/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1897952]

/lit/,

What's the best form of government?

[Anonymous No.1897959]

The best at what?

[Anonymous No.1897961]

There is no best form of government.

[ϟ ATAN ϟ HADE ϟ !!1wBNr3mLJL+ No.1897962]

That question is almost impossible to answer. The best existing form of government, and I say this because I perceive the role of government to be equitable distribution of wealth, would probably be the semi-socialist governments in Northern Europe. They have many problems, of course, and they are far from perfect, but I think it might be better to only discuss forms of government that are currently in existence, and are not just an abstract notion.

[Anonymous No.1897970]

Absolute Monarchy.

Fuck your democracy. One King, One God, One Rule.

[Anonymous No.1897973]

>implying "What" is the best form of government

[Anonymous No.1897981]

Republic with Bicameral legislature, with equal representation of districts in one and proportional representation of districts in the other. The one way this can go wrong is by stupid people who don't care being governed by it.

[Anonymous No.1897982]

Democratic socialism. With an emphasis on democracy at a fundamental, local level rather than, say, the American system of electing a new monarch every few years and leaving everything else to the oligarchs.

Naturally capital would have to be abolished first.

[Anonymous No.1897983]

>>1897982

>tyranny of the majority

I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION

[Anonymous No.1897989]

A federation of anonymously represented areas, preferably cities. Said representatives would have very short terms, preferably around a month, before they would be replaced with a randomly chosen citizen from the area being governed. Central government would be limited to periodical meetings of anonymous representatives from each governed area.

I don't think this has a name, but it borrows heavily from the Zapatistas.

As for the nuances of how each area is governed, that would be left up to the representatives.

[Anonymous No.1897993]

>>1897983
No. That's what you get under first-past-the-post electoral systems. More sophisticated democratic structures ensure proportional representation.

[Anonymous No.1897994]

Benevolent Dictatorship

[Anonymous No.1898003]

>>1897994
This would be my choice as well, though it's not likely that we'll ever see a benevolent dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.1898004]

Kakistocracy!

Okay no, I just like writing that word.

[Anonymous No.1898007]

>>1897993

You misunderstand the meaning of tyranny of the majority. It is not to ensure proportional representation, but to ensure the rights of every individual from being oppressed by the majority, which is the direct result of a totally democratic government.

If Person A wants to use a cloth mop to wash with and persons B-Z do not want to, under a democratic system Person A would be forced to follow the majority rule. Under a PR system, Person A may still have a say in the legislature, but it is only a symbolic seat as the house voting would still be around 25-1. In a republic, Person A would tell B-Z to go fuck themselves and not use the cloth mop if they don't feel like it. And there is nothing the majority can do about it.

[Anonymous No.1898016]

What the Democratic Republic guy said.

[Anonymous No.1898020]

>>1898007
The system I envision wouldn't involve a lot of important decisions being put to a public vote, that never works well, but people would be democratically involved in their local community organisations or through workers councils for their particular vocation, which bodies would then elect members further up the hierarchy.

In the sort of binary decision you describe there's no way of pleasing everyone, you can only try to ensure that reasonable people who know what they're doing are entrusted with those decisions.

[Anonymous No.1898030]

>>1898003
Augustus

[Anonymous No.1898033]

Limited government.

[Anonymous No.1898035]

The best form of government is the one in which I rule.

[Anonymous No.1898038]

>>1898020

Well we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I can't stand unions either, and trade workers councils sounds a lot like that. I have no problem with community organizations and even democratic methods for local governments if they do not supersede the federal rights, but that is something that can't exist at a provincial/territorial/state level or a federal level. And as for the unions, the freedom of the press is at such a developed state now that I think they do more political harm than good, and use themselves as a weapon against the public. Injustices can usually be solved with a good public relations campaign and a trip to the local television network.

[Anonymous No.1898039]

>>1897982
>>1897989
These two are good.

I'm not dead set on what kind of structure is the best, as we haven't tried many of them and they're all bound to have their own problems. So some experimenting is proper.

But decentralization, so that affected people decide everything about the things which affect them, and nobody else, seems more than reasonable to me.

[Anonymous No.1898040]

>>1898033
Limited government always leads to bureaucracy. Quit being a reactionary faggot.

[Anonymous No.1898046]

>>1898040
and a lot of government leads to bureaucracy too

ANY form of advanced society will have bureaucracy

it's a fucking necessity

[Anonymous No.1898047]

>>1898040

Limited government has been done successfully once, throughout history, for all of 20 years before it became corrupted. We don't have enough of a sample size to confirm that trend yet. So maybe you should stop being the reactionary faggot.

[Anonymous No.1898050]

>>1898040
But more government = more bureaucracy.

[Anonymous No.1898055]

>>1898040
How the shit does LESS government equal more bureaucracy?

Or are we just throwing around big words now? In which case more government leads to too much serendipity and gerontology.

[Anonymous No.1898061]

>>1898055
>more government leads to too much serendipity and gerontology
That's just aerophilately. Goddamn burnets...

[Anonymous No.1898067]

>>1898047
>Limited government has been done successfully once, throughout history,
Yes, but where did it go?
>for all of 20 years before it became corrupted.
bureaucracy

So by wanting to impose a limited government on an already established bureaucracy(i.e., the united states) is that not a kind of circular reasoning? By reverting to limited government you give bureaucracy the means to recreate itself thus it is reactionary perpetuating the cycle.

[Anonymous No.1898070]

>>1898067

Ok, you are clearly just a retarded person. I tried to have a civil discussion, but I don't think you would have the slightest idea what I am talking about. I don't even think you have the slightest idea about what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.1898076]

>>1898070
I make similar statements myself when I can't make a coherent refutation.

[KNS No.1898088]

I personally believe that the perfect form of government is a hive mind link between every person on the planet, assuming that we had the tech for it and that people were responsible enough to handle it. I think that if we could mimic the insects that utilize this system, we would find a better civilization. People are capable of great things individually, so what would happen if we were able to effectively utilize the entire population's individual efforts at once?

[Anonymous No.1898092]

>>1898088

>and that people were responsible enough to handle it

[Anonymous No.1898095]

>>1898070
I think he's saying that *after* you form your limited government and get rid of all the bureaucracy, the first thing we're going to do is demand it back, because it turns out that's how all our roads got built and streets got policed and fires got put out, and people really like it when that stuff happens.

[Anonymous No.1898121]

>>1898095
Almost. Bureaucracy doesn't have to be a prerequisite for itself to be recreated; it is created by necessity. The moment government is created certain needs unbeknownst in the origin emerge and the present system is soon found inadequate. Rather then extirpating the system it becomes structured like a tower(bureaucracy).

[Anonymous No.1898123]

>>1898088

Did you learn nothing from Star Trek?

[Anonymous No.1898129]

>>1898121
it becomes structured piecemeal like a tower

[Anonymous No.1898138]

>>1898121
And a libertarian corporatist would argue, why not prevent the bureaucracy from reforming and instead encourage businesses to tackle those "certain needs". I'm not advocating that, but since people always complain about bureaucracy one begins to wonder whether the free market is a fair solution.

[Anonymous No.1898149]

LOVE

LOVE IS THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT

[Anonymous No.1898150]

>>1898138
I think social exclusion and alienation would prevent the libertarian utopia from ever reaching its culmination. People will always organize. But I haven't really put much thought into TBH.

[Anonymous No.1898153]

>>1898149

Henceforth, only Betty Smith may use the Interstate highway system. It's all for you.

I love ya,
President Smith

[Anonymous No.1898158]

More legislation = more bureaucracy

How would the size of the government have anything to do with it? What do you mean by the size of the government anyway? How is it quantified? Is it the number of state funded employees or what?

[Anonymous No.1898169]

Some form of democratic socialism. However I must say I am an anarchist at heart =/

[Anonymous No.1898177]

>>1897989
Are you talking about Subcomandante Marcos?

[Anonymous No.1898210]

Market needs to be wholly free and capitalist. Government interference damages the market.

[Anonymous No.1898213]

>>1898177

Subcomandante Marcos is the spokesperson/representative of the Zapatistas, the group I mentioned.

[Anonymous No.1898217]

A democratic monarchy. We elect a king and he stays in power till he dies or we fire him.

None of this flimsy four year term bullshit. You can't do anything in four years. We need a king who won't take shit from anyone. No matter who likes it or not, he makes a plan and carries it out. Just a guy who gets shit done.

Also, we need to start implementing something to fix or replace capitalism. It works, but won't last without severely shrinking the middle class.

[Anonymous No.1898219]

There is no such thing as a best government because there is no such thing as an ultimate and final good, no final and abstract distinction between the noble and the base and human affairs.

[Anonymous No.1898222]

>>1898217
>implying the middle class still exists

[Anonymous No.1898224]

>>1898217
It's called 'capitalism with strong regulations and a powerful social safety net', and it worked for years and years (several decades at least) until dumbass whites got angry about blacks and abortion and decided to elect Reagan to shred the entire thing, which movement lead directly to our current predicament vis-a-vis recession.

[Anonymous No.1898226]

>>1898217
It's not perfect, but there's nothing better. Every time you get some beauracracy involved, shit just gets fucked up worse and the end result is hundreds of tons of corn rotting in warehouses or getting burned while people starve in the countryside.

[Anonymous No.1898230]

>>1898226
when has that happened since the 19th century

and why are you arguing against 19th century protectionism

[Anonymous No.1898234]

>>1898224
The fuck do you mean "strong regulations" and "safety net?" Give me an example of strong regulations. And if by "safety net" you mean bailouts you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.1898236]

>>1898224
>until dumbass whites got angry about blacks and abortion and decided to elect Reagan to shred the entire thing, which movement lead directly to our current predicament vis-a-vis recession.

Is there anything wrong with America today that can't be traced right back to Reagan? What a fucking guy.

[Anonymous No.1898238]

>>1898230
It actually happened during the Great Depression. US Department of Agriculture bought up huge amounts of corn in order to keep the price from dropping. Similar shit happens today. Regulations on how high prices of apartments can climb result in New York having four times the amount of vacant apartments necessary to house all the homeless people.

[Anonymous No.1898241]

>>1898234
By strong regulation, I mean regulations on speculation and investing that are actually enforced to prevent companies from doing things like investing heavily in credit debt swaps on packaged junk bonds until our economy pisses itself and drunkenly passes out. And have people who will actually enforce these regulations, instead of ex-bankers.

By social safety net, I don't mean bailout. I mean have strong, functioning social programs that provide basic needs (health care, etc), and a working, healthy infrastructure. These are things that are good for society and are a necessity in any well-functioning political state.

Or we could just sell out the interests of everyone except the top 1% because you think that would benefit you personally over the next 5 years, that's another option.

[Anonymous No.1898247]

>>1898241
Oh, alright, the first part makes sense.

But when you give people free health care, the end result is people going to the doctor every day over retarded shit. A lady in Britain had her cancer operation postponed for so long due to frivolous, unnecessary operations that her tumor became inoperable. So have fun while a twelve year old girl gets breast implants while 10,000 people wait 15 months or more for operations.

[Anonymous No.1898249]

>>1898236
guns

[Anonymous No.1898263]

>>1898247
This is pretty much a myth.

I live in Sweden, and most people do not go to the hospital over anything. Most people do, indeed, not go to hospital even when they probably should - they do not want to believe it is anything serious or grave.

Hypocondria is not very common.

What does cause endless lines is underfunding and the diminishing pool of doctors and nurses - which in turn is caused by skyrocketing demands to get into a medicine university.

That's just here though, I don't know about elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.1898264]

>>1898247
>But when you give people free health care, the end result is people going to the doctor every day over retarded shit. A lady in Britain had her cancer operation postponed for so long due to frivolous, unnecessary operations that her tumor became inoperable. So have fun while a twelve year old girl gets breast implants while 10,000 people wait 15 months or more for operations.

Jesus, I was in favor of actually being able to afford to visit a doctor without going into debt, but that un-sourced piece of anecdotal evidence changes things!

And no fucking way do I want to have to put off my surgery so some bitch can get implants from a completely different type of doctor in a completely different hospital (that is privately owned and operated and only does elective surgeries)! But you say that that is definitely what would happen?

Surprising, because it fundamentally doesn't make sense, but who I am to argue with a random dude making unfounded claims on the internet?

[Anonymous No.1898269]

>>1898263
Depends on the type of people, I suppose. In the US, obese, priggish soccer moms with stickers depicturing charicatures of their families plastered all over their minivans will go to the doctor over a papercut. And that honestly isn't hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.1898277]

>>1898269
People are pretty much the same everywhere dude. They enjoy staying alive but generally prefer to avoid unnecessary visits to the doctor.

[Anonymous No.1898279]

>>1898247
This is not how government-funded healthcare works. There are also no "death tribunals". Go away, Palin.

[Anonymous No.1898285]

>>1898224
>It's called 'capitalism with strong regulations and a powerful social safety net', and it worked for years and years

It 'worked', as in it did what capitalism does which is exploit the proletariat and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a tiny elite. Strong regulations made it less efficient, of course, which is why the capitalists did away with them.

[Anonymous No.1898288]

>>1898269
I believe you. Hyperbole is *exaggeration* whereas you're just flat out making shit up.

Oh and how many soccer moms with minivans do you think there are that don't have health insurance?

[Anonymous No.1898291]

>>1898264
Obviously you don't understand examples. You don't know shit, you fucking retard. Remember the gasoline crisis of the 70's? The price of the gasoline was set at a low price, so there was a massive shortage due to everybody filling their tanks up to the top and buying up more than they needed. That's what happens if you make health care free, people constantly go to the doctor and use up surgeons and specialists. Unnecessary operations and appointments take precedence over real, serious issues.

[Anonymous No.1898296]

>>1898291
>Unnecessary operations and appointments take precedence over real, serious issues.

They don't because hospitals are staffed by people who can identify a real, serious issue.

[Anonymous No.1898300]

Government-funded healthcare is a real thing, you know. It works. It's not some crackpot theory that requires a gigantic leap of faith.

[Anonymous No.1898321]

just because free market economy/libertarianism works better than social liberalism it doesn't make it right

it's better than the poor are taken care of at the slight expense of the rich, than the top 1% of the population owning 99% of the money and looking good on paper (high gdp per capita)

[Anonymous No.1898332]

anarchoprimitivism

[Anonymous No.1898334]

>>1898291
>Obviously you don't understand examples.
When you are discussing a worldwide thing like universal health care ONE case that you haven't even sourced (and either made up or HEARD about from someone who HEARD about it) is absolutely useless. Even if the case were true as you stated it (it isn't), that was one time in one hospital - not exactly hard statistics.

>That's what happens if you make health care free, people constantly go to the doctor and use up surgeons and specialists.
And yet dozens of nations have universal health care, and *this hasn't happened*.

>Unnecessary operations and appointments take precedence over real, serious issues.
NOPE. This is why you're wrong (or lying) about the British woman with the cancer, because this doesn't happen the way you think it does.

Brain surgeons operate on brains. That's it. They don't check your foot funguses, they don't take X-Rays, if you lodge a dildo up your ass they don't pull it out. There's no unneccessary *brain operations*, so the brain surgeon is no busier than he would be otherwise. Same thing goes for any other specialists - they don't do the small stuff.

[Anonymous No.1898344]

>>1898321
Not really. For example, if you have a sudden crop failure, greedy corporations are going to rush to it much faster than beauraucrats (probably spelled wrong) offering aid in order to take advantage of the high demand and therefore high prices of the crop.

[Anonymous No.1898345]

The whole premise of this thread is wrong. There is no best form of government because different people believe the government should do different things. To compensate for that, the best option is a bi or multinational regional political synergy.

Take Canada and the United States as the best example. Canada is a center-left constitutional monarchy (de facto a parliamentary democracy) that is strong federally, with a tendency toward a social safety net and a strong tradition of taxpayer funded public benefits (see Medicare/the CBC/CRTC etc.). The country prides itself on its multiculturalism and places no obligation on its immigrants to conform to being "Canadian". The United States is a center-right constitutional republic, which is heavily influenced and governed by its component states, but with a strong federal oversight as well. It has a tendency to shy away from federally funded organizations and public works (however there are many, many examples to the contrary) in favour of a more laissez-faire approach. This approach however does not extend to all matters of foreign relations, internally or externally. Immigrants are expected to become Americanized to a certain extent and the US even pressures the rest of the world to adopt tenets of its system.

[Anonymous No.1898348]

The perfect way to solve the problems of governance is to distill the purposes of countries/governments to their purest form and then publically declare those purposes, while creating an open border with a politically different neighbour. Taking the Canada/US example, Canada values safety/toleration over freedom, so they should lean more toward the ideals of socialism and acceptance, even if that includes more taxation, defining "hate speech" or banning peaceful protests with an intolerant/hateful/false message. The United States should throw much of the last 200 years out the window and hold itself to the tenants of its own constitution: limited government, freedom above all else, very limited government affairs in the lives of citizens, a very low tax rate, and little/no public welfare or public works. They should leave that to state governments or private investors. They should also have absolutely no limits to the first amendment other than that which directly puts lives in danger (see: shouting fire in a ballroom), the IP/copyright laws should be reformed, online copyright claims should be thrown out the door, and foreign involvement/UN involvement should be immediately ceased. Then the border between the two countries should be completely open a la Schengen agreement, and the citizens of each can choose where they want to live and gain citizenship with a set-term occupancy requirement.

This way you can have the best of both worlds and create integral connections between countries while creating political synergy in a region without being hostile to each other.

[Anonymous No.1898358]

>>1898334
>implying there's only one type of brain ailment
>implying some brain ailments aren't more serious than others

People with benign brain tumors or other crap (ie stuff that has a 0.5% chance of becoming serious) will probably take advantage of the free health care to get that shit removed.

[Anonymous No.1898376]

>>1898321
>just because free market economy/libertarianism works better than social liberalism it doesn't make it right
it doesn't work better either. Anyone who believes in libertarianism either doesn't understand the concept of a leonine contract, or wants to oppress people.

[Anonymous No.1898392]

>>1898345
>>1898348

That's all right, I just wrote all this shit so that /lit/ could continue with their petty arguments about inane shit that has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with governance.

[Anonymous No.1898412]

>>1898358
Get fucking serious.

Look, if you just want poor people to die, say so. You're anonymous, there's really no need for the pretense. I know that normally you need to soft-serve it, but here nobody will be shocked to hear someone say that they want black people to die.

Just try it. Let that Republican rhetoric slip and just be honest about how angry it makes you that niggers and poor people might get penicillin and insulin.

[Anonymous No.1898417]

>>1898392

>no you're all wrong I'm right!

Well the hell do you want us to say?

Try actually engaging someone on an actual point instead of making stump speeches.

[Anonymous No.1898422]

personally i'm where noam chomsky is on this chart

if you're in the top half of the graph you should probably just kill yourself now

[Anonymous No.1898426]

>>1898417

I made a point, if you bothered reading. I said that governments need to get to the core of the ideology of their country, find the type of government best suited to their culture, have a free border with an ideologically different neighbour, and allow free immigration between the two countries. How is that not saying something? Who exactly is doing this at the moment?

Just because I am not engaging in this stupid political banter doesn't mean I am not contributing. I have my own political views, but they have zero effect on how something universally should be governed.

[Anonymous No.1898438]

>>1898426

I didn't say make a point, I said engage someone on a point.

[Anonymous No.1898443]

>>1898438

Am I talking greek? Nobody has made a contrary point! That's what I'm asking for. Who's on first?

[Anonymous No.1898445]

>>1898443

You made a stump speech, responding to no one in particular. You're asking for us to set aside the discussion because you just dismissed it outright. You're being childish.

[Anonymous No.1898455]

>>1898445

I answer the OP's question and I get chided for not being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory!

Well then I'll ask you, o aggrieved responder, what are the flaws in the reasoning? What are your visions for governance?

[Anonymous No.1898464]

>>1898455

There were almost 80 posts between yours and the opening post.

I'm not arguing with you. I don't like you, and I'm not interested in having a discussion with you.

[Anonymous No.1898498]

>>1897989 sounds a bit ancient Greek to me and why should i be elected for a month why not just sell my seat or my position to the highest bidder?
Zapatistas.

>>1898007 A republic sounds more like a confederacy to me and slavery would still be used where people who weren't the slaves felt it suited their needs

>>1898088 u read hellstroms hive (frank herbert)?
how would you legally react to people who wanted only a jewish of Sino hive mind?

>>1898149 HAHAHAHAHA OMG what the F was that? A joke? i almost fell over. Love is the opposite of government they question is how do i associate and deal with people i don't love and actively despise?

[Newtopia No.1898500]

Present example: Switzerland
i like the democracy and the personal responsibility. I live in america so maybe its just grass is greener syndrome

Magical Utopia idea: I call My nation "Newtopia"
Economic system: Water is currency basis(naturally leads to communism/capitalism)
Head of state: position is figure head kind of like a saint you have to be dead to fill the position(First president Ghandi)
National Congress: computerization of voteing (Every citizen is has a say on every issue 99.9% agreement needed to pass a law) veto power held by the military representatives(unanimous) and Supreme court on grounds of Constitutionality (except amendments)
Organization of government body: Bureaucratic-Judiciary every member of the bureaucracy is a federal judge with their own Field and the appeals process goes to the supreme court
Military: (self defense force)Every citizen is mandatory enlisted. Unconstitutional for Newtopia military to occupy any territory its citizens aren't already residents.
Taxes: Citizens pay ?% flat tax but decide them selves the appropriation of that tax leaving only 10% to go to the congress to decide.

My intentions in this government is by definition a due nothing government. No alliances no tariffs no social works(unless agreed upon by all tax paying citizens). If i can buy my bread drink my booze and listen to uncontrolled music, news, art, and porn then i don't give a fuck what the government or other citizens plan for the future ill just make sure to get out their way.

[Anonymous No.1898505]

>>1897994
this.
my grandfather told me this when I was a kid.

[Anonymous No.1898507]

>>1898500
there are so many things wrong with this I don't have enough > to greentext them all

[Anonymous No.1898517]

self-government

although I have the same sort of faith that a huge emphasis on education will play the same sort of role as economists take the invisible hand to play

[Anonymous No.1898530]

>>1898345
so, your first sentencecontradicts itself

[Anonymous No.1898534]

The one that grants an individual absolute freedom to do as he wishes, complete protection from potential interference towards that end, and demands he return to society only so much as his person demands to persist within.

I think most every governmental structure would work well enough if people were content with those principles. Some simply are not. One man says the man on the next block is harming him by offending his sensitivities. How can he live happily if his neighbor engages in unnatural practices? He must have that man restrained.

Another guy just can't see how owning more land than one thousand other average guys means he profits at the expense of the community, so needs to give back more in the way of taxes. How, after all, does his controlling the greater portion of agricultural, mineral, or industrial wealth prevent others from profiting just as much as he?

A rich gal doesn't see the logic of her paying taxes at all. Why does she owe anyone else her coins? What does it matter if the constituent bits of society made her wealth possible. Bugger them. They're simply lazy, jealous urchins.

A lower-middle from the block has dreams of being a tycoon and making it big. Why should he work a labour position? He's going to be rich. Important people don't sully their hands with peasants work. Thankfully, his peasant parents are there to pick up his slack.

[Newtopia No.1898536]

>>1898507
i had to shorten my description because it was too long but please do tell me whats wrong i could start a thread entirely for people to brake it apart i want to hash it out

[Anonymous No.1898538]

Anarchy.

Let the governed by the government.

[Anonymous No.1898551]

>>1898412
You're an ignorant fucking prick. You seem to believe that economics is some abstract concept that exists in the minds of only a handful of economists. Have fun watching the price of antibiotics skyrocket while bacteria mutates due to their overuse under your "ideal government."

[Newtopia No.1898563]

>>1898538
that's not anarchism that is not even an argument
anarchy would be
let the people play
let the caged bird breath
let what happens be and be free

the governed are already the government nothing stops them from revolution but their acceptance of the status quot

[Anonymous No.1898589]

>>1898563

Isn't that what anarchy is? A horizontal government, where everyone is equal in making the rules of their relationships with others?

[Anonymous No.1898603]

neocameralism

[Newtopia No.1898618]

>>1898589
I don't claim to be a expert of political theory
(Public administrations my bag)
But Anarchy is the dismantlement of any governing body and authorities invested there in. People are authorities unto them selves and responsible for them selves.

[Newtopia No.1898631]

>>1898538
a government of the people by the people for the people
that's not anarchy and its not an argument of any sort

[Anonymous No.1898669]

The kind that governs least.