What is the best form of government theoretically and the best realistically?

What is the best form of government theoretically and the best realistically?

A constitutional republic. America almost got it down but the constitution clearly wasn't future proofed. We need a new constitution.

no new constitution

there going to put a bunch of dumb shit in there

Idk who "they" are but obviously someone needs to come up with a new hypothetical constitution people agree on beforehand.

What kind of changes would you suggest?

An empire led by a WH40k omnipotent god emperor is the answer to both questions.

Theoretically - monarchy
Realistically - meritocracy

That's easy. The best of both is:

Sharia.

depends how theoretical you wanna get there bud

we shit on communists/socialists all the time but in a utopia, a communist democracy/meritocracy would probably be the ideal form of governance if all citizens were highly motivated and idealogically pure

in reality all governments get soured by corruption eventually. democracy is flawed in the fact that politicians can not truly be vetted by the populace on a personal level and that the populace is generally just retarded.

A benevolent, technocratic, meritocratic minarchy will a basic bill of rights.

What about a WH40k (((Democratic Socialist)))

fascism aaaaaaaaaaand fascism

Get out Chaos scum! Out! Out!

An Ammendment against murder would be a good start and probably have it defined that every stage of human life is a human life and killing them on purpose outside of self defense should be punishable by death.

This'd solve a lot of things including abortion.

I'd also like possibly a second constitution that soley has to do with Capitalism to prevent the current corporotocracy we currently have but have it be not as insane as Anarcho Capitalism.

Benevolent dictator

A nation agreeing on what constitutes "merit" is hardly realistic. That's the whole theoretical advantage of monarchy is that it removes that from debate.

Theoretically - Absolute monarchy/ fascist state with benevolent and capable ruler
Realistically - Small ethnically homogeneous social democracy think Denmark with no """refugees""" or Islam

theocratic national socialism

Why are we fighting feminists on this whole immigration thing?
Let the immmigrants come in and in time, the feminists will see how wrong they are.

this

Scrap theocratic

Basically Islam

well you gotta look at it like this. Murder isn't just killing someone, in order for it to be murder you must have 2 things: A cool down period and malicious intent.

I don't believe most people who want an abortion have the latter. There are people who kill without the former and that's where we get the manslaughter charge.

Things aren't as simple as they seem to be. I personally think abortion is fine if someone is raped or if the child would just end up dying really young any ways. It's fucked up I know but I feel like it would be in a better place.

A dictatorship with a leader who has the best of the nation in his/her interests.

AKA the Philosopher king Socrates wrote about in The Republic

A monarchy is the answer to both, preferably with serfdom.
I would rather be an uneducated serf than allow 90 percent of the rest of humanity the ability to think.

Too bad that would legit never happen. It's kinda like the saying "Nice guys finish last." If we didn't have a dictator who had an iron fist he'd be dead instantly.

>Socrates
>wrote

>implying something can be theoretically good but realistically bad
if a system does not conform to human nature it is a bad system, end of story

I think a middle ground between monarchy/aristocracy and meritocracy is the best way in reality.

You need a solid leadership to give the country direction, but the society must value merit and productivity & results over inheritance and privilage (in the real sense of the word)

this man paid attention during his philosophy course

>a nation agreeing
Did you miss the whole point of meritocracy? The idea is that the vast majority of people are too stupid for their opinion to matter. This is not democracy. Moreover, meritocracy has an objective set of criteria and there's no reason to agree on anything to begin with. Regarding history examples, pretty much all ancient civilisations were based on meritocracy or some other form of -cracy. This includes Ancient China, Ancient Greece, Ancient Sumer, the Roman Empire, etc.

>We need a new constitution.

These are pretty much always preceded by civil wars.

Education as a "right" was a mistake.
Although, theres no guarantee that my ancestors would have been aristocrats which means I'd probably be someone's nigger.

Kek we never would have known about that faggot if it weren't for based Plato

none

market anarchy

>we need a new constitution
Its a living document. Have you not heard of amendments ya dingus?

libertarian monarchy

>malicious intent
Choosing to kill is malicious in of itself. That's why abortion is malicious intent, they are choosing to inflict harm.

I agree with rape and disabled pregnancies. Pregnancy through rape is different morally as the woman hasn't chosen to cause that situation so doesn't have any responcibily to care for the child. You don't have a responcibility to help others, it's a choice.
Aborting a disabled baby is simply something I can live with, murder or not.

Theoretically a monarchy is best, but this assumes the monarch always acts in the interest of his people, which he does not.

Realistically, a democratic republic.

thats not what "living constitution" means

living constitution means the meaning of the words change as the times changes and its up to justices to determine these changes as opposed to originalism which holds that the words mean the exact same meaning they had when ratified and if you want to change the meaning then amend it

Theoretically, anarcho-communism (really, a fantsy land where communities get along and work for the common good without bs social dictatorship)

That's absolute bullshit, of course, so in reality, either an absolute hereditary monarchy for heterogeneous countries or NatSoc for homogeneous ones.

don't agree with the theoretical but the realistic is spot on.

>the people can be trusted to make good decisions

I don't agree with the term Manslaughter honestly. Most people throughout history have used to the word murder.

I get there's involuntary manslaughter but I'd be more happy with just 3 things.

Murder, Involuntary Killing, and Euthanasia. All 3 should have different defintions and I believe Euthanasia should be legal as long as both parties willingly and provably consent.

If you willingly kill an innocent human being maliciously or you are ALWAYS in the wrong.

Sorry but things are black and white just because you've been brainwashed into thinking it's okay to kill a baby doesn't mean it's right.

As for the rape child bit I disagree aswell. Two wrongs don't make a right. "I got raped so I'm gonna kill this baby" just isn't right and never will be.

As for "it'd just die anyways" there's no way of knowing. Funny story but this happened more often than you'd think where the doctor says the baby will likely die or will be born with some mental condition and then it comes out perfectly fine.

They told my mom I'd likely be born and never be able to walk but I'm 20 years old and I can walk just fine. I knew a guy in highschool where the doctor said he'd be born with down syndrome but he wasn't and was one of the top people in his class.

There's just no way around this.

What about rape? Exception?

Something like pic related

Did you miss what I said in the post? I guess I'll copy paste it.

"As for the rape child bit I disagree aswell. Two wrongs don't make a right. "I got raped so I'm gonna kill this baby" just isn't right and never will be."

On topic, classic liberalism and libertarianish is the best theoreticly, with libertarianish-ish being the best practically assuming we get another Trust Buster president and etcetera