Best Form of Government?

[Blue]

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

Only the ignorant ones. Slavery would NOT have lasted much longer than it did. Racial problems still exist today and I would argue that they may have been less if a peaceful solution had been sought in the 1860s. But thats my last word on that, we have chewed that bone till it tastes bad.

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

No, it took Martin Luther King and a host of other people to make that happen. Our govt literally sanctioned segregation for almost 100 years after the war.

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

I have. what follows seems to be someones interpretation before the final draft????

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.

I won't say that I diefy them but the fact remains the founders are what they are. The US could well look like a string of territories divided btwn Mexico, England and France if not for those guys. So who else you want to look up to? Who else bears as much credit or gratitude for the founding of this country, the last most free country in the world, the country that has led the way in technology and accomplishments for the world, for the last 234 years?

And which btw, you and many others aspired to come to. If its not so great and we are just a bunch of white supremacists, why are there so may races here and why did we let them in?

[Countezero]

If thats the best dorm of government why are people abandoning that way of government?

I said that's what Hobbes said. I never said that's what I think, nor did I put forward much of an argument defending it. As I suggested, Hobbes is a theorist and he is espousing a theory I have a hard time finding fault with. Practice is another matter.

[Bigfella]

Name one benevolent dictatorship.

Depends on how you choose to define 'benevolent', but Singapore comes close.

[Bigfella]

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.

Good assessment.

Dictatorships can be very effective in certain places & for certain periods of time, but the problem is that the 'benevolence' cannot be guaranteed by the populace without tremendous risk to the person. If the benevolent decide to turn malevolent there are no institutionalized checks & balances. Say what you will about democracy, it takes more effort to do bad, and the risk of removal always remains.

There is a reason why so few dictatorships count as 'benevolent' - it is simply against their nature.

[Officer of Engineers]

Say what you will about democracy, it takes more effort to do bad, and the risk of removal always remains.

By the same token, it is damned hard to stop a population from doing bad - the ethnic Japanese Internment Camps and Germany willingly (and France and Italy and Finland) going along with the Jewish holocaust.

Even within the West, no one shed a tear over Hiroshima nor Nagasaki and truth be told, there would have been a demand for a 3rd nuke or at last another 100,000 death toll via firebombing had Hirehito did not surrendered.

[paintgun]

Name one benevolent dictatorship.

China?

*runs, jumps over the rubbles and hides* :P

[Bigfella]

By the same token, it is damned hard to stop a population from doing bad - the ethnic Japanese Internment Camps and Germany willingly (and France and Italy and Finland) going along with the Jewish holocaust.

Even within the West, no one shed a tear over Hiroshima nor Nagasaki and truth be told, there would have been a demand for a 3rd nuke or at last another 100,000 death toll via firebombing had Hirehito did not surrendered.

Sir,

Democracy is cetainly no guarantee of good behaviour, but it generally does a better job. Compare the worst excesses of democracies within their own borders (where the force of democracy is most relevant) with those of dictatorships & the point holds up fairly well.

Interning japanese Americans was appalling, but it looks mild compared to the long list we sould both construct of dictatorships & their dealings with ethnic minorities.

Neither Germany nor Italy were democracies during the holocaust. italy hadn't been one since the 20s & Germany hadn't been functional since about 1930 or actual since about '34. While people may have willingly accepted discrimination against Jews, I'm not aware that mass murder was all that popular. In Italy there was little enough support for persecuting Jews, while in Germany the attitude to the camps (which didn't really start springing up until 1941 - Dachau excepted) was one of willing ignorance rather than enthusiastic participation. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini could be voted out regardless.

I agree about wartime - democracies have been prepared to engage in extreme, perhaps even questionable violence. I would point out that the sort of mass murder that accompanied Germany & Japan's wars were much less common among the democracies. Interestingly, Stalin continued to mass murder during the war as he had before & would after.

I think the best/worst examples of democracies going feral are actually situations where forms of local dictatorship were set up - overseas colonies. Their worst excesses tended to be when they suspended their own forms of government & established tyrannies over others.

[astralis]

7th,

Only the ignorant ones. Slavery would NOT have lasted much longer than it did. Racial problems still exist today and I would argue that they may have been less if a peaceful solution had been sought in the 1860s. But thats my last word on that, we have chewed that bone till it tastes bad.

actually, the popularity of sharecropping until the 1920s suggests that without the Civil War, slavery would have been economically profitable until around then. my own guess is that we'd be looking at limited manumission in the South by the 1890s, with slavery finally disappearing around the 1920s.

No, it took Martin Luther King and a host of other people to make that happen. Our govt literally sanctioned segregation for almost 100 years after the war.

no, formal southern segregation picked up in 1910. i agree that the government had much role to play in formal, legal discrimination (Chinese Exclusion Acts, for instance), but that was a result of popular vote. i'm thinking of judicial acts and government decrees that changed things in the 50s and 60s; ie MLK would have had a far more limited effect had the US government elected to arrest/muzzle him instead of coming up with a Civil Rights Act.

one example of this is the way Chinese were portrayed before the 1930-40s and afterwards. before, they were part of the Yellow Peril; after the government propaganda of WWII and legal actions in the same period (with a big dose of Sinophilia from Time magazine), they were...more...accepted.

So who else you want to look up to? Who else bears as much credit or gratitude for the founding of this country, the last most free country in the world, the country that has led the way in technology and accomplishments for the world, for the last 234 years?

sure. but the founding fathers themselves would be the first to admit that what they built was NOT the last word; that's why they threw away the original Articles of Confederation AND built in multiple ways to amend the very Constitution they created.

And which btw, you and many others aspired to come to. If its not so great and we are just a bunch of white supremacists, why are there so may races here and why did we let them in?

yeah, but most of the immigrants you're talking about came AFTER 1860, so apparently they liked the "downhill" part better than the previous eras

more seriously, the point of my original post is to point out that for most immigrants, most believe that the US is on the UPSWING, not on the highway "headed for hell". when it comes to realizing her ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or "justice for all", from my own personal experience, the US has come closer to that than where it was fifteen years ago.

[Mihais]

We will all say it's the democratic form of Government, or Presidential. But it also has it's own flaws. Parliamentary on the other hand is more restrictive but more efficient decision-making.

Like when they delay a decision forever.


Personally I'd be curious to see the system described by Heinlein in the Starship Troopers in action,at least for a while.

[zraver]

The best form of government for a large country is one of two choices. Aristocratic-Meritocracy with welfare or unified identity dictatorship.

The first choice for the best form of government is one that allows those with money and influence to continue the pursuit of more of it, while also allowing those with talent to join them and without depriving everyone else of a minimum standard of living high enough that they can find comfort in the now and hope for the future. Rome, Britain, USA and other multi-century duration great powers found ways to achieve this delicate balance. People talk about Roman bread and circuses or patronage, but it is in function little different from English colonies, or modern American food stamps. Without freedom at the top, a measure of class mobility and social supports you need some sort of unifier like religion, creed or race. China is perhaps the best example of number two. Every Chinese government for thousands of years has relied on the concept of the mandate from heaven, even the communists do in function. The names change, but not the manner of government. The Chinese believe in China and when a government fails, they simply re-incarnate it under a new dynasty and continue forward as China even under foreign rule..

[Monash]

Hobbes said it was a benevolent dictatorship.

Name one benevolent dictatorship.

I think that is the point,,, there is no such thing as the a benevolent dictatorship (for long) ,,, and there is therefore no such thing as a perfect govenment since by default a"perfect government" must be created by imperfect human beings.

[Mihais]

Dictatorship,democracy,whatever,the most important thing is being responsible and competent.All systems or regimes start to decay after a while(that's is they cease being responsible and competent).That's the nature of things.

The common folk cares too little about elaborate definitions of the political regime.As long as he's fed,clothed and perceives that he's important and respected he'll be satisfied.

[Triple C]

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.

Or how much they disagreed, and how fervently they argued, with each other

[Mihais]

Take the myth of the Founding Fathers away and you get what?
The modern anti-myth is that they're a bunch of dead old white guys.

[xinhui]

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.

I look at "political" system this way :blush::blush:

Developing nation -- Keynes
Developed nation -- Friedman