Which type of a Government according to you is the best? And why?
1) Democracy.
2) Federalism.
3) Communism.
4) Dictatorship.
5) Monarchy.
6) Constitutional Monarchy.
7) Military Rule.
8) Republic.
9) Democratic Republic.
10) Parliamentary.
From what I learnt in my global society classes, which was quite enough, I'd have to give my opinion that there really isn't a perfect style of governing a country. There are always flaws to where the power should truly belong. In my opinion, the effectiveness of a system lies within who is in control. If you think about this way, a handgun, a rifle, and a sword all have the same purpose, yet their true effectiveness lies with who uses it.
But if I were to absolutely choose on one system I think would be best under the right hands, it would truly have to be a dictatorship, to discipline the people, and have the power under a good hand. Look at Singapore for example (I know they aren't a dictatorship anymore), under a good strong leader, they have become one of Asia's shining countries. Like I said, under good leadership.
Though truth is, I still wouldn't know, and I still believe no system is perfect, no matter who has the power.
Also, one last thing, the list you have is incomplete or much too general.
I agree with you SirLegendary. But its not that only one type of a system is flawless. So, what I intended to ask is which type of a government according to you is the best, among the list. At least one among the list is better than others in the list. *I think that you would choose Dictatorship and I agree with that( 75%)*.
If you think about this way, a handgun, a rifle, and a sword all have the same purpose, yet their true effectiveness lies with who uses it.
Very true. I think the purpose being referred to here is killing.
the list you have is incomplete or much too general.
I just typed in a few general types of Government which I know. It is not that the list contains all types of Governments that all countries in the world have.
in anarchy, people will group together. when people group together there is going to be a leader. these leaders make rules. so even in anarchy, there is no anarchy. anarchy sounds nice like communism but just doesn't work.
I'm not proposing this is being the best. I think some sort of combination of different styles and one that can remain dynamic to the times would be best.
But if I were to absolutely choose on one system I think would be best under the right hands, it would truly have to be a dictatorship, to discipline the people, and have the power under a good hand. Look at Singapore for example (I know they aren't a dictatorship anymore), under a good strong leader, they have become one of Asia's shining countries. Like I said, under good leadership.
The problem with this is it's viability to remain so could be short term only. Once the "right hands" dies this could go south fast.
In Anarchy, 'all' people in that country/place are not Governed. People form groups in somewhat a kind of chaotic state in that country/place and look after themselves.
the only way to go is a monarchy! The lowly serf never questions the king! Or else he'll send his Knights to kill them.
Actually, something like the viking form of government is really cool. Everyone gets together and holds a conference called a 'thing' and they discuss their major plans. The Jarl, or chieftan is really only there to settle disputes and for day- to- day stuff
Democracy without corrupted members, which is impossible to achieve here in the US since Congress is composed of selfish, unpatriotic and greedy weasels.
I still think my decentralized government ceded to a grove of trees is the way to go.
Democracy without corrupted members, which is impossible to achieve here in the US since Congress is composed of selfish, unpatriotic and greedy weasels.
Though truth is, I still wouldn't know, and I still believe no system is perfect, no matter who has the power
100% true
But if I were to absolutely choose on one system I think would be best under the right hands, it would truly have to be a dictatorship
Aloso agred. He would have the resources to do something good. Bu then he/she would have to be educated,strong character, true leader and much more. But still in this sistem people doesn't have the power. So like in Switzer land there should be many referendums.
One you didn't list in the beginning is Utilitarianism. I've been thinking a lot about that in the shower... I'm beginning to think it would be splendid, but people I've talked to about it say it would never work for some reason or another. For those who don't know, Utilitarianism is defined as...
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, including as pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of suffering. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which implies that the consequences of an action are of moral importance. This view can be contrasted or combined with seeing intentions, virtues or the compliance with rules as ethically important. Classical utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, who takes happiness as the measure for utility, says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".
