Just wondering.

[edit: Crap, I meant "most" likely, not "more" likely. But I can't edit the poll questions, so...]

Edited by Da_Goat at 02:48 on April, 24th 2003

Well, I don't want to sound like a "faultfinder", but it's pretty hard to answer because your list contains terms that can hardly be compared with each other. Democracy is not a form of government. It's a way a government is legitimized or how decisions are made. Fascism is an ideology; democratic countries, such as republics, can theoretically be fascistic, too. Anyway, it's still damn hard to answer, but it's damn interesting, too.

- If you were asking for the most effective one, it's definitely a dictatorship. That doesn't mean that I want it, though. But as a dictatorship does not have any legitimation, it will most likely get problems and not suceed on the long run.

- Anarchy and Communism are both forms that are suposed to work infinitely. However, it would take a basic change in human way of thinking to achieve them. So for the moment: no. Once one of them is really established: yes.

- Republic: Very general term; however, it includes a minimum of democratic participation, which means there is a government that can be changed by the people after a period of time. In my opinion it has good chances to suceed for a long time.

I said "All are equaly good/bad" simply because they all already been proven to be sucessful forms of government at least once. Since the question doesn't ask for which one I prefer or think is better, answering anything else would be stupid from my point of view.

All have their benefits all have their failures, if you question is based upon what kind of government will work the best in Iraq? Then a dictatorship easily, the country had 4 sucessful coups and 6 failed ones in 10 years before Saddam came into power. Everything listed there works in theory, and when put into the right situation works wonderfully, put inot the wrong situation causes the country to fall into ruins.

I think Anarchy has the best chance to happen, though.

Isn't Anarchy just mob rule


So therefore Anarchy isn't really a form of government at all :S

Hmm.... tough question, but in the end, it depends how you define succeeding. If it's short term stability and quick accomodation to the system, it's definitely the dictatorship. If you want something lasting, the system with most personal freedom 'wins': Anarchy. The downside of this would be that it would take a lot of time to be truly established and since this phase could be quite painful, it could very well happen that this system is scrapped again before it really started. Between that, it's basically possible to put all those systems on a linear scale: the more personal freedom, the less likely a system is to stay on the long run.

sterge: Of course Anarchy isn't a form of government, but so isn't democracy (as Tapuak correctly pointed out). So let's just say this is about society models

Edited by Mr Creosote at 12:25 on April, 25th 2003

Was getting rid of Uncle Saddam needed? I think they did quite well as long as they didn't rebel.

Their hospitals and schools are (or were) far more superior to Americas so they said on the BBC, so were the people that badly done by? If they didn't like the place they could have left you know...

Edited by Delos at 14:57 on April, 25th 2003

From your explanation before this I think it should be "the more likely". That is, if I understand what you meant.

Anyway, that linear scale is a nice interpretation; maybe the best 'society model' would be a society that just moves along this line as time passes, in the direction of 'more freedom'.

By the way, my vote goes to "all are equally good/bad"; it's hard to make a meaningful comparison when it comes to 'success'.

Um... yes, that was what I wanted to say

I'm saying "other". I think that the government with the best survival rate will be oligarchy. Basically the system you see in the US and slowly creeping into Europe. It's full of pros:

* A semi-democratic system where you vote the greater evil out of the office
* Giving people enough freedom to satisfy their greed - the most basic human need
* Effective enough to seemingly limit bureaucracy, respond fast to a crisis and protect people's property

That said, I think the last choice is wrong. It is judgmental, while the rest of the poll is more pragmatic.

I know Anarchy isn't a real form of government. It's actually a lack there of. But I know people who petition to rid the USA of a government, so in turn, they are sort of a governmental party. Of course, they aren't really, and if they were, they'd be contradictory to their purpose...then again, people added Jesus to their ballots

As for a democracy, I was referring to a total democracy that I don't think has ever been done: one where EVERYTHING is elected by the people, from the President to a bag boy at the grocery store. It sounds like I have too active an imagination, but so be it.

Edited by Da_Goat at 21:36 on April, 25th 2003

NetDanzr: Throughout history, people have always been tempted to view their current system as the 'best'. I'm not saying your view is wrong, but it's always the easiest way to speak for what people can currently see in action. Most people would have said the same about monarchy in the middle ages for example.

Goat: You're still making assumptions about 'democracy'. Who says a 'democracy' automatically needs a 'president'? That already implies it is a Republic again. Stalin for example said the true democracy is the rule of the proletariat. There are many more views on this.

Hm, I wouldn't be so sure about that. First of all, the system you are talking about would never call itself an "oligarchy" although it might be one in fact. That means it is built on a lie, which is that it pretends equal possibilities for everyone to become a part of the government, too, although it is close to impossible. And your oligarchy is still close to a timocracy, that's why you still have the factor of social enviousness like hundreds of years before.

Moreover, the people's needs are changing rapidly, so it's unsure whether such a system gives the people enough freedom to satisfy them. It possibly does at the moment, but you don't know what the people's needs look like in 200 years. As it is semi-democratic as you said, there are strong limits to freedom in fact. And that could easily cause conflicts on some point. I mean, historically, the rights of the people increased (after they had been limited strictly). Very slowly, but step by step. For example from slavery to feudalism to more modern monarchies to semi-democratic republics as today. That is a development from no rights to more rights. However, why should this development stop in the state it is today? Because we have reached the situation where the people are forever satisfied with their rights? As I wrote above, I doubt that they are on the long run, because their needs are (still) changing. When slaves in America were freed from slavery, they most likely thought they were satisfied at first, too. But they weren't.



Anarchy would be the consequence of the scale I described above (giving people more rights slowly), too, as it maximizes freedom. However, in total (individual) anarchy you don't even have a kind of "administration" (not government). In the state most humans are today, that would mean a) chaos and b) a drastic decrease of the material living standard, at least for the period when anarchy is "new", and that would be several decades at least, or even much more. And I doubt that today's humans, who equate material wealth with happiness, would stand this period without establishing some kind of administration again. So I think it would be scrapped, too, if anarchy was started now. It could be possible some time later (in some hundred years maybe) after humans realized that they are not a being who is born to be governed.

I'm not really sure whether people actually want more freedom. True, the human society is constantly evolving, and the surrendering of some personal freedoms lately may be just temporary, but I see some historical parallels here. Just look at the ancient Rome - from a republic to an oligarchy to a dictatorship, all with the consent of people who still got their "bread and games", only in a more efficient matter. Then came the barbarians, anarchy ensured, only to be soon replaced by many local dictatorships, which were more and more free over time. Now, people are set in their ways and surrendering some of their freedom in exchange for more efficient personal and property security. However, there's no more barbarians around to come and change this trend...

I agree that most people (if not all) don't want total freedom, just enough to get rich because with freedom comes responsibility for your choices and it's much easier to follow orders/ideas from someone else then to devise your own schemes for which you are solely responsable... not that I believe in freedom at all but hey, that's my problem

Where did you get your history lessons? From Gladiator? Rome's Republic was an oligarchy!

How did you know the part about The Gladiator?

Whats wrong with a good old fashioned Military Regime, like they have in Burma.

Or what about a 'Constitutional Monarchy' like those poor minions in Australia and Canada?