Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

[Funkyterrance]

technocracy/meritocracy

Wow, 2 votes for meritocracy already and interestingly enough by(I'm assuming) two Americans? I am an American and I also am finding myself somehow attracted to this option. John, care to add why or do you basically follow thegreekdog's train of thought?

[Woodruff]

technocracy

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

[john9blue]

technocracy/meritocracy

Wow, 2 votes for meritocracy already and interestingly enough by(I'm assuming) two Americans? I am an American and I also am finding myself somehow attracted to this option. John, care to add why or do you basically follow thegreekdog's train of thought?

maybe because americans have seen firsthand what it's like to have highly incompetent politicians?

[Funkyterrance]

technocracy/meritocracy

Wow, 2 votes for meritocracy already and interestingly enough by(I'm assuming) two Americans? I am an American and I also am finding myself somehow attracted to this option. John, care to add why or do you basically follow thegreekdog's train of thought?

maybe because americans have seen firsthand what it's like to have highly incompetent politicians?

Solid point.

I was thinking though, as far as the meritocracy choice this seems more like an adjective you could add to some forms of government as opposed to an actual specific system. If you don't mind amplifying, your choice would be then a meritocratic __________ ?

Tgd, how about you?

[tkr4lf]

Libertarian Police State.

[DoomYoshi]

Randomtatorship.

All children born play an assdoodle game at age six. Winners are eligible for office, with relative rank decided by further assdoodling.

[Funkyterrance]

Randomtatorship.

All children born play an assdoodle game at age six. Winners are eligible for office, with relative rank decided by further assdoodling.

All Hail our Randomtator DoomYoshi!

[Funkyterrance]

Libertarian Police State.

To each their own. I'm assuming you would want to be a commoner in this scenario? It wouldn't be much fun without corruption though.

[tkr4lf]

Libertarian Police State.

To each their own. I'm assuming you would want to be a commoner in this scenario? It wouldn't be much fun without corruption though.

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I just posted the most absurd sounding government type that I could think of. I'm pretty sure I saw it on NationStates.


Anyway, to be serious, I would probably go with dictatorship, for its efficiency, or meritocracy, for the fairness. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but in a corruption-free world, they would both do nicely.

Hell, even communism would work well with absolutely no corruption.

[Neoteny]

Neotocracy.

[BigBallinStalin]

The right answer is Incorruptocracy.

All of you are wrong... except Neoteny.

[Funkyterrance]

Libertarian Police State.

To each their own. I'm assuming you would want to be a commoner in this scenario? It wouldn't be much fun without corruption though.

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I just posted the most absurd sounding government type that I could think of. I'm pretty sure I saw it on NationStates.


Anyway, to be serious, I would probably go with dictatorship, for its efficiency, or meritocracy, for the fairness. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but in a corruption-free world, they would both do nicely.

Hell, even communism would work well with absolutely no corruption.

There are some cool aspects of communism I agree but upon learning more about it in the past its got some serious issues, even if non-corrupt. From what I understood the biggest issue is that in a communist society no one is rich or poor. The harder/less hard you work makes no impact on your status. This tends to rob people of their ambition/drive.

[thegreekdog]

It's difficult to answer because I'm not sure what 'not being corrupt' entails.

For example, a liberal democracy would be optimal because if the politicians and bureaucrats are incapable of corruption, then they'd be impervious to rent-seeking (groups trying to advance their own interests, e.g. social security recipients voting for those politicians who reject significant yet necessary reform). Since these politicians are not corrupt, they'd be impervious to advancing short-term profit (votes from rent-seekers) while neglecting long-term costs (insane debt and unfunded liabilities).



They'd make the necessary cuts, balance the books, keep surpluses to for future spending in order to mitigate the consequences of recessions, etc. They strive to uphold the Constitution, abide by the right rules (which is a hole in this hypothetical situation), and behave in ways which go against political incentives (which is another hole in the situation). So, it depends on how broad one wishes to extend that 'non-corruption'.


If the bureaucrats were incorruptible, then they wouldn't advance the interests of their cohorts, salaries, and budgets at the expense of taxpayers. In my mind, that would serve as being incorruptible because they're actively trying to discover what the common good (so they're not corrupted by greed or self-advancement).

Like FT indicated above, a liberal democracy would not ensure that the most qualified people were in office. A meritocrracy would, by its definition, ensure that the most qualfied individuals were in office.

I don't see how this really gets to the core issues. If the government is incorruptible, then they'd attempt their best to establish a fair and impartial means of determining qualifications for various positions. And even if the 'best' politicians and bureaucrats (P&B) don't get in, then does that even matter? An incorruptible government can no longer enrich itself by making false promises in order to advance its own goals. With rent-seeking rendered ineffective, then more people won't view the government as necessary for services/goods X, Y, and Z. Instead they'll turn to themselves (in the market) and/or to local 'political' communities to provide their own public goods (e.g. greek polis/city-states with local governing councils).

It all hinges on what exactly being incorruptible entails.

Interesting that you bring up the polis, since I was thinking about that in reference to a meritocracy. It tended that the democratic polis elected the best people to govern. So perhaps a democratically elected meritocracy is the best thing.

[jimboston]

My initial answer is either meritocracy or dictatorship. I haven't decided yet.

Assuming no corruption... which is a ridiculous assumption... I would say meritocracy.

Even a benevolent dictatorship can have an incompetent ruler. The assumption assumes a lack of corruption... not a lack of incompetance.

A meritocracy by definition would appoint/promote the best.

[jimboston]

Libertarian Police State.

To each their own. I'm assuming you would want to be a commoner in this scenario? It wouldn't be much fun without corruption though.

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I just posted the most absurd sounding government type that I could think of. I'm pretty sure I saw it on NationStates.


Anyway, to be serious, I would probably go with dictatorship, for its efficiency, or meritocracy, for the fairness. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but in a corruption-free world, they would both do nicely.

Hell, even communism would work well with absolutely no corruption.

There are some cool aspects of communism I agree but upon learning more about it in the past its got some serious issues, even if non-corrupt. From what I understood the biggest issue is that in a communist society no one is rich or poor. The harder/less hard you work makes no impact on your status. This tends to rob people of their ambition/drive.

In a Meritocracy the policies would be created by the absolute smartest people.

It's likely they would come up with tax policies / welfare policies that reach the best balance of encouraging greatness from those who are able... and rewarding said greatness; while at the same time ensuring that those who are not so fortunate still ahve a place in society and are able to conribute and have their basic needs met.