Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!


  1. May 25, 2004 #1
    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

    Absolute Anarchy (total lawlessness)
    Positive Radicalism
    Negative Radicalism

    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)

    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)

    Ergatocracy - rule by workers
    Direct Democracy - rule by popular vote

    Constitutional Isocracy
    Autonomous Collective
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    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).
  4. May 25, 2004 #3
    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?
  5. May 25, 2004 #4
    How does an absence of government qualify as a form of government?
  6. May 25, 2004 #5
    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)
  7. May 25, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    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.
  8. May 25, 2004 #7
    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?
  9. May 26, 2004 #8


    User Avatar

    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.
  10. May 26, 2004 #9
    Droughts and other natural occurrences need to be considered. Putting all the eggs in one basket wouldn’t leave an emergency exit.

    Natural resources are not spread equally across the globe, therefore I don’t know what you mean by “manufacture”.
  11. May 26, 2004 #10
    How about countries like Singapore or Japan where they import the majority of their resources. Singapore even imports its water from Malaysia.
  12. May 26, 2004 #11


    User Avatar

    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).
  13. May 26, 2004 #12
    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 Ecological Footprint of each country and region
    Last edited: May 26, 2004
  14. May 26, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  15. May 26, 2004 #14
    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: May 26, 2004
  16. May 27, 2004 #15
    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.
  17. May 27, 2004 #16
    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


    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

    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: May 27, 2004
  18. May 27, 2004 #17
    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.
  19. May 28, 2004 #18
    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?
  20. Jun 2, 2004 #19
    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 .
  21. Jun 2, 2004 #20
    Hi All,

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

    Dystopia has also often been referred to as "Orwellian".

    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: Jun 2, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Utopia
  1. Utopia? (Replies: 5)