What is the "best" form of government according to your principles

[Kodos]

In my ultra reactionary vein I tend to be a fan of post 30 years war( semi secular) monarchy.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_gibbon_1_7_1.htm


Of the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master.

In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us, that in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous part of the people. The army is the only order of men sufficiently united to concur in the same sentiments, and powerful enough to impose them on the rest of their fellow-citizens; but the temper of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and to slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal, or even a civil constitution. Justice, humanity, or political wisdom, are qualities they are too little acquainted with in themselves, to appreciate them in others. Valor will acquire their esteem, and liberality will purchase their suffrage; but the first of these merits is often lodged in the most savage breasts; the latter can only exert itself at the expense of the public; and both may be turned against the possessor of the throne, by the ambition of a daring rival.

The superior prerogative of birth, when it has obtained the sanction of time and popular opinion, is the plainest and least invidious of all distinctions among mankind. The acknowledged right extinguishes the hopes of faction, and the conscious security disarms the cruelty of the monarch. To the firm establishment of this idea we owe the peaceful succession and mild administration of European monarchies. To the defect of it we must attribute the frequent civil wars, through which an Asiatic despot is obliged to cut his way to the throne of his fathers. -Gibbon







If you must have voting I prefer a system with the bulk of the voting being done by midde/upper-middle class men...

[Keystone]

In my ultra reactionary vein I tend to be a fan of post 30 years war( semi secular) monarchy.

If you must have voting I prefer a system with the bulk of the voting being done by midde/upper-middle class men...
Afraid of the unwashed masses, eh Otto?......:D

I'd actually prefer a monarchy. Our "democracy" has been for sale to the highest bidder for a long time.

Which American family would you hand the reigns of power over to? Would we have to import experienced nobles?

[tempus fugit]

The American Government with the following types of provisions (just off the top of my head):

1) Must be third generation or more to vote
2) Instead of jail time, first generation and illegals are simply deported
3) Immigration will immediately cease
4) Anyone receiving gov't benefits may not vote
5) Mentally retarded may not vote.
6) Gov't workers may not unionize.
7) Death Row is no more. In one year, we do DNA testing on all Death Row inmates. If they are shown to be guilty, they hang at dawn. (This is the policy thereafter as well.)
8) Prison sentence for hiring illegal immigrants.

Probably some others, but I think these would stabilize and correct a number of issues I have with things right now.

[Berianidze]

Democracy will have to be a plague of the past, something future generations will have to realize for its inherent flaws and inefficiency. The best form of government is a socialist "police state." I use this term lightly because by police state I don't mean the prototypical 1984 Orwellian conception, but rather, a state in which overwhelmingly statist initiatives are made on behalf of public and state security. I look to the 1930's Soviet Union as the ideal state; a state that is actively purging subversive elements from within its ranks, while actively directing the economy. I think the executive, legislative, and judicial branches should exert some autonomy, but in times of crisis and particularly in an immediate post-revolutionary era, ultimate power should be in the hands of the executive.

Naturally a bureaucracy would exist, but internal review commissions and police should be regulating and keeping the bureaucracy in check, while operating autonomously from other areas of government. Ideally, the secret police would also be autonomous, but closely linked to executive forces (as they should be given the most authority as opposed to 'checks and balances.'

Finally, attempts should be made to create an ideological homogenous society, that of which is free of subversive and opporunistic factions, obvious capitalist deviants, and other politically undesirables. A one-party state is optimal, naturally.

[Keystone]

Naturally a bureaucracy would exist, but internal review commissions and police should be regulating and keeping the bureaucracy in check, while operating autonomously from other areas of government. Ideally, the secret police would also be autonomous, but closely linked to executive forces (as they should be given the most authority as opposed to 'checks and balances.'
Secret police. What might their duties be?
Finally, attempts should be made to create an ideological homogenous society, that of which is free of subversive and opporunistic factions, obvious capitalist deviants, and other politically undesirables. A one-party state is optimal, naturally.
Endless tinkering means a bigger and bigger bureaucracy---the watchers needed to watch the watchers. That is miserable.

[Hakluyt]

pre-Hegelian statism (you might call it Hobbesian but it is much more of a synthesis) centred around a Constitutional Monarchy (hereditary), and a parliament with a strongly empowered Upper House (aristocratic bicameralism)

I am also in favour of a technocratic arm of government, though completely servile (perhaps with identical authorities to that which the House of Commons has under proper aristo-bicameralism - or subject to the HoC in the same way the HoC is in turn subject to the Senate/House of Lords), so as to rein in the negative effects of technocracy when left to the whims of the market and apolitical society in general. The necessity of such will become more obvious within the next few generations

If you must have voting I prefer a system with the bulk of the voting being done by midde/upper-middle class men...
traditional bicameralism can deal with it, full suffrage for the lower house but no votes for the upper house

[Excorcism]

Democracy. I'm not sure whether Social or Liberal.

[Keystone]

pre-Hegelian statism (you might call it Hobbesian but it is much more of a synthesis) centred around a Constitutional Monarchy (hereditary), and a parliament with a strongly empowered Upper House (aristocratic bicameralism)

I am also in favour of a technocratic arm of government, though completely servile (perhaps with identical authorities to that which the House of Commons has under proper aristo-bicameralism - or subject to the HoC in the same way the HoC is in turn subject to the Senate/House of Lords), so as to rein in the negative effects of technocracy when left to the whims of the market and apolitical society in general. The necessity of such will become more obvious within the next few generations
I think I agree with you, but it would take many Googles to be sure.

Could you translate that into American vernacular?.......:o

[Kodos]

centred around a Constitutional Monarchy (hereditary), and a parliament with a strongly empowered Upper House (aristocratic bicameralism)

The monarch should have some real power and not be a showpiece for tourist as the British monarchy has become( although technically the British monarch still wields all the power the monarchs got back after the restoration).

I think political parties should be banned altogether... I wouldn't have a one party state I'd have a no party state.

[Berianidze]

centred around a Constitutional Monarchy (hereditary), and a parliament with a strongly empowered Upper House (aristocratic bicameralism)

The monarch should have some real power and not be a showpiece for tourist as the British monarchy has become( although technically the British monarch still wields all the power the monarchs got back after the restoration).

Something like the Meiji monarchy in Imperial Japan?

[Fade the Butcher]

For lack of a better phrase, technocratic idealism: rule by professional statesmen.

[Kodos]

I look to the 1930's Soviet Union as the ideal state; a state that is actively purging subversive elements from within its ranks, while actively directing the economy.

You do know most of the early purges were Stalin killing most of the old commie true believers and replacing them with engineers and technocrats, so they'd probably be killing your ass :D.

[Keystone]

centred around a Constitutional Monarchy (hereditary), and a parliament with a strongly empowered Upper House (aristocratic bicameralism)

The monarch should have some real power and not be a showpiece for tourist as the British monarchy has become( although technically the British monarch still wields all the power the monarchs got back after the restoration).
Ya, but which family gets the nod? The Kennedys? The Bushes? The Waltons? How is this decided? We don't have those cool medieval wars of succession to settle things.

[Jaybird]

A government that minds its own fuckin' business.

[Berianidze]

I look to the 1930's Soviet Union as the ideal state; a state that is actively purging subversive elements from within its ranks, while actively directing the economy.

You do know most of the early purges were Stalin killing most of the old commie true believers and replacing them with engineers and technocrats, so they'd probably be killing your ass :D.

I don't agree with the orthodox Trotskyite line of communism; I approve of state-socialism, it's the dictatorship part of "dictatorship of the proletariat" that truly speaks to me :D

[Hakluyt]

Something like the Meiji monarchy in Imperial Japan?
As far as parliamentary structure yes, though the Emperor didn't actually have much power himself if I recall

I think I agree with you, but it would take many Googles to be sure.

Could you translate that into American vernacular?.......
Basically as much power as possible in the hands of people who have real, lasting reasons to care about their country, based in family, ideals, or otherwise, and within a structure that doesn't require them to constantly whore themselves for office

[Kodos]

Ya, but which family gets the nod? The Kennedys? The Bushes? The Waltons? How is this decided? We don't have those cool medieval wars of succession to settle things.

Thats a big problem for us none of ours are worth currently...

Definitely not the Kennedies . No catholics anyway...

"it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince".

[Berianidze]

As far as parliamentary structure yes, though the Emperor didn't actually have much power himself if I recall

If I can remember, the emperor himself was given divine status, as well quite a bit of power. Although most of the country was run by the oligarchs who simply used the emperor Meiji (in 1868 only a child) as a means of legitimizing themselves against the Tokugawa, but the parliamentary aspect of the government (the Diet) had very little power; I believe their only REAL power was setting a budget. The Imperial House held much of the power, and while it was the oligarchs and military leaders who did much of the governing, they were in fact only allowed to make up a cabinet upon Imperial approval, or so I can recall. There's a good book by an old professor of mine, called Hirohito: and the Making of Modern Japan, by Herbert P. Bix, it's not bad and it actually talks about how, particularly after the Meiji Restoration, emperors had a lot more power than previously perceived.

[Keystone]

A government that minds its own fuckin' business.
There ain't no such thing! I'm leaning towards anarchy now! Who needs any of the bastards???!!!! Their business is control!

Let the rich mow their own lawns....or eat them!!

[Hakluyt]

There ain't no such thing! I'm leaning towards anarchy now! Who needs any of the bastards???!!!! Their business is control!

Let the rich mow their own lawns....or eat them!!
Google Hans-Hermann Hoppe for the anarchist argument in favour of monarchy

[Keystone]

Google Hans-Hermann Hoppe for the anarchist argument in favour of monarchy
I'm familiar with the gentleman, and I will.

Thanks.

[Hakluyt]

If I can remember, the emperor himself was given divine status, as well quite a bit of power. Although most of the country was run by the oligarchs who simply used the emperor Meiji (in 1868 only a child) as a means of legitimizing themselves against the Tokugawa, but the parliamentary aspect of the government (the Diet) had very little power; I believe their only REAL power was setting a budget. The Imperial House held much of the power, and while it was the oligarchs and military leaders who did much of the governing, they were in fact only allowed to make up a cabinet upon Imperial approval, or so I can recall. There's a good book by an old professor of mine, called Hirohito: and the Making of Modern Japan, by Herbert P. Bix, it's not bad and it actually talks about how, particularly after the Meiji Restoration, emperors had a lot more power than previously perceived.
I was always under the impression that the samurai and other oligarchs ran most of the show but I haven't read much about it... thx for teh recommendation

[Draco]

Volksgemeinschaft headed by a single leader and non-binding advisory council/cabinet with advancement based on merit, and harsh penalties for nepotism.

[Kodos]

Actually I'd rather pick an auto mechanic at random then just about anyone currently in American politics to be the 1st in the dynasty.

[Hakluyt]

Volksgemeinschaft headed by a single leader and non-binding advisory council/cabinet with advancement based on merit, and harsh penalties for nepotism.

How do you choose your leader? Hang out at beer halls and hope for the best?

[Kodos]

Volksgemeinschaft headed by a single leader and non-binding advisory council/cabinet with advancement based on merit, and harsh penalties for nepotism.

Non monarchial dictatorships have inevitably have horrible succession problems... thats gibbons point. Also in a monarchy only the founder of the dynasty has to rule( all the time) by terror and fear, in a dictatorship that has to be employed to some degree all the time.

[Berianidze]

Secret police. What might their duties be?

Endless tinkering means a bigger and bigger bureaucracy---the watchers needed to watch the watchers. That is miserable.

As for the secret police, they would be responsible for infiltrating subversive elements within society; using a vast network of informants and undercover agents to detect counterrevolutionary and anti-state sympathies and ideals. Their biggest concern, however, would be infiltrating the government itself and purges, also, they should play a substantial role in obtaining information useable as evidence in criminal cases, but this would be later explained in a detailed penal/civil code of socialist law.

The watchers will ultimately be watched by the party elites, whom shoudl remain unchanging and elected upon only by the governing body within the party itself, you can't have secret police getting out of control anymore than you can have one faction within a party securing too much control. Ideological homogeneity can be secured through less "bureaucratic" means, such as advnaced political socialization, utilizing families, peer groups, education*, military conscription, the workplace, etc.

[Kodos]

As for the secret police, they would be responsible for infiltrating subversive elements within society; using a vast network of informants and undercover agents

No thanks.

[Berianidze]

I was always under the impression that the samurai and other oligarchs ran most of the show but I haven't read much about it... thx for teh recommendation

The Meiji revolution of 1868 was perpetuated by a number of the Samurai class from Satsuma and other surrounding areas, however, it was the Tokugawa shogunate that was directed by samurai domination in government. The Meiji restoration included a move towards capitalist imperialism (such as the actions directed by Japan towards Korea against both China (1890's) and Russia (1904-5). The samurai for the most part were marginalized as a class after this point, particularly when the Imperiali house and the oligarchy turned more towards a reactionary period starting in the 1890's. The samurai were forced to join the newly modernized military apparatus built upon Western models and standards, or join the professional/merchant classes to adapt to the changing Japanese society. For centuries, the Tokugawa had made the emperor more of a figurehead (like a constitutional monarchy, without a constitution). IN fact, during Meiji times, up until after WW2, Japan was a rather strange constitutional monarchy; instead of making the emperor a figurehead, the Imperial Constitution had the opposite effect, it made the Diet (parliament) more of a figurehead for popular rights advocates, and handed most of the power to the Meiji (emperor) and his oligarchs in the imperial house and military chief of staff.

[Keystone]

The watchers will ultimately be watched by the party elites, whom shoudl remain unchanging and elected upon only by the governing body within the party itself, you can't have secret police getting out of control anymore than you can have one faction within a party securing too much control. Ideological homogeneity can be secured through less "bureaucratic" means, such as advnaced political socialization, utilizing families, peer groups, education*, military conscription, the workplace, etc.
So our precious little time here on earth, and our children's, should be spent perpetuating the government? You've got to be kidding. We already have a setup like that here in America which is a supposed democracy. Take your government and stuff it.

[Draco]

How do you choose your leader? Hang out at beer halls and hope for the best?

The leader will find his way there of course, or else he wouldn't be leader.

Whats this nonsense about "choosing"?

[Hakluyt]

A choice on the part of the establishment, I don't mean in the context of an election. Monarchs are an obvious exception, but leadership is generally not something that is desirable in and of itself.

[Keystone]

The leader will find his way there of course, or else he wouldn't be leader.
The Messiah! Of course. Just out of the blue. I take it that his arrival will cause people to get killed for his "cause", yes? Fearless Leader wouldn't lead us astray!
Whats this nonsense about "choosing"?
He would be Chosen by Fate? He's just coming along, you know. Miraculously.

[Vindex]

I would go the more Evola route of Radical Traditionism, I like National Socialism as it was based on natural Order, and was Aryan socialism ie looked out for all of the Peoples welfare. But with the exception of a few main leaders I would say most where the wrong types.

A state based on the eternal laws and run on a open caste system with a natural meritocacy bound by a high spiritual Aryan Tradition, the rulers should be a council of the highest and best of the people who have earned the right to be there and serve in the best interests of the whole. Excellence and virtue should be praised and the goal of constant spiritual and phyiscal evolution, towards Godhood should be the core of the Tradition. Like it once was along time ago.

I feel a person should be able to do what it is in there talent or nature to be and do without state interference in so much as it is not harmful to the People and they fulfil there duty to the Nation. In a healthy state they would be free to pursue there talent field and make a career out of it, thus putting it use for the greater good of the Folk.

All knowledge would be free, all univeristies would be free. And technology and spirituality would exist in a healthy balance.

I do not like the technology bad so lets go back and live like cavemen again attitude either. But I would like a society where money no longer needs to exist.

[Jonathan]

A system whereby the majority are enfranchised and actively participate in lobbying, and electing representatives so as to give them the impression that they are in control when in fact they are conforming to the political culture as set by the cognoscenti who run the political system in the general interest in reality - alot like the current system, only with different attitudes.

[Jonathan]

A system whereby the majority are enfranchised and actively participate in lobbying, and electing representatives so as to give them the impression that they are in control when in fact they are conforming to the political culture as set by the cognoscenti who run the political system in the general interest in reality - alot like the current system, only with different attitudes.
Probably some wild form of indirect multicameralism too.

[Kodos]

Bumpus fillerus.

[Berianidze]

A system whereby the majority are enfranchised and actively participate in lobbying, and electing representatives so as to give them the impression that they are in control when in fact they are conforming to the political culture as set by the cognoscenti who run the political system in the general interest in reality - alot like the current system, only with different attitudes.

Even if you are only interested in impressing upon people (falsely) that they are in fact given some sense of popular sovereignty, why at all would you want to continue with lobbying?? I would think this element of your society would weaken your goal of trying to make the public believe they are in control, when in fact lobbyists only further the belief that corporate America and business elites are controlling politics; unless that is actually what you hope to achieve.

[Jonathan]

Even if you are only interested in impressing upon people (falsely) that they are in fact given some sense of popular sovereignty, why at all would you want to continue with lobbying??
So that they are under the impression that they are influencing legislators.

I would think this element of your society would weaken your goal of trying to make the public believe they are in control
I would have thought the complete opposite. See above.

when in fact lobbyists only further the belief that corporate America and business elites are controlling politics; unless that is actually what you hope to achieve.
Would I be right in assuming that you equate lobbying with a business elite that pushes issues on politicains for less powerful individuals?

By lobbying I just mean "promoting issues for legislation", I don't think it has anything to do with business elites necessarily.

[A. Radek]

I don't have any particular loyalty to any ideology; I think nearly all of them are appropriate depending on current circumstances. I would settle for an honest system run by honest people with common sense and the ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. If they're honest and sincerely work for the good of the public the best they can and they fail, well, they tried, no hard feelings, everybody fails at more than they will ever succeed at, nobody's perfect.

Democracy is no perfect system, neither is Republicanism, for the simple reason most people pick pols the same way they pick any other pro, by what they feel about them, not what they know; you can't tell if a doctor or an accountant is any good unless you're a doctor or accountant yourself. On the other hand, as a practical matter, there has to be some relatively peaceful means of deposing crooks and incompetents without burning the whole system down every 2 years, and there is little to replace elections in this regard. We're never going to achieve some ideal balance of power, so at least a limited ballot is necessary. It has to be a system that a majority believe in and will support, obviously, and how else can you determine that, except by secret ballot.

Meritocracies are a good idea; the problem is those who think they're the most 'meritorious' rarely actually are. The world is full of halfwits with high self-esteem. Kaiser Wilhelm II, The last Czar of Russia, and the Bush family are examples of this.

[The Retard]

What is the "best" form of government according to your principles

Tribal Socialism

[Leif]

Democracy will have to be a plague of the past, something future generations will have to realize for its inherent flaws and inefficiency. The best form of government is a socialist "police state." I use this term lightly because by police state I don't mean the prototypical 1984 Orwellian conception, but rather, a state in which overwhelmingly statist initiatives are made on behalf of public and state security. I look to the 1930's Soviet Union as the ideal state; a state that is actively purging subversive elements from within its ranks, while actively directing the economy. I think the executive, legislative, and judicial branches should exert some autonomy, but in times of crisis and particularly in an immediate post-revolutionary era, ultimate power should be in the hands of the executive.

Naturally a bureaucracy would exist, but internal review commissions and police should be regulating and keeping the bureaucracy in check, while operating autonomously from other areas of government. Ideally, the secret police would also be autonomous, but closely linked to executive forces (as they should be given the most authority as opposed to 'checks and balances.'

Finally, attempts should be made to create an ideological homogenous society, that of which is free of subversive and opporunistic factions, obvious capitalist deviants, and other politically undesirables. A one-party state is optimal, naturally.

---

I don't agree with the orthodox Trotskyite line of communism; I approve of state-socialism, it's the dictatorship part of "dictatorship of the proletariat" that truly speaks to me

---

As for the secret police, they would be responsible for infiltrating subversive elements within society; using a vast network of informants and undercover agents to detect counterrevolutionary and anti-state sympathies and ideals. Their biggest concern, however, would be infiltrating the government itself and purges, also, they should play a substantial role in obtaining information useable as evidence in criminal cases, but this would be later explained in a detailed penal/civil code of socialist law.

The watchers will ultimately be watched by the party elites, whom shoudl remain unchanging and elected upon only by the governing body within the party itself, you can't have secret police getting out of control anymore than you can have one faction within a party securing too much control. Ideological homogeneity can be secured through less "bureaucratic" means, such as advnaced political socialization, utilizing families, peer groups, education*, military conscription, the workplace, etc.

What are you, a CIA plant? These things were the greatest failures and excesses of the USSR brought on by the economic and political backwardness of Russia and foreign subversiveness. I don't see why anyone would view it as the "best" system. You do a disservice to those who attempt to create a balanced view of socialism by swallowing every ounce of Western propaganda.


My "best" government:

-A democracy, composed of all able-minded and working adults owns all property within a given territory and organizes all public spheres of life.

-The legal system is simplistic and understandable, similar to the "ten commandments."

-All citizens are obligated to participate, and thereby earn their citizenship.

[Anarch]

Citizenship is earned by three years of military service (which would be compulsory, e.g., as white South Africa was), after which part time military service is compulsory for all males over 21, with complted tertiary education as another requirement for citizenship, the alternative being a commissioned officer. Citizenship grants one the right to vote for the lower house of the legislature, the upper house being populated by aristocracy, e.g., the British House of Lords. Citizenship also grants one the basic rights to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Subjects of the nation (i.e. non-citizens, but those elegible to be citizens) would not possess the right to bear arms, would not have the right to work in the press, and freedom of speech would be a luxury for these people, not a right. The executive 'branch' of government would be invested in a Monarchy, which would have the right to declare war, peace, and conclude treaties, all of which would require ratification by the lower house. Outside of these three basic functions of the Monarchy, the ratification of laws and the maintanence of good government would be conducted by the primus inter pares of the House of Lords, nominated from and by the aristocracy, and then approved of by the citizenry by simple plebescite. The primus inter pares would then have the power of nominating his ministers who must then be approved of by the Monarch.

In short: a cross between Starship Troopers, South Africa's former (?) system, Switzerland and the British Empire.

[Jonathan]

the upper house being populated by aristocracy, e.g., the British House of Lords.
Where do the aristocracy come from?

[Anarch]

The leaders of the revolution.

[Kodos]

there has to be some relatively peaceful means of deposing crooks and incompetents without burning the whole system down every 2 years, and there is little to replace elections in this regard.

As Mencken says elections are where politicians sell the public out large out to blocs and special interests... they aren't good.

[Berianidze]

What are you, a CIA plant? These things were the greatest failures and excesses of the USSR brought on by the economic and political backwardness of Russia and foreign subversiveness. I don't see why anyone would view it as the "best" system. You do a disservice to those who attempt to create a balanced view of socialism by swallowing every ounce of Western propaganda.


My "best" government:

-A democracy, composed of all able-minded and working adults owns all property within a given territory and organizes all public spheres of life.

-The legal system is simplistic and understandable, similar to the "ten commandments."

-All citizens are obligated to participate, and thereby earn their citizenship.

False. The greatest state should be focused on law and orer and social/economic control. Your system relies way too heavily on public participation which is only going to lead your government to remain weak and maintain only marginal control over the population. It should be a government that is willing to make any sacrifice necessary to further the cause of socialism. I think a government should be in constant "internal warfare," that is, constantly taking a vigilant stance against members of the public and the government itself, avidly removing those whom don't conform to socialist principles. What I specifically referred to in my earlier post is a government in transition from the bourgeois liberal democracy to the proletarian dictatorship. Slowly and surely perhaps your vision of socialist society could be implemented, but it should be viewed with caution.

[Berianidze]

Would I be right in assuming that you equate lobbying with a business elite that pushes issues on politicains for less powerful individuals?

By lobbying I just mean "promoting issues for legislation", I don't think it has anything to do with business elites necessarily.

WHen I think of lobbying, I think more of the professional lobbyers, whom are hired and a lot of money to go down to Washington, D.C. and pressure congressmen, senators, etc. on behalf of their clients- businesses, corporations, wealthy special interests groups, etc.

[Kodos]

False. The greatest state should be focused on law and orer and social/economic control. Your system relies way too heavily on public participation which is only going to lead your government to remain weak and maintain only marginal control over the population.

Why is that bad?

[Jonathan]

The leaders of the revolution.
I don't think that's be such a good idea. Revolutionary elites tend to be better at just that - Revolution, rather than governance. I'd go further and suggest that alot of them would have a destabalising effect.

As for the posterity of such an elite, don't get me started.

[Jonathan]

Why is that bad?
It could lead to anarchy?

[Berianidze]

False. The greatest state should be focused on law and orer and social/economic control. Your system relies way too heavily on public participation which is only going to lead your government to remain weak and maintain only marginal control over the population.

Why is that bad?

Perhaps later on (in a post-revolutionary sense) but immediately after the workers/public can not be left to their own devices, they REQUIRE the leadership and direction of the vanguard, who will play an essential role in establishing legitimacy, order, sustainability, for the new state. It's not that people are entirely incapable of directing their own lives, it's just that it works entirely better (from my perspective) when the public is politicized in a way in which they embrace authority, embrace statism, and other virtues laid out by the state. Control over the population has to be maintained so we don't have instances of organized revolt by counter-revolutionary elements, and if any attempts at subversion are made, they can be dealt with quickly and efficiently. I don't think we'd have to go so far as martial law, except in the most extreme cases, I think a vigorous propaganda campaign coupled with elements of re-education programs would work nicely.

[Kodos]

It could lead to anarchy?

Don't move to Massachussetts we have too many totalitarian micks already...

[Kodos]

Why is socialism beyond some ad hoc planning to head off crisis down the road( like what should have been with energy way back in 1953 when America became a net oil importer) desirable?

[Kodos]

It could lead to anarchy?

Anarchy is what Somalia Afghanistan and Bosnia have, there hasn't been a western country that has experienced true anarchy since Russia during the last part of the 1st world war( right before the Bolsheviks seized power).

Germany had it very briefly before the Freikorps restored order.

[Jonathan]

Anarchy is what Somalia Afghanistan and Bosnia have, there hasn't been a western country that has experienced true anarchy since Russia during the last part of the 1st world war( right before the Bolsheviks seized power).

Germany had it very briefly before the Freikorps restored order.
I don't think there's any disagreement here Otto. The implication was that 'the masses' are not fit to rule. It was an interpretation of rice349's post. :)

EDITED: And no, I have no intention of going to Massachussetts any time soon.

[il ragno]

I'm come to believe that the type of government is less important than the quality of people in it.

I also think that the most pressing problem from a right here/right now standpoint superceding questions of governance and governing procedures is unrestrained multinational free-market capitalism. For instance, I think media giants with tentacles spread over a dozen "sovereign nations" is what put the quote marks there, and that cross-media ownership is even deadlier. Unfortunately I'm not the guy who can prescribe the cure, but I also think you don't need to be a surgeon to know that coughing up blood ain't a good sign; and when a CEO who can cut 30,000 American jobs, or replace them with half-price ringers from the third world, Concordes home to the refurbished castle in Ireland he lives in to duck taxes, there's gonna be sticky red phlegm on the nation's handkerchief.

I certainly don't want Communism, but so long as Western governments are the grinning handmaidens of corporate oligarchs, I can't see what fucking difference it makes which cosmetic differences you choose to tweak your McNation with.

[Kodos]

If its any consolation it will come back to bite the business class in the ass. They are using their money to set up their own eventual foreign competition which will be protected...

[Jonathan]

I'm come to believe that the type of government is less important than the quality of people in it.
This is exaclty why I put enphasis on the "political culture" of the enfranchised.

[OVERWATCH]

Global Beyondist (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/beyond01.html) [con]federation. Caste system. Leadership caste of cognitive elite, bound to oaths of poverty but cared for adequately by the State, although subject to impeachment and/or exile.

Abolition of 'one man-one vote' system, replaced with variable voting power per individual, determined by a host of factors, namely psychometic and academic testing.

Marginalisation of the power of religions of 'faith'; superceded by a global Beyondist (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/beyond01.html) ethos. Adoption of basic, universal human rights sans the modern concept of "reproductive rights", amongst others. Marginalisation of both the cults of egalitarianism and jingoism.

Global control of world trade and abolition of 'free trade'. Enviornmentalism.

[Anarch]

I don't think that's be such a good idea. Revolutionary elites tend to be better at just that - Revolution, rather than governance. I'd go further and suggest that alot of them would have a destabalising effect.

As for the posterity of such an elite, don't get me started.

It depends on the revolution, doesn't it?

[Slavic Enforcer]

Democracy.

[Blaphbee]

Democracy.
Democracy is inherently self-contradictory - you can't vote against democracy.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Democracy is inherently self-contradictory - you can't vote against democracy.

In my opinion, Democracy is still a lesser evil compared to Fashism, Stalinism, Nazism..

[jcs]

In my opinion, Democracy is still a lesser evil compared to Fashism, Stalinism, Nazism..
Worst justification for the support of something ever. :p

[Blaphbee]

In my opinion, Democracy is still a lesser evil compared to Fashism, Stalinism, Nazism..
*trembles while holding head between his hands* it's spelled "Fascism"....

EDIT: No offense Kash, but this illustrates the type of person who supports democracies. Yet another nail in its coffin.

[Slavic Enforcer]

EDIT: No offense Kash, but this illustrates the type of person who supports democracies. Yet another nail in its coffin.

What instead?

The best ideology ever is Communism, but there's no chance that REAL Communism will ever exist, we have seen and still see how it ends (worst case: Stalin, today: North Korea).

And so I prefer Democracy. I did never say that it's perfect, but in the end I have the chance to vote against guys like Bush and for a lesser evil. :)

[Member 198]

And so I prefer Democracy. I did never say that it's perfect, but in the end I have the chance to vote against guys like Bush and for a lesser evil. :)

WAIT... You're telling me that you actually think that who you vote for makes any difference at all? My God, you poor dear... :(

[Kodos]

And so I prefer Democracy. I did never say that it's perfect, but in the end I have the chance to vote against guys like Bush and for a lesser evil.

Keep telling yourself your vote makes a diffrence. No matter who you vote for the government always gets elected, and they always get elected by promising to multiply the laws and piss money away. Real problems never get solved because powerful interest with a bigger stake in the outcome can always block any reform...

[Slavic Enforcer]

WAIT... You're telling me that you actually think that who you vote for makes any difference at all? My God, you poor dear... :(

The differences are not very big but they are still there.

Nobody can tell me that with Al Gore as President the USA would lose their sons and lead a senseless war in Iraq today.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Real problems never get solved because powerful interest with a bigger stake in the outcome can always block any reform...

Well, that's the world we are living in.

But it's still 'better' than to have idiots like Hitler or Stalin as president for life.

[Kodos]

Well, that's the world we are living in.

But it's still 'better' than to have idiots like Hitler or Stalin as president for life.

I'd like a return to the sanity of hereditary monarchy...

[Slavic Enforcer]

My 2nd lesser evil is Titoism.

But for Titoism we would need a Josip Broz Tito. :)

[President Camacho]

I wish Jim Morrison was still alive, he'd be a great choice for inagural king.

[Kodos]

I wish Jim Morrison was still alive, he'd be a great choice for inagural king.

I think the Hohenzollerns are unemployed currently...

[Thomas777]

I'd like a return to the sanity of hereditary monarchy...

I am going to relate this to my "caste" thread, Otto:

How can it be guaranteed that the most superior specimins will always be produced by the royal family?

[Kodos]

I am going to relate this to my "caste" thread, Otto:

How can it be guaranteed that the most superior specimins will always be produced by the royal family?

It doesn't in fact they are likely to be inbred and in time inferior to the average commoner, the advantages of hereditary monarchy are those described by Gibbon at the beginning of the thread.

"Of the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master.

In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us, that in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous part of the people. The army is the only order of men sufficiently united to concur in the same sentiments, and powerful enough to impose them on the rest of their fellow-citizens; but the temper of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and to slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal, or even a civil constitution. Justice, humanity, or political wisdom, are qualities they are too little acquainted with in themselves, to appreciate them in others. Valor will acquire their esteem, and liberality will purchase their suffrage; but the first of these merits is often lodged in the most savage breasts; the latter can only exert itself at the expense of the public; and both may be turned against the possessor of the throne, by the ambition of a daring rival.

The superior prerogative of birth, when it has obtained the sanction of time and popular opinion, is the plainest and least invidious of all distinctions among mankind. The acknowledged right extinguishes the hopes of faction, and the conscious security disarms the cruelty of the monarch. To the firm establishment of this idea we owe the peaceful succession and mild administration of European monarchies. To the defect of it we must attribute the frequent civil wars, through which an Asiatic despot is obliged to cut his way to the throne of his fathers. Yet, even in the East, the sphere of contention is usually limited to the princes of the reigning house, and as soon as the more fortunate competitor has removed his brethren by the sword and the bowstring, he no longer entertains any jealousy of his meaner subjects. But the Roman empire, after the authority of the senate had sunk into contempt, was a vast scene of confusion. The royal, and even noble, families of the provinces had long since been led in triumph before the car of the haughty republicans. The ancient families of Rome had successively fallen beneath the tyranny of the Caesars; and whilst those princes were shackled by the forms of a commonwealth, and disappointed by the repeated failure of their posterity, it was impossible that any idea of hereditary succession should have taken root in the minds of their subjects. The right to the throne, which none could claim from birth, every one assumed from merit. The daring hopes of ambition were set loose from the salutary restraints of law and prejudice; and the meanest of mankind might, without folly, entertain a hope of being raised by valor and fortune to a rank in the army, in which a single crime would enable him to wrest the sceptre of the world from his feeble and unpopular master. After the murder of Alexander Severus, and the elevation of Maximin, no emperor could think himself safe upon the throne, and every barbarian peasant of the frontier might aspire to that august, but dangerous station. "

[Jonathan]

It depends on the revolution, doesn't it?
No, I don't think so. The posterity of great people tends to degenerate.

[B-Pep]

Some fusion between distrubitism, soviet socialism, and national/natural/spiritual/caste socialism.

Heavy industry should be planned by the state/an elite vanguard due to the fact that resources are finite and independent businesses are extremely incompetent and only interested in profit, even if it's at the expense at the community.

Land should be distributed fairly and all monopolies (known as corporations in the west) should be smashed. Small businesses should be encouraged and valued, due to the fact that they breed a sense of communalism.

Taxes on food, clothing, shelter, and all other necessities should be abolished. Taxing instead should be based on income.

Material values should be replaced by spiritual values, nationalism, and communalism. Profit and centering of economic efficiency in order to "compete" should be abolished.

Adventurism and learning should replace western forms of "fun" (IE, discotheques, whore houses, drug parties)