Keeping in mind the age we live in and all of the weaknesses of human character, what is the ideal government? How would it be run?

I think an ideal government is one that is not corrupt and takes the ideas of the people to a certain extent.  For example, if the people wanted a different taxing system, they should have to consider it heavily.  But, if the people want taxes abolished, then the government could step in and say no, because it is too radical.

I think an ideal government is one that don't lie to it people or go to war within like 30 years or something like that. Also spend money on education and the country. 

mlb789 : So you want a form of democracy where the power mostly rests with the people, but the government has the right to reject the people in specific cases. I would say that I mostly agree with you, but the only problem lies with the question of when the "rejections" would end. If the government realized that it had enough power to reject all notions made by the people, then there is a chance that it would start rejecting ideas left and right, claiming that they are all "too radical." This turns into less of a democracy and more of something else entirely.

Izziah :   That's why we would need an honest government.  The governments these days are full of corruption and only care about the money.  It would be awesome to have a government that would have the ideals of the people but also have the ability to know where to draw the line.

Mobouis1 : I will also agree with your ideas as well, but there are also a few problems present. Although having no wars in thirty years would be ideal, you have to realize that the United States hasn't had 30 years of peace since its creation almost 300 years ago. Human nature is to want everything, and be willing to fight for it. On the same note, your second idea is also good (about mostly domestic spending), but if a government exclusively spends on the people, where is all the money for the military, assuming that you probably won't have thirty years of peace. I like the way you think though.

one where heathcare is provided, we all have the right to live.
No guns, violence begets violence.
No heavy drugs, only thing i dont opose is alcohol really...
Not pumping money into military.
Not full of corrupt money grabers.
Constraints enforcing them to be answerable to those who elected them.
Able to read, and speak *cough, g.bush*
Helps other countrys to advance.
Dosent enforce its will on people, or other nations.
Dosent have unelected leaders(queens,lords etc).
Dosent place corporations above people.
Dosent persecute based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Oposes nuclear weapons.
Aims to reduce carbon emisions.
Cares for environment, replacing trees, safeguarding animals etc.
I like in deus ex, all people uplink telepathicaly to vote etc

mlb789 : Yes, an honest government would be fantastic, but let me tell you- it is extraordinarily rare. The problem is that the members of the government do not have the first clue as to what the ideals of the people are. They only do what they know how to do best, which just so happens to be considered to be corrupt. But man, I wish there was an honest government... I concede your point, however, especially since this forum was created to discuss the qualities of the ideal government. Honesty would be ideal. I just wanted to come up with a system that would be impossible to house corruption, leaving nothing to chance. It would only take one dishonest person in the wrong place to ruin an honest government. 

Izziah :   That raises the question about how and who we elect.  Are the voters at fault for voting for a government that says to give them the ideals of honesty, or is the government to blame for being dishonest.  I think all we really need is a basic understanding of people.  Lies are such a terrible thing, and when the government lies to you, you are pretty much helpless because they are in charge.

thenumberone : This is more like it . I can agree with pretty much all of these. However, having no guns invites people who illegally have guns anyway to reign free. The common man has no way to protect himself from an aggressor who does have a gun. On a similar note, pumping no money into the military invites foreign countries to invade, as the subject country would have no way to defend itself. But for every other point you made, I agree. And I think that the system in deus ex would be possible under a similar method, using modern technology to tap into a giant network. But that would just invite hackers to crash the whole system... If only humans were telepathic.... 

Izziah,
In Sweden it is more like you own a gun and a license if you go out hunting deer, elk etc, alas you don't own weapons for self defense, but as a tool to hunt animals. And you don't have the right to carry a gun if you aren't in the police or on your way out to the forest to hunt. The gun dramas have been pretty low in Sweden, but if everyone had the right to have a gun in self defense I bet the brawls in many different areas would have more lethal outcomes.
I might have some bias(?) about how the American system work, but who doesn't?
As for the military, it is almost non-existent in Sweden as we haven't started(or been in) a war since 1814. We've sent troops through the UN for peace-supporting  missions since 1954. But that's it.
 So I think to reduce the guns out in the community is only a good thing in the long run. (A side note)

So I believe in a government without guns, but then the government must have a lot of support and sane individuals in high positions, which is rare. Sane people is rare, and if they do exist they are often taken down by the greedy ones. Sad but true.


Well, the (probably)easiest way to get an ideal government to work would
be to perform lobotomy on all population of the world with one ruler,
that way you would have a adaptable crowd of people(alas communism?). But there is no way
that would work. LOL

I say that you might be able to make a good government if you could take away all the greed in those who rule. So maybe a lobotomy on those who rule??

Johnnyflickan : Uuuuh lobotomy=surgery that cuts up people's brains....... So you want one ruler and everyone else gets their brain sliced open O.O???? That seems like an interesting idea . Your alternate idea seems more likely, making the rulers more "adaptable" as you put it. But doing that would essentially get rid of all government entirely, as if they won't make decisions without the people, how useful are they at all?

in an ideal system we would all work together against those with ilegal weapons.
And yes, hackers are a major isue, but its ideal governmens, not believeable =p
Also no pumping money to military, i mean like 1/10th total income plus, stupid amounts

thenumberone : Haha once more I am trumped by the "ideal but not believable" card. I concede your point that this is a forum about what we would wish a government would be. And to tell you the truth, I believe that it would be possible to totally eliminate weapons if we tried hard enough. And it is undeniable that if there were NO weapons, the country would be a better place. However, the military idea still strikes bells in my head. It does not take much incentive for some stupid nation to attack (it is a heck of a lot easier to start a war than a peace), and if that happened to our subject country, it would take a little more than 1/10 total income to not get crushed. But I suppose there's just no way to tell, is there? Japan has the easy way of it...

and i concede theres always a nutty fanatic, dictorial nation that wants conquest.
But if we raised them to our level that woulnt be such an issue.
In which manner do you refer to japan?

Anarchy.

Let people run their lives the way they want to run it.

Of course, eventually you'll have people breaking rules left and right, but hey, that's why guns were invented. To kill bad people.

Just kill the bad people.

Problem solved.

... yes I'm being sarcastic.

thenumberone : Surely you wouldn't be opposed to guns for hunting purposes unless we as society are prepared to go back to the bow and arrow. I think guns need to be more tightly regulated especially in the US but outlawed altogether seems a bit extreme.

Stockton90 :
Unless thats your job i wouldnt be inclined to allow it

In my mind the perfect government would be completely transparent. No lying and no hiding information from the population. The only information that should be kept secret should be info that would put peoples life at risk if it were released, like the exact where abouts of military personel for example. I also think that governments should act more on the populations behalf then they do now. We call it a Representative Government and elected members are supposed to represent their constituents but I have never felt like I , or entire populations for that matter, have been accurately represented. We live in an era where most people have access to computers and the internet, and often have such devices in their pockets. It wouldn't take much for a government to survey or poll the majority of the population on any issue they choose. Over the decades many wars have been fought to bring democracy to other countries... I just think it's about time we bring a little bit more into our own countries.


thenumberone : You wouldn't allow hunting? What's wrong with hunting?

smotpoker86 :
As an individual?
Its pointless, there's plenty meat out there, much of which wont even be sold and hence discarded, its a waste, really unnecessary.
People like to state its a rite of passage, a part of manhood, man v nature etc, but i don't see what you're proving.
You can kill an animal, with a gun, from miles away, impressive. Itd prove something if you killed it with your hands or even a knife but shooting it proves nothing.
Unless you're somewhere where there isn't a steady supply i see no good reason.