What Form of Government Do You Support?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
1

<p>Hello everyone on College Confidential. There were four main recent (I know there were other philosophers who proposed these theories) European philosophers who advocated different theories explaining who should rule government: Hume, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
Hume supported Rule by All.
Hobbes supported Rule by One (He loved the monarchy).
Locke supported Rule by Few.
Rousseau supported Rule by Many.</p>

<p>Personally I believe that the best form of government is what Locke propose, "rule by few." But I have a few modifications to that theory.
In my opinion, the best form of government is a constitutional oligarchy with democratic elements. There would be five people: one would be the advisor to the people, another would be the advisor to other nations and a military strategist, one would make laws, another would check these laws and their effect on others, and the final one would be an assessor and ambassador.
All save the assessor and ambassador would have two years per term and can have five terms in their life. The assessor and ambassador would continue his/her position for life unless the people believe that he/she became corrupt and then they can impeach him. The assessor and ambassador's job is to be a diplomat to foreign nations and to choose what men are competent to do their job every two years. Impeachment can occur for any official if the 60% of the people express dissent against a member of the oligarchy
Under this system, corruption can't occur because of checks and balances and the constitution allows for easy impeachment. Stressful jobs would end because the executive branch's power is now separated into three people. Since there are five people, three must work together to overthrow the remaining two. The person who is an advisor to other nations and a military strategist is allowed to propose war against another nation, but 80% of the people need to support the declaration of war as under the constitution. The people has the right to express any form of dissent against the government except through violence.
That is my form of government. What's yours?</p>

2

<p>Government is a very debatable topic. I think that the U.S. Goverment is a fine example of one the best democracies that the world has seen.</p>

<p>However, the Ottoman empire under Suleiman the Magnificent was perhaps the best monarchy seen by the easter world.</p>

<p>Ghengis Khan probably led the best military dictatorship ever known to man.</p>

<p>The Oligarchies of the Italian city-states prospered into the Renaissance and led a revolution in human culture and sophistication.</p>

<p>The world has seen many types of governments. Each government has the potential to be good, but corrupt leaders defile the true meaning of the office.</p>

<p>Overall, I’d have to support democarcy, I don’t see anything wrong with the American Government, infact, I am very impressed by it. It is a tried and tested method that has lasted over the ages, making crucial modifications that has made it pretty awesome in strenght. </p>

<p>We can all think of Utopian ways to make a government, but it’d be hard to put it into practice, and in that sense, we’d join the lot of the world’s failed leaders.</p>

<p>Good question though, I like politics!:)</p>

3

<p>Thispakistanigir: In my opinion, the United States government is a failed form of a democracy. It’s a fine government, existing on a 234-year old Constitution, produces amazing leaders, and works well in national politics, but there are several problems with it. I wouldn’t call it a democracy any longer–it’s more like a government “for the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and of the lobbyists.” A recent law now allows lobbyists and businesses to give as much money as they desire to US politicians. As a result, these politicians are basically being bribed to do whatever is in the best interest of the lobbyist or the business. Say for example, Exxon Mobil gives you $5 million for your campaign as a senator. You enter the senate and there is a law that is against off-shore drilling. Even though you may love the environment and was elected by the people because of your “go-green” spirit, you have to vote against the bill for Exxon so that they’ll give you money next term. The American government has been reduced to seeing if a politician can keep their position and vote. </p>

<p>Another thing, people aren’t represented well in the American government.
After Former President Bush declared war on Iraq, my community and I sent a letter informing that Osama ibn Laden would never work with Saddam Hussein, a secular leader. Nonetheless, this letter was ignored and the government continued with what they did.
Let’s go back to Pearl Harbor–“a day that will live in infamy”–many scientists and navy specialists warned the US about incoming Japanese planes about two hours to an hour before Pearl Harbor actually began, but these reports were ignored both by the government and government officials working with the navy.</p>

<p>Democracy can only work when it is a direct democracy (or “mobacracy” as Rousseau put it) like in Athens.
Representative democracies usually turn out to only represent the best interests of the representer instead of the represented.</p>

<p>Moreover, the two-party system doesn’t work–politicians only care about giving their party an advantage. Today all we hear about on the news is filibustering against opposite parties, bipartisan efforts to keep the parties together, and how Republicans will always vote Republican and Democrats will always vote Democrat (but that isn’t completely true). My favorite president is FDR because he was able to accomplish so many things, but the main reason he did was that the both houses of Congress had a Democrat majority. If the US government wants to get things done, we need a three-party system to emulate checks and balances amongst branches (which actually works… unless all branches are controlled by one party…).</p>

4

<p>I’ll address your points as I go but for starters, most politicians fund their own campaigns. “Companies” do not heavily support individual politicians. If they want more funding, which is rare because they are usually extremely rich themselves, they’ll go to other leaders within their party. I don’t think that Exxon or any other oil company funds a great majority of our fine senators.</p>

<p>As far as Iraq goes, it was a tough situation for us. We wanted to perserve democracy while increasing domestic safety. If I had been in that position, I would’ve done a much worse job. People often under-estimate the pressure that is on a national leader’s shoulders. President Bush dealt with it the best he could’ve and though there are many areas that he might have seemed ignorant towards, there is only so much that a man in such a position can do. President Obama is currently working hard at getting our troops home.</p>

<p>And as far as representation goes, people elect their own senators, the vast majority of the people agree with the ideals of a certain person and they elect them for that reason. </p>

<p>And as far as favorites go, Teddy Roosevelt was an excellent leader, someone that paved the way for progressive modern presidents today.</p>

<p>I never really saw anything wrong with our government. When comparing it with other nations, it almost seems utopian, wouldn’t you say? Why fix something if it truly isn’t broken.</p>

<p>Well, that’s my two-cents:) Back to AP Cramming!</p>

5

<p>anarcho-capitalism</p>

<p>go bryan caplan!</p>

<p>(well i’d still put in state funding for science and environmental protection lol)</p>

<p>although i usually feel lonely since i’m most libertarian on things most libertarians are least libertarian on (education epecially), and least libertarian on things most libertarians are most libertarian on (environment, science)</p>

6

<p>I use the best
I use the rest
I use the enemy
I use Anarchy
'Cause I wanna be Anarchy
It’s the only way to be
This is my way of saying that I don’t know crap about politics</p>

7

<p>Thispakistanigir: “When comparing it with other nations, it almost seems utopian, wouldn’t you say?”
I do NOT mean any offense to YOU directly. Many have said that before and still say it today.
That’s the problem with people, society, and the world. We compare things to ourselves to make us feel superior and better and when something better comes along, we show anger, hatred, fear, and ignorance and try to destroy it. I hate to say it, but comparing ourselves to others makes us arrogant and stops us from improving any better. If the US thinks it’s the best nation, why are we advocating healthcare for poorer Americans? Why do we compare currency rates? Why do have foreign trade? Why do we try to make education better? If you look at some of my other posts, then you can see that the many administrations have failed completely in keeping a democracy. Such as the Bush Administration with the USA Patriot Act or NCLB Act or the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars or the Obama Administration’s failure to explain what the healthcare bill really means, all of which most Americans express dissent towards. </p>

<p>In other news… actually, many of the “poorer” candidates depend on campaign money from business donations and the like…</p>

<p>Can we get back to the original conversation? Everyone on College Confidential: What form of government would you like? As you can see with my answer, it doesn’t have to be simple and plain answer of “representative democracy,” “direct democracy,” “monarchy,” “dictatorship,” “fascist republic,” “theocracy,” or “oligarchy.” I just want to hear your opinions on what the best government would be and it doesn’t even have to exist.</p>

<p>By the way, with my “constitutional oligarchy with democratic elements,” there would be freedom of religion and the 5 major religions would be represented by the oligarchy members: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Atheism. All other religions would be considered in decision-making processes. If 2+ members of the oligarchy are against each other due to religion, then the people who follow the religions of those 2+ people have the right to impeach the person who follows their religion. If strife continues and problems cannot be solved, the assessor has the right to remove ALL members from the oligarchy with or without public agreement and then replace them with different, more amiable members.</p>

<p>To the guys who want Anarchy: You need a form of government to subsist in the world–it’s impossible not to live without a leader. Even animals need alpha males or sometimes females to tell them what they should do. Early humans needed chiefs to tell them where game was and where they should stop for rest. Native American tribes depended on chiefs and women to get them anywhere.
People NEED leaders!
Anarchy can be your idea for politics and how people should exist, but anarchy isn’t a form of government that people can live with.</p>

8

<p>A socialistic democratic oligarchy sounds fantastic.</p>

<p>Socialistic rather than socialist to mean that it’s not complete socialism, only that some industries/services are run by the government (eg: healthcare). I feel like this is a more equitable system that total capitalism.
Democratic because non-democratically selected rulers usually get there by corruption, inheritance, or seizure. Also, involving the people in the selection of rulers leads to them feeling somewhat accountable and thus involving themselves more in politics, which is beneficial to the development of the state.
Oligarchy because I feel that having one leader leads to either his/her apotheosis or vilification. And I think that many are usually better than few (eg: the supreme court). Not sure how many. Maybe 5. I think it would also lead to less of a two-party system. There have to be built-in measures in a government to stop that, I believe, as humans seem to be naturally attracted to dualism. (I always felt that attraction had something to do with the number of perceivable dimensions in our universe.)</p>

<p>I know nothing about politics/forms of government, so this might be a really bad or untenable idea.</p>

9

<p>Millancad: Socialism is a good idea in theory, but I would prefer a capitalist society, but it has to be where people are encouraged (instead of forced) to give money to poorer citizens. I personally think socialism works better in a direct democracy, where the people are making the government and the economy. It works out much better, but that doesn’t mean that democracy can’t go with capitalism. Capitalism and democracy can also go hand-in-hand, but not as well as a socialist democratic nation.
Socialistic ideas and programs, like healthcare reform, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc., would work well in my form of government, but I would like it to be regulated by businesses rather than the government.</p>

<p>I didn’t really explain the economic situation of my form of government, did I? </p>

<p>In my system, the oligarchy member who advises the people will focus on domestic economics while the oligarchy member who works on national instances and military strategy will concentrate on international economics. That way, these two disparate economic forms will be separated between two people suitable for their own jobs.
With foreign policy, that goes to the assessor & ambassador and the military strategist & foreign policy guy. So two people would work on foreign policy, one person would work on domestic issues, and two would work on governmental issues. I think that works out by priority in society.</p>

10

<p>Oh no I didn’t take any offense, it’s a fun topic, and I like to debate about Politics. I’m the head of MUN at my school and we recently had a mock-trial about government. I find it fascinating, and as far as world governments go, there will forever be a comparison. The poor man always wants the rag to riches story and the third world country will always want to become a world power.</p>

<p>But then again that’s another rant.</p>

<p>Anarchy is definitely not the way to go!</p>

11

<p>Thispakistanigir: I’m happy to see that you didn’t take any offense. I also participate in Model UN at my school, but since I just joined recently, I’m considered a “lower” or “junior” member. Nonetheless, I love participating in mock trials. I also love debate! </p>

<p>I looked closer at the comments about anarchy: Please realize that anarchy leads to instability, war, fear, hatred, ignorance, violence, and eight bombs going off in different cities at the same time (RED SCARE!!). However, anarchy usually leads to an overthrow of a DESPOTIC government and the replacement of another one (usually totalitarian but sometimes the good in people can help society become better). So if you advocate anarchy for that reason, that’s fine by me.</p>

12

<p>Socialistic democracy with a multi-party system. I am in favor of heavy corporate regulation, democracy so we can vote people in, a multi-party system so that we don’t have to only choose A or B, a socialist country that distributes the wealth and helps the less fortunate, and one where the supposedly richest country in the world can take care of ALL of its citizens.</p>

<p>The US form of democracy is a terrible example of a democracy. We are a partisan plutocracy that is essentially run by corporations. We have a terrible history of abuse and corruption and are NOT something the rest of the world should model themselves after. </p>

<p>I am also in favor of breaking up the United States. We are much too large of a country to ever do anything effectively. Let the south succeed, let Texas and California be their own countries for all I care. But I don’t like the fact that people thousands of miles away with no regards to how I live my life can regulate what I do in my home (ie LGBT rights, the Texas revisionist history, etc).</p>

13

<p>romanigypsyeyes: I agree with your opinion that the US isn’t the best form of a democracy, but isn’t a bit radical to wish for secession (no offense, but that’s sort of out of hand…)? You have to admit that the US has produced many great leaders who saved this country in dire times like FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson, George Washington, Truman, and Teddy Roosevelt.
A multi-party system like that seems great, but what would happen if one party got to powerful and out of hand? I like the idea, but let’s say there’s a guy who only likes when the rich people take care of all the citizens so he doesn’t have to do a thing. When an opposing party gets into power, he and supporters of the “Rich People Take Care of All Citizens So That You Don’t Have to Do Any Work Party” or the “RPTCACSTYDHDAWP” (I’m just having fun–no offense to you whatsoever–I respect and honor your opinion) would cause a revolt, overthrow the country, and create a dictatorship. What would happen then? </p>

<p>Government isn’t just the economy, structure, and politics, you know (which is surprising, but true).</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Why is it radical? In my opinion, large countries always tend to implode. We are seeing that now. Plus, the south and the north are two radically different places. Plus, many in Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska want to succeed from the US. I say let 'em. If we break up the country, it will be MUCH easier to manage. Think about it- would it be easier to handle 50 million people or 300 million people? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I never denied that, but I also don’t think that we’ve done a whole lot of good. Our history is all about taking and slaughtering. We came and killed millions of people, continue to trample the rights of many, and we go oversees and kill millions more. Doesn’t seem like a country worth “saving” to me. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s much less likely in a multi-party system. But you’re right, let’s keep it how it is now. We have TWO parties that are too powerful and out of hand and therefore our government is often at a standstill.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>To be completely honest- I have no idea what that said, so I have no way to respond to it.
The only way that that would happen is if they took away the right to vote (which I said socialistic DEMOCRACY would be the best form) and therefore you are no longer my ideal form of government. Therefore, it is a moot point.</p>

15

<p>I in no way support the two party system, romanigypsyeyes. I actually am against it since it doesn’t allow any major legislation to occur.
Another thing: It would be easier to handle 50 million people, but that’s the problem. Because it’s easier to handle 50 million people, there is less dissent against a government, so the government could impose corrupt methods of destroying dissent easily. (You know, during WWI, where the population was 100 million, people who advocated against the war were castrated, killed, and wrongfully persecuted.)
I’m saying it’s a BIT radical. Secession has occurred in times past and worked, but do you really want another American Civil War? I don’t think I would like for another 415,000 people to die for the cause of secession or state’s rights. I know that some people do want to secede from the US (I have a friend from Texas), but I don’t believe that a government could exist there unless careful planning would occur before secession, but the US would prevent it before it happened. Moreover, my friend believes that the reason is because of healthcare reform and the economy, which will change over time anyway, so what’s the point of another war?
Another thing: My example was a bit exaggerated but it just explained that if a majority of people in a nation supported one party in the multi-party system, that party would obviously get elected. What would happen if antagonizers against the party joined forces and overthrew the government? That was my question. I’m sorry for wording it weirdly.</p>

<p>No offense to any of your opinions, romanigyspyeyes. I’m just expressing my opinion–I also believe that socialism and democracy can work very well with one another.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>What examples do you have that are similar to the US? Canada and Russia are large, but mostly unpopulated in the older regions. China, Brazil, and Australia have population concentrations on the coast, as does the US, but ours are to a much smaller degree.
The most similar large country of which I can think is India, which is only about a third of the size of the US. I don’t think it has imploded at any time that its form of government was similar to ours.</p>

17

<p>Can we get back to the actual discussion now?
My favorite form of government would focus more on domestic issues but would be very involved if a global crisis occurred. I already explained war in a previous post. I call it “Globalized Isolationism”–or just the Roosevelt Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine extended across the entire world.</p>

18

<p>When did we get off topic? </p>

<p>Mill- I was thinking about civilizations that got too bit (think Rome). And I think we are slowly imploding. Detroit is a perfect example of what I believe is going to happen to most urban areas in America.</p>

19

<p>Well, the conversation was “what your favorite form of government is” and now it’s gradually changing into a discussion about secession. </p>

<p>But, romanigypsyeyes, I have to disagree that whatever happened to Detroit will happen to most urban areas in America. Like what happened in the Great Depression, some places forgot/forget to diversify, so if demand for a single product is low and that product is the basis of a place’s economy (like automobiles for Detroit or the automobile and construction industries during the 1920s) then the entire economy suffers. Today, urban areas have diversified their economy with two or three strong sectors so that if one fails, the others would not be affected.</p>

20

<p>173 views but only 18 replies? Come on guys! Join in the fun that is politics!</p>

<p>I bet you never heard that phrase before…</p>