Why not provide people a choice between governments ?

If there was a country that has several governments and everybody can decide which one they want to be subject to, then different governments could cater to different preferences. People could observe which one works well and which one doesn't.

Democracy allows people only to vote for one out of two people as President. If one is not happy with the new President, there is little we can do. Most of us cannot move to another country. For example, if someone belongs to an ethnic, ideologically, or otherwise, minority that person will probably have to submit himself to be ruled by the majority.

Democracy does not allow for checks and balances because the government always has the final word. There is no power or authority higher than the government in today's Democracies. And the government knows that you cannot escape their reach. The President is like a CEO, representing the interests of the government - even if he tries to pretend that he does what is best for the people. Congress is located in the capital where they are exposed to lobbying interests that do not represent the majority of the people.

Rather than to suggest that one form of government will solve all problems and ills, I suggest that we should have a choice between governments.

Despite all the flaws of capitalism, at least people get a choice between which company to buy from and which one to work for. At least this is true if the government does a decent job at regulating businesses, not allowing monopolies. Government also should not be a monopoly.

Democracy is a monopoly of absolute government power.

People arnt allowed to have a choice or a say just an illusion of choice ,the decisions have already been made,we only think our vote makes a difference

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

I'm not sure I'll be able to get into this before I've had a sleep. My response will depend on whether this is something you've thought through and still think is practical, or if you're floating it as an "out there" kind of idea to start a discussion.

Capitalism is neither a form of government nor a state of mind, it is an economic system, nothing else.

Wasn't this in a way the original setup we had in the US?

A number of sovereign states with their own internal governments and legal systems linked by a federation that assured basic rights and the ability to pass from one state to the other?

You pick the state with legal systems you like, and go there.

Over time they've sort of flattened it so that the states are becoming lines on a map, and they're all more or less alike under a big Statist government. But I always had the idea it didn't start off exactly that way.

If you had multiple governments serving different groups. Nothing would ever get done because the governments would just spend their time arguing with each other and opposing each others plans. You can have only one set of laws, which means realistically you can have only one governing body. What we need to do is stop voting in public schoolboys.

This is a super idea. I have always been in favor of what I call the Guild System (from Ravnica). In today's day-and-age, geographical location doesn't even have to be a factor.

In the United States, we already have a system set up where there are 50 different states. Return states rights to them and it would solve a lot of problems and give people options of where to live.

If that doesn't work, there is already an idea in the works to build off-shore cities on the ocean that are going to each have their own governments. The only rule is that anyone is free to come and go as they please.

So this could be the way of the future, especially the future of ocean cities.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Wasn't this in a way the original setup we had in the US?

You are exactly right, unfortunately people forget about that and now everybody is arguing one party or the other. The federal government gains more and more power in the process, no matter who wins. That makes me think that they both work for the same goal. Only that one party is tasked to play the bad cop and the other one is the good cop. (I think you know which one is which).

I took the question into the abstract because I do not believe today's system can be fixed. You would have to start from scratch. I see very little chance for that to happen, at least not in the US. All we can do is hope that after the next revolution in some country, they may pick up on that idea.

Can you think of a better outcome?

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Capitalism is neither a form of government nor a state of mind, it is an economic system, nothing else.

So maybe we should apply the economic system to the government?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Most of us cannot move to another country.

I am not sure if I agree with this statement. At least for people in the western world. Why could you not move to another country?

In the case of the US I could see how it might benefit to have several governments due to the size of the nation and the multitude of cultures. This could give more freedom to choose, but as another person pointed out, it might also just cause further division, and make things more difficult to accomplish.

I too am skeptical about democracy. I think it's efficiency depends to much a the publics ability to understand matters of which they have little or not preconditions to understand.
Democracies don't ensure that any nation will make the right choices, only that the majority will be satisfied or at least won't complain because they have chosen it themselves. I am however not sure, if these are choices that the public are actually fit to make.

I think it could benefit us all if government experimented more with political platforms and social structures on a smaller scale. But I think it is important to do so in collaboration with governments, as not to create parallel societies inside already existing societies.

In regards to the titel of the thread - Why not provide people a choice between governments ? - I am kinda under the impression, that the purpose of elections are to provide people a choice between governments. No choice would be a dictatorship.
One could argue that the options you have to chose between aren't very good, but then we're back to the - why don't you just move to a country that have a political platform that fits you better?

Originally posted by michael1983l
If you had multiple governments serving different groups. Nothing would ever get done because the governments would just spend their time arguing with each other and opposing each others plans. You can have only one set of laws, which means realistically you can have only one governing body. What we need to do is stop voting in public schoolboys.

We have different governments today. Is that why nothing gets done?

Only thing that is missing is choice. Essentially every nation is a big prison. Just think of Syria. If people were allowed to leave and work in other countries they would, to save their lives. US citizens have a few more options than most others, but even here it is a much bigger step to move to, say, Norway, than it is to move to Colorado.

Choice, real choice, between governments would mean competition. I think a lot more gets done when you have to compete against an equal.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Only thing that is missing is choice. Essentially every nation is a big prison. Just think of Syria. If people were allowed to leave and work in other countries they would, to save their lives. US citizens have a few more options than most others, but even here it is a much bigger step to move to, say, Norway, than it is to move to Colorado.

Choice, real choice, between governments would mean competition. I think a lot more gets done when you have to compete against an equal.

Just because it is a big step to move from the US to Norway, that doesn't mean you can't do it or aren't allowed. Now you are just sounding lazy. Most countries in the world give their citizens the freedom to leave it if they so desire.
So yes, you do have a real choice, and governments are to some extend in competition with other countries.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Despite all the flaws of capitalism, at least people get a choice between which company to buy from and which one to work for. At least this is true if the government does a decent job at regulating businesses, not allowing monopolies. Government also should not be a monopoly.

But there is more to it than people just having a choice of what to buy.

Capitalism is a monopoly of the means to produce. Those that own economic property control the economy, the rest of us are reliant on them for work. The whole state was set up by, and for, the benefit of economic property owners. In fact capitalism itself was started by the [capitalist] land owners by enacting the inclosure laws.

The government we have is the result of capitalism. To change the type of government you would have to first change the type of economy we have.

Originally posted by Bilder
People arnt allowed to have a choice or a say just an illusion of choice ,the decisions have already been made,we only think our vote makes a difference

That's exactly how I feel about it.
Problem is, everytime I say this in public people either shrug it off or look at me like I'm crazy.

People are WAY PAST DRUNK on the kool-aid.

Originally posted by Mads1987
Just because it is a big step to move from the US to Norway, that doesn't mean you can't do it or aren't allowed. Now you are just sounding lazy. Most countries in the world give their citizens the freedom to leave it if they so desire.
So yes, you do have a real choice, and governments are to some extend in competition with other countries.

You are wrong. You do not have the right to move to Norway, the US cannot give you that right. Norway will not give you a work permit. (unless you are independently wealthy)

This is how the US used to be.

Unfortunately everything homogenizes to the demands of the lowest common denominator.

Look how people vote for all sorts of perks and services then when the taxes get too high they leave for a lower tax state only to once again start voting for all the perks and services that drive up the taxes.

These people are like locusts.

They screwed up NY, then CT, then MA now they're moving North into NH and VT and ME and each year they makes things just a little worse than the previous year by electing big gov idiots and pushing for more services and more perks that are unnecessary and unaffordable.

Eventually no state will be left that isnt a carbon copy of one of these bankrupt, hyper violent, coastal statist states.

Originally posted by Mads1987
In regards to the titel of the thread - Why not provide people a choice between governments ? - I am kinda under the impression, that the purpose of elections are to provide people a choice between governments. No choice would be a dictatorship.
One could argue that the options you have to chose between aren't very good, but then we're back to the - why don't you just move to a country that have a political platform that fits you better?

The difference between dictatorship and democracy is that in a democracy you are misled into believing that you get to choose your dictator. Because if there is little or no difference between the two parties, then we really have NO choice, electing one is as bad as the other. One party plays "Bad cop" the other plays "Good cop", but both protect the same interests, which is not the interest of the people.

The issue is not whether the options aren't very good, the issue is that democracy is, by definition, the rule of the majority. That may not be so good if you are in the minority. However, in practice it is a minority (the so-called "1%") that rules and the 99% is being exploited. Governments have become good at hiding this and many people may not realize to what extent. Ask yourself if your standard of living is significantly higher than that of your parents (as technology should allow for).

Only choice will ensure that corruption will be reduced to a minimum, because as long as you are in their big prison, they do not need to listen to you. They are the guards, they hold the guns, they decide which privilege they want to grant you - and when they want to take it away.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Sure, it depends on whether Norway will accept you or not. The US can't grant you the right to go live in a different country, that is up to the country, but the US can't force you to stay in the US for no reason, and luckily there are more than just the US and Norway. I am sure you can always find a home in Thailand, or some other countries with more relaxed immigration policies.

But the idea that you are forced to stay anywhere is total bogus. You could learn something from illegal immigrants, just jump a raft and hope for the best dude.

Well that's not really a choice now, is it? What if I want no government? Do I still get a choice? Will you leave me alone if I don't want to be a part of your governments? Because that's all I really want. I'm not going to hurt you (unless you hurt me first), so just leave me alone. I won't ask for anything from you, so don't take anything from me.

Is that cool with everyone? Will you respect my choice?

S+F

I thought about that before.

I even had a topic on here about why we don't have a vote on which kind of government we want.