FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

[Arminius]

Probably each form of government hat its time, and if its time is over, then the time of the next one begins.

The monarchy has the tyranny as its negative part before it ends, the aristocracy has the oligarchy as its negative part before it ends, the democracy has the ochlocracy as its negative part before it Ends.



Is there a form of government which is the best one, and if yes which one?
Has each form of government its own time?


                 Monarchy (negative: Tyranny).                                          Aristocracy (negative: Oligarchy).                                                                             Democracy (negative: Ochlocracy)

[Arminius]

Do you know Polybios?

[Kriswest]

http://www.google.com/search?nfpr=1&q=d ... =0CBoQBSgA

[Arminius]

I know Polybios. I asked the ILP-members because I want them to know what Polybios said about the cycle of governmental forms. But thanks anyway.

Not much going on here. .... What A shame!

[Kriswest]

Well you could have mentioned that.
Decades ago I read about it, I can not honestly recall details.
Societies will change or fail. Stagnation of government can cause revolt or separation or both.
Dictatorship is an efficient form of governing, republics are best if built by all not by the few. Ideally a combination of both would be best but, the human factor screws up all forms of governing eventually.

[Arminius]

Well you could have mentioned that.

Really? I thought it was reasonably clear. Philosophically, there is no doubt that I primarily think of Ancient Greek philosophers, if I want to talk about forms of governemnt.

Decades ago I read about it, I can not honestly recall details.
Societies will change or fail.

Which societies "will change and fall"?

Stagnation of government can cause revolt or separation or both.

Do you think there will be war in Europe before (for example) 2050? Or in North America?

Dictatorship is an efficient form of governing, republics are best if built by all not by the few. Ideally a combination of both would be best but, the human factor screws up all forms of governing eventually.

So you would prefer a combination of dictatorship and republic, thus - according to the theory of governmental forms - a combination of tyranny and aristocracy or eventual democracy. Apart from the fact that I don't like tyranny, I have to say that the combination you mentioned does not work, because either a governmental form is a tyranny or not - there is nothing beside it: law of the excluded third (exclusi tertii principium), a logical axiom.

[Kriswest]

All societies change or fail.
As for war in Europe or US, its a coin toss right now. The future is pointing at both. It all depends upon education and temperament. South America is closest to war.

Dictatorship does not mean tyranny. Republic is representative and if utilized properly benefits all.
Together , combined in an efficient way a society could evolve peacefully. But, as I said, the human factor screws them up.
Societies are entities. Evolution affects entities. Death, change, environment all affect entities.

[James S Saint]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread.

As I have stated before, the "best" or "ultimate" form of government is democratic but really it is a specific combination of all of those mentioned. So is that your category 4? Or something else?

[Arminius]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread.

As I have stated before, the "best" or "ultimate" form of government is democratic but really it is a specific combination of all of those mentioned. So is that your category 4? Or something else?

According to the traditional theory there are three main governing forms with their degenerated forms:

1) Monarchy - degenerated: Tyranny.
2) Aristocracy - degenerated: Oligarchy.
3) Democracy - degenerated: Ochlocracy.

In the long run no governing form can defend itself against other governing forms and also not against its own degeneration.

So you are saying that „the »best« or »ultimate« form of government is democratic“; and the degenerated form of democracy is ochlocracy.

[zinnat]

Theoretically, Monarchy is the best option but being dependant to one person only, it is very much venerable to corruption. Thus, I would like to vote for Aristocracy. In my view, Democracy is not best option. And, secondly, it is merely a shadow form of Aristocracy.

But, my proposal for Aristocracy is slightly different from its traditional definition.

with love,
sanjay

[Arminius]

Theoretically, Monarchy is the best option but being dependant to one person only, it is very much venerable to corruption. Thus, I would like to vote for Aristocracy. In my view, Democracy is not best option. And, secondly, it is merely a shadow form of Aristocracy.

But, my proposal for Aristocracy is slightly different from its traditional definition.

Strictly speaking, they are all shadows of one another, and they are most distinguishable when they are in their best or in their worst forms.

But how would you exactly describe your propasal for aristocracy, Zinnat?

[zinnat]

But how would you exactly describe your propsal for aristocracy, Zinnat?

There can be many ways of it.

The first way is Aristocracy through selective and step by step climbing Democracy.

Let a family chose one person from within to represent it. That person should have some certain qualities. He should be at least 40 years old and have some necessary qualification like education and awareness too. These family representatives should choose some street representatives. Street representatives should choose city representatives. City representatives should choose state representatives and lastly they should choose around 20-30 people to govern the whole country.

There may be very variations of this formula according to the demand of a particular country.

The most harming element of the democracy is that it allows everyone to vote. Voting is not a bad thing but allowing it to everyone, whether worthy or not is not a good thing either. We making it more dangerous by decreasing the voting age by each passing day. Forty years should be minimal.

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread.

As I have stated before, the "best" or "ultimate" form of government is democratic but really it is a specific combination of all of those mentioned. So is that your category 4? Or something else?

According to the traditional theory there are three main governing forms with their degenerated forms:

1) Monarchy - degenerated: Tyranny.
2) Aristocracy - degenerated: Oligarchy.
3) Democracy - degenerated: Ochlocracy.

In the long run no governing form can defend itself gainst other fgoverning forms and also not against ist own degeneration.

So you are saying that „the »best« or »ultimate« form of government is democratic“; and the degenerated form of democracy is ochlocracy.

I disagree with that categorizing of governments, although it is the standard used.

1) Monarchy - no distribution of authority
2) Aristocracy - limited distribution of authority
3) Democracy - complete distribution of authority

Those categories merely address the distribution of authority issues, not the variety of potential structures that would defend against or inspire corruption, such as being constitutional rather than monarchical.

The SAM structure is the strongest, the most life affirming ("free"), least corruptible, and progressive. It is constitutional with a very wide spread, demographic, distribution of authority. Within the SAM structure are all three of the standard categories depending on how you look at it. SAM authority is not people based, but rather algorithm or spirit based.

[Arminius]

"SAM" is a good idea! But it can only be realised, if it is very small. So you can have many "SAM"s, but they must be small. Otherwise the corruption will take over. And probably it is possible to have more than one governing form realised in "SAM"; but if it really is, then the bottom line is again one of the governing forms.

[James S Saint]

"SAM" is a good idea! But it can only be realised, if it is very small. So you can have many "SAM"s, but they must be small. Otherwise the corruption will take over. And probably it is possible to have more than one governing form realised in "SAM"; but if it really is, then the bottom line is again one of the governing forms.

Actually, it is more complicated than that.

Each corporeal SAM unit is required to be small by natural necessity. So it isn't due to a man-made rule that the unit remain small, but rather a physical requirement due to the priorities involved in the basic SAM architecture. That makes it less susceptible to lustful corruption on the very most basic level.

And although each SAM unit is very small, there are millions of them. They are similar to the cells in your body and are networked together by the only pre-designed portion of any higher governance, an artificial neural network similar to the internet, the "Angel Network". The Angel Network is the information distribution architecture and is analogous to the brain of the human body. But the brain is not the mind (despite what they try to tell you). The mind and body form through natural, "evolutionary" pressures as they arise and are handled by the SAM units individually.

Any and every higher governance architecture other than the Angel Network is freely chosen and unchosen by agreement between the SAM units using the same constitutional algorithm used within the units.

So on the lowest level are the living humans and their talents and tools. The next level up is the living SAM "cell", a constitutional family group. The next level up is the living organs formed by local demographic needs. The next level up is the overall Body of SAM's humanity. And the entire structure is built upon and coordinated through the Angel Network as the people respond to their actual, individual, immediate needs. In effect, other than the cell architecture and Angel Network, reality itself dictates the governance methodology moment by moment. The governing method can change, similar to the USA's proposal when changing into a war status, except (again) due to natural physical issues, the government method cannot be entrapped into a non-constitutional fascist system.

So the higher Body of SAM is governed by the physical apparatus of the Angel Network, the SAM cells autonomously responding to their individual needs (much like individual families), any cooperative choice those cells make through their higher constitutional architecture utilizing the information distribution architecture, and the demands of the "outside" world (perhaps resource issues or a country choosing to go to war, terrorize, or embargo).

It is all a little similar to the Imperial cities of Europe, although very, very much more precise, distributed, and open.

[Arminius]

It can be compared with a living body and its cells or with a foam and its bubbles, because "each SAM unit is very small" and "there are millions of them".

[James S Saint]

It can be compared with a living body and its cells or with a foam and its bubbles, because "each SAM unit is very small" and "there are millions of them".

Well, I guess if you connect all of those bubbles up with a self-serving intelligence algorithm ... maybe.

Someday you will take a pill that will fix your body. Sounds like science fiction and, though not yet science fact, it is a tantalizing potential presented by a breakthrough in nano technology and biomedicine from researchers in the U.S., Denmark and Rome. Nanorobots that can deliver and release biomolecules based on temperature.

Built from molecules, this “DNA Nanocage” (sounds cool because it is) was designed by researchers, but self-assembled from the human “body’s own molecules.” The hope, while far off, is that the Nanocages could be ingestible in pill form, containing medicine to effectively trap diseases or cancers at the molecular level.

..it works even better for nations.

[Arminius]

The "self-serving intelligence" was one of the premises of that analogy.

[James S Saint]

The "self-serving intelligence" was one of the premises of that analogy.

But they have to be interconnect, the Angel Network. Else they are relatively impotent and more likely to conflict with each other - more like actual bubbles. A healthy body needs a functioning neural network.

[Arminius]

A "functioning neural network" was also one of the premises of that analogy.

[Arminius]

Let's have an interim result.

We have 0% for "monarchy", 40% for "assitocracy", 40% for "democracy", and 20% for "no one".

Please vote!

[Arminius]

The US people are always told that monarchy is no good governing form, are'nt they? There is no vote for monarchy. We have 0% for „monarchy, 33% for „aristocracy“, 33% for „democracy“, and 33% for „no one“

The Ancient Romans were told as well as the US Americans are. In times of the Ancient Romans it had been the aristocratic senators who didn't want any political competitor, rival; in times of the US Americans it has been the political class (parallel society) for the same reason. This parallel is interesting, isn't it?

[Arminius]

No law = anarchy.

Anarchy fails for a reason. You have to have laws, merely the exact right kind of laws.

Yes, but if you have too many laws, then the probability of anarchy is also very high. Thus: no law = anarchy, too many laws = tendency of anarchy.

[Orbie]

I just changed the percentages above, by voting no one, for political philosophical reasons. As long as empirical utilitarianism is the key indicator of political will, forms of governance will be determined on a trial and error basis. In that sort of political process, no one form can said to be prevalent at any time, there are always competing ideologies, shadow governments, and de jure and de facto representations of what those form really mean.

[Arminius]

I just changed the percentages above, by voting no one, for political philosophical reasons. As long as empirical utilitarianism is the key indicator of political will, forms of governance will be determined on a trial and error basis. In that sort of political process, no one form can said to be prevalent at any time, there are always competing ideologies, shadow governments, and de jure and de facto representations of what those form really mean.

Nevertheless, there is nearly always something like rule or government. If you answer the question "Which is the best form of government?" with "no one", then you are an anarchist.

Competing ideologies have not directly but merely indirectly to do with the forms of government. Shadow governments have not directly but merely indirectly to do with the forms of government, because shadow governments are part of other governments or one government. Forms of government are concrete, and if they do not exist, then there is - of course - "no one", thus anarchy.