[.::Tin Can::.]

So far the longest-lasting Empire was Rome, and they used a Republic, consisting of 300 senate members, 2 consuls, and 8 preators. (Unless I just forgot the numbers) and they managed to last 1000 years. Amazing.

[Rictor]

uh huh, however, the Emperor ruled, not the Senate. Thats why it was an empire.

and we must consider not only how long it will last and how stable it will be, but if it will actually be a decent system to live in. Thats the prime concern, cause if its not good (and by good, I also mean free) then whats the point of it lasting a long time?

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Rictor
Setekh: what good is peace and prosperity when you have no freedom? It may not hold true for everyone, but I would rather have freedom, if I had to choose.

Of course, the best system is one where people are both free and peaceful.

Careful how you define freedom. Using the broadest definition of freedom - the kind of freedom which would be excluded by a benevolent dictatorship - the freedoms of some would destroy the freedoms of others. For instance, the freedom to murder. In fact, genuine freedom has to come within certain parameters, otherwise it starts being an illusion of freedom because you just end up harming and destroying each other.

And Ice has really hit on it. Any government is going to be flawed so long as a regular, flawed human is at the head. The very best of what humanity has to offer has demonstrated that for thousands of years, we never get very far on our own strengths.

I guess that's why I didn't say the dictator would be have to be just a human.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Rictor
uh huh, however, the Emperor ruled, not the Senate. Thats why it was an empire.

and we must consider not only how long it will last and how stable it will be, but if it will actually be a decent system to live in. Thats the prime concern, cause if its not good (and by good, I also mean free) then whats the point of it lasting a long time?

Uh, dude, did you see the number "1" in there? No, it was never 1 person ruling, it was always 2 or more. 2 Consuls to run the military, 8 preators to run a judicial system, and 300 senate members that act as a legislative branch.

[Ford Prefect]

Yes, it was one person ruling. The Roman Empire was ruled by emperors for a very long time. Although they were often involved in conflicts with the Senate, they drew their legitimacy from Roman religious doctrine and, for all intents and purposes, exercised absolute power.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Later on in the Roman Empire, emporers were introduced, but not in her first 500 years. After Dictatorship became common, they gave up the Consul idea and just placed an Emporer in the spot. I was speaking, in a sense, of the Republic system they had created.

[Ace]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Later on in the Roman Empire, emporers were introduced, but not in her first 500 years. After Dictatorship became common, they gave up the Consul idea and just placed an Emporer in the spot. I was speaking, in a sense, of the Republic system they had created.

The Roman Republic though was still relatively small, and very few actually had the quality of life or rights that someone would consider to be more acceptable in this day and age.

It's a similar situation with the Greek democracy in Athens.

Then there's Sparta which also lasted 500 years as a military dictatorship.

[Liberator]

Then there's the 3000(this may need revising) year reign of the Pharoh's in Egypt.  They lasted that long because: 1. The had the best weapons at the time and 2. the entire populace believed the Pharoh to decended from God(specifically Ra, if you boil Egyptian mythology down to a monotheistic drama where the rest of the pantheon are bit players, Ra is the Guy.  He ran everything.)  The second part is the important bit, by being decended from God, the Pharoh commanded from a level of power that no other man in history save Alexander has ever enjoyed.

[an0n]

Benevolancy only works if the guy in charge is really stupid.

So stupid that he fails to realise he could simply ignore the people and indulge himself in every regard, never bothering to help the people. And someone that stupid wouldn't be any good at governance anyways.

The only way a dictatorship works is loyalty to the people is enforced in some manner and the 'dictator' is subject to some kind of periodic review process which cannot be usurped (like having his personal guards authorised to shoot him if he goes nuts and starts ****ing with the people for his own personal gain).

[Zarax]

Keynesian Socialdemocracy.
See Sweden for more details.
Basically the state protects your rights and helps to avoid being raped by corporations thanks to a strong welfare state.
There is a certain risk of deficit spending (like the other governments don't have it) but with good administrations everything runs smoothly.

[icespeed]

hey guys, great to see hlp back, yay.

china was known as the warring states period about 1500BC where there were seven different 'states', nations, whatever having it out. eventually the state of qin won and started what's now known as china. the middle kingdom (the literal translation of chinese for china) lasted under various emperors and dynasties until the nineteen hundreds when the idiot british wrecked it all by making the whole nation into opium addicts.

through that time the emperors relied both on themselves and an extended bureaucracy, neither were necessarily always good and there was all this class division and stuff, but the culture was so strong that china retained its identity even through the mongolian and manchurian invasions. so.

all that's just cos i happened to get obsessed about chinese history recently.

anyway i reckon anon's idea's the best so far (though i really hate to admit it...)

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
anarchism, which is the ultimate form of self-determination.  

Anarchism is idiotic. It lasts less than a few seconds before it breaks down into some other form of government.

[01010]

I'd like to see aome hybrid of anarchy/socialism. Kind of like, I dunno, say the sort of socialism found here in the UK but with more personal freedoms, the ability to do what you want to/with yourself (drugs, sex) as long as it does not infringe upon anyone elses life you should be able to damage oneself anyway you like.

I'd like to see a government that can keep the rich and powerful in check without punishing them for what they have but also to help the poor, the lower classes, the immigrants, the homeless to be better educated, healthier, more compassionate people. Freedom of speech would be paramount as would freedom to choose any religion (or no religion if that is the preference) without persecution, positive discrimination or poltical correctness. I'd like to see a kind of government that is willing to step away from brute force as a first response and be more open to diplomacy.

I'd like to see a government that I felt actually represented a step forward for the whole of humanity, that was willing to evolve it's ideas on society and not be afraid to try and push humanity into something more perfect than the mess it is. I'd like to see a government that would try to push the human desire for exploration as far out into space as we could.

I think maybe I'm an idealist but surely this isn't too much to ask?

[icespeed]

the thing is, i don't understand how you can have freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe on other people. the whole point of society is interaction between people, if you don't have that you might as well go be a hermit. and if you have interaction between people then there will always be disagreement about what constitutes infringement of rights and in fact, what rights each person deserves.

anyway, people aren't equal in that not everyone needs the same thing.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by karajorma


Anarchism is idiotic. It lasts less than a few seconds before it breaks down into some other form of government.

I totally agree with this. Anarchy will never work (well, except after a nuclear war, but that's different ), and there is always somebody waiting to take over and create a new governing system. Anarchy shouldn't even be counted to be a "form of government" because no government exists.

But the perfect system of government? Benevolent dictatorship, ie. an "enlightened monarchy" would be my choice.

[01010]

So you are saying that in your own room by yourself that you would infringe on other peoples life? I know a lot of people who use drugs, none of them have ever let it effect anyones lives but their own. But I do not wish to argue this, I have an awesome hangover.

I dunno, I guess though my core phillosophy can be reduced to a single sentence.

"Be excellent to each other"

Ahh Bill and Ted. I tell you, whoever wrote that damn film was a visionary.



::EDIT::

I agree with the anarchy not working thing. I think, I could deal with it and a lot of other people could too, but, I think a lot of people want to be led, even if they don't realise it. I think a lot of people just want to belong to something.

[Singh]

Originally posted by IceFire
Where to find such a person.  Even a person who generally ascribes to  the notions of helping others, protecting the enviroment, and attempting to maintain harmony is going to be corrupted by that sort of power of leadership.
 

60 years ago. I might have had an answer for you.

Hell, not 20 years ago, I'd have an answer as well.

But today....sorry, no can do.

I actually had an interesting idea on an entirely new governmental system from the ground-up, but its too lengthy and probably full of holes, not to mention bulky and unweildy.

[Carl]

Hive Mind. everyone makes a decision together and works together, and everyone can see everyone else's point of view.

[icespeed]

yeah, 01010, but who's gonna want to sit in a room all by themself? i don't call that doing whatever i want.

all actions will affect others, directly or indirectly. like the butterfly effect, only with people.

[01010]

Originally posted by icespeed
yeah, 01010, but who's gonna want to sit in a room all by themself? i don't call that doing whatever i want.

all actions will affect others, directly or indirectly. like the butterfly effect, only with people.

Like I said, I'm an idealist, it means I don't have to see the holes in my theories.

I know it probably wouldn't work, but it's nice to dream.