What makes a government good? (NO spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:56 am

I've been thinking of starting a thread like this for some time; and when I read that the UAE ruler had died, that clinched it. Because he disproved the always believed, never reasoned argument that democracy was the only right form of government; or that dictatorships couldn't also be efficiently run meritocracies, with happy populaces that wouldn't trade their lot for a vote handle.

Herodotus, that fascinating old Greek historian, placed speeches in the mouths of several of his characters arguing the respective merits of democracy, hereditary monarchy, and dictatorship. Of course, given that Herodotus was an Athenian Greek of the so-called Classic Age, the democratic argument won, but really--is it so obvious? Is democracy the best course for good government?

For that matter, getting away from such labels, what exactly makes a good government? What should a good government do? What activities should it provide, and why? How would a good government fare in a real world?

Over to you. I'll contribute, later.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:27 am

In Utopia...

I'll provide a simple answer to your question; everyone feel free to punch holes through my idea

A good government must contain two separate elements. Firstly, every single member of said government must only have its people's well-being in mind. No member of this ideal government should try to push his or her own agenda; regardless of what that agenda is. Ideally, the members of the government should have no ideals of their own, no prejudices, no fixed morals. The only thing they should percieve as unethical/morally wrong/evil is that which causes harm in some way. And vice versa for morally acceptable.
Secondly, the ideal government should be able to clearly see what the effects of their actions are: prescience is highly recommended

Information sharing between the different branches of government, and between the government and the people should be flawless. Telepathy recommended

The above can be summed up in a sentance. The government must have the will to do good and the power to do good.
Yes, the above is hypothetical. It has nothing to do with the real world, but hey..

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:28 am

One of the many flaws of democracy is the fact that very few people actually understand the issues being debated. Something that could be blamed on the media, and the politicians themselves. They intentionally lie, deceive and mislead to present themselves and their ?plan? in a favorable light. However as there are usually more than one political faction, and usually more than one candidate to any one position, there are a lot of conflicting lies and deceptions muddling up the issue. And each party has their group of true believers; people trying to convert people to their cause, while spreading the divine gospel of their chosen party. And in the end you have a large portion of the people who simply don?t care, who believe that whatever choice they make it will not make a difference.

Because the only way to be elected is to be noticed, and to be noticed you have to make some sound. And then suddenly it?s all about marketing. The parties do what they can to present their candidates and their politics in a favorable light, and if they can knock the opponents down a peg or two in the process all the better. You wonder and wonder; who?s telling the truth? Who is best suited to run the nation? Then you realize they?re all liars. And the best candidate is probably too humble to be noticed.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:37 am

This is a difficult topic. There are so many layers of government and other forms of authority in American society, for instance, that I'm not used to thinking about "the government" or "one government". Families are sometimes considered to be the smallest economic unit, and they are also part of a larger hierarchy of authority. For example, parents can boss their kids around, but only up to a point before "the state" takes an interest and intervenes to prevent abuse or require school attendance and so forth. The next step in the hierarchy would be local governments (with police forces, zoning authorities, and so forth) and school districts. There are also other forms of authority that affect people's lives such as churches, or there might be neighborhood regulations that tell you what color you have to paint your house. Cities and school districts in turn answer to higher authorities--state governments and state boards of education. The next layer is federal law, which can put mandates or restrictions on states, and then you have the checks and balances that are SUPPOSED to interoperate among the three branches of the federal government. Some of the agencies of the federal government are political in character, while others are ostensibly less so, such as the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc. Where should I begin to explain what "a government" should do and what makes it legitimate?

There's a long list of services that I believe that governments should provide, all the way from enforcing fire codes to national security. I've read utopian writers who believe that individual families and communities should hire private contractors to provide such services, but I just don't think that would work without some kind of recognized central authority. I think that society needs a "government" that is perceived to be the source of order. So one of the things that makes a "good" government is whether it fulfills that purpose: does it give people a sense of order?

On the other hand, nobody wants government on their back, so governments should also be as unobtrusive as possible. I and apparently a lot of other people notice the presence of government in our lives when we pay taxes, including the ubiquitous sales tax, so I think it's important that taxes should be kept to a minimum while maintaining the solvency of the government. On the other hand, a lot of other people don't seem to think so, as seen by the latest election in Arlington, Texas where the people voted to raise their own taxes so that a private corporation could build a football stadium and keep the profits for itself, just like the people of Arlington did when they funded George W. Bush's baseball stadium. I was going to say that another mark of good government is that it gives the people what they want, but when the people want something stupid, I have trouble believing in that concept.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:07 pm

I find representative democracy fundamentally flawed, since the people elected to represent the people are hardly representative of the people they represent (No Im not French ;-) ). The people drawn to politics have more in common with each other than they do the regular populace. Most of them have never had any other job than "politician", yet they claim they know exactly how society works and have patents on what people really need (here, that's generally equal to more taxes and less benefits...).

Personally, I like the concept of a benevolent and enlightened government that combines the purpose of greater good for the people in both short and long term. When I look around, I only seem to find this type of governance in dictatorships; Hassan II of Marocco, King Hussein of Jordan and Sheik Zayed of UAE, with the possible exceptions of Senghor and Diouf of Senegal who were democratically elected. In most other democracies, the philanthropic politicians have been shortlived (unfortunately sometimes literally) or effectively blocked in their actions by wellmeaning opposition. Also, planning for the next election seems to start the day after you have been elected, so the focal length of most democratic leaders is (mandate period + one day).

Lacking a decent way of getting these benevolent, goodwilled people to take the job, I have lately focused on removing the other lot. So a couple of friends of mine and I set up a party for electing random, normal people for political office. It is a lite version of randomly selecting people from the population and conscripting them into government service, since the conscripting part is not legal. Thus, we get to randomly select a number of people and then call up ask them nicely if they want to take the job. This will unfortunately tilt the scale somewhat back to the problem of those most willing to rule are the least suitable to do so, but at least it might change some of the ugly faces currently wasting good tax-money in government.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:03 pm

Nothing. Every single government in history I can think of is only relatively good- much like their presidents.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:58 pm

Here is a model of principles of government I believe should apply with as little regard to the culture & situation as possible:

Democracy:
- Whatever system is most representative, less representative as stagnation occurs (i.e Depression-era Weimar Germany).
- Election campaigns severely limited. Reasonably low cap on campaign spending, with uniform propaganda outlets for all parties, ala the UK 'Party Political Broadcasts' (they're the only television advertising allowed by law, the same extent for every party) but applied to all media. Non-factual content of published party advertising banned. I see excessive election campaigns as the absolutely fatal poison in US democracy.
- Complete constitutional transparency in government. MPs political activities (as well as bank balances) under microscopes, and extensively distributed to the public via media.

Economics:
- Capitalist, with rigid government enforcement of business ethics and abolition of monopolies and monopolising business tactics.
- Socialist, welfare oriented. I think that if 'the people' are not going to care about one another then somebody has to, and this must be the government. People must realise that the wealth and oppulence they may have is almost completely arbitrary and circumstancial, and monetary sacrifice is small loss. I despise the lust for money disregarding humans, and hence itself.

Justice:
- Unvengeful. Productive to the greatest extent possible. Pragmatically destructive or restrictive but never vengefully destructive or restrictive. I think that revenge is an emotion which has never done the world any good.

Foreign Policy:
- Diplomatic. A country is never justified in going to war to serve its own people. Peacekeeping and foreign intervention can be the job of the Utopian UN.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:10 am

Enforcment of human rights in and outside the governments jurisdiction is imo the most important assignment of any goverment. To me that mean securing as far as possible the health, education and free speech&press for all its citizens, as well as giving aid to other nations in need, allowing imigration, making interventions in other nations when it is neccessary and productive, and pressure the ever pressent international bullies into a softer aproach.

When it comes to select wich form of government is most suited to accomplish this I'm really lost, but would think some sort of representative democratic arrangement would probably be the best of the current options.

Ofcourse, a democratic goverment doesnt seem to be able to do as good as a really skilled visionary can, but it have other crucial advantages:

Stability: Providing everyone with a method of gaining power, as well as having a very reliable plan for succession, with no room for different interpretations reduces the risk of civil wars and coups.

Guidance: While the opinion of the general population is often wrong and easily manipulated it is also likely to be a somewhat inhibiting factor when it comes to making decisions that reduces the right to free speech, reduces the population's power, or under some circumstances start wars.

Damage control: When the current rulers have made extremly poor decisions they are likely to be out of power after next election. If you end up with an extremly stupid monarch you are either stuck with him till he dies, or have to get rid of him in a costly revolt.

While these advantages are by no means enough to make a good goverment they are imo enough to outweight the disadvantages of limited action potential and group mentality as long as there is no way to ensure that the next little dictator is a brilliant and humanistic one.

When it comes to foreign policy the goals there must be achieved multilateraly. There seems to be no government that alone can handle the power to make a difference for other nations without misusing it.

At last I would say that a good government does by definition do well in a real world. A government that could only do well in an imaginary setting would not be a good one.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:55 pm

A good government?

The one that doesn't exist, where people don't follow the crowd and think for themselves, where we don't become collective idiots when gathered in large numbers. Then again, that's all in an imaginary world, eh?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:26 pm

[QUOTE=Qark]One of the many flaws of democracy is the fact that very few people actually understand the issues being debated. [/QUOTE]

This I agree totally with, my opinion is that this is even the worst flaw of democracy since the freedom of selecting your leaders has no value when people don't understand what they select and what the consequences of their choice will be. Thus, for democracy to work, I think a totally independant but controlled media system is needed. A tax funded media organ that every citizen has access too, such as the BBC, is needed. This is not enough, but a basic requirement. Another important factor is education. People must have an education that allows for understanding of major political issues. Voting for political issues, not for emotional, irrational factors such as personal liking or skill in rhetorics, must be encouraged by controlling election campaigns and other political messages as Frogus suggests, and providing the citizens with necessary eduation. A goal of the mandatory school in every nation should be to provide such information, then for each election or referendum, additional information must be provided.

When France had a referendum for or against the EU, and old lady from the countryside said: "Before the referendum, I got a thick envelope in my mailbox., saying it containn information about the EU. Inside, was a 50-page leafletl. I started reading it, but I didn't understand anything about this with trading treaties and work force moving here and there. I voted yes to EU, because I trust Mitterrand".

Now, this is an excellent example of the kind of situation that must be avoided. The French government did not take enough responsibility to inform the citizens about the meaning and consequences of EU. Sending out a 50-pages leaflet is better than playing on emotions, as we often see in the US election campaigns, but the result of even the most factual information when people don't understand it, is that they will follow their own emotions instead. Politics should not be about feeling. Politics should be fact based.

Otherwise I agree mostly with Frogus.

Damage control: When the current rulers have made extremly poor decisions they are likely to be out of power after next election. .

Yes, like Dubbayh and Putin. Again, this requires a media system that actually transmitts uncorrupted information to people.

I think in theory, democracy is perhaps the best political system around, but for all practical purposes there are other forms that can be at least equally good. I'd change the Swedish government for a good and skillful politician like Sheik Zayed any day.

If I was allowed to dream even more unrealistic dreams, I think a meritocratic dictatorship where the dictator was evaluated after a set time, would be the best solution.

Magpie · Post by **Magpie** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:45 pm

Communism is the ideal government. You are put into what fits you best and heck, there are no arguments or corupt presidential ellections. The government just tells you what to do.
However, there is a little thing called the Human condition. And communism just doesnt work. So I say that democracy is a fine form of government as long as it is not the USA.
The ellectoral college is just unfair. Someone can have more overal votes but still lose the ellection. It all comes down to serveral people who vote on what their state votes. So, any one on the electoral college could vote for the opposite of their state.
Finaly, we have a corrupt president. In the battleground state of Ohio (which coisedently had voting machines) was won by Bush. A precient of 500 people turned out 4,300 votes for the president.

So why not goosestep prasing Hitler? when we see so much shouting for Bush.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:03 pm

However, there is a little thing called the Human condition. And communism just doesnt work. So I say that democracy is a fine form of government as long as it is not the USA.

But Magpie, that doesn't deal with the contents of the thread, so forgive me if I restate this, but-- "For that matter, getting away from such labels, what exactly makes a good government? What should a good government do? What activities should it provide, and why? How would a good government fare in a real world?"

Adahn · Post by **Adahn** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:43 am

[QUOTE=fable]However, there is a little thing called the Human condition. And communism just doesnt work. So I say that democracy is a fine form of government as long as it is not the USA.

But Magpie, that doesn't deal with the contents of the thread, so forgive me if I restate this, but-- "For that matter, getting away from such labels, what exactly makes a good government? What should a good government do? What activities should it provide, and why? How would a good government fare in a real world?"

[/QUOTE]

Fable, that is why you must never discus politics with people you consider to be your friends. Everyone always has different opinions, and no matter how hard you try to tolerate their own ideals, it's hard, and you eventually end up trying to convince them that they're wrong and that your ideal is better. I've lost more friends that way than I have in a life time of being an a-hole. And seriously man, If I said I was communist right now, which I am. I'm sure atleast a few people would dump on what I say. So why try? Seek others like you, and discus it with them. Because no matter how hard you try to convince a bloody american that their way of life is destroying the world, they won't listen. They never do and never will, just like you'll never be able to convince them that Communism wasn't a bad thing, not that what existed in russia was communism but more of a militaristic form of socialism, but back to my point. There's no point in wastin precious breath that could fill your lungs for another extra seconds, and just accept that ignorance breeds prejudice in other political systems.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:44 am

[QUOTE=Adahn]Fable, that is why you must never discus politics with people you consider to be your friends. Everyone always has different opinions,[/QUOTE]

Huh? I have yet to state an opinion in this thread, though I started it. I was only replying with Magpie's quote, and pointed out that it didn't deal at all with the question I'd asked--and as this was a no spam thread, I thought we should stay focused.

Lowkei · Post by **Lowkei** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:00 am

reply

i think all you need for a good goverment are people who will listen. i mean say you knew (not serious of course) the a comet was gonna hit the earth or somthing if you spoke out the goverment wouldn't listen would they ( then again i wouldn't either). The goverment needs to listen to people oppinions know matter how bizare other wise there just dictating what we do.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:33 am

[QUOTE=Lowkei]i think all you need for a good goverment are people who will listen. i mean say you knew (not serious of course) the a comet was gonna hit the earth or somthing if you spoke out the goverment wouldn't listen would they ( then again i wouldn't either). The goverment needs to listen to people oppinions know matter how bizare other wise there just dictating what we do.[/QUOTE]

Lowkei, I've just moved you back in time about 2500 years. (I can do that. I'm a god. But that's neither here nor there.) What's more, I've made you dictator--the official position--of Syracuse, a Greek city of modest size. Like most Greek cities of the period, roughly 65% of its people are completely disenfranchised, being slaves or women. At least two-thirds of the remainder are lower class workers, as we understand the term lower class.

Your position gives you complete security and impunity. You are supported by a few very rich families, including your own, and you have complete and deserved faith in your military. Whom are you going to listen to, and how does that help you rule?

hlaalumember · Post by **hlaalumember** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:34 pm

governments

what i think that a good government should have is first and foremost the ability to have supreme power but still have checks and balances. for example in the us the president can do anything but if congress doesnt agree with him then they can impeach him and vetoe his decision. also you cant have just one branch of government. that would be too complicated. the us has a good system in that it has a judicial branch enforcing rights laws and other things. you have a legislative branch that makes the laws and checks the power of the other branches and you have the executive branch that controls both branches loosley but can be overruled itself. the three different branches can work together or independently on solving crisis and problems. they can also consentrate on problems that affect just one branch together. if you take communism it has only one form of government. in that form you have no say whatsoever they can do what they want and they can choose not to solve problems whearas with democracy it is almost if not impossible to have a coup de` gra. but in communist countries it happens on a regular basis. also with communisim the government gets overwhelmed because with only one branch of government lets say there is a massive crime wave a economic crisis and corruption (which all happened circa 1990). look how it turned out for the soviets. they lost communism became a democracy and they became one of the poorest contries compared to Europe and the Americas. This is why a say that democracy wins over all. Still some of the communist ideas are fundamentally correct. that is to say they look good on paper. one example is that the government believes everyone should have equal wealth oppurtunities and rights. this proved untrue. wages didnt change inflation ran rampant and some familys became super rich while others became faboulosly poor. almost slave like. this is because of the basic human principle of greed. the familys became greedy and became an organized crime syndicate feeding on the human weaknesses. they became drug barons, murderers amopng other things. the human psyce is what is the problem. if people actually did what they were supposed to communism would work. but because they dont democracy is a much stronger system.

thats my opinion.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:31 am

The political 'coup' is short for 'coup d'etat', (blow to the state, etat = state) rather tha 'coup de grace' (mercy blow, grace = mercy) which is a death blow to somebody dying.

As for Communism having only one 'form' of government, this is true, but the USA also only has one government. The US government has three supreme departments, but I cannot see how this provides political stability.

Communist governments have been characterised by beaurocracy and having a great number of governmental departments - yet this has not always brought [/i]them[/i] stability.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:55 am

The ideal government in my opinion is described in 'Du contrat social' by J.J. Rousseau (1762), altough this will never be possible. I found it to be more of a funny read rather than an interesting theory (which it is said to be). The only thing I could think of while reading it was: "Oh my God, why bother writing this...it is simpy not possible to achieve this kind of state"

Read it and you will know what I mean. It isn't that much, may be 150 pages or so.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:23 pm

I have read extracts, I think it is a fine theory too, and a damned sight more realistic than many political models IMO. (Marxism, Anarchism for example)

@Fable - you share Anselm's view that existence is a perfection?