The Ideal Government

I did some searching, and didn’t find a thread like this already in existance (which is odd, since it seems like such a simple idea.)

What, in your opinion, would be the ideal government? Please be as detailed as possible, and provide reasons for your statements.

The ideal government is simple: yourself.
Reason: only the individual has the right to decide for himself what is ideal for himself.

A communist island filled with 1000 of me and females.

the ideal government is and does nothing

I don’t think there is an ideal government. I’m pretty convinced about the pragmaticness (?) of defining rights and then protecting those rights though.

The ideal government is apparently Anarchism. Debate with a communist or capitalist thoroughly enough and they will concede to this. Though anarchism is apparently ideal; it requires a greater responsibility in each and every, or at least, the majority of human beings on this Earth. As per the current, anarchism or communism will result in a decline which cannot and will not sustain or better us. We can only hope that at some point we can evolve enough to use these or hopefully, far better systems.

Mytacera, I think these sorts of questions are usually met with cryptic tones because those that would care to give a detailed response think to themselves “I would actually want to collate it into a large volume of information . . . on second thought I have a midterm to worry about” along those lines.

With that said, i have lots and lots of details I’d love to give you. But without the funding, I feel better off ignoring it entirely and sipping the pipe dream that I would one day have the big big book for you.

It might suffice to say that I’m more of a communist than a capitalist. I think, although humans need material motivation, their real provisions shouldn’t reach far beyond basic necessity. Whom are we to gobble resources for our petty interests? Yes we are afraid of communist leaders becoming dictators. True, it fails because the leaders become corrupt with capitalism. But who knows if the system could be better refined to prevent such a problem. In the modern economy, I doubt anyone will see the chance anyway.

Still, there has to be a style of dictatorship feel to communism whatever way you look at it. “Shut up and eat your soup and wear your grey run-of-the-mill coveralls. Work where we tell you and read a nice book. If you stray we’ll herd and tranquilize you like an animal until you stop fighting.” To me that’s the best government message. It’s not the most pleasant to a human being, but by our statistical tendency for irresponsability it’s what we deserve.

maybe we are thinking in terms of current condition.

when i try to take “a brand spanking new view” this is how i do it.

everyone is given hopefully equal land with which to survive.

one mandate will be to not over populate your piece of land as all land will be occupied (livable land)

there Will be one family or chief of any given land determined by popular vote of the occupants.

the role of the chief Will not be to govern but to mediate relations with other lands.

if people fuck up with guns or some shit, than we will have procedures to effect a mass militia.

this is assuming A there is enough support land and B people are generally content with this.

there i just slapped together a half assed government which is better than anything in history :laughing:

I think market pressures would correct government problems, or problem governments, with the existence of …

Is this question asking for the ideal society or an ideal government at the head of current society?

Anarchy only works if everyone agrees not to kill one another and abide by uncodified rules. Even if you actually manage to find people that would agree to that, wouldn’t the society be slow to react and unify against an external threat, should one exist?
I would guess that an ideal society would be a dictatorship in which everyone agrees with the dictator. You can respond to new circumstances and threats extremely quickly and with little fuss. Of course, you’d have to find a population that just happened to agree with whoever headed it.

For a government at the head of a current society, I guess it would depend upon what your goals are. Do you want a Spartan-like society that dominates everyone in their path at the expense of free will and personal liberty? Do you want an economic powerhouse? A freedom-loving populace? The ability to respond well to threats? The ability to quash dissent? The current US government does a pretty good job at balancing some of these, but it’s hardly what I’d call ideal.

The only ideal government I can think of is a dictatorship with me at the head. :slight_smile:

“The ideal government is simple: yourself.
Reason: only the individual has the right to decide for himself what is ideal for himself”

Oh, that’s profound. But remember, “no man is an island”. We can’t alone supply the environment in which we function. We need outside support.

One based on the principles of voluntarism.

Ideal governments always fail. [-X

( Platonicism is a sad pathetic idealism.) ( This includes neo-platonicism too.)

Communism is great on paper terrible in reality.

Although a island filled with females does sound intriguing. :stuck_out_tongue:

That only exists without government. [-X

Voluntarism has to be organized at some level. And that organization would inevitably be government.

Under communism there was no such thing as voluntarism because individuals could not express their will, which is a cornerstone of voluntarism. This is one reason why communism collapsed, because it didn’t have the voluntarism that could preform the roles communism could not, like community support groups, charity work and that personal touch which can make all the difference. Communism was too centralized and overbearing for voluntarism to be possible.

Voluntarism is like non-government agencies. Those agencies, like voluntarism, are an addition to and within the sphere of our governments.

what if my capital is worthless?

Does anybody foresee a time when capital will be worthless?

There will always be a market, as long as people exist, so there will always be capital in one form or another

Capital value is based on confidence. Capital based on gold is worth what people believe it is, even though the gold is rather uselessly sitting in a locked box somewhere.

Capital based on the value of humans has the backing of pride, self aggrandizement, and probably a few other characteristics of humans that are not likely to disappear. Additionally, if the capital is borrowed by governments, governments have a significant stake in maintaining the value, and in keeping the citizens happy and healthy. If citizens become unhappy they can move to another place and transfer their capital, and if citizens die, their capital dies with them.

Oh, and people with their basic needs assured will likely be more inclined to voluntarily help however they can, I would.

In the context of UE, if your capital is worthless, so is everyone else’s, and we have worldwide economic collapse. I don’t believe this would be allowed to happen.

I would agree that systems are usually dreampt up before feasability. But democracy was certainly not by accident. And although I think our concept of modern democracy is a crude interpretation of what the word really means . . . the idea did become a reality.