goverment theory question

[mmmcannibalism]

1st off my bad if this has ever been made before

 

 

 

this thought just came to me semi randomly and I thought Id put it up for discussion

 

 

 

we all talk about the ideals of a government, and what would make the best system.

 

 

 

however just theoretically

 

 

 

Is there anything wrong with a monarchy or even a dictatorship if it allows freedom, gives the people a forum for discussion, and has a good balanced leader?

 

 

 

edit--just because 2nd reply mentioned the idea

 

 

 

is there anything wrong with anarchy if everyone is peaceful and gets along?

[Zierro]

Yes, there would be nothing wrong but that's a lot of "ifs". Things always go wrong somehow; it's the law of the universe.

[Dizzle229]

Why not Anarchy?

 

 

 

:-w

[Zierro]

Why not Anarchy?

 

 

 

:-w

 

 

 

I'd actually agree with that, but sadly we have so many stupid people and they take it too far. So we have to adjust the world for them.

 

 

 

Life is fair. :^o

[Dizzle229]

Yep, it sounds good, but it just causes too many problems.

 

 

 

(Somalia, we're looking at you)

[War_Junky_91]

A monarchy or dictatorship means that just one person or a group of people (who you don't get to choose) are in control, and therefore only a single or very few people need be corrupted to screw over the rest of the country and there would be little or no way to stop that person(s) either.

[Lenticular_J]

Anarchy wouldn't work because of the sheer bundle of people not doing anything. If you didn't have to, would you pay the people who built your roads? No, you wouldn't. Infrastructure like that would fall apart.

 

 

 

Say another "group", I guess, invades your own. Who're you gonna call? The government-managed power lines have long since fallen into disrepair.

 

 

 

Monarchies and dictatorships place too much power into one person or one small group of people. Our modern needs could not be managed by these things.

[Nom]

Has no one studied Lockean theory? Guess not.

 

 

 

Egalitarianism has pretty much destroyed any chance of monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. working any longer. It also makes anarchy impossible, so we are left with the middle ground, the current systems of government that dominate the western world.

[SpacePope]

He's asking for ideal government hypothetically.

 

 

 

Theoretically, Communism is the perfect form of government. So far, every country that has attempted it has screwed it up.

[meol]

If you stay with hypotheticals, those political systems would be indeed perfect if there were perfect conditions and perfect humans. After all, both Anarchy and Fascism (and Communism, etc.) follow some utopian ideals of perfect societies -where the definition of perfect society varies-, and would theoretically be "perfect" forms of government.

 

 

 

Both of them easily get corrupted as Lenticular explained, though, so they don't work in practice.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Why not Anarchy?

 

 

 

:-w

 

The success of Anarchy depends on people taking responsibility for their own actions instead of the state having to do it for them.

 

 

 

I'd take a stab and say 95% of people wouldn't do that.

[blushenka]

 

 

 

however just theoretically

 

 

 

Is there anything wrong with a monarchy or even a dictatorship if it allows freedom, gives the people a forum for discussion, and has a good balanced leader?

 

 

The definition of dictatorship is basically that no one has any freedom, so no, it definitely won't work.

 

Monarchy, probably yes.

 

 

 

However, the problem with having a single leader is that they sooner or later get corrupted by power and all the good intentions go to hell.

 

 

 

As for Anarchy, that would work, except people are inherently selfish and if they were to do whatever they want, they'd end up breaking other people's rights.

 

 

 

I think in the end Monarchy would be the best bet for things to work well.

[warren211]

I agree with Lenticular and Ginger. Let's face it, if you had the choice to take responsibility for your own actions and pay for your own things when not required, or to ignore both, I think most would choose the latter unless they cared about the way the country is run. There's no way anarchy would work in a huge country like the US or other countries. Maybe in smaller countries of a few thousand people like a pacific island, I'm sure there's one that could survive on anarchy. And as for monarchy well... again, only in the smaller countries, or ones where you want the people to live in poverty. Giving one person so much power will almost never work out in today's world. In the past it did alright, but today, if one person could rule the world it'd be a huge corporation CEO who could pull some strings and get into the leader spot making sure the rules catered to his business.