Government Theory

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Link04, May 12, 2005.

  1. #1
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    I don't recall there being QUITE as open ended of a thread as this, so I decided to post it. What's your preferred theory of government, if any? Anarchy, democracy, Monarchy? How about communism, socialism, or capitalism too? This is vague for a reason, spout off and rant about anything you want about the basic theories of your preferred type of system (or non-system).
     
  2. #2
    Ryan

    Ryan You Greasy Bastard LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,804
    Likes Received:
    0



    Capitalism!! My man Adam Smith and the Invisible hand does its wonders. Oh yah and you gotta love the Laissez Faire policies too. There we go a comment that should get this topic going.
     
  3. #3
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Democratic socialist if thats possible I guess. People should definitley choose congressmen, senators, presidents, ect, but they should focus more on helping everyone, especially those who need it instead of giving tax cuts to the filthy rich business owners who don't need a tax cut at all.
     
  4. #4
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,861
    Likes Received:
    388



    Democratic Capitalist. Capitalist in an economic way. All business and means of production/distribution/exchange should be controlled by individuals, not by the government.
     
  5. #5
    Weezy

    Weezy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0



    Democratic socialist is my ideal form of government. You'd get to choose your leaders-- the government would be focused on helping the people.

    Best way to go, I say.
     
  6. #6
    a life in ashes

    a life in ashes mercury summer

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    0



    democratic socialist, but given human nature it's an unlikely scenario, at least if the U.S.S.R and china are/were anything to go by...
     
  7. #7
    USAF.07

    USAF.07 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'll have to go with Democratic Socialist too because if we were to combine the best elements of socialism and capitalism then we would have an elected government that doesn't discriminate on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, upholds seperation of church and state, makes sure the rich pay the largest % of taxes, includes the rest of the world in foreign policy decisions, and still allows the best aspects of free trade and capitalism without redistributing land or wealth. The danger with any government that borders on socialism or communism is absolute power within the government, we must still let people have complete control with a system of checks and balances.

    With that being said I'll say that with our (U.S.) constitution gives us the best government there is in the world today in my opinion, which makes me all the more angry when someone like Bush comes along and tries to undermine it; I love my country but I hate Bush for what he's doing to it, I think about half of America feels the same.
     
  8. #8
    tunnelvision

    tunnelvision Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0



    i have to agree with usaf.07. definately democracy is the way to go- the idea of silencing the people and taking away any way they have of being able to control any aspect of the world they live in and THEN expect to run their country successfully -communism-is absolutely insane. the people are what makes up the country- without them, or anyone to represent them (ie. the peoples choice of a representative)in government, then thats all you have- a government. and how can there be a government if there's no public opinion therefore no country to govern?? (eg.the iron curtain).the government is meant to be there for the people- our leaders who make decisions ON BEHALF OF US!!so if you take on that idea.....a lot of powerful countries in this world arent governed, are they, theyre dictated.its a dictatorship.so really, without the people's voice to guide the government to make those decisions, is there any point in having a government at all?? not really, huh!! then....no government=no leaders, no leaders=no leadership, no leadership=chaos and a country gone to the dogs. hmmmm, sound familiar to anyone??go figure.
     
  9. #9
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    Heh, how do you get away with that assumption? I'm my own leader.

    I've been on the fence between Anarcho-capitilism and Individualist anarchy.
     
  10. #10
    Louis

    Louis Message me if you need to talk. We love you all. LPA Team

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    303



    Personally...we just need better congressmen. That's all.
     
  11. #11
    Melonman64

    Melonman64 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0



    I say anarchy all the way. If you want something, you gotta take it, and anarchy allows you to do anything you want! But of course, it might be too loose, so instead of that, make the government extremely loose for petty crime, but extremely strict on serious stuff.
     
  12. #12
    Weezy

    Weezy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0



    In the ideal world, technically communism would be the best. Thing is, it would never work.
     
  13. #13
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    I disagree. The theory of communism is inherantly flawed, it doesn't even matter that it can't be implemented, the idea is fallicious. Whenever you have a society recieving their means of survival based on need and not ability, you end up having people competing not to do the best, but to need the most. Communism is the hallmark of human regression. Everybody else effects me but me.
     
  14. #14
    Melonman64

    Melonman64 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0



    Ah, but you see, there is a problem with what you say. Communism is just equal share of what the whole nation has, so therefore, the more you put in, the more you get out. Who says there wouldn't be competition? Other nations do exist to compete with (unless the entire world goes to communism). However, what I don't like is that if there is a freeloader, they get something for nothing, where a hardworking individual gets less than what they should for something. So you are partially correct.
     
  15. #15
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    Exactly. What is the motivation to work if I work for my neighbors bread? What's my neighbor's motivation to work if he works for my bread? Your success depends on everyone else but you, which I disagree vehemently with.
     
  16. #16
    Melonman64

    Melonman64 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0



    It's like that Vulcan phrase:
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
     
  17. #17
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    Well, in my view, the ability of one outways the need of another.
     

Share This Page