The government is a political body that controls a state or community. It consists of several types of political people, like administrators
and arbitrators. Governments determine state policy and shape it immensely. It affects human activity, and our society as a whole. I’m interested in the subject of modern politics because I want a good opinion on how the world should be controlled and indefinitely maintained. The world has many different governments, in which some are quite plentiful, and others are dying. How does the government effect you, and what kind of organized government would you prefer to live in?


In a modern society, would you prefer a democracy, autocracy, republic, or a monarch? Gleefully speak your mind.

there's also the no ruler type were you basically can do anything. how does that work? well people will no longer need to kill or work for a living which means you can do anything that you like to do until death. its mostly called utopia, however in that perfect world its called world peace. there is no ideals or laws just that everything is fixed and no one is hiding anything.

I'll always prefer a democracy because that's the one that I'm used to but ita also the one that makes the most sense to me.

zanderlex : you don't live in a democracy you live in a democratic republic. I'm not even American and I know this. Why don't Americans understand....

I would prefer some sort of republic personally. It's organized in such a way that while the "majority rules" it protects the minority from the majority from doing things that are harmful to the minority.

In an ideal world, I would say democracy. The American system of "Democracy" can hardly be called that with the amount of corruption and the way the systems built. Elect someone to make decisions for the people? There are too many flaws in that way of doing things to count. Not that I have any better ideas so I generally stay out of these kinds of debates.

All types are inherently flawed.

Democracy: It sounds nice,but can the masses really vote for a common cause,look on twitter for Pete's sake.

Republic: It is a decent choice,but all it takes is a bit of money to mess things up. (cough,Obama,Hillary,Donald,cough)

Autocracy: No way in hell. People will eventually overthrow and kill the SOB.

Monarchy: No way. They are only good for ceremonial (read:figurehead) purposes only.

Communism: We have seen how well THAT worked.

I would pick Republic,but I would want the option to have someone punished if they did a poor job.

I think a world with no rules would quickly collapse. I'm one for rules so I'd be incredibly suspicious knowing any moron could rob my house and not having any laws to punish them.  I might be pessimistic, but I don't believe a utopia could exist, knowing how people will always battle for status and superiority.   

 Non-hereditary elective monarchy.

One head of state, who is head of state for life, whose contemporary relatives are banned from election, and whose power is checked by state legislatures upon 2/3 majority. Otherwise, federal laws come from his command, and there is no constitution. Requirements for eligibility is to revoke all assets to the public, be at least 45 years of age and in good health, have served as a state representative, have public education records, have studied political theory, economics, and ethics with good marks, and live on a salary equal to today's $25,000 a year, not including work-related expenses. Monarch is elected by state representatives, with more populous states having more representatives, at and only at a majority.

States can impeach the monarch with majority of representatives for any or no reason, so long as there is a 2/3 majority of states. State representatives are elected on 2 year terms with no maximum by the US citizens in in each state.

This gives amazing power to the monarch, but he must keep the legislatures happy. Notice there is no popular vote for the monarch. People elect representatives who elect the monarch. There is no constitution, there is no supreme court. The credentials of a monarch are severely restrictive, and the lifestyle demanded requires a kind of character I find valuable to someone with so much power. State houses get tremendous power to elect and impeach monarchs, but require 50% per state for 2/3 of states. This makes civil war due to impeachment highly unlikely.

This system is efficient, and the balance of power ensures a limited amount of corruption.

tornadocam :

I'm not huge on politics so feel free to give your input if I say something stupid.

I've always thought parliamentary to be better. Granted there may be a hint of bias in here as I grew up in England and live in Canada (both of which are parliamentary). But the idea I like is that you can elect a prime minister as many times as you want. Whereas in the USA you can only serve two terms. You can end up being forced to give up a good leader to having to be forced to pick from a bunch of horrible ones. Whereas in parliamentary if the prime minister is good at his job he can be elected multiple times.

Although the counter to this can be the fact that sometimes people just aren't great at choosing there leaders in ANY form of government.

As for how the systems work I don't know well enough to talk about it.

However if we're talking about making things exciting throw a bit of monarchy into the mix.

Republic that is the one I'm used to since I lived in America my whole life.

Call me evil, but I'd like to live in a communist society. Don't get me wrong; there are many problems. But.... I'd prefer a stable economy, where everyone gets a job, competition with older generations (Baby Boomers) doesn't exist, and resources get effectively distributed.

Ultrajeff : Here's the thing. Communism, in theory, could be great for the economy. Many communist nations have started out great, but they almost always fall. With that much power given to certain people in Communist nations, it almost always leads to corruption. If Communism didn't always go downhill, it would be great, but that's almost impossible to pull off.

Maybe I should correct myself. Marxism. I would like that, despite it's flaws. I only like Communism's concept. Thanks for listening, pal.

Ultrajeff : I'll wait patiently while you give me the ultra-successful Marxist country that has people flocking to their borders to emigrate because it's glorious.

Take your time.... I'll just sit right here.

What I want is a pure totalitarian dictatorship run specifically by me. I control all aspects of life and culture and I run everything.

I will be a benign dictator, though, and I will invest in the smartest and most intellectual people to run different parts of the government for me. I will present my country with fair, equal rights to all, marriage rights to all genders, equality which disregards gender, age, race, religion, etc.

However, I will demand a competitive capitalist economy which allows free trade with other countries. We'll have no tariffing on foreign goods to push competition and we'll tax local goods in such minor fashion as to encourage rampant production of services and manufactured materials.

It'll be kinda like a democratic republic, without the mess of a bloated elected government, and I will usher in a new age of economic, social, and intellectual bliss to my people.

Ghostbear1111 : Mind = blown moment right there. It never occurred to me that someone that had absolute power over everything within their borders could promote freedom. I might've found another life goal.

I would personally vouch for anarchy (no RULERS, NOT "no rules") since we are able to take care of ourselves without coercion. The next best thing would be a republic since (in theory at least) certain basic rights are secured away from the whims of the moment. Or at least, it is very difficult to do it.


Ultrajeff : Communism simply can not work. Not only is its theoretical foundation flawed (class struggle, polylogics) but its complete nationalization of production would kill off innovation. Yes, the economy would be more stable but it would slowly decline. It has been proved since... 1921. And as for "efficient" allocation, it can not do that without competition and prices

A Socialist Republic with limited small business Capitalism is my preference, the voting had to be done by citizens though or it'll basically become any other Socialist Country. 

It's a lot more complex than that but I already spend all day arguing with people on YouTube about it, it gets to me to keep repeating myself.

To me, the only form of government that has no flaws is a Capracracy. I mean, Who cares if they are goats? Goats are great!

In all seriousness, I rather like haveing a democracy, But I think that it has some serious problems, Like a lack of goats Like the fact that a small percentage of people have a majority of the money, and how hard it can be to get just the basic neccesitys sometimes

But what do I know, I'm only 14