First off, this thread is mostly gonna be about how you think government should be, I personally believe most in a Democracy, where the people make the decisions and then the government applies or denies it. Considering my previous thread went pretty over the top, (and ended in trash) I'd like this thread to stay open for as long as possible. And, to clear things up, their are several types of governments, which I'll list here, the few I think are the most important...

Democracy- Government where people make the decisions and the government ratifies them, a pure democracy is different in that the people make all the decisions for the country.

Socialism- A system founded upon social ownership and democratic control of production, in other words, everyone gets the same amount as everybody else.

Communist- System where the government controls the commonwealth of the people, and owns their land and businesses, this can quickly become a dictatorship.

Monarchy- A system of government where a ruler governs what happens in the country and can control what decisions the Parliament makes, if there is one.

Dictatorship- Where one figure rules all, governing what the people do, what the country does, and what happens in general, in other words, absolute control. This can also be ruled to a group of people, called an oligarchy.

Anarchy- This system of government usually only occurs for a few days, where no government exists, permitting all inhabitants to do whatever they want, instilling a state of chaos, after a few days of anarchy, a dictator usually takes charge.

Again, this thread will mostly be for debating what you think the proper form of government is, any complaints you have with modern government, and so on... So... Go wild, I guess...

No mention of socialism? A socialist democracy seems ideal.

If we're talking US politics it's a fucking joke on so many levels I don't really know where to start.

Quote from Exile

No mention of socialism? A socialist democracy seems ideal.

If we're talking US politics it's a fucking joke on so many levels I don't really know where to start.

Wellllll... If we are talking US politics, I agree, it is a joke... We're not doing well... Ugh...

This is a certainly interesting topic. Overall history is the biggest factor in showing us how each works. An Anarchy is not truly a government as it leads to one in my perspective. So in my view, I have made a system I think would work myself. A form of government where there is one group of keepers who watch law enforcement, and if they get out of hand the citizens make a new group.

Quote from nightshademalice

This is a certainly interesting topic. Overall history is the biggest factor in showing us how each works. An Anarchy is not truly a government as it leads to one in my perspective. So in my view, I have made a system I think would work myself. A form of government where there is one group of keepers who watch law enforcement, and if they get out of hand the citizens make a new group.

Can you explain how the citizens can take power away from "keepers" without a bloody revolution? Systems like that can and do work for villages and small towns, but not for anything larger.

Quote from nightshademalice

This is a certainly interesting topic. Overall history is the biggest factor in showing us how each works. An Anarchy is not truly a government as it leads to one in my perspective. So in my view, I have made a system I think would work myself. A form of government where there is one group of keepers who watch law enforcement, and if they get out of hand the citizens make a new group.

Isn't that sort of a Parliament?

Straight out of Wikipedia:


Also, I'd like to second Root's question. Though some may give up their position willingly, others may not be so kind. They may fight them off with 'loyal' guardsmen of their law enforcement and turn this into an oligarchy. It may end in bloodshed.

Quote from ErrorBlender

Though some may give up their position willingly, others may not be so kind. They may fight them off with 'loyal' guardsmen of their law enforcement and turn this into an oligarchy. It may end in bloodshed.

Sounds almost exactly like an oligarchy now that I think of it.

I think there's practically a 0% change a socialistic government would work in the U.S. The citizens are pretty lazy and leech-like and the leaders are all greedy. In countries like Norway and Denmark, they have very selective populations and they're getting increasingly more difficult to obtain citizenship in. You have to apply and prove your worth and value to the country to be a resident. You have to often be educated or have a profession. There's so many freeloaders and spoiled snobs in this country that no amount of liberalism and socialism could fix the problem. It's pretty evident that U.S. citizens are lazy just by the education rates. We have probably the most advanced education system in the world, much more diverse and flexible than practically every European country, offering a lot more free services and opportunity (as opposed to the "DECIDE WHEN YOU'RE 12" method that most European's seem to be employing) and the much cheaper higher education costs, yet there's a lot of failing.

I feel like no Government on Earth can withstand a lazy population. A socialistic government would work only when you limit population by selection like European countries and have everyone do their part. I don't see that happening considering how we witness our daily lives go by. Sex, money, desire and material are what drives practically every person. Not a lot of difference a government can do when we all want it handed to us.

Quote from Externus

I think there's practically a 0% change a socialistic government would work in the U.S. The citizens are pretty lazy and leech-like and the leaders are all greedy. In countries like Norway and Denmark, they have very selective populations and they're getting increasingly more difficult to obtain citizenship in. You have to apply and prove your worth and value to the country to be a resident. You have to often be educated or have a profession. There's so many freeloaders and spoiled snobs in this country that no amount of liberalism and socialism could fix the problem. It's pretty evident that U.S. citizens are lazy just by the education rates. We have probably the most advanced education system in the world, much more diverse and flexible than practically every European country, offering a lot more free services and opportunity (as opposed to the "DECIDE WHEN YOU'RE 12" method that most European's seem to be employing) and the much cheaper higher education costs, yet there's a lot of failing.

I feel like no Government on Earth can withstand a lazy population. A socialistic government would work only when you limit population by selection like European countries and have everyone do their part. I don't see that happening considering how we witness our daily lives go by. Sex, money, desire and material are what drives practically every person. Not a lot of difference a government can do when we all want it handed to us.

I completely agree dude, that's what I meant by our country isn't doing so well, the population of this country isn't getting any better, but worse, last time I checked, I'm pretty sure America is the biggest gainer of weight in the past like, 30 years or something... XD

simply put the power is still all held by the people, but the group certainly could cause problems :/ didn't think about that being a problem even though now i realize that it is pretty obvious. And yeah kind of parliament and kind of like the united states senate.

To me it seems that the only logical government is a democratic republic with a combination of socialism and capitalism as an economic system. Primarily because some things work well with capitalism (innovation in production, for example), whereas socialism is required to ensure that people's basic needs are met.

A form of guaranteed basic income strikes a nice balance between capitalism and socialism, while avoiding the pitfalls of fully socializing, since people would still have the ability to "vote with their wallets" in the marketplace of ideas and goods.

Quote from Ash

To me it seems that the only logical government is a democratic republic with a combination of socialism and capitalism as an economic system. Primarily because some things work well with capitalism (innovation in production, for example), whereas socialism is required to ensure that people's basic needs are met.

A form of guaranteed basic income strikes a nice balance between capitalism and socialism, while avoiding the pitfalls of fully socializing, since people would still have the ability to "vote with their wallets" in the marketplace of ideas and goods.

The problem with this system, as much as I advocate for it, is that it assumes that all people are educated, selfless, and dedicated enough to make it work, which eventually is the best for everyone.
In my opinion, within government and society, there needs to be this perfect balance of conformity and individuality. These standards that people should conform to, and the level of freedom and individuality people have access to, should depend on their level of education and willingness to be beneficial members of society. As societies progress or regress, the standards for each conformity and freedom are shifted in favor of whichever produces the highest quality of life for the whole of society. European countries are a great example of a highly educated and hard working society. People have enough freedom to be able to express themselves, to think of new ideas, and to innovate. Yet at the same time, there needs to be a level of conformity to certain social standards and laws so that things can run smoothly and to prevent all out anarchy.
A socialist/capitalist democratic republic won't work well for a less educated populace, as they won't do their part properly and might not even know what's better for them as a whole. Stricter control is required that is gradually loosened until you have a smarter and more hard working population.
However the people with most power at that level should be the most educated, the most empathetic, and the most humane, so that they are not overtaken by greed and end up keeping society under control of their whims no matter the results, which unfortunately is rarely the case in the real world.

Quote from Salt

The problem with this system, as much as I advocate for it, is that it assumes that all people are educated, selfless, and dedicated enough to make it work, which eventually is the best for everyone.
In my opinion, within government and society, there needs to be this perfect balance of conformity and individuality. These standards that people should conform to, and the level of freedom and individuality people have access to, should depend on their level of education and willingness to be beneficial members of society. As societies progress or regress, the standards for each conformity and freedom are shifted in favor of whichever produces the highest quality of life for the whole of society. European countries are a great example of a highly educated and hard working society. People have enough freedom to be able to express themselves, to think of new ideas, and to innovate. Yet at the same time, there needs to be a level of conformity to certain social standards and laws so that things can run smoothly and to prevent all out anarchy.
A socialist/capitalist democratic republic won't work well for a less educated populace, as they won't do their part properly and might not even know what's better for them as a whole. Stricter control is required that is gradually loosened until you have a smarter and more hard working population.
However the people with most power at that level should be the most educated, the most empathetic, and the most humane, so that they are not overtaken by greed and end up keeping society under control of their whims no matter the results, which unfortunately is rarely the case in the real world.

The challenge with "stricter control" is that in practice it usually means artificial voting restrictions. That can be a very dangerous road to tread.

Quote from Ash

The challenge with "stricter control" is that in practice it usually means artificial voting restrictions. That can be a very dangerous road to tread.

Yeah that's why I said this never really works properly in real life, because it's so easy to abuse.

Communist- System where the government controls the commonwealth of the people, and owns their land and businesses, this can quickly become a dictatorship. ~IgnusBurns

Well read this.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-dictatorship/