1. A totally democratic government with no legislative restrictions. No written or informal constitution and no court system to strike down laws. Anyone can suggest any law, and everyone votes on every law and policy.
2. A government with a single, lifetime appointed ruler, who is bound by strict and unbreakable limitations on his/her power. He is only empowered to do those things which you think a government should be permitted to do...and no more. But his/her choice on what policy to choose is up to him/her. For example, if your ruler is only allowed to collect taxes and control immigration, that ruler gets to decide how many taxes and who is allowed in.
3. Set aside any practical considerations (like how to count votes)- assume all of that is taken care of. Likewise, assume that the scenario described is just how it is. There is no chance of the democracy being coopted by a single ruler, and no chance of the single ruler breaking the limitations imposed upon him/her.
2006-07-23 12:19:37 · 11 answers · asked by timm1776 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
PLEASE READ ALL 3 POINTS. If your answer doesn't take into account one of my conditions, you will be less likely to have your answer chosen as the best.
2006-07-23 12:20:36 · update #1
I'd definately prefer #1. We'd have no one to blame but ourselves.
2006-07-23 12:36:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Neither... I'd do like that guy did on Ripley's Believe It Or Not.. and collect as many bottles as I could, and make my own island.
But all-the-while, I would have to be under 1 of these 2 governments. So.. Probably the former. Why? Because we'd be overlooking ourselves as a whole. Meanwhile, I'll be up to no good while everyone else is worried about the community.
Specifically, because everyone has a right to vote. And I seriouslly doubt the 1 ruler would appreciate my escape.
Besides, if I lived under a democratic government, I'd have a longer head start to get away. Because-- it'd take forever for the democratic government to finally come up with a decision-- moreover, while this all takes place, I'm half way around the world.
If up to 1 person.. I'd be found within fire power range... Not too fun- especially if my objective is to get the hell out!
2006-07-23 20:01:03 · answer #2 · answered by stealth_n700ms 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would make no difference. They would both be tyrany. Option 1 is the tyrany of the mob. If the majority decides to kill you and divide up your belongings, that is the law.
2. Would be just a tyrant. For your example the power to tax is the power to destroy. Ruler might decide a fair tax on blonde protestants is 150%. Tax violators are to be executed. Immigration might mean not only who can get in but who has to leave or who can't leave.
2006-07-23 19:32:35 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care for either one. I like the way the US was first set up. If we would have stayed true to our constitution and our forefathers warnings about things like being the world's police is only going to get us in trouble, we would be in better shape today. But I can only talk about the U.S. I have never lived under any other government.
2006-07-23 19:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
who cares about 10 points? I'll take the government i live under now, thank you
2006-07-23 20:05:19 · answer #5 · answered by thelogicalferret 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of the above, just give me life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2006-07-23 19:31:29 · answer #6 · answered by bobemac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2. It sounds similar to a constitutional monarchy which many countries have done well with.
2006-07-23 19:26:35 · answer #7 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of the above. They are all impractical and hypothetical.
2006-07-23 19:29:35 · answer #8 · answered by stvenryn 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The second I guess.
2006-07-23 19:33:26 · answer #9 · answered by trinitytough 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
communist or whatever is the oppisite of this crazy junk we have now
2006-07-23 19:46:04 · answer #10 · answered by chuck s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋