toldailytopic: The best form of government is...

[Traditio]

I've read Nicomachean Ethics, but that's about it.

The entire thing? Kudos, but it didn't really say much about poltics. Aristotle wrote another book on politics...it's called Politics. I haven't read it yet.

I base my opinions about how society should be structured through an aprioristic rights-based framework as well as Jesus' exemplary life and ministry.

Read more political philosophy.

"To be a rational man is to conceive oneself as a rational man in the State." makes no sense and is somewhat platitudinous. Man exists and is rational with or without the state, and in most cases the state hinders man's ability to both exist and act.

This is where Marcus Aurelius is good. Insofar as you are rational, you must conceive yourself as being commanded to obey a number of rational laws. You mentioned "rights" earlier, and I agree that, if you are rational, you must conceive yourself as having certain rights. But the very notion of a right brings you into community with other possible rational agents. This means Law and the State.

 

[Nydhogg]

No government!

We don't need no congresscritters or jack-booted thugs at all.

 

[The Berean]

No government!

We don't need no congresscritters or jack-booted thugs at all.

Come on now, Nydhogg, you really believe that having no government at all would actually work in a modern society? You really think that a group of say 300 million people (the current US population) could possibly have a working society without any government. How would roads ever get built? Who would build commercial airliners or power plants? There's a reason that man flourished once they formed communities. For better and for worse having some government is far superior to having anarchy.

 

[Nick M]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 17th, 2011 11:33 AM

toldailytopic: The best form of government is...

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

When authority acts on the delegated authority they are given from God.

 

[kmoney]

Local, small, and limited in power that has 100% consent from 100% of the governed.

So the government couldn't do anything unless 100% of the people approved? I think that would practically mean no government could exist.

 

[Rusha]

I support a government under the headship of Jesus Christ/God. Iran is run by man. You as an atheist wouldn't understand that.

We understand that such a government would negate freedom of and freedom FROM religion.

The country is preferable as it is ...

 

[Newman]

How would roads ever get built?

Private road-building companies.

Who would build commercial airliners

Commercial airline companies.

or power plants?

Private power companies.

There's a reason that man flourished once they formed communities.

Agreed. Humans basically need each other to survive and flourish. The division of labor, comparative advantages, and free-markets are especially relevant here.

For better and for worse having some government is far superior to having anarchy.

Living in communities and having vast powerful centralized governments are two very different things.

 

[Newman]

Read more political philosophy.

I read a lot of political philosophy. I just picked up the Marxist Reader, actually. I can't wait to get started.

This is where Marcus Aurelius is good. Insofar as you are rational, you must conceive yourself as being commanded to obey a number of rational laws. You mentioned "rights" earlier, and I agree that, if you are rational, you must conceive yourself as having certain rights. But the very notion of a right brings you into community with other possible rational agents. This means Law and the State.

Two rational agents can encounter each other, coexist with each other, trade with each other, and do all sorts of things without being within the boundaries of a government.

 

[The Berean]

Private road-building companies.

Commercial airline companies.

Private power companies.

This is what happens now. I was more concerned with how companies would interact with the public. Without any government who decides what level of safety products should have? What recourse would a person have if they are seriously injured by an unsafe product? Today they have courts to address this. But without any government what could they do?

Agreed. Humans basically need each other to survive and flourish. The division of labor, comparative advantages, and free-markets are especially relevant here.

I agree. :up:

Living in communities and having vast powerful centralized governments are two very different things.

Sure. I wasn't advocating for a vast powerful centralized government.

 

[Stripe]

toldailytopic: The best form of government is...

The guy in charge should be first and foremost focussed on the job of actually governing as opposed to first and foremost focussed on keeping his job.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

A representative constitutional republic, which we have, or at least used to have.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Ben Franklin said: "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch is a democracy. Two wolves and an armed sheep deciding what's for lunch is a republic."

 

[Ktoyou]

Want a serious answer, takes thinking, well, I will give it a shot.

It would be a republic, a central government to protect sovereign states from foreign entanglements. Federal governments with limited power, they would not be able to overrule state law. Sates would appoint two senators, and house representatives would be elected by popular individual vote. There would be no federal power over state law. Each state would have it's own elected legislature, court and governor.

There might have been this model before, I wonder where?

 

[Alate_One]

A representative constitutional republic, which we have, or at least used to have.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Ben Franklin said: "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch is a democracy. Two wolves and an armed sheep deciding what's for lunch is a republic."

No, Ben Franklin didn't say that.

That quote originated in 1992.

 

[Nick M]

Private road-building companies.




Commercial airline companies.



Private power companies.

And who pays them? The government via taxes collected for the common good. Hire contractors for most functions.

 

[BabyChristian]

There's no worse government than one in which bad and/or uneducated men are left to govern themselves.

Well our current administration fits the first criteria.

Education doesn't make them honest either.

Obviously Tra, you appear once more to be a left-winger.

Govt. should not own Amtrak, USPS, GM etc........

 

[Alate_One]

I'd say the US form of republic isn't too bad. The parlimentary system has its merits also.

I think the reforms that would make the US system better are:

1. Putting strict limits on campaign spending and contributions, strict limit of $200 per person, adjustable to inflation.

2. Either outlaw or put strict limits on lobbying. Limits could include a set period of time for each lobby to have a representative spend with a member of congress. A total ban on gifts, dinners etc. from lobbyists.


Other reforms could be, Single topic bills in house and senate. Scaling back the filibuster more in the senate. Rules on political ads being remotely factual, perhaps governed by an independent commission. (Someone like politifact) e.g. "pants on fire" ads would be banned.

 

[Newman]

Without any government who decides what level of safety products should have?

Underwriter's Laboratories is a great example of how safe, tested products enter the market without any imposition by the state. Consumer Reports is another good example. When you shop, you shop for reputable brands that you know or have heard make good, safe products or provide an honest service. These types of agencies help you make those decisions by testing products, putting their "stamp of approval" on them, and informing consumers.

Companies that don't offer safe products lose business, don't get the "stamp of approval" from consumer safety agencies, and then go bankrupt. There is a huge incentive for them to offer good products.

What recourse would a person have if they are seriously injured by an unsafe product?

If there was deceit or fraud involved in the selling of the product, then it's the company's fault, of course.

Today they have courts to address this. But without any government what could they do?

I'm fine with (the idea of) a gov't court system (personally), however the anarchist in me would say here: private courts. It's a long and complicated topic. If you're interested in the subject, check out Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy or really anything by Hans Hermann Hoppe.

 

[Newman]

And who pays them? The government via taxes collected for the common good. Hire contractors for most functions.

So what you're saying is that we need a middle man (and by "middle man", I mean "horde of bureaucratic leaches preying and relying on the stupidity of the masses to do not common, but uncommon, and not good, but bad things with our money") to pay for our infrastructure and utilities?

 

[csuguy]

A Theocracy is the best form, provided the priests and such are truly devote and not just politicians in sheeps clothing. The Jews gave this up unfortunately for a human king.

Each form of government has its ups and downs, and perhaps what I've heard is true: that different governments are best in different situations. During a true war, for example, a Police State maybe the best. Though once out of the war you wouldn't want to maintain it. A Democracy/Republic only works properly with an educated voting populace - if the voters are simply swayed by rhetoric then its a horrible form of government. It may keep people "happy" but it brings about ludicrous policies. Socialism as an ideal lifts up the impoverished while taking from those who are in excess to do it.

 

[Newman]

So the government couldn't do anything unless 100% of the people approved? I think that would practically mean no government could exist.

Exactly. It's really not that esoteric of a concept. When you go to the grocery store, would you rather pick out your own groceries and pay for them with your own money, or be required to pay too much for whatever groceries 51% of the public votes on?