What is the next form of government to try?

Question

Thinkers only, please.

The goal is total freedom. I'm not asking if that is a realistic goal or not.

Monarchy, oligarchy, "democracy" and the like have shortcomings. Ideologies like communism have to be enforced upon people and thus are inequal from the outset. The free market is consensual but isn't alway efficient.

Note, something like "___ isn't perfect, but is the best thing we have" isn't an acceptable answer. This is a theoretical question, not an evaluation of current systems. Please try to think outside the box for arguments sake.

Answers should exclude any system of goverment and ideology already tried in human history, up to an including now.

Answers should also exclude religion and concern themselves with interactions between humans on earth, not in whatever afterlife you may choose to believe exists. Let deities make and enforce their own laws, regardless of whether you are a theist or atheist.

Answerer 11 (aka -.- ): I've never understood why people like you who don't like a question take the time to whine about in an answer while "not answering". You've revealed more about yourself than you realize I think. A professor can place restrictions on an essay assignment, and so can I with what I ask. If you don't like it, you should pass it up.

As regards communism, it is precisely haughty, petulant, pseudo-intellectual, insulting people like you that I would resent having to take care of under communism.

What's worse than a parasite? A demanding, ungrateful, petulant parasite. No one should be forced to be YOUR support system. We should fight to the death people like you in bloody revolution before giving you a free ride.

Answer 1

If your goal is total freedom (realistic or not), then the answer would be no government. While anarchy is an existing ideology, it does not have the virtue of having actually been "tried" in any real sense, so it does answer your question.

It does provide total freedom; a simple definition of anarchy is "no order--no rule". If everyone lived by that creed, then it would also preclude others from taking advantage of the lack of order and try to enforce some of their own upon others.

As you said, reality is not a prerequisite of answering your question. It's quite obvious this would never work, because there's always someone who is willing to impose their will on others.

Answer 2

The next form of government to try is pretty much a reversion to tribal chiefdoms. Humans were intended to exist as a hunter-gatherer society where everyone works for the community as a whole. This isn't quite a communist government, like a lot of people would assume, but more like a socialist-capitilistic society. There is even distribution of healthcare and food, with a set limit on natural resources. However, anyone who works harder or sacrifices something else can buy or barter for whatever possessions/luxuries they may want. This mainly because status is a necessity to human interaction. There would be no huge countries, only loose bands of states working towards the same goal. We would still need competition to spark technological advances and such, but war as it is now would be unnecessary. It would be an information war and every so often an armed conflict that would be a little closer to a Fifties' era "rumble" than all-out mortal combat.
Of course, the government presented by Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World" would be an idealistic society, but I suppose being genetically engineered and behaviorially modified into contentment isn't quite freedom is it?

Answer 3

Well, unless human mind changes, a perfect anarchy wouldn't be possible. Our minds are filled with desires of power, with the desire to be "more", to have others under our control. Our relationships with other people have turned to a medium to fulfill our desires: money, power and sex. If suddenly all governments disappear, and our minds still have the same urges, there will be negative anarchy: everyone will want to have power over the others, because if they don't, others will take control of them. Fights and violence will be the main point in negative anarchy.

But if our mind changes, if we stop looking for power, we will be achieving personal freedom. We will be conscious and compassionate with everyone. Why will we need power? There won't be any need. If you stop these unhealthy desires, and start living a simple life, a happy life, you will start a rebellion, a peaceful rebellion. And this will affect others in a positive way. Others will follow the example of true freedom, and a positive anarchy will begin: Where everyone is free from bad influences and power. No governments, no leaders, but simple human beings that are conscious about how wonderful life is. A positive anarchy is possible, but we must begin our personal transformation in order to transform the world.

Answer 4

Plutocracy seems not only to be next logiacal step but actually the reality under the facade of fake democracy.
A corporate run country via beaurocratic process which depends wholly on the supply demand principal of the public. Where people vote with their wallet not by the ballot. Any government can get votes as long as it knows the people's financial commitments and how to lure them. The corporate suppliers know more of this than anyone and so are in actual fact the new form of leadership. Its just unrecognized as yet because they still follow the democratic process by sponsoring (or witholding sponsorship from) candidates they can (or cannot) control.
The plutocratic era may be upon us. Poor us!!

Answer 5

Well, if the objective is total freedom then anarchy would be the obvious choice. By that it means the absence of a state, but for everyone to interact in harmony. Whilst it is obviously unattainable that is the theoretical best.
The other possibility is a benign dictatorship, whereby we can be sure that the dictator will always act for the benefit of the people. We might be able to achieve this with some form of super computer?

Answer 6

I don't understand why you have the gall to call communism purely ideological... there's nothing inherently unfree about communism, and only through marxist studies have we even explicated the word ideology.. in relation to all the BS mythological constructs in capitalist society, which maintain the status quo by the force of the gun and the hegemonic.

The question is so biased and idiotic, if you're not open to marxist anlaysis, you are completely closed as to the BEST criticisms of all the problems we face.


We can only be free if we all actively participate in our freedom. You can't simply annihilate social amenities, like healthcare, utilities, schools, etc .. our notion of freedom is historically embedded.

This question is really aggravating. I have no desire to give you a proper answer, since you beg all these caveats.

Answer 7

i for my area do not imagine they're going to win one seat, now to not educate something else. The elections at contemporary are mid-time period council elections and can want to don't have any genuine pertaining to the final election in words of seats for them. i'm a Labour supporter and am particularly satisfied that UKIP have carried out properly in those elections, the reason being that their regulations will now come less than evaluation. the people who will conflict through maximum from UKIP are the Tories and that is solid information for Labour. If Cameron had any experience then he might want to call a referendum on the ecu earlier the subsequent election. i think that the vast majority of uk voters might want to genuinely opt for to stay interior the ecu once the case for staying in has been made, this may positioned the placement to mattress once and for all and make UKIP an inappropriate party interior the united kingdom. people ought to also shop in concepts many years in the past after we had each and every of the hype about the BNP and they took over a council, i imagine it became in Bradford, they have now all been kicked out and that i anticipate a lot an analogous to take position to UKIP next time round.

Answer 8

This republic needs to try DEMOCRACY. Up to now, it's been nothing more than a Plutocracy, where the rich and powerful have controlled the country and have used the rest of the citizenry to enrich themselves.

Yes, a Democracy where the average person can indeed reach greatness, without being puppets for the super-rich, used and prodded by special interests for the super-rich who remain in control... that's the NEXT form of government we need... of course, it would help if we learned to make elected officials accountable for their actions and learned to get rid of the inept, incompetent and malfeasant civil servants and demaned nothing short of excellence from those working for us (including the rude and too often unimformed and overpaid Municipal, State and Federal employees). WE, the public must learn to hold them accountable for their campaign promises; we must force them to pass a Federal Law where no candidate can lie on radio, TV or to news reporters for printed news medium or in public speeches. That will surely hog-tie a lot of loose, flapping silver-tongues in Washington!

Answer 9

What you need is a form of government that can recognize that we the people are NOT separate, that we all have a influence on each others lives (the butterfly effect) if you can get people to recognize the best way to move forward is to stop holding others back. We are all part of a giant ecosystem and have to identify our job in this ecosystem realizing we are not above it, but part of the ONE.

PS Still working on how to implement this system, utopia still seems far away.

Answer 10

Remember Borg in Star Trek? Make implants in all human brains, and transmit each person's opinion for processing, so the collective mind rules. Within this system, automated meritocracy may be easily implemented.