Aren't they the same thing, you cannot run something without having restrictions, unless we are talking about anarchy. A government and the way it is run is defined by it's restrictions and the ways it applies it.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 21:19#1011840 likes
asks us the question - how far can we stretch the ideas of government, or is it a simple illusion that we are taught to believe, but essentially ruled by nothing, but ourselves?
I am thinking of democracy as an ideal form of government, not any specific specimen, and again one where rule of law, justice and legitimacy are apparent. Can you suggest a better one?
T?mati w?ka neneAugust 30, 2017 at 21:27#1011900 likes
The best form of goverment would be that which best balances libertarianism with authoritarianism. The balance between state controll and personal freedom. I do not know which form of goverment gets this balance best.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 21:29#1011930 likes
Reply to Cavacava I could say any country in the world is a democracy - they are all voted in, maybe by the ruling political party - but still a democracy. I say your definition of democracy is dangerously vague and null.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 21:29#1011940 likes
Aren't they the same thing, you cannot run something without having restrictions, unless we are talking about anarchy. A government and the way it is run is defined by it's restrictions and the ways it applies it
It's much easier to identify undesirable or "bad actions" (actions which morally we ought not perform) than it is to identify "good actions" (actions which we morally ought to perform).
I can tell you how to live a moral life (per my view at least) by giving you some basic ideas about what not to do, but I cannot give to you a set of positive actions which I think you are required to perform in order to remain moral.
I believe that economic and other policies of a government must adapt to the circumstances they exist in, and so even if I did have some bright ideas about the most moral governmental actions, I could not predict how changing circumstances might alter their efficacy.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 21:33#1012000 likes
Reply to Cavacava I have said that your definition for a "democracy" is insufficient
I can tell you how to live a moral life (per my view at least) by giving you some basic ideas about what not to do, but I cannot give to you a set of positive actions which I think you are required to perform in order to remain moral.
This does not answer the original question. Everyone alsready understands that morals affect how a government is run, you do not have to tell us this. What I am asking is which morals should we have, which ones are the best for a good government.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 21:37#1012070 likes
Don't patronize me, you can look it up. The OP asked for the best form of government and I think it is a democratic one. Like I said if you think there is a better one then out with it.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 21:40#1012100 likes
Just give an example of the best form of democracy.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 21:40#1012110 likes
Reply to Cavacava there is many different definitions for types of governmental systems, such as the disagreements between what is fascism, I'm asking you for your definition. One cannot simply provide an unbiased definition for democracy.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 21:47#1012130 likes
If democracy was not the best form of government then you guys would be mentioning other forms of government, I think. As far as the best example of a democratic form of government, it would be the one which is fair to all citizens. ruled by laws, and legitimately reflective of its population's will.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 21:49#1012150 likes
All democracies are constituted by laws, both traditional like English Common Laws and by laws that have been constructed, by statute. Or are you now asking for the purpose of laws? To my mind the laws that constitute a government circumscribe a normative morality, a sense of fairness, and not the other way around.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 21:59#1012170 likes
All democracies are constituted by laws, both traditional like English Common Laws and by laws that have been constructed, by statute. Or are you now asking for the purpose of laws? To my mind the laws that constitute a government circumscribe a normative morality, a sense of fairness, and not the other way around.
I'm not asking you to define laws, I'm asking you to give examples of laws.
VagabondSpectreAugust 30, 2017 at 22:09#1012190 likes
This does not answer the original question. Everyone alsready understands that morals affect how a government is run, you do not have to tell us this. What I am asking is which morals should we have, which ones are the best for a good government.
There is no one best set of particular morals for all environments across all of time.
Different factors can render different policies and approaches to civilization more and less beneficial/potentially harmful, and unfortunately changes in circumstances can outright break our individual capacity to adhere to any particular moral position.
Hanging someone for stealing a cow in today's world is considered to be murder (and it is), but in, say, frontier America, killing a captured cattle rustler was in some senses necessary for survival on an isolated ranch with no safety net or prison system.
The allowance, and to what extent, of individuals to own and control vast swaths of land and resources is another moral dilemma that comes with varying moral weight given different circumstances. The degree of wealth disparity and resource scarcity seems to more or less determine how justified an individual would be in seizing the wealth of their economic betters. But in a world with more affluence and freedom than ever, ought we equalize all accounts in order to alleviate the pangs of the wealth gap in the same way that widespread starvation would justify?
Should we have capital punhishment? Which industries should be owned and operated by the government? Should our justice system merely seek to remove threats to society and deter others from being a threat or should it seek to reform individuals if we have the resources and capacity to do so?
The relevant question worth answering is "what is the ideal form of government for today's world?".
Off the bat I can tell you that since it takes so much debate and discussion to come to agreeable answers, some form of voting system would probably best to approximate our consensus. At the same time, we want to be very cautious not to have a gung-ho government who just rushes ahead with whatever idea pops into it's head, so we need to create some very basic and agreed upon set of rules and standards which the government itself cannot infringe upon (rationally this would include not interfering unfairly with our voting process, and some basic set of individual rights and freedoms we think we all can afford and deserve to have).
I've got host of more specific political views, but they take up too much space to lay out here. A democratic system with a constitution (a set of restrictions on government) of some kind is the closest thing we have to ideal largely because it can change according to our growing understanding and our changing needs.
Not really very sure what you are asking? Laws typical protect freedoms, rights such as those outlined in the Bill of Rights here in US...freedom of speech, right to protect oneself, to petition....
I think a democratic government is superior because it ideally able to address issues justly/fairly for the majority of the most diverse segments of a population, those who are advanced, the elite in society as well as the most needy, the destitute and poor in society.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 22:20#1012250 likes
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 22:38#1012470 likes
Reply to T?mati w?ka nene
I shall, a right is something that a person is entitled to no matter what.
A right is not only meant to protect them but also give them a decent standard of living.
A right is also supposed to restrict people from taking certain actions.
The state must make sure these rights are upholded.
An example of an undeniably important right is the right to life, or the right not to be murdered.
There is no 'ideal government'. As Churchill observed after WWII, democracy is the least worst option, because at least the citizenry have some say over who represents them. One may agree that democracies, in practice, are often flawed and distorted by all kinds of powerful interests who wish to exploit it for their own ends, but what real alternatives are there?
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 23:22#1012550 likes
As Churchill observed after WWII, democracy is the least worst option, because at least the citizenry have some say
Fair point, however the majority could go against a minority in what is called the tyranny of the mob, and the minority have no say in their fate. How can we stop this from happening?
I would argue a republic is better than a democracy as a republic has checks in place to protect the individual citizen's rights.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 23:23#1012560 likes
republic
r??p?bl?k/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
I have already stated that there is no ideal government in my question, I want to know what the best government is.
Democracy is not really a form of government, but a framework which enables the choice of a form of government. The Westminster System of the UK, and the Presidential system of the USA, are forms of democratic government that are similar in some respects, different in others.
But if you remove the ability of the citizenry to elect representatives, then what alternatives can be considered, and by whom? Who will be deciding what government is, and what it should do, if it's not the inhabitants of the nation being governed.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 23:30#1012630 likes
republics use democracy to elect positions, ruled by the people, democratically
But that still makes a republic different to a democracy. A republic uses democratic ideas just as Communism uses fascist ideas yet you would not compare Communism to Fascism.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 23:32#1012640 likes
Reply to Sigmund Freud a democracy is not a form of government, it is the way decisions are made in a government such as a constitutional monarchy, federal republic etc. As opposed to a direct dictatorship where the leader has ultimate power.
T?mati w?ka neneAugust 30, 2017 at 23:34#1012670 likes
Reply to Slobodan Miloševi?
So the ancient greeks had no form of goverment? They got as close to democracy as humans have ever been. I would say the ancient greeks were governed democratically.
Sigmund FreudAugust 30, 2017 at 23:34#1012680 likes
First you say democracy is the least worst form of government, now your saying that it isn't a government at all but a framework. Why did you contradict yourself.
Slobodan Miloevi?August 30, 2017 at 23:38#1012700 likes
Reply to T?mati w?ka nene their government was essentially enlightened despotism, with democratically made decisions. Democracy is not a form of government, it is the way decisions in specific government are made.
Now your saying that it isn't a government at all but a framework. Why did you contradict yourself.
It's not a contradiction. 'Democracy' is a way of choosing various forms of government. You can have democracies that operate along completely different lines - it could be a constitutional monarchy, it could be a republic, and so on. So these are different forms of government, but what these different forms have in common is that political and legislative power reside in elected representatives. So - is that 'a form of government'? I suppose democracy a system of government. And if the question is, 'is there a better system of government than democracy', my answer would be: name one. What kind of system of government might be better than a system where the citizenry elects representatives.
Whether one uses the term democracy, republic, federation, or whatever, there is form and then there is substance. The US is perhaps a representative democracy in which the government is elected by the people, who then play no role in enactments. (Except they pay taxes to support whatever the government decides to do -- like invade Iraq.)
In the US, and elsewhere, there is critical but informal representation of large monied interests in the lobbies of the Senate and House (not quite literally). The informal representatives, arriving with briefcases full of money, are called "lobbyists". They help representatives write legislation that affects their business areas (like health care), and they underwrite the elected representatives next election -- or the last one, if it isn't paid for yet.
There is also the permanent government -- which isn't elected. It's the various administrative and military branches of government that continue uninterrupted decade to decade.
The official system, elected representative government, is more or less pure and wholesome. The unofficial system where money buys policy is a system of deep corruption. Since it is conducted under the table, people do not receive daily reports on its activities. Besides being conducted under the table, the meetings are not open to people who are not playing the game. It's very much a "pay to play" system.
The unofficial system of government in the US is the foundation and cause of our extremely expensive health care system.
That's the substance. Never mind the form.
VagabondSpectreAugust 31, 2017 at 00:01#1012760 likes
I'll give you an example, what is the best government for the U.S.A?
The "best" government is not knowable by us because America is too complex. If you ask a chess grandmaster what the best chess strategy is, they won't be able to tell you. They can only tell you what is the best strategy they happen to know.
The American government gets some things right and some things wrong. I can tell you where what what improvements can be made, but i cannot tell you what the very best economic path forward is, or what would be the best judicial/penal system, or exactly what electoral reforms would promote the health of American democracy, but here are some suggestions:
Overhaul the prison system and de-privatize it. Focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Abolish the electoral college and ensure fair national coverage for more than just the two main parties.
Ensure universal healthcare.
Nationalize the energy sector and invest heavily in alternatives to fossil fuel based energy sources and delivery technology.
Eventually prepare to offer a universal income as automation and artificial intelligence begins to represent a greater and greater share of more and more of the overall wealth production.
Many of the above proposed changes are highly controversial and are fraught with dilemmas, but at the very least i think they represent better or soon to be better "forms" for the American government to take. These are only national policies though, as international politics (and it's moral ramifications) are an entirely different can of worms.
FROM THE MAGAZINE
How to Get Rich in Trump’s Washington
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
His presidency has changed the rules of influence in the nation’s capital — and spawned a new breed of lobbyist on K Street.
167 Comments
Slobodan Miloevi?August 31, 2017 at 00:09#1012780 likes
Reply to VagabondSpectre we don't need to know your political views, we are talking about democracies, not what our favourite policies would be
Slobodan Miloevi?August 31, 2017 at 00:10#1012790 likes
Policies don't make a democracy, the ways those policies are made make a democracy or a dictatorship
VagabondSpectreAugust 31, 2017 at 00:16#1012800 likes
Reply to Slobodan Miloševi? Ironically though, democracy itself entails "talking about what our favorite policies would be".
Asking "what is the ideal form of government for America" must then entail a discussion about particular policies if we're to move beyond "a democratic one" as an answer.
"A government that serves the people, can adapt, and improve" is a great answer but it doesn't serve us much unless we're debating whether or not to defenestrate democracy. As I said, a useful answer to the question about what kind of government we should have (with useful specificity that is) entails addressing specific policies in the context of specific political, economic, and social circumstances.
Sigmund FreudAugust 31, 2017 at 02:15#1012900 likes
Just as a side note, does anyone here believe that Communism is a good ideology?
WISDOMfromPO-MOAugust 31, 2017 at 03:07#1012980 likes
What kind of system of government might be better than a system where the citizenry elects representatives.
Apparently, according to what I have been reading, elites have never trusted common people with any role in government and some of today's elites are taking that to the extreme of saying that democracy is a failure and that we need powerful AI to replace all humans in the job of governing.
Reply to Sigmund Freud Some of the ideas of Marx and other socialists are very good ideas, indeed. "Marx", "Socialism", "Communism", etc. are all very loaded words, of course. What you mean by "communism" might not be quite the same meaning that I would give to it.
Harry Hindu
as in, "one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" -- that sort of thing?
"Kneel!
Is this not simpler? Is this not your natural state? It is the unspoken truth of humanity - that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes you life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
ome of today's elites are taking that to the extreme of saying that democracy is a failure and that we need powerful AI to replace all humans in the job of governing.
I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that AI ought to govern, I think that idea is science fiction. But certainly democracy is under threat, it's even openly questioned in this Forum. Hey I can see a lot wrong with democracies in practice, but again, what are the alternatives? Look at China - their human rights record is appalling. Hundreds of human rights lawyers have been jailed or simply disappeared over the last few years in China - try and bring that up as a Chinese citizen, and expect a knock at the door. Russia is a democracy only in name - one reason Putin has such high approval ratings is because opinions are monitored, disapprove, and expect a knock at the door.
Actually, the main reason Plato was against democracy was because of the threat of demagogues seizing power:
A demagogue /?d?m????/ (from Greek ?????????, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from ?????, people, populace, the commons + ?????? leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][2][3][4] Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.[5] Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, forceful action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty.
I shall, a right is something that a person is entitled to no matter what.
A right is not only meant to protect them but also give them a decent standard of living.
A right is also supposed to restrict people from taking certain actions.
The state must make sure these rights are upholded.
An example of an undeniably important right is the right to life, or the right not to be murdered.
I take a slightly different view. I think rights must be good, derivative of what is just and fair which are incorporated into legitimate practices, not just ideals (Plato). Justice is a value which is only available in a democracy, a way to make relationships between men un-arbitrary.
Policies don't make a democracy, the ways those policies are made make a democracy or a dictatorship
Yea, I agree with that in a democracy policies are inclusive, they apply as much to those in power as they apply to those who are powerless. There is no one or group above the policies that people have constructed as policy and they have accepted. Justice as a value, is only possible in a democratic form of government.
Who will be deciding what government is, and what it should do, if it's not the inhabitants of the nation being governed.
A monarch, who, unlike a democratically elected leader, is there for life, and hence doesn't have to take decisions for the short-term so that he gets elected the next time around, but can rather take the decisions required to maintain the stability of his country so that he can leave his country in a good state, and pass it on his descendants.
A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country. The whole interest is to take as much as possible as quickly as possible away from the country, because he doesn't own it. He doesn't care for the country, he just wants to profit from it for the short time it is in his hands.
A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country.
Neither democracy, nor dictatorship, nor benevolent pisspot can effectively plan for a future beyond the human horizon -- which is, generally, not very distant. There are some examples of long range planning:
The Dutch plan for the long run because their existence as a nation in a bowl (20' below sea level in some places, with the ocean lapping up against their bowl) absolutely requires them to think about long-term trends. Maybe they think in terms of a century.
A few people plant hardwoods. A maple, an oak, a walnut, a butternut, a birch, all take at least 60 years to produce nice wood. 80 more likely. In those 60 years, some attention needs to be paid to the trees.
Weedy conifers mature in maybe 30 years -- fast enough to replant clear cut forests with re-harvest in mind (for paper, oriented strand-board, etc.) Even greedy companies can manage that.
Outside of examples like that, we do not--maybe can not--look down the road much more than a quarter century.
A monarch, who, unlike a democratically elected leader, is there for life, and hence doesn't have to take decisions for the short-term so that he gets elected the next time around, but can rather take the decisions required to maintain the stability of his country so that he can leave his country in a good state, and pass it on his descendants.
A monarch who is above the law is a sad conception. The justice of a tyrant can never, in principal or in fact can be just or fair, even when the it does social good. I think this conception is derivative from the absolute program of religions which are all about the existence of God on earth.
Jake TarragonAugust 31, 2017 at 21:53#1014810 likes
The best form of government is World Government.
VagabondSpectreAugust 31, 2017 at 21:53#1014820 likes
Reply to Cavacava Naa man, lets like, make, like, ... Elon Musk the God Emperor of all mankind!
Surely if we had one genius and clearly benevolent central ruler who could just cut through any and all red tape we would be living the utopic dream before we knew it! Who was that old dude from "Gladiator" (2000)? One of those guys!
Obviously Musk is too busy God Emperoring Mars, so who else among us is ready to accept the most humble and graceful mantle of "philosopher king" that we, the unwashed masses, so sorely and deeply yearn for?
Jake TarragonAugust 31, 2017 at 21:58#1014830 likes
who else among us is ready to accept the most humble and graceful mantle of "philosopher king" that we, the unwashed masses, so sorely and deeply yearn for?
I sometimes fantasize about winning a megalottery and how I would spend it on promoting and experimenting with "good causes". Does that qualify me?
VagabondSpectreAugust 31, 2017 at 22:03#1014840 likes
Surely if we had one genius and clearly benevolent central ruler who could just cut through any and all red tape we would be living the utopic dream before we knew it!
That's not far from Plato's conception of 'philosopher kings' - sages beyond self-interest, who possess the wisdom and skills to steer the populace in the right direction. Terrific idea, but they might be in short supply, and how would they be nominated? Elon Musk is an inspiring character, but his erstwhile business partner, Peter Theil, seems a lot less so.
Reply to Agustino What a mass of contradictions you are, Agustino. The one politician who most egregiously exploits all the flaws you see in democracy, is the same one you express admiration for.
Elon Musk is an inspiring character, but his erstwhile business partner, Peter Theil, seems a lot less so.
I think it's quite the other way around. Elon Musk is the dummy - he's good with science, and not even that really - he's good with putting others to work. Peter Thiel is actually a philosopher (he graduated as one), and I've read all his writings, they're some of the best writings on business there exist. His book Zero to One is especially good, one of my favorite business books of all time.
What a mass of contradictions you are, Agostino. The one politician who most egregiously exploits all the flaws you see in democracy, is the one you express admiration for.
Exactly, getting rid of democracy would be a great gift that Trump could give the world.
Reply to Agustino so long as everyone here realizes we have a fascist in our midst then at least all our exchanges won't have been the complete waste of time they otherwise would have been.
so long as everyone here realizes we have a fascist in our midst then at least all our exchanges won't have been the complete waste of time they otherwise would have been.
Is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist too? :s
He said he is not a democrat, and he favored monarchy as well. I guess he's a fascist too.
Tolkien:I am not a 'democrat' only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power--and then we get and are getting slavery
David B. Hart:Our system obliges us to elevate to office precisely those persons who have the ego-besotted effrontery to ask us to do so; it is rather like being compelled to cede the steering wheel to the drunkard in the back seat loudly proclaiming that he knows how to get us there in half the time ... One can at least sympathize, then, with Tolkien's view of monarchy. ... A king--a king without any real power, that is--is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution. It is easy to give our loyalty to someone whose only claim on it is an accident of heredity, because then it is a free gesture of spontaneous affection that requires no element of self-deception, and that does not involve the humiliation of having to ask to be ruled.
You should really know that you're only putting yourself to shame by seeking to enforce the false dichotomy of democracy or fascism. There have been many non-democratic regimes - for thousands of years - which weren't fascist. Fascism is a particular outgrowth of 20th century politics in Europe, that's all.
But of course Wayfarer - keep peddling your 1960s pink pony hippie stuff ;)
I'm waiting till you start citing these very people soon in your answers, as you often do.
No, I perfectly sympathise with Tolkein's aversion to modernity. I read The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings, last year, and most enjoyed it (Barfield's my favorite). The point is, which you refuse to see, is that if there is no democracy, then it's not actually even possible to have 'a forum'. Why? Because there is no scope for disagreement, for differing views or opinions. There is only The Truth, and those, presumably yourself, who represent it, and the others, who are wrong.
Many things about modern 'culture', so-called, are clearly wrong, corrupt, and so on. Western culture, overall, is loosing its collective mind. If you were going to say that, then I might even agree. But the reason I say you're advocating fascism, is because your attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition or dissent, which is essential to democracy.
And the fact that when, asked for alternatives, you can only offer either The Roman Empire, which famously collapsed around 2,000 years ago (and which incidentally used to throw slaves and Christians to the lions), or a vague gesture towards 'constitutional monarchy' - and, now you mention it, I myself happen to live in one of them - really shows that you're not actually talking about political philosophy at all.
The point is, which you patently, obviously, repeatedly, obstinately, never see, is that if there is no democracy, then it's not actually even possible to have 'a forum'. Why?
That's not true. The voice of the people existed and was taken into account in most non-democratic regimes through history.
But the reason I say you're advocating fascism, is because your attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition or dissent, which is essential to democracy.
You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition... here you are opposing me! Eppur si muove as Galilei said!
Take that away, and you start getting the knock at the door, at midnight. Although, maybe in your world, that is OK?
Most non-democratic regimes in history didn't involve the knock at the door at midnight. In fact, in Chinese history, the knock at the door at midnight was usually the sign that some dynasty was about to come to an end :P
And the fact that when, asked for alternatives, you can only offer either The Roman Empire, which famously collapsed around 2,000 years ago, or a vague gesture towards 'constitutional monarchy' - and, now you mention it, I myself happen to live in one of them - really shows that you're not actually talking about political philosophy at all.
The reason why I'm being vague is because your question is silly. Most of the regimes that have ever existed on earth have been monarchies probably. All the Chinese dynasties, the Roman Empire, the french and british monarchies, and so on so forth :s - that's why when you ask for examples it sounds very strange.
You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition... here you are opposing me! Eppur si muove as Galilei said!
Put this another way - if I owned this forum, you think I'd ban you for opposing me or something? :s In fact, this forum as it is isn't a democracy at all.
Most of the regimes that have ever existed on earth have been monarchies probably
Many people used to die of curable diseases before middle age.
You have no alternative system or proposal. All you're doing is expressing your feelings. And again, the country I live in is still technically a constitutional monarchy, and also a democracy.
The point is that democratic systems allow for principled opposition. The electorate gets a say in who will govern, but those who don't agree get a say in opposing the government. Under an authoritarian system, the opposition don't get any say. Sometimes they appear to have a say but in most cases they will only act as a rubber-stamp opposition. That is what I mean by 'principled opposition' - it's a system which allows for a diversity of viewpoints instead of imposing what some autocratic ruler or party says is right. Whatever its flaws, democracy has to be better than that; again, look at China.
Maybe you're not advocating fascism, but you are advocating some form of authoritarianism. But to say that you hope Trump succeeds in destroying democracy is a really creepy thing to say. I know governments and politicians are often dreadful, but the alternative you're suggesting don't represent any kind of real alternative; the world is not going to return to a monarchy. You said the other day you're the 'black sheep', what I think you're longing for, is a shephard. ;-)
WISDOMfromPO-MOSeptember 02, 2017 at 02:49#1017090 likes
I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that AI ought to govern, I think that idea is science fiction...
"In particular, it is supposed, a hundred million dollars from Peter Thiel put toward the project of making a benevolent super-AI will do far more to improve the world than any political movement, since the first super-AI will, in Yudkowsky’s view, be the last form of government humans will ever know. AI is either the solution to all of humanity’s problems, or its final solution..." -- Problems of Transhumanism: Liberal Democracy vs. Technocratic Absolutism
StarthrowerFebruary 13, 2018 at 19:36#1525970 likes
No. The ideal government is a collection of different governments of equal power that hate each other, if you are looking for advancement of humanity. If your argument is freedom, anarchy, if it is religion, monarchy.
StarthrowerFebruary 13, 2018 at 19:38#1525990 likes
The reason for the first one is because of the Cold War and its participation in space travel.
I recognize this partly as an empirical question, you can't possibly say what the best possible outcome would be for sure if you haven't tried them and observed what the effects are. My guess is that if we progress into designing better and better institutions, it'll look somewhat different from what we are currently imagining.
But you can make educated guesses based on history and nuanced judgment. Ultimately I think we have to get rid of Corporations and State Governments as they exist today and set up some sort of deliberative democratic system, and it has to be a form of global cooperation (I mentioned corporations because I don't see the economic system as completely separate from governments if we're going to talk about who decides the rules in how society is structured)
Uneducated PlebFebruary 14, 2018 at 02:43#1527140 likes
Although there is no such thing as a perfect system of government, I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect?
Government without a state. A decentralized network of independent, collaborative and consensual collections of democratically-elected individuals with term limits and limited powers.
David SolmanFebruary 16, 2018 at 18:08#1537140 likes
Reply to Sigmund Freud a trusted democracy is most important and i do believe that the countries military options should be put to public vote also, in most cases people will decide against war and most of the time the governments military actions do not reflect that of the public opinion. destroy of any weapon of mass destruction. a helping hand to developing countries. and a major peace advocate, these are all things that a good government would do. complete freedom for same sex marriage as well as equal pay for both genders. a government that is not racist and helps to give refuge to immigrants in need. you see where im going with this...
"Although there is no such thing as a perfect system of government, I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect?"
- Like nothing before...
Johnblegen96February 19, 2018 at 17:59#1547760 likes
Comments (121)
Should a government be run by morals?
But is it efficient if people are opposed to that government, eg. Fascism.
You mean, morally opposed?
Run by, no.
Constrained by, yes.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes morally opposed, and also opposed due to the oppression of that "tyrant".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Aren't they the same thing, you cannot run something without having restrictions, unless we are talking about anarchy. A government and the way it is run is defined by it's restrictions and the ways it applies it.
Quoting Cavacava
What do you mean by democracy. Democracy just means the right to vote but there are many different forms of democracy, please specify.
There are currently 123 democracies in the world of all 192 countries.
I am thinking of democracy as an ideal form of government, not any specific specimen, and again one where rule of law, justice and legitimacy are apparent. Can you suggest a better one?
The best form of goverment would be that which best balances libertarianism with authoritarianism. The balance between state controll and personal freedom. I do not know which form of goverment gets this balance best.
I agree, but what morals should govern the restrictions we create and the things we make legal and liberal.
But you have simply said nothing.
It's much easier to identify undesirable or "bad actions" (actions which morally we ought not perform) than it is to identify "good actions" (actions which we morally ought to perform).
I can tell you how to live a moral life (per my view at least) by giving you some basic ideas about what not to do, but I cannot give to you a set of positive actions which I think you are required to perform in order to remain moral.
I believe that economic and other policies of a government must adapt to the circumstances they exist in, and so even if I did have some bright ideas about the most moral governmental actions, I could not predict how changing circumstances might alter their efficacy.
Suggest a better model or crap off.
Yet you yourself have not provided a definition so you are not helping build up a philosophical discussion. What do you think democracy is?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This does not answer the original question. Everyone alsready understands that morals affect how a government is run, you do not have to tell us this. What I am asking is which morals should we have, which ones are the best for a good government.
Don't patronize me, you can look it up. The OP asked for the best form of government and I think it is a democratic one. Like I said if you think there is a better one then out with it.
Just give an example of the best form of democracy.
Quoting Slobodan Miloševi?
All I'm asking is which form of democracy do you think is the best and why?
If democracy was not the best form of government then you guys would be mentioning other forms of government, I think. As far as the best example of a democratic form of government, it would be the one which is fair to all citizens. ruled by laws, and legitimately reflective of its population's will.
But what kind of laws are you talking about, which morals would rule them? What do you consider fair?
All democracies are constituted by laws, both traditional like English Common Laws and by laws that have been constructed, by statute. Or are you now asking for the purpose of laws? To my mind the laws that constitute a government circumscribe a normative morality, a sense of fairness, and not the other way around.
Quoting Cavacava
I'm not asking you to define laws, I'm asking you to give examples of laws.
There is no one best set of particular morals for all environments across all of time.
Different factors can render different policies and approaches to civilization more and less beneficial/potentially harmful, and unfortunately changes in circumstances can outright break our individual capacity to adhere to any particular moral position.
Hanging someone for stealing a cow in today's world is considered to be murder (and it is), but in, say, frontier America, killing a captured cattle rustler was in some senses necessary for survival on an isolated ranch with no safety net or prison system.
The allowance, and to what extent, of individuals to own and control vast swaths of land and resources is another moral dilemma that comes with varying moral weight given different circumstances. The degree of wealth disparity and resource scarcity seems to more or less determine how justified an individual would be in seizing the wealth of their economic betters. But in a world with more affluence and freedom than ever, ought we equalize all accounts in order to alleviate the pangs of the wealth gap in the same way that widespread starvation would justify?
Should we have capital punhishment? Which industries should be owned and operated by the government? Should our justice system merely seek to remove threats to society and deter others from being a threat or should it seek to reform individuals if we have the resources and capacity to do so?
The relevant question worth answering is "what is the ideal form of government for today's world?".
Off the bat I can tell you that since it takes so much debate and discussion to come to agreeable answers, some form of voting system would probably best to approximate our consensus. At the same time, we want to be very cautious not to have a gung-ho government who just rushes ahead with whatever idea pops into it's head, so we need to create some very basic and agreed upon set of rules and standards which the government itself cannot infringe upon (rationally this would include not interfering unfairly with our voting process, and some basic set of individual rights and freedoms we think we all can afford and deserve to have).
I've got host of more specific political views, but they take up too much space to lay out here. A democratic system with a constitution (a set of restrictions on government) of some kind is the closest thing we have to ideal largely because it can change according to our growing understanding and our changing needs.
Civil, criminal, international, municipal laws?
Not really very sure what you are asking? Laws typical protect freedoms, rights such as those outlined in the Bill of Rights here in US...freedom of speech, right to protect oneself, to petition....
I think a democratic government is superior because it ideally able to address issues justly/fairly for the majority of the most diverse segments of a population, those who are advanced, the elite in society as well as the most needy, the destitute and poor in society.
I'll give you an example, what is the best government for the U.S.A?
Quoting Cavacava
Define a right.
As i recall, I'm the one asking the questions
This is a conversation, not an interrogation and as such you ought to contribute to it.
Amigo, which question.
Of course it is a conversation but before we can proceed we need a definition.
Have to split....I'll try to catch up latter or in am
@Sigmund Freud
Since you are both so keen on a definition why dont you provide it and we can wrok on it from there
Sure thing. Hope to talk to you soon.
I shall, a right is something that a person is entitled to no matter what.
A right is not only meant to protect them but also give them a decent standard of living.
A right is also supposed to restrict people from taking certain actions.
The state must make sure these rights are upholded.
An example of an undeniably important right is the right to life, or the right not to be murdered.
Quoting Wayfarer
Fair point, however the majority could go against a minority in what is called the tyranny of the mob, and the minority have no say in their fate. How can we stop this from happening?
I would argue a republic is better than a democracy as a republic has checks in place to protect the individual citizen's rights.
Quoting Wayfarer
Also, I have already stated that there is no ideal government in my question, I want to know what the best government is.
Who says that a democracy can't be a republic, in fact most democracies are republics
Democracies are not republics we just generally use the wrong vocabulary, calling democracies republics is technically wrong
r??p?bl?k/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Quoting Sigmund Freud
Democracy is not really a form of government, but a framework which enables the choice of a form of government. The Westminster System of the UK, and the Presidential system of the USA, are forms of democratic government that are similar in some respects, different in others.
But if you remove the ability of the citizenry to elect representatives, then what alternatives can be considered, and by whom? Who will be deciding what government is, and what it should do, if it's not the inhabitants of the nation being governed.
Quoting Slobodan Miloševi?
But that still makes a republic different to a democracy. A republic uses democratic ideas just as Communism uses fascist ideas yet you would not compare Communism to Fascism.
So the ancient greeks had no form of goverment? They got as close to democracy as humans have ever been. I would say the ancient greeks were governed democratically.
I think you contradicted yourself there:
First you said
Quoting Wayfarer
Then you said
Quoting Wayfarer
First you say democracy is the least worst form of government, now your saying that it isn't a government at all but a framework. Why did you contradict yourself.
It's not a contradiction. 'Democracy' is a way of choosing various forms of government. You can have democracies that operate along completely different lines - it could be a constitutional monarchy, it could be a republic, and so on. So these are different forms of government, but what these different forms have in common is that political and legislative power reside in elected representatives. So - is that 'a form of government'? I suppose democracy a system of government. And if the question is, 'is there a better system of government than democracy', my answer would be: name one. What kind of system of government might be better than a system where the citizenry elects representatives.
Quoting T?mati w?ka nene
Except that women and slaves weren't allowed to vote, which is a major divergence from what we would consider 'democracy' isn't it?
In the US, and elsewhere, there is critical but informal representation of large monied interests in the lobbies of the Senate and House (not quite literally). The informal representatives, arriving with briefcases full of money, are called "lobbyists". They help representatives write legislation that affects their business areas (like health care), and they underwrite the elected representatives next election -- or the last one, if it isn't paid for yet.
There is also the permanent government -- which isn't elected. It's the various administrative and military branches of government that continue uninterrupted decade to decade.
The official system, elected representative government, is more or less pure and wholesome. The unofficial system where money buys policy is a system of deep corruption. Since it is conducted under the table, people do not receive daily reports on its activities. Besides being conducted under the table, the meetings are not open to people who are not playing the game. It's very much a "pay to play" system.
The unofficial system of government in the US is the foundation and cause of our extremely expensive health care system.
That's the substance. Never mind the form.
The "best" government is not knowable by us because America is too complex. If you ask a chess grandmaster what the best chess strategy is, they won't be able to tell you. They can only tell you what is the best strategy they happen to know.
The American government gets some things right and some things wrong. I can tell you where what what improvements can be made, but i cannot tell you what the very best economic path forward is, or what would be the best judicial/penal system, or exactly what electoral reforms would promote the health of American democracy, but here are some suggestions:
Overhaul the prison system and de-privatize it. Focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Abolish the electoral college and ensure fair national coverage for more than just the two main parties.
Ensure universal healthcare.
Nationalize the energy sector and invest heavily in alternatives to fossil fuel based energy sources and delivery technology.
Eventually prepare to offer a universal income as automation and artificial intelligence begins to represent a greater and greater share of more and more of the overall wealth production.
Many of the above proposed changes are highly controversial and are fraught with dilemmas, but at the very least i think they represent better or soon to be better "forms" for the American government to take. These are only national policies though, as international politics (and it's moral ramifications) are an entirely different can of worms.
Quoting NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Asking "what is the ideal form of government for America" must then entail a discussion about particular policies if we're to move beyond "a democratic one" as an answer.
"A government that serves the people, can adapt, and improve" is a great answer but it doesn't serve us much unless we're debating whether or not to defenestrate democracy. As I said, a useful answer to the question about what kind of government we should have (with useful specificity that is) entails addressing specific policies in the context of specific political, economic, and social circumstances.
Apparently, according to what I have been reading, elites have never trusted common people with any role in government and some of today's elites are taking that to the extreme of saying that democracy is a failure and that we need powerful AI to replace all humans in the job of governing.
Me, ruling you all.
"Kneel!
Is this not simpler? Is this not your natural state? It is the unspoken truth of humanity - that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes you life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
-Loki to the humans in the Avengers movie.
A contradiction in terms. :s
Whichever one the people being governed trust the most.
I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that AI ought to govern, I think that idea is science fiction. But certainly democracy is under threat, it's even openly questioned in this Forum. Hey I can see a lot wrong with democracies in practice, but again, what are the alternatives? Look at China - their human rights record is appalling. Hundreds of human rights lawyers have been jailed or simply disappeared over the last few years in China - try and bring that up as a Chinese citizen, and expect a knock at the door. Russia is a democracy only in name - one reason Putin has such high approval ratings is because opinions are monitored, disapprove, and expect a knock at the door.
Actually, the main reason Plato was against democracy was because of the threat of demagogues seizing power:
Does that ring any bells?
I take a slightly different view. I think rights must be good, derivative of what is just and fair which are incorporated into legitimate practices, not just ideals (Plato). Justice is a value which is only available in a democracy, a way to make relationships between men un-arbitrary.
Yea, I agree with that in a democracy policies are inclusive, they apply as much to those in power as they apply to those who are powerless. There is no one or group above the policies that people have constructed as policy and they have accepted. Justice as a value, is only possible in a democratic form of government.
>:O - the citizens never choose what gets done anyway in a democracy. Those given the buttons do ;)
Quoting Wayfarer
A monarch, who, unlike a democratically elected leader, is there for life, and hence doesn't have to take decisions for the short-term so that he gets elected the next time around, but can rather take the decisions required to maintain the stability of his country so that he can leave his country in a good state, and pass it on his descendants.
A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country. The whole interest is to take as much as possible as quickly as possible away from the country, because he doesn't own it. He doesn't care for the country, he just wants to profit from it for the short time it is in his hands.
So that explains why you go into bat for The Donald.
Quoting Agustino
Strange, I thought the Soviet Union had fallen.
Neither democracy, nor dictatorship, nor benevolent pisspot can effectively plan for a future beyond the human horizon -- which is, generally, not very distant. There are some examples of long range planning:
The Dutch plan for the long run because their existence as a nation in a bowl (20' below sea level in some places, with the ocean lapping up against their bowl) absolutely requires them to think about long-term trends. Maybe they think in terms of a century.
A few people plant hardwoods. A maple, an oak, a walnut, a butternut, a birch, all take at least 60 years to produce nice wood. 80 more likely. In those 60 years, some attention needs to be paid to the trees.
Weedy conifers mature in maybe 30 years -- fast enough to replant clear cut forests with re-harvest in mind (for paper, oriented strand-board, etc.) Even greedy companies can manage that.
Outside of examples like that, we do not--maybe can not--look down the road much more than a quarter century.
A monarch who is above the law is a sad conception. The justice of a tyrant can never, in principal or in fact can be just or fair, even when the it does social good. I think this conception is derivative from the absolute program of religions which are all about the existence of God on earth.
Surely if we had one genius and clearly benevolent central ruler who could just cut through any and all red tape we would be living the utopic dream before we knew it! Who was that old dude from "Gladiator" (2000)? One of those guys!
Obviously Musk is too busy God Emperoring Mars, so who else among us is ready to accept the most humble and graceful mantle of "philosopher king" that we, the unwashed masses, so sorely and deeply yearn for?
I sometimes fantasize about winning a megalottery and how I would spend it on promoting and experimenting with "good causes". Does that qualify me?
I'm sold. And if anyone disagrees, I've got my pitch fork handy!
That's not far from Plato's conception of 'philosopher kings' - sages beyond self-interest, who possess the wisdom and skills to steer the populace in the right direction. Terrific idea, but they might be in short supply, and how would they be nominated? Elon Musk is an inspiring character, but his erstwhile business partner, Peter Theil, seems a lot less so.
Tut, tut, :)
Justice by fiat is not just, it is arbitrary, a secularized form of divine command theory.
Exactly.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, you thought wrong ;)
I think it's quite the other way around. Elon Musk is the dummy - he's good with science, and not even that really - he's good with putting others to work. Peter Thiel is actually a philosopher (he graduated as one), and I've read all his writings, they're some of the best writings on business there exist. His book Zero to One is especially good, one of my favorite business books of all time.
Peter Thiel clearly knows and understands the world in a deep way, whereas Musk is just your cool wannabe teenager who wants to impress others. I still remember a story about him crashing a very expensive car while trying to show off. I read that he once read Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. and them dismissed all of them as nonsense.
Quoting Wayfarer
Exactly, getting rid of democracy would be a great gift that Trump could give the world.
:s So I wasn't showing my true colors here:
Quoting Agustino
Is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist too? :s
He said he is not a democrat, and he favored monarchy as well. I guess he's a fascist too.
You should really know that you're only putting yourself to shame by seeking to enforce the false dichotomy of democracy or fascism. There have been many non-democratic regimes - for thousands of years - which weren't fascist. Fascism is a particular outgrowth of 20th century politics in Europe, that's all.
But of course Wayfarer - keep peddling your 1960s pink pony hippie stuff ;)
I'm waiting till you start citing these very people soon in your answers, as you often do.
Such as?
Hart says 'one can at least sympathise' - hardly a ringing endorsement.
Such as the Roman Empire.
No, I perfectly sympathise with Tolkein's aversion to modernity. I read The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings, last year, and most enjoyed it (Barfield's my favorite). The point is, which you refuse to see, is that if there is no democracy, then it's not actually even possible to have 'a forum'. Why? Because there is no scope for disagreement, for differing views or opinions. There is only The Truth, and those, presumably yourself, who represent it, and the others, who are wrong.
Many things about modern 'culture', so-called, are clearly wrong, corrupt, and so on. Western culture, overall, is loosing its collective mind. If you were going to say that, then I might even agree. But the reason I say you're advocating fascism, is because your attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition or dissent, which is essential to democracy.
But you don't sympathise with Tolkien's view of democracy? We were talking about his view of democracy, not modernity mind you.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's not true. The voice of the people existed and was taken into account in most non-democratic regimes through history.
Quoting Wayfarer
:s nope. Democracy doesn't have a monopoly on enabling the presence of disagreement.
Quoting Wayfarer
You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition... here you are opposing me! Eppur si muove as Galilei said!
Quoting Wayfarer
Most non-democratic regimes in history didn't involve the knock at the door at midnight. In fact, in Chinese history, the knock at the door at midnight was usually the sign that some dynasty was about to come to an end :P
Quoting Wayfarer
The reason why I'm being vague is because your question is silly. Most of the regimes that have ever existed on earth have been monarchies probably. All the Chinese dynasties, the Roman Empire, the french and british monarchies, and so on so forth :s - that's why when you ask for examples it sounds very strange.
Put this another way - if I owned this forum, you think I'd ban you for opposing me or something? :s In fact, this forum as it is isn't a democracy at all.
Well, no, I don't.
Quoting Agustino
It has a means of enabling it.
Quoting Agustino
Because that is what democracy is.
Quoting Agustino
Many people used to die of curable diseases before middle age.
You have no alternative system or proposal. All you're doing is expressing your feelings. And again, the country I live in is still technically a constitutional monarchy, and also a democracy.
Ahhh okay! :D So he's a fascist? :P
Quoting Wayfarer
But it doesn't have a monopoly on the means?
Quoting Wayfarer
Democracy =/ principled opposition. Really - that's not the definition of democracy.
Quoting Wayfarer
Okay - what's this got to do with monarchies?
The point is that democratic systems allow for principled opposition. The electorate gets a say in who will govern, but those who don't agree get a say in opposing the government. Under an authoritarian system, the opposition don't get any say. Sometimes they appear to have a say but in most cases they will only act as a rubber-stamp opposition. That is what I mean by 'principled opposition' - it's a system which allows for a diversity of viewpoints instead of imposing what some autocratic ruler or party says is right. Whatever its flaws, democracy has to be better than that; again, look at China.
Maybe you're not advocating fascism, but you are advocating some form of authoritarianism. But to say that you hope Trump succeeds in destroying democracy is a really creepy thing to say. I know governments and politicians are often dreadful, but the alternative you're suggesting don't represent any kind of real alternative; the world is not going to return to a monarchy. You said the other day you're the 'black sheep', what I think you're longing for, is a shephard. ;-)
"In particular, it is supposed, a hundred million dollars from Peter Thiel put toward the project of making a benevolent super-AI will do far more to improve the world than any political movement, since the first super-AI will, in Yudkowsky’s view, be the last form of government humans will ever know. AI is either the solution to all of humanity’s problems, or its final solution..." -- Problems of Transhumanism: Liberal Democracy vs. Technocratic Absolutism
But this elects misogynists and racists and other foul creatures, :’(
But you can make educated guesses based on history and nuanced judgment. Ultimately I think we have to get rid of Corporations and State Governments as they exist today and set up some sort of deliberative democratic system, and it has to be a form of global cooperation (I mentioned corporations because I don't see the economic system as completely separate from governments if we're going to talk about who decides the rules in how society is structured)
Does this count as possible?
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ai-algorithm-teaches-humans-how-to-collaborate
The ideal government would be one freely chosen by its people through open and non-coercive means (e.g. rational discussion/debate).
Government without a state. A decentralized network of independent, collaborative and consensual collections of democratically-elected individuals with term limits and limited powers.
- Like nothing before...
National Socialism is effective but not efficient -- German jokes notwithstanding.
Ideal government would be a government maximising negative liberty.