[QUOTE=_Kent_;32436640]I think direct democracy should be tried again. There hasn't really been on since Athens, an I think with a small community, a well educated populace, and modern communications technology, it could work well.[/QUOTE]
in a large specialized society that continues to advance and continue to gather more information, it is impossible for everybody to know anything about almost everything. As a result, you have a system where the people deciding on the issue always have little to no knowledge about the issue. This opens the way for media and money manipulation, where people form blocs (see, political parties) who decide everything for them. its basically a downward spiral from there.
In my opinion ANY government has the potential to be perfect so long as everyone involved isn't an asshole/willing to acknowledge other opinions (this is why we can't have a perfect type of government)
a system where genetically engineered giant dogs roam the cities and countryside to instill order and we are the flocks of sheep
There will never be a perfect government. Governments are made to control people. Governments may change from country to country, but the lies will always stay the same.
[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;32461949]There will never be a perfect government. Governments are made to control people. Governments may change from country to country, but the lies will always stay the same.[/QUOTE]
Because, you know, that's not the entire point of having a government, right?
As far as I'm concerned the perfect human government would be a true democracy in a well-educated nation.
Unfortunately true democracy is horribly unrealistic in all but the smallest communities, which is why most "Democratic" nations are actually republics. Also, no nation has become wholly well-educated.
One that is fair.
A government, ruled by the collective mass of people, laws enforced by the collective mass. Absolutly no command, only moral standards. Everyone should be equal, there still should be an economy going though (but a different one). The most emphasis should be lied on education and freedom. Individualism should be promoted.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;32405074]Communism if you can get it right. Constitutional Republic (AMERICA) if you can't.[/QUOTE]
Communism will never truly work for a country. It works on a small scale, such as a small community, as it is a way of life that all the people in the community have gathered for. However, on a national scale, Marxism easily crumbles, as it was created in a vacuum and was meant for fictitious humans who care about others as much as they care about themselves. Obviously humans aren't perfect, and personal greed is a defining aspect of all living species, which makes it absolutely foolish to believe that we are capable of sustaining such a fragile and perfect society. If performed on a landmass the size of the continental United States, there would also be differences in geographical areas, meaning that certain regions would be inherently richer than others. The citizens of the more fertile or naturally benefited areas would probably resist handing over their area's resources to areas that create very little, and the sharing would be less than mutual, leading to conflict between areas. Furthermore, many Communists claim Marxism can exist without a national government, meaning that the distribution of resources would become almost impossible on a large scale, and the lack of a professional standing army would leave the nation weak to attacks from outsiders. Finally, it is likely the society would start form around some type of charismatic leader or organizer, eventually molding the country into an oppressive dictatorship.
I think the easiest way to figure out a [I]potentially[/I] perfect government is by looking at the current government you are under now, analyze the problems that we currently face, and try to come up with a solution. It's like what Marx did, but better.
I say that in the case of the U.S. gov't, things would be better if instead of two giant parties, some sort of political Great Schism happened which would cause the two major parties to break up into 4 or 8 smaller parties competing against each other. This way, elections would churn out better presidents and congressmen since there will be a wider palette of politicians to pick from, rather than just choosing the lesser of two evils like we do now. That would only be the "semi-final" round of elections though. [B]Then[/B] we will hold an election where it is just him and the runner-up facing off, to ensure that the majority actually approves of the first candidate.
My hopes are that this will lead to better candidates which will create better legislation which should inevitably lead to the formation of a better government.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Hidole555;32483357]I think the easiest way to figure out a [I]potentially[/I] perfect government is by looking at the current government you are under now, analyze the problems that we currently face, and try to come up with a solution. It's like what Marx did, but better.
I say that in the case of the U.S. gov't, things would be better if instead of two giant parties, some sort of political Great Schism happened which would cause the two major parties to break up into 4 or 8 smaller parties competing against each other. This way, elections would churn out better presidents and congressmen since there will be a wider palette of politicians to pick from, rather than just choosing the lesser of two evils like we do now. That would only be the "semi-final" round of elections though. [B]Then[/B] we will hold an election where it is just him and the runner-up facing off, to ensure that the majority actually approves of the first candidate.
My hopes are that this will lead to better candidates which will create better legislation which should inevitably lead to the formation of a better government.[/QUOTE]
Most countries today have more than two parties and the elections are not really run as a contest.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;32483357]I think the easiest way to figure out a [I]potentially[/I] perfect government is by looking at the current government you are under now, analyze the problems that we currently face, and try to come up with a solution. It's like what Marx did, but better.
I say that in the case of the U.S. gov't, things would be better if instead of two giant parties, some sort of political Great Schism happened which would cause the two major parties to break up into 4 or 8 smaller parties competing against each other. This way, elections would churn out better presidents and congressmen since there will be a wider palette of politicians to pick from, rather than just choosing the lesser of two evils like we do now. That would only be the "semi-final" round of elections though. [B]Then[/B] we will hold an election where it is just him and the runner-up facing off, to ensure that the majority actually approves of the first candidate.
My hopes are that this will lead to better candidates which will create better legislation which should inevitably lead to the formation of a better government.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that in most democracies though, is elections are done to elect a local representative, not as a competition between the parties on a national level. When you vote, you're voting for someone in your local area to represent you and your beliefs. This is how it is done in Australia, and I'm assuming it is the same in the United States as well. Here, it is not a sheet which offers the choices between the parties, but it is a sheet which offers the names of candidates, and a small mention of the party they are associated with, or if they're independant.
What your nation needs is a system allowing for people to form their own official political parties, this is the system that many nations use, such as Australia. We have many different parties, including Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, One Nation, the Sex Party, a Communist Party and many other parties. Having your "branch" kind of idea wouldn't work for local elections. Multiple parties would work, however.
There is no way to have a perfect government. You would have to get rid of human nature to do that.
I don't know, so we should find out, I'd vote for a bunch of open minded people who tried and experimented, while looking at the results, and changing their policies to what works and is the fairest and most productive.
[editline]26th September 2011[/editline]
If there is no better alternative, i'd vote for the least competent major party as they may fuck up, but they will likely be less evil, that's why I like labour in the UK.
Independent communities, government in a scale comprehensible by its citizens, molecular manufacturing/3D printers providing material goods and basic sustenance done by -- Yes -- robots.
It's always hard to please people, but i think it will have to be an extremely de-centralized government. As in, not one central government for the entire country.
its is not the government that should change. its the economy what we have now making things not
the best so they will have to buy more of your product therefore wasting resources we don't have. like the zeitgeist movement
i believe we should work in a resource-based economy, so even if we have a
democratic government we wouldn't be getting fucked over by money crazed people (i.e. the bank[in
general]{giving out more loans then what they have gaining more money then this follows up to
where they make the money and they just make more so the dollar is worth less})
TL;DR a democratic government w/ a resource-based economy
A benevolent dictatorship is a close one, as it is both an efficient system and looks after the persons within their borders.
There is no perfect government, and we continue to strive to create one and get pissed about failure.
We don't go about it in the way we should.
Full democracy, true explanation of what racism means, tolerable immigration, no racism.
That's pretty much it.
A perfect government is one that says their perfect.
Humans are flawed, so everything ascending from them is flawed too.
Solution would be Strong A.I.
I think it's small, local governments.
combining my idea with the AI idea, maybe every person could have a little personal supercomputer that attends to his governmental needs and interacts with the rest of the AI hive mind to come up with a solution for ALL of his law-related problems, that doesn't harm anyone else's problems. there could also be a huge, major computer that moderates all the smaller ones to make it so the economy stays in harmony. If someone fucks shit up, their personal computer is notified, notifies him, interacts with other computers to find a solution, and delivers this solution all within about two or three seconds. If anyone gets out of line, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to not be discovered. the impostor is accosted, his personal computer tries to work something out with the others (like a uncorrupted courthouse that can communicate fully), and, if there is no solution that can solve the problem, (e.g. if the criminal has killed someone, obviously you can't stop him from killing on the spot) he is sent to a correctional facility.
and all of this will not be given the ok by one human, but all people. no one person or computer is given full control of even small decisions.
so yeah. i think i'm on to something here.
Like you could have a system whereby there is a LAN for a single apartment block/office/factory/etc along with a local soviet. Then have all the ones in a city controlled by a single city council and a city level soviet. Connect them all up, distribute media to people for free and implement socialist practices such as healthcare, safety regulations, etc. The trade unions can be used to identify problems that can be sent to the local soviet and sorted out efficiently. The computers throughout an entire nation can be used for the processing of various things, with a machines spare processing power to be used on various things around the nation.
Dissent would be identified, silenced, and then have the root of the problem identified and fixed so it will not arise again, whilst keeping the people happy.
There would still be a central city and such, where national decisions can be taken with utmost efficiency.
Communism.
The best goverment would be one that didn't exist.
I honestly don't mind the governmental systems we have in most first-world countries. Economic prosperity (Though we might be going through a recession and unstable markets, most people are making atleast 40k+ usd a year), scientific progress, free speech, and enough democracy that change is possible.
[QUOTE=_Kent_;32436640]I think direct democracy should be tried again. There hasn't really been on since Athens, an I think with a small community, a well educated populace, and modern communications technology, it could work well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the trick there is "Well Educated Populace."
[editline]6th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;32438585]The problem with direct democracy is that although it gives power to the people, it is not necessarily always a good thing to give power to your average Joe, it's the reason why we vote for representatives and entrust them with making the right informed decision. Direct democracy allows for people to attempt to create their own ideal society, although one persons opinion will conflict with many others and it would essentially lead to absolutely no progress.
We need a person who can lead a compromise for everyone, a compromise made from an informed and professional opinion. When we give power to representatives, it simplifies the system and actually allows for progress, by giving the power to someone who actually knows what would be best for everyone and not for any person in particular. These are the reasons why I don't believe direct democracy would be a perfect government.[/QUOTE]
I agree with your argument, most people have no idea what is good for them. Of course direct democracy takes corruption out of the loop.
The notion of a well educated populace is the notion of a populace that believes in what you do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.