Forms of governments

[Appalachia]

I've been thinking on what is the best form of government.

1. Democracy. This is what we have now. Although human rights are protected by a constitution, I think all democracies eventually lead to socialism and that will end up in totalitarianism.
2. Dictatorship beginning with Ron Paul. A dictatorship with Ron Paul will a Ron Paul government (human rights / privacy / small government). Ron Paul will choose his successor with the same principles (assuming). But when will this go bad?
3. Paralysed-government. A small government without the ability to write laws. This is something I think of. This government will be in charge of defense & justice. Should a government be able to do more?
4. Something else (write a comment).

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

It's true, that our government/society acts as a Democracy more now than it does a Constitutional Republic. If you study the Ancient Greek philosopher by the name of Polybius, he describes the very nature of Democracy and the "vicious circle" which exists in a Democracy. How it always transitions into another system of Government, and then eventually mob rule. The cause of that, is usually money.

I've been actually thinking about what a Principled Libertarian Dictator would be like. Since the Libertarian position is about more power to the people, a Libertarian Dictator would fundamentally be a dictator AGAINST government. Not a dictator against the people. So I support the notion of a Liberty Dictator. Haha.

As for Paralysed-Government. I support this notion. This would pretty much make Federal Government, nothing more than an organization with a specific role that never changes. Thus, power struggles between states and federal government would become non-existent. However, if states conflict with one another, then there's a problem.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Monarchy with the individual right of secession and most monarchical powers severely limited ("limited monarchy") if there must be a one-size-fits-all. Ideally, individuals would create their own systems of law, justice, etc. and voluntarily accept it. No more 'social contract' mythology.

 

[BuddyRey]

There's no government like...no government.

 

[WilliamC]

As much as can be supported by voluntary contributions and user fees.

The more local the better.

Anything that can be handled by ad hoc committees should be done this way.

Any 'law' should require 2/3rd's majority of those affected to pass but only a 1/3rd minority to be revoked.

Only individuals are legally recognized as having rights, and while individuals can voluntarily restrict their own rights through contract they cannot be revoked except by following the rule of law.

That sort of thing.

 

[RiseAgainst]

None.

 

[Xerographica]

My vote is for the pragmatarian form of government. Taxpayers would have the freedom to choose which government organizations they gave their individual taxes to. Their value seeking decisions in the public sector would reveal the most economically valuable scope of government. For more information see my post on Teaching Economics to Liberals.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Any 'law' should require 2/3rd's majority of those affected to pass but only a 1/3rd minority to be revoked.

Ooh, I like that!

You're going to get a lot of "other" votes on this poll, Appalachia. I vote Other: self-government. Anarcho-capitalism. Rothbardianism. What-have-you. Whatever you call it, it's Complete and Total Liberty. That's what I want.

Although technically WilliamC's voluntarily-funded minarchy would be OK, too. I'm not sure that even counts as a State if it can't tax. Certainly it would be like no State we know today.

 

[Cabal]

None.

This.

 

[tttppp]

I support a dictatorship, however, I believe there should be a branch of government that specifically holds the dictator in check. The dictator would be responsible for following through on his promises, and if he doesn't, will be subject to impeachment by the branch I was talking about.

The dictator would be elected in a process similar to American Idol. Each candidate would debate, and at the end, the public would vote off someone.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I've been thinking on what is the best form of government.

1. Democracy. This is what we have now. Although human rights are protected by a constitution, I think all democracies eventually lead to socialism and that will end up in totalitarianism.
2. Dictatorship beginning with Ron Paul. A dictatorship with Ron Paul will a Ron Paul government (human rights / privacy / small government). Ron Paul will choose his successor with the same principles (assuming). But when will this go bad?
3. Paralysed-government. A small government without the ability to write laws. This is something I think of. This government will be in charge of defense & justice. Should a government be able to do more?
4. Something else (write a comment).

The best form of government is self-government.

 

[mport1]

None.

Agreed. We do not a system of institutionalized violence.

 

[Stupified]

None.

Ideological, but not realistic in an interconnected world with a species prone to violence.

 

[Cabal]

Ideological, but not realistic in an interconnected world with a species prone to violence.

For a species that is supposedly prone to violence, the violent ones sure seem to be a small minority.

How many violent individuals do you know personally?

 

[Stupified]

For a species that is supposedly prone to violence, the violent ones sure seem to be a small minority.

How many violent individuals do you know personally?

Plenty, sadly; every male with a chip on his shoulder. But I was meaning specifically that anarchy won't work if the rest of the world isn't anarchist as well. Went over that pretty extensively in the anarchists' "national" defense thread though, so I don't want to get into it here.


On a small, isolated island that the rest of the world doesn't know about? Yeah sure - minarchism all the way. But that's why I say it's idealistic and not necessarily practical.

 

[Cabal]

Plenty, sadly; every male with a chip on his shoulder. But I was meaning specifically that anarchy won't work if the rest of the world isn't anarchist as well. Went over that pretty extensively in the anarchists' "national" defense thread though, so I don't want to get into it here.

Strange. I can't really think of anyone I'd describe as violent in my life; but then I'm pretty conscious about who I associate with.

The rest of the world doesn't have to be an anarchy in order for an anarchist society to work. Why would it? The national defense thread doesn't answer this question.

 

[DamianTV]

... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with Liberty...

 

[noneedtoaggress]

 

[Appalachia]

I probably should have added a few more forms of government . But it's interesting to see noone voted for "Democracy".

Any 'law' should require 2/3rd's majority of those affected to pass but only a 1/3rd minority to be revoked.

I thought of this too. History proves that once a law is in place it's very hard to get it revoked.

@tttppp
I believe your form of government is very sensitive to get a 'bad' dictator in place. As this "branch of government" of yours, is easy corruptible.