Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

[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.

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.

If we expanded the hypothetical to not only the government taking the anti-corruption pill, but the entire populace, then communism would work wonders. "From each according to their ability, to each according the their need."

If everybody only worked toward the common good, then each and every person would do all that they could, work their hardest, etc. Each and every person would be doled out exactly what they needed by the non-corrupt government.

Of course, in our world, communism sucks. But in your hypothetical world, I think it could actually work.

[DoomYoshi]

This should have a poll. I bet randomtatorship would win.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't get the whole meritocracy argument.

The P&B are not corrupt, but they aren't suddenly all-wise and all-knowing, nor do they have a method superior to the market for rooting out the best of the best of the best, sir.

[Funkyterrance]

I don't get the whole meritocracy argument.

The P&B are not corrupt, but they aren't suddenly all-wise and all-knowing, nor do they have a method superior to the market for rooting out the best of the best of the best, sir.

This is why I think meritocratic would most likely be used to amplify your answer but more details are needed for a complete picture.

[/]

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.

[john9blue]

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.

so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

[Woodruff]

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.

so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

That's really not what he said at all.

[john9blue]

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.

so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

That's really not what he said at all.

only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

[/]

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.

so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.

I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.

If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.

Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".

Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?

A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.

If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.

only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

Absolutely not.

[Funkyterrance]

It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.

I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.

If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.

Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".

Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?

A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.

If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.

only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

Absolutely not.

It seems that / has a refreshing and unusually high level of faith in the goodness of his fellow man. One thing though, the pill isn't magic, its hypothetical.

[john9blue]

Autonomy; without corruption, I believe the people have the ability to decide what is best for themselves.

so you would give a corrupt government MORE power than one that wasn't corrupt?

It's a give and take equation, if we have criminals; we need police, if we have criminal police; we need internal affairs.
If we have no criminals, we would not need any of the above.

I honestly believe greed and selfishness is the main reason society doesn't function without government. We have taxes because no one wants volunteer to fix the roads we all use, agricultural subsidy so farmers grow what needs to be grown instead of worrying for themselves, books upon books of laws constantly being updated to prevent the exploitation that would occur otherwise.

If all of that was fixed, and the people did good for the sake of doing good, I don't see any reason to uphold any rule that the people themselves don't desire.

Now of course, since I haven't taken a magical pill, this is a biased view to the subjectivity of what is "corruption" and what is "ideal".

Is an ant colony "idyllic" because they work to promote their own group's expansion without any infighting?
Is a group of cacti "idyllic" because they just sit there, not consuming excess resources or being attacked?

A lack of government probably does do away the authoritative efficiency it takes to raise an army to fight martians or whatever, but I think that humans have enough common sense that, without greed, they probably wouldn't end the world anytime soon.

If the question is what I believe a better non-corrupt government would be to raise efficiency for things like urban planning, I would guess something resembling feudalism (or at least what historians redefined feudalism as), divided manors managed by a lord/lady, lords being managed to the count(ess) of their county, counts reporting to dukes, and so on up to the Ruler of Earth.

only if he believes autonomy is the best option in the real world

Absolutely not.

i think you are confused.

A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.

people themselves can be corrupt. only when they are doing government work would they be perfectly honest.

[/]

i think you are confused.

A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.

people themselves can be corrupt. only when they are doing government work would they be perfectly honest.

Which is why I didn't say "anarchy"

Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.

[Funkyterrance]

Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.

What about sadists and masochists? Psychotics? How would a pacifist fare in this world?

[/]

Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.

What about sadists and masochists? Psychotics? How would a pacifist fare in this world?

That’s an interesting question. If the people were capable of identifying their own behaviors as wrong, or were capable of being taught that their behavior is wrong by helpful peers or family members, they could presumably hold themselves culpable for their own actions and would; in the case of people who take pleasure in sadism, respect the moral obligations to allow others to freely choose if they wished to play the masochistic role to them.

As we see from the biographies of most serial killers, many mental illnesses are caused in part or worsened to non-functional levels by environmental factors such as neglect, bullying, and abuse, if we taught and upheld the virtues and ideals of doing the best we can for everyone and everything, I believe the cycle would end eventually.

For those tragic cases whose rationalization allows them to truly believe their way is right, I would suppose that they would have to be fought by those who were willing to fight for what they believe is right by their moral code.
Until the philosophy took effect, I suppose pacifists would either have to move next to fighters or learn how to sprint to their cars really well.

I suppose it really does have quite a few flaws...

[john9blue]

i think you are confused.

A pill is invented that guarantees that anyone who takes it becomes incapable of corruption regarding their function in government.

people themselves can be corrupt. only when they are doing government work would they be perfectly honest.

Which is why I didn't say "anarchy"

Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" + νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself their own law")

In other words, the person's "government job" is assigning rules to themselves, if they aren't corrupt in that function they would up-hold any law that they assigned to themselves, meaning they cannot be corrupt.

this is stretching the definition of the word "government" extremely far... but i'll let it slide...