What political view is best?

  1. I was looking around the net and searching up political views, and was thinking; based on a purely rational and logical scientific standpoint, what is the best form of government? I am thinking that a Libertarian view would be inevitable for society in the future, and is the only logical one. And is it possible at all for society to build a utopia but not collapse like the communist?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. All political views depend on the rationale, logic and beliefs of the observer and the citizens of it.

    Where one ideal government or political view may be good for some people, and perfectly logical, It may still fail due to the inherent disagreement with the citizens that reside in it. Which can lead to ruining the main premise of said political view.

    I'd say that, from a humanitarian viewpoint, communism would make be ideal. Everyone being equal and no greater power. Yet, this is impossible due to human greed and other factors.

    From a managerial point of view, I'd say democratic.
     
  4. The question is not just what politics is best, but the more precise question should also state for whom.

    Democracy, as it is called and what it only in mere appearence is (multi party system, voter rights, etc.), while in essence contains the dictatorship of the bourgoisie (democracy of the minority) - the owners of the means of production - which for them best fits their purposes. In appearence there are plenty of parties to choose from, in reality the working class has no real power to improve their conditions.

    For the proletariat, this system is however not the best system there is, since it existences is dependend on the mass plundering of the labourers, keeping the wages lowest. Their needs on good working conditions and social conditions would be best met with a dictatorship of the proletariat (democracy of the majority). A type of government that is based on the proletariat as the ruling class, does not imply a one party system, as such will depend on historic conditions.

    The people in Venezuela in large majority chose for a socialism of the 21-st century, for improving their working conditions, to battle poverty and analphabetism and to improve healthcare and education and housing conditions for the masses.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2007
  5. This is actually a difficult question because it can't be summerized to a single answer,
    From my point of view it depends to the people of that teritory. As an example we can never compare a well educated,organized nation with a nation having opposite characteristics...

    I'm personally living in one the third world countries and as an outcome of what I've observed, dictatorship is the best for this region, since the people can't think on their feet and can easily destroy their future due to their meaningless beliefs...
     
  6. But aren't political views like conservatism (e.g. protecting family values and religion) are just irrational and are only based on what your parent's generation thinks is 'good'
     
  7. verty

    verty 1,934
    Homework Helper

    I think a difficulty is the range of quantification. Perhaps you quantify over all U.S. citizens and say that immigration should be limited because having extra people come into the country means that services are more thinly spread, but then if you quantify more widely to include those who would wish to become U.S. citizens then limited immigration is not an issue, one would then say that those who want to immigate should be allowed to do so so that they can benefit.

    The difficulty is deciding that. Leaving people to their own devices means they group together in ways we typically consider to be bad. Corporations form cartels, racism is prevalent, etc. Giving the state the keys to the castle means it grows in power and becomes inefficient.

    So the choice is typically between vastly inefficient but accessible services or efficient services with limited accessibility. Education should ideally be both efficient and accessible, but achieving that is very difficult.
     
  8. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Two problems with the question:

    1. heusdens didn't say it explicitly, but he implied (correctly) that what is "best" depends on who you ask. Different people have different needs/wants and different criteria for answering that question.
    2. If the people goverened and the people doing the governing aren't necessarily rational, how can a choice of government based strictly on logic be expected to work?
     
  9. Utopia or an ideal society, not realy, the ideal only lives in the mind. There is no "ideal" state form or "ideal" society.

    But about "collapsing communism" it is for historic reasons not entirely clear if communism (the socialist countries)* collapsed for internal reasons (bureacracy, corruption, old leaders, shortages of consumer products) or from external reasons (or a combination of both).

    The most likely cause for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the Reagan policy, which had a 3 sided tactics to collapse socialism:
    1. Cheap oil from the Saudi's that could undermine the Soviet oil-export
    2. The support for the "freedom" fighters in Afghanistan (the Mujahedien and al Queda) for tricking the Soviet Union into a war.
    3. The Starwars program

    These 3 effects combined cause the downfall of the Soviet economy by 1986 and forces nuclear deals and deals about withdrawal of the socialist countries, which meant that the counter-socialist revolutions could take place there.

    Now I would suggest that this "outside factor" was quite important, and despite internal reasons, would have collapsed the SU anyhow.

    *)
    Btw. I don't regard the Soviet Union as a communist state, it was a socialist state. But for some reasons the leaders of the Soviet Union did not develop socialist democracy much further as it should have been.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2007
  10. The best form of government...mmmmmm. I wonder if there is an answer to that. If there is, then why are not all governments the same form? Thus, I don't think there is. Furthermore, as stated by others, it's important to consider for whom and by whom the government is. For example, a group of 20 people could be well ruled by a chieftain, whereas a group of 20000000 would go into chaos. On the other hand, while a group of 2000 people may be very well ruled by a democracy (eg Athens), in a group of 20000000 people, democracy would lose much efficiency. Personally, I like dictatorship, assuming that the dictator is a ruler loved by his/her people. There's nothing as efficient as centralized power like that. Of course, given lots of people, not everyone will like the dictator...
     
  11. god kings
    if they are sane
    and kind

    but most arenot
     
  12. Let us all take to consider that it is very difficult for a governing body to manage a multi-faculty society in such a reason that world can not ever provide an absolute form of government. lt is already proven through out the history that all govenmental structure flunked to meet the defferent demands of the populace. Communism for instance which riegn for decades to be the best form of govenment due to its charismatic idea of equality in the society and stateless political stucture. However if that is the idea of communism who will be then elements of its managing affairs? this might be fall on the hands of few dominant individuals who on the long run will enforce coercion in their constituents. This polical sructure might only lead to totalitarian dictatorship like the senario of russia and poland during pre-world war era.
    On the other way around democracy which is said to be the best to represent the government through giving the sovereign power upon the people, and giving them freedom on basic rights for a harmonious living. But this political structure seems to remain until to its conceptual ability alone, it failed on its field of practical purposes. Most of the states in the world in which democracy play are ruled by few illites through a dynastical system. This form of govenment might only head to aristocracy. In that sense most of the cetizens tend to seek power on thier governing body that might lead to mobocracy.
    All form of government can be a good political structure its just on the question of how can they meet the defferent demands and wellfare of its cetizens.
     
  13. The libertarian view actually tends to be extremely illogical and self-defeating.
    If human liberty is the most important, imprisoning people should be considered evil in the extreme. And yet, in order to ensure even a modicum of liberty for the majority, one needs to curtail the liberty of quite a few.

    Humans are social animals, therefore a society that is based solely on individuality is fighting hard against our instinctive behavior.
    One of the problems with any societal structure is that we evolved in small tribal groups. So we function best: communally in family groups, groups which necessarily must compete with other groups, and the environment.

    In modern day mass societies we have adapted, substituting capitalism and monentary exchange for war (competition), and government taxation and laws, for the communal support network.

    Invariably, where a person settles into a political view, often depends more on how independent they see themselves, and how alienated they feel from society. Its always going to be a balance between the rights of the group vs the rights of the individual.

    Uncertain times tend to draw people together, for mutual defense, and at the same time leads to intergroup competition.
     
  14. simon009988--depends on where you live too---do you live in the USA?
     
  15. I respect your answer, I also am sure that the external pressures on the USSR were pivotal in it's demise. I also believe they were pivotal in it not functioning properly. That's not to apologise for anything, but there is no one side that was right there.

    When the Muzhiks were resorting to cannibalism both the Russians & Americans were refusing to provide aid, and both were well capable of doing so but refused to for political means.

    If you'd like I'll give you links to the documentaries I'm taking this material from, but it'll involve heavy memory use :eek:

    As for the above quote, everything in peoples life is a struggle towards an idealistic state of being, in physics people strive for the idealistic TOE, in biology they strive for the idealistic cure for cancers, disease etc...

    Why is it in politics that people just refuse to struggle towards something more idealistic that will benefit all of humanity?

    I believe this is a social belief that is heavily fostered, a kind of defeatism - of which I was once privy to... - and is pretty much an acceptance of all that is wrong in the world.

    The only way we'll ever better ourselves is to come up with realistic solutions to modern problems, it's only logical that the solution to these problems is an idealistic state of being that we - as of yet - cannot do.

    We should be, at most, workhorses in this area of life so that future generations have more of a solid grounding on which they can build a fairer and more just world.

    I think that entails little steps, fairer and more equal social standing for men and women, less bigotry and refusal of basic necessary things such as vaccinations, providing at least free salt water that will prevent/stop diseases to those in Africa who could live to see another day if it weren't for drug companies actually pricing & restricting others to provide said salt, not lying to African mothers that the products they make ( I actually forget which company it was - google around you're interested) are wholly nutritious thereby preventing the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of children.

    Little steps, whether we like it or not all of our current governments are inadvertently, if not directly, responsible for such things happening... :wink:
     
  16. Dembadon

    Dembadon 673
    Gold Member

    This thread smells of rotting flesh. :yuck:
     
  17. Have to love intelligent input to a conversation like that :rolleyes:
     
  18. Dembadon

    Dembadon 673
    Gold Member

    I wasn't responding to anyone personally. This thread is 3 years old. Posting in old threads is commonly known as necro-posting; it was a joke.
     
  19. Doug Huffman

    Doug Huffman 856
    Gold Member

    Yes, dead and rotted into fertile ground for unlettered speculation.

    Better to start with The Republic from 2500 years ago and in direct line with Western enlightenment. Do not miss my favorite, The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper.

    Applying the left's Precautionary Principle, we are left with conservatism only as proven effective to this point.
     
  20. As interesting as Plato's book is, using a book that aimed to further divide people into predetermined roles (soldier, slave etc...) to argue against "precautionary" equality is something I'd like to understand, if I could...

    Furthermore, trying to convince anybody that the western enlightenment advanced contrary to "unlettered speculatrion" shows a lack of understanding of history.

    I believe the freedom to speculate, even on what is seemingly unattainable, is the reason you weren't working a 13 hour day from the age of 6. We can thank the anarchists for that little bit of "conservatism", their "speculation" only led to quite a few being hanged etc...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?