Forms of Government/Political Parties

[Twilight Sparkle]

None of them are perfect, but which one would you prefer to run the nation you live in? Would you accept a government that focuses on the progress of humanity as a whole at the expense of the common man? Or would you prefer one that protects individuals at the expense of progress? Do you think it's possible for a government to protect the individual and still do what is best for all? If not, which path is more important? Moreover, is what is best for the whole ultimately the best for the individual? Does the individual always know what is best for him? If not, should the government have the right to act on his behalf?

 

If you haven't thought much into it, this may help you get started: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

Now to answer my own questions, I believe that the best form of government so far is a Social Democracy, which is what many countries in Europe are doing. Statistically speaking, they are wealthy, the people are some of the happiest in the world, they have access to things such as Universal Healthcare and Welfare, have some of the highest life expectancies in the world, and in general are peaceful, productive nations. Essentially, a Social Democracy is where the people elect their representatives, and the government provides care in the form of the services mentioned above (Social Policies) while still protecting the rights of its citizens. Companies and Businesses still exist, and are regulated by the government, but are not directly controlled by it. The benefits of this are that we have all the benefits of Capitalism (Productivity, wealth, scientific progress) but without the downsides that can result from Laissez-faire economics (Monopolies, exploitation, ect.) One of the criticisms of Capitalism is that it guarantees a lower class, and an upper class, which ensures that the lower class will always be exploited by the richer class. Social Democracy is a solution for that weakness because it helps to equalize the wealth, 'patching' the problem. In this way, this type of government has managed to protect the individual, while still advancing humanity as a whole.

 

The downside to this is that it involves enormous taxes. These countries have the highest tax burdens in the world. However, taxation is a necessary evil I think, and the money is at least going to a good cause. The fact of the matter is, people sometimes need help. You can be born disadvantaged. You can lose everything through no fault of your own. Some people cannot help themselves, and so they can turn to no one other than their fellows. We did not get to where we are today by working alone, so why should we change that now? We have to help each other to survive, and us paying taxes that the government uses for social programs is us helping them help us all.

 

Any other thoughts?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[Doublenature]

I think dictatorship is really good if the dictator puts the people before himself. For example: A dictator that rather builds schools than goes to war. It would be really good without all the voting and stuff, he says: "Build a school" and it happens. But there will probably never be a dictator that good.

[Twilight Sparkle]

I kind of agree. If we had the perfect person for the job a dictatorship would be the best thing in the world. I mean, just look at Hitler. He pretty much put Germany back together in the wake of the Depression in just a few years. If it hadn't been for the world domination thing, he'd have been one of the best rulers in history. But the problem with ultimate power is that you don't answer to anyone, and there are very very VERY few people in this world that can face that without losing themselves to tyranny. It would take a perfect world to create a perfect leader, and unfortunately we have neither and probably never will.

[Eedo Baba]

Communism/Socialism. Having a government where everyone can rely on the government for the essentials, like food and health care.

[Axeldeath]

Capitalism with slight government control for me. A free market with restrictions against monopolies etc, I believe that these environments are the best at ensuring individual rights and scientific advancement.

[Angel Blood]

In a utopian society communism would be the best. But ideally everything would work in a utopian society, so for the meantime I'll go with what we've got. It's not perfect but in comparison to other systems it's fine for now.

[Arby]

Pure, Laissez-faire Capitalism, a government existing solely for the protection of the rights of its citizens from others and itself.

[Eedo Baba]

Pure, Laissez-faire Capitalism, a government existing solely for the protection of the rights of its citizens from others and itself.

 

I'd give a government like this 40 years before total collapse. Corporations feed on the rights of their workers if given the chance. In 40 years, working conditions and pay for the lower class would become unspeakably bad. Monopolies and corporate efficiency would cause widespread poverty beyond what America has ever known. The super rich would become so far reaching in power as to actually control all elements of government by the sheer corrupting power of money. The middle class would vanish overnight, replaced by a majorly unemployed and impoverished lower class. There would be a revolution against the corporations within 40 years, unseating CEOs just as Czars were unseated in the Russian Revolution.

 

Not that any form of government is totally stable, but what you proposed is like a goddamn time-bomb.

[Twilight Sparkle]

Pure, Laissez-faire Capitalism, a government existing solely for the protection of the rights of its citizens from others and itself.

 

I'd give a government like this 40 years before total collapse. Corporations feed on the rights of their workers if given the chance. In 40 years, working conditions and pay for the lower class would become unspeakably bad. Monopolies and corporate efficiency would cause widespread poverty beyond what America has ever known. The super rich would become so far reaching in power as to actually control all elements of government by the sheer corrupting power of money. The middle class would vanish overnight, replaced by a majorly unemployed and impoverished lower class. There would be a revolution against the corporations within 40 years, unseating CEOs just as Czars were unseated in the Russian Revolution.

 

Not that any form of government is totally stable, but what you proposed is like a goddamn time-bomb.

 

I agree, though I don't think the government will collapse, seeing how the supremely powerful corporations will essentially be the government anyway. The fact of the matter is, we can't depend on corporations to do what is best for all of us. They have benefits and they bring us great things, but ultimately they are interested only in making a profit, and they have shown that they will do anything necessary to reach that end. With no government regulation, those corporations will rip the middle and lower classes to pieces. How can the government protect the rights of its citizens if it doesn't regulate the corporations? Is protection from exploitation not a right?

[Axeldeath]

But "feeding off the rights of their workers" would be illegal. :/

[Eedo Baba]

But "feeding off the rights of their workers" would be illegal. :/

 

Illegal until the corporations make it legal. Laissez-faire inevitably leads to a powerless government. If the corporations want it so, they can pass any legislation they feel is necessary, because the reach of an unregulated corporation grows past the reach of the people themselves.

[Axeldeath]

But then it's not a laissez-faire government.

[Arby]

Pure, Laissez-faire Capitalism, a government existing solely for the protection of the rights of its citizens from others and itself.

 

I'd give a government like this 40 years before total collapse. Corporations feed on the rights of their workers if given the chance. In 40 years, working conditions and pay for the lower class would become unspeakably bad. Monopolies and corporate efficiency would cause widespread poverty beyond what America has ever known. The super rich would become so far reaching in power as to actually control all elements of government by the sheer corrupting power of money. The middle class would vanish overnight, replaced by a majorly unemployed and impoverished lower class. There would be a revolution against the corporations within 40 years, unseating CEOs just as Czars were unseated in the Russian Revolution.

 

Not that any form of government is totally stable, but what you proposed is like a goddamn time-bomb.

 

I'm going to break a part your points here. In a proper government, with its sole purpose for protection of rights, government and economy are separated, the state having no forceful influence over the property of its citizens, and in turn no exertion of economic influence over the force the state wields.No company can maintain a monopoly over nay industry without use of force, there can be no prevention of any competition with a market freed from force, it would simply be impossible.

 

Why would there be poverty? Anyone not satisfied with their wage is free to seek employment elsewhere, and higher wages are often a powerful incentive for employment, competition among business, were no competitor holds unjust advantage by threat of force, encourages ever improving quality for employees and consumers. Its foolish to think that companies would, at the first chance, send their employees, who have all agreed voluntarily to offer their services, either into a hellish sweatshop for pennies a day or onto the streets, when their competitor was openly free to offer far more favorable conditions and thus achieve massively more productive capacity than them, not to mention the repercussions of the sure to be unfavorable reaction the consumer market must have to such a company, at least not any company whose goal was to make profit and who did not have unlimited resources which would be an impossibility without government intervention.

 

by the sheer corrupting power of money.

 

I find this particularly disturbing, and direct you here for a full, in-depth reply to this.

[Axeldeath]

I could say first-past-the-post democracy leads to Dictatorship. I even have an example, but just because there's a possibility that it could happen doesn't mean it will. If a laissez-faire government enforces the law as it should then corporations holding control over human rights is impossible.

[Eedo Baba]

Pure, Laissez-faire Capitalism, a government existing solely for the protection of the rights of its citizens from others and itself.

 

I'd give a government like this 40 years before total collapse. Corporations feed on the rights of their workers if given the chance. In 40 years, working conditions and pay for the lower class would become unspeakably bad. Monopolies and corporate efficiency would cause widespread poverty beyond what America has ever known. The super rich would become so far reaching in power as to actually control all elements of government by the sheer corrupting power of money. The middle class would vanish overnight, replaced by a majorly unemployed and impoverished lower class. There would be a revolution against the corporations within 40 years, unseating CEOs just as Czars were unseated in the Russian Revolution.

 

Not that any form of government is totally stable, but what you proposed is like a goddamn time-bomb.

 

I'm going to break a part your points here. In a proper government, with its sole purpose for protection of rights, government and economy are separated, the state having no forceful influence over the property of its citizens, and in turn no exertion of economic influence over the force the state wields.No company can maintain a monopoly over nay industry without use of force, there can be no prevention of any competition with a market freed from force, it would simply be impossible.

 

Why would there be poverty? Anyone not satisfied with their wage is free to seek employment elsewhere, and higher wages are often a powerful incentive for employment, competition among business, were no competitor holds unjust advantage by threat of force, encourages ever improving quality for employees and consumers. Its foolish to think that companies would, at the first chance, send their employees, who have all agreed voluntarily to offer their services, either into a hellish sweatshop for pennies a day or onto the streets, when their competitor was openly free to offer far more favorable conditions and thus achieve massively more productive capacity than them, not to mention the repercussions of the sure to be unfavorable reaction the consumer market must have to such a company, at least not any company whose goal was to make profit and who did not have unlimited resources which would be an impossibility without government intervention.

 

by the sheer corrupting power of money.

 

I find this particularly disturbing, and direct you here for a full, in-depth reply to this.

 

I'm not saying that money is the root of all evil, nothing so philosophical. I'm saying that vast amounts of money allow corporations full control over government. It happens in small doses in America today, when bills and candidates are sponsored immensely by corporations. I'm saying that backdoor dealing and open sponsoring would render the government powerless after not very long.

 

And I think you misunderstand "pure Laissez-faire". It implies completely unregulated markets. In a completely unregulated markets, monopolies WOULD prosper, just as they started to in the late 19th century before such laws were put in place. You'll note as well that during that time, monopolies DID NOT CARE about public image. It didn't matter. They offered products that people needed and could get no where else. The same is true for employment. As monopolies maximize market efficiency, fewer and fewer jobs are left behind, leaving the corporations to lower pay and make working conditions even worse.

[Arby]

No, I did not misunderstand what I said, and I meant exactly that.

[Pinkie Pie]

I picked dictatorship because dammit someone has to pick the thing that no one else will.

[Eedo Baba]

No, I did not misunderstand what I said, and I meant exactly that.

 

You advocate "pure Laissez-faire" but you seem to think that wouldn't lead to monopolies or expansion of the lower class. That's why I think you misunderstand it.

[Arby]

I mean what I say, and only forceful intervention by gangs of thugs can incite what you describe, a government properly constrained can allow no such thing.

[Tadrix]

That thread is about religion. No, seriously, it's about what we believe. xD

 

I voted for Anarchy (form of government led by an Anarch, lol), but, to be serious, it should be Other.

My choice would be some kind of meritocracy. The government constantly makes decisions with questionable competence (because most frequent loudmouths with better PR get to rule). Giving power to those who actually are competent in the field would eliminate at least that flaw.