|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Oct 11, 2014 15:44:02 GMT -5
So here is where we will record a discussion where we will attempt to sort out what qualities a good government needs, and what limits it should have.
|
|
chopsofpork
Just Got Here
You cannot out drink that which never stops.
Posts: 7 
|
Post by chopsofpork on Oct 11, 2014 16:16:31 GMT -5
The perfect gov't would be one that primarily maintains an army for defense of the country, courts so that people with grievances will have (a supposedly) third party that will rule for who is right and enforce the laws, as well as a police force that people who do not wish to have the public officers can opt instead for a private firm.
Now for a couple definitions so that we are all on the same page, freedom would be economic freedom, while liberty would be security. I.e. A completely free society would be someone robs someone else and have no governmental ramifications, where as a heavily secure society would punish him too a large degree.
Capitalism is the free exchange of goods, Corporatism is a merger of socialism and capitalism in which corporations would use gov't power to make larger profit margins for itself and if needed to keep potential competitors out of their fields by laws and regulations.
The ideal gov't in my eyes would be the maximization of freedom, while maintain a small amount of security.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Oct 11, 2014 16:27:29 GMT -5
Let me see. For me, a perfect nation would be small. I understand that bigger borders means more citizens to tax, more resources, more real estate. But we have to think clearly: what is in our best interests? Is unrestricted expansion actually good?
What I think is that if a country is too big it will eventually become too large to manage propely. It does not matter what government type it is, it will always have the same problems: too many people to keep track of, too many services, a million demands and calls all the time, tracking criminals becomes a hassle, and there is always the possibility of separatists. The bigger your country, the more people. The more people, the wider spectrum of ideas and that means some people will disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by RenegadeMizu on Oct 11, 2014 17:41:57 GMT -5
I agree with the country being too large thing. I'm taking U.S Government right now, and it seems to me that a lot of the problems are due to the fact that the U.S is simply too big and too diverse to manage effectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravenwood on Oct 11, 2014 18:03:27 GMT -5
Well well well, I haven't been on this forum for a while but it seems you guys have really expanded.
Here is my output on this:
A government should be able to help its citizens and protect them, but mostly protect them since that is the whole point of a government. People give up freedoms and in return receive liberties, and that is what people should understand. The people have the power, and so a limited government is good, but not so little that it is manhandled by a small few.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Oct 11, 2014 18:15:55 GMT -5
Well well well, I haven't been on this forum for a while but it seems you guys have really expanded. Here is my output on this: A government should be able to help its citizens and protect them, but mostly protect them since that is the whole point of a government. People give up freedoms and in return receive liberties, and that is what people should understand. The people have the power, and so a limited government is good, but not so little that it is manhandled by a small few. Hey, good to see you're back. Alright, here is where we split. Governments were created as authorities. As long as they don't violate essential freedoms, they should have the power to regulate against all sorts of wrongdoing. Stuff like monopolies and gerrymandering and vote buying are things that the people aren't catching that they should. Government should therefore be structured so that it checks and balances itself so it doesn't become too unitary and central in its approach to things. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobbyjoeangus43 on Oct 12, 2014 6:59:32 GMT -5
I agree with the country being too large thing. I'm taking U.S Government right now, and it seems to me that a lot of the problems are due to the fact that the U.S is simply too big and too diverse to manage effectively. U.S.? Big and diverse?  I laugh at you. (I'm only kidding, I know the U.S. is quite big compared to some countries.) |
|
|
|
Post by redstonealchemist on Oct 12, 2014 17:02:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RenegadeMizu on Oct 12, 2014 19:12:56 GMT -5
I agree with the country being too large thing. I'm taking U.S Government right now, and it seems to me that a lot of the problems are due to the fact that the U.S is simply too big and too diverse to manage effectively. U.S.? Big and diverse? I laugh at you. (I'm only kidding, I know the U.S. is quite big compared to some countries.) I didn't know those facts were debateable lol. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, so I'll state the numbers anyways. The U.S is #3 in Population and #4 in size. While we may not be ranked very high in ethnic diversity (85th), we're called a melting pot for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobbyjoeangus43 on Oct 12, 2014 19:49:44 GMT -5
U.S.? Big and diverse? I laugh at you. (I'm only kidding, I know the U.S. is quite big compared to some countries.) I didn't know those facts were debateable lol. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, so I'll state the numbers anyways. The U.S is #3 in Population and #4 in size. While we may not be ranked very high in ethnic diversity (85th), we're called a melting pot for a reason. I said that because Canada is #2 in size and known to be one of the most ethnicity diverse nations in the world. I just wanted to make fun of the U.S. Also, just saying but the "melting pot" isn't exactly a compliment. |
|
|
|
Post by ravenwood on Oct 13, 2014 19:09:36 GMT -5
A melting pot isn't exactly a great thing to have, nor is a completely diverse country optimal. As I'm sure you guys know, apparently there is a Muslim sect in England lobbying to impose Sharia law. The same goes for Sweden. I understand that diversity is good, but when the original inhabitants of a country are suddenly the minorities in their own land, we have a problem, especially if the new majority wants to change the country to suit them.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanknight4 on Oct 13, 2014 19:30:00 GMT -5
I have some issues with this. The discrimination clause is not clear and it is just too exploitable. If someone comments negatively on your appearance and you do not like it, you can sue them for discrimination and have them punished, it doesn't have to be actual discrimination. There is a reason this is not a law in real life, because not only are there people that will be offended by anything, there are some that pretend to be in order to punish you. The second issue is the gun clause. I'm all for self-preservation and giving civilians firearms as long as they have the necessary permits and discipline. However, what is the point of having a concealed gun if you're not allowed to carry bullets in it? It's like telling a man he can drive a car, but emptying the tank beforehand. It completely undermines the point of concealed carry and the point of having civilians with weapons; they act as secondary police and they use it for self-defense, and if its empty, they might as well have a rock in their hands. Also, the "lethal shots are prohibited unless the perp has killed/raped 5 people/animals" clause sounds very unrealistic. You mean to say that legally a man is not allowed to kill a raving maniac that has killed 4 people? Or perhaps an extremely dangerous person that flails about or makes quick movements, the shooter will be hard pressed to be accurate and shoot non-lethally. I think that should be changed to include lethal shots whenever necessary, and the necessesity and intent will be judged later in court when civilian's lives are not in danger. Also, how the heck am I supposed to know how many people a dude has raped/killed? I don't think I.Q.n is a good indicator of whether a person should be a judge or not. Having a high score merely means you passed a test, it does not measure your grit, your will, your ability to sense the truth nor make the correct decisions. I don't think guaranteeing citizenship for whistle-blowers is good, but I guess it's not too much of a problem. That sums up my issues with your Bill, I agreed with mostly everything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobbyjoeangus43 on Oct 13, 2014 21:03:33 GMT -5
That part about criminals (killing/)raping at least 5 (humans) animals isn't painting a pretty picture in my mind... You know. Raping. Five. Animals. And yes, that's my thoughts after reading a text document about goverments and policies. |
|
|
|
Post by ravenwood on Oct 13, 2014 21:30:34 GMT -5
That part about criminals (killing/)raping at least 5 (humans) animals isn't painting a pretty picture in my mind... You know. Raping. Five. Animals. And yes, that's my thoughts after reading a text document about goverments and policies. I read that part as well and it didnt give me a good feeling. Just what kind of barbarians populate your nation, alchemist? |
|
|
|
Post by jdihzy on Oct 15, 2014 11:15:02 GMT -5
I'm an anarchist so.... The perfect government for me would be the one in which posts like this wouldn't be created. =P
first post btw, HELLO PEOPLE!
|
|
