Non-partisan political question here.

This one is just for fun. If we took popular democracy where everyone gets a vote off the table, what do you think the best way to run a government would be?

Pure monocratic autocracy?
Oligarchy of nobility?
Oligarchy of money?
Military rule?
Limited democracy where only certain classes get a vote?

Would it be good to be one big, single nation?
An empire with numerous provinces?
A federation or confederation of semiautonomous states?
A return to city-states?

There have been so many different ways to run things over the years. It's just that right now we happen to be mostly democratic or semi-democratic republics.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

elVato · 46-50, M

🤔 I read in quite a few places, as warped as this sounds, that monarchies tend to benefit the people more than said democracies.
It's in the monarch's best interests to have healthy, happy, educated citizens because it makes life better for the monarch - economically & politically. This form of govt can lead to absolute corruption as well, though, with the usual result being the general population overturning the monarch's rule. Then there's a 50/50 chance what comes out of the revolution is worse that what was there. The USA's experiments in nation building in Iraq and Libia pretty much prove this out, plus we have the ghost of Robespierre.

Sadly, in democracies, when they usually turn into oligarchies, like our nation is now, it's best for those in power if the people are uneducated, miserable and scared. It's keeps the people in check. There's also the spectre of the 'tyranny of the masses', which is the other end of the failure of a democracy.

The founders wanted a replublic, something that splits the difference between a true democracy and an autocratic/oligarchy of nobility, but I'm afraid that Franklin's warning about 'Keeping our republic' is coming true, for the worse.

Any country run by the military usually has a short, miserable and shameful legacy.

Dunno, just some random observations. I am not advocating any form over another at this point in this suck-ass life.

View 1 more replies »

MistyCee

@elVato Those are some good observations, IMO. No government of men will never be perfect, because men aren't perfect.

I think we're better off having a mediocre, but relatively stable government than an arbitrary and unstable one. The rest is icing on the cake, mostly.

elVato · 46-50, M

@Xuan12 Our nation since, oh, about the 70's has relied on the petro-dollar to stay afloat. With China and the petro-Yuan starting to take off, our cash cow days are numbered. We whittled away all of our manufacturing, a service economy is a fake and unsustainable.

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@elVato Well, a commodity economy is also unsustainable. Resource reserves run out eventually. Then the big ticket will be salvage and recycling! Post-apocolypse, here we come!

MistyCee

I'd go with some kind of proto-democracy thing I guess, like an oligarchy but some kind of avenue for trade guilds to have their say or something.

View 3 more replies »

MistyCee

@Xuan12 That's pretty much how it would work, I guess. Honestly, I think balance, flexibility and stability are the most important things in government in general.

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@MistyCee Flexibility and Stability 😓 Not sure how I'm going to work that one out.

MistyCee

@Xuan12 Hey, it if was easy, we'd have figured it out a long time ago. I think checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. are relly important, and frankly, a flexible government is more likely to bend than break, and thus be more stable.

I'm really a fan of limited intrusion of government into people's lives. It needs to do its thing for the common good, but it also needs to not get in the way of people doing what people do, raising their families and living their lives.

Cierzo · M

Small city-states where peopke know each other, oligarchy of nobility.

View 3 more replies »

Cierzo · M

@Xuan12 A combination of both. Hereditary monarchy as a symbol of the permanence of the state in time, surrounded with a meritocratic council.

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@Cierzo I'm not sure I would agree with that, unless the size and power of nation was reduced. Having such a figure as a king of a nation as powerful as the USA seems like a recipe for disaster to me. But if nations were smaller and weaker on average than they are now, I think it might be workable.

Cierzo · M

@Xuan12 The ideal nation for me is the city-state, not the monstruous states we have today. But not only are we far from that ideal, but getting further with global institutions like EU, so nowadays I take a realistic stand and support nation-state against them.

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

What does, "...everyone gets a vote off the table..." mean?

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@HoraceGreenley In most modern democracies, every citizen regardless of race, religion, gender, or other conditions or associations gets a vote to participate in electing leadership. But if for some reason we were reforming our structure of governance where this broad application of suffrage was not going to be used, what kind of system would you replace it with?

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

I would see a voting qualification of some kind as an option. Either a period of national service to qualify. or Property ownership has been used. But something that says you have a stake in the nation

Add a comment...