Here's a non-religious topic for us to discuss. What do you all think? Democracy? Republic? Theocracy? Feel free to include economic systems in this discussion too (capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.)
I've always been fascinated by the idea of an oligarchy. Unfortunately, there aren't really any examples in history to draw from, so any ideas on how they might turn out would have to be purely speculative.
Ideally, I think a benign dictator would be best - as it would be the most efficient. Of course, practically the risk of having a dictator is way too high, as the odds of them becoming corrupt/power hungry and whatnot is quite high.
I'll get into reality soon...
I did a whole rant on this once. A whole rant, can you believe it? I finally came to the conclusion at the end of said rant, that any government can be a good one, it depends really on what kind of people are in power. A dictatorship can prosper a country as much as a republic or a theocracy. I remember ancient Egypt wass a theocracy. Wow how they prospered. But then they had slaves so...
The rant was on how to write realistic governments into fictional stories. Oh how tired am I of reading stories where the bad guys have a dictator and the good guys have a good king/queen or a democracy.
But what kind of government does Israel have? They're actually pretty prosperous, considering their situation. I think that's more because of God blessing them but still...quite technologically advanced too. Each government would encourage a different kind of advancement, personally, I don't think a dictatorship would encourage technological advancement really.
Why do you sigh, Dynamo?
Coz I feel like it.
"But what kind of government does Israel have? They're actually pretty prosperous, considering their situation. I think that's more because of God blessing them"
Quantum, we should have known it was impossible, we should never have tried XD
As far as Isreal goes, I'd say it's more of the U.S. giving them absurdly huge amounts of financial help, all the time, for horrible reasons.
stuntddude: Yeah....I thought government would let us avoid the whole religious thing, but I guess not :)
e.e; Blech. I'm out.
Oh come on Floree, the situation is still salvageable!
>.> Okai fine. Any type of government can prosper depending on the person in charge. In an ideal world, I agree with Quantum that a benevolent dicator would probably be best. However, we do not live in an ideal world. So in a realistic world, it still depends. If you have a dictator, they may be corrupt with power. However, if you have a democracy, you might have to choose between "a giant douche and a turd sandwich", as South Park put it. Basically, there's not one best form of government, the entire things depends soley on who the leader is and how competent they are.
>.> Okai fine. Any type of government can prosper depending on the person in charge. In an ideal world, I agree with Quantum that a benevolent dicator would probably be best. However, we do not live in an ideal world. So in a realistic world, it still depends. If you have a dictator, they may be corrupt with power. However, if you have a democracy, you might have to choose between "a giant do.uche and a turd sandwich", as South Park put it. Basically, there's not one best form of government, the entire things depends soley on who the leader is and how competent they are.
Which is my one primary qualm with democracies/republics: they only work if the populace is very well educated. If the government's power is ultimately held by the people, and the people are incompetent, you have just as bad of a situation as if you had an incompetend dictator.
Ultimately, a constitutional oligarchy does seem like it could solve the problem of incompetent leaders, as the whole point of the system is that the leaders would be chosen based on objective measurements of their capacity to lead.
Okai.... dafrick is an oligarchy? -goes off to google-
It's basically a political state run by a sort of council, particularly one made up of the most wise and intelligent members of said state. Think Jedi Council but in real life.
A constitutional oligarchy would be one that has definite guidelines for how these council members would be appointed, and also how they could and could not run the nation (for instance, an oligarchy might have a constitution requiring that all council business must be transparent and open to the people, or it might decree that citizens must have an effective way to appeal to the council, and that issues brought up by the population at large must be discussed and dealt with by the council, i.e. they cannot be ignored).
It depends on the society you're trying to govern. A theocracy works really well only if everyone in the country is a member of that religion- like, say, the Vatican. A dictatorship would be great as long as you've got a great person in charge and the people don't resent it. A democracy only works in the right culture, one where the people are educacted, prize freedom, and can respectfully disagree.
That said, in general I prefer democracy, just because it allows for more equality than a monarchy or oligarchy. Also because it tends to self-correct (assuming, as mentioned above, that you have the right culture).
Economically, I prefer capitalism in almost every case, because it's efficient and also self-correcting. (Also because no other economic system that has been tried in the world has worked quite as well- my biggest argument against communism is simply 'look at the countries that tried it'.)
Okai, so in the end... it just depends.
I disagree about democracy being automatically self-correcting. If a population becomes uneducated, then it's entirely possible for them to continue making bad decisions based on that and never get out of the rut they're in because they don't know how.
As for economics, I have to say I'm a fan of well regulated capitalism. I guess you could say I'm a mixed market kinda guy.