Which is a better government?

80 posts

Flag Post

Would you keep a democratic nation? If so, would you keep an Electoral College? Would you introduce a new party? Or, we could change to a communist nation? If you chose this, who would you pick to run the nation? The final option is a socialist nation. If we had a socialist nation, how would you solve urgent problems, but still have the result represent the nation?

 
Flag Post

Ideally, I would like to be in a communist community. But since man’s lust for power always tears true communism apart, this can never happen.

Since communism isn’t possible, I would stick with democracy. But it needs to improve so that we don’t have a mere 535 people making all the major decisions for our country. Ideally, EVERYBODY would be able to vote on each and every subject that affects our community.

I’m not exactly sure what socialists are. Can someone please explain?

 
Flag Post

isn’t communism a economy not a government?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by amishdemon:

isn’t communism a economy not a government?

No, it’s a government in which the citizens have next to no freedom. Just like a Despotism, Fascism, and, to a lesser extent, a Monarchy. The current Representative Democracy in place in America is the best, I’d say.

 
Flag Post

No, it’s a government in which the citizens have next to no freedom.

No, its a type of economy.

 
Flag Post

I’m not exactly sure what socialists are. Can someone please explain?

pretty much the difference between socialism and communism is how much freedom the people have. Socialism advocates public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. examples would be public schools, the fire department, universal health care, etc.

 
Flag Post

Monarchies are despotic fascists.

 
Flag Post

None at all.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by lord_azaral:

None at all.

That sounds good. It would be great if everyone was selfless and helped everyone else. Unforunately, without government, people would be out of control; raping, killing, stealing, sabotaging….. It’s our nature.

 
Flag Post

Anarchy is utter chaos. It could never work with more than a single person. :P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ferretferret:

Anarchy is utter chaos. It could never work with more than a single person. :P

You could maybe make it work with a handful. On a large scale, it’s just dumb.

 
Flag Post

That sounds good. It would be great if everyone was selfless and helped everyone else. Unforunately, without government, people would be out of control; raping, killing, stealing, sabotaging….. It’s our nature.

If you are concerned for your personal safety, hire someone to provide security.

 
Flag Post

If you are concerned for your personal safety, hire someone to provide security.

And why would they protect me and not simply take my money? Or worse, kill me and take all of my money.

 
Flag Post

And why would they protect me and not simply take my money? Or worse, kill me and take all of my money.

Because in the long run they will make more money protecting you than they would simply stealing from you. If they do this enough, and it probably would take just the one time, no one will trust them at all and then they are stuck having to really fend for themselves as no one will want to deal with them.

 
Flag Post

Because in the long run they will make more money protecting you than they would simply stealing from you.

In an anarchy situation, I highly doubt they would be thinking long term.

If they do this enough, no one will trust them at all

Why? I’d be dead. Who would know it was them that killed me? There wouldn’t be anybody to investigate my death.

and then they are stuck having to really fend for themselves as no one will want to deal with them.

Or moving to the next town over and doing it again.

 
Flag Post

A true democracy with everyone voting on every major decision for the country is practically impossible for a large scale country. A republic is the closest we can get to a true democracy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ferretferret:
Originally posted by amishdemon:

isn’t communism a economy not a government?

No, it’s a government in which the citizens have next to no freedom. Just like a Despotism, Fascism, and, to a lesser extent, a Monarchy. The current Representative Democracy in place in America is the best, I’d say.

why do so many people actually not know what communism is

hint: most of the stuff you’ve heard about it is bullshit

communism is a type of economy

sadly many communist countries have had an authoritarian government, that is the bad bit

personally i’d have a representative democracy, with fairly high taxes and very strong social services, regulated markets, but not so much so they’re completely crippled

proportional representation as the voting method

 
Flag Post

It’d be narrow-minded for the sum of our enlightened minds to swear by our established economic system, but equally foolish to pick communism as the solution. Most importantly, the world is changing more rapidly than ever and increased governmental regulation to reduce consumerism and the cons of liberalism would have significant advantages if that government has the people’s support and is ruled by experts more than by politicians. You can take the people out of the capitalism but you can’t take the capitalism out of the people.

 
Flag Post

If I had the power to make sweeping changes, I would change the electoral system. Speaking with the UK in mind, I would change from first past the post, which gives governments hugely inflated majorities, and thus too much power, to proportional representation. This would probably create a hung parliament, force parties to make coalitions, and would not be able to rule without consulting the people as they do now.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Carados:

No, it’s a government in which the citizens have next to no freedom.

No, its a type of economy.

Interesting I thought a Communist state was a form of government… silly me.

 
Flag Post

In an anarchy situation, I highly doubt they would be thinking long term.

Why?

Why? I’d be dead. Who would know it was them that killed me? There wouldn’t be anybody to investigate my death.

Sure, its situational, but chances are you and he/her aren’t just standing in the middle of no where.

Or moving to the next town over and doing it again.

Other people don’t travel and spread word?

Anarchy is utter chaos. It could never work with more than a single person. :P

Why?

You could maybe make it work with a handful. On a large scale, it’s just dumb.

Why?

 
Flag Post

Why?

If people are forced to worry more about their own survival than anything else they tend to think less about long term events and payoffs.

Sure, its situational, but chances are you and he/her aren’t just standing in the middle of no where.

I am working on the presumption that most murders do not happen in well frequented areas.

Other people don’t travel and spread word?

Not as quickly or efficiently as a national law enforcement establishment.

Why?

No controls over dispute settlement. No controls over corporation growth. No system to establish or maintain fair treatment. There are a few reasons.

 
Flag Post

i would think that the roman republic would be the best.

 
Flag Post

Interesting I thought a Communist state was a form of government… silly me.

You could have a democratic or a monarchical communist state.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Eyedol:
Originally posted by Carados:

No, it’s a government in which the citizens have next to no freedom.

No, its a type of economy.

Interesting I thought a Communist state was a form of government… silly me.

com·mu·nism (kŏm’yə-nĭz’əm) Pronunciation Key
n. its a economy

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.