like I said, everyone has a full range of government information. The only secrets are the thoughts in a congressman's head. If a lot of people don't like what's going on, since they can learn everything there is to learn about the gvt., and the security cameras might even have their own T.V. channel, they can protest, and maybe even get away with lynching the bastard, since, technically, they were corrupt anyway.

Then, no sense of order. Somebody is always going to disagree with one of the congressmen. If it's that easy to lynch them, then...

You know what? Fuck this. By this point, neither of us are going to change our opinions and things are starting to get repetitive.

It usually takes huge mobs to get at someone moneyed enough to game the system sustainably. He'd probably own the nearby police anyway. We'd have to be talking well-targetted, coordinated mobs roughly 10 times the size of the ones at Ferguson in places that would actually bring the guy out of hiding, not just people laying down in random roads hoping that the next guy that gets an office changes their mind. Which they probably will, since, the more people that believe in your cause, the more likely their numbers will be scooped up by the random selector.

Also, when has anyone here ever really changed their opinions on the internet? I'm curious.

I did, but over what, I forgot.

I gained a new perspective of anarchy on this site.

I gained the same perspective after reading V for Vendetta and then hearing a discussion on power vacuums on public radio.

Who gets to choose who gets picked and how do we ensure the government actually gets anything done?

People are picked at random. And, like a jury, nobody gets to go back to their normal lives until a conclusion is reached.

But what picks them randomly? If it's a computer system/program then who maintains it, how do we keep those people from altering the algorithm?

You use a randomization program that can be put on any computer, and anyone who tampers with the selection gets deported/jailed/hanged/whateverextremekeepspeoplefromfuckingwiththesystem.

Ideally, it would be one where the citizens had no sway.  Where all they could do is elect not to vote, sit on the couch and scream at the TV when they felt their rights and moral beliefs had been stomped on.  And ultimately do nothing about it because doing nothing is preferable to actually taking a stand.  Oh, wait, that's been done.

I vote on Military State, like Spartans.  Those who have proven themselves on the battlefield should be in charge.  They are the perfect candidate.  Combat experience brings out the real person.  When you're in the shit, all your weaknesses, flaws, imperfections get put on full blast.  Those that keep their head are the true winners.  It's all about what you do when the heat gets turned up to medium. hahaha. 

The Spartans were not exactly the most pleasant people/society to live with.

I'd thrive in that bishh

*Greetings to y'all, back from the grave & got some time*

In term of goverment type, has anybody thought of a - Technocracy; or more of an Elective Technocracy.

People who actually KNOW, how to run a state, or atleast have the skillsets for maximum efficency.

(Example - a Minister of Defense could be an actual experienced General, not some suit. Or a Minister of Finance could be a professor or person, with many years of experience in economics. Same would go for the other Departments)

Necro's back!! Hooah!

For awhile

So your preferred government would require an occasional war to ensure they had a Minister of Defense who had actual combat experience as a General? :p

Also welcome back.

*Its temporary, 1-2 days*

And I meant a Technocracy Goverment.

And a General? Maybe or a Colonel, Major...atleast someone with SOME skills and expertise.

Well if the Technocracy doesn't desire war(which I suspect it won't since it's government is limited and the chosen leaders change so often.) then you'll get your minister of defense from video game players since a foreigner won't take a change like that if it's only for a short time.

My idea of a perfect government is one in which the population stays about the same, everyone does their job "correctly, and is free to express their opinion without someone trying to or succeeding to kill you. Bad part is you can't have the last one without giving up the last two. God damn contradictions in my beliefs.

Dude.  Olivia Munn for president.  She is soo frackin hawt!
 

Na, I think this would be the best president, at the very least he would make an interesting one.

Cracked.com for President!

Im going to have to say some sort of mix between a constitutional monarchy and a benevolent dictatorship.

One man rules, has a council of advisors, and listens to his peoples problems directly.

Vote Tim for Super-President.

#Tim2014

Meh, I'm pretty content with the one I have now

But, Bo, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Even if it is just because of the large number of bodies buried over there.

But that means my fat ass would have to climb over the fence. I'm good right here :P

Or, you know, you could use the gate. No need to be all felon-y about it.

Gate? Stop being so naive, James <-<

Sorry.

Exactly! I've got big dreams here, bro. Dreams that don't include gates.

If I had it my way, we'd line machine guns along our borders and shoot anyone who doesn't look American enough. That'd show those commie bastards.

Luckily my shorts will survive the blast

Each government has its downfalls. Each has its advantages. I have to say democracies are quite a choice for more advanced people. But what used to be advanced people has fallen behind. So I'm gonna have to say...

 

Fascism. (Don't hate.)

 

Wow, he rapes small, aquatic mammals and he's a Nazi.