Best Governmental System?

[Entwhistler]

So, which System is the best? Democracy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, Kingship, Plutocracy…etc?
I know there can be arguments for and against all of them, but which one is the best overall? I’m trying to make up my own mind and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[GEddie]

Anarchy has been redefined as “chaos and violence.” Nobody wants that.

But in its original form, of human beings self-governing without the burden of s civil state, that’s not doable anytime this decamillennium.

Monarchy and dictatorship suffer from a lack of accountability to the governed; and monarchies suffer further from the vulnerabilities of human biology, and from the instability of stratified societies. In essence, in either one, if things go bad, there is no way out without killing people.

Plutocracy is the default state of all the other forms, but is too subject to corruption to
Be the ideal.

Ideally, for the protection of everybody, a democratic representational system works best.

ICXC NIKA

 

[esieffe]

Forbes Top 10 best governments in the world.

forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/11/29/the-worlds-10-most-responsible-governments/

1. Japan
2. Germany
3. Austria
4. The Netherlands
5. New Zealand
6. Australia
7. Finland
8. Norway
9. Sweden
10. Denmark

If you google the happiest countries in the world Denmark comes out on top followed by several of the other countries in this list.

 

[SWolf]

So, which System is the best? Democracy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, Kingship, Plutocracy…etc?
I know there can be arguments for and against all of them, but which one is the best overall? I’m trying to make up my own mind and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut.

Minarchy or Anarchy

J.R.R. Tolkien had interesting thoughts.

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to ‘King George’s council, Winston and his gang’, it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line.

But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that – after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world – is that it works and has worked only when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way. The quarrelsome, conceited Greeks managed to pull it off against Xerxes; but the abominable chemists and engineers have put such a power into Xerxes’ hands, and all ant-communities, that decent folk don’t seem to have a chance.

We are all trying to do the Alexander-touch – and, as history teaches, that orientalized Alexander and all his generals. The poor boob fancied (or liked people to fancy) he was the son of Dionysus, and died of drink. The Greece that was worth saving from Persia perished anyway; and became a kind of Vichy-Hellas, or Fighting-Hellas (which did not fight), talking about Hellenic honour and culture and thriving on the sale of the early equivalent of dirty postcards.

But the special horror of the present world is that the whole damned thing is in one bag. There is nowhere to fly to. Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin’s bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal."

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Robert Sheckley devised a wonderful utopia in his short story of : A ticket to Tranai . Not just a great science fiction story, but also very interesting social arrangement . A short excerpt from the story:

…
“No, thank you,” Goodman was leaning forward eagerly now. “I understand that you have achieved a stable economy without resorting to socialistic, communistic, fascistic or bureaucratic practices.”
“Certainly,” Melith said.
“That yours is, in fact, a free enterprise society, where individual initiative flourishes and governmental functions are kept to an absolute minimum.”
Melith nodded. “By and large, the government concerns itself with minor regulatory matters, care of the aged and beautifying the landscape.”
“Is it true that you have discovered a method of wealth distribution without resorting to governmental intervention, without even taxation, based entirely upon individual choice?” Goodman challenged.
“Oh, yes, absolutely.”
“Is it true that there is no corruption in any phase of the Tranaian government?”
“None,” Melith said. “I suppose that’s why we have a hard time finding men to hold public office.”
“Then Captain Savage was right!” Goodman cried, unable to control himself any longer. “This is Utopia!”
“We like it,” Melith said.
Goodman took a deep breath and asked, “May I stay here?”
“Why not?” Melith pulled out a form. “We have no restrictions on immigration. Tell me, what is your occupation?”
…

Enjoy the rest at the link above. But be prepared to be astonished

 

[Jim_Baur]

Chesedagapedom!

 

[Sunbreak]

I don’t think there is any “best” system. They all have their pros and cons. I am in favor, though, of systems that take care of the people - where there are safety nets.

 

[Entwhistler]

I don’t think there is any “best” system.

I would agree that there is no “perfect” system.
Monarchy has the greatest chance of being super bad or super good. But it also has the human biology factor as GEddie said.
I agree that Democracy seems the best (not perfect). However, the more I see of people nowadays, the more I’m beginning to have doubts. Do you really want some of these people making the rules?

 

[Vouthon]

The Church is officially neutral vis-a-vis the form of government or constitution to be adopted in a given country, so long as it upholds freedom of religion, natural rights, the basic well-being of its citizens etc.

Traditionally, nevertheless, the majority of Catholic theologians and political philosophers have favoured the “mixed government” model. From the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) :

newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm

Article 1. Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?

…

I answer that, Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the “kingdom,” where the power of government is vested in one; and “aristocracy,” which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.

Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deuteronomy 1:15): “I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers”: so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Exodus 18:21): “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:13): “Let me have from among you wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.

It should be noted that medieval scholars understood “democracy” in its classical Athenian variant.

Contemporary representative democracy - with its Anglo-Saxon/Montesquieu-like division of powers between executive [which retains kingship], judiciary [which retains an expert ‘aristocratic’/rule of the best element] and elected legislatures [fulfilling the requirement of ancient democracy], fits this model of ‘mixed’ government perfectly.

It is not surprising, therefore, that since Leo XIII and especially since the pontificate of Pius XII the church has favoured ‘representative democracy’, with John Paul II even commending it in one of his encyclicals.

 

[PolarGuy]

Best? Why, the one that has ME as grand high exalted ruler! Or perhaps kaiser. That’s a title I would like.

Seriously, Churchill said it best: democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all other forms.

On a national level, communism has caused more human suffering and misery than any other form of governing, perhaps more than all other forms combined.

 

[mthomson]

none of the above are good look how to world is today with the government systems every countries peoples have some that struggle and some that don’t i think in an ideal world a good system would be one with equality first to insure that everyone is treated the same everyone would be middle class if not higher if the worlds elites shares there huge amount of wealth with people in need first humans would need to get rid of greed and other sins otherwise nothing would change someone would have the ambition to rules over others and i think that if there were groups that did make big decision that they would have to prove themselves to the people first not like democracy where they just campaign and say all the good things there going to do when it never happens and last of all people need to wake up and see the corruption and not talk about do something about it protesting give the government a reason to up the security.

 

[mikekle]

The form of Govt the founding fathers had in mind and tired to ensure, would probably be great for everyone, problem is, the govt got too big and greedy, and now its all out the window, if we had just stuck to their ideas, this country could have been great.

I know its too late now, but I hope at some distant point in the future, a civilization would form and keep a nation based on what the original founding fathers wanted.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So, which System is the best? Democracy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, Kingship, Plutocracy…etc?
I know there can be arguments for and against all of them, but which one is the best overall? I’m trying to make up my own mind and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut.

Monarchism

Anarchy has been redefined as “chaos and violence.” Nobody wants that.

But in its original form, of human beings self-governing without the burden of s civil state, that’s not doable anytime this decamillennium.

Monarchy and dictatorship suffer from a lack of accountability to the governed; and monarchies suffer further from the vulnerabilities of human biology, and from the instability of stratified societies. In essence, in either one, if things go bad, there is no way out without killing people.

Plutocracy is the default state of all the other forms, but is too subject to corruption to
Be the ideal.

Ideally, for the protection of everybody, a democratic representational system works best.

ICXC NIKA

Monarchies are not unstable, compare the duration of the French monarchy to the duration of the French Republics. Democracies are far more volatile and prone to bloodbaths.

The Church is officially neutral vis-a-vis the form of government or constitution to be adopted in a given country, so long as it upholds freedom of religion, natural rights, the basic well-being of its citizens etc.

Traditionally, nevertheless, the majority of Catholic theologians and political philosophers have favoured the “mixed government” model. From the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) :

newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm

Article 1. Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?

…

I answer that, Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the “kingdom,” where the power of government is vested in one; and “aristocracy,” which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.

Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deuteronomy 1:15): “I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers”: so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Exodus 18:21): “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:13): “Let me have from among you wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.

It should be noted that medieval scholars understood “democracy” in its classical Athenian variant.

Contemporary representative democracy - with its Anglo-Saxon/Montesquieu-like division of powers between executive [which retains kingship], judiciary [which retains an expert ‘aristocratic’/rule of the best element] and elected legislatures [fulfilling the requirement of ancient democracy], fits this model of ‘mixed’ government perfectly.

It is not surprising, therefore, that since Leo XIII and especially since the pontificate of Pius XII the church has favoured ‘representative democracy’, with John Paul II even commending it in one of his encyclicals.

In the US the system is flawed due to the Senate no longer being the aristocratic function and instead being elected by the people.

Best? Why, the one that has ME as grand high exalted ruler! Or perhaps kaiser. That’s a title I would like.

Seriously, Churchill said it best: democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all other forms.

On a national level, communism has caused more human suffering and misery than any other form of governing, perhaps more than all other forms combined.

Churchill didn’t really say that, he said it had been said.

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

Best? Why, the one that has ME as grand high exalted ruler! Or perhaps kaiser. That’s a title I would like.

Seriously, Churchill said it best: democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all other forms.

On a national level, communism has caused more human suffering and misery than any other form of governing, perhaps more than all other forms combined.

“If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone, who seeks his own benefit from his rule and not the good of the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a tyrant—a word derived from strength—because he oppresses by might instead of ruling by justice. Thus among the ancients all powerful men were called tyrants. If an. unjust government is carried on, not by one but by several, and if they be few, it is called an oligarchy, that is, the rule of a few. This occurs when a few, who differ from the tyrant only by the fact that they are more than one, oppress the people by means of their wealth. If, finally, the bad government is carried on by the multitude, it is called a democracy, i.e. control by the populace, which comes about when the plebeian people by force of numbers oppress the rich. In this way the whole people will be as one tyrant.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regno ad Regem Cypri

 

[PolarGuy]

I hardly think “stability” makes a government “best.” China’s communist government is certainly stable. Best? I doubt it, particularly since stability can be procured at gunpoint.

A monarchy is the form of government that probably is the least accountable to the people, the the most likely to have no checks and balances on the monarch’s absolute power. Actually, I think that a monarchy is only slightly better than anarchy; historically, if it were so wonderful, nations wouldn’t have “grown up” and replaced their monarchs with elected governments as has happened in many nations.

 

[Vouthon]

In the US the system is flawed due to the Senate no longer being the aristocratic function and instead being elected by the people.

I would say that “judicial review” in the US fulfils the aristocratic element, which does not refer to “nobility” but rather the “rule by the best” (ie most highly qualified). The Supreme Court fulfils that role. I would say, therefore, that the United States has a mixed, balanced constitution. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power.

The judges in the US Supreme Court are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. They are not elected officials. As of 2014, the Supreme Court has found 176 acts of Congress to be unconstitutional. This is a very extensive, unelected power directed by some of the most intelligent and qualified people in American society.

The House of Lords and the British Supreme Court both fulfil the aristocratic element over here in the UK.

Modern “democracies” are in fact “mixed governments” characterised by a system of checks and balances. Pure, classical democracy is the direct democracy of ancient Athens.

 

[SWolf]

Monarchism

In the US the system is flawed due to the Senate no longer being the aristocratic function and instead being elected by the people.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant here. It was an awful amendment that changed it, almost as bad as the income tax.

 

[Della]

I’m one of those odd people who believe that the family ought to be the ruling class. Each family within a clan and each clan represented by an elder of the clan and the clan elders meeting, when necessary and when necessary (as in war) electing a clam leader to unite everyone for a common cause. It’s part of Chesterton’s and Belloc’s vision of distributism. And no, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work if everyone in the world wanted it. We’d have to overthrow many artificial forms of government to achieve it, but even that can be done without bloodshed as long as we patiently convert others to the advantages of being ruled by one’s own parents.

 

[SWolf]

I’m one of those odd people who believe that the family ought to be the ruling class. Each family within a clan and each clan represented by an elder of the clan and the clan elders meeting, when necessary and when necessary (as in war) electing a clam leader to unite everyone for a common cause. It’s part of Chesterton’s and Belloc’s vision of distributism. And no, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work if everyone in the world wanted it. We’d have to overthrow many artificial forms of government to achieve it, but even that can be done without bloodshed as long as we patiently convert others to the advantages of being ruled by one’s own parents.

Essentially Anarchism and it WOULD be far superior to what we have now. It’s going to take a lot of generations and effort for this type of thinking to take hold.

 

[Latias]

The Founding Fathers were brilliant here. It was an awful amendment that changed it, almost as bad as the income tax.

It is mysterious to me why certain people identify aristocrats (or men with social or economic privilege) with superior moral or technical competence. I do not necessarily see why would a more aristocratic system be superior. I just see incentives for familial and social nepotism at the expense of the interests of everyone else.

But I guess most people here have no love for Franklin Roosevelt (I believe his legacy is worth celebrating), given that the expressed assent with aristocracy would likely yield no sympathy towards his liberal (as exemplified with Four Freedoms) philosophy, his proactive, progressive economic policies, and his anti-colonial views.

Essentially Anarchism and it WOULD be far superior to what we have now. It’s going to take a lot of generations and effort for this type of thinking to take hold.

I have some sympathy towards left anarchism’s general distrust of authority as they see it as a vehicle of oppression and control. But do you think left-wing anarchists sympathy with the right anarchist’s “principle of non-aggression”, which is almost strictly invoked to kvetch about the state using “force” to tax people to use that money for social welfare programs (although I doubt many really do complain about military spending).