Which kind of government is best?

[Neo-Logic]

This is going to be such a pointless thread. The original poster must've been bored or trying to get his post numbers up.

 

[MoonWater]

This is going to be such a pointless thread. The original poster must've been bored or trying to get his post numbers up.

Neither. I was merely looking to hear other people's opinions. If you think it's pointless why even bother posting here?

 

[Neo-Logic]

Neither. I was merely looking to hear other people's opinions. If you think it's pointless why even bother posting here?

Because these pointless threads waste forum space and push possibly meaningful threads down. You didn't even make an argument in your OP. This is titled "political debates" afterall.

Plus, you might as well start other threads like "what is the meaning of life" or "am I really here" to go with this thread. "which government is best" - yes, we will surely find out in this thread, especially when OP doesn't establish any specific points or premise.

If you were serious, you could've at least attempted to make a point and have some back bone and argue something instead of a blank "here's a topic, blah!" thread.

 

[rojse]

Because these pointless threads waste forum space and push possibly meaningful threads down. You didn't even make an argument in your OP. This is titled "political debates" afterall.

Plus, you might as well start other threads like "what is the meaning of life" or "am I really here" to go with this thread. "which government is best" - yes, we will surely find out in this thread, especially when OP doesn't establish any specific points or premise.

If you were serious, you could've at least attempted to make a point and have some back bone and argue something instead of a blank "here's a topic, blah!" thread.

Sometimes, it's better to find out what other's think, instead of arguing your position, which makes examining other positions more difficult. And perhaps the original poster wants to learn about political systems which they were previously unaquainted with.

I like the pure democracy - having a vote for each bill that is put into parliament sounds like it would truly do what the people want.

Another one that occupies my thoughts for various reasons is the meritocracy. It's where those with most merit run the government, but the question of how we decide whom is most meritious of a government position would have to come into question.

 

[NoahideHiker]

What kind of government do you think is the best kind and why? Now make sure to be specific. Don't just say "Democracy" as there are different kinds of democracy(constitutional, representative). Also don't be afraid to make up your own idea for a government that you think would work

Sorry to be so vague but the best kind is the one that affords the most freedoms to it's people. The more freedoms the people have the less power the government has which is a better protection against tyranny. A central government which let's the local/state governments govern themselves is a must as well. Switzerland's government is possibly the best example of this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anarchy is the best.
Alot of people can take care of themeselves, and help eachother to survive.

 

[MoonWater]

Because these pointless threads waste forum space and push possibly meaningful threads down. You didn't even make an argument in your OP. This is titled "political debates" afterall.

Plus, you might as well start other threads like "what is the meaning of life" or "am I really here" to go with this thread. "which government is best" - yes, we will surely find out in this thread, especially when OP doesn't establish any specific points or premise.

If you were serious, you could've at least attempted to make a point and have some back bone and argue something instead of a blank "here's a topic, blah!" thread.

Again if you feel it's a waste of space then why spend time here. If you feel this thread is pushing "more meaningful one's" down then post in those and bring them back up. I placed this here 1. because, in case you haven't noticed there is no "political discussion" forum and 2. even if there were it would still be here because I wanted people to have the opportunity to debate with others over which government they think is best. And I did not go into greater detail because I am not well versed in the various forms of government and thus wanted to leave it open for people who ARE more versed to express their opinions and debate with others about why they hold said opinions. If you think this is a waste then why are you "wasting" your time here to begin with. Go post your spam somewhere else.:spam:

 

[rojse]

Anarchy is the best.
Alot of people can take care of themeselves, and help eachother to survive.

Anarchy simply translates to mob rule, which means the interests of minorities are ignored.

What if the mob was religiously intolerant, and demanded that all of those that do not belong to a certain group be killed, for example? I can honestly see this happening in quite a few areas.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anarchy simply translates to mob rule, which means the interests of minorities are ignored.

What if the mob was religiously intolerant, and demanded that all of those that do not belong to a certain group be killed, for example? I can honestly see this happening in quite a few areas.

Then you simply leave to a new community. However, Anarchy does not equal mob rule. Anarchy means there is NO ruler. There may be a leader of sorts, but absolutly no government.

 

[rojse]

Then you simply leave to a new community. However, Anarchy does not equal mob rule. Anarchy means there is NO ruler. There may be a leader of sorts, but absolutly no government.

If a group of theists gather themselves up to go and kill any atheists, that's mob rule to me. Sometimes, people really need the government to protect them from the majority, and anarchy does not provide that.

 

[Mathematician]

If a group of theists gather themselves up to go and kill any atheists, that's mob rule to me. Sometimes, people really need the government to protect them from the majority, and anarchy does not provide that.

You're confusing anarchism with barbarism.

In anarchy, there would still be defense associations. Lack of an overarching government does not equate to chaos. Most of our existence is dependent on interactions where the government does not dictate our decisions. Indeed a lot of crime is an extension of natural boundaries enacted by governments (from wealth redistribution that benefits the rich, to inane social policies). To take your example - if a group of theists killed an atheist from the same defense organization, that organization would put the theists through a court ruling. If they were from different organizations, the two organizations could arbitrate - as it stands, that's what international law is based around. If these theists are rogue, the atheist's defense organization would take the theists in their own court. The majority is still technically in charge, but the minority has optimal venues.

If someone claims ownership over you, there's hundreds of organizations which you can leave to - nullifying their claim. Anarchism is based on the presumption that most people would be part of free associations (both because they're free, har har, and because they perform better as economic tools) if given the choice, otherwise you could have the forces of 70% against 30% free people (as was true in Spain when the anarchists fell). If someone claims you have to pay economic rent to use the land or resources they occupy (capitalism), just go to a socialist and/or geo-libertarian community. If you want to pay economic rent or be the serf to some lord, do it. The democratic associations would probably step in when you expect your kid to follow through with rape service, though.

Conflicts would occur, yes. But conflicts already occur, on a much larger scale than they should. And not to mention a lot of crime is based in the state's involvement.

At the bare minimum, if an overarching government must exist (not state, but direct democracy), it should act only for disputes between associations that can't agree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If a group of theists gather themselves up to go and kill any atheists, that's mob rule to me. Sometimes, people really need the government to protect them from the majority, and anarchy does not provide that.

That would just be a group of theist that kills atheist. Under Anarchy though, the group of theist would be charged with the crime, and punished, literally by the people, or a group that was appointed by the people to take care of such matters. The government is removed as a middle man, and the offending party is left to deal with only those they hurt.
Anarchy is not completly defensless against gangs, internal strife, and endless power struggles like I have heard/read many people claim. While it may not be in the best position to defend against outside threats, the community is not entirely defensless.

 

[rojse]

I must apologise, we are working on different definitions, both of which are correct.

Regardless of what definition of anarchy you provide, I still think that a central government is necessary for various reasons. For example, as an individual, the possible incentives I have to build large infrastructure, such as dams or road networks, is outweighed by the effort that I would require to put in. Now, a formal government structure is able to put in this effort, because it can look past the view of a single person to a view of the multitude.

Governments can also stop people from doing things that are detrimental to the whole of a state. If there were no government, I wonder how long our forests and natural parks would last, for example, or how long it would take for beaches to be mined. A government also centralises large government research projects, military defense, and so forth, which an anarchist state could not.

 

[Mathematician]

For example, as an individual, the possible incentives I have to build large infrastructure, such as dams or road networks, is outweighed by the effort that I would require to put in. Now, a formal government structure is able to put in this effort, because it can look past the view of a single person to a view of the multitude.

Why couldn't a direct democracy association meet this demand? Cities in Massachusetts which operate on "DD" don't have the alleged problems you're talking about.

If there were no government, I wonder how long our forests and natural parks would last, for example, or how long it would take for beaches to be mined.

As I said, under anarchy most people would naturally flock to socialist and geoanarchist associations. Neither suffer from this problem. Supposing someone did try to mine the bejeesus out of the East coast, refer to what would happen to a vogue group of killer theists. Before it comes to that, communities would probably negotiate for the land, or associations can boycott that product, or they can protest around the premise, or they can cut off trade to this person.

Anarchism is a recognition that 1.) might makes "right" (rights are established with defense of them) and that 2.) if the majority support free association, freedom equates to this right. It's not a far-fetched idea. If 70% of the population was armed and believed in Christian theocracy, we could argue about rights in the theoretical sense, but in reality it wouldn't exist.

A government also centralises large government research projects, military defense, and so forth, which an anarchist state could not.

Again, geoanarchist and anarcho-socialist associations don't suffer from this shortfall. Direct democracies would federalize on projects. Workers' councils (bottom-up democratic organizations) could also become exceptionally large depending on their need.

 

[yossarian22]

Why couldn't a direct democracy association meet this demand? Cities in Massachusetts which operate on "DD" don't have the alleged problems you're talking about.

Poor example. They already have existing infrastructure to work with.

As I said, under anarchy most people would naturally flock to socialist and geoanarchist associations.

Uh, why?
People will flock to whoever best suits their needs, which could be a monarchy.

Supposing someone did try to mine the bejeesus out of the East coast, refer to what would happen to a vogue group of killer theists. Before it comes to that, communities would probably negotiate for the land, or associations can boycott that product, or they can protest around the premise, or they can cut off trade to this person.

Everybody is not going to boycott the product. History has shown time and time again that humanity does not give a damn about a forest on the other side of the globe if destroying it gives them cheap widgets. The only way to stop something like this would be with force. And I doubt many people are willing to go to war over Yellowstone.

Anarchism is a recognition that 1.) might makes "right" (rights are established with defense of them)

This alone is reason enough to reject anarchy. Why should anybody care about extending rights to others?

 

[SimonCross]

Good Morning
Well a difference of opinion?
I do not normally go into this sort of stuff at best, I see enough of this on the TV Box and that is not much. I feel that you cannot depend on this or any government at present. I feel that the present set of government although I'm sure that there are decent folk in government by and large one could fit onto your thumb. For the most part government are always saying one thing while he/she needs your votes, then when the need for the meat and spuds they are just hot air and that is a shame and very sad. But until things change and folk see this for what it is, it will never really change at all.

With Blessings

SimonCross:help:

 

[Mathematician]

Poor example. They already have existing infrastructure to work with.

Irrelevent concern. The process of growth and development is constant. There is no practical or theoretical problems associated with infastructure development. Direct democracies can do everything a republican democracy can do.

Uh, why?
People will flock to whoever best suits their needs, which could be a monarchy.

Most people yearn to be free from tyranny. I'm sure a poll could indicate as much. Few want to live in a system of accepted serfdom or land monopolies. Furthermore, anarcho-socialist communities (Spain) and geolibertarian policies (Hong Kong) are - historically - the most productive. Anarcho-capitalist theorists cant account for the construction of infastructure, going with the above remarks. The land monopoly also puts people at a natural disadvantage, creating what we see today - a choice between one type of crap or another, all smelling to the same degree of badness.

If someone wants to live under a monarchy, be my guess.

Everybody is not going to boycott the product.

Associational boycot as well as individual. The community would prevent the import of such products. If someone has a terrible time with that idea, they can leave - but most likely they won't on small issues like this. There doesn't need to be an "everyone," just enough to prevent growth. If there is continual growth then obviously people don't give a damn about it. It's implausible for someone to mine out an entire coast line when they have restricted demand - since they're going to need laborers.

Again this issue is irrelevent. If 90% of a liberal republic favors drilling in Alaska - even if the consequences outweigh the benefits - that 10% is not going to get their way.

This alone is reason enough to reject anarchy. Why should anybody care about extending rights to others?

This question alone is enough to reject statism.

 

[yossarian22]

Irrelevent concern. The process of growth and development is constant.

Laughable. I can provide a dozen historical examples, but the most notable one was the Dark Ages.
And I not going to argue that a direct democracy can do whatever a republican democracy can, merely that the direct democracy would be even more inefficient that the latter.
And you still haven't addressed rojse's point.

Most people yearn to be free from tyranny. I'm sure a poll could indicate as much.

Great false dichotomy.

Few want to live in a system of accepted serfdom or land monopolies.

Except a monarchy implies nothing but a single person with a large amount of control? Serfdom, blood lines, and the rest are just additions to monarchies.

Furthermore, anarcho-socialist communities (Spain) and geolibertarian policies (Hong Kong) are - historically - the most productive.

Compared to what exactly?

Associational boycot as well as individual. The community would prevent the import of such products.

Great we sell to another community. The one across the country, who won't give a damn about what we do. Problem solved.

There doesn't need to be an "everyone," just enough to prevent growth. If there is continual growth then obviously people don't give a damn about it. It's implausible for someone to mine out an entire coast line when they have restricted demand - since they're going to need laborers.

This is remarkably naive. There is always a roving labor pool, and people like money more than they like their principles. And restricted demand?! Do you realize how easy it is to move things from point A to point B now? You can ship to wherever you want to. Including people to work for you.

Again this issue is irrelevent. If 90% of a liberal republic favors drilling in Alaska - even if the consequences outweigh the benefits - that 10% is not going to get their way.

Great, so you just admitted that there would be little besides the goodwill of the mob that keeps our forests from being slashed and burned. Well, I am impressed. That worked brilliantly in the past.

This question alone is enough to reject statism.

Except a state can be based off of a set of principles, while a mob of people cannot.

 

[Dunemeister]

This may sound like a trollish comment so please excuse me if it comes off that way. I don't intend it that way.

The descriptions of anarchism that I've seen in this thread seem to imply the need for large-scale organization and coordination. Presumably, people would be required to effect this organization and coordination. Decisions would have to be made, and those decisions cannot always rest on the establishment of a consensus. Thus the buck will have to stop somewhere. In other words, to make anarchism work, it seems to me that you need government.

The government most frequently appealed to is some sort of direct democracy. The problem with that term is its slipperiness. What exactly does it mean? Switzerland says it's a direct democracy, yet it clearly has a government. Certain cities in Massachusetts apparently use direct democracy, but it's kinda helpful that they have both state and federal governments keeping the peace so they can do so. In other words, DD can work, but only in the presence of some sort of government.

 

[Mathematician]

Laughable. I can provide a dozen historical examples, but the most notable one was the Dark Ages.

I was actually talking about the Massachusetts towns, but nevertheless your remark is out of place with the progressiveness historians attribute to the "Dark Ages." That's pure 19th-century hogwash. Many advancements were made, including (and not limited to) the transition from an economy very reliant on slave labor (Rome) to peasantry. This peasantry would later fuel the growth of markets once bank restrictions were lifted and territorial gains were made.

Great false dichotomy.

History is its demonstrator.

Except a monarchy implies nothing but a single person with a large amount of control? Serfdom, blood lines, and the rest are just additions to monarchies.

So be it. You're creating a false dilemma. If people want kings, so they should have.

Compared to what exactly?

Everything else, historically? Production in Spain went up over 20% in the anarchist regions, as verified by George Orwell (amongst others) in his personal accounts.

Great we sell to another community. The one across the country, who won't give a damn about what we do. Problem solved.

Did you even read where this particular line of discussion came from? The user put up the problem of some twerp capitalist trying to ruin the coastline for profits. I stated that communities with an active interest against said capitalist would have economic means to prevent him from doing anything.

There is always a roving labor pool

False.

and people like money more than they like their principles.

Then there's no defense for state protection of resources either, since we're all greedy sonuva*****es. All these problems you keep relating to human nature would show up in a state, too, and certainly when the helm of a state is controlled by these some producers, as ours is.

Except a state can be based off of a set of principles

That's never been the case in the history of all states. All constitutions and legal restrictions have been trampled on in some form or another. The Magna Carta, which is championed by the Western world, was laughed at by kings.

while a mob of people cannot.

Two problems:

1.) There's no reason to believe what you're saying is true. A direct democracy can still have a constitution and promote "liberty," or whatever.

2.) It's not a "mob." If you disagree with the association you're living with to such a large degree, you find a different one.