First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Choose your Government!
875 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / North West Amexem
Offline
Posted 4/8/14 , edited 10/11/14
Law and History cannot be separated. I learned both very extensively. Using my knowledge, I though I could make a fun distraction of:

Which form of Government/Society is the most correct?

These names are translated from Latin, for a better understanding.

Dominion over the Minority


Head of a Empire


Rank Ascend


Propria Persona - (Proper Person)


Which government/society would you choose?

Another question. Which is the most correct form of society/government? Answer both in the comments below!
50047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 4/8/14 , edited 10/11/14
"Democracy = all of asia..."





North Korea = Asia.
548 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
I would choose Head of a Empire

Because ..... Let me think ... Sleeping ... I'll give out the reason later.
875 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / North West Amexem
Offline
Posted 4/8/14

lianghong1 wrote:

I would choose Head of a Empire

Because ..... Let me think ... Sleeping ... I'll give out the reason later.


I'm very surprised that someone actually chose Head of a Empire.

I didn't think anyone liked being "under the King's thumb"
cosham 
11947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Sussex UK
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Constitutional monarchy, but realistically all political systems are open to abuse.
5118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/8/14 , edited 10/11/14

Magical-Soul wrote:

Often referred to as a "Democracy", the law is "majority rules" and there are no exceptions to this rule, the majority makes decisions for everyone and it's non negotiable if 51% of the people unanimously agrees.


Well that's direct democracy. In it, the tricky part is decisions over the rights of fellow citizens, including their citizenship itself. To take it to the extreme, if the majority on some issue banishes the minority, then the majority of the remaining citizens on a second issue banishes the minority, and so on, the end state is just two citizens who can't get to a decision when they don't agree... Well things can get messy with much less, especially if the minority robbed of some rights or some sizeable non-citizen group rebels or takes revenge when becoming a majority in the next vote, so "majority rules" is usually constrained by a concept of "inalienable rights". There is also the issue of time: the majority can also rule that its decision is valid for X years, thereby restricting future majorities (this is at the core of the concept of "laws"). Another problem is that on many issues, people have more than two possible opinions, and you can end up with neither of them achieving 51%, so you need further rules (sub-51% majority rules, 51% majority rules in a run-off vote, compromise, coalitions).

But what we have instead of direct democracy is representative democracy, in which citizens delegate the right to majority vote, in theory get to vote on packages rather than every single issue. While this system won't boil down in banishments and like as happened to Athens, there are thousands of ways to game the system so that there will be representatives who will vote contrary to the majority opinion of citizens, or to bar representatives from voting on some issues. Some actual systems are better, some worse. For example, in the US system, the first-past-the-post vote promotes the pooling of forces until only two main parties remain, thus representatives only represent a little over 50% of actual voters and Congress majorities only a little over 25% of actual voters, and the way campaigns are financed ensures that most of them only represent the interests of the wealthy funders. For better systems, there are the Scandinavian countries with their proportional vote, or Switzerland with its frequent referendums alongside the elected parliament and the all-parties government.


Democracy is an often code word that actually means bureaucratic.


"Bureaucratic"? I suspect you meant something else. All organised states have bureaucracies by necessity, whatever the form of government. To abolish bureaucracy, you either have to abolish all organisation (and thus government) or get citizens to do all government tasks on a part-timer basis.


There are no known colorable non-bureaucratic governments in the world.


What did you mean with "colorable"?


Democracies came into existence after the introduction of the 14th amendment


Huh!? The history of democracies didn't begin in the USA.


If 7 out of 10 people say you're breaking the law. You're breaking the law in a democracy, regardless of what you were actually doing.


This doesn't make sense. You might want to claim that in a democracy, there is no such thing as a "law" (with majority decisions over-ruling any pre-set rules). But, if you accept the existence of laws in a democracy, you should also accept the possibility that the interpretation of law is made the job of a selected few ("lawyers", "judges", but also "jurors") rather than all citizens.
24569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / behind you
Online
Posted 4/8/14
Rank Ascend if I'm at the top!
5118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/8/14

Magical-Soul wrote:
Head of a Empire


Well first off, I think "Empire" is not the same as "despotism": an empire is a state which has a center that dominates the periphery. That is, the subjects aren't all equal. And you can have that without a despotic Emperor. (Athens at the helm of the Delian League or the French colonial empire before WWI or the USA at the helm of NATO now are empires with a democracy at the core, the British Empire had a constitutional monarchy at the core.)


The empire setup is as old as the European Kingdom(England)


Nope, empires go back 5000 years, despotisms even further back.
5118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/8/14

Magical-Soul wrote:
Rank Ascend

Hierarchical society where the ranks above are superior to the ones below.


How is this even separable from the others? Your treatment ignores three key questions which make all the difference: (1) how do people rise or fall in rank, (2) how are ranks and their special rights decided, (3) are special rights hierarchic or not. Regarding the last one: you put government, policemen and citizens in a hierarchy, but policemen usually have rights politicians don't and in some systems can arrest them, both can be fired for less than normal people, and sometimes special rights come with special lack of rights (like a ban on political activity for policemen or judges, for example).

Special rights are truly bad if a change in rank is severely restricted and mostly hereditary, and special rights personally benefit the holders of those rights only and are hierarchic themselves.
875 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / North West Amexem
Offline
Posted 4/8/14

ROD_Junior wrote:

Well that's direct democracy. In it, the tricky part is decisions over the rights of fellow citizens, including their citizenship itself. To take it to the extreme, if the majority on some issue banishes the minority, then the majority of the remaining citizens on a second issue banishes the minority, and so on, the end state is just two citizens who can't get to a decision when they don't agree... Well things can get messy with much less, especially if the minority robbed of some rights or some sizeable non-citizen group rebels or takes revenge when becoming a majority in the next vote, so "majority rules" is usually constrained by a concept of "inalienable rights". There is also the issue of time: the majority can also rule that its decision is valid for X years, thereby restricting future majorities (this is at the core of the concept of "laws"). Another problem is that on many issues, people have more than two possible opinions, and you can end up with neither of them achieving 51%, so you need further rules (sub-51% majority rules, 51% majority rules in a run-off vote, compromise, coalitions).

But what we have instead of direct democracy is representative democracy, in which citizens delegate the right to majority vote, in theory get to vote on packages rather than every single issue. While this system won't boil down in banishments and like as happened to Athens, there are thousands of ways to game the system so that there will be representatives who will vote contrary to the majority opinion of citizens, or to bar representatives from voting on some issues. Some actual systems are better, some worse. For example, in the US system, the first-past-the-post vote promotes the pooling of forces until only two main parties remain, thus representatives only represent a little over 50% of actual voters and Congress majorities only a little over 25% of actual voters, and the way campaigns are financed ensures that most of them only represent the interests of the wealthy funders. For better systems, there are the Scandinavian countries with their proportional vote, or Switzerland with its frequent referendums alongside the elected parliament and the all-parties government.


There are no exceptions to a true democracy, otherwise it's not a democracy. As I stated above, there are no "true" democracies, and there never will be. The key here is that legally and lawfully a "minor" is someone of a lower lawful status, not a kid or a small amount of individuals. But "minorities" means negro, black, Indian, African-American, poor whites, Hispanics, Latinos, etc.

Bureaucrat is more like how a corporation is run. A government isn't a corporation per say, but the ones in question. Like the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation no different than MICROSOFT or SONY. A bureaucratic corporation is run by a board of directors, executives, CEO, etc. And that's how "colorable" governments are run, they're not true governments, but EUROPE INC. Masquerading like one.

When you agree to be a "U.S." Citizen, you agree to their policies and private law. No different than working at CRUNCHYROLL. The "trick" here is that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a stack of papers in Washington DC.

And for the love of everything that is good. Do not associate U.S. USA, etc. With America the land. UNITED STATES and United States are both foreign organizations from the Roman Empire(Europe collectively). America is a different nation than the U.S. Although I can kinda see why you would think they are one and the same...



"Bureaucratic"? I suspect you meant something else. All organised states have bureaucracies by necessity, whatever the form of government. To abolish bureaucracy, you either have to abolish all organisation (and thus government) or get citizens to do all government tasks on a part-timer basis.


The citizens of the land are the government. Every person who has a nationality is part and parcel of it's national government. You're supposed see that the law is upheld, all true citizens are to enforce their national constitution. As I said above bureaucratic is corporate, nobody "runs" a government but the nation itself. There is no head of a government because that would mean that others are below us. Governments in a conventional sense, such as Judges and magistrates are elected officials. An officer of any government agency is elected. The fact that they're hired and not elected let's you see it's not a government. But a colorable government.


What did you mean with "colorable"?


"Colorable" has a lawful terms such as dead, fake, fraud, impersonation. Let's use an example.

I pull you over because you ran a red light and I say you owe me money for breaking state "policy". If you understood law to it's fullest you would tell me you are not obligated to follow any state rules as you're not a member of the state corporation and you didn't agree to follow any kinds of policy that some corporation decided to put up.

The land was here before corporations, and corporations can't own anything.


Huh!? The history of democracies didn't begin in the USA.


Yes, it did. Government, Civilization, started in Amexem / North West Africa / Mu / Al Morroc / America. You're correct about it not starting in the USA as the USA isn't actually a place.


This doesn't make sense. You might want to claim that in a democracy, there is no such thing as a "law" (with majority decisions over-ruling any pre-set rules). But, if you accept the existence of laws in a democracy, you should also accept the possibility that the interpretation of law is made the job of a selected few ("lawyers", "judges", but also "jurors") rather than all citizens.


A combination of answers above answered this question.

Lawyers aren't present in a actual court.
23457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Not even sure in all honesty.
13011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Europe
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Democracy
23115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / SoCal, HB
Online
Posted 4/8/14
Propria Persona
this one, it"s close to chaotic, my vote is for chaos.
875 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / North West Amexem
Offline
Posted 4/8/14 , edited 4/8/14

pandrasb wrote:

Propria Persona
this one, it"s close to chaotic, my vote is for chaos.


How is not hurting anyone or their property chaotic? Lol.

Propria Persona... Is the most correct form of government. It's not chaotic! xD
23115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / SoCal, HB
Online
Posted 4/8/14

Magical-Soul wrote:


pandrasb wrote:

Propria Persona
this one, it"s close to chaotic, my vote is for chaos.


How is not hurting anyone or their property chaotic? Lol.

Propria Persona... Is the most correct form of government. It's not chaotic! xD


well I relate chaos to freedom, if freedom and liberty sound nicer use those ;D
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.