What is the ideal form of Government?

...Autocrats will always find a way! Until such ideological impulses are socially resisted and become a part of our collective consciousness, all we can do is fight these impulses where we can. No amount of laws in the end analysis will alter what society doesn’t value as necessary!

Eric D.

I may have to concede on this one.

Until the majority are educated and on board wiht the mechanics of laws-of-nature / politcal-philosophy / morality, then the ideal form of government can only be layed out as a blueprint for future generation.

I certainly agree David_the_simple!!

Eric D.

I'm long over due for a reply here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David_the_simple: re post #68,

USA doesn't use the Iroquios Great Law of Peace. We used as a guide for our constitution perhaps.

Hence, what we have is the best in practice, but with a little strategic modification, will be the best yet for an extended time.

Not sure what you mean by this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

edelker: re post #69,
The government at the top utilizes lobbyists.
There are too many lobbyists.
The federal government is too big. As you say we need to eliminate these corporate lobbyists.

In another thread I some what outlined a plan that gets money out of politics. I agree with what you say. good ideas. The timing is decades too late to implement. By working with the current system we will get nothing done, we must stop it's corrupt money supply then the government will be forced to listen to the people(I elaborate in the link provided).

Distributed intelligence in the form of a fundamental rational constitution amended to suit the needs of each demographic involved.. preferably no more than maybe 20-70 per constitutional group.

The question of the ideal form of government is an interesting one. if I ask you what is the right way to shoot a basketball, you would assume that I mean, "if I want to make a shot," how should I shoot a basketball, but what the question of "what is the ideal form of government," this question is impossible to answer but it is incomplete, that is, "what is the ideal form of government if a society, or a leader, wishes to reach what goal. Is the goal to last long as a society? As the goal to be a rich society, is the goals to be a society of equality? Whatever that is, it seems like you are asking a moral question and applying it to society as a whole, and the problem with moral questions is that they are also incomplete. One should not ask "what is the right way to live, if you want to live right," this is equivocation, which is a fallacy. They are using "right" in two different senses, later in the sentence, they are using right in a "moral" sense, earlier in the sentence, they are using right in a directional sense, or a correctional sense, that is not what is the "good" way to live, but what is the productive way to live, or what must be done in order to reach this task. Like if I were to ask somebody how to add 4+5, they will tell me there is a "right" way to do it, or a "wrong" way to do it. In this sense they are not making moral claims, they are just saying if I want to get the correct or true answer, there is a direction I must take. The reason why it is hard to answer any moral question, is because like you question it is incomplete, we do not know how to use the word, Right, we have two meanings for it, one meaning is "good," and the other is "beneficial." So I will ask you to finish you question, "What is the ideal form of Government, if that government wishes to do what?"

The question of the ideal form of government is an interesting one. if I ask you what is the right way to shoot a basketball, you would assume that I mean, "if I want to make a shot," how should I shoot a basketball, but what the question of "what is the ideal form of government," this question is impossible to answer but it is incomplete, that is, "what is the ideal form of government if a society, or a leader, wishes to reach what goal. Is the goal to last long as a society? As the goal to be a rich society, is the goals to be a society of equality? Whatever that is, it seems like you are asking a moral question and applying it to society as a whole, and the problem with moral questions is that they are also incomplete. One should not ask "what is the right way to live, if you want to live right," this is equivocation, which is a fallacy. They are using "right" in two different senses, later in the sentence, they are using right in a "moral" sense, earlier in the sentence, they are using right in a directional sense, or a correctional sense, that is not what is the "good" way to live, but what is the productive way to live, or what must be done in order to reach this task. Like if I were to ask somebody how to add 4+5, they will tell me there is a "right" way to do it, or a "wrong" way to do it. In this sense they are not making moral claims, they are just saying if I want to get the correct or true answer, there is a direction I must take. The reason why it is hard to answer any moral question, is because like you question it is incomplete, we do not know how to use the word, Right, we have two meanings for it, one meaning is "good," and the other is "beneficial." So I will ask you to finish you question, "What is the ideal form of Government, if that government wishes to do what?"

Although I can agree with most of that, I have to inject one concern with your rephrasing of the question;
"What is the ideal form of Government, if that government wishes to do what?"

It is dangerously misunderstood that a government has the right to want for anything.

Is the government a life with greater rights than the people who formed it?

Socialist governments presume such a stance. In reality, they merely serve their associated aristocracy and the aristocracy is the "who" behind the desire and want for something. In the more American sense (the original America anyway), the only entities who had rights at all were the people themselves, not any higher order, that is until they formed the "corporation" as a higher form of citizen. With corporations having greater rights than the people, the power and aristocracy became those corporations who then usurped the governing.

So as you have worded it, you are really asking,
"what is the ideal form of government for corporations to use upon the people?"

Is that really what you intended to ask? Yet it is what you asked.

The ideal form of a government doesn't want to do anything but answer to the real needs of the people, including what those people want, even if those wants are not entirely rational. The USA government was formed solely for that purpose and disallowed to have its own agenda. It was not allowed to have a life of its own and want for anything at all. Obviously the new America isn't that way because it has been usurped and now serves a few elite.

Ideally, a government is an agreement between the collective and the individuals. That agreement should be, for sake of ultimate well being of all concerned, a mutual agreement. In a mutual agreement, both parties share the burden with a balance of capability and cost/benefit ratio for each. It is not an issue of which is more privileged or the greater authority. The greater authority is the agreement and balance of hope and threat for each.

Such a balance cannot be achieved by presuming that either is more important than the other. It cannot be achieved by any socialism wherein the few control the many through any form of government. The "few" cannot make decisions for the many unless they alter the laws and decisions for each individual case. But the only way to accomplish that is for the information involved, including the psychological state and desires of the individual and those with whom he must directly deal, are known to and included in all laws and decisions that the government is going to impose.

The way to get around that issue of extreme diversity and variety of needs, is simply to have the higher authority very local and fully aware of the condition and circumstance of each member in its dominion. More than merely 70 people would over tax just about any decision making body if they were to altruistically attempt good governing. Most people can't even do that for their own families, much less the families of others around them and certainly not for distant families whom they have never even met.

So if you are going to rephrase the question, it must become;
"What is the ideal form of government for YOU, based upon your needs, circumstance, wants, and wisdoms?"

From those responses, a fundamental similarity can be distilled that will provide insight as to how to form an entire nation's fundamental governing principle.

Wanabe,

I’m not sure why it’s all a decade too late to make democratic differences—but here nor there, I do agree, in basic, that we need to address corporate power and financial influence in and on our government and its policies—no question! To this we can agree. My point is that we can do this via democratic process. If we the people do not-NO well-respected long term change will work. We have to find ways to convince people that surrendering their democracy for property or productive property is not virtue, i.e., that pandering to the lowest common denominator—money-and propertied based notions of freedom—will likely lead to more tyranny-not less!

Eric D.

It's been well known and documented by the Europeans (Germans in particular) that Americans will freely trade their liberties and freedoms for sake of national security. All socialist systems require a national threat so as to keep their dependence upon the system and dominion.

James S. Saint wrote,

“It's been well known and documented by the Europeans (Germans in particular) that Americans will freely trade their liberties and freedoms for sake of national security.”


One can certainly show periods of history where that has been the case. In fact, we Americans may well be undergoing such a period now—if we could define-and make cogent the argument to begin with. However, Europeans—and certainly Germans as the most clear form of surrender in these terms—are no better off historically in this regard.


James S. Saint wrote,


“All socialist systems require a national threat so as to keep their dependence upon the system and dominion.”


Capitalist systems do not-or monarchies-or fascist regimes of different stripes do/did not? Obviously, this is oversimplification and hyperbole to a comical degree!

Eric D.

“All socialist systems require a national threat so as to keep their dependence upon the system and dominion.”


Capitalist systems do not-or monarchies-or fascist regimes of different stripes do/did not? Obviously, this is oversimplification and hyperbole to a comical degree!

Eric D.

Capitalist systems most certainly do NOT.
Realize that America is not under a capital system right now. A few capitalists, with the help of outsiders, usurped dominion over the Constitutional government such that now, they are the aristocracy. Capitalism was betrayed with a death blow in 1913 with the creation of the illegal FED. Since then the depressions were all created (even announced) by socialists money terrorists/controllers, JP Morgan Jr and Rothschild being a couple of obvious and outspoken ones although several Nazi leaders agreed and joined in.

In a capitalist system, the "threat" is merely the other guy within the system with whom you compete. Monopolies are forbidden in a capitalist system else it obviously can't be capitalist any more. In a capitalist system, taxation and military enlistment are voluntary.

My point is that we can do this via democratic process.

I agree we can do this via democratic process, however not the established one.

The people must unify and make specific demands.

1.
I proposed in another thread that the democratic process be handled though the tax system.In short: When we do our taxes we also get to vote on all national and state laws. Yes, currently there are a plethora of laws to have to read through James S Saint told me ~40,000, however by circumventing the established bureaucracy through this more direct system there would be far fewer laws because there is less to regulate in regards to laws to direct how the government will operate.

2.
On these new tax forms each citizen gets to decide what sector their taxes go to.

3.
All trials will have a jury and 3 judges.

If we the people do not-NO well-respected long term change will work. We have to find ways to convince people that surrendering their democracy for property or productive property is not virtue, i.e., that pandering to the lowest common denominator—money-and propertied based notions of freedom—will likely lead to more tyranny-not less!

Strongly agree. A monumental task.

James S Saint/Wanabe
------------------------------------

James S Saint wrote,

“Capitalist systems most certainly do NOT.


Realize that America is not under a capital system right now. A few capitalists, with the help of outsiders, usurped dominion over the Constitutional government such that now, they are the aristocracy. Capitalism was betrayed with a death blow in 1913 with the creation of the illegal FED. Since then the depressions were all created (even announced) by socialists money terrorists/controllers, JP Morgan Jr and Rothschild being a couple of obvious and outspoken ones although several Nazi leaders agreed and joined in.”


This is an old canard almost worthy of the 'conspiracy theory sort.' Mainly, though, it is largely based on a gross misunderstanding of the Board, its job-and powers, history, and its influence on major secondary market transactions. The Fed has been and largely is ran by private bankers and has been driven by those banking interests. There are those who sit on the Board that are supposed to look out for the public interest, but few have over the long-haul. The vast majority of decisions from the Fed typically supports big business and helps to finance it! In fact, it was the Fed that encouraged the bailouts and gave enormous amount of funding to banks and other financial institutions-while typically lowering interest rates, which have the greatest impact on the middle-class and poor during times of higher inflation-usually to protect huge business loans and investments based on those loans! The reason being-that inflation usually devalues loans and loan-driven investments.


The trade and bubbles of the 1920’s had lots of contributors-but business and business interests were certainly dominant in this period. In fact, capital-wealth exploded during this largely Republican phase in American history. If anything, the Fed was poorly equipped for the Depression due to the ‘runs’ on the banks. This end of the extended Gilded Age, here, was an era of unprecedented capitalism and its dominance.


The money controllers of the Goldman Sacks, AIG, and Bank of America sort were private and organized securities and security investments that were high risk—poorly rated, and had no long range profit security—now-like then- these problems were not the doing of evil socialists-they were through and through capitalists and capitalist creations! Moreover, they certainly did scare the people-Fed and Congress into giving them the bailouts they required or the economy and everything in it would collapse. Capitalists have always been threatening that any regulation on their wealth will result in tyranny and death.


The Depression had lots of causes—but one certain cause seems to be that when you have periods of wealth accumulation and demand growth, you will also have declines. This is an unfortunate feature of capitalist markets. One where the consequences of which were called by Keynes “permanent unemployment equilibrium.” The effects of market expansion tend to further cause markets to fall in on themselves. The recent crisis, however, was created by private institutions (not the government -CRA or Fanny and Freddie--two long officially debunked notions), and they were avoidable--made and instituted for short term PRIVATE gains over long term investment stability!


In a capitalist system there are three abiding threats: (1) the other guy in business-yes-but also (2) labor—because they compete for their value and always stand to demand more of the wealth they helped create, and (3) consumers—because consumer demand offers barriers to further profit! So, history is full of how capitalists always attempt to “control” competition, labor costs, and consumer demands. It will always be in the rational interests of the businessman to work against the interests of the consumer, laborer, and competition. For example, the largest lobbyists and expense on patents come from private industry—not government. Why is it that these very wealthy capitalists are behaving in such non-capitalist fashion? Because while competition, labor and community are all a part of capitalist theory-in reality, they are enormous and endless sources of conflict and pain for business interests. Hence, the reason why the biggest enemy of genuine capitalism will always be OTHER capitalists!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wanabe wrote,

“I proposed in another thread that the democratic process be handled though the tax system.In short: When we do our taxes we also get to vote on all national and state laws. Yes, currently there are a plethora of laws to have to read through James S Saint told me ~40,000, however by circumventing the established bureaucracy through this more direct system there would be far fewer laws because there is less to regulate in regards to laws to direct how the government will operate.”


This doesn’t follow, though. Through the mechanism of popular democracy at all levels-we may have MORE laws-due to far more parochial interests being made-and even nationalized. Moreover, this would mean that those who organize, promote, and lead causes-have the time to read and finance their own desired laws- or help to arrange certain outcomes -would win out in the end! In other words, this may well be a source of far more eventual concentration of power by certain groups or types of people! Only those who could afford, read, and advocate for their position will be more able to even participate. Not a clearly good idea-it seems.


Wanabe wrote,

“On these new tax forms each citizen gets to decide what sector their taxes go to.”


K…the wealthy wouldn’t get the say in where the bulk of that money goes? It seems they would-since-under either a progressive tax system or a flat one, you still have the bulk of money going to the interests of the few.

How would these concerns be dealt with? I’m also advocating for a system wherein power is more localized and directed towards increasing the liberties of the individual. So, I’m coming from that angle.


Eric D.

Eric,

You say it is a conspiracy of capitalists, where I say it is a conspiracy of socialists. Both conspire.
The difference is whether they have what is equivalent to "insider trading" and "horizontal/vertical monopoly".
Two concerns;
1) I see behind the scenes more than you (apparently),
2) Once they become so strong, regardless of how or why, they become the Aristocracy, hence Socialists, regardless of what you call them or what they were before that point.

edelker,

I proposed in another thread that the democratic process be handled though the tax system.In short: When we do our taxes we also get to vote on all national and state laws. Yes, currently there are a plethora of laws to have to read through James S Saint told me ~40,000, however by circumventing the established bureaucracy through this more direct system there would be far fewer laws because there is less to regulate in regards to laws to direct how the government will operate.

This doesn’t follow, though. Through the mechanism of popular democracy at all levels-we may have MORE laws-due to far more parochial interests being made-and even nationalized. Moreover, this would mean that those who organize, promote, and lead causes-have the time to read and finance their own desired laws- or help to arrange certain outcomes -would win out in the end! In other words, this may well be a source of far more eventual concentration of power by certain groups or types of people! Only those who could afford, read, and advocate for their position will be more able to even participate. Not a clearly good idea-it seems.

Granted out side influences would remain as they always will, but the power is more evenly distributed in this idea than it is now.

On these new tax forms each citizen gets to decide what sector their taxes go to.

K…the wealthy wouldn’t get the say in where the bulk of that money goes? It seems they would-since-under either a progressive tax system or a flat one, you still have the bulk of money going to the interests of the few.

If citizens decide to put their money to the social welfare sector for example, it ensures that the more impoverished would get more of what they needed to help themselves. No matter at what rate people are taxed, the programs they choose get their tax dollars. I Under stand that people who are rich would still be in control because they could support or start programs that cause them profit, but that is true of any system. The this is where people being able to vote on each law come in they can stop these programs with the other process. In this system all people have even voting power, influential power though the tax system is some thing that will be regulated by the voting.

How would these concerns be dealt with?

I hope I have answered this.

I’m also advocating for a system wherein power is more localized and directed towards increasing the liberties of the individual. So, I’m coming from that angle.

Local power is important in times of peace; in times of war national power is needed. We all have equal liberties under the written law, however in practice things are always different. What liberties do you speak of exactly?

If it were possible: A benevolent dictatorship i.e. Augustus Caesar's Empire, 200 years of peace. Not perfect either, i will admit. But it would be nice to have a perfect leader take care of all of our problems.
-Amakatura Murou