Prefered Form of Government

[JacobEvans]

To prevent confusion, I gave rather specific definitions by what I meant by each form of Gov't.
I know a thread about politcal leanings already existed, but I'm curious to know our views on forms of government.

I chose Republic btw.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I pick #1, #4, and a smidgen of #2 for social services.

 

[Giliell]

Your definition of comunism is wrong. In comunism the state would finally cease to exist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Your definition of comunism is wrong. In comunism the state would finally cease to exist.

Yeah, I was going to mention... I thought communism was "property belongs to the people, and is shared equitably."

 

[JacobEvans]

In comunism the state would finally cease to exist

I'm talking about communism during the period in which the government does exist.

The period afterwords would fall into my category of Anarchism.

Never has your definition of Communism ever occurred, I'm defining it terms of what has actually occurred.

 

[JacobEvans]

I pick #1, #4, and a smidgen of #2 for social services.

I'm not asking for your political beliefs, I'm talking about your preferred governmental structure.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm not asking for your political beliefs, I'm talking about your preferred governmental structure.

That's what I gave you.

 

[Fictionarious]

Anarchism is not an absence of laws. It resembles classical liberalism, but skeptical of or in denial of the ability of any "State" (governing institution) to ensure the most liberal society possible. No anarchist advocates absolute freedom or the total absence of law, mainly just that the government doesn't fund itself through extortion and that the laws be about prohibiting prohibition in any of it's forms (murder, theft, slavery, etc.).
Kind of along the same lines as the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, the only thing we can justly prohibit is prohibition itself.
So I chose Anarchy, but I wanted to clarify.

 

[JacobEvans]

Anarchism is not an absence of laws. It resembles classical liberalism, but skeptical of or in denial of the ability of any "State" (governing institution) to ensure the most liberal society possible. No anarchist advocates absolute freedom or the total absence of law, mainly just that the government doesn't fund itself through extortion and that the laws be about prohibiting prohibition in any of it's forms (murder, theft, slavery, etc.).
Kind of along the same lines as the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, the only thing we can justly prohibit is prohibition itself.
So I chose Anarchy, but I wanted to clarify.

A government is an institution which carries out public policies. How does one have laws without a government?

 

[JacobEvans]

That's what I gave you.

Care to elaborate then how this government you described would work?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Care to elaborate then how this government you described would work?

There's a little place called America...

 

[JacobEvans]

There's a little place called America...

America is a Republic.

You'd be hard pressed to prove other wise.

 

[Pulsar]

We Belgians couldn't decide, so in a stroke of genius we threw everything together, and we ended up with a federal parliamentary representative consensus-democratic particratic constitutional popular monarchy. That's the theory. In practice, it's an anarchy :lol:

We have a royal family, 6 governments (with 1 prime minister and 4 Ministers-President (and no, I haven't miscounted)), 7 parliaments (yes, SEVEN), and 10 provincial councils (each lead by a governor). And I haven't included the Council of the EU, the European Commission or the European Parliament. Or NATO Headquarters.

Politically, it's the most entertaining place in the world

 

[JacobEvans]

We Belgians couldn't decide, so in a stroke of genius we threw everything together, and we ended up with a federal parliamentary representative consensus-democratic particratic constitutional popular monarchy. That's the theory. In practice, it's an anarchy :lol:

We have a royal family, 6 governments (with 1 prime minister and 4 Ministers-President (and no, I haven't miscounted)), 7 parliaments (yes, SEVEN), and 10 provincial councils (each lead by a governor). And I haven't included the Council of the EU, the European Commission or the European Parliament. Or NATO Headquarters.

Politically, it's the most entertaining place in the world

:shock:

Holy crap! That sounds almost like a confederacy.

 

[Pulsar]

Holy crap! That sounds almost like a confederacy.

It's slowly evolving into a confederation, which many Flemish (the Dutch-speaking North, to which I belong) would prefer. Two problems: 1) the French-speaking South wants a status quo, mainly because they're economically dependent upon the North. And 2) Brussels is a mix of both communities, impossible to split, and way too important to give up. So somehow it needs to be shared by both regions.
So the arguments and discussions go on and on and on...

 

[WolfAU]

Something more akin to a benevolent dictatorship, democracy (as we understand it) is a quaint idea, but it is more a bunch of beaurocrats bickering, procrastinating, passing the buck, and sneaking in pay increases for themselves than a true system of governance.

Combined with a provincial/communal system (which would be controlled by partially electred officials, mayors/governers etc). A focus away from capitalism and persuit of material wealth and more towards cooperation, civic duty/common interest etc.

 

[ladiesman391]

There are political ideologies and there's reality. I chose democracy because ideally it's the fairest system if the government chosen by the majority acts consistently for the good of the majority, in reality this does not always happen. I would never choose #1 as pre-existing laws become outdated quite quickly, like the bible, and too much power is given to too few.

I like the sound of anarchism in the way Fictionarious describes it, although society may lack direction without a form of leadership. It would be interesting to see what actually happens in an anarchist state, I guess it's similar to basic theory of Economists in that businesses should not be governed or restricted by governments or laws allowing a pure form of competition which 9 times out of 10 results a market equilibrium and the people get the best products at the cheapest possible price, anarchy might result in a social equilibrium if left to it's own devices. If that was the case it would be similar to Communism in it's idealogical purpose, but better as people don't relinquish possessions and would not be unlimited in their ability.

You forgot to mention the New World Order JacobEvans.... Or is that fascism?

 

[Josan]

America is a Republic.

You'd be hard pressed to prove other wise.

Well, while it is a republic, IJoe is correct. The system in America is, by your definitions, a mix of #1 and #4 with a small smudge of #2 for socialism. I think this works quite well, but I do think that America could use a little more #2 to spicen things up a little.

 

[Ciraric]

Fascism.

However, only with your definition of Fascism.

I support the idea of rewarding effort and punishing lack of effort. Isn't that how you teach children?

 

[JacobEvans]

Fascism.

However, only with your definition of Fascism.

I support the idea of rewarding effort and punishing lack of effort. Isn't that how you teach children?

In reality, that's the basis of Fascism. Nazis just saw the Jews,slavs, gypsies, etc as the "weak" who were a drag on the "superior nordic race". But, it doesn't necessarily have to be a racial thing.