-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The best Government System for people?
- Thread starter Aquitaine
- Start date
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Everything you pointed out in no way shows why America is the "best" unless you plan on assuming that the goal of a government is economic productivity and the security of said government. Of of which are nowhere near the same as the welfare of its citizens--something that the goal of any government should be.
Furthermore, "Communism" or the state-capitalist farces of it have had measurable success. Cuba's has significantly better qualities of life than the majority of Latin America, despite massive US interventionism. To claim that the economic liberalism pushed throughout the 60s and 70s is the "best" philosophy for a government is to simultaneously submit that human beings, at best, act solely out of rational self interest. A statement that--besides being demonstrably wrong--leads to the conclusion that leads to mercantilism, not the current system.
I would also like to hear a singe argument for capitalism that wasn't also used to justify slavery.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
Lol now I'm convinced you've gone bat-**** when you bring Cuba as a successful measurement of anything, especially Communism or standard of living. The newest car that arrived in Cuba was like the late 1950's or 1960 models. Their roads are almost gone, infrastructure is falling apart. Let me just pack of bags so I enjoy my better life there instead!
Slavery existed before the white men ever showed up in Africa. Africans were trading and selling other Africans that they acquired as prisoners of war, etc.
Slavery in America, can never be justified. It was one of those things that we've righted over time with constitutional amendments. It doesn't take away from the fact that even after the outlawing of slavery and the Civil War, we've shown nothing but growth and progress on the economic front.
And economic wealth is the best measurement of wealth in a democracy. In other examples like Saudi Arabia where government is rich from natural resource but people are poor - you can make the claim that economic wealth is not the best indicator - but in a democracy, it's different. In a democratic capitalist system, the money gets generated only when there is a large flourishing of economic prosperity amongst a good spread of its demographics through manufacturing, services, and industries. Since government can be voted out, and revolted against (2nd amendment gave us guns to make sure we can), democratic systems can be sure that the authority can't steal from us.
People would immediately point out the recent bail outs and everything as being socialist, but I would say it's apart of the Keynesian economics structure we're now using. If we don't like our politicians, we can vote them out of office, if our government keeps wealth away from the majority of citizens, or any access or opportunity to it, then we can revolt.
What could be better?
You can't have a world where everyone is completely equal - in wealth or riches especially. It's a better trade off to have a good amount of people be wealthy and well off, with everyone having equal access and opportunity to its benefits and that same chance, instead of a society where everyone is just mediocre and have no recourse.
Makaveli
Homoioi
Noocracy, or the rule of the wise, is the best option. The mob is too fickle and vindictive to rule properly, a cabal of powerful people or a single individual is too vainglorious, and a body of representatives leads solely to deadlock and corruption, as can be seen in the current American system.
Noocracy, or rule of the wise, is the best option. Direct democracy should remain extant at the local level, some form of representative democracy at the state, but a nation should be ruled by a series of councils or a quorum of wise individuals. Being truly wise, and this is the important clincher, these people would naturally come to the best conclusion for the nation.
Noocracy, or rule of the wise, is the best option. Direct democracy should remain extant at the local level, some form of representative democracy at the state, but a nation should be ruled by a series of councils or a quorum of wise individuals. Being truly wise, and this is the important clincher, these people would naturally come to the best conclusion for the nation.
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
how and who would decide which individuals to be "wise" and which to be "un-wise"?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
I guess expecting people to read beyond a pathetic superficial level is unreasonable of me. You even had the intellectual laziness (or perhaps abject stupidity) to highlight the part of my post that specifically states that we are talking about Latin American countries. Countries that have had your brand of economic liberalism shoved down their throats. Considering the fact that the most influential nation in the world has subjected them to a complete embargo yes they have done well. They have done better than most of Latin America.
This is irrelevant and serves as nothing more than a justification of the antebellum south's action, regardless of whether you intended it or not.
Here I was thinking about how happy the citizens are and how long they live and how literate they are but no. You are right. The average wealth of a nation is certainly the best way to determine how good a government.
This diatribe is utterly irrelevant because other citizens can, and do, acquire the majority of the wealth. Example: your favorite country. Income inequality is rising and average wages have stagnated. Yet the GDP is growing. I WONDER WHAT THIS MEANS GUYS.
You are talking of, in effect,state sponsored mercantilism.
This is hopelessly naive and ignorant of reality. Incumbency rates in the US are ridiculously high, so you really can't vote people out of office as easily as you think. Furthermore, you can't revolt. Yes you can own guns. The US military spends about as much as the rest of the world combined. I wonder who would win in this sort of conflict.
I am still waiting for an argument that wasn't used to justify slavery.
Makaveli
Homoioi
Plato first developed his idea of noocracy as a city-state ruled by a "philosopher-king." This philosopher king would be chosen based upon his standing with his peers, who would be raised alongside him in the ideal city which would be geared to producing proper leaders.
In the system I envision, everyone would be given complete equality in education, i.e. everyone would have the same opportunities, no discrepancies in class sizes, teacher quality, school quality, et cetera. All schools would be the same, and with everyone being offered the same opportunities the cream of the crop would naturally become apparent from the plebes. These would then be filtered out and cultivated as the future rulers, while the rest would remain in the wider educational system. Essentially, natural leaders and natural followers tend to stratify when unfettered. Those possessed of reason, rationality, a love of wisdom (philosophy), and an ability to make correct decisions would be chosen.
In noocracy, idiots and charlatans would not be given power like they are today by the mob, which would be rendered importent in the decision process. The process itself would be automatic and unbiased, and especially uncontrolled by people.
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
interesting.
but how and who would decide which decisions were the correct ones? im not sure there are many political/social/economic issues that are so black and white that they can be categorized as "correct or incorrect".
DadBurnett
Instigator
The best system would be that of self government, except for one little thing .... people wont take full responsibility for their thoughts and actions ...
PureX
Veteran Member
We've almost got government right. I think we're getting closer. The big breakthrough was laying out in writing a set of general principals that all members of the nation are expected to uphold, including the government. These are not laws, but over-arching ideals that inform and guide the law, and determine good laws from bad.
From there, everyone becomes a servant of these basic ideals. The lawmakers use these ideals to create the laws. The courts use these ideals to administer them. And the people use these ideals to decide who they wish to represent them in government. So it's crucial that these ideals be spelled out in a way that makes sense to everyone. And that's where we've failed in the United States.
Because we were the first attempt at this sort of ideological self-government, the founders were just not able to articulate their goals clearly enough to keep the nation on track through the many changes that inevitably come with time. And eventually, the criminals among us have managed to take control of the economy and the government and steer them away from their intended purpose, and toward their own selfish purposes, instead.
I suspect that we as a nation are doomed. We have passed the point at which we may have been able to effect a return to the basic principals of our founders. The wolves are securely in charge, now, of the hen house. And they aren't going to give it up without a bloody fight.
But as newer nations form, they can take a lesson from us, and be more careful to more clearly articulate exactly what their collective goals are, and so will be able to write these down in a manner that makes them much more difficult to ignore or circumvent.
From there, everyone becomes a servant of these basic ideals. The lawmakers use these ideals to create the laws. The courts use these ideals to administer them. And the people use these ideals to decide who they wish to represent them in government. So it's crucial that these ideals be spelled out in a way that makes sense to everyone. And that's where we've failed in the United States.
Because we were the first attempt at this sort of ideological self-government, the founders were just not able to articulate their goals clearly enough to keep the nation on track through the many changes that inevitably come with time. And eventually, the criminals among us have managed to take control of the economy and the government and steer them away from their intended purpose, and toward their own selfish purposes, instead.
I suspect that we as a nation are doomed. We have passed the point at which we may have been able to effect a return to the basic principals of our founders. The wolves are securely in charge, now, of the hen house. And they aren't going to give it up without a bloody fight.
But as newer nations form, they can take a lesson from us, and be more careful to more clearly articulate exactly what their collective goals are, and so will be able to write these down in a manner that makes them much more difficult to ignore or circumvent.
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
Groups of tribes are still fighting each other for control. Those that aren't subdue the tendency through trade, though even that can be used as a form of control & power struggle.
Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean a lack of co-ordination and organisation. We could achieve everything we do and more without government. Whether we would, well very probably not. We're not ready for that and my belief is it would be better to stay in anarchy than to form governments to coerce us into an artificially coherent society.
My reasoning is that government is an incomplete solution for a problem that can't be fixed by artificial means: human nature. As an incomplete solution, a compensation, it creates new problems that require new solutions. The solutions of yesterday even end up becoming the problems of today. On and on it goes, problem after problem until, oh dear, we create such big problems that it all comes crashing down.
One of the principles in the Tao Te Ching is that a leader who is ready to lead never needs to coerce others to conform to their will. They lead by virtue of their beneficial relational influence on the whole. Instead of dominating through using power hierarchies the leader the Tao Te Ching describes advances the natural pre-existing holarchical order of which human civilisation could be an extension. Instead human civilisation has developed in such a way that to maintain itself it has to violate the holarchical structure of natural life (and indeed all natural structure). Whatever does that isn't going to last. It is most definitely unsustainable.
Bringing up holarchies is going to confuse but I can put it in a way which makes more sense: If the living biosphere of this planet is our body then we are cells that make up part of the body. To grow in such a way that damages the health of the body is sure to lead to disaster.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
So you mean like polluting the enviorment (damaging the body), for example?
Anyways, yeah there will always be people fighting for control, I guess. However, I myself am for a Government system, because I still have faith in it lol.
But, one thing you have to remember is to think about what a "government" actually is, or should be: a coalition of representatives working together for the benefit of all. Now, that doesn't seem to far-fetched, and I think it can be achieved. But when we say "Government" we usually have this idea of a separate, heartless entity that never co-operates with it's people.
Now, a "Government" doesn't have to be like that. I think each Town/City should have an elected "leader" (like a Mayor etc) that would act as a "link" to the other leaders of the counties, boroughs, regions etc. They will form a coalition, and each memeber would reside and work for a certain Town/Village/City, they would all act as "links" between the coalition and the people. You get me? ^_^
Next, there will be a more nation-based coalition of "leaders" who will act as the main "Government", who will be linked to all the other "links" from all the other coalitions who connect the Government to the people.
Each Citizen should be allowed to write to or have communications with their local "leader", and there should be a system involved where concerns and issues form the public can be transferred to the main Government, to create a fast, effective feedback system etc.
What do you think of that? I know you're more geared towards Anarchy, but in a sense, our ideas might not be that different (small groups working together), it's just when a person says "Government" we get this idea of greedy politicians who don't co-operate. So, I do support the concept of a "Government", but that doesn't mean I support gredy politicians and dictators etc.
Last edited:
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
I like the idea in fact I've played with a similar idea myself.
If it were done how about this: No singular leaders for any group, just elected small elected councils of 3 to 5 people that make decisions by voting on each themselves. These councilors also vote for candidates for a larger council representing a wider area and responsbilities. For each level of government no council should ever reside over more than 50-100 people below it. That would mean both a very real kind of proportional representation and avoid the monkey sphere problem, aka Dunbar's number, so keep politicians naturally closer to the people they represent. The result would be a much more democratic democracy that was more resilient to corruption because it would be very complicated to intefere with (no general election for single government that lobbyists can, heh, bribe).
Very interesting. I also liked this the idea (at the time) and posted a bit about it elsewhere. That was over 3 years ago so my outlook has changed much since then.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
If it were done how about this: No singular leaders for any group, just elected small elected councils of 3 to 5 people that make decisions by voting on each themselves. These councilors also vote for candidates for a larger council representing a wider area and responsbilities. For each level of government no council should ever reside over more than 50-100 people below it. That would mean both a very real kind of proportional representation and avoid the monkey sphere problem, aka Dunbar's number, so keep politicians naturally closer to the people they represent. The result would be a much more democratic democracy that was more resilient to corruption because it would be very complicated to intefere with (no general election for single government that lobbyists can, heh, bribe).
Very interesting. I also liked this the idea (at the time) and posted a bit about it elsewhere. That was over 3 years ago so my outlook has changed much since then.
The thing is though, that (as I've had to think about 'cause I support the idea too) that how can you arrange the government system so that the mutliple "leaders" can vote, or make decisions properly, and how to minimize corruption?
One way I always thought may work would be to have each person assigned to a certain aspect of the country, or department: like Enviroment, Heathcare, Education etc. But somehow have it so that every two "councellors" or representatives are opposites, like how Enviromental Secretary would be next to Industrial Secretary in a debate which affected one or both the aspects. So then you'd be able to get a more "honest" conclusion from a decision, because each "secretary" would have an opposite who will ensure all Pros are met with Cons to help balance the scales in terms of decision-making.
Right, now I personally always prefer to communicate certai things visually, to help make understnading easier, so I've literally now just taken 5 minutes to do this up on Photoshop to try and portray what I'm on about.
Each of the smaller circles are like the "Councellors" or the guys that represent each field, and the large grey circle is like the overall "pool" of ideas, each Councellor has an opposite to debate with when it comes to solving certain Laws/issues etc. So the Civil Liberties guy is tied in with the Law Enforcement guy to make sure both sides of the story are being taken into consideration.
I hope the piccy makes sense lol!
Last edited:
As long as I have an escape plan out of it.
Makaveli
Homoioi
In truth, there is no empirical way to ascertain if A is a better decision than B. The assumption is that their upbringing and education will lead them to the wisest decision, which is arrived at by a process of reason and logic.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is strange
but academics Who specialize in logic and Reason and academic study make lousy managers and politicians.
It needs a grasp of social needs, and the ability to balance opposite needs and a love of people that are the prime assets of any one who manages any large group of people. Together with a grasp of interactive economics, that serves to promote the interests of everyone.