What form of government do you prefer?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
In the word as it exists today and will for the next several hundred years, democracy is my favorite form of government. Specifically the Westminster system, with the inclusion of universal basic health care, social support systems, and universal mandatory education until age 16. Despite a theoretical lack of checks and balances, its proven to be more effective than any other in creating a peaceful, free society in the face of racial and religious diversity. The most civilized countries on Earth are using this model. So I'd say its proven to be the closest practical solution to the libertarian ideal given the current state of the world.



[/ QUOTE ] Hi Phil, I would have guessed the Athenian model was the best, but perhaps for some reason it is outdated. You say the Westminster system is the current best, and you say the most civilized countries on earth are using this model. This is exciting to me. Could you please elaborate. Which countries are using this system?

[ConstantineX]

No doubt Australia... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
No doubt Australia...



[/ QUOTE ] Really? Are there any other civilized nations with rational forms of government? Because I hear Australian women don't shave their legs.

edit- not that that matters as far as government, but I'm trying to figure out where to move.

[Phil153]

Yuk,

England, Canada, Australia, India, Malaysia and Singapore are the largest ones. India and Malaysia in particular are shining examples of this system at work in a multi ethnic, multi religious society. Though I do wonder how much of this is due to the British building the foundations of civilization, something which America never benefited from once greedy landowners took the country's political development into their own hands.

A presidential system such as that in America seems to be quite flawed and open to corruption, due to the power wars that go on between the legislature and executive, and the resulting lobbying that can occur, such as what happens in the US.

If you put full responsibility for both laws and their execution on one group, while having systems in place to discourage absolute power, they seem to be more representative and concerned about their constituents. Parliamentary systems do this best, and based solely on real world evidence, the Westminster system seems to do this best of all.

This isn't just my perception...here's a World Bank study which supports the idea that parliamentary systems are less corrupt and more representative than other systems: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=632777
Here's the entire paper if you want to read it: http://go.worldbank.org/8Z5BNT42I0

[ QUOTE ]
I would have guessed the Athenian model was the best

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say that populations in a place like American are too large and too stupid to work like this.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In a society with intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted individuals, and with a lack of external threats, libertarian socialism (aka anarcho socialism) is a superior and dignified model. By far my favorite.

In the word as it exists today and will for the next several hundred years, democracy is my favorite form of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the world as it exists today, which apparently does not have "intelligent, peaceful, and well-adjusted individuals" why would you prefer concentrating power and giving it to some subset of these dumb, violent, anti-social people?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
In the world as it exists today, which apparently does not have "intelligent, peaceful, and well-adjusted individuals" why would you prefer concentrating power and giving it to some subset of these dumb, violent, anti-social people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because not everyone is dumb, violent and anti-social. A subset of the population is indeed "intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted". No society can work without that.

But there are degrees to which populations exhibit these traits. For example, in Japan you can leave your bike or car unlocked in a busy city, and no one will take it. Try that in California. Just as there are parts of the world where people band together after a natural disaster, and help one another, and then there is New Orleans. All have government, so that can't be the problem...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the world as it exists today, which apparently does not have "intelligent, peaceful, and well-adjusted individuals" why would you prefer concentrating power and giving it to some subset of these dumb, violent, anti-social people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because not everyone is dumb, violent and anti-social. A subset of the population is indeed "intelligent, peaceful and well adjusted". No society can work without that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And these are the very last people who gain political power. Oh, the intelligent get it, just not the peaceful and well adjusted. (Or if they do, they don't STAY peaceful and well adjusted)

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
And these are the very last people who gain political power.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that government is full of these people. But your assertion is false too. For example, Clinton (a Rhodes scholar) strikes me as pretty high on these three items.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And these are the very last people who gain political power.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that government is full of these people. But your assertion is false too. For example, Clinton (a Rhodes scholar) strikes me as pretty high on these three items.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cheating on your wife and claiming you didn't inhale is well adjusted.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton (a Rhodes scholar) strikes me as pretty high on these three items.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton is certainly intelligent; but he strikes me as a typical politican in all other senses: dishonest, immoral, corrupt, coercive.