Well this is actually an assignment of mines from civics. But I wanted to first gather some ideas from here first.

So anyway, we hear MANY things about politics all over the news. Often times, we would complain about how government does this. or how the government DOESN'T do THAT.

Since some of us complain, about how this should be something else instead.

what would be YOUR ideal government.

So here are some of my questions.

1.) How should the leader of a country be selected?
2.) How much power should the leader posses? How do you determine how much power the leader has over the country?
3.) What kind of people should assist the leader and how would they be organized?
4.) What duties and responsibilities should the leader/assistances of the leader have?

1. By lottery - U have 40 Leaders and they each pick a number and the lucky one gets it for 1 year.

2. Rock sissors paper determines their power. 3 rounds. If leader loses to RSP champion then he the people have the power. If he wins he has 100% power

3. People who can solve the weekly cross word puzzle assist the leader. The one who takes the least time is top rank. Most time is lower rank. (ITS HARD I TRIED IT)

4. Leaders duties are to :
- Gamble: Shows if the leader is lucky or not and then he can make a decision
- Have a big brother scenario where we can watch "the leaders" personal life
Assistances duties:
- Well u called them assistances i wonder what they are to do? ASSIST LOL

Theres an ideal government. You see what makes people believe that this person is Special.

Luck does.

If i have won the lottery 10 times does that say im a god? or a miracle worked. YES IT DOES. have fun with ur "assignment"

"The government that governs least governs best"
Thomas Paine

I'm pretty much agree with the saying above. Although it is through that without the supervision of an effective government, the society would go chaotic and the economy would crash, or at least be vulnerable.
However, since power corrupts, I think the government should be limited as much as possible and stay away from personal freedom and economic freedom as much as possible but to an extent that it can protect it citizens against chaos and probably foreign invasion.

[size=2]

1.) Democratically, rather than someone who grabs the power by force. So that the leader is chosen by the people and not someone who choses themselves for the people.
2.) A true leader would not need much power as the people would agree and so power would not have to be enforced. A true leader leads....they dont have to enforce power to do so.
3.) Again democratically. If these are the right people they would organize themselves rather than have to look at statutes and laws in order to do so.
4.) Duty and reponsiblility is to look after the people in the best way possible without leading the government into chaos while doing so, listen to the assistance and do what was promised when chosen as a leader. Also to look after the country, not to lead into any strife and to protect!

But then all I say is a dream and will never be followed, not with all the corruption that is around in the world and everyone is looking after their own interest!

Why a big brother scenario when we can simply put the leaders on a reality TV show? If Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson are good enough to be on TV, then George W. Bush Jr. is good enough as well.

As to a government elected by pure luck, pure democracy isn't very much different, since reality seem to be best represented by the political realist (i.e. the purpose of politics seem to be nothing but gathering power, and that means appealing to as many people as possible in a democracy. Consequently, that means presentation is more important than intention or competence).

I personally find aristocracy (but not hierarchical) alot more appealing (or a mix government with elements of aristocracy).

What is Democracy?
People have different views of democracy, so which is the right democracy.
Thats the question.
You can't just put your views of democracy on someone else.
Thats the problem.

personally i've always liked a meritocracy, with a strong social welfare system.

forget about status, economic background & family connections.

if you are intellent, capable, talented & hardworking with the ability (merit) to succed, then you should be able to rise to a position of authority, regardless of anything else.

democracy tends to be more of a popularity contest, resulting in candiates who are wealthy, charming & good looking, none of which has anything to do with their actual ability.

& a strong social welfare system gives everyone the chance to prove or disproof themselves, without letting people fall through the cracks.


~~~ morgannia

How can pure meritocracy work? Even the thought of wealth redistribution seems daunting; a strict meritocracy would never allow inheritance.

Ideal government? Hm, autonomy.
However, it's so ideal that it requires an ideal world and an ideal people in it to work.

But society may be able to change that such that autonomy would be possible.
I don't know how long that will take..but yea.

But as of now, I think the representative democracy - certainly with its flaws - is best for ruling a large group.

well, the question was what is your ideal goverment, after all & on a purely theorical level, i belief that meritocracy works best. in realty, there is no such thing as a pure anything. corruption runs rampent, because people will always find ways to cheat the system.

~~~ morgannia

I think there is a difference between ideal government and ideal human beings. The question asks what the ideal government would be, and I assume that question presupposes that human beings are less than ideal, for if ideal human beings populate this planet, I see no reason for a government, let alone any advantage one form of government has over another.

Therefore, I suppose you either assume that human beings are flawed, and therefore must explain why a government would be ideal (given that human beings are imperfect) and how that government would work
or,
assume that human beings are ideal, in which case there would be an extremely short answer: The ideal human beings would self-govern in the most ideal way, therefore no government is necessary.

i took the question at face value, asking what was the ideal form of goverment, because (in my opinion) humanity, as a whole, is very far from ideal.

i'm not sure exactly what you're asking me here, but i'm going to try and answer as best i can.

working under the assumtion that humanity is flawed, there is no "one" ideal goverment, as a flawed being, i can only offer what seems most logically "unflawed" to me.

a meritoracy would hopefully encourage the best & brightest of us to achieve all they are able to, without having to compromise thier beliefs and ideals to curry favor or get the vote.

you may, of course, disagree.

~~~ morgannia

I was simply trying to say, even a theoretical ideal government needs a plausible explanation as to how it might work. My original question simply asked the most obvious question: The meritocracy can't seem to susbtain itself for more than 1 generation, and as such seems the least workable government (in other words, I'm indirectly asking why it's the ideal form if it's seemingly unsustainable). The second response was made because you seem to have simply backed into saying "well I was asked what the ideal government would be", which implies one of the two possible interpretations offered in my second post.

well, i disagree you, lol. i think we're actually talking about 2 very different concepts, but i'll try to merge them as best that i can.

the very word "theorical" or even "ideal" would seem to preclude a concrete example, since they are by definition abstract concepts. but since you seem to want a concrete example, i'll give it a shot.

meritocracy is more of practice than an outright form of goverment, although i assume if you really wanted to & had the resources, someone could give it a try. rather it works better in a parlimeantary goverment, with a strict system of choosing the repersentatives by an impartial body.

for example Venice, when it was a still a city state, using this method - where candiates were vetted on a point system - academic, business, artistic sucesses.

Genghis Khan, also held his generals & minor warlords accountable based on thier skills, promoting those most suited.

it has worked in the past - would it be able to sustain itself on a long term basis? why not, it no more of a flawed concept than any other & better than a few i could name.

it an "idealistic" one, demanding that people live up to thier best, whether humanity is willing to take on that responsible is another matter entirely, that is it what it is "ideal".


~~~ morgannia

At no point was I suggesting an example. Political theories can be based on historical examples, but it can also be hypothetical (i.e. Hobbes probably would have never claimed his political theory to be historical in the sense that there ever was a historical "state of nature"). I think you've missed the point of my post. What I'm trying to say is that assuming human beings would act ideally is a awkward position, since that position would require no government, therefore you must be taking the humans are not ideal position. From that, it would seem logical to explain how a meritocracy might work. I pointed out the problem with distribution of inheritance because it's why I think a meritocracy will not work. I'm simply interested in how your conception of the ideal government is suppose to be even functional, so I don't see what there is to "agree" or "disagree" about.

i like the way the us republic is elected, except i believe that the exectutive branch should be headed by 3 people instead of 1 - atleast one being of a different politcal party i also think that there should be less laws passing threw congress so the houses can actually read what they are signing on instead of just passing it along cuz often bills are to long to review in detail

and round & round we go, lol.

ok, when i said that i disgreed with you, i meant that i disagree with your approach to this question. you seem to want an explaination of how a meritocracy work actually work in a real life setting (or at least that is my understanding). to be honest, i hadn't thought that far ahead, lol.

i threw out meritocracy based on my belief that it is most "idealist" form of goverment in that the whole point of a meritocracy would encourage people to strive to reach the penulitimate of thier native intelligence, talents & abilities.

whether it work in a real life setting is , i admit, questionable because like pure marxism it presupposes that people will be honest, hard working & will seek the betterment of society as a whole.

no matter how "ideal" humanity could be, i think there will always be a need for goverment, because people will always try to create "order"in one fashion or another. & it's that sense of "ideal goverment" that i answered meritocracy.

you seem to be another tangent entirely. wondering what would be the ideal goverment in a real life setting, which would rule out a meritocracy based on a flawed society.

so before i get any further, in trying to answer you, am i right? is that what you're asking? lol

and if i'm coming off as obnoxious, lol, feel free to tell me that too, since it isn't my intent

~~~ a slightly confused morgannia

No, you're not coming off as obnoxious and apparently it may have been I who misunderstood your post.

Perhaps this question will be more relevant (and hopefully cause less confusion/puzzlement to you): In a meritocracy, everyone would be rewarded not based on how hard they work (that would be Communism), but rather their talents and ability. Now lets consider naturally (or artificially) disadvantaged people; they would get nothing (or rather, their contribution may even be a "net loss", i.e. hindering social progress, in a material sort of way). Doesn't meritocracy ignore these disadvantaged groups? The current social climate might be moral relativism, but I really can't get myself to agree that the "ideal government" would be one that ignores any unfortunate soul who may have ended up where they are through no fault of their own.

And this is abit off-topic but I find it an interesting thought: Wouldn't the ideal people be people who can create order and govern themselves in the most ideal manner (i.e. independent of social constructions)?

haha. i like it. Thats sounds as effective as anything else. Techically we'd be ruled by those that make the crossword puzzles there.

An ideal governement doesn't exist, that is there is no government. The ideal case that society as a whole can be completely self suffiecent and strive without intervention. Everyone would provide whatever they could and take whatever is needed and idealy it would be balanced. Of course this is just the fundamentals of comunisium and sure doesn't work since ppl are naturally greedy and will exploint any chance they get.

ahhh, ok, now i can follow you.

ok, first off, my understanding of meritocracy differs from yours. being hardworking isn't something i see as being lesser than talented.

to give a personal example, i suck at math, lol. for a while it was recommended that i drop out of high school, because i couldn't get through pre-algebra, despite i excelled at the liberal arts studies. but i had no intention of being a high school dropout, so i worked my ass, taking double sessions in the summer until i had enough math credits to get into university. later i was diagnosed with an obscure learning disability, but that did little other than to explain my problems with math.

a hardworking individual can rise to a level of sucess that may far exceed a lazy talented person.

my ideal meritocracy would value sucess from multiple sources - of course talent, education & ability help, but they would not be the only considerations.

as far as the "disadvantaged" somewhere & i'm too lazy to look it up, lol, i mentioned that a strong "welfare" for lack of a better word (i've haven't had enough caffiene yet to be completely articulate at this moment) system is absolutely necessary.

i don't believe in "punishing" people for their lack of advantages, everyone should be given the same opportunity to succeed. some will take advantage of it, while others won't - & that is every individuals choice.

i strongly believe that the proportion of "disadvantaged" us "advantaged" is an indicator of goverment's success or failure.

lol, i almost offered up pure marxism as my "ideal" goverment & can intellectually appreicate the benefits of communism, except for the fact that many communist regimes fail due to corruption. meritocracy's prime advantage of communism to me, is the way candiates chould & should be choosen.



nope, not at all.

an interesting idea, but i've never seem it sone, except in very small populations, where eventually disagreements occur between people & then there is a need for some sort of arbritationis necessary at which point, it seems to fall apart. i dont believe that human nature would allow a sustained society such as you described.

~~~ morgannia

I also agree that Meritocracy is the best form of government. Here's a nice quote:


The thing is that democracy elects people based on popularity but that does not mean they are capable of governing. For example, George W. Bush was the most popular candidate but it turns out he's the worst US president in the last century or perhaps even the entire history of USA. Also, Meritocracy is the most effective way at solving people's constant complains about the government. Whether it's democracy or authoritarian, their citizens constantly complain about government. The cause is that the government is often not fit to rule. Citizens are poor at judging candidates' ability to rule. We need a system where presidents do not always graduate from the Ivy League. Take a look at Singapore or China:



Even one of the founding fathers of America agrees:


Right now, the US government is basically comprised of hereditary elite.

( Please forgive any inconsistencies or inherent rambling in my following statements, as it's currently 11:30 in the afternoon and I haven't gone to bed yet, so I'm writing this while I'm more than half asleep)

1.) How should the leader of a country be selected?
In my personal opinion, an Ideal government shouldn't have any one "leader". A leadership role gives one man (or woman) way too much power, and I've yet to see anyone who can really be trusted to use it just themselves. Get rid of the figureheads, and instead, just focus on creating a government council, elected ENTIRELY by the people. Election's these days are borderline useless because you're forced to pick a leader out of only a hand full of predetermined rehashed political candidates chosen by their respective parties prior to the election. Ideally I think we should be able to elect anyone for office from all walks of life (including age, sex, and career), whether they have any background in government, politics, law, etc, or not. The wider the selection, the better chance we have of bringing together a far more balanced group of individuals, all with different ways of looking at an issue and different backgrounds to draw their experience from.

2.) How much power should the leader posses? How do you determine how much power the leader has over the country? Honestly, I think the only power this new "government collective leadership" should have is an economic, militaristic and diplomatic, but they should not have rule over social or moral aspects, which is what I would call things like gay marriage, abortions, prostitution, stem cell research, stuff like that, and they should NOT have control over the media. If you're going to run a proper country, then you should give as much freedom to it's citizens as possible, and stay out of needless affairs like those listed above. Leave those choices up to each individual how they want to deal with it, such as whether or not an individual woman wants to abort her child, or whether or not someone wants to watch/air a specific news story. Freedom of choice and freedom of the press should be respected.

Also, the council members should not have the power to keep their jobs for years on end if they do a consistently bad job. (like Bush staying in office for years) They should be able to be held accountable for there actions. If they fail to do their jobs, they should be replaced at a moment notice by someone else until the perfect candidates are found.

3.) What kind of people should assist the leader and how would they be organized?
Again, we shouldn't have any one leader. As far as having a shared leadership role, I think each council member should all be assisted by several representatives of whatever career background they come from (for instance, a council member with a background in construction should have several trusted contacts within the construction industry, likewise a person with a background in education should rely on a selection of teachers/librarians etc, which are again chosen by the people) Basically, they should cover what they're good at.

4.) What duties and responsibilities should the leader/assistances of the leader have?
[/quote] They should be responsible for gathering all the on sight information, like what the general population in each given field is feeling about certain things, and it should be their responsibility to relay this information back to their respective leader(s). Also, they should serve as a sort of go between to a certain extent for their respective leaders to stay in contact with their citizens on a more personal level.


Now, keep in mind, this is all just wishful thinking. As long as we have naive people who can be persuaded by individuals who are talented at saying and doing whatever it takes to get into office, chances are we'll always be voting in the deceiving bastards and look past the ones that deserve it. But in an ideal world, I'd like to see something like what I've listed above.

I have no ideal govt. As I know that no matter what govt. we have they are all failures. We can never have a "perfect" government, so I won't have an ideal government but a perfect one - which is impossible due to the smallest of flaws.

Therefore my answers to your questions, are what I see as the best for plausibility's sake rather than anything else:
1) By the people.
2) No power. No leader. Run by the people... how is this possible? Computers xD A development of an online system. You don't have to vote, but if you don't you don't get your way. Over time, a natural leader may develop as the army, all functions of a country is run by everyone. I think this system may work if there isn't no violence but as this will never occur this system is flawed in every way...
3 + 4) A people's government - no leader, maybe robots lol