In your opinion, whats the best form of Government?

[egregious cerebrum]

For humanity, but I don't mean for a one-world-government or super-state, although such speculation is permissible, in this instance, by Cthulhu

Well, I haven't personally came to a conclusion, if I ever will, but I thought that I would attempt to passively probe your feeble human minds for your thoughts on this matter. You may answer, "Democracy is best because [reasons]," or, "Communism is best because [reasons]," or, "Constitutional Noocracy because..."

Or, you may answer, "There is no best form of government because [reasons], (but the most ideal form of government is [form of your choice] because [I think you get this part, or at least you should]"

Not sure if this has been done before. I did a quick search and my tentative answer is "no"

I will come back to this later. Time for long shower.

[Ferrus]

Tyrannical despotism.

[Helios]

Helioscracy

[Anonymous]

Majority rule for everything. Maybe not the best if the majority is stupid, but just imagine how well that would work for the evolution of groups. How often would nations go to war if the citizens were the ones who decide? Even when it does look like the population is extremely zealous about going to war, this seems to be almost always due to massive propaganda efforts by the government.

[shadow master]

In about 300 years, after a dramatic shift in human conciousness - A one world world government will be a thing of beauty. John Lennon will be proud. But untill that time chaos will prevail.

[Chunes]

non-productivist involuntary oligarchical technocratic meritocracy.

Meaning—

-the aim of society is not to unwaveringly increase productivity (non-productivist).

-the rulers are selected based on observed patterns of them expressing their desire not to rule and at random from within the aforementioned group (involuntary)

-there is no sole ruler; rulers are co-rulers (oligarchical)

-high technology is embraced for the benefit of humanity; humans are not forced to compete with machines as today; humans are less productive overall but the fruits of directed production are used for purposes of sustenance first and play later—completely opposite to the current system (technocratic)

-the meritorious are selected to lead in their respective spheres of merit, not the rich or charismatic (meritocracy)

[Rincon]

Helioscracy

Versus, say, Rinconunism?

[Ferrus]

Versus, say, Rinconunism?
I am more in the Ferrusist branch of Rinconunism.

[bass_n_treble]

In about 300 years, after a dramatic shift in human conciousness - A one world world government will be a thing of beauty. John Lennon will be proud. But untill that time chaos will prevail.

"Was it a millionaire who said imagine no possessions?" ~Elvis Costello

I think Lennon was a brilliant musician who exploited vague hippie dreams to turn into record company profit. At least Bono has done charity work and some amateur diplomacy work about his causes. Lennon just became this artistic hermit, and was more about the imagery of becoming iconic, rather than any real sweeping social change.

If anything, (and as a Beatles fan this almost kills me) Yoko has been far more charitable than John, who was also a deadbeat dad to Julian (http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/1636-john-lennon)

/derail

Sorry, I'm just sick of everyone kissing John Lennon's feet. He was a singer, not Gandhi.


Majority rule for everything. Maybe not the best if the majority is stupid, but just imagine how well that would work for the evolution of groups. How often would nations go to war if the citizens were the ones who decide? Even when it does look like the population is extremely zealous about going to war, this seems to be almost always due to massive propaganda efforts by the government.

It would only be a matter of time before everyone was lynched and/or executed. Majority rule is awful for the judicial process.

[Anonymous]

It would only be a matter of time before everyone was lynched and/or executed. Majority rule is awful for the judicial process.

Yep. I didn't say it would be good for them, but I predict that the groups without such self-destructive behavior would eventually come out on top, and after many years, most remaining cultures would be far healthier than they are today.

[zserf]

I think that the model that we have in the U.S. is pretty good. Democratically elected republic. Benefits being that (some) minority rights are protected, and with the house and senate, it's difficult enough to get stuff done, that it's fairly difficult for one group too screw up the nation too badly. Some flaws being that the president has a large amount of control, fundraising/lobbying causes problems, and incumbents have advantages. So, there's definitely some ways that it could be improved.

I think the U.S. has a pretty good model, I just don't always agree with our philosophy about what the government should and shouldn't do.

[Fingers]

Monarchy, and I'm not even kidding.

[Architectonic]

One without politicians/heads of state. :ph34r:


Monarchy, and I'm not even kidding.

Oh yeah, autocracy would be great.... If I was King. (the catch is I don't want to be King and thus wouldn't do much myself)

[stuck]

psychocracy with robot slave class

[jyng1]

The USA system seems to be a two party political system that is so expensive to get into that the contenders have to sell their souls to get enough money to run. Plus for some reason you can win the popular vote and still lose. I don't understand it.

The Monarchy in the English/British sense seems to be somewhat of an expensive anachronism, but seems to ensure some democratic safeguards (a completely non political system of checks and balances, and an ultimate system of appeal for the disgruntled).

MMP; too much power to minorities and not enough power to the party that represents the majority vote; a significant amount of inherent checks and balances (i.e. have to negotiate on almost everything) Nice if you're a member of the Green Party.

SVT; Leads to a party that can actually make decisions and do stuff, but what happened to the minority voters on the way?

Benign dictatorship ala Singapore; seems to work (unless you're a member of the opposition and you don't like being in prison).

Dictatorship ala Zimbabwe; cool if you want to own a trillion dollar note.

Communism, fascism, stalinism, religious states, Meh

[floid]

Self government.

The only kind that has even a faint glimmer of a possibility of working even though the chances of it working do seem slim most of the time.

And if any other form of government does seem to be working it is doing so because there is a critical mass of people practicing self government which keeps all other forms of government from degenerating into the pigsty that festers just below the thin surface of altruism that keeps it in check.

If you grew up with siblings, had a parent say "Why can't you just get along?", and deeply pondered the immense practicality of doing just that you know exactly what I mean.

[Harion]

anarchism

[Fingers]

anarchism

*chuckles at your idealism*

[Technical]

Any kind of government that can invent the Autobahn is okay by me! ...Wait a second...

[nonperson]

Any kind of government that can invent the Autobahn is okay by me! ...Wait a second...

or make the trains run on time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Mussolini_biografia.jpg/225px-Mussolini_biografia.jpg

[Technical]

It can't be said of sociopathic egomaniacs that they lack a flair for efficiency. Well it sometimes can, but anyone says it about Il Duce's got a fight comin' their way. lol

[durentu]

For humanity, but I don't mean for a one-world-government or super-state, although such speculation is permissible, in this instance, by Cthulhu

Well, I haven't personally came to a conclusion, if I ever will, but I thought that I would attempt to passively probe your feeble human minds for your thoughts on this matter. You may answer, "Democracy is best because [reasons]," or, "Communism is best because [reasons]," or, "Constitutional Noocracy because..."

Or, you may answer, "There is no best form of government because [reasons], (but the most ideal form of government is [form of your choice] because [I think you get this part, or at least you should]"

Not sure if this has been done before. I did a quick search and my tentative answer is "no"

I will come back to this later. Time for long shower.

Governing bodies are like a tailored suit. It must allow movement and flexibility while catering to the contemporary fashions for its people.

[Hustler]

Governing bodies are like a tailored suit. If must allow movement and flexibility while catering to the contemporary fashions for its people.

The only time I wear suits is at funerals.

[Madrigal]

No government.

[Technical]

w00t

http://bristol.indymedia.org/attachments/aug2008/nogodsnomasters.jpg

*trades stocks; phones governor*

[pangolin]

Constitutional, academocratic, rupublican aristocracy

In short, rule by the most knowledgeable

In long, degree of demonstrable education/knowledge => degree of voting privileges.
How much your vote counts toward a particular issue is also determined in part by your areas of expertise. Top leaders at varying levels of government are chosen from relevant experts by pertinent voters. Education is of course offered to everyone. Numerous details to be worked out.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

One that minimizes (or outright eliminates) the power of the state and maximizes the power of the individual wherein individuals cannot coercively or violently assert their maximized power over another without likely and discouraging consequences. As the state is ultimately a forceful conglomerate of other individuals, minimizing it is necessary for this goal, just as pursuing this goal will lead to the minimization of the state.

There's no such thing as a perfect state, and there will always be individuals who hold status and power over others for whatever means (be it intelligence, manipulation, capital, or what have you). The best you can do is maximize the freedom for one to choose their means of life (or death) and ensure the efficiency of resources (best done through competition).

[luff]

Decentralized.

If you can't stand it in one place, you can move. Regions that fail will serve as an examples for what not to do, and policy's of prosperous regions will be copied.

There will be a few rules that all regions must adhere to. Regions are subject to external revision, and their book-keeping must be open for everyone to scrutinize. Corrupt politicians are subject to penalty of death.

[UniversalMagnetism]

Idiocracy. Its got what plants crave.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

No government.

Wait, so you're a free market anarchist after all? :devil:

*runs*

[Chunes]

One that minimizes (or outright eliminates) the power of the state and maximizes the power of the individual wherein individuals cannot coercively or violently assert their maximized power over another without likely and discouraging consequences.

A great idea, but unfortunately unenforcable. What you describe here is the base state of humanity, but humans took that freedom and used it to form a state.

[Madrigal]

Wait, so you're a free market anarchist after all? :devil:

*runs*

No market.

[Technical]

Back to swinging twigs around! /progress

[Unapplied Knowledge]

A great idea, but unfortunately unenforcable. What you describe here is the base state of humanity, but humans took that freedom and used it to form a state.

Hence my predominant usage of the word minimize, and why eliminate was only mentioned paranthetically.


No market.

Can't prevent it without a state!

[Madrigal]

Can't get fired up today, sorry. Just one of those days.

[Ferrus]

Can't prevent it without a state!
Really? As far as I am aware you can't prevent the 'sole crime' of theft without a state.

[Thirsty]

The issue with many of the governments suggested above is not the system, it's the people.

Human beings, are, by nature, irresponsible, greedy, self-centered, and stupid.

Many of the above governments would have to rely on humans being good-natured, but this is a naive point of view.

Take any of the many forms of anarchy. For the sake of example, let's use a rather far-out one, Individualist Anarchism.

In an anarcho-individualist society, the individual is allowed to pursue his/her goals through whatever means necessary.

Now, a flaw: Let's say all of the buissinesspeople in said society decide that it's in their best interest to pay their workers 3 cents a day. Nobody is going to stop them. The worst part is, this could be a reality. Greed and want control almost all of the general populace.

With regards to True Anarchy (100%), this form of government is only temporary for the aforementioned reasons. Because humans naturally crave power, somebody somewhere, will take over, and a monarchy/Oligarchy of some sort will be instituted. It is inevitable, human nature.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Can't get fired up today, sorry. Just one of those days.

Darn :(

[Technical]

Now, a flaw: Let's say all of the buissinesspeople in said society decide that it's in their best interest to pay their workers 3 cents a day. Nobody is going to stop them. The worst part is, this could be a reality. Greed and want control almost all of the general populace.
Only if the government (Law, Military, Police) prevent the workers from taking over the corporations.

Things balance themselves out, if left to their devices. (Probably more importantly, the fear of such occurances combined with the lack of spite for the workers from 50% taxation would lead things to be relatively "fair" in the first place.)

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Really? As far as I am aware you can't prevent the 'sole crime' of theft without a state.

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define state. If, say, someone breaks into my store, holds me up with a gun, then I pop a cap in his ass when he's turned away and thus stopping theft, am I acting as a state? If so, then anything involving a human making a decision is a state.

[Ferrus]

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define state. If, say, someone breaks into my store, holds me up with a gun, then I pop a cap in his ass when he's turned away and thus stopping theft, am I acting as a state? If so, then anything involving a human making a decision is a state.
Wow, this is such a magnificient argument I wonder the flaw could be... :rolleyes2:

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Wow, this is such a magnificient argument I wonder what the flaw could be... :rolleyes2:

It's a question, not an argument. Care to answer it or shall we engage in a wondrous night of ad hominems?

Edit: I found the flaw! (Hint: note bolded word injected by yours truly)

[Thirsty]

Wow, this is such a magnificient argument I wonder the flaw could be... :rolleyes2:

The flaw is obviously that the term is "Bust a cap in his ass." :happpy:

[Unapplied Knowledge]

The flaw is obviously that the term is "Bust a cap in his ass." :happpy:

That clearly depends on if you're West Side or East Side.

[notjeffgoldblum]

Every form of government is effectively an anarchy and essentially a dictatorship. Wait... what?

[Thirsty]

That clearly depends on if you're West Side or East Side.

Completely serious video.

[Hustler]

Things balance themselves out, if left to their devices.

NF logic.

[Technical]

NF logic.
SP imperceptiveness.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

NF logic.


SP imperceptiveness.

:popcorn:


:popcorn:

NP amusement.

[Etherealsage]

Monarchy. I think it's time to try again.

[Faust06]

Liberal Capitalism? I kid, but it's better than complete Libertarianism or anarchism.

I'm both social liberal and libertarian, I suppose. I think certain things will work themselves out after much debate and logic thrown around, but there will NEVER be an extreme such as a true free market or communism.

Basically, picture a free market. Then, add a bunch of regulations to protect the environment and our rights, uphold the law fiercely, and add some socialized stuff like free healthcare.

More accurately, just picture liberal capitalism without shit going wrong due to complete disregard of reason, and misinformation. We don't NEED a "new system". We need to crack down on what hurts us most, and gain what we need most, but in every case there will be little change in the theoretical system we have. I promise you. That in itself is fine, but the applied system we have has a few major issues.

Basically, give it time, and be LOUD about pointing out things that are simply wrong. The more this happens, well.. things change.

[Thirsty]

Monarchy. I think it's time to try again.

Won't work. Human psychology.

[Faust06]

Won't work. Human psychology.

Monarchy is a bad idea all around.

[Hermione]

Completely serious video.

This totally made this whole ad nauseum so worthwhile. Touche excellente'. :theclap:

[Etherealsage]

Won't work. Human psychology.
Elaborate?

Monarchy is a bad idea all around.
Because?

[zserf]

The USA system seems to be a two party political system that is so expensive to get into that the contenders have to sell their souls to get enough money to run. Plus for some reason you can win the popular vote and still lose. I don't understand it.


I don't think the two party system is all bad. Things that most people agree on tend to become policy, and each party takes a side on the other issues. It can be messy, but not too bad.

The whole money issue is a problem. I think that there need to be more restrictions on raising money. It's almost impossible to get elected without special interest money.

As for the popular vote, that's because of the Electoral College. It's sort of left over from when it would have been almost impossible to validate results of different states. It was also before phones. It also comes from the fact that the U.S. wasn't really intended to become one nation, it was supposed to be a union of states to protect against European powers. The Electoral College doesn't usually play much of a role, because almost every time the popular vote winner wins anyway. States are trying to come up with a way around the E.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Thirsty]

Elaborate?


The issue with many of the governments suggested above is not the system, it's the people.

Human beings, are, by nature, irresponsible, greedy, self-centered, and stupid.

Many of the above governments would have to rely on humans being good-natured, but this is a naive point of view.


As I said, a monarchy relies on its leader to be immune to corruption, and lust for power; assuming of course that you want members of the nation to be somewhat happy. This simply isn't possible; it's unrealistic. The only way you'd be able to find an individual (and they are incredibly rare, if not non-existant) who would be somewhat immune to this is through trial and error. And that's exactly what has happened throughout the history of monarchies. People have created the monarchy, discovered that the leader was an asshole, and dethroned him. Rinsed, repeated.

Unless of course, your idea of a great government involves everyone to be living in a shithole, in which case, a good leader is irrelevant and Sarah Palin can be queen.

[jyng1]

I don't think the two party system is all bad. Things that most people agree on tend to become policy, and each party takes a side on the other issues. It can be messy, but not too bad.

We used to have a two party, "first past the post", system and that was changed to Mixed Member Proportional where if a party gets more than 5% of the vote they get a certain number of seats in Parliament.

I vote for the Greens which is one of the 5% parties who occasionally wins a seat outright, but mainly relies on the list for representatives.

If it wasn't for MMP, the Greens would only have one or two members in Parliament. I vote for them, because I think they act as a conscience for the more pragmatic Nats (Tories, Republicans) and they push policies I believe in. As a minority voter, under MMP I get a voice I'm not sure I would get under a two party system.

To me a democratic system is not about a two party adversarial system, but a way for everyone to have a voice. MMP is often criticised for being too unwieldy and the winning party has to make too many compromises to lead effectively, but I thought the last government (who relied on coalitions to be in power) made several bold socially responsible decisions (as a result of the coalition with the Greens et al).

[Architectonic]

If, say, someone breaks into my store, holds me up with a gun, then I pop a cap in his ass when he's turned away and thus stopping theft, am I acting as a state? If so, then anything involving a human making a decision is a state.

Take this concept further and you might start to see...


Elaborate?

Because?

Monarchy is the most arbitrary of all forms of government....

[stuck]

Grey goo/singularity

[Architectonic]

Grey goo/singularity

/hive mind?

[stuck]

/hive mind?

= a suitable transition state like the dictatorship of the proletariat. Eventually the drones will have to give up their bodies.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Take this concept further and you might start to see.

Again, it's not a concept, it's a question.. one of which no one has yet to give an answer.

[Etherealsage]

As I said, a monarchy relies on its leader to be immune to corruption, and lust for power; assuming of course that you want members of the nation to be somewhat happy. This simply isn't possible; it's unrealistic. The only way you'd be able to find an individual (and they are incredibly rare, if not non-existant) who would be somewhat immune to this is through trial and error. And that's exactly what has happened throughout the history of monarchies. People have created the monarchy, discovered that the leader was an asshole, and dethroned him. Rinsed, repeated.
Are they really that rare? Anyway, yes, it is extremely necessary that they be uncorrupt, and right now that seems unnlikely. But I have an angle you're missing. 1 person to assassinate or arrest a large number of congressmen, judges, and executives? It's easier to rectify a corrupt man than corrupted system. Anyway, that aside, if you get a good king to head the country, then you don't have to worry about the system being corrupted for a long while. And as someone above said, the system is more arbitrary. The king could make certain decisions without certain proof. That could be either good or bad, it depends on the skill of the monarch. In the end, it's just a matter of risk/reward. Personally, I don't trust the masses to pick the right person right now. At least if we get a corrupt king or queen, we could do something about it.

[Digital Future]

One a me bredren dem did say did one time "If you can’t command, you must obey!"

[Architectonic]

Again, it's not a concept, it's a question.. one of which no one has yet to give an answer.

I've both hinted at and answered that question multiple times on this forum.

Yes, the family, community groups, corporation and even the individual can be considered to be states in their own right. It is important to note how the political sphere is defined in each case and what political issues are involved.

Keep in mind that the idea of a well defined sovereign state can only be approached nature. The closest we have is the world itself - for the world as a whole does have supreme independent authority, although as a state itself it is not well defined.


Personally, I don't trust the masses to pick the right person right now.

It wouldn't matter if you picked the brightest, most intelligent, most knowledgeable, incorruptible 1000 people in the world. It still won't work well due to the complexity of political issues in reality.

Of course once you start to consider information flows, human behaviour and so forth with regards to optimum scale of political issues, you will build a more reasonable political picture.


One that minimizes (or outright eliminates) the power of the state and maximizes the power of the individual wherein individuals cannot coercively or violently assert their maximized power over another without likely and discouraging consequences.

It's impossible by the way.

I'm currently coercing you (and vice versa) in ways that neither of us can even imagine. This process doesn't even require us to communicate directly.

[Ferrus]

One a me bredren dem did say did one time
Er... what?

A good government should seek to exclude the inarticulate.

[nonperson]

Er... what?

A good government should seek to exclude the inarticulate.

It is obvious you're not articulate in British Afro-Caribbean vernacular........;):grin:

[Madrigal]

Er... what?

A good government should seek to exclude the inarticulate.

Not that this thread makes any sense whatsoever, but dialects do have grammatical coherence and structure just like a language. :D

[Limey]

Totalitarian, preferrably paternal, with a big bushy mustache, so that I feel safe.
I don't want to have to worry about wiping my ass on unauthorized sanitary cleaning materials that are not committee passed.

[Coelacanth]

There are certain things I'd expect in a form of government I'd consider good:

* Protection of individual rights. Especially freedom of speech, freedom of religion (including freedom from religion for those so inclined) and freedom of contract.
* Stability: A benevolent dictatorship is all well and good, but what if the next dictator isn't quite so benevolent? Any system that can be undone by one bad apple getting into a position of power is likely to devolve into tyranny and/or anarchy.
* Equal treatment of all before the law.
* Protection from the public passions of the moment. People get carried away with stupid garbage on a relatively frequent basis.

Putting these together, a strongly consitutional form of government and an independent and empowered judiciary to enforce said constitution are must-haves. And since people tend to personify the state and nation in one nominal leader and get carried away with devotion, I'd far prefer said nominal leader to have little actual power. The head of government should be just the chief bureaucrat, not the nation made flesh.

Summing up, I think a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament is the way to go. Extra points for having a constitutional limit on the tenure of the prime minister, and for other ministers having substantial and independent power. And double extra points for having numerous parties.

[Digital Future]

Er... what?

A good government should seek to exclude the inarticulate.

And der was me tinkin you was lookin for a new form a government.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

I'm currently coercing you (and vice versa) in ways that neither of us can even imagine. This process doesn't even require us to communicate directly.

Of course you are, especially if we're in the same representative democracy. However, not impossible. Again, that's why I said minimize.

[Madrigal]

Totalitarian, preferrably paternal, with a big bushy mustache, so that I feel safe.
I don't want to have to worry about wiping my ass on unauthorized sanitary cleaning materials that are not committee passed.

What if they made you the Committee's ass-wiper?

[Limey]

What if they made you the Committee's ass-wiper?

I would do my best to grow a bushy mustache and tow the party line.
Hopefully, I would get a beret.

[Architectonic]

Of course you are, especially if we're in the same representative democracy.

Even if there was no such thing as democracy.

[vSv]

An highly self developing AI as the highest authority whose purpose is to maximize the happiness and freedom of the majority combined with calculating how to maintain and spend resources most effeciently.

Robots and AI are the future, face it. Humans are so primitive by themselves.

[Limey]

One that, if it's going to reach into my pocket, at least has the decency to put me to bed with a reacharound.

In Britain, they introduced some pretty shitty laws and modifications to rights to privacy at about the same time that they decriminalized marijuana consumption for personal use and discretion.

Here in the US, corporations remain to own people, (when will slavery ever end in the US?) and there's generally a resistance to change, even when it is for improvement/evolution.

Proportional representation is key.

[Cupid stunt]

My ideal government:

The main government would be a bridge between the cities of a country and would also act as a bridge to the outside world. (City = town/city/village/whatever)

People in government would be representatives of each city voted for by the people of the city. (amount of politicians from each city dependent on population size)

Everybody belongs to a city and can be considered a politician just by turning up to the city meetings, politicians may or may not be paid but there would be a rewards pot that will be dished out to any politician who helps the city in any way.

The land and property of the city would be owned by the people of the city and all major decisions would be open to vote by anybody registered in the city, politicians would get 3 votes in all decisions & respected decision makers voted for by the people would get 33% of the votes between them.

Taxes would be low.

Transparancy would be mandatory, any official secrets (other than weapon making) must be made public within 12 months.

Each city would have a public sector bank, all profits from this bank would go towards city developments while their would be a national bank that is also public sector (unlike the Federal reserve) that would be run by nominated candidates and subject to strict transparency laws. Private sector banks would attempt to compete with public sector banks if possible.

All drugs would be legalized & regulated, the taxes on the drugs would be high enough to make them too expensive for most to abuse, the most dangerous would be more expensive and a portion of the tax money received would go towards rehabilitating drug addicts & educating people of the dangers of drugs.

Each city would have a localized media reporting on both local & national news, people would be able to vote for their favourite journalists, editors etc. There would also be a national public sector media with the same principles, private sector media corporations would compete with public sector media corporations.

[Zealous Omnilegency.]

Meritocracy is quite clearly a must, anyone who disputes that genuine talent in a chosen field of expertise (not necessarily specialisation, although I shall come back to that) is easily the most prudent metric for judging one's worth to rule and direct over the facet of the government that suits them is a fool.

I would actually suggest maybe a kind of descending triumvirate power distribution. Three rulers (Economy, Military, Civilitary [this is not me saying the people are represented by 1/3 of the gorvernment, I used this word in hopes of expressing the general maintenance, improvement and design of civil constructs and systems]) for the highest tier of influence in the nation.

The pattern should then descend so that three subordinates are assigned to each member of the absolute triumvirate and are as independant from each other as possible in their work so as to maintain competitiveness through division. This pattern should probably continue for about 2 further echelons. From then on individual institutions and organisation will require more and more official managerial staff in order to function as efficiently as possible.

[shadow master]

One that, if it's going to reach into my pocket, at least has the decency to put me to bed with a reacharound.

In Britain, they introduced some pretty shitty laws and modifications to rights to privacy at about the same time that they decriminalized marijuana consumption for personal use and discretion.

Here in the US, corporations remain to own people, (when will slavery ever end in the US?) and there's generally a resistance to change, even when it is for improvement/evolution.

Proportional representation is key.
Slavery is at an all time high. Think about. Up untill a few hundred years ago nobody worked except slaves and the lower class. Now everybody is expected to be a slave.

[Thirsty]

Meritocracy is quite clearly a must, anyone who disputes that genuine talent in a chosen field of expertise (not necessarily specialisation, although I shall come back to that) is easily the most prudent metric for judging one's worth to rule and direct over the facet of the government that suits them is a fool.

I would actually suggest maybe a kind of descending triumvirate power distribution. Three rulers (Economy, Military, Civilitary [this is not me saying the people are represented by 1/3 of the gorvernment, I used this word in hopes of expressing the general maintenance, improvement and design of civil constructs and systems]) for the highest tier of influence in the nation.

The pattern should then descend so that three subordinates are assigned to each member of the absolute triumvirate and are as independant from each other as possible in their work so as to maintain competitiveness through division. This pattern should probably continue for about 2 further echelons. From then on individual institutions and organisation will require more and more official managerial staff in order to function as efficiently as possible.

Who gets to decide who has the most merit? That question is the ultimate problem with a meritocracy.

[Alfredwinthropestein]

I always liked the social credit theory. Although its really more of an economic model.

-compossible with most forms of goverment
-addresses some of the more batshitinsane aspects of mainstream economic policy
-does not really fall in to the left-right division
-environmentally sound
-could be implemented without drastic changes in infrastructure