Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So what form of government do you think makes the country more successful (richer, more powerful, etc.)?

Corrupt ones.

Originally posted by jaden101
Corrupt ones. More corrupt ones.

Dictatorship disguised as democracy.

viva la anarchy!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Dictatorship disguised as democracy.

^ What these two said.

Originally posted by Liberator
viva la anarchy!

By definition, no. Anarchy is also an pretty awful way to gain power.

Depends on how you define "success". If all you care about is money and power, then that would be a form of government that happens to take place in a nation with lots of natural resources.

Social Democracy with manufacturing run according to Market socialism (private ownership but a collective corporate structure) and the service sector run according to the current business model except with with executives taking more financial risk to their own assets rather than investors and less reliance on focus groups (especially the entertainment industry). Also, no lobbying by private interests and all utilities/commons/natural monopolies socialized (utilities, national parks and forests, health care, social services, banking, cable, phone service, internet providers), and a strong civil service equal in funding and numbers to the military in order to drive demand in the labor market up, keep unemployment down, and facilitate benefits and public services while keeping costs down.

I find that long explanations are a good indication that the speaker doesn't know what their talking about. :P

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Social Democracy with manufacturing run according to Market socialism (private ownership but a collective corporate structure) and the service sector run according to the current business model except with with executives taking more financial risk to their own assets rather than investors and less reliance on focus groups (especially the entertainment industry). Also, no lobbying by private interests and all utilities/commons/natural monopolies socialized (utilities, national parks and forests, health care, social services, banking, cable, phone service, internet providers), and a strong civil service equal in funding and numbers to the military in order to drive demand in the labor market up, keep unemployment down, and facilitate benefits and public services while keeping costs down.
That's how to create the best HDI, not the best GDP.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I find that long explanations are a good indication that the speaker doesn't know what their talking about. :P

I find snappy comebacks by morons who can't be bothered to read something polysyllabic to be typical of their inability to think and blink at the same time.

Actually HDI and GDP will both benefit, especially since businesses will be able to compete without bothering with benefits and will be able to get more products on the market, faster instead of bothering with stupid shit like what color a blender is or whether the new Disney movie is PC enough. The military will actually be able to use money wisely instead of being ripped off by private contractors too, unless you think the traditional military mess hall system is inferior to one in which KBR is paid billions to feed troops who don't have body armor spoiled food left over from corporate banquets.

The fact of the matter is, social democracies DO NOT have the highest GDPs of the world's nations. They do have the highest HDIs. This isn't Einstein level stuff here.

They also don't have the US's population.

That's why earlier in this thread, I tried to explain that the form of government is fairly irrelevant towards the type of "success" the poster was looking for. Natural resources are far more important.

Quality of life? Libertarian, direct democracy, etc.

Ideal america:
Representatives in all houses base their choices off of a vote on every decision, before they make their decision. There are two news channels. One that's democrat, and one that's republican. Currently all news channels are owned by the same person and say basically the same thing.

Instead of having an ultimate celebrity power in charge, we have an executive who only takes charge in crisis, in order to make executive decisions. Decisions about funding, going on an offensive war, etc. would be made by a 1 day vote. There would be two T.V. channels, each covering the vote from a yes/no perspective.

It would be much the same except none of this "Lets send troops to Afghanistan, or make another global warming law without the peoples say at our own whims bullshit" People shouldn't elect people to make non-urgent decisions for them; they should elect representatives who represent their vote, and then can and will make executive decisions in a time of crisis, such as the zombie apocalypse when the nation or something is at a huge threat which prevents voters from voting.

There would be no propaganda

There would be no bitching; fair game, everyone gets a vote in everything.

There would be no rash, instant decisions that lead into economic crisis.

Originally posted by One Free Man
There would be no propaganda

There would be no bitching; fair game, everyone gets a vote in everything.

There would be no rash, instant decisions that lead into economic crisis.

Way to delude yourself.

I have to give it to the Communist China. They have censorship, no tolerance for minorities, and they pretty much have one huge IOU from the United States. Plus they held the Olympics last year? Screw the US, England and France.

Mao was right!

Yeah that's pretty unworkable, pretty much the Roman Republic. They're going to take forever to decide anything and are inevitably going to become corrupt since free market/libertarian economics have been proven to be unsustainable, leading to economic crisis at which point the president (or should I say praetor?) is going to step in, declare a permanent state of emergency and plunge the whole country into fascism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Way to delude yourself.

well duh, when you have the one real truth there is no need for propaganda!

Monarchy.

Look how the Queen was able to censor Harry's a$$ from the media.
Now THAT'S power.


On a side note, look at the people they lead... Britons and Middle Easterners have no-say about their leader(s)'s decisions.

Middle East is still prospering (don't believe all the bullcrap about Middle East plunging into debt... they've got all they oil they need to back themselves up financially) and the Britons are still drinking tea with their pups.

Imperialist DOGS!

"Whether a cat is black or white; as long as it catches mice, it's a good cat"

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Imperialist DOGS!

"Whether a cat is black or white; as long as it catches mice, it's a good cat"

It would still be nice to have a cat that scratched you as little as possible.

Well, nothing boosts public morale like an old ***** and her family that do nothing but open parliament and live off the public coffer despite being one of the world's wealthiest families.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would still be nice to have a cat that scratched you as little as possible.

which brings up the age old, if only marginally related, question...

How many house cats do you think you could fight at the same time before it was too many?

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's why earlier in this thread, I tried to explain that the form of government is fairly irrelevant towards the type of "success" the poster was looking for. Natural resources are far more important.

This is actually entirely true. No other reason for Canada to be in the G8

our economy is still growing, bitches.

I'm not sure about the answer, although it seems that every form of government has flourished in different nations, for example, America, a democratic nation, is currently the leading superpower and an extremely successful and influential nation*, but the Roman Empire, a monarchy, was an ancient superpower as well and controled a long lasting and large empire.



*waits for some random dude to start an anti-American rant

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
I'm not sure about the answer, although it seems that every form of government has flourished in different nations, for example, America, a democratic nation, is currently the leading superpower and an extremely successful and influential nation*, but the Roman Empire, a monarchy, was an ancient superpower as well and controled a long lasting and large empire.



*waits for some random dude to start an anti-American rant
That's because there are far, far more relevant factors than type of government towards becoming powerful.

China is a pseudo-communist dictatorship, but it is doing tremendously well in this day and age. Historically, it was a monarchy, but it also was a top power in many eras past. A government that does what it does well will flourish, regardless of what exactly that is.

main factor: SCIENCE!

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" touched on this issue.

jared diamond is pretty cool...

Management Systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Organisation structure.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I find snappy comebacks by morons who can't be bothered to read something polysyllabic to be typical of their inability to think and blink at the same time. I'm guessing you've never heard of the Sokal Affair.

I would say that you take yourself too seriously, but in actuality, you don't take your philosophy seriously enough to recognize the seams.





As far as the topic goes, the best form of government is a fallacious question. The best form of sustainability is basically what King Kandy said, which is also what Jared Diamond has said. It's all very simple really.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So what form of government do you think makes the country more successful (richer, more powerful, etc.)? Whatever kind of democracy Switzerland has. That place f*ckin' rocks.

Me as king.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Whatever kind of democracy Switzerland has. That place f*ckin' rocks.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t521334.html

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Whatever kind of democracy Switzerland has. That place f*ckin' rocks.

Most European countries are social democracratic or democratic socialist (there is a difference) states.

The Soviet Union collapsed proving that there is no alternative to the free market.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
The Soviet Union collapsed proving that there is no alternative to the free market.

um, those are two extremes. That's like saying that you can either be a dictatorship or exist without laws, no in-between.

The Soviet Union was a planned economy, it collapsed. Every time a free market economy has ever been attempted, it became corrupt and collapsed in less than five years. Free market economies cannot last because they encourage conglomeration and collusion between businesses which eventually start to have a corrupting influence on government. What your left with is a small number of large corporations essentially owning and running everything, they grow kleptocratic, grab as much money as they can before society and the economy crumbles, and then get out of town. Check out South America in the 80's.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
The Soviet Union collapsed proving that there is no alternative to the free market.
Oh man do I love this one. Because we know, the only two options are communist dictatorship or complete unrestricted free market, right? It's not like every single country in Europe uses third system, right?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh man do I love this one. Because we know, the only two options are communist dictatorship or complete unrestricted free market, right? It's not like every single country in Europe uses third system, right?

Should we list em?

Planned Economy, Market Socialism, Third Way/Corporatism, Regulated Market, Free Market, etc.

Soviet Union collapse for trying to compete with Capitalist super powers. A lesson the Chinese learned and rather than compete...they're willing to be open to do business.

Thus the Chinese are clever. Mao was wrong Deng was right.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Soviet Union collapse for trying to compete with Capitalist. A lesson the Chinese learned and rather than compete...they're willing to be open to do business.

Thus the Chinese are clever.

And currently own the US.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And currently own the US.

Yeah, but if we're sneaky enough we can pull the same gimmick as Ecuador.....


....DEFAULT FOREIGN DEBT.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Yeah, but if we're sneaky enough we can pull the same gimmick as Ecuador.....


....DEFAULT FOREIGN DEBT.

They could always buy Alaska.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They could always buy Alaska.


Alaska have the oil so let's sell them something cheaper and always at 70% on sale....


....CALIFORNIA!

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Alaska have the oil so let's sell them something cheaper and always at 70% on sale....


....CALIFORNIA!

Do you think they would want that? The Chinese are not stupid.

The government that our forefathers faught for is what makes the united states the most successful.The government they faught for and we originally had, is a government that was of the people,for the people, and by the people.Thats WHO controlled it originally.

Now we have an evil and out of control government on our hands cause now its controlled by big businesses and corporations.If our forefathers could travel into time and see what america has become now,they would be HORRIFIED and ashamed of the american people for how they have allowed the government to become what is is today now.

We are not a free country contrary to what people around here think.Thomas Jefferson said that when the government fears the people you have freedom,when the people fear the government,you have tyranny.well most americans fear the government.we have tyranny and are NOT a free country anymore.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
The government that our forefathers faught for is what makes the united states the most successful.The government they faught for and we originally had, is a government that was of the people,for the people, and by the people.Thats WHO controlled it originally.

Now we have an evil and out of control government on our hands cause now its controlled by big businesses and corporations.If our forefathers could travel into time and see what america has become now,they would be HORRIFIED and ashamed of the american people for how they have allowed the government to become what is is today now.

We are not a free country contrary to what people around here think.Thomas Jefferson said that when the government fears the people you have freedom,when the people fear the government,you have tyranny.well most americans fear the government.we have tyranny and are NOT a free country anymore.

This is one of those rare times when we agree.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh man do I love this one. Because we know, the only two options are communist dictatorship or complete unrestricted free market, right? It's not like every single country in Europe uses third system, right?

Even a mixed economy includes the free market.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
Even a mixed economy includes the free market.
Even the soviet union includes the free market (as the black market).

Yeah but their aim was complete control by the state.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
Yeah but their aim was complete control by the state.

Free Market-a capitalist economic model where there are few if any regulations on businesses and what is legal in the frame of commerce. Businesses compete according to a misapplication of Charles Darwin's theories of the survival of the fittest. (simplistic definition)

Well if you define "the presence of any profit based business" as "having free market elements", then obviously there's no alternative...

Would the free market based government as Shey advocates be completely free of any Socialism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is one of those rare times when we agree.

damn this is a miracle.the world must be coming to an end.
I NEVER thought this moment would ever happen.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Would the free market based government as Shey advocates be completely free of any Socialism?
IDK, but the thing is, Shey acts like the fall of the soviet union meant that all states would have to be totally free market. Upon redefinition of "free market" as just including free market elements, the fall of the soviet union meant absolutely nothing; the presence of such elements is a fact of life that was active before and after the soviet union.

There is a very gray line about what people call free market.

In Davos everyone talks about the free market even if they are very far from libertarianism.

Unfortunately for the conversation, you defined it so broadly as to render any statements about it's merits completely meaningless.

I'm going to get this on track by asking: How the fall of the Soviet Union "proved" there was no alternative to the free market? And on a deeper level, what does that statement even mean? Many countries today feature government-controlled economies with free market elements... in fact, the soviet union itself had such a system, though it was illegal.

" I'm going to get this on track by asking: How the fall of the Soviet Union "proved" there was no alternative to the free market?"

Owrite the S.U. showed that the state cannot control the economy.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
" I'm going to get this on track by asking: How the fall of the Soviet Union "proved" there was no alternative to the free market?"

Owrite the S.U. showed that the state cannot control the economy.

Do you mean no regulation? Because if you want to see what an economy like that, check out Charles Dickens. No regulation means no middle class, no liberal democracy. Hell, the US tried to do the free market thing for 30 years and we're not much better than the Soviet Union right now.

Regulation is one thing.

Controling the economy is an another.

Thats what i wrote controling the economy.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
Regulation is one thing.

Controling the economy is an another.

Thats what i wrote controling the economy.

So you're not talking about free market, you're talking about a planned economy. Yeah, those don't work.

So you're for corporations paying taxes and not ripping people off and not forming monopolies and cartels and not insider trading or shorting their own stock to ripoff their customers and shareholders and not destroying their countries by outsourcing jobs and hiring undocumented workers and using prison labor and not putting their employees through wage slavery and unsafe conditions and for a minimum wage?

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
" I'm going to get this on track by asking: How the fall of the Soviet Union "proved" there was no alternative to the free market?"

Owrite the S.U. showed that the state cannot control the economy.
But there are many highly successful countries today where the state regulates the economy. Regulation is a form of control. So I don't think that statement is quite true.

Regulation is a form of rule, you have to obey this or that.

State controlling a company means taking over.

To rule something is to control it. When you control something, what do you do? You make rules. And if you have no control, rules are meaningless as nobody has to follow them. They are intrinsically related concepts.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
Regulation is a form of rule, you have to obey this or that.

State controlling a company means taking over.

Shouldn't the state control some services and industries?

Originally posted by King Kandy
To rule something is to control it. When you control something, what do you do? You make rules. And if you have no control, rules are meaningless as nobody has to follow them. They are intrinsically related concepts.

lets say that i am mayor. Just because i make a rule that people cant go to the museum at 8 pm does not mean that i control them.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
lets say that i am mayor. Just because i make a rule that people cant go to the museum at 8 pm does not mean that i control them.
It means you control their ability to go to the museum. At least, assuming the rule is enforced.

I dont control them then, i limit their movement.

thats semantics to the highest possible degree.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
I dont control them then, i limit their movement.
That's a form of control.

n5pkDB7zEeo

Nothing spells 'success' better than waving a hand at the flock of sheep you control at the palm of your hand.

No government makes the most successful country, but otherwise, a minarchist state will do well.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No government makes the most successful country.

. . .

it doesn't work according to the OP, but there are various measures of "success"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . .
It's a very long discussion.

anarcho/socialism where individuals can own private property{that isnt a significant means of production} but cant trade with it and the government pays handsomely for intellectual property that proves capable of innovation and creating/better handling resources{including the more artistic resources that society needs}. all this with the maximum of individual and civil liberty, a ban on any relegious association with politics and strict minority rights and maximum democratic involvement in every national and international decision{relying more on general public votes than RESPRESENTATIVES of societies picked to vote, e.g , senate etc}.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
anarcho/socialism where individuals can own private property{that isnt a significant means of production} but cant trade with it and the government pays handsomely for intellectual property that proves capable of innovation and creating/better handling resources{including the more artistic resources that society needs}. all this with the maximum of individual and civil liberty, a ban on any relegious association with politics and strict minority rights and maximum democratic involvement in every national and international decision{relying more on general public votes than RESPRESENTATIVES of societies picked to vote, e.g , senate etc}. Eew, government?

Don't get into semantics, otherwise we may as well pick Barthes and go full off topic mode.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well if you define "the presence of any profit based business" as "having free market elements", then obviously there's no alternative...

Starving would an alternative.