How would you ideal government operate?

Question

Serious answers here, there will be NO anarchy or dictatorships (where you rule).

Just give like a basic sketch of how you might break down your principalities, how many levels of government there are, etc etc. Feel free to base it on a currently established gov't that is tweaked to your liking.

*How would YOUR ideal gov't operate?
Sorry, typo there.

Answer 1

Pretty much like the U.S. was SUPPOSED to be.

But after 200 years of laws and laws and more laws,

This country has been ran into the ground.

Take me back to the Constitution please.

Answer 2

Just exactly as stated in the Constitution in it's original form. The only difference being that in the bill of rights it would state specifically that the federal government could not tax individuals or business. They could only tax as stated in the constitution before the income tax was enacted. I would also state that the states had a specific right to succeed. The reason why is because it would weaken federal power, especially over individuals. The federal government would not have the dictatorial power over the states that it now holds. I would also clarify the commerce clause so the feds wouldn't have the latitude to spend money on all the unconstitutional things they do now based on the intentional misinterpretation of the commerce clause. That's the heart of how they've perverted the constitution to the extent that they have. The reason we've gone along with it is because they use the money to buy your votes and so many of us are as for sale as the U.S. congress.

Answer 3

Well, I'm a pacifist, so I'm an anarchist, and you've decided I can't have a serious answer.

I'll give you my non-serious answer anyway:

Most people would join community associations and one or more regional, continental, or special-purpose associations.

Different communities would take different approaches. Some communities might insist that residents join one official association - like micro-democracies - but with more freedom to change the system or move somewhere else - and other communities might not.

It's the difference between being one voice in 1,000 and one voice in 250,000,000.

Of course individuals may join several other associations. Postal and trucking services might join road (or railroad) maintainance associations. Communities might join fire-fighting associations, flood-control associations, and so on.

Basically, I'm rejecting two widespread assumptions: that local government and non-governmental associations can't do what's worth doing of government, and that free, voluntary association can't do what's worth doing.

Answer 4

The government for the people, by the people and to the people is the most ideal thing in governance for as long as the foregoing premise is done purely.

If the master plan of the government is to raise funds purposely and exclusively for Scientific Reseaches most especially focus on the discovery of medicines for incurable diseases.

If the President / Premier treats the government as her / his own home and the govern her / his children, it is then the most ideal form of government.

Answer 5

Fiscally conservative and socially generous so that people who need help can get it. Money could only be spent at the level of taxation: federal for national projects, state for state level projects, city-county-regional for those. None of this pork barrel spending where national taxes are funneled down to a tiny area to enrich the friends of the committee chair in Washington. Each higher level should be able to spread the risk of disasters across the local levels, but local industrial spending should be taxed locally or regionally to keep it more in hand. Relief should be provided so that places like Texas with bunches of money don't end up taking care of kids at the level of Mississippi as they do now. Court action should be easy with good guidelines.

Answer 6

no crap from anyone, but fairness. All cases get a fair trial, there would be no Supreme Court, and the Constitution would remain unmodified. UNsocialized health care, no welfare, no special treatment, and the prison sentences would be possibly more severe, such as rehab for three years on repeat offences!!! There would be smoking in public places simply because nonsmokers have no right to take away something that others (foolishly) do.

Answer 7

I would base my 'ideal' government on that of the Kingdom of Bhutan, wherein every citizen is valued equally and there is no such thing as "gross national product" (GNP). Instead, the ruler of this tiny country has created GNH (Gross National Happiness). It's been a grand experiment, and - so far - seems to be rather successful. -RKO- 10/09/07

Answer 8

I would have nationwide heathcare with an optional private healthcare option. I'd legalize all forms of LGBT rights. I'd legalize abortion and assisted suicide under good surveillance. I'd have a good army. I'd tax the rich more than the middle class and poor, and I wouldn't give tax breaks to corporations. I would have government money for elections as opposed to donations. And I'd make it illegal for the President or Prime Minister to veto bills pasted by the Senate. I'd also have three or more parties, all leaning liberal with some moderate, but one that's a bit conservative. Basically, it'd be a Social-Democracy.

Answer 9

Since corporations demand to have their interests supersede those of the citizenry, which is in direct contradiction to all the founding principles of a government of, by, and for the people, every corporation will have to earn its way out of a system whereby every decision they make which could impact any community where they conduct their business must be brought up as a referendum. They will have to argue their cases against antagonists spreading lies and propaganda against them, in much the same way as corporations themselves pull the wool over they eyes of the people under the current system.

Answer 10

it would be the same as the US democracy except there is no Legislative branch because, the citizens will choose which bills pass by popular vote. The president would be selected by popular vote. Voting would only be done with paper, with double-redundancy. and a www.vote.gov where voters can check to make sure their vote was counted accurately...there would be no Emergency Exceptions to anything...because these powers are only abused...there would be a publicly funded auditing angency that would make sure that tax revenue benefits tax payers...And justices would only be elected by the people's popular vote.

Answer 11

Savannah F, that is how the Freemasonic founding fathers wanted it but they thought that Europeans could never get used to not have a head of state. Which is true because no matter what organization you have you always have one top leader; it's insanity not to have a head for the body. The leader is the visible bond of unity. That is why it's impossible for there to be two Gods. There can be only one Supreme, one First Cause of all. Look for example at Islam which has no visible leader that is why it is necessary for them to have one God, and then look at the Romans who were pantheists yet they looked to their one Emperor. This is the whole meaning of UNI-ty: TO BE ONE.

My vote is for a Distributive Monarchy. That is, the top authority is with the king (properly used of course) though not the only authority and widely distributed property (mostly land) to all families. The monarch is not to be absolute but limited, for priests also and fathers and mothers have their authority given to them from God for their duties.