Throughout history, man (oh...sorry, humans for the feminists) has had thousands of types of government. Some have worked out pretty good, and others, well, have worked out pretty horribly. Most here being an American or English, would argue that democracy or a republic would be the best form of government. Some would argue for no government...anarchy. Or, for the Motherland, maybe communism is for you. Religious? Perhaps you prefer a theocracy. No form of government is perfect, and all have their downsides. Democracy has corrupt politicians (Blagojevich), communism has Stalin and Mao, anarchy has possible complete chaos, and theocracy has the current Iranian regime. I'm obviously missing some other forms: dictatorship, pastoral societies, kin-based government, city-states, and a million other forms. So, argue for your opinion of the best type of rule, and ward off those damn commies (unless you are one).
I personally think the only system of 'Government' that would work would be a Benevolent Tyrant. It that I mean one person who rules the world and only he or she made the choices. Being benevolent they would know whether it was right or wrong. Of course who is actually benevolent? I doubt anyone anywhere could make the right choices for everyone to benefit and no one to suffer or be upset. However, I don't think Governments are useless (as it may seem) I'm just saying the no government it perfect. Not everyone with agree with it and not everyone will benefit from it. But, in my opinion, it is better to have a Government then be not to.
I would have to say democracy, or republic but not the American way. In America we have as you mentioned corrupt politicans, a ****ed up legal system, which includes insufficient punishment for law breakers, no punishment, or sometimes overpunishment or punishment for the wrong guy. What we would need would be basically a god running or society who always knew the right action to take, of course though this god would have to be willing to take peoples wants into consideration basically a democracy run by gods with the people's intrest in mind. Obviousy this won't happen so for my answer I will say there is no better form of government, how good the government is depends on it's leaders, you could end up with a dictator who cares about the people and a corrupt democracy.
MrCasper, While I'm sure a benevolent dictator would be the most ideal, but it isn't realistic to hope for a benevolent dictator. So REALISTICALLY, what do you think?
I think the best type of government is a direct democracy, none of this bull **** representatives, knowing whats best for us. In the ideal democracy the majority always wins so even if we don't get what's best for us. At least we're happy.
So you mean to tell me that societies that developed for several millenia thousands of miles away from each other are supposed to develop EXACTLY the same in the "best" form? Just because something is the best doesn't mean its always the course of action that occurs. Silent: While I would have to agree to an extent, a direct democracy isn't realistic with most nations. It'd be awfully hard to get millions of people to vote on issues and other things that it takes to run a government.
No, because then if the split was like, 51%/49%, the winner will just do things to make his supporters happy, and basically could leave the 49% to rot. That's why we have the electoral college.
Best to me, means be close to being perfect or perfection. None of the current/former governments fall under that category. Also, if this 'best' form of government was around wouldn't they be the leader of the world? United States is the so-called, 'leader in the modern-world, as of right now,' and we definitely have a negative impact on some smaller, robust countries.
Shedo, Having the best form of government doesn't guarantee that you will lead/dominate the rest of the world. How powerful your country is has nothing to do with the best form of government, but rather which government is the best for the people of the particular nation. And also if the government creates a positive/neutral effect on other nations. Leading the world doesn't necessarily mean you have the best type of government. However, in recent decades that may have been true for many who think democracy is the best possible/realistic form of government (like me). It's impossible for a leading nation such as the US to have a positive effect on EVERY nation, or, you can't make EVERYONE happy.
Which defeats the theory that there is of best form of government. Look i am not picking for an argument, but to state my opinion.
I forgot whether it was against the rules to make other threads similar to another, but there is already another thread debating the best form of government here.
Personally I think the best form of government is a democracy, because everyone gets to voice their opinion, but it can only work on a small scale and as it gets larger it become extremely inefficient. Republics are more practical, but not everyone's opinions are represented because representatives vote for what the voters want, and sometimes the representatives don't even do that. Communism will fail unless communism is all there is, except if the only opposers are dicatatorships, in which case communism will succede then fail. Everyone being equal and earning the same is impossible. Someone corrupt will always be in the government to destroy it. Communism is great on paper, but in practice it is terrible. Dictatorships don't work. At all. Dictatorships may not take power through force (Hitler for example) but they maintain it with force, and when it's you and the police against everyone else in your country, the country will win. All humans want power, and one person with power makes everyone else want to take it. On paper, communism is the best. In practice for a short time, dictator ship is the best. In practice long term, republics are the best. Small-scale democracy is the best. That's what I think, atleast.
Democracy fails, because it's unfair. E.g. If 6/10 person want an innocent person dead, is it fair? If 6/10 people want certain races/religions to be treated like outcasts, is it fair?
You guys might be interested in this site, to see how your political views and choices might pan out for a country as a whole.
The problem with nation states is that it kind of forces you to choose an extreme, by massively overinflating the effects of laws you pass. There's no way to have a middle ground.
So what do you suggest, YOU decide what's right and wrong for them? I didn't see the other thread, but I guess it would of been a necro anyway.