<p>Due to sub-, un-, or super-/natural forces? Discuss or demolish.</p>
<p>I don't understand your question, but I'll give it a shot. </p>
<p>Will there ever be? No.</p>
<p>Has there ever been one created to that extent? Yes. </p>
<p>I think we need to distinguish between democracy and communism at first. Democracy is a form of government while communism is an economical state. You can have communism through democracy and you can have democracy while you have communism. It's all possible. It's just that the past has coupled communism with dictatorship. I think it's Bolivia right now that seems to be on the verge of expelling their communistic rule through democracy (please correct me if I am wrong. I don't want to quote this in the future.)</p>
<p>It all boils down to representation, which allows us to dissect a democracy and a republic. Having brushed up on Greek history, I remember being told a republic was having the ability for everyone to come out and discuss their points of view while a democracy was through representation. The growth of our population slowly pushed a republic out of the picture and introduced democracy in that respects. A republic is unarguably the best from of government.</p>
<p>I'll finish this later.</p>
<p>I'm going to say no, because even the most extreme "utopian" type governments (socialism, communism) have seen an elite rise to take advantage of the very masses they vowed to save (except some Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden). In theory, there are great ideas, but its just human nature to screw someone over in order to advance ones ideals or to be greedy. Human nature will always ensure that there will be inefficiencies in distribution of wealth, equality, and human rights so there can never be a perfect system of government so to speak.</p>
<p>
[quote]
'm going to say no, because even the most extreme "utopian" type governments (socialism, communism) have seen an elite rise to take advantage of the very masses they vowed to save (except some Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden).
[/quote]
It's a bit telling that you say that socialism is bad except for a few specific cases and then go on to list the majority of socialist governments. Communism has seen its rulers take advantage of the masses, socialism has not so much. Much of western Europe - including the Scandinavian countries - is socialist or near-socialist and you have yet to hear about widespread abuse there. By and large, the people are extremely happy with their governments.</p>
<p>yes, communism. not</p>
<p>how about a government where i rule the world?</p>
<p>I probably should have included the word history in my argument. When I listed those Scandinavian countries they were the exception. Throughout history socialism has failed miserably in countries in Africa( Democratic Republic of Congo comes to mind), as well as numerous Latin American countries (currently Venezuela where the younger masses are growing weary of Hugo Chavez's socialistic programs). The point is even in those Scandinavian countries I mentioned the people are getting taxed heavily(in some cases 40%). Human nature's impulse is to do the best for ones self. So I think eventually socialism in these countries with evolve slowly towards democracy as people realize that they want to help themselves rather than support countrymen who don't contribute as much as they do to the economy.</p>
<p>no, because there are no perfect people</p>
<p>NO.</p>
<p>We're humans. We make mistakes.</p>
<p>There already has been one.</p>
<p>Large-scale society will always fail in some respect. We would have to go back to tribal living in order to get a "perfect gov't", and that would be impossible at this point.</p>
<p>Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.</p>
<p>^ Probably true, except for tribal systems which almost perfectly met the neesd of all tribal members, since 1) all tribal members were only one degree of separation from their leader, so they all had influence on laws, and 2) since tribes are small, each individual has needs so similar to the next that each law created can satisfy <em>everyone</em>, unlike in the US where most laws only satisfy a few.</p>
<p>Perfect system government...tthat's a totally BSing bull crap.</p>
<p>The more I read about communism the more it appeals to me in theory, however I also realize it is impossible to execute communism in the way it is meant.</p>
<p>Will anything ever be perfect? No, because perfect is a completely subjective term.</p>
<p>In response to #14 - it is possible with communities smaller than 250.</p>
<p>the perfect system of government is no government at all-I don't see that happening any time soon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the perfect system of government is no government at all
[/quote]
And that's why perfect is a subjective term. Personally, I view no government at all is being terrible - Yay, anarchy!</p>
<p>Anarchy is to extreme.People aren't smart, rational, or disciplined enough to coexist peacefully now, how could it possibly get better with no checks and balances in place?</p>
<p>I was being sarcastic when I said "Yay, anarchy!"</p>