deleted cause there about a zillion different types of govt. and I missed out most of them
I think the dislike of democracy comes from the misguided notion that people are fuckwits who shouldn't be allowed to decide what happens to them.
That's a dangerous notion, one that I equate with fertilizer, if you catch my drift.
It's much easier with an absolute ruler, but then, you get fuck-all to say about what goes on in your nation. Don't like it? Go fuck off. And if you think that you're going to be one of the few that matter, I've got a notion for you... you won't. You'd be just as fucked as the rest of us, just as voiceless, and maybe that's what you want. If you feel helpless already, it's not much of a step down to absolute ruler, is it? And in that case, you're not even supposed to question, so it takes a weight of your mind.
In the case of a bad ruler, do you think you get to kill him? Not without a bullet in your chest, you won't.
Nations without democracy arn't evil, but the actions of the nation are only as good as their infrastructure. America isn't perfect by a long fucking shot, but I'd at least prefer the pretense of working with the populace. As bad as it is, there's a limited time that a ruler can screw up the buisness before we boot them out because they still have to follow the rules.
Simply put, I'm not voting on the poll, because I think polls are bollacks. But I'm going on the record as saying that monarchy is ass, and representative and democractic governments are superior.
Me as World Emporer would really be optimal, but aside from that democracy.
Quote from: AosMe as World Emporer would really be optimal...
It's a good job, if you can get it.
That french phrase capitalist kind of democracy.
I can pronounce it - but I'm so fucking sleepy right now - couldn't spell it worth a damn .
The one John Galt and Howard Roark would like.
Dagmy Taggart too.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarThat french phrase capitalist kind of democracy.
I can pronounce it - but I'm so fucking sleepy right now - couldn't spell it worth a damn .
The one John Galt and Howard Roark would like.
Dagmy Taggart too.
- Ed C.
Do you mean laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire)?
Quote from: ElectroKittyDo you mean laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire)?
BINGO!! My feline colleague has it correct .
Still not feeling much better.
Feel like I've been run over by a motorcycle gang who concentrated on my neck , shoulders and back - and not in a good way .
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarThat french phrase capitalist kind of democracy.
- Ed C.
Laissez-faire seems like a good idea until it beats the shit out of you and takes your lunch money.
You think you're going to come out of that exchange the winner, Koltar? Oh man, that is not what would happen.
Besides, like communism, laissez-faire is an economic system, which isn't quite the same thing.
Democracy sounds great, but its government by committee. And as such every proposal gets watered down by compromise until its neutered by its opponents.
Plus true democracy doesn't exist - at least not in Britain - with our quaint first past the post system. So I can cast my vote and have no account made of my wants for the country. If no account is going to be made of my vote, then at least let me have decisive leadership instead of the compromised crap that serves no one except career politicians.
Decisive leadership, eh? What if the decision is the wrong one? You'd be ok with that, provided a decisive decision was made? I hope the decider doesn't decide to decide something that screws you over.
Ultimately, the "best" form of government is a genuinely benign dictatorship/monarchy. Unfortunately, such never has existed and never will exist. In lieu of such a non-existant utopia, representative democracy (i.e. a republic such as the United States or (yes, I said it) France) is the best we'll likely ever get.
Quote from: ElectroKittyDecisive leadership, eh? What if the decision is the wrong one? You'd be ok with that, provided a decisive decision was made? I hope the decider doesn't decide to decide something that screws you over.
Ultimately, the "best" form of government is a genuinely benign dictatorship/monarchy. Unfortunately, such never has existed and never will exist. In lieu of such a non-existant utopia, representative democracy (i.e. a republic such as the United States or (yes, I said it) France) is the best we'll likely ever get.
In a long paraphrase of, I beleive, Winston Churchil, yes?
Representative democracy where every act of government must be approved unanimously by all representatives. That way governmnet can't do anything unless it really really is good for the whole country.
I think that anarchy is the best form of political life available to mankind. I think so because anarchy is the only form of political life that allows the total development of the rational autonomy of the individual without the threat of force by others.
I don't think we're quite ready to adopt it yet, but I think we can and should work towards it theoretically, politically, and technologically, and that relatively soon, we will be ready for it. In the mean time, I'm fond of various forms of democracy and societies with a strong respect for personal rights.
Quote from: James J SkachIn a long paraphrase of, I beleive, Winston Churchil, yes?
Basically, yeah. :p
Democratic Republic. No money allowed for campaigning. One term only. Absolutely no money allowed to pass to the representatives from ANYBODY, and no "gifts" or positions after their term has passed.
Representative democracy.
Quote from: ElectroKittyDecisive leadership, eh? What if the decision is the wrong one? You'd be ok with that, provided a decisive decision was made? I hope the decider doesn't decide to decide something that screws you over.
Lets look at a realistic situation like, say, Home Information Packs. You know, instead of bringing up hypothetical situations where the Tories introduce camps for those earning less than 12k a year.
Labour "We will revolutionise house selling by making the homeowner get all the relevant paperwork up together first."
Mortgage companies "We're not accepting other peoples surveys"
Labour "We will revolutionise house selling by making the homeowner get all the relevant paperwork up together first, except surveys"
Other politicians "This is all a bit slapdash. We're not happy having any part of this."
Labour "We will not revolutionise house selling by making the homeowner get all the relevant paperwork up together first."
People who'd trained to be HIPS inspectors "So the last 18 months, hard work and money spent has been wasted then."
Labour "We will revolutionise house selling by making the homeowner of 4 bed detatched properties that cost X amount get all the relevant paperwork up together first, except surveys"
Whereas they could have told the mortgage companies that they'd have to accept the surveys and not constantly capitulated themselves into a corner.
So I don't expect any government to do everything (or indeed anything) the way I'd like, but if they're going to "lead" then I expect them to do so. Not flail around, trying to look important and effective whilst performing u-turn after u-turn in an effort to remain popular.
What kind of "-archy" is rule by and through guilds again? ;)
Rationality...but it may just be a myth...
Quote from: SosthenesWhat kind of "-archy" is rule by and through guilds again? ;)
The brand of anarchy known as
anarcho-syndicalism, perhaps? What was instituted in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, with the economy determined by trade unions in control of their respective trades and governed democratically from the bottom up.
My answer would (unsurprisingly) be anarchy, manifested in grassroots direct democracy on the local level and something like the aforementioned syndicalism in the economic sphere. It might make huge nation-states and empires impossible, but who need 'em, anyway?
At the very least, the economy must be democratized, or else political democracy is meaningless.
From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams:
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Quote from: Black FlagThe brand of anarchy known as anarcho-syndicalism, perhaps? What was instituted in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, with the economy determined by trade unions in control of their respective trades and governed democratically from the bottom up.
My answer would (unsurprisingly) be anarchy, manifested in grassroots direct democracy on the local level and something like the aforementioned syndicalism in the economic sphere. It might make huge nation-states and empires impossible, but who need 'em, anyway?
At the very least, the economy must be democratized, or else political democracy is meaningless.
So long as you have a hierarchical organisation of the means of production, you'll always have a hierarchical society. Democratising production is a step, but it just leads us to social democracy, not any further. What we need are new modes of production that will render the individual and small group as productive as any capitalist organisation. Even things like Mondragon are still hierarchies with a coercive potential.
Without using multi-syllabic words just to prove that books are near my computer :
I prefer some form of representative Democracy
-OR-
Democratic Republic.
...or some blend of the two.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarWithout using multi-syllabic words just to prove that books are near my computer :
I prefer some form of representative Democracy
-OR-
Democratic Republic.
...or some blend of the two.
- Ed C.
What would you characterize as the key difference between a representative democracy and a democratic republic, and how would you blend them?
Quote from: KoltarWithout using multi-syllabic words just to prove that books are near my computer :
- Ed C.
Whatever, smart ass. :what:
Thantos...is that you, coming to the defense of Black Flag? I find that difficult to believe... :haw:
Quote from: James J SkachThantos...is that you, coming to the defense of Black Flag? I find that difficult to believe... :haw:
Nah, that's me getting a little tired of anti-intellectualism. I know Koltar is just trying to shoot straight, but he's hitting the crowd. Plus, he's got to realize that all of the stated governments are multi-syllabic.
If he wants to take a swipe at what he considers an over-intellectualism of the conversation, he could at least be on target with his jabs.
Sorry crowd.
Didn't mean to catch any of you in a grazing shot.
Its not anti-intellectual on my part.
I just hate the overuse of big words when you don't really need to.
Always looks like someone is trying to prove something.
Heck, I've slept with intellectuals - they still scream God's name in the middle of an orgasm just like everybody else.
- Ed C.
I voted for collective, because it seemed like a good idea at the time?
Quote from: BrantaiI voted for collective, because it seemed like a good idea at the time?
How many others voted collective, citizen?
Quote from: Thanatos02How many others voted collective, citizen?
Obviously not enough.
Quote from: KoltarHeck, I've slept with intellectuals - they still scream God's name in the middle of an orgasm just like everybody else.
Unless they're screaming *your* name, you're doing it wrong.
Quote from: KoltarHeck, I've slept with intellectuals - they still scream God's name in the middle of an orgasm just like everybody else.
- Ed C.
Insert joke about male intellectuals. make up your own punchline.
The best is a benign dictatorship.
The second-best is... I'm not sure, but the worst is a non-benign dictatorship.
Quote from: ElectroKittyUnless they're screaming *your* name, you're doing it wrong.
Koltar is talking about Klingons...they shout their God's name :D
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RKoltar is talking about Klingons...they shout their God's name :D
Regards,
David R
Of *course* they shout their God's name. Which is exactly my point. If they're not shouting *your* name, you're doing it wrong.
What is the best form of government. Anything where I'm in charge. Ideally I also wouldn't be obligated to do anything or held responsible for anything I did.
Actually... I'd settle for that kind of setup in my own life. An absolutist dictatorship with a population of one. Diplomatic immumity for all!
Hey - if you can't have some humor while talking about possible governments - then why bother?
"A revolution without dancing - is not a revolution worth having" - my favorite line from V for Vendetta.
- Ed C.
What is meant by "collective"? It seems to me that would overlap with several of the others.
And let me go on record as saying that a benign dictatorship is as fanciful as a government comprised of floating pink elephants made of intelligent cotton candy. And even if it weren't, it would still be a bad idea. The common people should be encouraged to be smart and independent, not stupid and servile. Sooner or later we all have to leave daddy's lap and learn to make decisions for ourselves. Any daddy who doesn't want that, doesn't really love you.
It also suffers from the limits of human cognition, etc. No one person ever has perfect information about the totality of society's relations, and in fact, every moment that they act, the accuracy of their information becomes poorer (Kojeve and Strauss had a debate on this in more refined philosophical language that's been collected into "On Tyranny by Leo Strauss with the Expanded Kojeve-Strauss Correspondence") (Hayek also pointed this out years ago).
Dictatorships are shitholes, and the idea that they're the best form of government comes from a pathological understanding of individuality.
You seem to have that backwards.
The best form of government for people to breathe free as Individuals is Democracy.
- Ed C.
Look up what the word "pathological" means before you post next time, Koltar.
Theres no need to .
Democracy DOES give the most freedom to be an individual.
Direct participataory democracy would be best, but Representative Democracy comes a close second.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarDemocracy DOES give the most freedom to be an individual.
Depends on the democracy. Don't forget that the "pure democracy" test case (Athens, Greece, Circa 400 BC) featured a very large number of individuals with no freedom at all.
Quote from: ElectroKittyDepends on the democracy. Don't forget that the "pure democracy" test case (Athens, Greece, Circa 400 BC) featured a very large number of individuals with no freedom at all.
Athenian democracy was not even close to what we consider democracy today. I would almost go so far as to call it an oligarchy, with "the few" being adult male citizens who had completed their military training, about 10-20% of the population depending on what period you are looking at.
Quote from: KoltarTheres no need to .
Democracy DOES give the most freedom to be an individual.
Direct participataory democracy would be best, but Representative Democracy comes a close second.
- Ed C.
In the last (UK) general election the Conservatives polled more votes in total than Labour. However because of the constituency system Labour forms the government. How the hell is that right.
Democracy is a lovely idea, but what we have in the UK - if not the West - only pays lip service to it.
For once, I agree with Koltar: direct, participatory democracy would be best. Moreover, I would posit that it's the only sort of democracy worth the name. Representative government consists of the right to periodically elect an oligarchy drawn from the elite class of society, which then gets to make whatever policies it damn well pleases until its term is up. The only say the voters have in the matter is to possibly choose another set of elite oligarchs next term who'll also do whatever the hell they please while ignoring the wishes of their constituency. And they might be worse.
Sure, it's a step up from outright dictatorship, no doubt. But it's not that much better, since "we, the people" are still far removed from the actual decision-making process. Rather than a "close second," I'd call it a far, far second. The only benefits it has over dictatorship are that we rotate the nitwits periodically and that ideally there are too many nitwits at one time for any one nitwit's agenda to be pushed through the system (although recent events show that the latter can still happen with frightening ease). An improvement over even more oppressive systems, but hardly the best humanity has to offer.
It's worth pointing out that even "direct, participatory democracy" is a broad tent though. For example, I'm distrustful as shit of majoritarianism as the most fundamental or important form of democracy, no matter how directly people are polled. But if you asked most people how democracy works, they'd probably point to majoritarianism and say that was it.
Does anyone else find it amusing that people have voted for a form of democracy which is leading this poll? I do.
Quote from: jeff37923Does anyone else find it amusing that people have voted for a form of democracy which is leading this poll? I do.
If you are saying what I think you are saying - then yes it is pretty funny.
(there seems to be a word missing or tense not agreeing in your sentence. Not sure - not as awake as I could be at the moment. ) - Ed C.
Having seen our "representative" government fuck the country over the last few years along barely veiled partisan interests, I am leaning closer and closer to the Swiss model of direct democracy with a high level of citizen participation and very strong controls on government. If we can get Otto Habsburg back, I would also accept constitutional monarchy in a heartbeat, the black-and yellow flag included.