What is the best type of government? Is it capitalist, communist, socialist? Republican, democratic, aristocratic? These are just a few examples of course, but how would you see the perfext government?
Mine would need to be a democratic government with it controlling needed institutions, such as hospitals, banks, and law enforcement buidlings. Laws are created by a seperate body of individuals; such that, each city ot county, or province, creates its own laws and laws concerning religion or human rights must be agreed apon by the rest of the people of government.
A Socialist Democracy?
Socialism is another form of Communism (Actually, Communism with Capitalism), so how is it good?
I'm for Communism actually. But only if the Commies are not power greedy fucktards.
Oh wait, that almost would never happen because anyone who gets any form of power, abuses it usually.
None.
I would suggest doing away with officials, elected or appointed, in favor of a more direct government, based on a federal debate system.
None.
How do the people in power get into power then? or is there no people in power?
None.
Power should be distributed, no one would have power for any significant length of time, in order to prevent corruption, and the temptation thereof.
None.
To be believe in communism is to believe in fantasy. Communism at its heart cannot exist, it is human nature for someone to take charge; once someone has power, they will see how far they can push it. In the Stanford Prison expirement, the gaurds also pushed their limits of power. A social structure always occurs. Then, with communism comes equal pay -- doctors are paid the same as sanitary workers. And, although each person's job is nessicary, a doctors job is much more stressful then a sanitation worker's.
"A Socialist Democracy?"
Although, you COULD call it that, I prefer calling it a democratic republic, with a hint of capatilsm. People can do as they wish for money, but ultimately, the government owns the institutions needed to uphold a standard or living.
"Oh wait, that almost would never happen because anyone who gets any form of power, abuses it usually."
'Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' -- Lord Acton
Also, we must consider how well each government can function. Democracy means that every person votes for everything... causing nothing to be done and nothing to be decided upon. A republic means that there are a select few who decide things for the rest of the country. This too, seems flawed to me: it brings to mind "virtual representation" from the American Revolution days. Communism also allows ANYONE to take power, since there is no social structure and there are always those who crave power and manipulation (ANIMAL FARM!!!1!). And then there is a Monarchy... which has nothing good about it; just like a Dictatorship.
So, a Democratic Republic seems good to me.
just exactly how is a democratic republic better than a direct democracy?
On another note, I am entirely fed up with the 2 party system in this country.
None.
To be believe in communism is to believe in fantasy. Communism at its heart cannot exist, it is human nature for someone to take charge; once someone has power, they will see how far they can push it. In the Stanford Prison expirement, the gaurds also pushed their limits of power. A social structure always occurs. Then, with communism comes equal pay -- doctors are paid the same as sanitary workers. And, although each person's job is nessicary, a doctors job is much more stressful then a sanitation worker's.
"A Socialist Democracy?"
Although, you COULD call it that, I prefer calling it a democratic republic, with a hint of capatilsm. People can do as they wish for money, but ultimately, the government owns the institutions needed to uphold a standard or living.
"Oh wait, that almost would never happen because anyone who gets any form of power, abuses it usually."
'Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' -- Lord Acton
Also, we must consider how well each government can function. Democracy means that every person votes for everything... causing nothing to be done and nothing to be decided upon. A republic means that there are a select few who decide things for the rest of the country. This too, seems flawed to me: it brings to mind "virtual representation" from the American Revolution days. Communism also allows ANYONE to take power, since there is no social structure and there are always those who crave power and manipulation (ANIMAL FARM!!!1!). And then there is a Monarchy... which has nothing good about it; just like a Dictatorship.
So, a Democratic Republic seems good to me.
A_of-s_t.... Where has our Democratic Republic gotten us so far?
The Patriot Act, The Military Commisions Act, and a False War.
Yeah. Democratic Republics are the way to go. /sarcasm
just exactly how is a democratic republic better than a direct democracy?
On another note, I am entirely fed up with the 2 party system in this country.
Which is why there should be anarchy
Not really, but still... The American Government is the most corrupt form of government since the ancient Romans...
Oh wait, we're doing the exact same thing they did. Just a fast-forwarded version.
None.
Please keep yourself from using absolutee's because American Government is NOT the most corrupt government, albeit corrupt.
Which is why there should be anarchy
Please keep yourself from using why there should be anarchy before you know what happens to anarchy thereafter, especially to countries like the U.S. ( It won't happen either, so don't worry. )
None.
just exactly how is a democratic republic better than a direct democracy?
On another note, I am entirely fed up with the 2 party system in this country.
I wonder... If there is a direct democracy, then mobs would rule since all power would be in the people and those who have the most influence would be the "leaders"; thus, there is no real difference between a direct democracy and a democratic republic. The only good thing to a democratic republic is the fact that things can actually get resolved, since a small amount of people are voting, instead of an entire nation.
The two party system is what seperated us from other forms of government and it was created for a reason: becuase it works. Most of our voting is
inderect, mainly so that total control is not in the people.
Where has our Democratic Republic gotten us so far?
Unity, a judicial system, equal representation, a nice military monopoly, and safety.
The American Government is the most corrupt form of government since the ancient Romans
If only that made sense...
I wonder... If there is a direct democracy, then mobs would rule since all power would be in the people and those who have the most influence would be the "leaders"; thus, there is no real difference between a direct democracy and a democratic republic. The only good thing to a democratic republic is the fact that things can actually get resolved, since a small amount of people are voting, instead of an entire nation.
yeah, I guess nothing would get done, but that might be better than the current system.
IMO, there are only 3 things the federal government should be responsible for-
Printing money.
Military command and control.(ONLY in the event of a formal declaration of war.)
Insurance.
everything else is better accomplished at a local or state level.
None.
I think the government is fine as it is. It runs, and you live your daily life without getting majorly affected by it.
Although, I believe it should be required by law for people to vote.
None.
Although, I believe it should be required by law for people to vote.
So that a bunch of people who don't inform themselves on any of the issues are forced to vote?
None.
Although, I believe it should be required by law for people to vote.
So that a bunch of people who don't inform themselves on any of the issues are forced to vote?
EXACTLY!
I think the government is fine as it is. It runs, and you live your daily life without getting majorly affected by it.
Although, I believe it should be required by law for people to vote.
O boy! Ask not what your government can do for you, but the lack there of.
People are affected by government in their daily lives, there is school, taxes, banks, and paper money -- all thanks to the government.
IMO, there are only 3 things the federal government should be responsible for-
Printing money.
Military command and control.(ONLY in the event of a formal declaration of war.)
Insurance
You forgot a federal court, and protection of rights.
why would you need a federal court? Federal protection of rights? As if there were such a thing.
None.
why would you need a federal court? Federal protection of rights? As if there were such a thing.
federal court, and protection of rights.
1. Printing money.
2. Military command and control.(ONLY in the event of a formal declaration of war.)
3. Insurance.
Without my extra rules:
The government can increase its salary, impose taxes without care (since in order to HAVE money, it must come from somewhere), and can easily house soilders in towns. If war is declared, the military can now do as it pleases -- storming houses, arresting without warrant, and increase money flow that will cause inflation -- and no one can stop them. Then, no one is able to stop the government to end war, thus, the military is now in absolute control...
I hope that works out for you.
No, the federal government would not have say over any soldiers within the country, those would be state funded, a declaration of war would be done by all of the states, not by a federal governing body(the federal commanders would have to give orders through the government of each state). Money printing would be tied only to the census, via a static formula.
None.
No, the federal government would not have say over any soldiers within the country, those would be state funded, a declaration of war would be done by all of the states, not by a federal governing body(the federal commanders would have to give orders through the government of each state). Money printing would be tied only to the census, via a static formula.
Sounds pretty bad... Didn't the 13 colonies unite becuase they had weak state malitias, which is basically what you have there.
The difference is that they were faced with a world filled with very significant military threats, a strong federal government was necessary for survival.
None.
The difference is that they were faced with a world filled with very significant military threats, a strong federal government was necessary for survival.
Like who? The EU?! The current US military expenditure is about HALF the world total(that is not including supplemental money for iraq). Compare that to the 1800s, you had empires and monarchs all looking for an easy land grab.
Not to mention our military equipment makes us far superior soldier for soldier than any other nation. The only reason we are getting our asses handed to us now is because we cannot see the enemy, the insurgents are good at planting bombs, the only thing they do in head to head combat is get killed.
None.
