NBVegita Posted September 2, 2003 Report Posted September 2, 2003 Here's one that should stir up plenty of smoke! Which type of governments do you all believe to be the best for the people? Now you're gonna get ur die-hard americans who will go "democracy all the way!", when we aren't even a straight democracy, we're a democratic republic. But in my opinion, and I do so happen to be American, I believe a republic is the best suited government to govern for the people as a whole. In a democracy you've got thousands all going after what they want for themselves, not everyone as a whole. Yet with your republic, you have but a few people who are designed to think of the majority, not one individual. Now as with any government a corrupt individual will ruin it all, but take a page out of the Roman Empire...
madhaha Posted September 2, 2003 Report Posted September 2, 2003 Which was also corrupt and fell into near ruin several times. Your point being? I'd go for a devolved government (lots of local governments) with a central government helping out for national projects. But anything non-corrupt works.
A Soldier Posted September 2, 2003 Report Posted September 2, 2003 dictatorship would be far more easier............ if i was the dictator, of course
Manus Celer Dei Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 The cons!@#$%^&*utional monarchy we have in New Zealand (interestingly enough we don't have a cons!@#$%^&*ution nor does the monarch play any real role in government) works fine imo. While powers of Government are potentially wide-ranging (the concept of parliamentary sovereignty (sp?) allows that the parliament may p!@#$%^&* any law it pleases), it is also relatively free of corruption (the worst that can be said of our politicians is that they are stupid, rather than corrupt or abusive of power in any meaningful way). There is/was considerable debate about changing our form of govt to that of a republic similar to the US, with a President as head of state rather than Her Majesty Elizabeth II. I personally don't see the point, everything works fine as it is.
Evil Jin Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 Im an American and i say Anarchy all the way. no goverment whasoever. We survive on our own. I only support this to a certain extent though. Ever since gay brittain made blacks into slaves and then civil rightist and licoln freeing them which made the kkk and then a while after the black panthers came into play. id say anarcgy before all of this happened so then when there isnt a goverment we wont have racial wars.
MonteZuma Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 bicameral parliamentary democracy is the way to go.
»nintendo64 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 I'll like to experience Australia's Goverment. -nintendo64
madhaha Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 Actually the dutch system seems to be working out quite well (their entire government resigned and APPARANTLY they are under martial law). Should be interesting to see what happens.
»dr uniburner Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 dutch ppl arent very violent tho...all tho those wooden shoes smart real bad.
A Soldier Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 Im an American and i say Anarchy all the way. no goverment whasoever. We survive on our own. I only support this to a certain extent though. id say anarcgy before all of this happened so then when there isnt a goverment we wont have racial wars. I've got to disagree on that. We survive on our own yeah... you'd try to survive against someone who has a teeth against you because since there wouldn't be any laws, what prevents him to not kill you? Furthermore, that wouldn't help racial wars _at all_ No anarchy = no system = no work = no food = no life on earththat's how I see it
Evil Jin Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 yes racial wars would have been stopped cuase the kkk would have never hated blacks
madhaha Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 Anarchy? I'd LOVE to see how long that'd work. Probably 48 hours by which time people have worked out that: no-one is producing food, you could kill people and "get away with it", no-one is going to run the powerstations, no-one take care of water supply, no hospitals. The thing with anarchy is you can't force people to enforce anarchy. People are bound to band together and then you're screwed.
NBVegita Posted September 4, 2003 Author Report Posted September 4, 2003 Yeah your anarchy would only last until some guy has the most heads on his mantle, then out of fear they would follow him. He would then make certain peeps do things to benefit him, then he would appoint those of his closer comerades to better positions, and boom you've got a tyranical monarchy....boom!
Evil Jin Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 yeah so you just showed how britian was made
madhaha Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 *cough*And then continued to rule most the world until WWII*cough*
yoyo111 Posted September 6, 2003 Report Posted September 6, 2003 say what ? oh ya and democratic republic all the way our system kicks -*BAD WORD*- USA all the way
Yupa Posted September 6, 2003 Report Posted September 6, 2003 yes racial wars would have been stopped cuase the kkk would have never hated blacks dude...they formed the kkk because they hated blacks, not because blacks were freed you're probably one of those people that think it's Windows' fault that computers got shut down instead of the blaster worm creator (ie - a fool) ------- in my opinion, the government with the greatest potential to be the BEST government is a supreme dictatorship
Evil Jin Posted September 6, 2003 Report Posted September 6, 2003 i always thought they hated them becuase since they got freed they would have to do thier own work or would have to pay other people to do it for them
Recommended Posts