What government do you think is the best? Why?

Hey i would like to know everyones opinion on different forms of govenment, as i just had a debate in school. Such as democracy, socialism, communisim, capitalism etc...

 

I don't think there is a "best" form of government. The problem isn't really with the governments so much as it is with the idiots running them who can't agree on anything.

 

Communism is the best. Too bad it has yet to work successfully.

 

btw it would also be nice to include what government you live under currently.

 

capitalism, ppl who want to succed can, the bums remain failures

 

Socialism, communism, and capitalism aren't governmental forms.

I would gladly call myself a republican.

 

yeah i like capitalism the best, where ambition can go far and fittest survive

 

Capitalism isn't a style of government, rather, an economic system employed by some governments.

It's not so much the best form of government, rather, the governments actions and how well they do in preserving our liberty.

Typically, a Communist style Government fails at this, and so to does Socialism, and Totalitarianism. Democracy is adequate to a point but still a long way away from preserving our liberties. A Government employing a more Libertarian approach will do the best job in preserving our liberties, so, though it's at present more ideological than pragmatic, an anarchy-like system would probably be best.

In saying that, I would rather live under a dictator where almost all my liberties are preserved than a democracy where almost all my liberties are censored. It's not the style of government that's as important as the governments actions.

 

Best government is no government.

 

new world order
on a serious note i dont like any form of government that suppressed people or has people in higher/lower positions then others so it seems i dont like government

 

I don't think there is a "best" form of government.

 

In anarchism, people would naturally be disenfranchised due to lack of property/wealth etc. Government (in theory) is supposed to protect the weak.

Trolololol. How can it be the best if it hasn't worked successfully?

Do you mean a laissez-fair economy? Unions would be quashed, economic regulations abolished, and most of us would be child slaves.


As malak said, capitalism is an economic system, not a style of government. However, socialism is both an economic system, and a form of government. Lul@libertarian internet heros. How the system is executed is more important than the type of system (to a certain extent...).


A Republic with a government regulated economy has shown to be the most stable, and successful combination.


inb4keynesvshayek

 

Communism fundamentals

1. Labor
Everyone works as hard as they can doing what ever they need to do to help the nation
Everyone gets paid the same and everyone gets the job done

2. Social
Everyone gets a fair wage, so everyone is rich. everyone can afford whatever they want. The needs of a family are supplied for free from the government. Money is only spent on wants. No where in a true communist society a person must give up any unalienable rights. They have the ability to speak out, but everyone is patriotic and no one finds a fault in the government. They lack ownership to property so there are no property disputes or taxes on property

3. Military
Everyone in a communist society is nationalistic, patriotic, and willing to die for their country. A certain number of people are drafted, so there are no shortages of men. Government supplies itself with enough money to have a very suitable defensive program

4. Government
A basic communist society has no real rules regarding any type of leadership

 

I love the U.S but really admire the British parliamentary system. (or well most parliamentary systems for that matter)

The idea of their "fusion of powers" is, to me, so much more efficient than the U.S's current system based on the separation of powers and checks between each branch. While the U.S system is meant to prevent any specific branch from gaining too much power and normally allows for fairly efficient legislation, there are times (like now) where this partisanship in the legislative branch halts progress.

I am an avid proponent of stronger executive powers. The president, like a prime minister, should be the main policy aggregator and have tremendously more influence in legislation. The main checks on this quasi-legislative executive would be the judicial branch and, obviously, the Constitution.

So to sum up my ideas, I'd support a stronger executive with much more influence in legislation, "party in power" supremacy, and an ultimate check from the judiciary branch (which would gain the ability to enforce its interpretations). This would differ from the British system since we'd be following a Constitution and our courts would actually have power.

 

:edit:

fuck it.

Communism is a great system on paper, however we are competitive beings. Nobody truly wants to be equal (barring treehuggers), we all just want to do better. I disparity between rich and poor lessened in our country, but does that mean I want to be paid the same amount as joe schmoe, working at a Z-Mart? Nope. Barely anyone is willing to put in the (colossal)amount of work required for successful communism, only to make peanuts.

 

Two things i want to add:

1) The people get the government they deserve.

2) "If men were Angels, we would need no goverment."- One of the four founders of American, John Adams

 

but no government = craziness

 

Wouldn't it be much easier if people had enough sense to not treat each other badly? Then there would be almost no need.

 

Not necessarily. There's a lot of literature on how a stateless society would be able to function.

A major problem, however, is the mindset people hold that there needs to be a monopoly for violence voluntarily given to the state to protect them.

Also, I'm not sure why you think government = not craziness. In the 20th century roughly 119,394,000 were killed by there own governments (EDIT: Sythe blocks my source ) which is far more than the number of murders that occurred, or even that would occur if there weren't a state (which would probably be less anyway, but that's a different debate). Also, those numbers don't even take into account all the deaths from wars between states.

 

Hitler was objectively on the right track. A race of super humans, all in matching jumpsuits and shaved heads? Everyone completely arbitrary and just as perfect as the other to the right and left? In retrospect it would be the greatest step forward for the progression of humankind wouldn't it?

Realistically though, REALISTICALLY, democracy is a pretty sound system. Not so sure about the politicians that excel//are elected, but, you win some you lose some.

Anarchy is such a joke concept, come on now.