Best form of government?

What do you guys think the best form of government is?

 

Minimal. Limited to protection of individual rights to life (against murder, assault, rape, war), liberty (against slavery, war, coercion) and property (against theft, invasion of privacy).

Anything more is tyranny.

 

I like the way you think, that sounds good to me!

 

thanks!

 

democracy in its TRUE form. the form of democracy we are living in is more like an aristocracy. our country is run by money of course. but yes, TRUE democracy is the best form.

 

True democracy in its purest form is majority rules...and that means MOB RULE. I don't think it is quite as great as people think. It's not as bad as some other systems, but I, as an individual, may be subject to the majority's whim to outlaw minority viewpoints--and then...everything goes out the window.

What if the majority was right-wing (or left-wing) authoritarian nutcases? Then you are fucked. You may be able to leave the country, but if you speaking on global terms, then what are you going to do? Leave the planet??

The best form of government is a lenient, flexible Constitutional Minarchy (not monarchy, but MIN-archy)...as I stated above..IMO.

 

definatly. The government is there FOR the people, not to OWN the people.

 

sounds questionable towards the smallest and weakest of society. I'm all for individual rights, and you mention the protection of life. How far do you extend that protection?

sure, you won't let people murder one another. But is allowing the poor to starve to death any better than murder? Some say murder is an action, 'letting' someone else starve to death is not 'their action' or fault.

I'd say, well, if you can stand by and watch somebody slowly perish, alright then. I, cannot. thusly, somewhere in the 'ideal' form of government, I'd like to see some protection/aid for those who cannot help themselves.

 

That would involve calling citizens to the polls every time there was an issue of national importance (practically every day), which is why a republic is better.

 

I hardly think that many people would starve under libertarianism. The government contributes to poverty much more than the market does. As weird as that sounds.

Two-thirds of a dollar are spent to collect each dollar of taxes. If everyone in a libertarian society voluntarily gave the same amount to charity as they do today through taxes, we'd triple what the disadvantaged receive. In other words, if private charities received the entire welfare budget in voluntary contributions, we'd multiply by twelve the money available to the poor. Even if private charities received one-tenth of what our current welfare budgets are, the poor would still be better off than they are now!

From all indications, however, each generation of Americans is more charitable than the last. In 1996, the average donation per adult was twice the inflation-adjusted average in 1970 and triple the 1950 average. Volunteer work has increased in roughly the same proportions.

How significant are private contributions to charity? If volunteer time is valued at the minimum wage, total private contributions to charity exceed the combined poverty budgets of government at all levels.

Studies show that free markets, on average, create about ten times as much wealth as unfree ones. Not surprisingly, the needy in a wealthy society are always better off than the needy in a poor country . Thus, deregulation, which stimulates wealth creation, helps the poor even more! A libertarian society would minimize the regulations which strangle the economy, thereby raising the standard of living for those on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

And as you mentioned, this what it is all about the "STANDARD OF LIVING". Making sure people don't starve or get trampled on. So, it's ok if John Boy is rich and wealthy as long as it is not at my expense, my standard of living. However, if we did increase the standard of living for everyone, we cannot guarantee it stays that way. Some people are more ambitious than others, and some are lazier...etc. You can't force equality. You can only give the freedom to choose.

 

Why isn't Fascism on the list?

 

socialism needs to be added to this list...lib. its seems in ur system, ur almost allowing indivudals to steal others freedom, which is what happens without a funded government, but u have a prob when govt steals peoples freedom, theres still not freedom in capitalism, there cant be, b/c as long as people are out to make a profit some peple will expoit and economically ensalve others...to me tahts not freedom, anarco-syndicalism is teh only truely free society

 

yes govt colelcts taxes, but if ur very poor u dont pay taxes u recieve govt subsidy(sp?) the mentaly handicap, how will they survive under liberatarianism? they cant work, orphans, what will they do without well funded govt subsudized(sp?) shelters...please dont say proivate charities b/c u know thats bullshit.the fatcats causing poverty thru their exploitation, I'd be willing to bet arent that willing to give some of that money back to the slave labourers thru which that money was earned.

 

"If everyone in a libertarian society voluntarily gave the same amount to charity as they do today through taxes...."

it sounds good, but that's a HUGE 'if'

 

Apparently, Lib, more people are voting for GOVERNMENT(than liberatarian-anarchy)...thank goodness.

 

this poll is retarded.
Communism isnt a form of government, it's an economic philosophy.
Anarchy is no government.

Communism can exist in any of those forms of govt, but it doesnt stand as a seperate form of governing.
.

 

Actually, yes. I've heard that Alpha Centauri will harbor people from Earth. I know some government-related people have escaped there by asking for asylum. Surprisingly, the US actually honors it. I've no idea where the docking station is, but presumably you would just go there and ask for asylum, and if they agree, you're off to a new life.

 

Self Government.

 

Government bureaucracies have no incentive to lift people out of dependency and every incentive to keep them in it; after all, more poverty means a bigger budget and more power for the bureaucrats. The wealth freed up would go directly to the private sector, creating jobs for the poor, decreasing the demand on private charity, and increasing charitable giving. The results might diminish poverty or they might leave it at today's levels -- but it's hard to see how they could be any less effective than the present wretched system.

As for the handicapped and those "incapable", the government sure as hell doesn't do a good job of it. All I hear from people on disability is bitching and moaning about the government's band-aid and throw-away check they get. #1- Because they have been spoiled by the hand-out. #2 Because to the government they are a # and nothing more.

Without the current failing social welfare system, the able but unwilling would have to get jobs, while those unable to work through no fault of their own could be cared for through state assets sold to buy them annuities.

 

But, your redistribution (communism) isn't....thank goodness.