What type of Government actually works?

[naxus]

Mind you a government that produces the best results over the long term doesn’t mean it can provide a happy people, a good economy or appreciation for the leaders.

America has had that government for 200+ years now and our economy is in shambles, everyones split about how it should be run, and the 3 different branches take so long to do anything that by the time they do pass a bill/law the problem is non-existent anymore.

I was thinking maybe take the best of democracy, communism, dictorships, socialism's and all the other gov's out there and make like a Super goverment

Hmmm, funnily enough, you stated every present problem today. Yet, for some reason, I remember some strange days in my AP U.S. History class where we talked about things like the Great Depression, the first Constitution (Articles of Confederation) and the resulting rebellions because of it's inadequacies and many many many social and political upheavals (not revolts, just upheavals) and yet somehow, the country is still going strong and has been for about 200 years.

Every nation has it's ups and downs and the alarmists love to make people think that the present is the worst and that the past is better. Watch, in the next decade or so, the economy will pull through and the political spectrum will be somewhat depolarized.

It's short-minded individuals like you who know nothing of history and political science that raise the alarm every single time some little thing goes wrong in the country and spreads the rumor that we're all doomed and a civil war is about to break out and/or some foreign nation is going to invade and take us over.

/edit: As for your proposed "Super government", the fact that each one of those governments governs on completely different political rules and ideals that it would be impossible to combine them, let alone make an effective government out of it. Honestly, how could you possibly have a democratic dictatorship? Are we going to elect a king for life and then when we disagree with something he does we're powerless to stop him because, after all, he's a dictator, and his word is gospel. Honestly, your mere proposition of doing something like that shows how much of an ignoramus you are.

First of all our economy has been declining slowly for about the last 10 years.Im not an alarmist as i didn't mention upheavals or civil war.All im saying is that even though democracy is one of the best gov's out there it still has a long way to go.

I didn't say to combine just two i meant combine all of em.Have it democratic in the system of check with multiple branches that all agree(Quiclky), Dictatorship as one main leader that has to go through everything, Monarchy with a line of succesion, Communisim with everything going for the greater good.And alot more you could add.

[Hologram]

Okay, that makes a little more sense, though you may want to to brush up on your terminology. Basically, you want a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain, but unlike Great Britain, the monarch has a strong presence in the political arena and is checked as the U.S. by a democratically elected parliament and a judicial system with the political ideals of a lack of polarization and an idea that everyone should work for the common good, possibly with an even distribution of wealth, whether that's classed or classless (I can't tell from your position).

You basically just described the U.S. with a monarch instead of an elected president, no political parties, and a citizenry of benevolent people.

Once again, the bureaucratic slowness of the U.S. government is due mostly to the lack of bipartisanship and cooperation.

And to check up on your history, the U.S. economy declined from the end of WWI (1918) to 1933, 15 years, and yet the country still exists. The economy of any country and indeed of the world is cyclic between highs and lows, with some lows being lower than others and the same for the highs. It's nothing new and it doesn't necessarily note the failure of a government to effectively govern it's people.

I'm going back to my original statement to look at all the long standing governments of the world for the example of effective working governments.

[tzor]

Mind you a government that produces the best results over the long term doesn’t mean it can provide a happy people, a good economy or appreciation for the leaders.

America has had that government for 200+ years now and our economy is in shambles, everyones split about how it should be run, and the 3 different branches take so long to do anything that by the time they do pass a bill/law the problem is non-existent anymore.

First of all I never claimed that good governments can provide good economies all of the time. Given that, and all things considered, the economy is in great shape. You should see what happens in a failed economy when everyone is unemployed, the currency is worthless, and everything is collapsing. We've hadn't had a "great depression" since the Great Depression. But that is not per se the result of good government.

It's not the 3 branches that make everything take so long, the delay mechanism is in the US Senate. The requirement to have a 2/3 majority for closure prevents the slim majority from pushing an adenda on the people. Now the recent polarization of the two party system also prevents 2/3 majorities from forming but that is a short term problem. Some even argue that it is a good thing, the more difficult it is for congress to spend money the slower the deficit grows.

The fact is that in spite of the pressures that are put on the system today the system is still working. The obvious answer is to stop putting those pressures on the system in the first place, but it takes time for people to realize that even when it's not broke one should not be wacking it non stop with baeball bats for no reason at all.

[kerntheconkerer]

Is there a type of government where the people are happy, the economy is good, almost everyone likes the leaders, and it can actually last without revolutions, killing of the leaders, or coups?

The closest government to that would have to be a representative democracy with capitolism...so far in history that has proved to be the best (compared to the others like communism and socialism)

[Neoteny]

Only when the thorns are weeded out from amongst the blossems will we ever get to know what a perfect leadership is like.

You are a creepy, creepy individual.

[muy_thaiguy]

What about a type of government that doesn't have leaders?

At best, that would only work for say, a town. In a city, or anything bigger, all hell would break lose.

The best government? A world wide military Dictatorship run by yours truly.

Man, you're the first guy ever to get that idea.

paging 007...007...

I killed 007 AND Austin Powers. Not to mention Chuck Norris works for me.

[Berserker Bruce]

This message is sent form the fourth richest country in the world, to be recieved mostly by readers inhabiting the richest.

Really?

Thats fascinating, so you're icelandic, and most people here are from luxembourg? Thats awesome!

By the way, im in the 15th richest nation (per head) in the world.

[suggs]

This message is sent form the fourth richest country in the world, to be recieved mostly by readers inhabiting the richest.

Really?

Thats fascinating, so you're icelandic, and most people here are from luxembourg? Thats awesome!

By the way, im in the 15th richest nation (per head) in the world.

Yeah, I was wondering if some cock would question that.
The UK is always around the number four spot (discounting TINY countries, which educated, intelligent people know is a given -guesss thats why you so crassly revealed your TOTAL ignorance on anyhting to do with politics).
And the USA is the richest country in the world, barring Luxembourg -or is the Vatican City?

My point was that both the Uk and the USA have been Liberal Democracies for hundreds of years, and its worked out pretty well.

[Snorri1234]

This message is sent form the fourth richest country in the world, to be recieved mostly by readers inhabiting the richest.

Really?

Thats fascinating, so you're icelandic, and most people here are from luxembourg? Thats awesome!

By the way, im in the 15th richest nation (per head) in the world.

Yeah, I was wondering if some cock would question that.
The UK is always around the number four spot (discounting TINY countries, which educated, intelligent people know is a given -guesss thats why you so crassly revealed your TOTAL ignorance on anyhting to do with politics).
And the USA is the richest country in the world, barring Luxembourg -or is the Vatican City?

My point was that both the Uk and the USA have been Liberal Democracies for hundreds of years, and its worked out pretty well.

Luxembourg is first with scandinavia/andorra and iceland following in their wake.
Ofcourse, luxembourg and andorra really shouldn't be considered here. They're countries where rich people go to live! They're so fucking tiny it's not even funny anymore.

[Jenos Ridan]

Is there a type of government where the people are happy, the economy is good, almost everyone likes the leaders, and it can actually last without revolutions, killing of the leaders, or coups?

In short, no.

The common line of reasoning I've encountered is that the best government is highly dependant on the size of the community in question. The thoughts of the Founding Fathers on the issue were along the lines that the less intrusive and all-encompasing government (ie: the one that governs least) was perhaps the best. I lean towards the latter, a federated republic is the best candidate but it requires that the people work to keep it.

BTW, a world state run by MTG with Chuck Norris as a personal assassin/bodyguard would be interesting, but I'd have to oppose it on principle.

[suggs]

Is there a type of government where the people are happy, the economy is good, almost everyone likes the leaders, and it can actually last without revolutions, killing of the leaders, or coups?

Switzerland.
If anyone can be arsed to dig out Welles from the Third Man (cuckoo clocks), that would be cool.
I can't.

[Pedronicus]

Here are the combined top 10 happiest countries according to separate studies from the University of Leicester in the UK and Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the latter of which had 953 indicators (!):

* 1 Denmark
* 2 Switzerland
* 3 Austria
* 4 Iceland
* 5 Bahamas
* 6 Finland
* 7 Sweden
* 8 Bhutan
* 9 Brunei
* 10 Canada

Most of Scandinavia is in the top ten. They're obviously doing something right.

Denmark has recently emerged as the world’s happiest country, ..... average is about 40-45% income tax and with 25% VAT, it isn’t cheap to live in Denmark. I doubt they spend too much on defence, most of their taxes are spent on the people that live there.

Unless you've left America and been to other countries (Ideally in Europe) - please don't think that America is the right way to run a country.

[MeDeFe]

What about a type of government that doesn't have leaders?

At best, that would only work for say, a town. In a city, or anything bigger, all hell would break lose.

The best government? A world wide military Dictatorship run by yours truly.

Will you be sacrificing princesses in attempts to gain arcane magical powers by summoning demons?

[btownmeggy]

Here are the combined top 10 happiest countries according to separate studies from the University of Leicester in the UK and Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the latter of which had 953 indicators (!):

* 1 Denmark
* 2 Switzerland
* 3 Austria
* 4 Iceland
* 5 Bahamas
* 6 Finland
* 7 Sweden
* 8 Bhutan
* 9 Brunei
* 10 Canada

Most of Scandinavia is in the top ten. They're obviously doing something right.

Denmark has recently emerged as the world’s happiest country, ..... average is about 40-45% income tax and with 25% VAT, it isn’t cheap to live in Denmark. I doubt they spend too much on defence, most of their taxes are spent on the people that live there.

Unless you've left America and been to other countries (Ideally in Europe) - please don't think that America is the right way to run a country.

I read that the Danes also have the lowest expectations about life of any wealthy country, which is perhaps why they're so happy. They expect the worst, so when they get something that's pretty good, they're ecstatic.

But, BHUTAN, wow. That's a big slap in the face to... all of us so smug with our wealthy, modern, democratic societies.

[jonesthecurl]

Aren't suicide rates also high in Scandinavian countries ( I seem to remember it being tied in with S.A.D.)

[btownmeggy]

Aren't suicide rates also high in Scandinavian countries ( I seem to remember it being tied in with S.A.D.)

Yes.

It's also been speculated that SAD contributes to the underranking of colleges and universities in the Pacific Northwest. They tend to be much lower ranked than their similarly-reputable Southern equivalents, largely due to high drop-out rates and low annual giving. People just can't stand the gray and move back home to California. Even if they stick it out, they don't want to give money to a school where they were so very unhappy 9 months of the year. So, Reed and Lewis & Clark (who've both pulled out of the rankings system) say, "We can't help it if all our students are committing suicide, forget you and your rankings!", which certainly doesn't help their rankings.

[jonesthecurl]

I don't have SAD, but as a normal bloke, I have noticed that moving south from London(ish) to NewYork(ish) makes a huge difference t the amount of daylight in midwinter- and those long winters where it would get dark mid-afternoon and not lighten up until after breakfast are ceratinly a drag. I hate to imagine winter a few hundred miles further north than that.

[tzor]

I should also point out that there is a problem with the notion of simply looking at governments and seeing who is happy and that is the problem of scale. All of those countries have a common factor; they are all relatively small. One could make an argument that traditionally governments don't scale well and that economies of scale often do not apply to governments.

You can overcome the problem of scale via hierarchy. You layer the government so that there is a local government that is more flexible to the needs of the people, and by the time you get to the central government it deals not with the people directly but with the unions of small local governments. The United States, for example, can have up to four distinct levels, town, county, state and federal. (Some citties are their own county and some counties are their own city. At one time, for example, the city government of Miami was non existant and only the county government of Dade County was running.)

[nmhunate]

The Republic has lasted for almost 250 years... sure we had a little hiccup in the 1860's... but for the most part it has been smooth sailing. I take great pride in the fact that it has been the longest Republic in the Americas.

[muy_thaiguy]

My point was that both the Uk and the USA have been Liberal Democracies for hundreds of years, and its worked out pretty well.

The US is not, repeat NOT now, nor was not even founded, as a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. And it was, before that, a Confederacy (though only for a short time).

[muy_thaiguy]

What about a type of government that doesn't have leaders?

At best, that would only work for say, a town. In a city, or anything bigger, all hell would break lose.

The best government? A world wide military Dictatorship run by yours truly.

Will you be sacrificing princesses in attempts to gain arcane magical powers by summoning demons?

No, not princesses, but I do hear that British people make fairly good sacrifices, especially if it is for the "greater good." I may do it Aztec style and cut out the heart while the person is still alive without any painkiller.

[btownmeggy]

My point was that both the Uk and the USA have been Liberal Democracies for hundreds of years, and its worked out pretty well.

The US is not, repeat NOT now, nor was not even founded, as a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. And it was, before that, a Confederacy (though only for a short time).

One of the key points to communication is understanding that most words have more than one meaning. The meaning you're trumpeting as the only correct one is not even the most common usage.

The United States IS a democracy. Please inform your social studies teacher ASAP.

[tzor]

The Republic has lasted for almost 250 years... sure we had a little hiccup in the 1860's... but for the most part it has been smooth sailing. I take great pride in the fact that it has been the longest Republic in the Americas.

One could debate that. The Iroquois Confederacy was basically founded in 1142 and lasted until the 17th century. One might argue that they were a republic. Then again, the founding fathers borrowed a lot from the Confederacy; off the record of course. (If only they had taken the Iroquis notion of women's sufferage on day one.)

[Hologram]

Here are the combined top 10 happiest countries according to separate studies from the University of Leicester in the UK and Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the latter of which had 953 indicators (!):

* 1 Denmark
* 2 Switzerland
* 3 Austria
* 4 Iceland
* 5 Bahamas
* 6 Finland
* 7 Sweden
* 8 Bhutan
* 9 Brunei
* 10 Canada

Most of Scandinavia is in the top ten. They're obviously doing something right.

Denmark has recently emerged as the world’s happiest country, ..... average is about 40-45% income tax and with 25% VAT, it isn’t cheap to live in Denmark. I doubt they spend too much on defence, most of their taxes are spent on the people that live there.

Unless you've left America and been to other countries (Ideally in Europe) - please don't think that America is the right way to run a country.

Oh, I don't believe America's government is the only and/or best way to run a country. But the fact that it's been around for as long as it has lends itself to being one of the great systems of government of the modern era.

[muy_thaiguy]

The Republic has lasted for almost 250 years... sure we had a little hiccup in the 1860's... but for the most part it has been smooth sailing. I take great pride in the fact that it has been the longest Republic in the Americas.

One could debate that. The Iroquois Confederacy was basically founded in 1142 and lasted until the 17th century. One might argue that they were a republic. Then again, the founding fathers borrowed a lot from the Confederacy; off the record of course. (If only they had taken the Iroquis notion of women's sufferage on day one.)

You can thank my state for starting that one in the US of A.

One of the key points to communication is understanding that most words have more than one meaning. The meaning you're trumpeting as the only correct one is not even the most common usage.

The United States IS a democracy. Please inform your social studies teacher ASAP.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Also, this link should help clarify more.
http://byrd.senate.gov/speech-repub.htm