What is your ideal form of government?

My absolute dictatorship next door would destroy your state, since its ridiculously easy to infiltrate via bribes and to lock down into impotence.

So what Stalin and Mao did?

>Communism
>personal liberty

>Stalin & Mao
>Personal liberty

Hmm...
Also, Napoleon wasn't a kleptocrat.

>Stalin and Mao
>Communism

They are both "bonapartist" in its finest tradition.
They could just get away with giving less, Napoleon would've too if he could.

Quasi Anarcho-Capitalist theocratic technocracy.

Fully automated luxury gay space communism

One which cares

He wouldn't have done any of that shit mang.

Catholic distributist constitutional monarchy under the Kennedys.

Felatiocracy: the man/woman who sucks the best and most dick gets elected.

Neo-feudalist falangist oilgarchy (under the sea)

Oilgarchy or oligarchy? Anyway, it's subthalassocracy

Post-marian roman legion non-profit socialist democracy horde (female (male))

Semi-direct democracy under multi-party parliamentary republic with a Nordic economic model.

Technocratic technological theocratic templar with teutonic influences tributary tax-based Taiwanese thalassocracy

Big guyism
Aka Celestial Bureaucracy with a Sage-Emperor

Oops, wrong image

I'd be down for this

Plutocratic post-human celestial utopia with a pre finnish hyperkingdom economic policy, under the undead rule of the hapsburgs

a global libertarian union with a simple 20% flat tax, no deductions, no other taxes, amount can never be raised

the government only exists to protect the rights of the citizens, regulate market failures like natural monopolies, pollution and cartels and provide services like fire brigades or public roads that suffer form the free rider problem

>global libertarian
>libertarian with 20% tax
>the government exists
>the government regulates market

This is worse than actual libertarian idea, which is already dogshit.

libertarians are different from anarchists. libertarians recognise the need for a small, limited government. the free market does fail in certain situations, anybody who has studied economics at a undergrad level knows that.

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to ‘King George’s council, Winston and his gang’, it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that – after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world – is that it works and has worked only when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way.

Libertarians want even military and police to be private contractors, and there to be private courts to ensure contracts are kept, etc.
"We don't mind some small government" is just a cop out when they are faced with reality, then as soon as they feel safe they start dissing the idea.

i would say no, those are not libertarians, sounds more like ancaps

as i addressed in my first post one of the key roles of government is to provide services that suffer from the free rider problem like military defence (although this is obviously unnecessary in a global union), justice system, fire and roads. libertarians accept and promote this.

i personally also believe the government should provide universal healthcare as i consider healthcare to be a broken market for a number of reasons, though not all libertarians agree with this

...

Minarchism and anarchism are not the same things no matter how hard stormfags or leftists desire to conflate the two for pure agenda purposes.

"A government that regulates the market" is not libertarian, no matter how much sensible people who were fooled into being libertarians want to claim for the sake of legitimacy.

who made you the fucking dictionary?

Technocracy lead by an AI monitored by philosophers and AI experts, robot police force to uphold a free sexocracy for humans

Libertarian Municipalism within Democratic Confederalism

Leftists pretend to be pure authoritativeness (without actually stating anything of wit) no matter where they roam. They generate rightists in reaction but are too pigheaded to ever realize it.

Multiparty representative democracy with classical liberal leanings.

>What is your ideal form of government?
Switzerland

councilist federalism

Theocratic Monarchism

...

Stalin was a dick but this is unironically true. Still a dick.

A V T I S M V S

Depends. Culturally and racially homogeneous? Anarcho Monarchy
Something similar to America right now? Meritocratic Constitutional Monarchy

Republican style government.

My nigga

A confederacy of some sort. Basically, cut large nations into small autonomous territories that only really pool their resources for foreign issues such as diplomacy and conflict. Member states are otherwise free to run their own state in any way they please, so long as they fill their obligations towards the defense of the confederacy as a whole.

The problem with large nations is that the size and large variety of people makes efficiency and rapid adoption of new solutions next to impossible because everyone can at best tend to the needs of their local territory. Reduce the overhead of states having to decide on laws to be applied to a large number of them and you can ensure that citizenry can increase the efficiency of their local government (in whatever form it takes) and build laws aimed more towards their culture and values.

Kleopklectic heterocratic gerontocracy with neo-nebuchadnezzarian criminal justice system and a consequentialist elected absolutist monarchy

Mutualism.

...

Technocratic meritocracy with fascist characteristics

Federalised city-state-based militarist meritocratic (parliamentary) direct democracy. Similar to Switzerland, all votes are equal, but with a representational parliament that decides on which issues are valid for a public vote. No law can be passed without a public vote. Members of parliament are directly elected, so that they do not owe their positions to any party.
Parliament can enact a defensive call-up with a 60% parliamentary vote. Offensive wars require a 75% public vote. Full conscription enshrined in the constitution, mandatory gun ownership for those that have served in the military, mandatory monthly rifle practice, reservists until the age of 40. Mercenary work overseas allowed and encouraged. Professional national military possibly includes a volunteer battalion for hire by foreign governments.
Constitution would also forbid basing appointment to any position on anything but one's aptitude/suitability for that position. i.e. No affirmative action, in any direction. The best person for the job must get the job.
Similarly, any laws which distinguish between people based on the colour of their skin or any proxy therefore are explicitly banned under the constitution.
Education free, but with strict requirements for continuing from grade to grade. Significant military component to education (survival skills, fitness, military history, etc).
Aside from very obvious cases of necessary secrecy (sensitive police investigations, planned military actions, foreign intelligence, etc), all information on government activity must be made public.
Even slight government control of private media outlets is absolutely banned.
Corruption is punishable by life imprisonment for total amounts greater than the price of a car, and an ongoing corruption investigation means automatic suspension of all implicated parties.

Basically what my country (South Africa) should have been post-1994.

>Corruption is punishable by life imprisonment for total amounts greater than the price of a car, and an ongoing corruption investigation means automatic suspension of all implicated parties.

This is something that should be mandatory in all 1st world nations. Shame the people who'd have to approve said law are the same people it could be used against, so it'll never happen, at least in the US.

I never actually understood this logic. My ideal form of government? But under what conditions? When I'm the one in power, leading it, or when I'm staying in my current position? Because the answer varies greatly based on this.

If I'm in power - some ultra-totalitarian dictatorship, think Stalinist USSR or Kim DPRK where the citizens are cogs in the machine that is the state apparatus with me having basically unlimited power, the people brainwashed into obedience and strict laws to control every aspect of their lives.

If I stay in my current position, I want a highly socially libertarian government that values individual freedoms, but provides for its citizens and their basic needs.

My goals & priorities are always me being content. Never understood why hypocrisy is considered a bad thing. To me it seems simply logical, you want the best for yourself at all costs. Of course I don't want to be a slave or end up in a gulag for not worshipping the dear leader, but I can understand him and why he would want me to do so and I'd do the exact same thing in his position, even though I'll do my best to topple him.

Why are people's views always so black/white? "Don't do to other what you wouldn't want to be done to you." - But why? I want to kick people I don't like in the teeth, have them executed and have forceful sex with attractive people, but of course I wouldn't want to be executed by my enemies or fucked by someone I find disgusting by force. But that doesn't negate the first part. I'll never understand this...

Congratulations! You are a sociopath.

So....feudalism. Just fucking say that.

>tfw all of these ideologies would literally take us BACK in time to when life sucked a lot more than it does now

Just

AI-governed totalitarian global welfare state

wrong board for this.

Federal Constitutional Republic just like the United States.

Everything not like the United States is thrash.

>sjws overruning educational institutions
>overseas wars to sustain an unsustainable debt based currency
>One of the bottom countries in the 50 most free countries in the world.
>collapsing under the weight of its own citizens inability to commit to the country
>collapsing as corruption is legalized as lobbying with SIGs ruling not the people
>calling anyone else trash.

>another edgy "nihilist" doesn't realise that there's a distinction between reason and purpose.
We are here because we are here, however, we are also here to continue being here. Much like a robot doesn't need to believe in a higher metaphysical purpose in order to know it has a function, nihilism is consistent with the human drive to ensure the continued existence (through others) of the patterns which define one's self. Your stated ideal government in the case of your being in power is not consistent with this goal: a state that is not in line with the will of the majority of its inhabitants tends to fall, and the further out of line the state is, the worse the repercussions for its former leaders and their progeny.
But hey, maybe your existence as an adversary for other, better states to rally against will help the development as humanity as a whole.

>Never understood why hypocrisy is considered a bad thing.
>Stalin pic

desu it should be mandatory for all nations, particularly ones with a shot at being relevant. I should have mentioned in my post that to prevent parliament blocking bills that would be damaging to members of parliament, in addition to that obvious corruption charges that would be caused by that; any issue, whether raised in parliament or not, can be made public vote provided a petition of at least 0.1% of the population is in favour of a vote.

Sounds like a bad idea that wouldn't last past three in the afternoon before either splintering apart like cheap chinaware or being raped by an actual, organized nationstate

So literally just plain old feudalism with an elective monarchy at the top? You realise that the reason monarchies are no longer around is that they are not as effective at holding together a nation, particularly in war, as a modern nation-state, right?

I don't believe in civilization itself (Christian Primitivist)