Government (Disscussion =! Debate)
 

I was thinking about some different forms of government, and thought it might be interesting to examine the many types of governing we've developed over history, and discuss their weaknesses and strengths.

Some basics off the top of my head as far as descriptions (and these are admitedly amaturish observations, so feel free to add in or completely replace this "list");

Monarchy - A form of dictatorship where there is one ruler, usually choosen as part of a family line or choosen at birth by preceding ruler. This induvidual wields supreme authority - His word is law, essentially.

Dictatorship - Induvidual weilds supreme authority, gained by "birthright" as in a monarchy, or power struggle.

Democracy - Rule by the people, usually by a regulated voting process wherein the majority "wins".

Republic - The populace is represented by local leaders reporting to a ruling head representing the entire government. If I'm not mistaken, in a true republic, there is no voteing done by the general population.

And so on.

Please add to the list, and contribute your thoughts as to the strength and weaknesses of each paticular form of government.

Anarchy - The complete lack of a government

Thoughts:

Monarchy - "This induvidual wields supreme authority - His word is law, essentially." And that is the problem. With no way to hold this authority in check, he or she is basically able to ruin or create as he sees fit.

Dictatorship - "Individual wields supreme authority, gained by "birthright" as in a monarchy, or power struggle." Not nessecarily an individual. Dictatorship literally means the government dictates your life. It is the antithesis to freedom. Dictatorships are usually the result of political/military struggles, not birthright.

Democracy - "Rule by the people, usually by a regulated voting process wherein the majority "wins"." Problems abound: The majority is stupid. Therefore its easy to manipulate them into voting your way with just a few half truthes here or there. Another major problem is that minorities of any type usually don't get much in the way of rights barring major pressure.

Republic - "The populace is represented by local leaders reporting to a ruling head representing the entire government. If I'm not mistaken, in a true republic, there is no voteing done by the general population." True. However, in a 'true' republic, that makes it a dictatorship essentially. Those outside the circleof power are forced to live as the government dictates.

Anarchy - The biggest problem is it becomes survival of the most brutal, not necessarily the smartest, or the most fit. The guys with the most muscle/weapons rules.

Theocracy - A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

Someone told me theocracies and monarchies are the most stable forms of government.

A true Republic is not quite a dictatorship. The difference being that the people still elect the representatives to their positions.

In my opinion, the best form of government would be a dictatorship under a benevolent, wise and immortal ruler. Because, as Raerlynn said, the majority of the people are stupid and easily manipulated. With a wise ruler running things, the country can be happy. But since that will never happen in anyone's lifetime...

On a side note, anyone else play NationStates?

Total misconception. This has never happened, ever. Anarchy does not equal a zoo. I request that you read an article on anarchism or something before you do the same thing everyone does with Communism: "well, it's good on paper, but it just don't work!" That's a totally valid position--if you have justification for that. The 'survival of the fittest' argument is from left-field. I'm not trying to be mean or condescending here, I just think that was a very, very weak definition.

Autonomous anarchist societies have existed intermittently throughout history, the most notable being Ukraine, Spain for many years, and many portions of South America, especially Chiapas in Mexico.

Anarchism - A stateless, direct democracy society.

That post kind of overlooks the fact that Raerlynn was operating under another, clearly enounced, and also valid definition of anarchy. To quote: "The complete lack of a government". That's an accepted, altough more general definition if I'm not mistaken. A "direct democracy society" implies a form of government, if not a state.

Both are called anarchy, but it's not the same concept.

I have to disagree with the idea that "this has never happened", also.

Direct democracy does not imply state at all. Anarchism doesn't mean 'no rules--' it means human rules, and no state to let those rules become objectivities run amok. I'm pretty sure wikipedia says direct democracy is interchangable. It can be compatible with "no government--" it is.

Direct democracy != toll booths.

Interchangable with what? Wikipedia has two different articles: one about Anarchy and one about Anarchism. The one about Anarchism is flagged as being in dispute on factual and POV grounds.

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that I thought that direct democracy can be conceived of without a state, but that by definition it is a form of government (there government meaning basically political organization and no more).

The concept of "human rules" is a bit foggy to me, and I can't see why you'd want to argue for one definition of anarchy being the one and only true definition when the word covers so much ground.

Thread title says not a debate does it not? Unless I'm misinterpreting the point of that, I will request you two keep it in check until Nique decides to allow or deny that tangent.

It's not so much a debate as a mere misunderstanding--I don't go for unwavering definitions of doctrines, but I was merely pointing out that anarchy and anarchism are used interchangably by anarchists. The article is also quite factual: I've been following its history for a while now, and the POV disputes are from a vocal few ridiculously 'fundamentalist' anarchists.

There's more to be said on social law and anarchist law, I suppose, but another time.

Anyway--forms of government, right? I always thought it was funny that Western (Western Western) intelligencia, the anti-French portion, always referred to the French government as a Pornocracy--as a serious criticism.