Author Options:

Best Government Answered

I have always thought that a localist, complete democracy with communist economic system was superior.  The countries' sizes would be similar to counties in the USA (30-40 miles across), because every area is different and requires different laws.  Every human of age would have one vote in all matters.  A number of people would be hired, like congressmen, to vote on trivial things that the rest of the population doesn't care to vote on, but members of that group would have no more say-so than anyone else.  Laws would be written up by lawyers commissioned by citizens, and would be added to the next ballot if a predetermined number of signatures was obtained petitioning for it.

Instead of buying things with money and being paid for work, workers would be given cards (like Drivers' Licenses) that allow them an amount of food and luxuries. In order to ensure that people do all the jobs that need to be done, a sliding pay scale would exist.  Job categories would be ranked in importance by periodic votes, and ranked in terms of positions filled by computer (if there are not enough farmers practicing, the ranking for farmers would go up).  Votes to determine importance of jobs would be done by occupations as wholes (farming would get one vote, clerks would get on vote, etc. in order to prevent jobs with the most people from voting themselves most important)  In this system, the most important jobs that have the lowest worker-to-necessary-worker ratio would get 50% more luxury entitlements than people with the least-important, most-practiced jobs.  Every worker would get the same amount of food, based on number of dependents.  People who could not work due to temporary or permanent disability would be given a special card that allows food, and fewer luxuries than full-time workers, and would need to be renewed periodically, to be sure that holders actually cannot work.  People who have lost their jobs would be issued a temporary unemployment card that allows them food and few luxuries while they look for a job.  They must demonstrate that they have been looking for a job to the best of their ability to keep their card.  Students would be allowed food and the smallest amount of luxuries, and their education would be free.  Standards for workers would be determined by popular vote.

While each country would only be county-sized so that it can do what is best for itself, all the countries would be part of a United Nations style meeting that mediates to prevent war and puts regulations across all the countries.

So, what do y'all think the best way is?  Please be wordy.


Look at human history and what form of government and economy has been the most advantageous for the average person. You would find that socialism/communism/marxism/stalinism/maoism is the worst because it strips the person of their individuality. Think about your decision-makers in your posting. Who are they, to whom you would subjugate yourself? Are they perfect and incorruptible? Are they omniscient? Those people don't exist in large numbers and, if they exist at all, they tend to now like the work of "lord over everybody else and tell them their mission and value in life." You will, if you have an open mind, see that a free market in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, despite its flaws, has shown to be the best. Note I didn't say "direct democracy," as that tends to be mob rule. Note the flaws in representative democracy are that they require representatives who are not in it for their own interests--so they have to be honest, intelligent, and somewhat noble. (Perfect is not a requirement.) Another flaw is that it requires a literate, somewhat wise, voter pool. You can't have six-year-olds voting as they don't have the means for good decisions. (Sure there are twenty and fifty-year-olds who are fools and ill-informed, and it is a real weakness of the system, but you take the good with the bad.) Related to the voter pool's knowledge and ability is the Press. You need an honest provider of information. You can't get your news from the government-approved news feed. It won't tell the whole story and it tends to propagandize instead of inform.
In a free market with just enough regulation to make it "regular" (predictable, efficient) anybody can do whatever they are somewhat good at, that they at least somewhat enjoy, that allows them to contribute their goods and skills to their fellow citizens and be compensated based on how their product is valued. If the want to go to school for many years, working hard to learn, and then spend ten years in a lab, working endless hours building their skills and ideas, and they then provide for their family by creating cancer cures then you would think that they would be compensated more highly, by WILLING payers, than the schmoe who doesn't want to go to school but, instead, wants to smoke weed and carve puppy dogs to sell. The free market handles that well because everybody can ask what they want for their product or service, others can offer what they are WILLING to pay, and then there is a deal, and exchange, when there is agreement. All prosper in a healthy, growing, free economy. Even the pot-head dog-carver has options in a growing economy. In a weak and flailing economy people tend to buy less frivolity and it makes it harder for the pot-head to thrive. ...and in a strangling bureaucratic commune there are fewer opportunities for the free will to thrive--where it is replaced by "Your value is determined by your MASTERS in government.
Romanticizing the UN ignores the vile nature of the elitist thug bureaucrats who go to New York to "represent" their countries, to support murderous thugs for the "Human Rights Council" and the like, and basically be leeches on their countries and the world. Get to know more about them. It is not utopian. (They are "MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.")

The USA is experiencing problems which include GMO usage, Pollution and exploitation of Earth, and large class divide (small compared to other countries, but still to big) that would likely be solved with a direct democracy. What about our courts?

The only way the US has "class divide" is through the corrupting influence of the government. "Poor" people in the US have cell phones, televisions, free education, free healthcare, all provided in some measure by government (which takes from others to do so). The "poor" in the US are then "richer" in material things than "middle class" people in most of the rest of the world. Their real poverty comes from addiction to the government teat. They get this subliminal message, every day, that they aren't good enough to make it on their own--that they have to rely on the government. They don't get to experience the joy of freedom to fail and succeed on their own--to see the fruits of their labor, to LEARN from their mistakes and build themselves up to try again, harder and maybe smarter. Being jealous of rich people just poisons you. Live modestly, save your money, build a small business that meets peoples' needs and earns you a just reward (measured by you and your customers, not what the government or outsiders think). Sweat and fret and make it a success. That is all the reward that you really need with regard to money.  If you make a million or a billion just don't let the money change you. If you end up on a pile of money as reward for your hard work and its blessings then you will probably have great insight into how you can use your money to make the world a better place. You will do that task far better than a government bureaucrat because you will have concern over how the money is used and you will have savvy to make sure that it has positive impact. (...as opposed to government programs that are wasteful or corrupt people's values.)
Pollution in the US is very much under control (and arguably too much control). Our biggest "polluter" is probably nature. (Look at what volcanoes do. Look at the "pollution" of poisonous chemicals at places like Yellowstone.  There is a lot of natural "stuff" that is poisonous or unhealthy, that we need to watch out for, and it's probably more than the man-made stuff.)  Sure you can see trash that litters leave for us to pick up, but we also clean up after others.  Just this past weekend I went on a trash clean-up and we picked up a lot.  More will come from the disrespectful litterers, but whatcha gonna do?  You can fret about car exhaust but that's barely a problem. It's not like we cook our food over a wood fire and breathe those emissions every day.  If you were all-powerful would you ban cars, trucks, planes, boats, and wood fires? What is the problem that you want to solve and how much damage would you do in order to solve that (while creating new problems)? I think the US is in pretty good shape. It's China that needs to fix its pollution problem.  From today's news:  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/latest-china-smog-emergency-shuts-city-11-million-055104682.html  Please note that China is COMMUNIST yet, somehow, not your utopia.  (...or is it?)
We have been consuming GMO since far before Gregor Mendel's scientific study of genetics--since even before humans first learned to breed plants and animals. (Genetic mutations and selective breeding are seen in nature.) You can gripe that some company, which spent millions on research, owns a patent on some plant variety, but you can do your own R&D, with your own money, and give away the results of your work. You should not take from others, even by using the force of government on them.  It's still stealing, right?
What is your concern about our courts? They are blessed by or corrupted by humans. The Constitutional framework is pretty good but it has been badly abused by unethical and lazy lawyers and judges. It's the same poison infecting our politics: filthy lucre and megalomania. It's always there. A good framework reduces it. Good, educated, moral, and loving people are the best defense against it--and the best protection for the framework. The people get more of the bad when they turn away from the good path--but it is their free choice. They get more corrupt lawyers, judges, politicians, and bureaucrats until they fix themselves, grow up, and think about how to build the individual up so that the State can be improved (not the other way around).

Okay. Regarding pollution I would like to cite PCB's and other POP's as the primary synthetic offenders. Also, inserting a strand of DNA into a chromosome wherever the enzymes find the right base order is different from artificial selection, though my primary concern is with the glyphosate use that generally goes with GM plants. Otherwise it seems that the problem is with our culture (worldwide or local) and a societal, extra-governmental shift is in order.

Throughout human history different forms of government have been tried and everyone believes to have the best idea about how to govern ourselves. Your ideas seem anarcho-socialist, they look good in theory but might not be practical. Governments that do not take human nature into consideration tend to fail. The Tragedy of the Commons comes to my mind. To implement all your ideas you will need a like minded citizenship. For example, your idea:

Job categories would be ranked in importance by periodic votes, and ranked in terms of positions filled by computer (if there are not enough farmers practicing, the ranking for farmers would go up).  Votes to determine importance of jobs would be done by occupations as wholes (farming would get one vote, clerks would get on vote, etc. in order to prevent jobs with the most people to vote themselves most important)

Why would you determine the importance of a job by votes? Not everyone voting understand what a specific job entails. People would vote by the perceived importance and not by the actual importance. Assigning a vote for every guild seems counterproductive, it will not represent the view of the people. Something similar happened before the French Revolution. In this case a single vote was assigned to each class. The King had one vote, the clergy had one vote and the Third State representing the rest of the French Population had one vote. The Third State was consistently outvoted, thus precipitating the French Revolution.

In this system, the most important jobs that have the lowest worker-to-necessary-worker ratio would get 50% more luxury entitlements than people with the least-important, most-practiced jobs.

Actually now employers attract potential candidates to less desirable jobs by offering more wages. Your proposed system is too rigid. Job markets change and what is on demand now might not be in the future. Your system would not adapt fast to changes in job markets.
Although I agree that education should be free for students that have performed consistently well I don't agree that food should be rationed. Ask people that have lived in communist countries and they will tell you how miserable is to live in a country that rations the people's food.


I tried to think of a way to determine importance that would appease the people, but it is possible that it would not work out. How do you propose importance is determined? Maybe a more informed public would be able to make better decisions. There could be National Geographic-style periodicals that detail exactly what a worker in a field goes through each day. These could run in the months leading up to elections instead of campaign ads.
What I tried to do with the job ratings is use greed to get people to do the right jobs, to prevent excesses of marketers, fashion designers, and salesman from developing. I had hoped that the fulfillment portion of the ratings would be fast enough to keep up, through a sort of negative-interference. That portion could be updated weekly, or daily, to keep up with markets.
Dealing with food and luxury allotments, I tried to prevent people from staying students all their lives by reducing their luxury access. If food was ample, as it is in the USA now, people would have all they need. I meant to spread the effects of famine across all people in order to keep most alive. Do you propose that food is completely free to anyone with a card? That could work if people all had good relations with their neighbors and did not hold themselves over others.

... to prevent excesses of marketers, fashion designers, and salesman from developing

Are you creating solutions to non existent problems? So what if there are a lot of marketers, fashion designers or sales people? The existence of those trades are determined by the job market. Why would you want to over regulate jobs?

... I tried to prevent people from staying students all their lives by reducing their luxury access.

So why would you like to prevent people to study all their lives if they want to do so? You are advocating for an utilitarian society or dystopian society. I don't believe that your system will make people happy!


Maybe you're right. I suppose it would be fine for people to stay students without jobs as long as there is enough food produced by the other people. But today I do see too many people taking non-productive jobs and sliding through life.

People have the right to do anything outrageous as long as others are not affected. A good (not perfect) government resides between a laissez faire approach and sensible government intervention (or regulation). If someone tries to over regulate, people revolt. If government is absent you need to watch out your neighbors! Investigate a little about social-democracies which is a compromise between two different economic systems.

This content was moved from a question to the forums.