Preferred Form of Government?

[brokenandtwisted]

The title says everything. What's your preferred political system? I don't know much about politics, really. I clicked a random article on Wiki and it was relevant to Greeks, so I went searching through the philosophers, came across democracy and noticed the chart of political systems that exist or are 'experimental' or 'not in practice'. I thought they seemed interesting, and I'm still reading through them. So...if you want to, although I know Wiki is incredibly flawed, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government) for the systems.

I wouldn't mind geniocracy, which is 'government by those of a higher than average intelligence'. I know it may not form equality but with intellects running a society, would there be opposition from the masses, assuming that the 'most intelligent' ran the government? Would the 'least intelligent' oppose to the 'most intelligent' in knowing that the 'most intelligent' are 'more intelligent' than the 'least intelligent'?

[I am Legend]

if it was possible to actually do without the corruption and BS, communism.

[gprime]

Well, I think that the Republican model that the US is supposed to function under is the best. One might assume otherwise based on the sad state of this nation, but that is less a consequence of a flaw in said model, and more the result of deviating from it.

In a Republican government you have multiple branches, each of which are supposedly independent. The idea behind this is to provide checks and balances, as we all know from elementary school. But the value of such a notion cannot be stressed enough. With such a system, an irrational president can be kept from ruining the nation, as the legislature and the courts are there to stop him. I think that having the three branches the US currently does is the most rational division. Courts are clearly needed, and ought to be a separate branch. A clear "head" must exist, hence the executive branch. But one man alone cannot be entrusted to manage the nation's affairs, hence the need for a legislative branch. And though a product of compromise, having a bicameral legislature turned out to be for the better, as it adds yet another check to the system.

In such a system, a constitution is essential. Our Constitution, coupled with the Bill of Rights, would be an ideal platform to govern the nation if enforced. This stems from the fact that it specifies the powers of government, and reserves the remaining rights first to the people and then to the States. I think there is a rationale to placing the 9th Amendment before that which grants power to the states. And that is to ensure that the states are not able to infringe upon individual liberty any more than the union can. In other words, if the government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms, neither can states. The 10th Amendment merely exists for things such as setting punishments for criminal acts, management of law enforcement, budgeting, and so forth. States should not be powerful entities.

So to be summarize, I would like to see government of three branches, including a bicameral legislature, which is bound by a Constitution that spells out its specific powers, and has courts that enforce it. Furthermore, I want the states to have minimal power, and the federal government only slightly more. Thus, I am a federalist republican.

[swivel]

Representative Democracy + Capitalism.

The greater the freedom of the masses the better. In political theory you will always hear some bright lad bemoaning the "ignorance of the masses" and urging a system where a few bright people can subdue these lumbering dolts for their own good. But game theory and psychological studies have found the opposite to be true. Large populations of varying intelligence make better decisions than small groups of smart people. It is a phenomenon known now as "The Wisdom of Crowds" and it even has a book by the same title detailing these effects.

In "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", the success rate of the audience was far and away greater than the success of the participant's "smartest friend". This was the smartest person that the contestant knew, and they got their asses handed to them by the crowd. There are new stock markets where you can trade predictions of the future (political, economic, social predictions), and these have been far more accurate than the prognostications of the experts.

This is why Capitalism beats the pants off of any other economic system. You have millions of people making decisions on the things that they know best. No central planning in the world can match the efficiency and humanity of this. FDR's "Brain Trust" tried and made every bad decision possible, extending the depression much longer than necessary, and helping cause the Second World War. Similar efforts starved large populations in Europe just 50 years ago.

[Alphonsus di Ligouri]

I agree. But still, I'm waiting for the return of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm just tired of all the propaganda and mudslinging. An old h.s. teach of mine had an interesting choice though. Despot. Maybe that's what I want. :confused:

[Killroy]

About time you showed up, Alph. ;)

[Alphonsus di Ligouri]

no shit man. good to be back.:glasses:

[Athena]

I can only echo the sentiments of gprime and swivel. A constitutional republic, like America's got, is a superior model. Individual liberty must be paramount and government should be limited to do only what it was intented to do - protect the populace from foreign threat and internal chaos, interact with foreign heads of office, enforce the Constitution, etc. This structure must be accompanied by capitalism because, as swivel illustrated, it is the only economic model that truely compliments the republic.

It's all about states' rights. While a federal entity is necessary for the reasons stated above, the best way to attain efficiency is to govern at the lowest levels possible. The decisions made at the state and local levels are far more accurate than the feds could hope to provide. It encourages voting and civic involvement and it ensures that communities will only be affected by the decisions they make, not mandates handed down from some bloated, impervious federal power. People are empowered by the idea that they can create change. The federal level is so convoluted by bureaucracy, people have lost hope.

[gprime]

It's all about states' rights. While a federal entity is necessary for the reasons stated above, the best way to attain efficiency is to govern at the lowest levels possible. The decisions made at the state and local levels are far more accurate than the feds could hope to provide. It encourages voting and civic involvement and it ensures that communities will only be affected by the decisions they make, not mandates handed down from some bloated, impervious federal power. People are empowered by the idea that they can create change. The federal level is so convoluted by bureaucracy, people have lost hope.

I agree that entrusting more power to the states, as the CSA did, is wise. They are surely less inept than the grand bureaucracy that oversees the nation. But I think it is important to make clear that they too are bound by the Constitution, and are no more entitled than the Federal government to usurp our freedoms. In other words, states should have no more right to restrict gun ownership, impose excessive taxation, limit free expression, mandate education, or engage in otherwise abusive intrusions, than the federal government.

[Athena]

I agree that entrusting more power to the states, as the CSA did, is wise. They are surely less inept than the grand bureaucracy that oversees the nation. But I think it is important to make clear that they too are bound by the Constitution, and are no more entitled than the Federal government to usurp our freedoms. In other words, states should have no more right to restrict gun ownership, impose excessive taxation, limit free expression, mandate education, or engage in otherwise abusive intrusions, than the federal government.

Oh, absolutely. That is why a federal judicial branch is so very important. Citizens must have recourse if states get too obtrusive, and state governments are no less prone to corruption, in that respect.