Thread: Best Form of Government?

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Regardless of history, its one that minds its own business and interferes minimally in peoples lives. Alot like what our founding fathers envisioned, not the bastard we have today. IMO, things started sliding about 1860 and have been headed for hell ever since.:(

Of the people, by the people, & if a whole honkin' bunch of'em don't specifically ask your ass in, leaves the people alone.

The Body Politic

7th,

IMO, things started sliding about 1860 and have been headed for hell ever since

to highlight the difference in thinking, i suspect you'll find very few minorities living in the US thinking that way.

it took US government power to change social norms across the US, for the better.

also, re: what our founding fathers envisioned, if you read their writings carefully...

what they were all in favor of was a white, agrarian, protestant america, with representatives elected by the educated elite of society (thus the land-owning requirements for voting). these representatives were to be the super-elite (Founding Father John Dickinson said the Senate should be like the British House of Lords), as the ideal politician of the time was thought to be landed gentlemen-farmers (whom farmed for FUN, as he was supposed to be Old Money). most of them were for Congressional deliberations to be done in secret.

as for what they voraciously disagreed upon, one prominent Founding Father (Alexander Hamilton and his supporters) wanted to abolish states altogether under a centralized government with a senate that served for life. extreme members of his wing actually wanted some sort of elected constitutional monarchy, where the "president" would serve for life, as well.

others wanted to keep the loose Articles of Confederation; what resulted in the end was a compromise that actually tilted more towards Hamilton.

one thing i am disappointed about in US education is the tendency to "deify" the Founding Fathers. most people have NO idea what they stood for, or whom they were. it often comes as a surprise when they find out-- highly intelligent men, for the most part, but very much a product of their times.

speaking from a political scientist perspective, there IS no such thing as a best form of government-- ideal forms change depending on the culture, population size, territory, timeframe, a million other factors.

for a relatively small group of individuals, a dictatorship is often the best (replicated in militaries, for instance).

for a city-state, a benevolent dictatorship could very well outperform a democratic system on a consistent basis. for a medium-sized country, things start breaking down for the same dictatorship due to complexity.

for large countries, representative democracy seems to be the best method, but nations actually tend to evolve there as a result of economic growth. we have actually seen very little data that decisively solves this chicken-and-egg question.