What do you think is the most ideal form of government (theoretically)?

[Thuy Vuong]

Reading Paul's response, I agree to which there should be multiple
topics to cover. So to satisfy this, I looked back and found one of
David's suggestions in order to get things running. The topic is the
subject and is stated below.

"What do you think is the most ideal form of government
(theoretically)?"

To properly state a theory or opinion, one must have the following
(these rules can and possibly will be changed as time goes on. They
can be changed by anyone at anytime but must be through mutual
agreement with the group):
-The form of government
-A reason why it is the most ideal based on some sort of fact


--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/subscribe?hl=en

[codingforidiots.com (dew96)]

One controlled by God?

[David R.]

Thank you for obeying me and Paul, to start with.

Just for the sake of arguement, I'll postulate a libertarian anarchy a la ayn rand for it.  Every individual is able to reach their full potential, and as this is _theoretical_, everyone would perfectly follow rand's idea of the ideal man - selfish, in the exact right way.  Working only to goals, goals not having to do with others - no politics, stealing, wanting to look good, revenge, any of that.  Everything would be done by someone who wanted to - or had to, to survive themselves. 

Now, please, tear that argument to peices

Also, dew/David, it's generally not a good idea to bring God up around philosophers. We don't mind religion, just don't try to use it as a filler arguement or try to convert anyone.  Still, assuming 'theoretically' means the best possible, which I guess I took it to, by Aquinas' Forth Way that would include God, and so I suppose you'd be right.  Hmm.

[David McCoy]

I just like controversy, didn't mean to bring in religion.

> >http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/subscribe?hl=en- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I can respond to dew96 with much logic and reason. My response shall be!...

I'm buddhist.

Who are you anyway?

Now to David, that isn't a government since it's anarchy. There is no higher power to decide things or to look to for guidance. EXCELLENT IDEA! Anarchy, though, doesn't seem like a good idea since we need to be dependent on eachother for things because none of us can do everything. The children need to depend on their parents to raise them. In a way, parents are the government of your family. Yet, I don't believe there is an ideal government for a nation because there is bound to be some degenerate in the nation. That degenerate would be the one who destroys the system that everybody should obey.

Cheers,
Thuy

[David McCoy]

First of all, dew96 and David are the same person. They are one in
each other, and each other are one. Their minds are one, their bodies
are one, he is one.

Now, as far as an ideal government would go, think differently.
Instead of changing the government, instead replace the leaders in it.
Would there be any problem with a dictator who was completely
righteous, or a communist leader who accually gave people rights and
rationed wealth and divided work fairly? As far as I'm concerned, as
long as the leaders were perfect, there would not need to be a change
in government. However, since no person who has lived has been
perfect, this isnt a reality, but still.

Which ties in to what you said. I bevieve what you said about there
never being a "perfect" government because of a degenerate, but
hypothetically in a world where there are not degenerates, the
government could be perfect. so, yes and no, there could be a perfect
government, if it werent for the fact that humans are not perfect.
There's my view.

ambivalently,

dew96/David/Tom Cruise

[David McCoy]

btw are you really buddhist?

On Apr 15, 9:30 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Why yes I am. So if you agree with me, I'm okay with it. If you disagree with me, I'm okay with it. It's a fun life.

Now, David's explanation is a bit confusing. You are two people combined and sharing one body?!?!?! Or, one person with one mind thinking for two people?

Or simply you're only one person.
Back to government.
I agree. The best government, even the best nation, requires people who will cooperate and remain loyal no matter what and a leader who is selfless and fully devoted to his/her nation.

Cheers,
Thuy

[David Reich]

And since we're operating theoretically here, I think we can rely on that theoretically optimal population and leader.  There are still going to be some constraints though - a completely direct democracy will still be horribly ineffectient, a socialism will still not reward good work, a facism will still not take in good ideas from the people.  So what's the best?  I don't think a dictatorship - It may be very quick and efficient, but there will still be a lot of useful population that can't contribute to government.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Just saying, no two governments are the same so it's kind of hard to
label them as democracy, dictatorship, etc. I'm really tired so sorry
if this doesn't make sense: I think that the best government would be
a government where the people are content to have their good work
ignored and where the leader is content to ignore the people's good
work. Unless we're talking about a specific type of government. Then,
never mind.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Ah, now that's communism at its finest. In communism, people work their hardest with a set amount of return no matter how hard they work. Yet, the only flaw in communism is the governing people, do they work? Communism would only be okay if the leaders are in the same position as the citizens. Still, it's human desire to move up to a higher position so people won't be okay with the unfit pay. Communism looks great on paper, but can't work in real life. My family is a good reason why it only works on paper.

In my opinion, there can't be a government without flaws. There has to be something in the government's system that can be exploited or it doesn't cover so people will fall beneath others.

Cheers,
Thuy

P.S. OMB, Michael! You're here! How did you find SSPC?

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Well I didn't really mean real life communism, but with crazy people
and a crazy leader who don't mind having their hard work ignored.

P.S. Why do you sign your posts? It says your name at the top.

P.P.S. What is OMB?

On Apr 18, 8:18 am, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> Ah, now that's communism at its finest. In communism, people work their
> hardest with a set amount of return no matter how hard they work. Yet, the
> only flaw in communism is the governing people, do they work? Communism
> would only be okay if the leaders are in the same position as the citizens.
> Still, it's human desire to move up to a higher position so people won't be
> okay with the unfit pay. Communism looks great on paper, but can't work in
> real life. My family is a good reason why it only works on paper.
>
> In my opinion, there can't be a government without flaws. There has to be
> something in the government's system that can be exploited or it doesn't
> cover so people will fall beneath others.
>
> Cheers,
> Thuy
>
> P.S. OMB, Michael! You're here! How did you find SSPC?
>

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomwolf...@gmail.com

[David Reich]

I suppose communism, or a form of it would be best - we are working in theory, with theoretically perfect people and all that.

The thing is, what about organization?  Who organises who does what work?

PS - if OMB stands for Oh My Buddha, Thuy wins the interent, just based on how awesome that is.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

That's the perfect form of communism. Communism without crazy people like Ho Chi Ming or Stalin or etc but communism without incorruptible people like...George Washington or something. Since it's only one person, how about a board of people who are randomly picked off the streets help decide things like in ancient Greece?

And yes, OMB stand for Oh MY Buddha. I understand the idea of God, but I favor Buddha.

Cheers,
Thuy

And I sign my posts because it's a force of habit. Cheers was taken from my dad.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

I think that that is a good idea. I also think that they should pick people like us. Kids who understand stuffs. And yous propper gramer and speling.

Also, nice with the OMB.

[David Reich]

Well, I suppose - It's theorectically perfect - any person off the street has as good a chance of having good choices as any other, and none will be outright evil.  But as for the leader himself - should it really just be one person, or more of a small council?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, I do like our idea of balanced powers. We may need more people to decide things rather than just George Washington. Although, if we create a council, it may become corrupt. Corruption would then make our government goes to the bottom of the list of bad governments. I'd rather we have one person be the "collector" who rounds up all of these off the street people while the group of people rounded up decides these things. Although, I think choosing people off the street seems a bit dangerous since hobos like to hang out there and so do gangs. How about randomly chosen people like jury duty, except with a euphemistic name like "Board of Government" duty?

Cheers

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:34 PM, David Reich <elli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I suppose - It's theorectically perfect - any person off the street has as good a chance of having good choices as any other, and none will be outright evil.  But as for the leader himself - should it really just be one person, or more of a small council?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that that is a good idea. I also think that they should pick people like us. Kids who understand stuffs. And yous propper gramer and speling.

Also, nice with the OMB.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

That's the perfect form of communism. Communism without crazy people like Ho Chi Ming or Stalin or etc but communism without incorruptible people like...George Washington or something. Since it's only one person, how about a board of people who are randomly picked off the streets to help decide things, like in ancient Greece?

[David Reich]

Well, I hadn't assumed off the street was literal anyway, but yeah.  And remember, this is in theory! we don't have any corruption, or gangs, or hobos to worry about! Later on, I'll start a seperate discussion about what's best in practice.  That will probably go very differently. 

Anyway, about lawmaking, how about this?  Rather than one big government, stuff is done on a very small level.  Like county or even town - small.  Almost everything.  With no tariffs between them.  And decisions on laws - like cultural ones, taxes etc, are all done on that level, including, since we already decided a communism is best ideally, equal distribution.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I agree! The reason most nations have no problems is because of its size. Take Switzerland and Liechtenstein. They didn't participate in any of the two World Wars and remain very stable governments and living conditions. They have no tariffs between each other and have very similar cultures. It's very peaceful there. Now I believe the reason of their success is 1) location and 2) they are small. Switzerland didn't desire to expand and Liechtenstein is puny. By dividing the land of governing, I believe more can be accomplished.

And Switzerland has no gun laws. That may ironically contribute to its peace...or not.

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

I think in our MTIC (Magical Town of Ideal Communism) guns were never invented. While we're on the topic of guns, what will our army be like?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

In MTIC, there will be no need of an army for there is world peace and everybody agrees with each other.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

There can't be world peace, because there can't be peace without fighting. So maybe if we're off in Europe or something, Australia can be fighting with New Zealand.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

If that's true then you underestimate the powers of the Magical Town of Ideal Communism where it controls the minds of all.

Now, realistically, the army may be composed people chosen at birth who would best fit the roles of soldiers. Kinda like the genome soldiers.

Cheers?

[David McCoy]

Now that you've brought up this idea I want to interject something.
Are we creating a dystopia?

Armies where soldiers are removed from their families at birth?
Governments that can see into your mind? "World peace" where everyone
has reached a concensus? Does that include unified religion? Language?
Money? It sounds like an all-powerful government to me. Too much
power. I don't know, maybe I don't have a point. Tell me what you
think.

On Apr 18, 10:14 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> If that's true then you underestimate the powers of the *Magical Town of
> Ideal Communism* where it controls the minds of all.

>
> Now, realistically, the army may be composed people chosen at birth who
> would best fit the roles of soldiers. Kinda like the genome soldiers.
>
> Cheers?
>

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomwolf...@gmail.com

>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > There can't be world peace, because there can't be peace without fighting.
> > So maybe if we're off in Europe or something, Australia can be fighting with
> > New Zealand.
>
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
>

> >> In MTIC, there will be no need of an army for there is *world peace* and

> >> everybody agrees with each other.
>
> >> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <
> >> doomwolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I think in our MTIC (Magical Town of Ideal Communism) guns were never
> >>> invented. While we're on the topic of guns, what will our army be like?
>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org>wrote:
>
> >>>> I agree! The reason most nations have no problems is because of its
> >>>> size. Take Switzerland and Liechtenstein. They didn't participate in any of
> >>>> the two World Wars and remain very stable governments and living conditions.
> >>>> They have no tariffs between each other and have very similar cultures. It's
> >>>> very peaceful there. Now I believe the reason of their success is 1)
> >>>> location and 2) they are small. Switzerland didn't desire to expand and
> >>>> Liechtenstein is puny. By dividing the land of governing, I believe more can
> >>>> be accomplished.
>
> >>>> And Switzerland has no gun laws. That may ironically contribute to its
> >>>> peace...or not.
>
> >>>> Cheers
>

> >>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:11 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> Well, I hadn't assumed off the street was literal anyway, but yeah.
> >>>>> And remember, this is in theory! we don't have any corruption, or gangs, or
> >>>>> hobos to worry about! Later on, I'll start a seperate discussion about
> >>>>> what's best in practice.  That will probably go very differently.
>
> >>>>> Anyway, about lawmaking, how about this?  Rather than one big
> >>>>> government, stuff is done on a very small level.  Like county or even town -
> >>>>> small.  Almost everything.  With no tariffs between them.  And decisions on
> >>>>> laws - like cultural ones, taxes etc, are all done on that level, including,
> >>>>> since we already decided a communism is best ideally, equal distribution.
>
> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Well, I do like our idea of balanced powers. We may need more people
> >>>>>> to decide things rather than just George Washington. Although, if we create
> >>>>>> a council, it may become corrupt. Corruption would then make our government
> >>>>>> goes to the bottom of the list of bad governments. I'd rather we have one
> >>>>>> person be the "collector" who rounds up all of these off the street people
> >>>>>> while the group of people rounded up decides these things. Although, I think
> >>>>>> choosing people off the street seems a bit dangerous since hobos like to
> >>>>>> hang out there and so do gangs. How about randomly chosen people like jury
> >>>>>> duty, except with a euphemistic name like "Board of Government" duty?
>
> >>>>>> Cheers
>

> >>>>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:34 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Well, I suppose - It's theorectically perfect - any person off the
> >>>>>>> street has as good a chance of having good choices as any other, and none
> >>>>>>> will be outright evil.  But as for the leader himself - should it really
> >>>>>>> just be one person, or more of a small council?
>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <
> >>>>>>> doomwolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> I think that that is a good idea. I also think that they should pick
> >>>>>>>> people like us. Kids who understand stuffs. And yous propper gramer and
> >>>>>>>> speling.
>
> >>>>>>>> Also, nice with the OMB.
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> That's the perfect form of communism. Communism without crazy
> >>>>>>>>> people like Ho Chi Ming or Stalin or etc but communism without incorruptible
> >>>>>>>>> people like...George Washington or something. Since it's only one person,
> >>>>>>>>> how about a board of people who are randomly picked off the streets to help
> >>>>>>>>> decide things, like in ancient Greece?
>
> >>>>>>>>> And yes, OMB stand for Oh MY Buddha. I understand the idea of God,
> >>>>>>>>> but I favor Buddha.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> Thuy
>
> >>>>>>>>> And I sign my posts because it's a force of habit. Cheers was taken
> >>>>>>>>> from my dad.
>

> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:32 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Nah, I was mostly joking.

Although, it seems that our government system sums up to be am idealistic communism where there is:

The entire nation which is broken down into smaller areas supervised and enforced by a leader of that small area, like a block leader. Each citizen is (somehow) okay with the pay coming from the amount of work put in. The law-deciding group is composed of people chosen at random. These people can decide on laws and how to better the nation.

Now, I like to wonder how these leaders enforce the laws?
And yes, we are creating a dystopia if people must be okay with the pay.

Cheers

[David Reich]

First, thanks for the summary Thuy, very useful to see where we're at periodically.

The subject of an army reminded me  - has anyone read Utopia by St. Thomas More?  It's a 1500's look at an ideal society in the mind of More, one of the first modern looks at communism, and the coining of 'utopia' as an english word.  There are some very good ideas in it (and also some very poor ones - Let's put all atheists to death because they're not really human!)  for example, it defends itself by making mercenaries of other nations.  A particularly clever bit - they make toilets out of solid gold, so in the event that the government needs gold to pay another nation, they can just ask the populace for their toilets.  Similarly, jesters and children wear jewels.  That's a bit specific for what we're looking for, but I strongly recommend anyone interested in this sort of thing to read it.  Anyway, tools of labor (i.e. capital) are held communally, but people still have specialized jobs - we don't want three people mediocre at medicine, construction, and music, when we could have a great doctor, a brilliant archetect, and a virtuoso.  

The idea of a dystopia - and what is horrible and what isn't - is a very good discussion, but it seems a bit divergent enough from this topic that it deserves it's own discussion.  I'll go start that.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

That may be a big flaw for me...I like my gold toilet.
So in our utopia, we would have the people choose their professions?

Cheers

[David Reich]

I would think so - It's theoretically perfect, so there won't be much trouble with bad decisions, and theres no way a governemtn could be nearly as efficient as individuals at knowing their own abilities. 

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

But remember the idea inside "The Giver", another utopia book. "What if people choose the wrong professions?" or what if there are too many people in one profession due to popular demand? For example, there are too many doctors and policemen but no sanitation engineers?

Cheers

[dew96 (saucy)]

I LOVED that book and you bring up a good point I think the "ideal" (dysutopic) government would have to manage jobs.

[David Reich]

hmm, this is a problem.  I can think of a couple slow-acting ways to handle that (extra schooling for sanatation engineers, etc), but none that would work immediately.  Of course, a lot of the jobs noone wants don't require much expertise (sanitation engineers being an exception, actually - but that could probably be done by someone who already knows a lot in other engineering fields) - how about everyone spends a certain percentage of their time on their chosen job, and the extra on jobs that need to be done - Like I'm a car mechanic (that could be fun) 5 days of the week, and spend the other 2 as a janitor or something, out of obligation to society. 

That's not really a sufficient ratio, but there's got to be a few people who like janitoring, or maybe a different ratio. 

Remember though - we're trying to make a utopia, not just in the sense of an efficient society, but also where people are happy.  So leave a fair amount of free time, for recreational pursuits - like exercise, or public lectures.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

You know that a sanitation engineer is a janitor or garbageman, right?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Although, I agree on the idea on how each person does percentages of jobs in correlation to both the person's expertise and the society's needs.

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Well, if each person enjoys being, say, a sanitation engineer, so be it. If that is the way that they wish to spend their free time, there should be a separate decision-making process for that.

[David Reich]

Ah, i didn't recognise that euphemism, Thuy.  I expected it to be an engineer who... designs sewer systems or something?

Anyway, the point still stands.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

If I learned one thing from Ms Dreizen(I really only learned one thing) it's how to make a euphemism.

Cheers