What is the best form of government to live under?

For the moment, the government of the US (and others around the world) are not really working out like a lot of people would wish. The waters are so polluted in so many areas as nations try to adopt this or that to maintain their own idea of a successful society. Currently, the US is a Democratic Republic. In its origin, the founders felt this type of representation would allow the country to develop without giving too much power to any one or few people and that the citizens could choose for themselves who they would have speak for them. The democratic inclinations demand that every choice be met with majority favor, insuring that at least the majority of the people of the nation would be served with each action conducted by the representing government. Of course, we have seen of late (last couple of decades) that the bumpy road is paved with the best of intentions. We are evolving (or perhaps devolving) into Corporate Capitalism with Socialist intentions and it is further polluting the D.R. waters and corrupting the politicians that swim in it.
With the state of the world right now and the ever changing political societies that come and go, what would be your choice form of government to live under? Assume you could clutter or purify the ideology.

I may get scolded for this, especially as an American citizen, but in its simplest form, Communism is an attractive government option. Polluted by the socialistic or capitalist properties is when it starts to fail by serving the few on the backs of the many. Purified Communism is a free and open society where people are not labeled or placed into classes. It promotes all for all rather than most for the few. One downfall is the idea of collective ownership, which basically entitles everyone to everything. It is not a bad idea if you grow up in such a society, but it meets with objections from those that are used to private or limited shared ownerships and limited beneficiaries. As well, it is a bit chaotic, since the lack of classification means that many people do many things, having few specialists in the society. However, over time, I think a society that could hold the core ideals of this type of government would see more benefits than downfalls.

USSR proved that a cluttered Communism does not work over long term and the US has proven that a Democratic Republic does not always work either.

I would love to know what more of you think on this subject. There is a lot of civics out there to choose from and plenty of success and failure proof to back a claim either way.

We've never really had real Free-Market Capitalism in this country, we've had semi-mercantilism since the 1850s, from then we've dabbled in a bit of socialism during FDR, but now we are moving towards a command economy type of fascism. Where a few corporations dominate market share coupled with big-government protectionism, limiting competition, not to mention growing limitations on civil liberties.

Doesn't look very good.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by Gateway]

It is really hard to say since I am limited in my experience of living under different types of governmental systems. However, I sure as hell would LOOOOOVE to try the one that started out in this country... Constitutional Republic. The idea of it makes a lot of sense to me, but having NEVER been given the chance to experience it, I can't say with 100% certainty that it would be the ideal to live under. Thus far, I have only been under the control of a government whose system of ruling has been in the process of changing during my lifetime... so, how would one answer this question with complete accuracy?

[edit on 8-10-2008 by justamomma]

In my own opinion, a totalitarianism, much like communism just more extreme, could be just what some countries (including the United States) need. However, this would be under one extreme (and irrational) condition: The governing powers, or authoritarian assembly would have to be the most morally just and right group of people that have ever lived. I'm not talking about a theorcracy, however. Sure, (as a Christian) I believe that religion has much to offer in how we live our lives, to keep ourselves pure and just, and to keep away from living such "me" orientated lives, however, we have strayed far from the path, not only ignoring the restraints of common religion, but almost to a point where the only way humans may have regard for morals, is if the law enforces it.

If you think about it, totalitarianism could be our moral enforcer. Having a "morally right" Government, who posses the power to invade every aspect of our lives, could straighten us out, and lead us down a path to morality. No one can deny, that as humans, we tend to do what we can that will provide the most immediate benefit. Yes, there are many circumstances where humans have compassion, and we are not all selfish, but I am just considering the normal, western stereotype (Hollywood, Pop culture, Television, etc). People will only do the morally right thing often because the law enforces it. An example could be speeding. If there was no speed limit, a lot of people would go as fast as they can to ensure time didn't interfere with their personal agenda, with no regard for others traveling or their safety.

I believe that if we were restricted to doing what was right by an almost in-corruptible government, everything would change. I would have absolutely no problem with constant surveillance within everything I do, a large police force present everywhere, all the time, and several other elements that would otherwise seem like a police state in "free" countries.

Humanity has turned so far away from doing what is right, to doing what feels good, without regard for consequences on them and others. People believe that the Government has no right to interfere with their lives, in almost any way, and only supports Government when the Government directly benefits them, such as a tax break or funding for various programs.
Such a government that would control and monitor every aspect of our lives could change all this.
However, like I said earlier, in supporting totalitarianism, I only condone such an idea under the most morally right persons governing and leading, which I think we all know, is an impossibility.
Good thread.

reply to post by Gateway


The handwriting on the wall. That is why I ask this now, rather than wait until it will be considered dissention to ask it later.

You are right about the progression though. Oh, for the days of yore.

reply to post by For(Home)Country


Totalitarian government was one that I looked at around Communism, but the extremes that are built in deter me from desiring that. Its not that being watched is necesarily all that bad for someone not breaking the law, but the extreme measures that can arise from the inclination or rumor of misgivings is fairly extreme.
The benefits to such overbearing societies is that usually health care, continued education and food programs are ever present and cost little or nothing for the populace.

Theocracy has not been a valid choice since the Inquisition. Religion has become far to corrupt and overbearing to be a total political leadership. the Islam and Christian have been at war for centuries and I do not think that either of them could be morally trustworthy with such age old adversaries in their world.

How about a technocracy- automated machines do all the dirty work, no pollution and thanks to mass communication even through analog means(such as were using) we could vote electronically on every bill and every citizen would have equal power. too bad we spent trillions on the cold war.

reply to post by wheresthetruth


I know what you mean, as Totalitarianism seems like an extreme, but that is also why I suggested it only under the conditions of a completely morally right and just leadership. However, I think an upside is that if the government does infact know every detail about your life, it would make something like a false accusation way harder to come by. Thats why there has to be a balance. The government either does not interfere with anyone's life at all, and does not accuse anyone, or, they gather every bit of info about ones life, and accuse them accordingly. That is the flaw in our judicial system.

Also, about Theocracy, I also said it wouldn't work, because of course, the entire country would have to agree upon a religion, and we all know what wouldn't work. However, if we take the fundamentals of certain religions (non-denominational Christianity *cough* *cough*), we can construct an almost perfect outline of how to live morally right, serving one another.
But I do not want to hijack your thread and turn this into a religious debate.

I know it's impossibe at the moment because of the current state of technology but I would love to live in a true anarchy or a tribal system.

Tribal being like communism but on a very small scale and not based on money, more like a barter economy.

True anarchy being completely self sufficient and living on the land. Using nature as our governer and not any manmade institutions. This, as I said, can't work unless we're blown back into the stone age.

Originally posted by Mr Headshot I know it's impossibe at the moment because of the current state of technology but I would love to live in a true anarchy or a tribal system.

Tribal being like communism but on a very small scale and not based on money, more like a barter economy.

True anarchy being completely self sufficient and living on the land. Using nature as our governer and not any manmade institutions. This, as I said, can't work unless we're blown back into the stone age.

I have often wished for the chance of living this out myself, but as you have already pointed out, it has no chance of even getting off the ground unless we have gone back to the stone age... which I am highly in favor of personally. And we all know that there are VERY few (literally..... a FEW) people who are gung ho about giving up their conveniences. I just happen to be one of those (most likely) three people who see this ideal way of living as a positive.

This one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Questions will be fielded... [grin]

Truth be told, primitive communism was the first 'political' arrangement human beings lived with for hundreds of thousands of years.

That's a simplification, but it's what came first.

A government that only does what is "morally correct" is next to impossible - no person on earth completely follows unwritten universal laws, whether they be from religion or otherwise.

A totalitarian government would say it's always correct, as would a theocracy.

Ironically though, this is what many liberal democracies around the world already do. George Bush's "God told me to" reason for going into Iraq is one such example where these justifications creep in.

Mandates on stem cell research and other activities that the religious elite deem inappropriate is already carried out.

Totalitarianism though can have stabilizing feature to it, but it also leads to identity cults.

Yugoslavia is an example; once Tito died, that country absolutely went into the dark depths and was eventually broken apart into satellite states.

A classless modern society is unfortunately not going to be attainable. A more just and equal society might be, but there's always going to be the under, middle, and elite classes no matter what type of government a society has - India's caste system being an example.

Somalia is an example of anarchistic capitalism gone berserk - there's no government, and corporations have free range and have actually lifted the country out of the pummeling it's received over the years.

But it's still an extremely lawless, dangerous and poor place to live.

Getting back to communism and totalitarianism, look at China - although it only resembles communism, it's economic growth is set to be about 8% next year while other nations are heading towards recession.

China also holds a lot of America's debt, but China still relies on western countries to buy the stuff they make and for western corporations to give their workers things to build, so globalization has locked in the current arrangements.

In short, I think unless mankind gets blasted back to the stone age, we're going to have our current forms of government for a long time yet, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

I like the way things are in my own country, but I'd obviously like to be part of a republic and not the monarchy.

I don't think there's too much of an alternative beyond making adjustments as things progress.

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
" I believe that religion has much to offer in how we live our lives, to keep ourselves pure and just, and to keep away from living such "me" orientated lives, however, we have strayed far from the path, not only ignoring the restraints of common religion, but almost to a point where the only way humans may have regard for morals, is if the law enforces it."

I would have to disagree with your point on religion, based on the opinions I have about the creators of the behemoth organized religions that a majority of people cling to.

I myself have my own spiritual reality, and was fortunate enough to grow up with parents who instilled morals and standards in me. I believe that truth is the highest religion and I would have to say, from my travels throughout north america, most people are good people. Most people have a heart, and there are a minority of people that have let their hearts die.

Some sort of circumstance was presented in their lives and they made certain choices in their lives to put them where they are at.

While its easy to shrug a homeless person off who made the wrong choices, not many people realize that without a paycheck they would most likely be in a similar situation.

Religion also causes many psychological aberrations which are some of the core factors in why we are in the mess we are in today.

Ill agree that there is benefit in the many churches, mosques, temples et c that comprise the different religious institutions. I know many lovely religious people that have great lives, but in my opinion religion is psychic manipulation.

If you think about it, totalitarianism could be our moral enforcer. Having a "morally right" Government, who posses the power to invade every aspect of our lives, could straighten us out, and lead us down a path to morality. No one can deny, that as humans, we tend to do what we can that will provide the most immediate benefit. Yes, there are many circumstances where humans have compassion, and we are not all selfish, but I am just considering the normal, western stereotype (Hollywood, Pop culture, Television, etc).

Morality shouldn't be forced on people. People need to learn how to think for themselves and be their own authority. Just because a couple of generations have decided to allow themselves to sink to mediocrity doesn't mean everyone else should have to be invaded and probed all day. Who really wants to live like that?

Would your rob a bank if you had a hundred thousand dollars in the bank? A lot of crime can be eliminated by a redistribution of wealth. It will take education and a literal ''act of god'' to happen, because of how many people have sunk to such low standards of mental activity.

I like freedom, and while I may have nothing to hide, I don't feel as though I should be thoroughly inspected throughout my entire time on this lovely planet like some lab animal.

People will only do the morally right thing often because the law enforces it. An example could be speeding. If there was no speed limit, a lot of people would go as fast as they can to ensure time didn't interfere with their personal agenda, with no regard for others traveling or their safety.

I disagree with your generalization. Perhaps if it was related to drunk driving I would definitely have to agree, because that impairs your driving ability, however if a bunch of ferraris in a tight formation can reach speeds of 150+ and have less than 6 inches of space between them, than I believe its more on the responsibility of the driver.

There are plenty of responsible drivers that, under certain conditions, should be legally allowed to exceed the speed limit.

I believe that if we were restricted to doing what was right by an almost in-corruptible government, everything would change. I would have absolutely no problem with constant surveillance within everything I do, a large police force present everywhere, all the time, and several other elements that would otherwise seem like a police state in "free" countries.

Humanity has turned so far away from doing what is right, to doing what feels good, without regard for consequences on them and others. People believe that the Government has no right to interfere with their lives, in almost any way, and only supports Government when the Government directly benefits them, such as a tax break or funding for various programs.

Such a government that would control and monitor every aspect of our lives could change all this.
However, like I said earlier, in supporting totalitarianism, I only condone such an idea under the most morally right persons governing and leading, which I think we all know, is an impossibility.
Good thread.

Who says what is right?


People are entirely different, but that is precisely what fascinates me about the human species, despite the negatives. I don't pay attention to the negatives because I try not to watch much television and I would rather interact with real human beings who are 'good people'.


As long as we stay in this eternal ''gilded age'' where the few control the many there will be no way to have an sanitized government that truly 'serves' the people.

With education on true financial intelligence(for the old and young), how the mind really works, and positive leadership, a free market democracy could work without constant surveillance and some authority figure. People, as a collective species, need to ween themselves off of dependence and learn how to fully utilize their minds, bodies, and spirits.

When are people going to redeclare their independence?

A Constitutional Democracy. We have the technology now that the populace could vote from home on everything. Use a congress to draw up the legislation and approve it for a final vote by the people and a President to take care of the executive duties. If we had this type of system, the bailout would have never happened. To keep it from getting hacked we could use biometrics and just vote on items for the day from our home computers. The power would then truly be in the hands of the people!

Now there are some who would prefer:

Ok, since no one responded to my direction to other threads, I will explain the resource-based economy...

All systems in the past and present were based on the idea that one had to labor to support oneself. In turn, one had either things/skills to barter with, or one received a token of value that one could use to purchase things one needed (money).

Only now do we have the technology to change that. If all drudge jobs are given to robots, then human individuals are freed to follow their bliss.

If robots/computers are building, tilling, weeding, harvesting, packaging, accounting, transporting, distributing, manufacturing, cleaning, fixing (things and themselves), and so on... Not only will there be an abundance for all (there already is plenty for everyone, just VERY badly managed), there will be no need for money.

Greed is spawned out of a scarcity paradigm. If the paradigm is one of abundance, greed becomes meaningless.

And so... Humans are freed to do what they individually LOVE to do, with no worries about how they will acquire food, clothing, shelter, love, tools.

And so, we sit looking at a choice. Keep up with slaving and (imposed) scarcity, or focusing on automating everything no one wants to do. (Toilet-cleaning robots! Yay!)

We sit at a fork in the road. Which way will we choose?

Anything other than a minimalist government who stays the hell out of the free market would both:

Unconstitutional, and not a good idea.

Libertarianism. It makes the most sense. Anarchy is not an option for todays world, but a truly limited government is ideal.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by unityemissions]

Whichever government will leave me alone, not take my money, not impose it's laws on me, not listen to what I say or threaten me with it's thug "officials" and "authorities" will be fine.

I don't want anything to do with it and I would thank it to not want anything to do with me but everyday is another amount of my property/wages stolen, another law pushed on me, another day spent looking over my shoulder wondering when some typo in a tax return 20 years ago will send storm troopers kicking down my door and shooting me to death when I react to said kicking on of door by pointing my shotgun at the noise and pulling the trigger.

No friends or family or even annoying bible thumping door-knockers would be kicking that thing down. Only threats do that.

The longer we go on like this the more oppressive voting becomes. The power is held in the cities where the dependents have congregated. Their vote often dictates to the rural areas how their lives should lived and consequently the highly populated areas being worth more "electoral" votes dictate to the lesser populated areas how they should live. That's frankly crap. I was okay with it as long as the wolves left the sheep armed but now with Obama looking to win and his stand on the AWB backed up by the renewal Bill proposed and backed by Republicans the sheep will soon be disarmed and we'll be suffering disenfranchisement and abuse for the simple fact that they want to be left the hell alone.

Government imposed taxation which necessitates monetary income which necessitates participation in the economy created and maintained by the taxing entity which is enforced by heavily armed soldiers backed by thousands of prisons with no one to answer too except maybe an ever larger taxing entity with more soldiers and more prisons thereby creating it's own self-sustaining system of control and what is essentially "life management" and "liberty regulation" is the ultimate evil.