Which Political System Works Best

[Fat1Fared]

Ok, basically the globlisation thread, kept having this little bubbling pot of Anglo-Yankee egotism to it, about which system of rule was best and while was not part of that debate, so never really got going, did get me thinking, what system is actually considered the "best" or better than counterparts as best implies its actually good o_0

=This is not a board, which theory works best, I am actually wondering about poeples opinions on real world governments, Parliaments, unions, federations and committee's, are

=Does the complete tripartite system of US work best?

=Does a Parliament of supreme Legislation like in Britain work best?

=Does Tielands Royalty work best?

=Does China and its 1 party capitalism work best?

=Does Cubra and its almost Communism work best?

=Does Libra and its Directorship work best?

=Does EU work best?

=Does the Commonwealth work best? (as many consider this an untapped resource)

=Does free Constitution or Overriding Constitution work best?

=Does North Korea's isolation work best?

=Is Iran's Fundamentalisms the best?

PS this is far from complete list, just free extreme examples could think of, so feel free to bring in better ones or ones you know more about

=Like said, this basically looking more at real states and their real systems in practise as though very easy to say which we like in theory, the theory is never very close to the reality, and so I am wondering which do we think works best in practise and what are weakness's of them all. (This being said you can know as much or as little as like about politic's when commenting here, as some like Grimfang may like to look at this from philosophical sense of reality, others like me and JR probably more legal and some like sally may wish to bring religion into it, though I will crush that with iron fist <__<
>__> only joking, honestly <__<)

=PS of course, also may be an idea to consider what the best actually means to you, as some may wish to live in very powerful and nationalistic state, while others may wish for ethnocentrism protection, others like me may wish for as much emancipation from their state as possible, some may even wish for plain chaos

[Fat1Fared]

Oh yeah?

Well...

Our eagle is cooler than America's eagle!

Epic comment which should be framed throughout the world

JesusRocks Comment
I would say that one reason I think the UK constitutional system is better than the US system is because I prefer the concept of Legislative Supremacy to the American system of Judicial Supremacy.


Ironically and probably shockingly, this one thing I think the US has over us, though this more on practical sense than theoretical one, I simply trust the House of Lords (there not the supreme court and never will be <__< >__>) far more than our politician's, say what like about them, at least they care about justice and do not just see themselves as glorified bankers or there not like Milliband and on some 1 man geo-eccentric and egotistical crusade to save the world for own self-vindicating glory. I mean lets face 90% of our Politician's are just failed lawyers (that is all Blair and Strew were) while the HoL is best our legal system has to offer, who do you trust more?

=I cannot say about the US personally, because though from the little I have seen I dislike both their courts and their politicians, I know I trust courts more than parliament here, I mean the Case of Hinks is some of the best Judicial bullocks ever seen for going against the law to create justice and it was Judiciary who finally made rape in marriage illegal, (good old Lord Stein) as well it them who created things such as Duty of Care in tort law (though they do make Law students lives hell as means we then have to work out what the law is after they went ahead and changed it. lol)

-I think the problem here, is our theory is one of accountability through chaining, and like with all theories once placed in hands of common man, it fails woefully.
=:-Our theory goes that the Government is the Crown in Law and this is submissive to the Parliament which is the law, this is to stop the Crown becoming too powerful, and to stop Parliament becoming too powerful is the Common man, however the problem here is that relies on well informed and highly interested common man, which we simply do not have, 90% of poeple here, recoil in horror at thought of actually taking an informed interest in politics and this means that Parliaments accountability is almost nothing as they have learned that they can do pretty much whatever they like as long as make sure we have petrol in our cars and food on our plates and we will like good sheep make no fuss, this means our Parliament become arrogant and now does just that and because our Government normally comes from our most powerful parliament, practically their starting to take over as the governments knows if Parliament doesn't hold them to account, no will bother enough to hold parliament to account <its depressing>

Robert M. Hutchins:
The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.


Shame the only poeple who will read this, are poeple like me, who don't need to read it to realise it

[JesusRocks]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill

[Fat1Fared]

JR, being the best is not interchangeable with being good, and besides we don't live in democracy and our "government" is diff not correct part of it ether, plus lots of different types of "false/half democracies" about, so if you feel democracy is best of bad set, which is the best of the "democracies"

[TheOcean]

My opinions on politics (and religion) are best summed up by Mark Twain

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

[JesusRocks]

JR, being the best is not interchangeable with being good, and besides we don't live in democracy and our "government" is diff not correct part of it ether, plus lots of different types of "false/half democracies" about, so if you feel democracy is best of bad set, which is the best of the "democracies"

>_> At no point did I say that that was my opinion... if you didn't notice I was quoting Churchill...

[Aninamar]

"Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity."
Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 28 July 1922

"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."
Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

"In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance only the Jewish race that received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"
Adolf Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 30 January 1939

Oh? Don't mind me. It's not my opinion. If you didn't notice I was quoting Hitler...

[TitanAura]

Every type of government works perfectly... in theory. However, no type of government works. It's the people that F everything up.

[JesusRocks]

Oh? Don't mind me. It's not my opinion. If you didn't notice I was quoting Hitler...

Except that my quote was relevant to the thread ¬_¬

Fared responded to it as if it were my own opinion, I know full well the limitations of democracy, and the kind of "democracy" the UK has. Yes I put it there to revitalise a discussion, but it does not represent my opinion on the matter.

The parallel you draw here is so far to the extreme that it is completely irrelevant.


Titan here, however, grasps the spirit of Churchill's rhetoric perfectly...

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Every type of government works perfectly... in theory. However, no type of government works. It's the people that F everything up.

You have to take into consideration though. The higher ups do a very good job making law and the system a bit of a chore to understand and to intrepret. Law for example with all of its jargon is in theory quite simple to understand ^_^ its just confoundingly large words (sometimes) that make the lingo hard to catch on to. If there was a "law for dummies" book or better put a nice 2 year chunk of time taken out of highschool students school year to better understand their constitutional rights and the law itself.......people would be far better off than what they are now. But the people are left to learn all this by themselves with help from who.........lawyers for a fee =P

Its totally ingenious.

Government class for 1 year wasent nearly enough nor was it taught well enough for me to grasp the magnitude of what that book could have really taught me.

[MrsSallyBakura]

You have to take into consideration though. The higher ups do a very good job making law and the system a bit of a chore to understand and to intrepret.

I don't think that anyone is saying that all of the people in the government are useless or anything, but sometimes the 'elected officials' (depending on your form of government... and how you view what it means to actually be elected by the people) have no idea how to fix current problems.

You can spew out all the theory and ideals in the world, but none of them do any good unless you put them to use. And many of these theories and ideals don't even work on a realistic level.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

I don't think that anyone is saying that all of the people in the government are useless or anything, but sometimes the 'elected officials' (depending on your form of government... and how you view what it means to actually be elected by the people) have no idea how to fix current problems.

You can spew out all the theory and ideals in the world, but none of them do any good unless you put them to use. And many of these theories and ideals don't even work on a realistic level.

I was actually making the point of the "people" not having the information in order to intrepret law in a basic fashion. Its poorly taught in schools as if it's not an important matter.

[Fat1Fared]

while, this is all very nice, non of it is really getting to point of my thread, your all just giving board synoptic opinions on politics’ as whole, when this is thread is trying to invite a closer and more realistic/subtle view of the subject at hand like what ish said about legal language

-Ok, so we all agree poeple mess up political systems but which systems get messed up less and why? (is it the system itself or the poeple behind the system or the poeple outside the system.....etc)

PS Ish that is partly truth, but having law written in simple language is not as good as may believe, because the simpler something is, the easier to manipulate it is, however I do agree politics’ should be better educated to the masses, but an educated mass is to Politian’s like a rope to the manic depressive

PSS Sally in regards to your comment, I believe this sums up current standing of politics’ very nicely in that regard

Politics’ is the art of perceiving a problem, misdisogonising it and then giving it the wrong solution

-And in regards to western domocracy, lot of the time, I think this is because politians always try to half deal with the problem, half take the problem as an advantage

[MrsSallyBakura]

Politics’ is the art of perceiving a problem, misdisogonising it and then giving it the wrong solution

That's... amazing. lol

while, this is all very nice, non of it is really getting to point of my thread, your all just giving board synoptic opinions on politics’ as whole, when this is thread is trying to invite a closer and more realistic/subtle view of the subject at hand like what ish said about legal language

I think that people are doing that because we don't really believe that there is a best political system. I certainly don't. I wish that we could realistically be anarchists, but I know that in most cultures these days, that would be a bad idea too.

[killshot]

Fared really butchered that quote.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -Groucho Marx

[Fat1Fared]

Dude I was writing it quickly in between work and completely from memory (I couldn't even remember if it was Marx or Davies who said it, it has been so long sense read their stuff, I think I can be forgiven for not writing it word for word, though I will admit, I wish I had remember the start better, but I always disagreed with the looking for trouble art, I think trouble is politic')

=Anyway moving on, Sally, like I said to JR, stating what you think is best and what you think is good is not the same thing, this thread is not here to say what theory is good as all theories have their merits or what what is good in practise as none of them really are, its which one works less badly than all the others (basically which one wins the ugly contest)

[TitanAura]

Politics should be murdered and buried on the dark side of Jupiter. Nothing excuses what our government is doing in Congress as we speak. They know how they are going to vote for a bill before they even step into the chamber but they still waste time debating it for weeks, nay, MONTHS only to have it fail because the Republicans have a vendetta against a president and it's more about making his policies fail and labeling him as a failure rather than worrying about whether his policies may or may not be helping the country as a whole. I don't have the balls, resources, or know-how to do it myself but I would personally applaud someone who could topple our government by hitting the proverbial reset switch on this country and forcing THE PEOPLE to take action, even if that means bloodshed and when that line is crossed, there will be.

Our representatives believe they were elected to represent THEIR interests because they somehow believe that if someone voted for them, they must agree with their policies and beliefs 100% and that is simply a Dr. Cox's supply of "WRONG"s. Once they arrive in office they turn off their eyes and ears to the public and drive forward without them with only a thought towards what they can do to get elected next time as well. They are there to represent the PEOPLE.

We now have technology that would easily allow our congressmen to stay home in the communities they represent and vote on any and every bill that comes into existence but our politicians still use policies created a couple hundred years ago when snail mail took a fort night to travel from one city to another and having your leaders meet in a single location was mandatory in order to spread information as quickly as possible. Information is now available at our FUCKING FINGERTIPS but they still waste time using a system that was created in a time when such technology wasn't even considered to be possible. People back then didn't think FLIGHT would ever be possible.

[AllisonWalker]

The Republicans don't have enough power in Congress to "ruin" Obama. His office does a great job of that without GOP involvement.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I think that both Democrats and Republicans need a reality check.

How I wish that we could get rid of the two-party system that the US seems to adore so much.

[AllisonWalker]

People are working on that, actually. But the majority of people are lazy and don't care enough to get those other parties strong enough to get seats.

[grimfang999]

Now im going to bring two ideas up.

first off I am going to link to my post of the hierarchical democracy

http://forum.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/showpost.php?p=1079794&postcount=17

comment on that as a theory if you wish. Logically it stops people who have little experience in politics from voting world leaders in who will not correctly perform, since the public will be able to understand the politition of their area a little more intimately, who can then vote in a person which will be the most useful for their area, and so on and so forth. However, this may also cause critics to accuse it of not being a real democracy as well as the decrease of freedom of speech, however necessary, may cause people to riot


now, im going to bring up a different point: City states. If we go back to the ancient Greeks the cities ran themselves. In my knowledge there was little crime and there was generally good order. what eventually brought them down was the wars which occured between the cities, but they would still unite to defend their country if need be. Now, if we were to infuse this into our modern society, still having country borders but cities which run themselves in their own way, it will make the countries much easier to manage and less inclined to war, since we are more inclined to peace in our borders in these days


finally, facism is not as bad as it may seem, its only made bad if the leader is bad. in some ways it can be said that monarchies are a form of facism only with the hereditary rule civic. In some cases monarchies have thrived greater than democracy

[Aninamar]

in some ways it can be said that monarchies are a form of facism only with the hereditary rule civic.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snort* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Civic... Oh God...

What level are you playing?

Now, if we were to infuse this into our modern society, still having country borders but cities which run themselves in their own way, it will make the countries much easier to manage and less inclined to war, since we are more inclined to peace in our borders in these days


Like hell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig)

inally, facism is not as bad as it may seem, its only made bad if the leader is bad.

A dictatorship in which even your private life is controlled? Indoctrinization runs rampant? In which you have no choice of yours? In which opposition is illegal and punished?

Mussolini reformed Italy. He improved the economics by a wide margin. He managed to cut loose ends that kept Italy in poverty. He's also one of the causes we have Vatican now. It's a common saying that in Mussolini's reign, the trains were always on time.

He also bought every single citizen of his country a radio to which he was forced to listen every day until evening. The only station was filled with fascist propaganda and Mussolini's speeches.

Of course, not taking into account his "war successes" that gave Feliciano Vargas the name Hetalia, could we argue that he was a bad administrator of his country in this case?

One could argue that if it weren't for fascism, then Italy and Germany wouldn't be able to recover so fast, and, in Germany's case, wouldn't fulfill the goal of becoming a warmachine. But imagine living in a fascist country, especially in a time of peace. What would that accomplish? I doubt many countries would like to support a state based on terror.

[gwtyler1985]

i say that the best government is a local government cosisting of a direct democracy with an incredibly low voter turnout managing an area about the size of the city of Los Angeles or Houston (and not just downtown, the whole thing, including the surrounding industrial, commercial and residential areas).

[Spoofs3]

"Democracy is simply the bludgening of the people, by the people for the people" - Oscar Wilde
"The biggest arguement against the existance of democracy is a simple 5 minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill

I personally believe that Democracy is idiotic because most people - as shown quite recently in Ireland's voting on the Lisbon treaty - Have no fucking clue what is going on.
Alot of people who voted on the "No side" either voted No because they didn't want to research anything on the Treaty so no change is good change, or they used propaganda to make it look like a full scale dictatorship was about to emerge.
The yes side however were... Also idiots... Alot of them were just government loyalists who ALSO did not read the treaty and just said "Vote yes because such and such party says so".
Needless to say, I DID find a logical voter. A single logical voter who voted Yes on the treaty. Also, don't think I am being bias because I was also Pro-Lisbon, That is a SINGLE logical voter I found. One. Both sides were fools, unfortuantly the fools had the power.

However, Even though I hate democracy due to it's good intentions of giving the people what they want, I hate my favourite form of government more. This is because it will NEVER WORK.
A Mixture of a Democracy (People electing a council to keep in touch with the people), A Republic council (To give the dictator the ideas of the people) and a Single leader for Dictatorship (With full scale power) will not work as you will NEVER find a Dictator who has full scale power and good ideas and people to keep them in touch with his people who will not go power hungry and just use it to his own benefit.
The closest we have probably been is probably Lenin (He practically WAS a dictator) and when his policies were no working, He saw this and changed them.
Pity millions of people STILL died.

[grimfang999]

well, this is why i suggested the Hierarchy. Like you said spoofs, alot of people dont understand the ways of politics and often jump to conclusions without thinking it through.

while this is not political, an example is of the Google street view. People are scared because they think it is an invitation to burglers. If they thought it through they would realise that burglery is not often premeditated, and the pictures were at one point, with no view into the houses, so the theif would have no idea of the true defenses. The person could have been out with their dog at the point. A burgler would take the immediate oppertunity if they see a currantly defenseless house, not one that was defenseless months ago. privacy issues are being dealt with, so theres no problem with it is there?


back to my point. If the people elected someone who would do good for their area, and trusted them to make the right choices, then surely he can choose the right person to rule above him?


in the end, no system is perfect, and the people required to lead need to not be corrupted. Democracy is not really entirely the majority of the vote, since it will only go with people who have the larger population rather than the one with a smaller population but more dangerous and difficult problems. this is why I thought of the hierarchical democracy, so all areas would have an equal say.



now, just another irrelevent point.Ironically my mum heard a debate on tv or radio a bit after I told her of my idea of a hierachical democracy, a debate of globalisation where the very same idea came up

[biggles1]

malevolant dictatorship ftw!

with the right leader, it can be efficient and benoficial to society.

[AdjacentOrigin]

Government of all kinds should be removed from our lives. It is against everything civilized society stands for. Who gives the government the right to govern? Some people tell me to go live in Somalia because they have little to no government. I say why not? Somalia has great beaches and nice landscapes. Except for the angry people in their boats off the coast.

[biggles1]

Government of all kinds should be removed from our lives. It is against everything civilized society stands for. Who gives the government the right to govern? Some people tell me to go live in Somalia because they have little to no government. I say why not? Somalia has great beaches and nice landscapes. Except for the angry people in their boats off the coast.

without a government, it is extremely difficult for a sivilization to form to the levels we have today. without a government there would be no mains electricity or water, no police, no laws to protect people, no organisation at all.

[Ostinato]

1000 years ago, my answer would have been monarchy.
500 years ago, my answer would have been theocracy.
Currently, my answer is democracy.
100 years from now, it will be corporatocracy.

[AdjacentOrigin]

Democratic Socialism isn't bad. I'm a Canadian and it works quite well here. Has it's flaws but has a healthy balance between government, corporate power, and the citzenry. Disregard my first post above, it was a joke. And I'll stop doing it.

[Chiru]

I don't believe in government. I only believe in unadulterated chaos.

But to be serious, like others have said, any government is fine, it is only the people that are faulty. In reality, do the Democrats or Republicans care about the so-called "People?" The answer, quite frankly, is "No." Republicans complain about Democrats ruining the economy and not favoring corporations, but how many Democrats are CEOs and own companies? Not only that, but even when a Democrat is in office, it seems that the big businesses are still the ones getting tax cuts, while everyone else has to make up for it.

Like I said, I prefer no government. Either that, or a monarchy with me as Supreme Leader. There should be clones of me too, in case the original me dies. Or actually, the Supreme Leader should always be me, and I will keep cloning me. Yeah, that sounds right.

[Ostinato]

I don't believe in government. I only believe in unadulterated chaos.

But to be serious, like others have said, any government is fine, it is only the people that are faulty. In reality, do the Democrats or Republicans care about the so-called "People?" The answer, quite frankly, is "No." Republicans complain about Democrats ruining the economy and not favoring corporations, but how many Democrats are CEOs and own companies? Not only that, but even when a Democrat is in office, it seems that the big businesses are still the ones getting tax cuts, while everyone else has to make up for it.

Like I said, I prefer no government. Either that, or a monarchy with me as Supreme Leader. There should be clones of me too, in case the original me dies. Or actually, the Supreme Leader should always be me, and I will keep cloning me. Yeah, that sounds right.

Perhaps Libertarianism is a better choice.

We need some sort of government to organize millions of people, but we should limit it to the bare necessities. Cut out all the fat and keep the muscle. As any organization becomes larger and larger, as most governments do with their growing population, they become inefficient; a bumbling giant.

[AdjacentOrigin]

Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism. They all have their merits.

It's the obnoxious Ayn Rand followers I can't stand.

[biggles1]

Perhaps Libertarianism is a better choice.

We need some sort of government to organize millions of people, but we should limit it to the bare necessities. Cut out all the fat and keep the muscle. As any organization becomes larger and larger, as most governments do with their growing population, they become inefficient; a bumbling giant.

exactly, the beauracratic nonsense takes over. this is why a benevolent dictatorship with hand-picked people to lead different departments in best, people who know about the problems they are trying to fix. Doctors and health ministers, railway engineers as transport ministers, farmers as agriculture ministers and so on. I mean how is a kid raised in Cambrige and sent to school in Eton going to know dammned shit about the problems farmers face? get people who KNOW what the fuck they are on about!