 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The perfect government? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.                    Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
| What do you think the perfect goverment would be, even assume there is no curruption. (Still, people would have to be kept happy and all.)
I'm honestly not that sure myself, I always figured a dictatorship with an extremely intelligent ruler, with people specifing laws of their cities, would be the best, although simplistic. |
|||
Wurl  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6362 days Last view: 6362 days |
| ||
| "The best government is that which governs the least." -Thoreau
I agree for the most part, but most of humanity is not ready for anarchy. The best government now would be able to create a highly egalitarian population with minimal interference in private affairs. |
|||
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6585 days Last view: 6585 days |
| ||
| A government that only respected and protected the rights of the individual citizens in its jurisdiction. | |||
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day  Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
Skydude Armos Knight  Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6594 days Last view: 6594 days |
| ||
| It's all about incentives. Communism would never work because there's no incentive to excel for anyone. And adding incentives...makes it not communism, at least most of the time.
As for the question, I think some assumptions about the people being governed would really need to be made in determining the perfect government. For example, I would say that for my own views, I'd be a libertarian if I trusted people more than I do. |
|||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6320 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
| Free Democracy
My own version of how the world should work. You work, you get paid a set amount of money each month to spend on whatever you want. If you own a business, you get quadruple that amount to spend on your business alone, plus your own salary for whatever you want to spend it on. Anyone who does not take advantage of this new freedom and do what their passion is will be placed in a job. If they still decide to not work, their salary is reduced for a period of time. Continued abuse may possibly result in reposession of assets NOT provided by the government. Jailtime/execution/sodomization is not an option. Assets provided by the government include a house for any person 18 years of age or older, electricity, cable, internet, running water, and a mode of transportation (AKA a car). If a person is married to someone else, both partners share said assets, and whichever spouse moves in with the other returns all physical assets to the government for further use. All profit a company/busness/you make(s) is deposited into a national bank run by a group completely separate from the government, as does all the money earned by import and export, along with any other source of funds. The government (For once) does not really have much power, and therefore it is possible to completely eliminate a government entirely once the new system has been implemented and become stable. And thus, anarchy can finally reign like it was meant to be. But essentially, the government is there to make sure everything runs like it's supposed to by sending out little messengers who's sole job is to interrogate and seek out anyone trying to take advantage of the system. Every year, there is a form issued to everyone who is of age to own government assets and report how much they spent (On average), how much they didn't spend, etc. This is to determine if everyone is spending their money appropriately. And since whatever you don't spend builds up gradually, you can buy more expensive things over time. If the need for government becomes apparent once again, there will be an election to choose candidates the people want, not who the leader of any party wants. This is all theoretical, of course, but this is indeed the system I mentioned that I made up in one of my posts here a while back. Incomplete, of course, but it's yours to criticize at will, as it's a work in progress. (edited by Rom Manic on 03-31-06 12:10 AM) |
|||
|
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6585 days Last view: 6585 days |
| ||
| Sky- the reason people are as shitty as they are is because they are babysat their entire life. They are never given the incentive to be responsible... they are not.
Rom... That's impossible. There is no way to make a system like that run without a government more powerful than any dictatorship. It does sound like a nice way to live, I'll admit, but you can't just theorize perfect systems without some grounding in reality. |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6594 days Last view: 6594 days |
| ||
| Ephy, the thing is, it's not just because people are babysat their whole lives. Look at history...on a grand scale. Market-based systems, to some extent, form the basis of the economy in all of the major players around the world in ancient civilizations, continuing through to the modern age. Meanwhile, systems with more of a socialism bent did exist...but pretty much just confined to small tribes in the middle of nowhere that never came to much of anything.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's no value in a life like those of the people in those other systems. But if we're talking about progress, productivity, etc., then it's pretty clear to see that you need some form of incentive system. Taken into the modern context, look at the collapse of the Soviet Union, primarily due to economic variables. |
|||
|
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6585 days Last view: 6585 days |
| ||
| Haven't you seen me argue in favor of capitalism? :p Life itself is enough of an incentive for capitalism to work | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6320 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude Slavery is a market-based economy? So was Rome, Middle Europe and the Natives? This sort of anachronistic way of forcing your personal ideology onto history is ultimately flawed and failed. It accomplishes nothing but to sully the work of historians themselves. What was then is not what we have now. To call it a "market" system as we envision it, complete with the ideologies that go along with it, is extremely ignorant. As is your little "socialism" banter. Socialism and market-based capitalism have only existed since the 17th century as rough ideologies and only in the last two have they ever been implimented. Prior to that the economy of Europe and the rest of the world was NOT comprable to todays in any meaningful terms. Yes, I will agree that some institutions that we have today have been derived by their Mediaeval ancestors. However capitalism and socialism are both obscene ideas that are utopian in the extreme. They both rely on hardwork and an inherent altruism of people (well, except for Randian capitalism, which is again an impossible ideology). Both of these systems proponents argue as if they were children assuming that capitalism is the root of all evil in the world or socialism is full of lazy bums that are oppressed. Either way it just shows the idiocy of the modern ideologue. I have no respect, at all, for anyone who adheres in principal to the totality of any idea. It shows weakness and a lack of pragmatism. For example the mentions in this thread about "incentives" and "babysat". This is all bullcrap because you can look at the people of Scandinavia or WW2 Italy or the 4th of August Regime or WW2 Japan or some other example that is slipping my mind and you'll instantly find that this argument is blown out of the water. The high government intervention in the far-right wing regimes of Mussolini and Metaxas had the government providing many supplimental services to their citizens, yet were these citizens lazy, stupid welfare bums like we'd be lead to believe? Beyond the wretched oppression of Mussolini (Metaxas in all honesty wasn't that bad when compared to his European contemporaries) the people worked hard. Look at Finland (is it really even Scandinavian?  ) they have one of the most competitive economies in the world. WW2 Japan and its subsequent incarnation has a lot of govenment involvement in the citizen's world. Yet it all works. Heh. The Soviet Union is the sterling example of "SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK BUT GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LAISSEZ-FAIRE" because it was at war. Socialism as a system is one that thrives on peace-time and co-operation. The Soviets were forced into an autarky that eventually starved the people (yeah, that's right, people DIED) through economic sanctions. Had these not existed and the influences of Stalin and Breshne...Bres...Some other vile dictator not been felt then perhaps the Soviet Union would've evolved parallel to the other nations of the world in relative peace. I mean, the expansionism of the Soviet sphere is a combination of old Russian ideals of the "great Russia" and the ideas of Stalin (and to a lesser extent Trotsky). Plus, following WW2 the veil of suscpision and mistrust fell upon the war buddies and then we entered a state of Total Warfare Preparedness. All the nations did was pump out guns and arm other nations to fight a war.
That all said and done the "ideal government" would not be one at all. Rather it would be the inherent charitable benefice of large anarcho-syndicalist communes (LOL MONTY PYTHON). However, we all know anarchy is a dream that we will never have. I'd suppose that my perfect government would be one with a mixed-market. Services to the people like health care and public transit would be done through the government and certain key industries would be kept in with democratically run Crown Corporations. Private entrepreneurship would be completely free and major sectors of the economy would have competitive incentives from the government in order to bolster the protection of the nation's resources and economy. It would be designed to keep extra-national companies out so that Canadian firms could be run competitively and efficiently. This would also allow for multiple small firms to exist and bolster competitiveness in business. Various things would be done to stop problems like monopolistic businesses, predator corporations and the Big 3 slouch that we are currently seeing in the auto-industry. Government intervention into the personal life of a citizen would be quite minimal. Beyond basic taxation and the necessities of Order and Good Government and be given to an excellent education. There would be a voucher system for semi-private government run educational institutions which would allow for specialized or general education. The nation would feature an excellent multi-culturalism campaign, similar to Canada's. However, discriminatory hiring processes would be stopped. I could go on, but basically a social democratic state would be the one that would benefit the most people assuming it had a pragmatic program for businesses. Of course this is a realistic state. The "ultimate" utopia is as mentioned earlier...AN ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| The perfect government is some variation of the complex kleptocratic muddle we have now... but run much better. | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6362 days Last view: 6362 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude Ha, never heard that before. Think about it though, how many incentives are there to work in a capitalist system. I'm willing to bet that the uneducated worker has little motive to work harder, knowing he/she will never get a significant raise/promotion. Why work hard when you can work just hard enough to keep your job at the same pay? And I know Skydude will bust something out like "LOL u c4n l34rn @ sk00l lol" (I know Skydude types better/isn't a total retard, but for the sake of debate...). This, however, isn't always the case. Inner city schools are beyond shit and it's harder for the impoverished children who may not have eaten, who live in neighborhoods under attack from criminals and/or cops, ect. are far less likely to do well in school when compared to the suburban kid with more economic stability at home, a safer neighbor hood, well funded school, ect. Even in my city of about 65,000 this is evident. What's worse is that the economic line of poor and rich usually is close to the white-minority line. I know for a fact that the mostly black and latino (In other words, poor) schools are better than the mostly white (middle and upper classes) schools. Although I am not poor by any means, I went to a mostly poor, black primary school. Because of poorly thought out tax laws, (only land (as in house), not apartament owners, pay property tax, which funds schools) the school was under-funded. In addition, many kids came to school hungry and the under-funded food program left many kids out. With such harsh conditions, it was damn near impossible for some kids to do well. |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6594 days Last view: 6594 days |
| ||
| Well, I think that the issue with the view you present there is that there's some uncertainty in the discussion about what is ideal. The ideal economic situation, at least as seen by academics, is one of moderate inequality. That is to say, what we have now is not the most efficient. And it's all because of incentives.
You're correct in stating that not everyone is spurred on by the desire to improve their lot, and many people, if not most, do just the minimum to stay at the same level. The importance of incentives, and why even a less-than-perfectly efficient system can yield as positive aggregate results as the current economy generally does, is seen in some individuals. It's not necessary that everyone act on the incentives to do better so long as a few do. Entrepreneurs are what really drive the economy's growth, so there's where the incentives need to lie, if things are to improve. So long as everyone else does enough to support it, it'll work. The successful entrepreneurs really rake in the cash, and potential ones know this, hence their incentive to try. In a communist society, there is no extra incentive to do this (at least if we take as a given the belief that on average people are interested in their own good more than the good of the community), and so they will often not start what might be very good business opportunities. So everyone is the same, but the total level of society is lower. The problem with the inequality as it exists now is like you said, a lack of incentives for a large group of people at the bottom. The ideal economy would give rewards to those who achieve, but perhaps not as huge ones as happen now, and would provide more support to those at the bottom. By providing incentives to those who would drive the economy, there are more resources available for those at the bottom, so long as the inequality level is kept in check. As such, all of society is better off than under greater inequality or less inequality. |
|||
|
Deleted User Banned    Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
| A government with no political parties, and no charges for what words pass our teeth. We can say what we want, wherever we want. Being free of scams that the government puts in our taxes, also being without the stupid rules such as car insurance having to range way up there in the 100's, it is enforced if we want to drive. I'm cool with insurance being relatively low, but otherwise screw it! I love being american, but I hate our government with an extreme passion one can not fathom. | |||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6335 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
| Government will never be perfect... there is no method or organization that is going to be perfect for everyone....
people are imperfect and since government is run by people (or 1 person sometimes).... things will always be done badly... corruption will always exist.... petty differences between countries will always exist, religious differences within and without will always exist... why not leave the realm of fantasy government and just focus on steps to improve the government you have.... because things aren't going to change drastically.... |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
| Fantasy creates ideas. Ideas are needed to start anything.
Do you think people thought flying was realistic for humans until someone did it? Corruption won't always exist, you can be taught to never accept corruption. You do not become evil unless someone shows evil to you first. A perfect government is fully possible, it would just take a lot of effort. |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6335 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
| you must love just following my posts around this board and disagreeing with me....
I never said to not improve government.... but to expect or actually believe that a perfect government is possible is far fetched.... you can be taught lots of things.... like to not cheat on a test.... but when the test is taken, and you forgot an answer.... some people will still cheat.... and "evil" is always around.... if you want a government without corruption, then you would need to have a society free from corruption.... like I said... it's not possible... people aren't perfect.... therefore anything people attempt to create won't be perfect |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6594 days Last view: 6594 days |
| ||
| Even if government cannot be made perfect, a vision of a utopian society seeks to discover what is lacking in the current system and suggest how it might be improved. In many cases, if not most, such changes aren't feasible, and so the discussion must be left merely as fantasy, but sometimes an idea might come up that does not conflict with how society is, and might be used to improve the current government. So it's hardly pointless. | |||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6335 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
| didn't say pointless....
I'm saying why not instead of making up fantasy governments we look directly at the one we have and suggest ways to make it better... I'm sure if I spent enough time I could come up with a pretty good system of government.... that doesn't do much on it's own... instead I could learn about and understand my current system of government and think of ways to improve that instead... I'm just saying the vision of government you have is most likely very different from anything we have.... and extremely unrealistic.... therefore very difficult to actually impliment... |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6320 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
Originally posted by mattp That theory can't really be connected to reality because there hasn't been a real revolution in a while where we can compare political notes, see what was wrong with the pre-revolution state and what they changed. We live in a completely different society today than from the last time a real revolution did. We now depend on computers, internet, and a high enough income to keep us off the poverty line. But alot of things I didn't mention we can get rid of to make that theory work. Government in general, to give an example, but the main focus was to eliminate Capitalism. Without Capitalism, everyone would make the same amount of money and nobody would be poor. Yes, the mantra of the communist and socialist parties ensues into this version of democracy. If we taught ourselves to be independent, there would be no need for a government at all. This system is a guideline towards a great system where everything is run by people outside the government, but the government remains the watchdog. It defends us, it trades for us, it provides us with valuable assets such as a house and a car, and it even keeps everything running smoothly for us so that we don't have to. I'll admit that sounds awfully close to a dictatorship, but if you use your imagination, you can see that it is indeed a democracy. You see, the governments role is very simple, as I just outlined for you above. Most things the government used to do are now run by the separate states/provinces (Such as police forces), and individual companies within them, rather than one corporation controlling the entire country. This is helpful to eliminate any corruption the government would have as a monopoly, and those companies power can't exceed past the border. In essence, we could definitely move towards a safely established Anarchy by switching to my system. Yes, it's incomplete and just a theory, but I'm just a 19 year old , and I'd like to see your better idea. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The perfect government? |
| |
