Which form of government do you think is best and why?

[Outcast9428]

Personally I’m a supporter of theocracy. I have arrived to the conclusion in the past two years or so that moral behavior must be regulated by the state or else people will become increasingly sick and awful individuals. I think the problem with democracy is that it believes personal individual freedom is the most important thing in life but the truth is that personal freedom isn’t that valuable when your communities, families, and marriages lay in ruins as a result of living in a society where people are encouraged to relentlessly pursue self empowerment.

I think a religious theocracy is just authoritarian enough to crack down on the immoral behavior of the nation’s citizens but is very unlikely to become an ultra authoritarian regime like communist and totalitarian governments are. Sometimes religious theocracies go off the rails but for the most part it was a pretty successful model in Europe.

Military dictators and totalitarians usually aren’t as concerned about actually creating a good society it’s more authoritarianism for the sake of maintaining power for a handful of individuals. Oligarchy and aristocracy is blatant use of power to prevent anybody from threatening the interests of the rich. Democracy meanwhile is too weak to counter social corrosion and decay. Communism is essentially the worst of both worlds. You get extreme authoritarianism and extreme social decay.

Theocracy though is mostly authoritarianism for the sake of enforcing rules about right and wrong. It’s basically making sure that justice is enforced and evil doers can’t justify their behavior under the idea that they have some sort of right to do whatever they want no matter how much their behavior corrodes the most important pillars of joy in our lives.

[Cornfed]

I'd say a monarchy supported by some kind of theocratic nobility. I'm leaning towards the idea that in practice there is really only monarchy or oligarchy and oligarchy is always tyranical. Where technology makes a centralised means of production necessary this should be orgainised as some kind of syndicalism/corporatism/guild socialism or whatever you call it. Of course some form of ethno-nationalism should be taken as read.

[Outcast9428]

I disagree. I don't think a theocracy is a good form of government. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy and people are not permitted to practice their chosen religion openly if it is outside Islam. I read the other day they committed 81 beheadings. They sound like lunatics.

Historically Christian rule hasn't been much better. Christians slaughtered the gnostics and even slaughtered each other over slight variation in doctrine. Plus we had things like the crusades and the Salem witch trials. Theocracy is dangerous because you get violent and authoritarian regimes take over who claim that they are working for God so their morality and competence can never be questioned.

Look at the Vatican and how well they do gods work. The Vatican is estimated to have around 10 billion to 15 billion dollars and their priests preach about the sanctity of self sacrifice whilst draped in their gold lined robes, passing about the collection plates whilst their people are starving in the streets. The hypocrisy gives my arse a headache.

When I say religious theocracy I am not referring to Islamic theocracies. Islamic theocracies are a completely different civilization and the reasons for why atrocities happen in Islamic countries are different from the reasons they happen in Christian theocracies. I also am not making the argument that every single government in the world should be a Christian theocracy. Merely that I think it’s the best system.

Keep in mind that the history of Christian theocracy is literally 1,200 years of history from about 500 AD to 1700 AD. Not only that but the entire continent of Europe was ruled by theocracies. The Crusades is more complicated then people think they were. It wasn’t an attempt at genocide but rather a response to perceived abuses against Christian people. Almost all of the real atrocities happened in the first crusade.

In this time the following major events can possibly be attributed to atrocities committed by Christian theocracies. Some atrocities haven’t been included because they were too small in scale but these are all the big ones.

Persecution of Pagans under Charlemagne (774-814). Tens of thousands killed.

Crusades (1095-1292). 2 million dead.

Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229). 500,000 dead.

Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834 sporadically on and off). 3,000 dead.

French wars of religion (1562-1598) 300,000 deaths caused directly by war and persecution.

Witch trials across Europe (1580-1630). 40,000 dead.

Thirty years war (1618-1648) 2 million killed directly by war and persecution.

This comes out to a total of 5 million people killed by religiously based wars and persecutions of civilian populations motivated by religious fanaticism.

The thirty years war is the main reason why religious theocracy was ended in Europe. Europe was very traumatized by having the witch trials and the thirty years war essentially back to back.

5 million may sound like a lot of people. But it isn’t as many people as you’d expect an authoritarian system to kill over the course of 1,200 years and spanning over dozens of different countries at a time. Not to mention the vast majority of it was isolated to two events.

For comparison, the Russian civil war, the Chinese civil war, the Korean War, and the Vietnamese war were all waged in the name of communism and the four of them combined killed 12 million people directly as a result of war and mass killings. And communism has only been around for 100 years and has not been implemented in anywhere near as many countries at a time.

Democracies aren’t even free from atrocities. Rodrigo Duterte was democratically elected and his government as well as vigilantes killed 20,000 drug users. Also countless wars have been waged in the name of democracy. We overthrew Saddam Hussein in the name of democracy, the American and French Revolutions were waged in the name of democracy whether you believe those wars were justified or not, each of them killed many tens of thousands of people. The Libyan civil war was also waged in the name of democracy and that was a disaster. One could easily argue the war in Ukraine right now is being fought in the name of democracy given that NATO intentionally aggravated the Russian government into invading Ukraine by making Ukraine join NATO presumably to undermine the Russian government because our countries felt that the Russian system of government is inferior to ours.

Every form of government has some blood on its hands. Some forms of government have a lot more blood then other forms. But it is simply in the nature of humanity to want to undermine rival civilizations or quell resistance in their own civilization to their values.

[flowerthief00]

Good grief. I hope nobody here ever gets their hands on any power.

[Lucas88]

Some really good points there about democracy. I do think democracy is the easiest way to control both secular and religious people. Only good slave is one that believes he is free. Democracy provides everyone with the illusion of freedom and control over our lives and which direction society is being driven. In reality it is corporate elite who control the government (regardless of the political party) and what we have in reality is something closer to totalitarianism rather than a democratic society which endorses freedom. A bit of well placed propaganda on corporate sponsored media and people will vote whatever they're brainwashed into voting for. And also in my opinion, which may seem a little controversial, I just think too many people are just too stupid to be allowed to vote...

Where I don't have a problem with Muslims as people (most of whom I've met have been lovely people.) I do oppose the ideology if Islam itself and agree with you in your point about Islamic theocracies. However, where I disagree with you is that a Christian theocracy would be any better. Remember that not everybody practices the Christian faith and what some people might find as life affirming, like pursuit of personal power and advancement, premarital sex (I'm not a believer in marriage, I think it's bullshit) a Christian theocracy could easily revert back to how Christian rule was in the past. It would only take the wrong fanatical follower to get into power and good people who don't follow the doctrine, such as spiritual people and all that could find themselves in a very dangerous situation. Christianity is an authoritarian religion, one which has been declawed as Western society has become more secular. Given back that kind of power I don't know if a Christian theocracy would be the utopia you envisage.

As I said in a previous post I think an enlightened aristocracy would be the best form of government. One comprised of individuals who are the wisest and happy to live modest lives and not people who crave money and power over others. A council of wise and benevolent leaders who are happy to let people practice whatever faith they like and steer society in a direction which endorses the happiness and flourishing of the individual. An aristocracy which would be prepared to transcend capitalism and automate most menial jobs and help people become more self sufficient without the need to sell hours of your life to some corporation for fiat currency.

I too am of the view that an aristocracy of noble and enlightened rulers is the best form of government. The task of such a noble elite would be to guide civilization in a positive direction and defend it from destructive forces.

First of all, let us make something clear. Life is inherently aristocratic and any given society will always be ruled by some kind of elite. Whenever there is a change of regime a new elite simply defeats and replaces an old elite. Such is a fact of reality. All conceptions of egalitarianism and democracy are nothing more than an illusion.

The world today is ruled by an ignoble and malevolent elite - that of the Zionists and corporate oligarchies. In order to bring about a worthier world we first need to form our own noble elite with worthy ideals and topple the current elite through military force.

Democracy today is nothing more than a façade put in place by the current elite. Through it they manipulate the people with propaganda campaigns and meticulously control the world with their carefully selected political candidates who agree to do their bidding all while convincing the foolish masses that they are free to choose the destiny of the nation. The current elite loves democracy because it ensures that no powerful and beloved autocrat can ever oppose their system. That's the real reason why "democratic" Western governments are so opposed to non-democratic regimes (especially those that refuse to play ball).

Democracy is so sanctified precisely because it is so ineffective at bringing about meaningful change. That's how the Zionist elite wants to keep it.

So in order to bring about meaningful change and create a better society for ourselves and our children we must establish our own noble elite and lead a full-scale rebellion against those assholes.

If successful the first thing such a noble elite should do is dismantle the predatory and criminal banking system of the Zionists and introduce its own ethical banking system and currency.

Then it should guide the economy in a direction that is good for everybody and seek to ensure the prosperity on the nation. I tend to think that a mixed economy would be best, one which includes a strong public infrastructure and in which the noble elite itself controls certain key industries in order to ensure that society's most fundamental needs are met but which also includes free trade within a private sector for the production of consumer goods. Only ethical businesses should be tolerated, not those which poison people and destroy health for profit.

The noble elite should aim to promote good values and positive cultural trends (i.e., positive social engineering) but from a legal point of view society should be largely libertarian and consenting adults should be left to do as they like within the privacy of their own homes. Moreover, all victimless crimes should be decriminalized.

As technology advances we should use automation to reduce working hours for the population. Our aim should be to move away from the stressful worker done society of the current elite and to usher in a new lifestyle of natural balance and personal freedom.

While our society should be largely libertarian as previously stated, we must still create a militia or police force of defenders of our noble society (akin to the Kshatriyas of ancient India) who can protect us from obvious subversive elements such as Marxists and other degenerates. Let us not dream. Military power is always necessary for the survival of a society. Pacifism is nothing more than a pipedream.

[MrMan]

A democracy is a system in which members of society vote on issues. A republic is a system in which members of society vote on representatives who vote on issues.

Greek city-states had democracies, but not everyone was allowed to participate. Free, male, landholder citizens could vote. One Roman citizens (who were male and free) could vote on rulers in Rome. There were senators, and over time tribunals, voted in by the lower classes, held official political power to veto, instead of just yelling it if they disagreed. Octavian diminished the power of the senate after he took over.

The US is a republic. Democracies exist in some small towns in New England, faculty senates in Universities, and clubs and organizations.

The Greeks had city-states, so democracies were somewhat doable. Rome was a city that ruled over other regions, but they developed a republic. A democracy does not make sense for a system as complicated as ours. As much as the electorate complains, it does make sense that specialists actually read all the junk that turns into laws so that the rest of us do not have to.

As far as what system is best, I think two big components of that is whether the system is just on the one hand, and well run on the other. The US, with it's state and local government, does a relatively good job at providing roads, filling in pot holes, interfacing with natural monopolies to provide power, gas, and water, etc. if we compare it, probably, to most other countries. But our system has produced so many laws that no one can know them all.

If the majority of people in a society do not understand right and wrong, they may elect leaders who do not understand right and wrong. Democracy or a republican system do not guarantee a just government.

I also suspect such systems are not well suited for some societies. If you have democracy in a society where the majority of people think it is just to chop off someone's hand for stealing a chicken, that might not work out so well. There has to be some room for human rights. Republic type systems also seem to require strong legal, etc. institutions that people believe in. They have worked out in countries that already had English law, and continental law systems have eventually been able to pull it off.

The US is made up of many states. There were 13 colonies that already had representative assemblies that handled matters for their colonies. They had a system of judges already in place. After the revolution, there were already institutions and also a belief and common understanding about how the law and society were supposed to work. The war with Britain was bloody, but the new states had an idea of what to do as far as law and government. There was already a tradition of legal rights, and that was expanded with the bill of rights.

Switching to democracy may not work as well in a predominantly Islamic country divided up into little tribes, used to be ruled by cheiftans and warlords, without the strong common legal heritage. It may not work as well in a colony full of peasants and a relatively small number of cattle barons after a revolution.

The US needs to keep this in mind when considering foreign policy. There is a reason that the US has tolerated dictators over predominantly Islamic countries that keep the peace, but also oppose Islamic radicals taking over. The US toppled Saddam Hussein, supported the 'Arab spring,' then some time later, ISIS rose up in the region. There is a benefit to having a strong ruler who opposes radical Muslims taking over the region. It benefits the people in the region.

A dictator who allows a lot of freedom-- as long as you do not speak out or oppose him--may not be that bad to live under. Many people consider Soeharto to be a dictator. I think his shortcoming was in allowing corruption to be as big of a problem as it was. As long as they did not speak out or oppose him or violate laws, the average person could get along rather well. Many Indonesians consider his reign to be better than some of the later democratically elected presidents. The country was safer from riots, and Muslim radicals had less of a say and didn't have the success at marching and intimidating to pervert justice (thinking of the Ahok trial), and they have had a lot of bombings since he stepped down.

[WilliamSmith]

For the rest of you, honest answer: I have no idea.

My earnest hope would be that different peoples all over the world retain their right to declare their own national sovereignty, and then choose their own system of government without continuous "globalist" interventions, either of the subversive type, or imperialistic military interventionism.

Then multiple types of government from different people can be tested in a variety of environments and everyone could learn from each other to adapt their own as-needed. Sounds like common sense, but I suppose it's a Pollyanna-esque fantasy in these times.

For my part, I much prefer not to live under an oligarchical police state and sham-democracy with a financial system and mass media controlled by satanic warmongering pedophiles, like the current system.

[WilliamSmith]

My post above gave my thoughts on what might work for the rest of you.

In my own case, however, I have a more decisive answer:
A case where "WilliamSmith Exceptionalism" applies, and the best government would be in a 4-person nation-state with a military police dictatorship, with the demographics as follows:

The military police dictatorship (government) consists of these three pictured below:

The citizenry consists of 1 person, myself,
in a state of perpetual hot-blooded renegade rebellion against authority, causing the 3-person military police dictatorship to be in hot pursuit of me at all times:



The chemistry in this situation will ignite the fury of their feminine passion and their raging need to capture and possess me, unleashing a whirlwind of danger and desire ultimately leading to their surrendering to rapturous ecstasy in my lawless embrace.

After the fireworks are over, we'll rest for a bit, and possibly take a trip to a laid-back Caribbean island to get some restaurant food and wine in a romantic candlelit environment. Then we'll have a reservation at a nice hotel and sleep well before we go back to our own 4-person military police dictatorship nation-state to start the process over again, a wholesome cyclical process of renewal.

[josephty2]

The more you think about this topic, the more American girls like this.

[PeterAndrewNolan2]

The one I proposed in 2008.

[PeterAndrewNolan2]

I'd say a monarchy supported by some kind of theocratic nobility. I'm leaning towards the idea that in practice there is really only monarchy or oligarchy and oligarchy is always tyranical. Where technology makes a centralised means of production necessary this should be orgainised as some kind of syndicalism/corporatism/guild socialism or whatever you call it. Of course some form of ethno-nationalism should be taken as read.

Hey Cornfed, you are still here!