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.
It seams as a good sistem with some flaws. But it will never happen. No one will elect it. Because when you tell the shopkeeper that it is better that he and his familly dies then someone who he doesn't know he will not elect this. People are pretty selfish. We won't give a coin to save someone if we have to lose it. How will you judge some cases? This wouldn't be free of coruption. There are always guys that will do anything for more power and money.
This Utilitarianism seems to offer no protection to the minority. In that i would have to say is it's greatest flaw. A system that has not just a flaw but a fatal one is not one I would regard as splendid.
I would have to say the same for communism. It neglects a human factor and as such can not be regarded as perfect. I do think communism could work if we had near unlimited resources at our disposal.
I am still curious as to what everyone thinks of a technocracy?
but wouldn't it be legal with Utilitarianistic laws?
Yup, I think it would. Let's face it - Utilitarianism sucks. Crazy crimes can technically be legal in it, and, yeah, it offers no protection to the minority. I didn't really think it through, but honestly, it's not as good as it seems in the beginning.
I am still curious as to what everyone thinks of a technocracy?
I have a link on the first page, but here it is again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
The articles reads that a technocracy would have people lead the country who are "technocrats", or experts in their respective field. This means that instead of a cabinet appointed by the president (American democracy), a cabinet would be filled with the best people at their position. So just because the president would like to appoint someone who supports him or her doesn't mean they would be appointed, unless they were qualified to be the best attorney general or secretary of state. This sounds good, in the beginning. But now thinking about it, how would someone qualify to be the best in their position? It seems to me like there would be a lot of conflict involved. Personally, if it was between me and someone else being considered for a high up position like president, I would obviously prefer myself, and I would definitely not be happy if the other was appointed. This might not matter, because the human race really is inherently selfish and greedy (another topic for another day). But regardless, I feel like a huge amount of conflict would develop in a situation like the one given above. In further reading, I came across this.
Some uses of the word technocracy refer to a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" are in charge.
This is true. There isn't a huge difference between this and a meritocracy, a system of government where people get ahead in life because of their hard work in life, not because, for example, someone inherits a lot of money and chooses to not do anything with their life. I think it is also safe to say that a technocracy can be described as being an oligarchy, almost a dictatorship, where people appoint THEMSELVES to high positions and rule based on their own positioning of themselves.
This one, like Utilitarianism, is definitely a thinker. But as I learn more and more about it, I think that it would be so easy for this form of government to get out of hand. I think, with this, an oligarchy could easily form, leading to despotism on their part. But then again, neither Utilitarianism or Technocracy has been used before in a country or group. Therefore, any discussion on these two is very hypothetical.
I'm in favor of a democracy, almost. With technology nowadays and the ease of voting, I think US citizens should be allowed to directly vote for their candidate and go by number of votes, with voter ID to prevent the deceased from voting (dead people keep voting democrat in Illinois, even hardcore Republicans).
For the most part, I believe in a laissez-faire government policy, keeping hands off. It's worked under (Garfield's?) administration when he was shot and hospitalized for 9 months while Congress stayed out of session. Progress isn't necessarily good. We don't need to constantly have changes, especially since those changes lead to communism on the philosophical political spectrum (left: collectivism, right: individualism).
I'm an individualist. Laissez-faire Republican/Libertarian. Rand Paul 2016 (although I disagree with him on a few things).
@mrdeath9700 The parliament is the leader then in that government form. It would be like modern Russia's government, only communist and not a strong socialist system.
Combined. Where a child is a king, there is ring of leaders that can be chosen only by the people and can be removed any time. The kid commands, the circle helps and controls the country, the people make the decisions.
Basicaly upgraded monarchy where the king changes every 5 years but only a kid could be a king, A kid that is not yet corrupted by whatnot.
