Which form of government do you think would work best?

[TheArchitect]

Anarchy by far....

 

[OsO]

Futarchy sounds cool. I cosign much of Utilitarianism and this seems to align with that. I dont know if it "work best" though, because it still wouldnt solve differences in what people see is the 'best outcome' for certain circumstances. May not be all that different than what we have now. Kritarchy is sounds righteous, but is way too theoretical.

Technocracy is a very good one as well, but how exactly will an expert be defined/chosen and how will they choose to make decisions? With the right foundations in law, it would probably do wonders, but then again, having these groups fight for funding would be hell.

I wouldnt mind a constitutional monarchy under the right circumstances. Give me a technocratic constitutional monarchy, specifically for ideological/theoretical purposes. Not a popular belief but I dont care. We can debate it if someone wants to engage.

i think Kritarchy can be as simple and straightforward as we decide to make it.

Futarchy would be a hot mess. people cant even agree on basic shyt nowadays, let alone how we're going to organize society.

Technocracy leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a systemized approach to business ethics.

a constitutional monarchy

im an anarcho communist

it always surprises me how many people advocate for anarchistic principles. anarchy is basically anything goes, and imo human beings arent civilized enough to effectively execute an anarchistic society. it would almost certainly be excessively violent. ya'll built for that?

There is no pure system that is remotely reasonable... that said, anarchy.

same as above, you sure about that

a representative democracy like we have now isn't TOO shabby.

Democratic socialism seems straight for now.

these four and the other 600,000+ like them would disagree:

China is a technocracy. I think their government is run fairly well. I think that's why they are far ahead in biotechnology. Bioengineering humans and eugenics is THE NEXT step human evolution and progression. Only the Chinese Government has the objectivity to see this.

Singapore is another Technocracy that is run fairly well. It's run by a very objective government. I think that is why negative behavior has such harsh legal consequences under that state. They understand the deterministic nature of human behavioral patterns. It's very logical, and almost as if they see things like--- Disincentive A (death penalty) curtails behavior B (drug smuggling), so implement disincentive A (death penalty of drug smuggling)

I think we will see the East Asian Technocracies will soar past western societies in the future.

you think china's government is ran well as a whole?

you think it's a good thing to have harsh penalties like we see in singapore?

Anarchy by far....

let me ask you this... what happens if we both live in the same space and my idea of anarchism conflicts with your idea of anarchism?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

these four and the other 600,000+ like them would disagree:

everyone can't win

in a nation of 300M+ i'd say its not TOO shabby

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@LeyeT

Constitutional Monarchy with Technocratic features breh. If you would like to argue it, it could be an intriguing debate.

 

[marleyg]

yeah the reason anarchy would be dangerous if implemented immediately is the power and influence of corporate america. still a long term goal.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Meritocracy is also good by the way.

 

[88m3]

Meritocracy is also good by the way.

funny...

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

funny...

ha itd never work and would probably be corrupt but at its best it would probably be good (with democratic features)

 

[OsO]

@LeyeT

Constitutional Monarchy with Technocratic features breh. If you would like to argue it, it could be an intriguing debate.

@VMR ok lets start by defining the terms.

what is the definition and/or characteristics of a successful constitutional monarchy iyo?

 

[DEAD7]

If morality is the goal, anarchy will win everytime.... its no ttil you accept "necessary evils" that other forms of govt. become viable.



That said, anarchy is misunderstood, it isnt mad max, but many believe govt. is the only way for humans to not kill each other

 

[OsO]

If morality is the goal, anarchy will win everytime.... its no ttil you accept "necessary evils" that other forms of govt. become viable.


That said, anarchy is misunderstood, it isnt mad max, but many believe govt. is the only way for humans to not kill each other

people shoot and stab each other over disagreements outside the club, or after football games... forgive me if i dont subscribe to people having the mental and emotional discipline to mediate social issues.

and i dont understand your point with the first comment.

 

[DEAD7]

people shoot and stab each other over disagreements outside the club, or after football games... forgive me if i dont subscribe to people having the mental and emotional discipline to mediate social issues.

and i dont understand your point with the first comment.

This can happen under any system, the question is how is it dealt with after....

I understand the without govt. there can be no rules and enforcement mentality, and its pointless to try and convince you otherwise, so Ill just echo my first response.

There is no pure system that is remotely reasonable... that said, anarchy.

Spoiler

The first part of my post assumes its immoral to rule over another man or force him to do anything.

 

[Type Username Here]

If morality is the goal, anarchy will win everytime.... its no ttil you accept "necessary evils" that other forms of govt. become viable.


That said, anarchy is misunderstood, it isnt mad max, but many believe govt. is the only way for humans to not kill each other

Which form of Anarchy?

 

[Odyssey]

Democracy, but with a focus on smaller ethnic countries/states that share a culture & history. Everything else sucks.

 

[OsO]

This can happen under any system, the question is how is it dealt with after....

i agree, acts of violence can potentially happen under any system. although i think the ultimate goal should be to prevent violent acts from happening in the first place.

i think what to do after an act of violence takes place is one of the easier questions.

I understand the without govt. there can be no rules and enforcement mentality, and its pointless to try and convince you otherwise, so Ill just echo my first response.

Spoiler

The first part of my post assumes its immoral to rule over another man or force him to do anything.

i agree people have the ability to mediate their own circumstances to a certain degree. but can an entire populous effectively mediate their circumstances on a day to day basis? im a little skeptical of our ability to do that.

i think you underestimate the amount of people who tone down their behavior because of the institution of law. there are a lot of unscrupulous savages in society breh.