Top 10 Best Forms of Government
A system of government where power is vested in the people, either directly or through elected representatives. It typically involves regular elections and equal voting rights. Democracy, whether as a republic or monarchy, is the best form of government that respects freedom of speech, the press, choice, religion, and thought without persecuting people. To clarify, I mean representative liberal democracy, not direct democracy. I had to say it before some right-wing "we're a republic" American would come out and complain. Also, the UK, Canada, France, Japan, Australia, and Greece are democracies, and so is the US. However, the US would be a true democracy if it got rid of the obsolete Electoral College, which ignores the voters.
A constitutional monarchy is great because it combines democratic and republican ideals. It's also pretty cool that there is a royal family.
Royal families are cool and traditional, but at least the king's power is limited.
Very stable. Progress will not be canceled.
A king should have the unquestionable and divine right to rule the people, without parliaments or constitutions dictating what they can or cannot do.
It takes one person to lead a crew at sea. The crew doesn't vote to decide the direction they travel. It's up to the captain.
You'll always know who's accountable for bad decisions.
A political and economic system where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The aim is often to reduce economic inequality and provide universal access to services. A socialist form of government is one of the best because there would be no rich and poor divide in the country. Democracy combined with socialism would create one of the best governments, as all people would have the chance to voice their opinions.
Beyond a doubt, the American system is best, especially because the founders flirted with the concept of a democracy but opted for a Republic backed by an Electoral College to ensure all individual states have a voice in government.
Democracies fail. Why? Look at the American Civil War - the majority was against it. Take, for example, when the LGBT community was first demanding acknowledgment. The majority of the country was against it. Civil Rights for Black people? The majority was against it. How about gun rights? Women's rights? What about abortion?
Thank God we are a Constitutional Republic with a twist (the Electoral College).
The most decisive form of government. If you force people to vote, you avoid a hybrid regime. The only issue is it would be very costly.
The family that made themselves monarchs ensures, through their privileges, that future generations of their family get to rule. The fact that the family itself rose to a ruling position can tell you a lot about their potential to lead. They may be bad rulers, sure, but at least the population knows exactly who is accountable for bad decisions.
If a person is told all their life, "You must serve the country. This is your life and always will be your life," they will serve the country as a monarch.
If a person is told all their life, "You are better than other people, and you will always be better than other people. There is no need to serve others," they will serve themselves as a politician.
As Plato explains in The Republic, the most qualified person (a philosopher king) should rule society.
People may argue that this type of government leads to bad leaders. Well, that's true of any form of government. If your leadership is corrupt, no matter what system you have, you're doomed. A form of government is a tool to govern society. The ideal tool is the one that serves its purpose efficiently. How that tool is used is another matter. A knife can be used to cut both apples and people.
A classless system of government where all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. It aims to eliminate private ownership and economic inequality. I feel a Communist nation with a semi-democratic electoral system may be beneficial to the world today. Communism or Capitalism refers directly to the economic axis of politics, not to the process by which government legislation is created. In Democratic Communism, the nation would be ruled by the people, and Communism would be a choice. An Authoritarian Communism (like Stalinism) tastes sour when compared to the comfortably bland Marxist system.
Communism simply refers to a socialist state in which all class divisions and economic differences have been resolved, and private property does not exist. Though this may not be the most comfortable system, with enough allowance for personal ideologies and creative passions, a Communist state done right could be the next step to achieving a (somewhat) lasting world peace.
People who have achieved something good get to rule, which rewards those who contribute.
The only problem is people might cheat to get into power.
People who have done honorable things get to rule.
A country cannot be successfully governed by one man. A country also cannot be successfully governed by a mob. The only entity worthy of owning a nation would be a deity.
Religion unifies a country, like in Vatican City.
A theocracy is a religiously ruled country, like a Papacy, similar to Vatican City.
I support communes. Everyone must work according to their skills and share their resources with others and themselves alike.
You don't have to have populist morons in charge like in weak democracies and republics. The only problem is you would need to ban drugs and invest heavily in schools.
If only geniuses were in power, there would be fewer mistakes.
When intellectuals rule society, good decisions will be made - if there are any.
Basically, the government controls everything under a dictator. There is extreme nationalism, although not racism, because that would be Nazism. Although I agree with Nazi economics, I think xenophobia is useless.
Let's take the goals of a typical liberal state: it wants to assert the rights of the individual while allowing the state to exist to enforce basic law and protect rights.
A fascist state, on the other hand, flips that around. It asserts the rights of the state while admitting that individuals have to exist for the state to have meaning. It isn't about the individual, who is inevitably going to die after 70, 80, or 90 years. The state, however, can last for millennia. Therefore, it is the state that is important.
A good analogy for why fascism works best is the human body. The human body is comprised of each individual cell. The cell is born, it lives, it is productive, and it dies. The result of billions of cells working together in harmony creates a powerful being capable of amazing things.
Instead of thinking about fascism at a cellular level (focusing on the people killed by blackshirts or the victims in Nazi work camps), think of the states themselves. They were extremely powerful and feared.
The reason fascism failed in the past is poor leadership. Nazi Germany was capable of so much, but it was subject to Hitler's poor leadership. In my opinion, an aristocracy would have been capable of more.
It's not about the cells. It's about the living, breathing state. That's why fascism works.
Anarchism is synonymous with tribalism. Anarchy has been the major form of government in human history. Prior to civilization, there was anarchy. Anarchy ensured that the fittest survived and propagated.
Anarchy is ruthless, but it's difficult today for the world to be authentically anarchic. If you think about it, the world is still anarchic in many ways. Only the strongest can impose laws and government on others. Once that strongest one falls, society enters into anarchy, and the new strongest player prevails and imposes its laws and governance. Anarchy is essentially about strength, power, and timing.