Best Form of Government Assuming No Corruption

[PLAYER57832]

Corruption is not the issue. The issue is result. To many Americans today (to many humans throughout history, in fact), that simply means being able to have a house, put food on the table, practice their religion in basic safety with some ability to have fun thrown in besides.

What is NOT taken into account is what will really happen long term. In the past, that has not mattered much. Humans could drain swamps along the Nile, go to war, destroy things in a relatively limited fashion, which eventually could be rebuilt. In the past 5 decades, we have the ability to destroy our world instantly (nuclear, etc.) AND have begun to make mild long term changes that will, if not averted, destroy our world (perhaps not all of humanity, but most of civilization).

There is nothing in any of the government systems mentioned that will make people change from wanting Big Macs, fancy cars and the latest electronics. Only if there were absolute, 100% definitive proof would people maybe begin to care.. and likely not even then. We don't have the science to know for sure what negative events will happens, instead we have a lot of little warnings that have to be pieced together to see a real problem. (loss of amphibians, draining of aquifers, dwindling oil supplies without a viable alternative readily available, loss of effectiveness of antibiotics, increase of disinformation on the internet, de-emphasizing of real basic science funding, privatization of public resources such as parks; an economy that only gives minerals an materials value when they are sold.. etc.)

Right now, the move amongst the right is to claim most of the above is just not happening or not important enough to worry about unless and until the economy is "fixed".

Any system of government can create a good result. Any system can create a bad result. The missing factor is not the economic or political system itself, it is the knowledge of the society and its rulers. Today... that is utterly failing. The folks in power are less and less intelligent, not more.

[Funkyterrance]

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.

I found this part intriguing since it suggests removal of half of the nature vs. nurture question. Removing myself from the question emotionally, I tend to believe that these individuals are most likely a product of troubled childhoods so finding out if this mindset would become extinct over time would be an exciting discovery. Then again, if the root of these behaviors ended up being nature, the system would, as you pointed out, have some tricky flaws.
However many flaws might come out of the scenario, however, I like the cut of it's jib.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

I found this part intriguing since it suggests removal of half of the nature vs. nurture question. Removing myself from the question emotionally, I tend to believe that these individuals are most likely a product of troubled childhoods so finding out if this mindset would become extinct over time would be an exciting discovery. Then again, if the root of these behaviors ended up being nature, the system would, as you pointed out, have some tricky flaws.
However many flaws might come out of the scenario, however, I like the cut of it's jib.

The problem is more fundamental. Those cited above are inherently aberrations, so not approaching any norm at all. Limiting the impact of those behaviors won't effect the norm behavior much because they are so far removed philisophically from the norm, even if their pratical impacts can be significant. (yeah, we all grieve over a murdered child, but it does not change societies' sense of right and wrong significantly)

The real problem for society is what is good, what represents a good goal. Most people are about the immediate.. and that distorts things when we have the ability to significantly and irrevocably change the possibilities for the future, as we do now more than ever before.

[Funkyterrance]

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.

I found this part intriguing since it suggests removal of half of the nature vs. nurture question. Removing myself from the question emotionally, I tend to believe that these individuals are most likely a product of troubled childhoods so finding out if this mindset would become extinct over time would be an exciting discovery. Then again, if the root of these behaviors ended up being nature, the system would, as you pointed out, have some tricky flaws.
However many flaws might come out of the scenario, however, I like the cut of it's jib.

The problem is more fundamental. Those cited above are inherently aberrations, so not approaching any norm at all. Limiting the impact of those behaviors won't effect the norm behavior much because they are so far removed philisophically from the norm, even if their pratical impacts can be significant. (yeah, we all grieve over a murdered child, but it does not change societies' sense of right and wrong significantly)

The real problem for society is what is good, what represents a good goal. Most people are about the immediate.. and that distorts things when we have the ability to significantly and irrevocably change the possibilities for the future, as we do now more than ever before.

I see where you are going with this player but the purpose was to hear and discuss what system different individuals would prefer and why, barring corruption in government. It's more or less a thought exercise and not specifically intended at solving any real issue beyond exploring our own notions. Judging by your past two posts it seems like you believe the issue is indeed human nature? That being said, what would be your preference? Or are you basically saying: "None of the above."? I urge you to at least pick the one that would curb the damage you are referring to the most. There are lots to choose from.

[PLAYER57832]

I think my preference would be a system that allows freedom of discussion and thought/ analysis.. but that prohibits passing off opinion as fact.

I think people can work out amongst themselves various "ways of being" -- be it religious belief, economic systems, etc. However, without an agreement on fact, without an acceptance of the fundamental value in understanding how the world actually operates, has operated and things that have really happened, then the "debates" just become games of who has the power of the moment.

Every system of government humanity has invented so far has pretty much failed. There have been no real lasting successes, just temporary workable systems. We left the age of basically communal type tribal decisions, to systems where powerful rulers had control -- usually backed by some religion or other. Mostly, we have not seen changes in that system, just changes in who led. That did finally change with the industrial revolution, the printing press and democracy. People now can have, have had some individual power through elections of various sorts. However, it is being subverted by a system of powerful corporations who care only about, who are legally mandated to almost solely care about shareholder gains. I put forward that the real issue in Communism versus Democracy was whether people had full access to information or not. The Communist ideal wound up changing facts more than Democracy, at least for a time.

I don't know that any of the above would change that, unless you consider lack of corruption to mean adherance to the truth. The problem is that companies are not flat out lying.. they are pursuing a single-handed and mandated goal. Part of that goal includes and allowance to "frame the debate" to make a more favorable position for themselves. Over time the debate has been so "framed", though that the result is a real change in percieved truths.

Democracy is the only method we currently have to change the above, but it can only happen with honest dissemination of truth and facts. Without truth, there is no Democracy.

(and I wish I knew how to make that my signature )

[BigBallinStalin]

umwut? Democracy doesn't require truth or even facts in order to exist...

Where have you been for the past 2000 years?

[PLAYER57832]

umwut? Democracy doesn't require truth or even facts in order to exist...

Where have you been for the past 2000 years?

It does to Function well.

That's part of why Democracy only really existed in the smallest systems prior to the printing press. Now, we have so much "information" available, but definding truth, verifying is getting harder and harder. Google is making it even worse because when you search something and find 100+ results that seem to agree with you, its easy to assume they much be true. Getting beyond that takes real effort and most people don't have the time or ability, even if they have the desire (and most don't care enough to bother).

[BigBallinStalin]

umwut? Democracy doesn't require truth or even facts in order to exist...

Where have you been for the past 2000 years?

It does to Function well.

That's part of why Democracy only really existed in the smallest systems prior to the printing press. Now, we have so much "information" available, but definding truth, verifying is getting harder and harder. Google is making it even worse because when you search something and find 100+ results that seem to agree with you, its easy to assume they much be true. Getting beyond that takes real effort and most people don't have the time or ability, even if they have the desire (and most don't care enough to bother).

Without truth, there is no Democracy.

Just going on what you said, and not on what you later changed it to.

[PLAYER57832]

umwut? Democracy doesn't require truth or even facts in order to exist...

Where have you been for the past 2000 years?

It does to Function well.

That's part of why Democracy only really existed in the smallest systems prior to the printing press. Now, we have so much "information" available, but definding truth, verifying is getting harder and harder. Google is making it even worse because when you search something and find 100+ results that seem to agree with you, its easy to assume they much be true. Getting beyond that takes real effort and most people don't have the time or ability, even if they have the desire (and most don't care enough to bother).

Without truth, there is no Democracy.

Just going on what you said, and not on what you later changed it to.

An ineffective Democracy is not a Democracy, it is another type of system with fake votes.

[Funkyterrance]

I'll admit I did originally word it as what would be your "idyllic" situation. I suppose "closest to idyllic" would have been more appropriate.

[PLAYER57832]

I'll admit I did originally word it as what would be your "idyllic" situation. I suppose "closest to idyllic" would have been more appropriate.

Democracy or something not yet invented. BUT..that depends on education.

[Funkyterrance]

I'll admit I did originally word it as what would be your "idyllic" situation. I suppose "closest to idyllic" would have been more appropriate.

Democracy or something not yet invented. BUT..that depends on education.

I'm not opposed to hearing about a system not yet invented...

[tzor]

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

― James Madison, The Federalist Papers