CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:22
Arguments:14
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (15)

Debate Creator

JayAr(182) pic



Preferred Government type, and why.

This is simplistic, I am looking for people's preferred types of government (except representative democracy, republic, I want to see new things here) and then list the pros of such a one, and how it would be created (possibly where it would be, your choice). Then I would like people to list the flaws in such a government, until we get to the unique ideas for government flowing so that I have more material for a book I'm writing (on government). 

 

Please be creative, and please be kind.

If you need something to get going this might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

Add New Argument
2 points

All right an example, (not my preferred)

Direct democracy is where everyone votes on every law and order of the law, majority rules!

Direct Democracy is my preferred type of government due to multiple reasons.

1.) The situation of the country more accurately represents the people's desires.

2.) If there are issues with the government they can be solved rather quickly

3.)YOU can make a new law, it just needs to be voted on to become one.

4.) Freedoms are determined by the people, rather than the man, because there is little to no man.

5.) You can make ice cream free if over 50% of the population agrees.

Simple stuff like this. As the debate goes on with each one it will get down to specifics to solve issues brought up by others.

Side: direct democracy
JayAr(182) Disputed
2 points

Example issues,

WHAT are you thinking? There are issues here, I will address each one FOR you!

1.) The situation of the country more accurately represents the people's desires.

Well not quite, do people know what they want, really can you trust them?

2.) If there are issues with the government they can be solved rather quickly

Not at all, it would take massive concentrated effort to get all the votes tallied for just one law!

4.) Freedoms are determined by the people, rather than the man, because there is little to no man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

5.) You can make ice cream free if over 50% of the population agrees.

That stuff wreaks the economy.

Side: direct democracy
AtlantaEsq(94) Disputed
2 points

Direct democracy doesn't work for a couple of simple reasons:

1) People will vote themselves free shit.

2) Majority rule can quickly turn to mob rule.

Side: direct democracy
2 points

Anarcho-Communism

"From each according to ability, to each according to need"

- Though I do support the near entirety of the philosophy, there are particular benefits to a governed state not adressed in these ideals, so I suggest;

Anarcho-Marxi-Communism

"From each according to ability, to each according to need, for each according to justice"

-Though this solves the potential need for ruling govern, the governments electoral system is undefined, so I suggest;

Direct Anarcho-Demo-Marxi-Communism, or Akulakhanism

"From each according to ability, to each according to need, for each according to justice, founded on each the judge."

-

Or I could settle for simply Totalitarianism, I'd like to rule with an iron fist .

Side: Akulakhanism

A government which recognizes only the individual is sovereign and thus seeks to get rid of itself and anything which threatens individual freedom.Basically a government which practices Subsidiarity, with the individual as the basic social unit, and with a desire to make/allow the individual to be more effective at various things and have more power in his life.

The end society would be highly technical since it is technology which frees us. The end "Government" would only serve to upkeep things like roads(if its not better to privatize i've read some good arguments it would be) and make sure basic rights(which are different then laws) are protected. Thats my ideal type of government in general, the main problems are the technical stuff. Like how to get capital accumulation more individualized(or socialized where individualization is not practical and socializing makes sense) so people can actually start owning basic things and how things like decentralized renewable energy production, solar/thermal heating, wireless mobile mesh networking, opensource, desktop manufacturing, cooperatives, automation etc are to be supported since they all add to the power which the individual has and could be more effective then current systems.

Side: Akulakhanism
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

There are many countries where government doesn't get involved with infrastructure, they're called "third world" countries.

Government is essential for infrastructure of any country, the US without would have only a handful of streets, they would surround banks, Wall Street, and Microsoft, and the rest of us would have to walk to get to them and pay a for-profit toll to drive on them when we finally get there.

Side: representative republic

I take it your arguing against roads being privatized? I'm not sure if I'm for or against it. The government I've advocating is one very involved in infrastructure, and wants to be involved in such a way that the infrastructure flourishes. If it flourishes best with out its involvement it would stay away from it. It would decide its course of actions by science and careful studies with the end goals of higher efficiency and greater individual autonomy.

Side: representative republic
1 point

lets go back to feudalism, things were sooooo much simpler back then

Side: Feudalism
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Yes, shitting in buckets, wiping our asses with leaves, and catching plague every now and again was great.

Plus it must have been quite entertaining watching the occasional heretic burned at a stake ._.

Side: representative republic
1 point

see, thats the spirit!!! and to all those nay sayers, if i was king, i would just have yeah heads chopped off, problem solved.

Side: Feudalism
1 point

The fact of the matter is, now and historically (Rome was the first) a representative republic has brought a higher standard of living to more people.

Any who argue consolidating power to a select few without the ability of the populace to decide who gets to lead them has little grasp of how terrible the vast majority of human history has been for the vast majority of the public.

And a direct democracy would lead to absolutely nothing getting done ever. There are literally hundreds of issues which need to be addressed in each individual town every single month, much more for States and countries as a whole. No one would be able to work because they would be busy constantly voting. That or only old people and the unemployed would have a say in the direction the country takes as a whole.

Side: representative republic
1 point

Constitutional republic with a parliamentary system...and this is coming from a person who has lived in a country under the presidential system.

Side: representative republic

I prefer a democracy that is compassionate and fair and equal to all.

Side: representative republic