CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:101
Arguments:96
Total Votes:101
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What is the best form of government? (96)

Debate Creator

TheDude(165) pic



What is the best form of government?

Most people as of today herald the United States Democratic-Capitalism Government to be the best form of government as of today. Are there better forms of government out there? Can their be improvements to the above stated system to make it better? What Improvements? What radical new types of government can be Proposed? What else is there?

Add New Argument

Let's be crystal clear. Capitalism is not a form of government. Capitalism is a economic system.

What is the best form of government? There is no such thing as the best form of government.

A Constitutional Democracy is the least bad form of government.

Side: None Least Worst
TheDude(165) Disputed
2 points

By saying Capitalism, I meant the economic-political tie that exists, like a government that is democratic, but uses Sharing of wealth, like Communism. Just a clarification.

Stating that there is no best form of government and only the least worse one is just having a negative attitude, Prayerfails. This argument is supposed to be positive and constructive.

As for constitutional Democracy, its primary down fall is what? Identify and warrant, please.

Side: None Least Worst
1 point

By saying Capitalism, I meant the economic-political tie that exists, like a government that is democratic, but uses Sharing of wealth, like Communism. Just a clarification.

There is a tie between capitalism and democracy, but the term is mixed economy when describing private and government control because even China has private variables in its economy despite being described as communist.

In order to be a capitalist or socialist economy, it must be 100% either way economically; otherwise, it is mixed economy. The same goes for political, republic or monarchy. Then, republic breaks down into democracy or dictatorship and so forth.

Stating that there is no best form of government and only the least worse one is just having a negative attitude, Prayerfails.

Well, that is your opinion, and it is not a negative attitude, it is simply the truth.

As for constitutional Democracy, its primary down fall is what? Identify and warrant, please.

Even though Constitutional Democracies protect individual rights, the primary downfall of all forms of government even Constitutional Democracy is the insatiable desire for government growth either more control politically or economically, and the case for America is more government control over the economy, and history shows it. The government owes 40% of the economy.

Side: None Least Worst
2 points

A government that sticks true to its Bill of Rights and ONLY edits the Constitution for adding MORE liberties and protection from the government would be the best form of government.

that doesn't exist.

Side: nonexistent
TheDude(165) Disputed
1 point

What if you could create a paradigm shift in the people so that they feel as though the government works for them without engaging in socialism? How about a government that does exactly that and doesnt stray because its people know the history and WILL engage their government to make sure they do not take control? What about a constitutional guarantee of smaller, efficient government? Its all about the theory. Just because it doesnt exist now does not mean it cant exist. Why so negative?

Side: nonexistent
1 point

Why so negative?

Not negative, but cynical. Government is impossible to believe because we don't really know what individual agendas are.

Side: nonexistent
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

A government that sticks true to its Bill of Rights and ONLY edits the Constitution for adding MORE liberties and protection from the government would be the best form of government.

What about slavery? Because under your premise the thirteenth amendment restricts ones liberty to own slaves.

Side: nonexistent
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
2 points

Considering that slaves are human beings, they would be protected vs. the owners being protected.

Individual liberties is the most important. Now, if you believe that blacks aren't human, you can argue from that. otherwise, private property doesn't work if the property is human.

Side: nonexistent
1 point

The best kind of government is no government at all. Or at least no rulers/leader with any higher power (political or otherwise)

Side: no government
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

The best kind of government is no government at all. Or at least no rulers/leader with any higher power (political or otherwise)

Then you want barbarism.

Side: no government
TheHallow1(74) Disputed
1 point

"Then you want barbarism."

Uh, no. That is something entirely different.

Side: no government
1 point

The best government is a strong central federalist government that represents the ultimate will of the people but is lightly insulated from fluctuating popular will to allow for hard decisions.

Side: no government
1 point

Describe the mechanics of that system, if you will. I believe thats the standard for the system we have as of now in the Unted States of America.

Side: no government
1 point

In theory I would support a meritocratically limited democracy in which only people with proven intellectual and reasoning capability can vote.

I envision a sort of essay-based test that people have to sit in order to get a "licence" to vote, the questions being generic social issues (rather like the questions we see on CreateDebate! :P ). Examiners, blindly chosen from some educated group, grade the essays by the quality of their arguments, not by the perspectives expressed.

I can also imagine it being a combination of representative and direct democracy - e.g. when bills goes through Parliament, people who have specialist knowledge in the areas that the bills touch on could influence their passage.

But this is all a very vague idea in my head. And since this type of government has never existed in any state, it's very hard to tell if it will be sustainable, or will just devolve into authoritarianism and/or class stratification as all non-democratic political systems so far have. As my theoretical government stands, there is plenty of room for corruption - though I'm not writing it off just for that, as current governments have plenty of room for corruption and are still functioning.

Side: Meritocracy
1 point

In theory I would support a meritocratically limited democracy in which only people with proven intellectual and reasoning capability can vote.

So in other words, if you are unlucky enough to be born stupid, you can't be a citizen.

Now that's a democratic principle... impose civil disability on the majority of the population.

Side: Meritocracy
Peekaboo(710) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, if it were put into practice, it wouldn't be anything like what we consider to be a democracy today, and I think that's a good thing. I see it as highly detrimental that people whose political opinions amount to little more than what they read on campaign billboards actually have a say in how the country is run.

Although I'm not convinced that large numbers of people are "born stupid". I'm sure there are some people born with mental disabilities, but I believe that to a large extent, stupidity or intelligence is a result of learning.

I don't think the modern education system does very much to raise students' intellectual ability, such that only the students motivated enough to figure it out independently will actually learn how to think - hence we see in modern society a small number of people who can think and write critically, and large numbers who can't.

Side: Meritocracy
1 point

How about a privatized Government? One that utilizes the competition mechanic to achieve efficiency and lower costs? Except, instead of competing over money, they are competing over the number of people that live in their country and the educational/worth density of those people? In other words, splitting a well-established country in two to achieve privatized government, one that legislates quite literally as the people see fit to get the most that they can out of them and their opponent. Now, the question here would be how do you prevent underhand tricks? you do so with a promotion of open-book government, a paradigm change to such and a paradigm switch to making everyone more politically active or at least more politically aware. This would result in a much lower and even destroyed underhand-dealing mechanic.

As for war, these two separate governments are still part of the same country. In the end, these two governments act as one internationally. Kind of like two states instead of fifty in the US. They both have equal access to their respective north and south relative borders, i.e. both have equal access to Mexico and Canada in the case of the US. Finally, both would sign a document guaranteeing their mutual disclosure of information, resources and military power, Ultimately meaning that the two are still the same country with checks and balances to each other, but potentially significantly different laws apply to things inside each respective government's boundaries. War is prevented, the people get what they want, the economic experiment is engaged and no one gets hurt. It also forces to surface many issues that require answers. Thus, the ultimate serving of government is, well, served.

Side: Brotherhood
1 point

HA! It would appear that Ive one this one, seeing as no one wishes to challenge the vast elellitude that is Brotherhood.

Side: Brotherhood

The best form of government is one were governmental powers are drastically reduced, monitored and constrained. Oh, and short term limits. I don't understand why anyone would want ever say, "Hey..., would you like to be the boss of me?" ;)

Side: Brotherhood
1 point

A centrist form of government is the best form of government .

Side: Brotherhood