 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - What Gov't best suits you? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
What kind of gov't do you prefer?| Theocracy, Kansas school board style |
|
0.0%, 0 vote | Theocracy, Khomeini style |
|
0.0%, 0 vote | Socialist Democracy |
58.8%, 10 votes | Capitalist Democracy |
5.9%, 1 vote | Proxy-Democracy |
|
0.0%, 0 vote | Proxy-Communism, Stalin rapes you style |
5.9%, 1 vote | Benevolent Dictatorship |
5.9%, 1 vote | Facist Dictatorship |
|
0.0%, 0 vote | Anarchy |
23.5%, 4 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
|
Wurl 4.0 Level: 18  Posts: 24/244 EXP: 27558 For next: 2339 Since: 09-11-05 From: Illinois: Land of Eternal Desert Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 10 hours |
| ||
| This isn't 100% serious, but what do you think? | |||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 480/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Global papal anarchy. All temporal power is vested in the Pope, but he is forbidden to communicate through any means except interpretive dance. The result is that his power can't actually be exercised, everyone else is left trying to figure out what he means, and the general populace just does their own thing, comes up with ad hoc arrangements, with the pope setting a general, but vague, moral tone. |
|||
Thayer Fuzz Ball Level: 38  Posts: 625/988 EXP: 349428 For next: 21019 Since: 06-28-05 Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| My personal preference is a federalist republic, which I suppose might fall under capitalist democracy, I like the basic ideas of the US Constitution, but feel that there should be less restrictions and that much of our current law is too enclosing. Really, I want a strong central government that helps when its necessary but where the people are not dependent on the government for basic needs except in times of extreme emergency or crisis. (edited by Thayer on 09-18-05 12:56 AM) |
|||
|
Wurl 4.0 Level: 18 Posts: 25/244 EXP: 27558 For next: 2339 Since: 09-11-05 From: Illinois: Land of Eternal Desert Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 10 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Thayer Yeah, I'd put that under capitalist democracy. Of course, there are too many variations to make each one a choice; all of them are genaeralizations. |
|||
|
Thayer Fuzz Ball Level: 38 Posts: 635/988 EXP: 349428 For next: 21019 Since: 06-28-05 Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| Alright, I voted. Personally, I like the government out of people's business as much as possible. I believe that's called libertarian, but I'm not sure. | |||
paraplayer Snifit Level: 22  Posts: 280/280 EXP: 57271 For next: 1079 Since: 06-06-05 Since last post: 44 days Last activity: 44 days |
| ||
| I thought about this once. Anarchy is the only real choice. |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 830/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Well, I am, after all, a social democrat. That means I could pick two of the options here. Social Democrats want to work with reforms within the capitalist system to give it the transition to the socialist system (as oposed to communists, who want the same goal, but who believe in achieveing it through revolution in stead of reform), so you could say my ideal government is the socialist democracy, but I work under the capitalist democracy. Ohh well... I guess I'll just have to go ahead and vote socialist democracy. It has a nicer ring to it. |
|||
|
Wurl 4.0 Level: 18 Posts: 33/244 EXP: 27558 For next: 2339 Since: 09-11-05 From: Illinois: Land of Eternal Desert Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 10 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by The SomerZ It does have a nice ring to it. For definition purposes, capitalist democracy will refer to a democracy with minimal market restrictions. So, more or less the U.S. Social Democracy will refer to a state focused on aleviating poverty, inequality, ect. with a strong welfare state and restrictions on the market. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 481/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| You don't necessarily need much in the way of restrictions on the market to construct a decent social welfare state, it's a false dichotomy. That's why we have the term Social Market Economy. | |||
Edea Red Goomba Level: 8 Posts: 29/36 EXP: 1824 For next: 363 Since: 08-23-05 Since last post: 11 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
| Socialist Democracy. Actually it'd be nice to get rid of money entirely yet be able to define yourself however you want simultaneously, but humans are hardwired for competition and status against other humans, so it ain't happening. Forgive this generality, but that's why rich people eat a bunch of shitty-ass yet very expensive food like caviar; only -they- eat it. |
|||
|
Wurl 4.0 Level: 18 Posts: 37/244 EXP: 27558 For next: 2339 Since: 09-11-05 From: Illinois: Land of Eternal Desert Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 10 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Yeah, but market economies often propel poverty and inequality. Vote what you want and feel free to elaborate as Arwon did. |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 3368/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
Social democracy clearly works.  Or do I need to show you how it clearly works? |
|||
Danielle Local Moderator  Level: 76  Posts: 2511/3359 EXP: 3958078 For next: 47982 Since: 09-15-04 From: RATE Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Kefka Seconded. I'd say capitalist but.. that seems to be going down the tubes as of late.  |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 482/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Wurl 4.0Originally posted by Arwon So West Germany, was it a "socialist" or a "capitalist" democracy? The idea that it's either/or seems utterly absurd. |
|||
SamuraiX Paratroopa Level: 19 Posts: 47/140 EXP: 32602 For next: 3175 Since: 10-11-04 From: ^___^ Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| The idea of a government is mostly ideals, in real life, it is pure lies and deceit. Anarchy is the only viable democracy. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 483/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| You mean like in Somalia? | |||
|
Slay Level: 25 Posts: 318/339 EXP: 85592 For next: 4028 Since: 04-28-05 From: Threshold Between Heaven and Hell Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| Communism. I disagree with the popular opinion that it's fine on paper and terrible in execution. My personal viewpoint is that only corrupt individuals interested in nothing but personal gain have ever tried to implement communism, thus we have no reliable sources on which to base opinions about the system of government. Just kidding. I don't have an ideal government, because I don't think people necessarily need to be governed, and I don't think that any person, group or entity has the right to lay claims to land. But to go along with generally-established ideas, I strongly dislike socialism and am not fond of capitalism. I dislike socialism because I believe a government is not a moral nor charitable entity, nor should it be. If anything, a government should keep the people it governs from hurting each other. Period. No other intervention is acceptable. No government-run public schooling. No restrictions on personal drug usage. No government opposition towards suicide (so long as it's done in a manner that does not disrupt others). No moral laws or legislation surrounding moral issues (i.e. it's not the state's right to deny marraige or ban abortion). No government-funded public works. No president, prime minister or commander in chief. You may think this extreme and chaotic, even dystopian, but look at Auroville. I honestly believe there are enough well-meaning, responsible people in the world that, if there is no distinction between the powerful and the powerless (corporations vs individuals, government vs citizens), they could simply cast out or reform destructive and ill-meaning persons without government intervention. I believe citizens can create their own public works, their own public libraries and schools, their own institutions of arts, sciences and knowledge, and to a much higher quality than any government could ever achieve. But then, of course, comes the problem of religion. Where government is absent, religion will surely sneak in and try to control things. The one vaguely-socialist act I would agree to would be for the government to keep watch for imposed religious control of any area not fully comprised of it's own, willing members. Meaning, if ten thousand devout Christians want to get together and build a city, ruling it by the Bible, that's their right, but if any religious leader, group or organization were try to spread it's influence to areas where non-members are already populated, it is the government's responsibility to stop this. Alas, I doubt such a dream will be fully realized in my life time. The Edea says... Maitre d': Here is you meal, sir; foie gras and caviar. Zoidberg (after sniffing at food): Duck liver? Fish eggs? You rich people eat the garbage parts of the animal! There is a Futurama quote apropriate to any discussion you could possibly have. But on a more serious note, I would like to live in a society free of any form of currency. Where everyone produces something, everything is free, but everybody takes in moderation, as not to hoard posessions to themselves or exhaust supplies. But even more ideally is a situation described in lyrical form. "Imagine no posessions. I wonder if you can. No need for greed, or hunger; a brotherhood of man." The SamuraiX says... I would have liked to live in that age, but with the state of the world as it is today, anarchy cannot work. We exist on too large a scale; the moment anarchy were introduced, massive corporations would hire personal armies and begin to claim land, force slave labor of the inhabitants and turn the countries they are a part of into eternal battlefields for money and power. The only thing keeping corporations from unleashing their limitless voracity for power is the legal system of the governments they exist under, and as of late, even legality isn't stopping them. Then again, I suppose that is survival of the fittest at it's best. In the end, the moral will always lose to the immoral. The Arwon says... Gee, what a sentiment. "We all seem to enjoy criticising our governments but life in Somalia shows the alternative is far worse, as Hobbes wrote 350 years ago." Indeed; someone else's life sucks because they live in the third world with warlords over their heads, therefore, Joe British has no right to critisize his government or the way they work. Blair 1, World 0. The article is misleading at best; Somalia is a poor and desperate nation, regardless of the abscense or presence of a government, and most civilized nations haven't the free schooling or hospital service the quoted Somali so pines for; it's paid for in taxes, and in America, medical care must be directly paid for. I hate to be the one to say it, but only the weak cry for some faceless force to come rescue them, be it government or higher power. X knows what I'm talking about. |
|||
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82  Posts: 3317/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Slay, this is NOT Brave New World. People aren't simply going to cast other people out of society or reform them for being unorthodox, there aren't going to be islands in Iceland and the Falkland islands where you can go meet other errants. Eventually in a society like that, a system of rule will take place where everything does belong to everyone else. Your idea of taking in moderation and everyone producing everything has one huge weakness: You're thinking of moderation on your own terms. Some people express a physical need alongside a greed-based need subconsciously. They'd need to be conditioned to not, and that'd be exercising more control over the individual than most governments do currently. And what happens when there IS unorthodoxy? When two people decide they both want something at once? The person who gets it first will obviously be placed above another person, at least in the mind of the individual. That's instinct. Or if someone wants privacy, but is denied it on the grounds that nobody else wants privacy, therefore privacy can't be necessary and is thus not permissible? There's going to eventually be a problem of supply, demand, and laziness. It's hard-coded into people, and you're right to think that it won't happen in this lifetime. We're too accustomed to luxury. It's not dystopian, it's ultra-utopian, based around the idea that somehow everyone will be happy and peaceful and courteous to each other when in fact we're dumb, panicky, angry animals that don't want to defy our basest instincts. |
|||
|
Wurl 4.0 Level: 18 Posts: 107/244 EXP: 27558 For next: 2339 Since: 09-11-05 From: Illinois: Land of Eternal Desert Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 10 hours |
| ||
| So, I seceeded from my History teacher's class today. | |||
|
SamuraiX Paratroopa Level: 19 Posts: 55/140 EXP: 32602 For next: 3175 Since: 10-11-04 From: ^___^ Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Governments should be more spread out, and less centralized. Mainly, a pure capitalist society, where the people govern themselves would fit people, since people are fated to greed. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - What Gov't best suits you? |
| | |
