What do you think is the best form of government? Monarchy? Like the middle east or astrocracy which I don't think exists anymore, or democratic which most of the countries claim to be!

Democracy gets my vote!

Aristocracies still exist in England and Monaco for example. They are watered down from medieval days but they still exist. Aristocracies are not really a form of government but a social caste system.

The answer to your question depends on defining "best". The most efficient form of government is a totalitarian regime. A dictator is not bound by anyone else in making decisions. So things can get done more quickly and efficiently. But a totalitarian regime is too often oppressive. When in the hands of a benevolent dictator that puts the needs of the people first, it can be the best form of government.

The least efficient is a democracy. The time needed get the will of the people makes the government slow moving and unable to respond quickly to issues.

A republic (which is what the US is, we are not a democracy) helps make things more efficient by putting the power into the hands of a small group who can make the decisions more quickly. But it can still be unwieldy. A federated republic (again what the US is) helps this by introducing an executive empowered to make the quick decisions sometimes needed. But, here again, you are concentrating power into one person which can lead to abuses (ala George W Bush).

Many different systems of government have their own advantages and disadvantages. I believe the US has come up with the best compromise employing a triumvirate (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) that can act as checks and balances to prevent the gross abuse of power.

My vote goes to Democracy, too.

I agree with Scott in defining the word "best". It can situational, for example in my house the best form of government is oligarchy.
:)

I agree with Scott in defining the word "best". It can situational, for example in my house the best form of government is oligarchy.
:)

In my house it's a benevolent dictatorship! ;)

Definitely a dictatorship.Now I can't stop to chat,as I've been ordered to cook the tea. :D

In my house it is a Kingdom and I serve the Queen :)

If I could be the king, I would think that is great, since I can't, a republic is the best. ( that is what the US is a republic)

I'll ask my wife and get back to you on that!:cool: :confused:

I like bananas... how about a Banana Republic? ;)

What do you'll think of monarchy? Im for the monarchy in the middle east, its produced stability and security the locals love there kings who usually are very benvolent and put the needs of the people first.

I think the best government would to be one please its people not its own pockets and inetersts..
The new right. Imperium Europa. Democratic but cares for his country and people, not the outsider like the European Union.

What do youll think of monarchy? Im for the monarchy in the middle east, its produced stability and security the locals love there kings who usualy are very benvolent and put the needs of the ppl first.

There are several problems with a monarchy. When you have a capable, caring and benevolent monarch then it can work well. The problem is, too often, the monarch is none of those things. The current monarch is based on ancestry not capability. Since a monarchy is often from a limited gene pool, the possibility of capability is often reduced. Since monarchs are often not accountable, there is too often temptation to abuse their power. Even with a monarch that does right by the people, there is often a lot of abuse. Monarchs tend to live lavishly. Even if their lifestyle is not at the expense of the people, it does take something away from them.

RickJ this is 1 thread I'm not getting notifications that I'm subscribed to it

A republic has the potential to solve a lot of problems, but you have to build a fire under the butts of those that get elected to get them to do something. Now if more people participated and kept a little pressure on elected officials to serve the people maybe they'd do their job and we would be better off. :cool: :eek:

Viva Emperium Europa. ;)

I'll let you know what my kids tell me to say in a little bit, got to go cook them breakfast right now.

:p

The problem (with a republic) is that once a candidate is elected there is very little incentive for them to do the right thing for the duration of their term. They can stay in office and do a so so job and chances are they'd get re-elected again because they're the incumbent. What is needed is a system that holds them accountable if they don't do the right thing and doesn't necessarily guarantee them office for the full term. i.e. today it is easy for them to get into office and very hard to get them out. We need a system where it is very hard for them to get into office and very easy for them to be kicked out. Only then will there be an incentive to keep them in office and for them to do the right thing for the people (vs. the corporations).

Casey

P.S. rickj... I too am not getting notifications of posts (only one notice so far when several people have actually posted to this topic).

Well I'm armenian and at one time we fell under soviet union(comunist) lots of elderly people that I talked to said they liked it comunizm better then democracy, me? I think all kinds of goverments are kurupt so...

People everyone needs to read what our forefathers had in mind for this country, and get the government to align itself back to the principle on which this country was founded. Republic form of governemnt. Where the people are the controlling power not the government. Many have died for this belief and today's society has seem to lost the pride and comitment to uphold these truths.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Everyone must demand that are representatives follow and obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are being stolen away from us, and most people don't even see it, or just don't care.

well im armenian and at one time we fell under soviet union(comunist) lots of elderly people that i talked to said they liked it comunizm better then democracy, me? i think all kinds of goverments are kurupt so ....

Communism is more an economic system then a political one. The USSR government was more of an oligarchy. Ostensibly democratic.

Okay... so does that mean it was good? Or what?

Theocracy as promised in the scriptures.

okay... so does that mean it was good? or what?
Communism has proven to not work well. Basically because it denies the individual. It takes away the incentive of the worker because all products of the worker go to the state.

Communism failed miserably in the USSR because it wasn't true communism. A ruling class developed which basically replaced the aristocracy of Czarist Russia.

Hi,
I disagree somewhat with the previous answers' statement of "Communism has proven to not work well".
This is not true in all cases.
China, the most populated country in the World, has been ruled by the Communist Party of China since 1949 (according to whipedia.com).
Also, according to predictions by the National News Networks, and programs on Economy, China is fast becoming the World's leading country with the best ecomony. America owes Japan the most money, for imports, and owes China second.
It is very possible, over the next few years, that China will replace America as the World's leading economic country; under the rule of Communism.
I do not agree with their beliefs about liberties, but as far as economy, it is growing at a faster rate then the United States!
The labels on products bought in the US used to say "Made in Japan". Ever notice that they now say "Made in China"? Even the WhiteHouse Apple Juice now says China!

Yes Fred, but the worker is not benefitting from the influx of foreign currency. It only means more jobs at 12¢/hour. That's the only reason their economy is "booming". If the wages rise ever so slightly some other low wage country's economy will receive the same "boom" from the U.S. (who couldn't less about working conditions, it's all about low-cost production). The government officials are living like gods at the expense of the impoverished workers. If you believe that the economy is so good then I dare you to live and work there.

Fred,
Its true that Mainland China has been under Communist rule since 49. Its also true that China's economy is the fastest growing. What you miss in whatever research you did, is that the reason for that growth is a turn towards capitalism. Many Chinese companies are now, at least partially, privately owned. China's current economy is light years removed from the system under Chairman Mao. China has become much more "westernized" in the last decades. We will see this to a much greater extent in 2008 at the Olympics.

Just because China has been ruled by the Communist Party since '49 does not mean that Communism has been a success there. During the 60's, America was "ruled" by the Democrats. Does that mean we changed to a democracy? The Chinese Communist Party is called that because, when started by Mao, the goal was a communist state. As China has moved towards a more captitalist economy, they haven't changed the party name.

In fact, the only place where communism has had any real success is in Castro's Cuba. Though I read recently that Castro had a worth of $500 million (though he denied it). Communism can be successful on a small scale (ala Cuba). But it has never been successful on a large scale. Even Vietnam has moved towards a more westernized economy.

So you can disagree with me all you want. But the facts don't support your disagreement. China's economic growth is a result of becoming more capitalist, showing the failure of communism. And China has never been "under the rule of Communism". They have been under the rule of the Communist party. But Communism is more an economic system not a form of government.

I did not suggest the workers in China were at the advantage. I also don't agree with their workers getting paid so little. No, I would not want to live in China. I don't believe in child labor, nor their country's way with workers.
I also don't believe in American jobs being exported to China and India.
I simply made the statement that China is predicted to be the World's next leader in economic development. That was the question, and the disagreement; nothing else.

The original poster is asking for opinions. "The facts" can be shown to back a variety of opinions... so let's not get too carried away with who's right and who's wrong!

Funny that, when facts get in the way. :)
But what do you do when somewhat pointely disagress with a post? They aren't posting their opinion, they are saying why you are wrong. Natural human reaction to set the person straight.

Funny that, when facts get in the way. :)
But what do you do when somewhat pointely disagress with a post? They aren't posting their opinion, they are saying why you are wrong. Natural human reaction to set the person straight.

Spread feature won't allow me to comment so I have to reply.

This bears on what I have been saying in this thread:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum-help/where-line-about-disparaging-26247.html

Fred disagreed with a statement I made, which is his right. In disagreeing, he presented some facts that he felt backed up his disagreement. So far so good. If those facts did disprove my statement, then my next move would be to recant. However, those facts did not disprove my statement. The facts did not consider other facts. So instead of recanting, I responded with facts that support my statement and show Fred's disagreement as incorrect.

All this was done, politely and within the guidelines.

The next move, should have been Fred's acknowledgement that my point was correct and recanting his disagreement. Instead he responds with an incorrect characterization of what he actually said. Fine! So that leaves me to respond by showing what he actually said and how it was incorrect.

Again, all this is done with civility, no name calling or apparent violations of rules.

But the point is that my statement was disagreed with, indicating I was wrong. The problem is I was not wrong, Fred was. So I should have the right to defend my position. Which is what I have done.

We get tired of disagreements turning into major debates.

One can post an opinion and another can disagree... that's fine. But if you want to start a debate over the success, or lack of it, of Communism in China, start a new thread.

Who is wrong here is a matter of opinion.

That's what I like about this place, you can post anything you want. If someone calls you on it you simply report it to the admins. Cool.

No one has called anyone on it. I sensed back at #28 that this would turn into one of the famous "fred-scott" debates...

So when should we stop these catfights that go so far beyond the simple question that the asker asked?

I thought it was going fine until someone decided to disagree with a specific post.

Let's take the debate part of this here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/active-members/input-26310.html

... further answers to the initial poster's question here on Government are invited.

I simply made the statement that China is predicted to be the World's next leader in economic development. That was the question, and the disagreement; nothing else.

I will try this once more and hope that I don't get censored again. But since this post is here I should be allowed to respond here.

What was actually said:


I disagree somewhat with the previous answers' statement of "Communism has proven to not work well".
This is not true in all cases.

That post then went on to cite some facts that tried to support that statement. I responded with a post stating facts that disprove that statement.

I am confident that I have proven my original statement and therefore shown there is no factual basis for disagreement with it.

Sorry folk and folkesses - but I got a little confused on my journey from page 1 to page 4 - soooooooo ----- I went to the top of the page to look up the original question.

It appears quite simple to me - you answer with an opinion - you are not (or should not) be interested whether other people agree or disagree with that given opinion.

If people do not agree with your opinion that is their right - HOWEVER...
Their responding opinion does not come under the context of the "original question" and therefore should be kept to themselves. As a reader I am interested in the reply - NOT the opinions of other people to that reply. I, like them may not have the same opinion - but that is not is what was asked for in the "original question" :D

Anyway (brushes dust off his hands;) ) my "opinion"...

We all live in some sort of Dictatorship - here in the UK and probably the majority of the "west", they are "Elected Dictatorships" - you vote them in to do your bidding (your think ? ) and they tell you what you are going to do.

Hhhhmmmmmm - maybe it's time for another Revolution:eek: