Phoenix Network Forums

What do you all consider to be the most ideal form of government?
(For these purposes there is a difference between a democracy and a republic)

For instance, I support Plato's ideals of a nation ruled by a Philosopher-King, or a group of Philosopher-Kings. I have little faith for the average man to decide things on their own. Mass media has shown us that people are truly apathetic towards elections. It's so easy to retreive information now about candidates, there is no excuse.

Socialism and Communism hold no appeal for me at all since I am an extreme fan of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and a big fan of laissez-faire capitalism.

I voted anarchy simply because there is no ideal form of government. There are flaws in everything. Anything with one ruler/a few rulers is obviously easily abused. Democracy/Republic don't work because people are idiots. Socialism/Communism don't work because people are greedy and lazy.

If I did have to choose a form of actual government, I'd said democracy though, simply because it's the fairest and most resistant to radical change/abuse.

The anarchy isn't a form of gouvernment. It's ... anarchy. So, if we have a country without any laws, without aothorities, etc. the law of the jungle will rule. And with the time passing by the citizens will choose some form of gouvernment.

I agree with Bugs42, we are idiots. The communism is a great idea but is a state that the humans cannot reach.

I like the oligarchy.

@nighthawk: The laissez-faire thing is nice. However you cannot have an econnomy that works perfectly without the participation of the gouvernment .

Boso wrote:However you cannot have an econnomy that works perfectly without the participation of the gouvernment .

I don't think that you can have an economy that works perfectly even with the participation of the government. I do agree that it helps decrease outrageous inflation overnight and keeps farmers from growing so much crop that they can't sell it all and it spoils. The government does keep economies as stable as they are, but it's not "perfect".

Good point . I wanted to say that the pure laissez-faire isn't good option. Sooner or later some of the participants will become a monopoly.

English democracy is defentely the best governement form. Two partys, two cameras parliament, good constitution, no president. It`s defently the best democracy in the world. Maybe Switzerland`s democrazy it`s very good too.

Switzerland is the most democratic country in the world. Anyway, i don't beleive in the democracy at all. It is only a mith! We are not that free as it looks like ... You are free to do lots of things, you can participate in the government of a country, but you also mustpay taxes for example. The "freedom" is very limited.

Boso wrote:you also mustpay taxes for example. The "freedom" is very limited.

I wouldn't find that to be an extreme limit to freedom. EVERY form of government requires money to function, and they get this through taxation. Would you rather have somewhat of a say where and how much you are being taxed, or would you rather people decide this for you? "No taxation without representation?"

Yes, however with the taxation the gouvernments control almost everithing. Remember why Al Capone entered the jail? He haven't paid taxes. The gouvernments control the input and the output of the companies - so they control everything!

I was talking about the freedom in the democracy. There is no such thing ...

some politicians ruin government, esp government services.
some enter politics not to serve but to earn, corrupt.

Boso wrote:I was talking about the freedom in the democracy. There is no such thing ...

Taxes aren't thievery when they are applied correctly. If you don't want to pay taxes; don't drive on my public street, don't breath the air that the taxes funded Clean Air Acts for, don't read books at my public library, and don't you dare put your children in my public school.

Arguing against taxes is misdirected anger, since taxes with never be removed from the workings of a government.

The governments control the input and the output of the companies - so they control everything!

How do they control the input and output? They aren't arbitrarily designating tax brackets for companies. They aren't (except for American farmers, but they are compensated) restricting the amount of production that companies can handle. Essentially, if Corporations are capable of the same rights granted to humans, then they are subject to the same responsibilities of taxation.

Taxes are defenetly needet but I don`t think they are fair for everyone. Exaple: if i get 8000 euro per mounth i pay 1500 in taxes and someone else get 1000 euro per mounth he pay 100 euro in taxes. It`s not very fair for me. The percentage system is not very good at all.

Anyway, i don't beleive in the democracy at all

We should not strike in democracy until we don't have a better solution. It is true that evan the democracy has its limitations, but it is normal to be that way, there is no such thing as "perfection" regarding the law;everything is exposed to changes and new social and economical dimensions. Monarchy was a good solution in the past, and still it is in many (especialy european) countries. Comunism, fascism and the worst possible- nasism where trying to reach some utopical peaks and hisory proved how fake soutions for gouverning a state they where. Under those terms, let it be democracy !:)

goliat wrote:Taxes are defenetly needet but I don`t think they are fair for everyone. Exaple: if i get 8000 euro per mounth i pay 1500 in taxes and someone else get 1000 euro per mounth he pay 100 euro in taxes. It`s not very fair for me. The percentage system is not very good at all.

You only say that because theres less money in your bank account after pay day, but if you put it into perspective then it is fair for you. Imagine if they evened it out over the whole society and decided that everyone should be paying 900 euros per month, imagine being the poor bugger making 1000 euro...or worse, the bugger making 700 euro per month.

Although the percentage system looks really unfair, it does work out so its better for the community overall.

makehaste wrote:Comunism, fascism and the worst possible- nasism where trying to reach some utopical peaks and hisory proved how fake soutions for gouverning a state they where. Under those terms, let it be democracy !

Why do you have communism and facism together? They are complete opposites, facism being radically right wing while communism was is far left wing.

i remember in econ class, taxation, is the blood of a government. you cannot have a government without them.

problem is, corrupt politicians/leaders is a fact. they are cancer the corrupts the system.
if one politician is stealing a million per month, that could already feed a lot of families esp in a 3rd world country.

another porblem with corrup politician/leaders is (base on expereince). they only giv eof services to people that voted for them.

sample would be, in a city here in my country, one shall i say it, community i sknown againts that certain running politicain so they didnt vote for him. that particular politican won and the people in that community is denied or having difficulties availing governemnt service, like as simple as fixing potholes in roads, or using of public vehicles for mass transport. the people will have to suffer until his term is over, another problem would be is political dynasty, if the term ends, another part of the family runs and so on and so forth.

and btw, why do we address public officals as your honor?they are servants in the first place. we dont address an errand boy as 'your honor'. there was this debate, i think senators questioning someone..and one senator stressed out "you will address me as you honor, blah blah blah..."

arrogance should have no place in public service