Government Theory

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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