Your Ideal Government / Political Philosophy?

[Citizen]

Ideally? None.

You prefer anarchy? Why?

Remember the word "ideally." Ideally, everyone is responsible enough to take care of themselves. What is government for? To protect the weak. What is law for? To punish criminals who cannot abide society's rules.

Ideally, if everyone acts responsibly, and accepts the responsibility of their actions, government is not necessary. It exists to tax us to perpetuate itself.

However, that is not the case where the US is concerned. The weak have legislated the strong out of power. Their idealism isn't reality-based. Look at Obama ... kissin' ass to the Middle East and they're just flipping him off.

The people that the strong protected, who ungratefully pushed them aside, have doomed themselves, and us, to a slow, painful death.

Maybe, just maybe, the federal governments job is just to: provide for the common defense (national security); the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; and finally the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs), as described by Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No.23, 1787.

Remember Hamilton was a founding father with the most important interpretation of the Constitution, and his view of the purpose of the federal government should be a good one for any new government, just as it was when our constitution was adopted.

Never mind that our federal government, today, has ignored the very reason it was established, and has taken on a completely new role as the protection of us from ourselves, and directing our everyday life.

 

[amrchaos]

A matter of note--there are three forms of "government" that are not "governmet types"

First off, socialism, communism and fuedalism are more in line of economic policies and not actual government forms. For socialism and ommunism, you can have any of the following--Dictatorship, Republic, and dircct Democracy.

Fuedalism is the baronial states that sits under a Monarchy. It is more of an economic form and is a prelude towards corporatism(corporatism is not a governmment form. It tends to describe "Who" has the governments ear and not the "who" that runs the government.)

So, for whomever that selected SOCIALISM--tell me, how do you choose the leaders of the nation? Through elections or is it strong armed tactics?

 

[Oddball]

A matter of note--there are three forms of "government" that are not "governmet types"

First off, socialism, communism and fuedalism are more in line of economic policies and not actual government forms. For socialism and ommunism, you can have any of the following--Dictatorship, Republic, and dircct Democracy.

Fuedalism is the baronial states that sits under a Monarchy. It is more of an economic form and is a prelude towards corporatism(corporatism is not a governmment form. It tends to describe "Who" has the governments ear and not the "who" that runs the government.)

So, for whomever that selected SOCIALISM--tell me, how do you choose the leaders of the nation? Through elections or is it strong armed tactics?

In industrial societies, socialist and communist economic models cannot exist in the absence of centralized authoritarian political control over the general economy. Elections in those contexts are held between party man #1 versus party man #2.

 

[amrchaos]

A matter of note--there are three forms of "government" that are not "governmet types"

First off, socialism, communism and fuedalism are more in line of economic policies and not actual government forms. For socialism and ommunism, you can have any of the following--Dictatorship, Republic, and dircct Democracy.

Fuedalism is the baronial states that sits under a Monarchy. It is more of an economic form and is a prelude towards corporatism(corporatism is not a governmment form. It tends to describe "Who" has the governments ear and not the "who" that runs the government.)

So, for whomever that selected SOCIALISM--tell me, how do you choose the leaders of the nation? Through elections or is it strong armed tactics?

In industrial societies, socialist and communist economic models cannot exist in the absence of centralized authoritarian political control over the general economy. Elections in those contexts are held between party man #1 versus party man #2.

Careful here--There are one party systems that is no more than a dictaorship under disguise(like Mexico!) and there are systems that have a plurality of parties yet still socialistic(like Germany)

But the centralization of the economy is also something that is hotly contested. Keep an eye on the Europeans--they have every type of economic and social leaning parties every conceived by man. In fact, the Greeks have both communist and Free market capitalist type parties(their own versions of soviets, Conservatives/Republicans and Libertarians!!)

In the pluralists states, the question of economic policy is always up for debate and could change over night.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A matter of note--there are three forms of "government" that are not "governmet types"

First off, socialism, communism and fuedalism are more in line of economic policies and not actual government forms. For socialism and ommunism, you can have any of the following--Dictatorship, Republic, and dircct Democracy.

Fuedalism is the baronial states that sits under a Monarchy. It is more of an economic form and is a prelude towards corporatism(corporatism is not a governmment form. It tends to describe "Who" has the governments ear and not the "who" that runs the government.)

So, for whomever that selected SOCIALISM--tell me, how do you choose the leaders of the nation? Through elections or is it strong armed tactics?

In industrial societies, socialist and communist economic models cannot exist in the absence of centralized authoritarian political control over the general economy. Elections in those contexts are held between party man #1 versus party man #2.

Careful here--There are one party systems that is no more than a dictaorship under disguise(like Mexico!) and there are systems that have a plurality of parties yet still socialistic(like Germany)

But the centralization of the economy is also something that is hotly contested. Keep an eye on the Europeans--they have every type of economic and social leaning parties every conceived by man. In fact, the Greeks have both communist and Free market capitalist type parties(their own versions of soviets, Conservatives/Republicans and Libertarians!!)

In the pluralists states, the question of economic policy is always up for debate and could change over night.

Mexico has more than one party.

 

[Oddball]

Careful here--There are one party systems that is no more than a dictaorship under disguise(like Mexico!) and there are systems that have a plurality of parties yet still socialistic(like Germany)

But the centralization of the economy is also something that is hotly contested. Keep an eye on the Europeans--they have every type of economic and social leaning parties every conceived by man. In fact, the Greeks have both communist and Free market capitalist type parties(their own versions of soviets, Conservatives/Republicans and Libertarians!!)

In the pluralists states, the question of economic policy is always up for debate and could change over night.

The illusion of "competing" parties in Europe is just as much as a façade as the political duopoly that controls the American political scene.

The best proof of this is that no matter who wins the elections, the provisions of the given socialistic authoritarian structures never get abolished outright. Indeed, they often get expanded to the liking of that controlling party, at the expense of their purported opponents.

 

[amrchaos]

Careful here--There are one party systems that is no more than a dictaorship under disguise(like Mexico!) and there are systems that have a plurality of parties yet still socialistic(like Germany)

But the centralization of the economy is also something that is hotly contested. Keep an eye on the Europeans--they have every type of economic and social leaning parties every conceived by man. In fact, the Greeks have both communist and Free market capitalist type parties(their own versions of soviets, Conservatives/Republicans and Libertarians!!)

In the pluralists states, the question of economic policy is always up for debate and could change over night.

The illusion of "competing" parties in Europe is just as much as a façade as the political duopoly that controls the American political scene.

The best proof of this is that no matter who wins the elections, the provisions of the given socialistic authoritarian structures never get abolished outright. Indeed, they often get expanded to the liking of that controlling party, at the expense of their purported opponents.

Actually, the europeans, as a whole, are not that attached to their economic policies.

But you can find individuals that are rabid for one type of economics over another.

 

[neurosport]

I voted OTHER for CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

that means pretty much everything is decided by the constitution and people only vote on trivial crap like - should thanksgiving be a national holiday or not.

 

[Life_Long_Dem!]

Socialism but not one that dictates things but a more progressive form called democratic socialism like the current Socialist party USA. It is for equal rights for all, no oppresion of citizens and no class warfare that unequally keeps the rich richer and the poor down.

http://sp-usa.org/

 

[Oddball]

Careful here--There are one party systems that is no more than a dictaorship under disguise(like Mexico!) and there are systems that have a plurality of parties yet still socialistic(like Germany)

But the centralization of the economy is also something that is hotly contested. Keep an eye on the Europeans--they have every type of economic and social leaning parties every conceived by man. In fact, the Greeks have both communist and Free market capitalist type parties(their own versions of soviets, Conservatives/Republicans and Libertarians!!)

In the pluralists states, the question of economic policy is always up for debate and could change over night.

The illusion of "competing" parties in Europe is just as much as a façade as the political duopoly that controls the American political scene.

The best proof of this is that no matter who wins the elections, the provisions of the given socialistic authoritarian structures never get abolished outright. Indeed, they often get expanded to the liking of that controlling party, at the expense of their purported opponents.

Actually, the europeans, as a whole, are not that attached to their economic policies.

But you can find individuals that are rabid for one type of economics over another.

The Europeans are mired in their economic policies, as a matter of the course of the socialistic central planning of those economies.

 

[JBeukema]

Socialism but not one that dictates things but a more progressive form called democratic socialism like the current Socialist party ]

You mean like Obama's old party?

 

[midcan5]

Whatever works for the people, all the people. A Democratic socialist republic? The irony of the question is the presumption that the form means much. Skulduggery can appear in the best of systems even those containing saints such as the church. Consider only Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or Bush Jr's America. Oh I know that's unfair, how about Cheney's America - all better.

I'm often amazed at the Netherlands and Denmark and both are Constitutional monarchies. How the heck could that work in America? We believe things that the Danish probably never thought of. Our politics is grounded in our culture, tradition, and most of all myths. Throw in religion and individualism, large spaces, and you have an interesting blend. The Danish would find us nuts. So why. Because lots is simply culture tradition myth and all that stuff goes into our heads and when asked, bingo, out it pops. Wittgenstein has the wonderful phrase 'if a lion could speak we wouldn't understand it.' If a parochial backroad right winger spoke to an educated ivy league elitist radical they'd have a hard time too.

Economist.com | Country Briefings: Denmark
Economist.com | Country Briefings: Netherlands

I selected Monarchy based on above and because it was at zero. We libs love a loser. LOL

 

[JBeukema]

HEY! Danmark! Nederland!

 

[LibertyUp]

Our politics is grounded in our culture, tradition, and most of all myths.

And a couple of minor details you've overlooked....Freedom and Liberty! No myth!

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, that kinda is an myth. All civilization entails the surrender of certain freedoms

 

[xotoxi]

I like monarchy because of all the cool crowns and scepters and shit.

 

[LibertyUp]

Actually, that kinda is an myth. All civilization entails the surrender of certain freedoms

Perhaps, in an absolute way of thinking.

Make no mistake though--Freedom and Liberty are the cornerstone of our Republic.

Freedom and Liberty as known by few, including great civilizations that have preceeded us. No myth. Deny it if you choose---makes no difference. The fact remains.

 

[JBeukema]

This might be a good time to renew this discussion

 

[DiamondDave]

Strictly limited constitutional representative republic with more solid checks to governmental power

 

[Sherry]

I would improve upon our current system through term limits.