The best of all possible worlds: Which government is best? (2031 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.86 on 16 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by JP <jean15paul.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2002-12-20 10:42:09 EST
Why do we think democracy the best political system? The reason that democracy so prevalent is because the US tried it and at the same time got very powerful. So the US decided to spread it around the world, and some other countries decided to give it a try. The US didn't get all this power and influence because of democracy. Rather, they got it because of capitalism. This post is supposed to be about politics and not economics, so I will try not to go off on a tangent about capitalism, except to say that a free-market economy will definitely increase your influence, but it has the tendency to breed corruption. The US has so blurred the line between democracy and capitalism that everyone now thinks that you can't have one without the other
I kind of agree with Plato. In his Republic, he said that Tyranny was the worst form of government because you had one person (usually unenlightened) making decisions for everyone based on his own whims. He went on to say that Democracy was the second worse form of government because you have the masses (most of whom are definitely unenlightened and unintelligent) making decisions usually based on propaganda. Plato advocated a Republic government where you had a small set of rulers who are both intelligent and enlightened. He basically said make all of the philosophers into kings or make all the kings into philosophers. The main problem with our "Democratic Republic" is that we have unintelligent masses making decisions about what unenlightened representative to send to office.
Lots of problems with Plato's Republic too, though. Plato didn't have the benefits of looking back at several thousand years of philosophy. For him philosophy had only been around for a few hundred. Of the 80 or so philosophers throughout history worth studying (unfortunately I only know about western philosophy), I don't think that any of them agreed. I don't think that there is an answer that will really work.
Maybe it doesn't matter. I'm thriving (as far as I know) in this society. I'm accomplishing my goals, and I'm relatively happy. Who know if this would be true if we were something else. Maybe this is the best of all possible worlds.
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 16:25:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
http://www.aynrand.org
Submitted by Akegata (user info) at 2004-07-23 05:38:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't like democracy...
Submitted by PapSmirnoff (user info) at 2003-05-22 23:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Go Fidel Castros Cuba!
Submitted by Nicole3 (user info) at 2003-03-31 11:41:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and whats wrong with a benevolent dictator? I think I could manage it without being corrupted :-)
Submitted by Nicole3 (user info) at 2003-03-31 11:36:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bart - I thought you liked Clinton, Democrats, etc. They tend to be for large government, more controls, more handouts. I agree with you on the small government issue, but not the small number of controlling people. If you had say 20 people controlling the country, it would be almost as bad as 1 person. It would tend to be a power hungry, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, boys-club, elitist type atmosphere.
Certain systems of government tend to ignore human nature to more or lesser degrees. Communism and socialism ignore one of the major driving forces for humans - to be better than their neighbor. If there is little or no correlation between a person's production and their standard of living then there is no drive to produce. Striated income levels and patent protection are two of the main contributors to the economic and technological growth that we have seen over the past century.
As for the immigration issue, on one hand it would be nice to allow anyone who wanted to come to this country to do so. On the other, if we have no control over who comes we could easily be overwhelmed with people who are not able to produce and become a burden to our society. Some balance is necessary. We need more immigration to keep up the current long-term growth of our economy (we aren't making enough babies ourselves) but it can not go completely unchecked.
Submitted by TheMan (user info) at 2003-03-31 02:52:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Eliminate immigration controls? I was with you up until that point. We have enough problems with the people we have here now. We don't need a maelstrom of undesireables in this country. We have enough already.
Although, I could see this being alright, but only if you eliminated social welfare. If these people realized there were no longer any programs to give them handouts and they had to work to survive in this country, they more than likely wouldn't even bother coming over here.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2003-03-31 02:28:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What type of government I think is best is dependent on what my goals for the society in question are.....
For example; if freedom was my primary goal, I would lean towards a more anarchaical type of "government." If my main effort was to promote security and productivity, I would want a totalitarian governing body. If I wanted general well-being for the people of the society, I would tend to socialism. Every type of government has its advantages and disadvantages.
I do not, however, really like the idea of democracy. Even if my objective were to create a government "for the people," democracy would still be my last resort. The problem with democracy is that, no matter how overwhelming the vote in favor of a certain motion/enactment/whatever, no matter how much of the population is for it, there will practically always be minorities in opposition to it. Not only that, but also minorities with nothing but disgust and hatred for it. Yes, theoretically, you COULD have some motion passed with a 100% approval vote, but that situation is so inconceivable that it borders on the realm of impossibility. And even if such a resolution were, in fact, to take place, it would be rather pointless(for example, a 100% vote against a law saying we should kill 5 year old boys with razor-guns). The notion of any such motion being passed would completely bypass the entire purpose of democracy in the first place.
That being said, I may as well go on to say that, if my purpose were to create a citizen-controlled form of government, I would have to go for a type of tribal-feudal anarchy(for lack of a better term). Separate districts of publicly-owned land, with each districts members forming that districts government. Things would be decided by common consensus, not a vote aye/nay. When an issue is on the floor, people meet, they come to some sort of compromise to which they can all agree to some extent. Inter-district relationships would have absolutely no "laws" tied to them, as there would be no governing central body to make them.
However, all of this is really fantasaical. For me to say that I prefer a type of government which has already existed, and been gradually eliminated, is for me to admit ignorance. It's like someone saying that it should all be anarchy; that's stupid, because eventually some people would join up with each other, creating a government for themselves. They would attack some of the weaker peoples' lands, so others would join up together as well, in order to counteract the new threat.
Basically, one must recognize that humanity did, in fact, start out as an anarchy. But most people eventually realized the benefits of organized society. You can't have the idealistic anarchy that some people preach for -not unless you have some sort of presiding authority that would basically "enforce" anarchy. And then, it's not very free at all, is it? Believe it or not, the way we live today IS true anarchy. Even if we went back to original anarchy, we'd eventually wind up where we are today, so it's a pretty pointless venture.
In the same way, I realize my ideal form of "rule" is, well, idealistic. But for the real world, I don't really have a direct, no-nonsense answer. Pragmatically, a totalitarian, centralized government -say, Nazi Germany- is best. But then you give up an incredible amount of things such as liberty and equality. Pros and cons...
Submitted by G. <anonymous email> at 2002-12-30 12:32:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think that the democracy of America (my own country btw) is a good idea, has some flaws like most, but is probably one of the best forms. Don't be angry with me, please, but I am just stating my opinion. If you have a small group of intelligent individuals running it, no one else, then you have the masses of people who get angry cause they didn't get a say. Yes many are unintelligent, but also, many are intelligent. And you don't really give people enough credit. Many people are smarter than they appear. Not all, but some anyway. And then if this small group running it all agreed, and the mass of the people disagreed (hypothetically), well THEY are the ones being governed, shouldn't they have a say in this decision that affects them as a whole? Well apparently not in your situation. Most people hate stereotypes, and stereotyping everyone besides the small group governing is not fair to do. Also, the small group of individuals running it could EASILY become corrupted, which is why we have checks and balances in our government.
Now I will start with the flaws of our country. First off, you cannot become president (or governer or senator for that matter) without a nice sum of money and lots of propaganda. AND, sometimes the people who have this sum of money are pretty unintelligent. I agree, in capitalism corruption does occur... lots. But it's better than communism I think, where even more corruption occurs. Another flaw is... obviously, that some people are unintelligent and don't make wise choices in voting. There are other flaws but I am not going to discuss them now.
Well I know this argument wasn't extremely well written... I had a lot to say and didn't feel like writing a beautiful persuasive essay.
Submitted by Roman (user info) at 2002-12-27 10:01:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
America sucks. Democracy, via America is stupid.
To let so many stupid people vote is a mistake.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2002-12-27 09:33:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Anarchy, the lack thereof
Submitted by _JP (user info) at 2002-12-21 12:25:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You got my vote. Just remember to give everyone who is on the most read author list of ubersite some power. Obviously we are the cream of the crop.
In fact the small government we inact should be based on ubersite. All the people should join and do whatever they want, but have no real power. And the leaders should be given power based on the most viewed author list. Since Bart is first he will be leader, I'm third so I'll be third in charge, etc. And the only way to keep your power is to keep writing interesting stuff.
It will be the Ubergovernment. Which is very interesting based on the meaning of uber. Bart, maybe you should put up where the name "Ubersite" came from like you did several months ago. We've got a lot of new people who probably don't know. Also yall should read the About Us section; the link is at the top right of every page.
Submitted by hendrixjrr at 2002-12-21 12:06:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
if that was your platform, I would be your campaign manager!
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2002-12-21 05:54:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I've thought about this topic a lot recently, so I'd like to share my informal yet validated opinion.
Democracy does not work. You simply can't base decisions on popular vote, period. As soon as Michael Crichton writes a book about a particular technological advancement, people decide that the technology is evil and must be outlawed. Outlaw genetic engineering, outlaw technology, outlaw encryption... people are making decisions about things that they simply do not understand.
Republic does not work. Repeat after me: any time a society allows the concentration of power in any form, the entity that obtains the power will eventually become corrupt. That is a simple fact. If it weren't true, then the fantasy "benevolent dictatorship" could be a reality. Anything from congressmen to CEOs to media conglomerates... any time you allow power to be concentrated, you are begging for inefficiency and corruption.
There are some other solutions which obviously don't work in large numbers, for example communism, kingdoms, and dictatorships. I'm not going to dwell on those.
What does work? Nothing. Nothing works. The truth is that, no matter what form of government you have, the people being governed will not care until it is too late. At that point, only a revolution will solve the real problem.
Because of this, I believe that the only workable answer is to make the govenment as small as possible. The only responsibilities of the federal government should be to maintain a military, enforce various levels of contract law, and to prosecute interstate criminals. I believe that groups like the FDA and FCC actually create a much worse environment than we would have if they did not exist at all. Why should I be paying 30% of my paycheck to fund a giant inefficient beaurocratic machine? If that 30% were going towards feeding starving children and paying for coal miners medical care, I would have no problem with it. Instead, that 30% is used to prop up failing airline companies, destroy the environment, and provide a legal framework for millionaires to become billionaires.
To quote wargames: the only way to win is not to play. If you want a strong successful government, you need to have a leader with some balls who is willing to concede his/her own power to a smaller form of government such as state, county, or city. The US hasn't had a president with balls in a little over thirty years, and that was Kennedy. Before that, the last one was Lincoln. Everyone else has been totally self-serving and has had no vision of the future or what the world should be like once they have gone on. FDR at least had good intentions, but poor long term strategy.
I think the only viable long term solution is to elect me, Bart Cilfone, as president of the United States in 2012. My first duty will be to eliminate 80% of the members of congress, eliminate drug prohibition, reduce the income tax rate, eliminate the FCC, FDA, copyright office, and post office, and then to reinforce the ninth amendment. After that, I plan on eliminating immigration controls, the FAA, Medicare, and then giving all the extra money to public schools, libraries, and museums.
Who's with me?
Submitted by _JP (user info) at 2002-12-21 04:26:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Razor,
How can you have a SOCIALIST democracy with a FREE MARKET SYSTEM? I'm no political science major, but aren't those 2 things diametrically opposed to one another. The way I understand it, socialism is where everyone contributes to society through their various employment and everyone receives an equal compensation for their efforts. (Which I think is a great idea in theory, but like every other great idea, it cannot be actualized.) And a free market system is the essence of capitalism, where everyone tries to do the best for themselves and get what they can and in turn make society better through competition. Am I misunderstanding? Could you please explain in more detail? THANKS.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2002-12-20 13:34:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You can't separate economics from politics. If you try, it shows that you understand politics not at all.
With that said, I feel that the best form of government (and I'm gonna get barbecued for this) is a socialist democracy with a free market system.
In my opinion, the role of government is three fold:
#1 Protect the people from outside invasion.
#2 Protect the people from domestic disturbance.
Almost everyone agrees with the first two, it's how you feel about the third that says where you lie on the political spectrum.
#3 To create the highest possible standard of living for **every** member of the society while compromising personal freedoms and liberties to the smallest degree possible.
Income taxes are a perfect example of an application of #3 - money is taken to create roads, provide social security, etc.
Submitted by ISuck (user info) at 2002-12-20 11:10:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess to answer your question, democracy is generally preferred because people don't want to be voiceless. "Preferred" shouldn't be confused with being the "best," because it's quite different. Kind of like how when I was 5 I preferred to stay home by myself instead of having Stacy the babysitter come over. Ironically enough, 20 years later I'd rather have Stacy come over. Anyway, what people desire isn't always best for them. As a whole, people need babysitters. The trick is finding something between anarchy and tyranny that works. And right now "democracy" seems to be filling that role.