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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@elVato I think one big factor is what the nation's source of wealth is. Nations that rely on taxation of a productive workforce want that workforce to be educated and healthy, for the sake of productivity and hence taxes and so on.

Nations with highly concentrated economies, such as nations which rely on mostly a single commodity for their wealth, are intensely more susceptible to corruption. Like if your nation's wealth depends on gold, then everything that isn't directly related to mining, refining, and selling gold is a secondary concern in terms of material wealth. And if you're not producing an enormous excess of profit from that one commodity, other facets of your nation and society will suffer first.

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!