Is Utopia government possible?

  • Thread starter Växan
  • Start date
26
0
here we can discuss the basic form of government you believe to be the theoretical ideal - Utopia

there are 5 basic forms of government possible - from which endless sub-forms are derived


the BASE forms of government are:

1. Acracy..............rule by none
2. Autocracy..........rule by one
3. Minocracy..........rule by minority
4. Pleocracy...........rule by majority
5. Isocracy............rule by all (equal political power)


some examples of DERIVED forms of government

................................................
FORMS of ACRACY:
................................................
Absolute Anarchy (total lawlessness)
Anarcho-capitalism
Positive Radicalism
Negative Radicalism


................................................
FORMS of AUTOCRACY
................................................
Absolute Dictatorship
Fascist Totalitarianism (ala Mussolini)
National Socialism (Nazi Totalitarianism)
Absolute Monarchy
Autocratic Theocracy (ex. the Vatican State)
Totalitarian Communism
Constitutional Autocracy
Cybernocracy (rule by computer)


.................................................
FORMS of MINOCRACY
.................................................
Oligarchy - rule by very few
Technocracy - rule by scientists
Plutocracy - rule by the wealthy
Aristocracy - rule by nobility
Aristarchy - rule by the best
Krytocracy - rule by judges
Theocracy - rule by the church
Communism - rule by workers unions
Stratocracy - rule by the military
Kleptocracy - rule by thieves
Kakistocracy - rule by idiots
Federal Bureaucracy
Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy (US Government)


....................................................
FORMS of PLEOCRACY
....................................................
Ergatocracy - rule by workers
Direct Democracy - rule by popular vote

....................................................
FORMS of ISOCRACY
....................................................
Constitutional Isocracy
Autonomous Collective
 

Cod

324
4
I'm still a firm believer that "Communism" is the best form of government. The problem with it though, is that communism will not work on a large scale.

From what I've read and studied, nearly all of the Indian tribes in the Americas practice communism as there form of government. Of course, back then, you rarely had over 1000 people in a tribe at any given time. That form of government seemed to work just fine for them since they almost never had "civil wars" within the tribe (I'm sure a few did).

But when you put communism at work on a large scale (over 500,000 people), it obviously will not work. The people of the world are the reason communism will never work. Some people are just too greedy and take, take, take....never giving. Another factor for why communism won't work, is the fact that there is no possible way to manufacture and grow everything in one plot of land or country. Its pretty much impossible to accomplish that task. And, if I remember correctly, communists do not like trade with any other countries; they just want trade within there own states (or whatever they may be called).
 
108
0
why would it be impossible to grow all food and manufacture all products within one geographical area?

europe for example

what if europe were the only land on earth?
what if only part of europe were the only land on earth?

France for example

would all human life end?
 

BoulderHead

the BASE forms of government are:

1. Acracy..............rule by none
How does an absence of government qualify as a form of government?
 
108
0
Acracy implies the absence of a ruling government
however it still qualifies as a form of government since people would be 'self governed'

(ruled by their own conscience or ethics)
 

Cod

324
4
energia said:
why would it be impossible to grow all food and manufacture all products within one geographical area?
The land would be way to scarce for one country to produce and manufacture everything. Also, you have to look at the actual land itself as well as the climate. All products needed in life will not grow in one specific country; at least, there would not be enough of some products produced. Take a look at Russia, can they produce oranges? Not likely.

Basically, it will never work because of the land issue. If this entire Earth consisted of one country, then it would work. But that's an impossible "if" statement.
 
108
0
true, Russia is not known for it's oranges

however isn't it possible that somewhere on earth exists all the right conditions
and natural resources to grow all the food needed and manufacture all the products needed by a modern society?
 

Cod

324
4
I really don't think any single country has the land type and/or weather patterns to produce all goods needed. I don't even think any continent has all the right conditions to produce everything. Yes, any country could easily be able to manufacture everything; however, that's where the "amount of land available" issue comes into play.
 

BoulderHead

Energia;
however isn't it possible that somewhere on earth exists all the right conditions
and natural resources to grow all the food needed and manufacture all the products needed by a modern society?
Droughts and other natural occurrences need to be considered. Putting all the eggs in one basket wouldn’t leave an emergency exit.

Cod;
Yes, any country could easily be able to manufacture everything; however, that's where the "amount of land available" issue comes into play.
Natural resources are not spread equally across the globe, therefore I don’t know what you mean by “manufacture”.
 
51
0
energia said:
why would it be impossible to grow all food and manufacture all products within one geographical area?
How about countries like Singapore or Japan where they import the majority of their resources. Singapore even imports its water from Malaysia.
 

Cod

324
4
BoulderHead said:
Cod;

Natural resources are not spread equally across the globe, therefore I don’t know what you mean by “manufacture”.
By manufacture, I mean the actual process of turning a natural resource or product into a finished product (e.g. taking oil and turning it into fuel).
 
108
0
I think these 4 factors have to be concidered

1. which resources are actually needed - and which are desired
2. how much of these resources are consumed on average per person
3. what is the total population consuming these resources
4. how much arable land and living area is available

statistically the USA consumes 25% to 30% of the world's resources
25% of the world's total energy supply
yet it's citizens amount to only 4% of the world's population

where as India consumes 1% with 16% of the world's population

coincidentally - 16% of the world's population (the USA, Europe, and Japan) consume 80% of the world's resources

this imbalance obviously cannot be sustained indefinately
with finite resources and a growing world population

it's quite obvious that extreme capitalistic consumerism is responsible for the exaggerated resources used

which is why the rest of the world protests

as far as living area, most people here in Europe are more than happy with 50 m2 of living space per person

whilst many people in the USA require 160 to 200 m2 of living space per person

people in the rest of the world are lucky to have 5 to 10 m2 per person

at least 0.4 Hectares (4000 m2) of arable land per person per year is needed to provide food

1.7 Hectares of arable land per person exist on this planet for human use

Americans use a staggering 9.7 Hectares! of arable land for food per person per year on average

compared to:
5 Hectares average for the European Union
1.5 Hectares for China
and 0.5 Hectares per person for Bangladesh

here's a chart showing the http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=13&country=RU#rowRU [Broken] of each country and region
 
Last edited by a moderator:

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
coincidentally - 16% of the world's population (the USA, Europe, and Japan) consume 80% of it's resources

this imbalance obviously cannot be sustained indefinately
with finite resources and a growing world population


The distribution of the resources does not bear on their total consumption, and only the rate of total question bears on the "finite resources and growing population" problem. If half the resource consumption of the USA were subtracted from them and donated to less developed countries, the total rate of consuption would still be the same.
 
108
0
I think the main point is not WHO is using the resources but the fact that
the world average is 5.25 Hectares of land per person per year

with only 1.7 hectares of land per person per year in existence on the planet for human use

which means that the USA, European Union, Japan, and other developed countries are using much more than their quota of resources

whilst the developing countries are living on as little as 0.46 Hectares of land per person

also as the world population rises, the total amount of arable land available per capita is reduced

and yet consumer demand continues to rise in the developed countries

either this stops very soon - or this planet will reach ecological crisis levels
before the end of this century
 
Last edited:
1,476
0
North America is still underpopulated and 80% of the people live on 20% of the land. American and European productivity is extremely high when compared to the rest of the world and while we may consume and use more than or "quota" we also produce much more than our quota.
Our populations are also under control, even falling if we discount immigration.
The countries or areas with the largest populations and highest population growth produce the least per capital than any other population group.

As to types of government, it is the people of the society or country in question that determines the success of the government. If people, human nature were perfect and altruistic then any and all forms of government would work perfectly. Unfortunately we are not perfect nor altruistic so no form of government can or will work perfectly.

I think that it can be safely said that communism is not a viable economic form as it has failed in the final test in every country in which it has been tried. Communism is an economic form not a governmental form. Every form of communism tried on a country or national basis has been an autocracy or at best a minocracy.

As far as I can see a benevolent dictatorship is probably the most efficient form of government but then efficiency isn't everything either.
 
108
0
North America is still underpopulated and 80% of the people live on 20% of the land. American and European productivity is extremely high when compared to the rest of the world and while we may consume and use more than or "quota" we also produce much more than our quota.
this being the case - the richer nations should share far more of their resources with desperately poor nations, it's not very reasonable or humane to expect 84% of the world's population to just disappear or stop breeding so that the remaining 16% can sit back and enjoy their cosy beach party lifestyle

Every form of communism tried on a country or national basis has been an autocracy or at best a minocracy.
correct

more specifically: Marxist-Stalinist Totalitarian Communism (CCCP) (Cuba)
and Maoist Totalitarian Communism (Peoples Republic of China) (N. Korea)

Communism was based on Plato's description of Utopia
in The Rebublic dialogues

however Stalinism is far from Plato's idea

Plato's Utopia more closely resembled a Technocracy

in true Communism - all wealth and resources would be divided equally
with those in power not having any more of their share than citizens

this form of government has never existed

As far as I can see a benevolent dictatorship is probably the most efficient form of government but then efficiency isn't everything either.
theoretically yes, but in reality 'Benevolent Dictator' may be a contradiction of terms - since human beings tend to go "mad with power"

maybe in the future an egoless sentient android would make a perfect choice as benevolent Dictator - ruling with absolute logic

meanwhile i think a technocracy would be the best choice
 
Last edited:
1,476
0
energy said:
this being the case - the richer nations should share far more of their resources with desperately poor nations, it's not very reasonable or humane to expect 84% of the world's population to just disappear or stop breeding so that the remaining 16% can sit back and enjoy their coys beach party lifestyle
Well I have been working since I was sixteen taking time out only to serve in the US Navy. Went to classes at night to get my degree. Where is this beach party life style your talking about? Some how I missed it as did the vast majority of Americans. They are too busy working, producing and raising a family. Maybe a weekend or two weeks vacation at the beach if they are lucky but that's it.

The United States gives more food money and research to these desperate nations than most countries produce. Our research has increased farm food production at least two fold. Maybe if they tried to educate themselves and start producing more than babies they wouldn't be quite so desperate.

Remember Somalia and what they did to our troops trying to help? I'm sorry but I find it hard to cry for people like that especially when I see them still with starving babies in their arms. What kind of person has or makes a baby while they are starving to death themselves? If you want to condemn somebody, condemn them that create the problem not those who don't have that problem but are still trying to help even at the cost of their lives.
 
108
0
the term 'beach party' was not meant to be taken in the literal sense

a major reason for the other 84% of the world living below the poverty level
is that they have so few resources

N. America and Europe have vast resources, since they account for most of the prime arable land of the planet, and even though they do share these with developing countries, it can only be a temporary fix - since as soon as the supplies stop the hunger returns

the majority of the world's population are living in the worst ecological areas on earth

so what's the solution?

move them all to Montana?
 
34
0
Hello Vaxan,

Thank you, thank you for creating or beginning such a compilation of forms of government. I've lukewarmed have searched for months and to no avail. Which i've resigned myself to start my own compiled list.

Which i'll add a few that you have omitted. :wink:

--------------

1. Republic = A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. a political system governed by the people or their representatives.
2. Commune = A relatively small, often rural community whose members share common interests, work, and income and often own property collectively.
3. Egalitarian = Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.
4. Meritocracy (similar to Aristarchy you listed above) = A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
5. Federation = Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government. Of or constituting a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units.

Definition source: Dictionary.com .
 
34
0
Hi All,

To the original question of "Utopia", one must first fully understand the consequences of a "Dystopia".

Dystopia: An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror. (source: Dictionary.com)
Dystopia has also often been referred to as "Orwellian".

Orwellian: Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state. (source: Dictionary.com)
I know many of you are probably saying yup we're heading bulls eye into a Dystopia civilization. Well if one chooses to look beyond the inequality there does co-exist the better of what humanity can offer itself or this world. There just needs at times a good sturdy shovel to dig past the dirt of everything else to find these jems alive and well (thriving).

If humanity is ever to get close enough to an ideal utopia it will be by evolution and spurts of radical growth as to a form of better social engineering through a government. In today's terms it can mean hardy and strengthened "checks & balances" in a government that is authentic to its peoples. With that comes improved accountability & transperancy, which believe it or not the USA is a world leader in, besides that of some European States. Only in a democracy could the "Iraq prison abuses" would've surfaced via it's news media outlets.

The world news media outlets have their role to play in government likewise, and not just as propaganda machines. When news media is accountable it would be considered as the "Fourth Estate" to government. When it is not, it is considered as "Yellow Journalism".

As to the worlds resources controlled by various International States. There needs to evolve a form of "social capitalism". That besides allowing privatization and free market systems, would also grant fair distribution and fair market controls. As it's own "checks & balances" that is not influenced by unconditional profit and cost analysis.

That may be a right step into a brighter future for humanity. :smile:
 
Last edited:
108
0
I think it's a miracle that Bureaucracies work at all

a true Monarchy is much more efficient in theory, a Monarch groomed from birth for the job of head of state with highly educated and trustworthy advisers to keep him or her well informed can effect legislation and policies instantly

and can instigate massive public works and infrastructure improvements to keep all citizens gainfully employed at all times

the right Monarch under a well planned constitution could keep a nation focused and productive without becoming a tyrant or violating human rights
since no law could be passed which violated the constitution

parliamentary deadlock would be impossible since the Monarch would have the final word - and without partisan bias, since ideally there would be no political parties whatsoever,

the party system is the worst concept in politics, it creates partisan bias whether founded on logic or not, which makes a government less efficient

an ideal Monarch must rule by logic first

finally the constitution would allow the Monarch to remain in power until he or she was no longer competent or willing to do so, and the duty would be passed to a prepaired successor appointed by a royal tribunal

the reason democracy is not such a good idea is that there are too many interest groups motivated by greed or ignorance, also the general public has no idea how to manage a nation or even what is in their own best long term interest as a whole - and the greater the population, the greater the diversity of special interest and division, it allows the majority to have it's way whether it's way is best for the nation or not, whether it violates the rights of the minority or not

a Monarch could not be bought and coerced by special interest groups
since the Monarch would control the wealth of the nation him or herself

unlike a Bureaucracy, which often is seething with corruption
and thrives on bribery and expropriation

on another point, consumerist capitalism is a major threat to global ecology
manufacturers should be compeled to produce products that last a lifetime
and are upgradeable whenever possible, planned obsolescence should be forbidden at all cost, and no more products should be produced than are needed, profit driven over production is turning the planet into a giant garbage dump, and sucking it's resources dry at excessive rates

rather than over producing shoddy products which are intended to fall into disuse within a year, just to make a big profit by producing more every year, year after year.. there should be evenly distributed government contracts to produce all the products needed by the nation, in such a way that no manufacturer is under nor over productive, and all needs of the nation are met
but not exceded
 
34
0
Hello Energia,

the right Monarch under a well planned constitution could keep a nation focused and productive without becoming a tyrant or violating human rights since no law could be passed which violated the constitution. ---Energia.
Many negative or poorly led monarchies through out history have resembled like dictatorships. Many Monarchs have acted like despots, much less psychotic. Such a hypothetical Monarchy as your suggesting would need a strong set of "checks & balances" to it's constitution. So the monarch doesn't anull the constitution by declaring it void, and taking his/her nation in a police state in the process. Whether that is done in the short-term or via subterfuge over the long haul.

an ideal Monarch must rule by logic first. ---Energia.
No nation or Monarchy has strictly in a historical sense been ruled by logic. An ideal rule, would encompass: logic, reason, compromise, accountability, transperancy, ethical / moral, among many other important humane factors.

profit driven over production is turning the planet into a giant garbage dump, and sucking it's resources dry at excessive rates. ---Energia.
Amen. There is however a growing industry on the environmental front that specializes in cleaning up polluted areas. Or correcting man made engineering blunders, case in point the Florida Everglades. When before we largely altered it with a series of canals and lock gates to regulate the waters. It was naturally a filteration system cleaning out pollutants from the environment. Now here in the State of Florida they are securing billions of State & Federal dollars. To repair the mess we did decades ago via the Corp of Army Engineers who was contracted for the job long ago.

Wired News this past June 5th covered a topic about plastics polluting our world oceans. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63699,00.html [Broken]

The United Nations has turned its attention to the oceans for World Environment Day, and one of the main evildoers is a familiar one -- plastic.

Marine trash, mainly plastic, is killing more than a million seabirds and 100,000 mammals and sea turtles each year, said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a statement.
Perhaps as we equally have the global manufacturing base for the products we use. That manufacturers must also be held responsible for recycling the products they create. Or funding the growth of reverse-manufacturing plants that recycle all these consumer goods that end up in landfills, or in the environment polluting our world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
163
0
Royce said:
The United States gives more food money and research to these desperate nations than most countries produce.
That's because the United States is larger and more populated than most countries. But, in fact, US foreign aid is the lowest per capita of any Western country (that includes both individual and government aid). See this graph for example:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kai/foreignaid.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Is Utopia government possible?

Replies
5
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Top