[OneBadMother]

What is your ideal form of government, and do you think it would be functional with human nature taken into consideration? If you think it would be functional, state your plan for putting your ideal government into action with minimal risk of immediate degeneration or collapse.

[Homini Lupus]

The ideal form of government depends a lot on the kind of society you have to govern. If your society is very small (a family, a small group of survivors from an accident) direct democracy would probably be the best while in a mondial government you would probably need quite a loose form of association on many levels (cities - regions - states - superstates - mondial government (BY EXAMPLE)); thus, the idea of state is challenged and even if it is still quite a strong form, it has become much less absolute since the birth of the state (wich is conventionally considered the Westfalia Peace of 1648), with more and more NGOs, Multinational corporation and trade globalisation (financial globalisation was already true in 1914 but was cast down by the war). The weakening of the state means that for composite societies it is becoming more difficult to coexist, even if the loss of power of the state is often directed both downwards (to local realities) and upwards (to superstatual organisations).
Sorry for the indirect answer but I have clear ideas only for my own society and a few for EU.

[Rowan]

I have no ‘ideal’ government; they are, at best, a pragmatic necessity – my ideal, which may be simply unattainable, would be for no government at all. For now I would settle with a liberal republican democracy using a proportional representation electoral model. Unfortunately, in the UK, even this is fairly unattainable.

[Homini Lupus]

The problems of representative systems is that they tend to create low acccountability and make the government weak and the parliament fragmented; that's the reason most systems try to correct it. In Italy it worked for years but it was based on a peculiar system of "centrifuge fragmentation" in wich a strong central party was always elected and had to choose the allies on its right or left, in order to keep out of policy the anti-system parties (Communist party and Social movement). I generally prefer system wich are able to elect a working and accountable government, but this means lowering the representativeness of it.

[blueback]

Heinlein had an interesting idea in which only people who had served a minimum of 2 years of totally voluntary (and uncomfortable) federal service were able to vote. The idea being that people should make decisions for the group only if they are the sort of people who put the long-term needs of the group ahead of their own immediate needs. By allowing them to voluntarily suffer though years of service they are proving that they are just those sorts of people. Once you find those people it shouldn't matter how many of them there are or what they are voting on, they will always make the right decision.

[Homini Lupus]

He doesn't explain tough how non voting people issues are dealt with. It doesn't happen in the book (I guess it's Starship Troopers you're referring) but generally creating a similar difference between voters and non voters create some civil unrest on the long term. For the times of war he's speaking about it could be effective.

[blueback]

He addresses is tangentially. A character mentions that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population is a citizen (as opposed to civilian) they always make the same decisions because they are all motivated by the good of the body politic. He also says that sometimes civilians have problems with the system but they can never get enough people to agree with them to change anything.

It makes a certain amount of sense. If you want to vote all you have to do is serve. He equates voting with the ultimate political power so to get it you have to make the ultimate sacrifice, your life. The people who can't vote recognize that it is only through their own cowardice that they are denied the privilege.

[Homini Lupus]

Yes, but in that system the only guardians of the state are part of a gerarchical organisation. Nobody outside it can impeach it. If it stops working properly (like european armies did during WWI, when they totally excluded political leaders by pointing at their lack of competence in military matter) it makes very difficult for power to get back to the citizens (both civilians and low ranking citizens) for a change. I think it relies on a too idealistic view of those men who became citizens. Goering was a very fine WWI pilot and ended up as an edhonist, and some others in different fields, having achieved great results with effort and sacrifice, later ended their life having lost self discipline.

[blueback]

Yeah. . .

I still think the idea has a lot of potential. There must be some way to find the right people to make decisions and put power in their hands; otherwise we are doomed to cycle through governments which inevitably causes unnecessary pain and loss.

I like this idea because I think that most people aren't qualified to make decisions in their own best interest, let alone the best interests of the group. I think the savings rate in America is 2% now. . .are these really people we want voting?

Oh, I suppose I might not have clarified that correctly. In Heinlein's political structure in Starship Troopers (the book) anyone could be active in politics. You didn't have to be a citizen to be a politician or to propose laws, you just had to be a citizen to vote on them. I figure that has to be better than our current system. The people who vote laws into power are all beholden to minority political factions and businesses. Sure, technically they can be voted out but by the time that chance comes up they have confused things so much that people aren't sure who they want to vote for, so the incumbent usually remains in office. It might be better to have a group of people you know take voting seriously and are beholden to no one do all the voting.

I suppose you could simply add a provision that if enough civilians sign a petition they could call for a direct democracy style vote on something. I think that most civilians would be releived to not have to worry about every day policy matters.

[Ytterbium]

Blueback is somewhat touching how it works here, or did work. For men it was seen as they did compulsory military service they had suffrage in return. Why be allowed to use it but not fight for it? Although later when women got the right to vote, without any conscription. I'll guess the old roles of the sexes played a part in this. Those whom objected to serve were thrown into jail (still done to this day). The end of the cold war and cut back in spending have done that most people get away with medical reasons etc.
It worked once, now it's just a theory.

I think many people would start to whine if they had to earn the privilege to vote.

[kevintr]

I like communism, taking human nature into account it won't work yet. I think the growing disparity between rich and poor will give impetus to more socalistic laws. I like to think that will someday lead to communism but it's gonna be a terrable mess getting there.

[athenian200]

Ideally? No government would be necessary, because people would always wish to be fair/reasonable and never break the laws they had all agreed on.

Realistically, I'd say it depends on the people being governed. Some people can only be held by a powerful dictator with unfair laws, and other more advanced ones are more suited to republics. In general, the more educated and advanced they are, the more suited they are for republics and the less suited they are for dictatorship. Most forms of government fall between these two extremes.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by athenian200 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...the laws they had all agreed on.

That is a government.

[Sean O]

Until mankind learns to develop a non-superficial sense of morality and altruism, there will never be an ideal form of government. In the meantime, I guess democracy is the best option, since corruption has to be kept relatively secret and therefore doesn't usually take the form of serious human rights abuses.

[blueback]

It's a process. The only reason democracy got the chance it did in America is that we are so geographically isolated and our population was scavanged from a dozen different cultures. We had no history.

Britain has a democracy, sort of, because they still have some aristocracy left over. They can't just drop it; aristocracy is part of their history and culture. South and Central America(s) sort of pretend to try out democracies but corruption is such a part of their history and culture that they are never real.

Now that America has a history we are going to be as slow to give it up as every other country is to give up theirs. What we have now is going to be with us, in one form or another, for a long time.

[Chrysalis]

	Originally Posted by blueback
	Heinlein had an interesting idea in which only people who had served a minimum of 2 years of totally voluntary (and uncomfortable) federal service were able to vote.

How about the power elite itself?

	Originally Posted by blueback
	The idea being that people should make decisions for the group only if they are the sort of people who put the long-term needs of the group ahead of their own immediate needs. By allowing them to voluntarily suffer though years of service they are proving that they are just those sorts of people.

Considering an INTJ's aversion of group behaviour and the hive mind it doesn't look like many INTJs will be allowed to vote then...

	Originally Posted by blueback
	Once you find those people it shouldn't matter how many of them there are or what they are voting on, they will always make the right decision.

You are backing your argument with an logical fallacy? Apart from the fact that there is not always a clearly right decision and sometimes not even only one, it is virtually impossible to always make the right decision. All of this sounds pretty much like dangerous nonsense to me.

	Originally Posted by blueback
	It makes a certain amount of sense. If you want to vote all you have to do is serve. He equates voting with the ultimate political power so to get it you have to make the ultimate sacrifice, your life.

Dead people voting?

	Originally Posted by blueback
	The people who can't vote recognize that it is only through their own cowardice that they are denied the privilege.

I am sure this will make a great opening line for a possible constitution.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Another accusation is that the Terran Federation is a fascist society, and that Starship Troopers is therefore an endorsement of fascism. These analogies have become so popular that Sircar's Corollary of Godwin's Law states that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, "Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days." Most of the arguments for this view cite the idea that only veterans can vote and non-veterans lack full citizenship. Federal Service is not necessarily military, although it is suggested that a certain hardship and discipline is pervasive.

Let's see if it takes three days.

[Beery Swine]

I don't really know. Probably something that has yet to be conceptualized. Of the known ones, I guess a benevolent socialistic dictatorship, preferably with some deus ex machina at the helm, with nearly complete social anarchy. Seems like it would provide the best average happiness per person.

[SmileyMan]

My ideal form of government would be
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The intellectual elite would rule, and not the people who play on the feelings of the voters.

Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge". A governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.

[kevintr]

	Originally Posted by athenian200 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ideally? No government would be necessary, because people would always wish to be fair/reasonable and never break the laws they had all agreed on.

A goverment will always be necessary, with so meany people someone has to orginize things. Sometimes it's hard to see the ramifications of a seemingly harmless act, someone needs to study these things and stop people from causing unintentional harm.

[Homini Lupus]

At times I tought about a particular form of vote, in wich you don't vote people but policies. You express your preferences about a given list of policies, some standard (health care, public services and things like that) and some about the current state of affairs. Then two open softwares make a sort of the preferences and find the politicians with the most similar line of preferences to the aggregated result of the vote.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How about the power elite itself?

I dunno, he didn't address that. I suppose he thought that solving the problem of who to allow to vote would render all the other problems moot. As long as the voters are roughly of one mind they are the most powerful group and since they are all doing what is right everything else takes care of itself.

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Considering an INTJ's aversion of group behaviour and the hive mind it doesn't look like many INTJs will be allowed to vote then...

Have you read Starship Troopers?
Heinlein is all about individual accountability. I think that INTJs would be less likely to vote simply because they seem less likely to sacrifice anything for the common good. In Heinlein's government they would have to serve voluntarily before they could vote. I don't think that's much of a change from the way things are now. The INTJ aversion to sacrifice is a constant.

However, I do think that in Heinlein's system there would be less minority control of the voter's minds. Since the voters all had to suffer to get the right to vote they would take it seriously. Therefore, INTJs might have more influence because the voters would be more open to their rational analysis of the situation.

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are backing your argument with an logical fallacy? Apart from the fact that there is not always a clearly right decision and sometimes not even only one, it is virtually impossible to always make the right decision. All of this sounds pretty much like dangerous nonsense to me.

Ooooo. . .look at you with your fancy new shiny words.

Yeah, I recognize that the entire system rests on the assumption that it is possible to find a group of people who will always make the right decision for the group. That is difficult to support emperically, but not so difficult logically.

The entire course of history has been one long search for the "right" political system. Every political system ever has been based on the idea that someone has to make decisions, they have just disagreed on how to decide who that someone is. Democracy is the best idea so far becaues it releives the tension of slavery, which just about every other political system has in one form or another. However, democracy is not perfect. Heinlein's idea is simply to test people for the internal character necessary to make good decisions for the group.

While there is rarely A right decision there are often many different options, each of which has pros and cons for different parties. Whoever makes the decision has to weigh the pros and cons to every stakeholder. Theoretically there are people who will make the "best" judgment, so all we have to do is figure out how to test for those people. If they are willing to endure hardship, sacrifice, and the possibility of death to earn the right to make decisions for the entire group they will take it more seriously and will have proven that they consider the good of the group more important than their own good. It sounds logical to me.

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Dead people voting?

Really? You decided to go with that?

I'm in the military. Everyone in the military sacrifices their lives; some of them get their lives back when they seperate and some of them don't get their lives back. I am not in control of my own life. I follow orders, whether or not I like them, because that is the definition of service. My life is not my own, therefore the word sacrifice applies. Besides, it's easier to say than to list those who survive and those who don't seperately.

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am sure this will make a great opening line for a possible constitution.

In Heinlein's Starship Troopers public flogging is a common punishment. They are a little less considerate of people's itty witty wittle feewings.

[Claptonian]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Heinlein had an interesting idea in which only people who had served a minimum of 2 years of totally voluntary (and uncomfortable) federal service were able to vote. The idea being that people should make decisions for the group only if they are the sort of people who put the long-term needs of the group ahead of their own immediate needs. By allowing them to voluntarily suffer though years of service they are proving that they are just those sorts of people. Once you find those people it shouldn't matter how many of them there are or what they are voting on, they will always make the right decision.

This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

We already have a system in which people who sacrifice their lives get special rights. You served in the military and got severely wounded? Here's a senatorship!

Under a system such as you've described, the majority of voters would be people who were so power hungry that they're willing to sacrifice their lives just to gain authority over the rest of the population.

My ideal form of government: none. Is it compatible with human nature? Once upon a time, maybe, but I think people have become so use to turning to authority every time they have a problem that anarchy wouldn't work very well today. But I still think it's the only legitimate form of government.

[Realpra]

You guys are terrible systemthinkers/builders, considering you're intj.

Pure technocracy is the best thing mentioned so far, considering all problems of mankind have in the end been solved not by Jesus, politics or feminism but by technology it should be pretty obvious though.

The rest is democracy with a slight modification changing little, democracy, anarchy and pure facism/communism. All crap. Seriously guys, you're masterminds, do a little better.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Claptonian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We already have a system in which people who sacrifice their lives get special rights. You served in the military and got severely wounded? Here's a senatorship!

Right. . .I'm having a hard time concluding that you are being serious.

	Originally Posted by Claptonian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Under a system such as you've described, the majority of voters would be people who were so power hungry that they're willing to sacrifice their lives just to gain authority over the rest of the population.

You're strawmaning. What you are doing is minimizing the cost of multiple years of difficult service and maximizing the reward of a single vote. Weak.

	Originally Posted by Claptonian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My ideal form of government: none. Is it compatible with human nature? Once upon a time, maybe, but I think people have become so use to turning to authority every time they have a problem that anarchy wouldn't work very well today. But I still think it's the only legitimate form of government.

Your idea of a legitimate government is no government? That is inconsistent.

Groups of people must have common rules. For example, killing each other must be forbidden or groups will never form. However, they can't trust each other, because if they did the first person to lie would have more power than anyone else. They have to establish an authority superior to all of them to weild the powers that they all voluntarily give up when they form the group. They then have to trust that soverign to use its power in the best interests of the group. Problems usually develop because a group outside of the government redirects its efforts to uniquely favor their objectives, putting everyone else at a disadvantage. Then the government is overthrown and the whole thing has to be built all over again.

Anarchy is inherently less efficient than government because in an anarchistic situation no one can benefit from cooperation. Therefore, the first group that forms will become more powerful than any of the individuals and the individuals will have to form a competing group, and you're back to the cycle I just described.

	Originally Posted by Realpra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pure technocracy is the best thing mentioned so far, considering all problems of mankind have in the end been solved not by Jesus, politics or feminism but by technology it should be pretty obvious though.

Yeah, it's so obvious that you can only come up with one small logical justification for it. Try harder or no one is going to listen to you.

	Originally Posted by Realpra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The rest is democracy with a slight modification changing little, democracy, anarchy and pure facism/communism. All crap. Seriously guys, you're masterminds, do a little better.

Do you mean that all forms of government besides technocracy are basically democracy?

Democracy is the most successful form of government ever invented. No two democracies have ever fought a war. The number of democracies has increased globally since it was invented. No true democracy has ever been overthrown. Since the invention of democracy dictators and authoritarians have lied and said they were democratically elected; illustrating that they know it is the "right" way to do things by the effort they make to lie about it.

[Homini Lupus]

Originally Posted by Realpra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You guys are terrible systemthinkers/builders, considering you're intj. Pure technocracy is the best thing mentioned so far, considering all problems of mankind have in the end been solved not by Jesus, politics or feminism but by technology it should be pretty obvious though. The rest is democracy with a slight modification changing little, democracy, anarchy and pure facism/communism. All crap. Seriously guys, you're masterminds, do a little better.

Technocracy is trying to hide the political problems behind a wall of "objective" data. Every possible conflicting course has a political side, and the role of the governments is to deal with those problems. If the solution is obvious then you don't have a political battle. If it is not, different possible solutions will have different supporters. Technology develops better without political battles, but that's because it's a totally different field. An electronic tool doesn't work only if the best course for every citizen has been found.