What goverment system would work out the best?

[Ym3x]

An Anarchy where there is no system to withhold any laws or a strict Hitler type goverment where the people are just flies that they can kill and play around with when ever they please.
(I think it is called Authoritarian)

[The muffin man]

It's a facist despotism, if you must know. Or an autocracy, same difference. I think a representative socialist republic would be best.

[Ym3x]

I was refering to the two government types I said.

[Hacky]

If there was a person with no anger or bais in their heart, then dictatorship.


However, no such person exists.

[Jager]

Refer to my sig.
Neither can truely exist, therefore neither. Anarchy would eventually evovle to governemtn, because order would be needed. Anarchy leads to disorder, and people inherently want order. The order will arise, demolishing the anarchy.

On the other hand, the people being treated as flies would cause continual uprises and governmental overturns. There would be more war and fighting than productive actions, thus destroying the country and its chances at succeeding.

In the end, no governement is the best government, but no government is inherently government, and so thus, a paradox arises.

[moonshin3]

(I think it is called Authoritarian)

I believe it's called "Totalitarism."

[Jager]

Marxism, Facism, Socialism, Communsim.

I believe all can pretty much apply.

[ShavedMoose!]

Personaly i think a peaceful dictartorship would be the best and maybe some fall back to kick him out of power if he loses it.

[_justin_]

Personaly i think a peaceful dictartorship would be the best and maybe some fall back to kick him out of power if he loses it.

completely argee with you their buddy

[=|+QWERT+|=]

I like Democracy. The system we have going now hasn't let us down too much.

[Napalm]

If there was a person with no anger or bais in their heart, then dictatorship.


However, no such person exists.
tru.dat

[Scotty]

definately "a strict Hitler type goverment where the people are just flies that they can kill and play around with when ever they please." as you call it, at least there would be order to it

[B-Raff]

These days a constitutional democracy works best I think. The perfect form of government is communism, unfortunatly people are naturally greedy and always want more so it just doesn't work.

[DonKing]

Well the on that works the best of course is a society with a facist, an absoulte ruler above all, keeping people in check brutally, and keeping the people uneducated about goverment and the outside world. What works out the best and whats best for the people is a completely different question though.

[Teh Doc]

ANY form of government if ran the way it was meant to run would be good to live in.

[The muffin man]

Marxism, Facism, Socialism, Communsim.

I believe all can pretty much apply.

Marxism is communism is socialism. Facism is entirely different. Facist despotism is what it is. Totalitarian means a government with total control.

[chordie leforge]

"work" the best would obviously be a dictatorship, because its fairly easy to push legislation and keep things running.

But, the best for the people would IMO be Socialism.


And marxism, communism and socialism are all completley different. Original communism is very close to MArxism, but what communism has become is nothing like marxism. and socialism is also very close, but can still be democracy...

[Darkraptor]

By best government what do you mean? I mean there is no question, military dictatorship keeps everyone in line, and you have a strong military too. But life for the people probably wouldnt be best, an anarchy wouldn't work because there is no law, no one to maintain control. And it is human nature to live in groups or "gangs" so small mini gangs will take control and then grow, eventually becoming a government. But a greek democracy worked very well, and so does our consitutional government. But if you want a high economy, dictatorships work sometimes, but a captalisic government (a government run by businesses). Would probably be the best. It depends what you mean by "best" many people have diffrent views what "best" means.

[Badeballen]

Hivemind and drones would work. Though that would not work with humans, so the "best" would probably be a working sort of Marxism.

[Jager]

Btw, those of you saying the 'democracy' we have right now...hate to break it to you but we live under a Republic, not a Democracy.

[The muffin man]

Marxism in analogous to socialism and communism. Marxism is Carl Marx original plan from 'The Communist Manifesto'. Communism today, is no longer Communism, but is still part of Socialism, defined as extremely left wing government. So, Marxism is part of Communism is part of Socialism, is what I meant.

My opinion still stands for a Respresentative Socialism.

[Schmoky]

I had a conversation with my friend about this earlier this week...


He says strongly that communism would be, on paper, the best form of government. Having an equal share at everything is, theoritcally, eliminating competition, thus eliminating the "bad stuff".

My arguement was, there's no way people could stand for the government regulating the amount of money we get; it simply wouldn't work.

Communism, like democracy, is an amazing idea on paper... but no forms of government will ever really "work" the way they were originally proposed to.

[The muffin man]

I had a conversation with my friend about this earlier this week...


He says strongly that communism would be, on paper, the best form of government. Having an equal share at everything is, theoritcally, eliminating competition, thus eliminating the "bad stuff".

My arguement was, there's no way people could stand for the government regulating the amount of money we get; it simply wouldn't work.

Communism, like democracy, is an amazing idea on paper... but no forms of government will ever really "work" the way they were originally proposed to.

Well spoken. Unless we got rid of all the unintelligent or malevolent persons, governments will never be perfect. That may sound a little bit facist or even nazi-esque, but it's true.

[Akuma Bajen]

Btw, those of you saying the 'democracy' we have right now...hate to break it to you but we live under a Republic, not a Democracy.

Don't split hairs dude...

Republics (defined broadly) are govenrments that have people elect representatives (Of Course, North Korea and The Congo choose to call themselves Republics)

Democracies in a general sense are governments where the people rule...

You have direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues, or Democractic Republics, such as our system, where those that we elect decide on the issues for us.

[Jager]

Don't split hairs dude...

Republics (defined broadly) are govenrments that have people elect representatives (Of Course, North Korea and The Congo choose to call themselves Republics)

Democracies in a general sense are governments where the people rule...

You have direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues, or Democractic Republics, such as our system, where those that we elect decide on the issues for us.
But the thing is that with straight up democracy, you get, basically, the rich ruling.

[Akuma Bajen]

True. Direct democracy will usually allow those with the biggest voice/most money to influence decisions the most

[The muffin man]

I have a idea! Here it is:

There is a central government of linked urban cities. The white collar workers and residents of these cities are governed by a representative republic, where each of the citizens gets a chance to represent at least once in their lives for a one year term. The citizens of the central cities are tested, starting from the age of 16, on intelligence, morality, psycho-tendencies, and academic progress (for those who are young). Money is not a factor here. If one of these people fail the test, they are turned out into the outer suburban and rural communities, which are governed by a representative socialism of 22 leaders per section from different sections of the nation. 11 are based on population, 5 on production, 3 on money, and 3 in charge of these. Those in the communist ruled towns take the same test each year as well, and if they passed, they are promoted into the main cities. The higher citizens have free travel, but only blue collar construction workers may enter the cities. Schools are located in the communist run areas to make sure of equal learning capabilities.

As utopian as it gets.
Thoughts?

EDIT: When someone fails the test, they are placed under government care until they find a suitable job and 2 months after that.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

You'd be called a racist if there was any racial discrepencies at all.

[1koni1]

I have a idea! Here it is:

There is a central government of linked urban cities. The white collar workers and residents of these cities are governed by a representative republic, where each of the citizens gets a chance to represent at least once in their lives for a one year term. The citizens of the central cities are tested, starting from the age of 16, on intelligence, morality, psycho-tendencies, and academic progress (for those who are young). Money is not a factor here. If one of these people fail the test, they are turned out into the outer suburban and rural communities, which are governed by a representative socialism of 22 leaders per section from different sections of the nation. 11 are based on population, 5 on production, 3 on money, and 3 in charge of these. Those in the communist ruled towns take the same test each year as well, and if they passed, they are promoted into the main cities. The higher citizens have free travel, but only blue collar construction workers may enter the cities. Schools are located in the communist run areas to make sure of equal learning capabilities.

As utopian as it gets.
Thoughts?

EDIT: When someone fails the test, they are placed under government care until they find a suitable job and 2 months after that.

Sounds almost like a book I've read... Anyway, a society like this would fall apart, mostly because noone likes to be left out of "the main attraction" (in this case the main city's) and riots would probably ensue. A interesting idea, however, as everyone who qualify's can govern. The part that really bothers me is the fact that you added communism by itself on the "outer" villages. These sort of communities would need to be supported, and I'm sure that the "main village" would not want to contribute. A utopian society that holds others responsible for its own safety would fall apart quite quickly. :wow: very good muffinman.

[The muffin man]

You're probably right, but the point of that configuration is to allow for maximum social mobility. The centres would be required to contribute, and their levels of contribution would be saved in a national merit database, and could affect the chance of you qualifying for a higher government position, say, president or regent. By the way, what book are you alluding to?

[1koni1]

^ The Giver, which you might want to read

[The muffin man]

Oh, I've read it, a long time ago. I really enjoyed it. I don't see the linking between this and The Giver, however. Since this is not uniformity or complete control of someone's path and life, but gives people the freedom to do what they may with what they have. Colleges would be paid for by the government for added social mobility. I thought you were going to say 1984, that's the closest thing I can think of, with the 'Inner party' and what-not.