Best government system

What is the best government system and why?

That depends wholly on the people and their culture it wants to serve.

truth

Privately ruled city-states (the city belonging to a corporation).

Benevolent absolute monarch/dictator. The variance however is too high on getting a competent and a benevolent leader thus making the system in practice past the first leader.

>What is elective monarchy.

I thank god every day that you weirdos will never amount to anything.

It is the future. That or a megacorporation conglomarates. Either way the concept of nation-states will fade.

The system where only the top 10 corporations and banks decide for everybody else should do.

They're the most successful irl. so why shouldn't they decide for everybody?

I personally believe, like Montesquieu, that both a Republic and a Monarchy can inherrently be good forms of government. However, the problem with monarchy that's nearly impossible to solve is securing good kings. One inbred motherfucker *cough*Charles II*cough* can virtually ruin a once powerful empire, and one maniac can make life hell for his subjects.

However, like Montesquieu and Polybios, I believe the best form of government is one that combines elements of monarchy, democracy and meritocracy. Traditionally this is done by making the legislative branch of government the people's voice, the judicial branch entirely meritocratic and the executive a monarch, elected or otherwise.

Back to the succession problem: a republic entirely alleviates this through regular elections. However, a republic entirely depends on:
>Patriotism and/or strong religious values that tie the country together
>Virtue, to elevate the volonté generale above the volonté de tous
>An open and accessable system

Nowadays, most western democracies have none of those. Patriotism and religion are dead, moral relativism denies that virtue even exists and the entire political system is put on lockdown by strong political parties that make the state effectively an oligarchy.

So I'd say the best forms of government are either constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies where the executive, legislative and judicial branches are monarchial, democratic and meritocratic respectively. However, a republic would only be preferable if the people are virtuous. The less virtuous the people are, the more they need a monarch. At this point the West has slipped so far that the only way to put it on the rails would be a benevolent, absolute monarch who downright dismisses the parliaments but still obeys the judges (like Louis XIV: the Three Estates were ignored but he still could not act without the Conseil du Roy and still could be blocked by the Parlements (which were courts)).

Why dont you just call the "elected monarch" a dictator?
You can shit at fascists all you want but they at least got that absolutism by birthright through bloodline was a retarded idea.

>Why dont you just call the "elected monarch" a dictator?
Because the big pro of having an elected "monarch" is that you can get rid of him. I like the idea the Romans had of a dictator, a man who temporarily seizes power to save the Republic from a crisis and then returns it after a set period of time, but the fact that this system worked without fail until Caesar only underlines how virtuous the Romans were. Without that virtue, such a dictator could easily become a permanent tyrant. Such a regime, if allowed to survive, would almost certainly become a de facto totalitarian monarchy. Not absolute, but totalitarian and what Montesquieu described as a despotism (akin to how the Ottomans were ruled, including the "every succession is accompanied by a massive slaughter of all rivals" part).

>Dismissing tradition
Pleb. Tradition is what holds society from ending up in constant bloodbaths and revolutions. The monarch is just part of the tradition of lots of countries

Burke is right, but he elevates tradition for the sake of tradition. His biggest criticisms of the French Revolution were pretty much "people get hurt" and "the monarchy has been around for a really long time".

There is a middle road between blindly obeying tradition and throwing everything out of the window because new = good.

Tradition, like everything else in life, should be analyzed for its merits. Out with the bad, in with the good.

Burke says that tradition can change,but when you force to change it,you just end up alianating the population,causing bloodbaths and tyrannies,which happened in the revolutions that tried to undermine tradition. Tradition trumps rights,as it has been a longer consensus,and people are born into it,so its easier to preserve it and build societies upon it.

Revolutions are a good thing.

>t.anonymus fag that believes that V from Vendetta is a master piece and that he has to fight against and invisible boogeyman
>Tips fedora

So basically tradition is good and can change, but has to happen slowly and when the status quo is outdated then you just have to be patient? You realize that the entire problem with France was that its institutions had been outdated for centuries, right? The nobility and clergy did nothing to justify their (temporal) power and privileges. And in that case, assuming you believe in the social contract (which supposedly Burke did, considering he supported the American Revolution), what option is there but to invoke your right to revolution? Your right to disband the social contract and start a new one?

A slow and steady change of tradition is preferable, but we should not exclude revolution as a last resort. I know he's not exactly a great philosophical mind but I have to agree with JFK in this regard: those who make peaceful revolutions impossible, make violent revolutions inevitable.

The entire shitstorm could've been prevented without the Flight to Varennes, that is true, but what do you expect of the people of France? To just bend over backwards because kings have been around for a thousand years? To simply tolerate this attempt to get a foreign nation to invade France and undo everything the storming of the Bastille gave them?

Burke wasnt against revolution. He was against revolution that:
A)Didnt respect tradition and ignored it .
B)Revolutions based on abstractions like human rights,which is something that most people cant grasp or understand,unlike tradition, qnd ends up alienating the population.
Burke liked revolutions like the Dutch or English one,but he saw revolutions like the French or later the bolshebik one as abominations.

Whatever the Internet is run on. Someone set rules and regulations. We are allowed to call on to their bullshit and we are free to leave if it's shit or whine more.

Well, in that case I understand the idea despite not agreeing with it. It makes me wonder what Burke would consider a "good" French Revolution though. Varennes had already sealed the deal for Republicanism: the monarch had proved a menace to his own country and simply had to go, and then the French figured out the monarch wasn't a neccessary player per se. What could've gone better from that point onward, other than burning the declaration of human rights (which makes me wonder what he thought of America's and Britain's bills of rights, and other pre-revolutionary legislations across Europe that described rights or right-like ideas).

>Closet anacap spotted.

Benevolent dictatorship if the dictator steps down after the crisis is over

A constitutional monarchy with only those who are active and have interest in the state having the right to vote in the parliament

Also the monarch ( I say monarch because dictator has connotations ) is not given rule by birth but every 30 years there is a large nationwide test and application process that all children of full citizens between the ages of 10 and 15 can apply to become a candidate. About 20 or so children are selected and train for life and are groomed. The dictator chooses his successor when he is 60 and chooses the rest to be leaders of provincial states or government departments. They all train for this office for the next 10 years under the current leaders. When the current leader turns 70 they, and all provincial state and government department leaders, will resign the torches will be past to the next generation, which continues the cycle.

To attain full citizenship (and therefore voting rights) you would need to

a) be 21
b) gainfully employed 3 our of the last 4 years or be a spouse of someone who is
c) Served 2 years in the National Service
d) Not bankrupt in the last 10 years
e) Have not been in Prison or under criminal punishment for 10 years
f) Have an IQ of 100 OR pass a basic civics test to prove you understand how elections are held, what the duties of government are, and what your duties as a full citizen would be

You would have to reapply for full citizenship every 4 years

after holding full citizenship for 32 years (doesn't have to be consecutive), you would gain it for life.

...

Constitutional Federal Republic

What does Veeky Forums think about the idea of Stratocracy?

A system that would never lead to progress due to the training methods and the breakdown of individuality.

Democracy is the best, because it has the most potential.

no system of government has ever worked. only individual governments have.

Anarchosyndicalism is the logical consequence of accepting enlightenment ideas.

Megacorporation conglomarates can only survive in a thriving nation, or series of nations. If nations suffer a severe crisis, then the corporations are one of the first things to be dissolved.

Liberal democracy

Anything else is meme-tier.

How?

Not if they replace completly the state. Nations states will probably in this century or the next. Megacorporations replacing the role of the goverment is not something impossible,as private companies are alredy replacing goverment's traditional roles in some aspects,and this trend seems to go upwards

I think that any system can work if the people have share a strong sense of common culture and identity.

>inb4 bait

Because their success will only be good for them, not the whole populace

Presidential system constitutional republic ftw, because it's the most executive dominated system that still manages to be inclusive.

Nazism

Nationalism is both the rise and the fall of any country, so no.

Charles II reign was by no means the worst Spain suffered. His two predecessors harmed spain more and didn't have the excuse of being literal retards.

Or you're talking about the english one?

Marxism-Leninism

Why did he kill so many people and sell their bodies to the university?

Completely unsustainable. It's also never okay to murder innocents.

...

It destroyed Russia when it was implemented. Lenin was even forced to rectify it.

Stateralism

Communism won't work.

Philosopher Monarchy.

anarcho-memeism

I think we should go from the stupid left and right wing dichotomy and into the realm of complexity theory

Or at least, let policy be advised by complexity theory

>2016
Name a single liberal democracy that is not going to shit.

I will concede it was a good run while it lasted but liberal democracy leaves far too much room for trendy social policy and massive exploitation by a small minority who are already advantaged.

>I think we should go from the stupid left and right wing dichotomy
Factionalism always comes around when a system starts to show its ineffectiveness. It is all very well to say "we shouldn't be black and white" but how would you go about changing it?

Yeah about that... I have no clue.
It seems most people think in right or left
I think both have some merit but I still lean - or so I think - towards one more as the other

Anarcho capitalism is the only just system.

t. Michael Huemer

Depends entirely what your end goals are, and what you think to be the "highest good."

Do you feel the sense of commonality and national pride is the most important thing for a citizen? Then nationalist authoritarian is the way to go.

Do you think shared religious values and an emphasis on tradition and hierarchy is what makes a society run best? Then a paternal conservative bureaucracy is probably best.

Do you think all citizens should be free to pursue their own lifestyles and that government-imposed morality is a hindrance to personal liberty? Some sort of social liberalism is for you then.

It all depends on what you value the most, and what you think society as a whole would benefit most from.

Artificial Pervasive Intelligence Meritocratic Theocracy : State-worship of Robot Jesus-Buddha, Ai, lord of logic and semiconductors.

This is some quality cyberpunk stuff right here

This is a possibility.

>all those conditions tied to voting rights

It's all fun and games until an oligarchy starts fucking with the standards and suddenly only a handful of people can vote.

>who is sulla

robespierre pls

say it with me:
neo-cameralism

liberal democracy works well until the masses take control of everything and turn it into either a disfunctional oligarchy or a disfunctional technocracy (usually both, which is the case of all western liberal democracies nowadays)

hello Land

MEMECRACY

/thread

Dont equate Nationalism with every totalitarian state you dont like.
Even Stalin said the Nazis were not nationalists but imperialists as their irredentism went far beyond all reasonable borders and their aquisitions were made of other language groups.

Nationalism can be combined with all kinds of system as it is the simple notion that a state should be fashioned after the etnic group that created it and serve its interests and preservation as a cultural entity first and foremost.

Thailand is nationalist and not falling and which system does not fall from time to time on its face?

Absolute monarchy
Because when his majesty is crowned by his holiness it is blessed by God himself.

> Nationalism with every totalitarian state you dont like.
I see... The same rhetoric that communists use to not equal communism with any real communist state that existed in history.

...

10/10 post, I think that if the monarch has many children with many problem the succession problem would be solve, because there would always be someone with good political skills. The best system for me would be an absolute or authoritarian monarchy with some elements of meritocracy, so the successor wouldn't be the first to be born but the one that proved to be the best one to rule.