It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Best form of Government

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Hey, everyone. Lately there's been more than usual talk about how the U.S. Government limits our freedom, and ignores the constitution. The way the original way of running America, founding fathers had intended that there would be balance. So they created the Checks and Balance System.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Who would check who? First they separated government power into three. Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each one had limited power over the other. Lets use a simple page from the web to explain it. Enjoy the reading of one of the most brilliant forms of Government. bensguide.gpo.gov...

Great right? Well, it worked well for a long period of time.

Unfortunately, things got corrupt. Lets say a group wanted control of the U.S. Government. Would they just take fund a candidates campaign, and hope he remains loyal? Would they just take over one of the three branches of the government? How about they have multiple agents/moles in all three branches. After all, one person can influence a nation, why can't several influence an entire government.

Anyway, the point of this thread is for discussion of the best form of government. Lets say that one day SHTF. What will happen when the government is destroyed, or there is no more government due to collapse. Obviously there will be need for another, unless you are an anarchist. But that doesn't really work with large groups of people.

So, lets say that you are alive, and you have an arrangement with a group of people wanting government. This group of people have money, influence, and can help establish a strong government. If they asked you for yours and many others opinions on what kind of government it should be, how it should be run, and how it should be balanced. What would you decide on?

Most people are good, until they have a chance at power. Then they start getting corrupt.

So basically the question is, what kind of government do you think would be beneficial, and last for a long period of time. What is the government based on?

Here's a list to help you out. If you want to, make up a new form of government that is reasonable.
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
One based in the abundance paradigm... If there was no money, and everyone had all they wanted (which is now possible between extraction of Zero Point Energy and the level we're at in robotics), there would pretty much only be a need for the three Laws (have you noticed that all else is not called a "law?" Statutes, declarations, mandates, acts, edicts, constitutions, codes, regulations, and so on - not laws).

The three Laws are: Do not willfully harm or kill another, Do not willfully take or damage another's property, Do not willfully defraud another.

The reason abundance would not need all these other laws is that in abundance, money is gone. With no money, tax codes, social service mandates, and so on mean nothing. All that would remain would be the three Laws.

For a picture of what abndance would look like, and for a view of how we could get there, read the post at the first link in my sig, and my book (FREEly given) at the second.

[edit on 9/1/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Trams
 


I think we should also remember that most of our Founding Fathers were slave owners and the Constitution originally considered Natives and slaves as a fraction of a person.

The system was never perfect, but there are ways to change it to make it better. One way is for reforming the election funding process. The special interests pour money into the politicos. It will always be good to be the king.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The "best" form of government will vary from situation to situation. Where people are prosperous, have a lot of food and clean water, and don't have to worry about shelter, then all you need are a few old men to ask advice from and everybody can do pretty much what they want.

However, if you're in a situation where resources are scarce, you need more of a totalitarian government with a lot of authority to control and even kill people if necessary, so the society as a whole can survive.

The government of the United States was created to be flexible and allow people to expand and gain control over the continent. People needed a bit more freedom to do that. That might have changed over the last couple centuries, though, and the kind of democratic socialism the U.S. has now might not be the best fit. It's not bad. But it's designed for slow change, and might not be fast or flexible enough to handle the challenges presented by technology rapidly changing society. We'll just have to see.

If things get out of control, another government will rise up. They always do.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The abundance paradigm sounds great in theory, but so did communism. If you give some people what ever they want, some might want more and others will think they need more then. I don't know, maybe if you could limit it. But a government that doesn't run on the monetary system sounds great. I'm guessing people will have to at least contribute to society to earn free living. I will read your thread tonight. Thanks for sharing your link.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Granted, they were slave owners. Back then, most men of wealth were. Also that there were those who considered the slaves/natives as a third of a person. Ya, I can't argue that no matter what, a government will need changing after a period of time.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Your absolutely right. The way that government depends on the situations in its area is obviously true. Your post reminded me of Rome, how they had a republic led by a few men, and when Rome was endangered they chose a emperor. It's interesting that you mention technology, because that also has a profound effect on government. For example, lets use what happened with the recent Iran Election Protests.

As I watched and read some news sources I realized that technology, and connection to other countries due to that technology, led the people there to believe in some western philosophies. Some include women rights, free speech and freedom of press.

Thank you all for responding on your take of government.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trams
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The abundance paradigm sounds great in theory, but so did communism. If you give some people what ever they want, some might want more and others will think they need more then. I don't know, maybe if you could limit it. But a government that doesn't run on the monetary system sounds great. I'm guessing people will have to at least contribute to society to earn free living. I will read your thread tonight. Thanks for sharing your link.


Why would you need to limit things. Let me give you an analogy...

Everyone has heard of "getting a piece of the pie," right? And, of course, the more people who want a piece, the smaller the slice they get.

That is the scarcity paradigm.

Now consider a world where pie is everywhere. You have the option of having as much or as little pie as you want. Will you take huge slices just because? (Well, some, thoroughly grounded in scarcity, would, but that behavior will vanish with time.) Or would you take just what you want right now? If you knew that pie would be there for the taking day in and day out, would you hoard pie?

Given that, except for petro (fossil) fuels, the Earth has more than enough for all of us, with the addition of Zero Point Energy (an infinite source), we could have more and more and more... Greed would become meaningless.

FYI... Communism is a scarcity paradigm: there's just so much pie and we'll divide it equally...

And as for "contributing to society," since we are at the point (for the first time in the history we currently have) where we can design and build robots to do all jobs no one wants to do, we could (if we did this) eliminate any need to have anyone doing something they don't want to do. So contributions will be in the realms of science, art, and social interaction (Love).

No one would have to "contribute" who didn't want to - plenty for them either way - but those whose bliss it is to heal others, for example, could pursue that - and thereby increase the quality of care given. Those who love to teach others could do that - not for any money but because that is their bliss. Those who love to climb mountains could do that. Those who love to play video games - or design them - could do that. Those who love to write could do that. Those who love to travel could do that. Those who love to spend time with family and friends could do that. (And many will mix and match activities as their energy shifts from one desire to another.)

So, no... It is not any requirement to "contribute" in any way except as it is one's bliss to contribute.

Most welcome for the link.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join