Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Best form of Government

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 12:41pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,311 posts

i like the limited power monarchy. it has to be a democracy, 1 guy giving ultimate power over the country. that might not even suits him own needs is just bad. as for left or right winging. i'm in the middle. i have ideals going both ways but progressive anyway.

Idealistically, Anarchy would be the best. In a perfect world we would not need protection, or a leader.

Anarchy is not perfect. Anarchy is chaos.

Governments are nearly always formed of rich people, so why not make the government empty its own pockets for the people?

politicians have a job whit lots or responsibility. whit lots of working hours and be able to shift fast from topic while keeping track of them.

people that do this work should be rewarded greatly for it. if we do not do that. then why would they be in the politics? the business world has loads of opportunities for people whit such capabilities. and they will keep rewarding them what they earn.
 

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 2:00pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,617 posts

Knight

Idealistically, Anarchy would be the best. In a perfect world we would not need protection, or a leader.

Anarchy is the lack of government, so it cannot be the best government... besides, anarchy does not ensure any right, and over time groups of people thinking the same would form anyway.

If it's a small country that is rather wealthy, a government that pays for itself. Governments are nearly always formed of rich people, so why not make the government empty its own pockets for the people?

Because noone would want to have that job. Look at Switzerland: small, wealthy, and yet we pay our politicians (granted, most aren't exceedingly rich).

A meritocracy would limit the masses and ensure that only the well informed and intelligent made the crucial descions that are needed to be made.

And who decides who is well informed and intelligent? Theoretically interesting, practically not feasable imo.
 

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 2:52pm

Squidbears

Squidbears

653 posts

Anarchy is the lack of government, so it cannot be the best government


Touche good sir.

And who decides who is well informed and intelligent? Theoretically interesting, practically not feasable imo.


I've always thought that in a meritocracy, power would be based upon contributions to society and level of education. Am I incorrect?

(granted, most aren't exceedingly rich).

Can't say the same about american politicians
 

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 3:42pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,617 posts

Knight

I don't know, wolf's comment was the first time I ever heard of something like meritocracy. But the concept itself seems wrong to me. Yes, many people don't care, yes, they can easily be manipulated. Two solutions come to mind:

One, actually educate the people about the matter of the issues, politics etc., assuring that everyone keeps their voice no matter what. Those that don't want to vote, don't vote.

Two, you instore a meritocracy, thus stripping I don't know how many people of their right to vote, and limit the power to an arbitrarily set elite.

 

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 5:16pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

A government influenced by Machiavelli, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, the British Crown, and some socialism thrown in for good spirits.

Wait, we already have that.

 

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 8:46pm

thugtastic

thugtastic

164 posts

Anarchy is not perfect. Anarchy is chaos.

Anarchy has proven itself to fail miserably as everyone is equal and there is no system of government or real laws.
I personally like Hobbes and the British Crown but I don't think that many other influential characters in the French Revolution were that great. The French Revolution set the world on it's current path and I don't like it.
 

Posted Feb 4, '13 at 11:27pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,537 posts

And who decides who is well informed and intelligent? Theoretically interesting, practically not feasable


I never said it was practical. And the thread isn't based around practicallity. As for who decides, there would be a series of exams and standardized tests. I realize the weaknesses to this system, so there's no need to point them out to me.

I've always thought that in a meritocracy, power would be based upon contributions to society and level of education. Am I incorrect?


Yes, this is also true. This is the more common definition of the term, but it does also refer to the style of government in which the intellectual elite lead and rule.

I don't know, wolf's comment was the first time I ever heard of something like meritocracy. But the concept itself seems wrong to me.


It's not as if I would abolish democracy as a whole. However, democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people. It becomes a circus of mud slinging and pandering.

Two, you instore a meritocracy, thus stripping I don't know how many people of their right to vote, and limit the power to an arbitrarily set elite.


This is in esence what would happen. I know this sounds harsh to many people, but honestly, most people either waste their vote, by not being informed, or do not vote at all. Limiting such things would probably benefit society. And I realize I'm probably coming of as an elitist, but I do pay attention to politics and the more I see, the more I become disenfranchized with the entire democratic system.
 

Posted Feb 5, '13 at 2:04am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

it's not as if I would abolish democracy as a whole. However, democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people. It becomes a circus of mud slinging and pandering.


You are touching on 2 of the fundamental flaws in democracy. 1) Its a strength as well as a flaw, but, everybodys vote counts the same. Stupid people, uneducated people, racists, bigots, drug addicts, and people with misinformation all get the same vote as everyone else. Also just general ignorance and indolence in much of the citizenry. 2) It takes seconds for politicians to tell a lie, but it can take years to sort out the truth and even then, not everybody will absorb it, and by then, the whole country has moved on. Therefore, there is a high incentive for people like Karl Rove to just make up bald-faced lies as it suits his campaign needs. for an example: See Swiftboating.
 

Posted Feb 5, '13 at 8:51am

partydevil

partydevil

5,311 posts

Anarchy has proven itself to fail miserably as everyone is equal and there is no system of government or real laws.

everyone is not equal. the bullies and rich have the power and the rest has to fight for what it needs.

democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people.

educate what?
and how is there a link between a government system and education levels?
(whitout taking pol pot's ideas into accaunt. =P )

most people either waste their vote, by not being informed, or do not vote at all. Limiting such things would probably benefit society. And I realize I'm probably coming of as an elitist, but I do pay attention to politics and the more I see, the more I become disenfranchized with the entire democratic system.

i agree whit most of that. every system has it's own good and bad's. and this is a bad of a democracy. but i still choose it above a meritocracy. because in a meritocracy friends-politics is to easy to be done. and people that know about politics and are interested in it. but that havn't got a oppurtunity to achieve some merit. will still not be able to let it's voice heard.
(or do i missunderstand meritocracy here?)
 

Posted Feb 5, '13 at 11:04am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,537 posts

or do i missunderstand meritocracy here?


"Meritocracy is a political philosophy that holds power should be vested in individuals according to merit.[1] Advancement in such a system is based on perceived intellectual talent measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented." -Wikipedia

However, you can break that down into seperate definitions.

1. A society based around progression through merit and skill
2. A society and form of government in which intellectual talent is rewarded.

The second definition is the one that I support.
 
Reply to Best form of Government

You must be logged in to post a reply!