Best government for a country?

What do you think it is?
Lots of people hate on democracy nowdays. Even some of the greeks knew it was a bad idea.
We've seen how monarchies can go both very good and very bad. What about a diarchy, with cultural ties to celestial bodies to keep both religion and national pride up?

Oligarchy

the only proper government for an entire country is a firm but fair king that puts the interest of the subjects above his own.

that's called a "benevolent dictatorship".

since we can only speak in a real sense of things because humans are naturally inclined to not fully sacrifice themselves we must make a very simple conclusion.

a constitutionally federal republic of nation states in the only answer.

since we can't trust just one, we must trust all.

democracy was a mistake.
fascism is the way to go.

Inb4 Lee

Ideally, I would pursue a governing country the placed the masses on equal par to the individual.
A place where one is encouraged and assisted in developing themselves toward an ideal that benefits the e individual as well as the group. I don't know if there is a name for such a group, but I guess it would be something nationally socialized.

Well what if the people get to vote on how the heir to the throne is raised.

>let's be a democracy
>charismatic sociopaths overrun it
>military coup happens
>power struggle between officials
>let's switch to monarchy!
>insane king ruins country
>we need a council of the wise to rule over us!
>sociopaths exploit country for all its worth
>let's just be anarchists!
>charismatic and ambitious man rises up and unites the communes
Literally nothing works in the long term, only robots can save us
>inb4 they get hacked
FUUUUUU

Close but its monarchy. Ops pic is where the redpill lies. Having a king that allows automony but could take it away at any second letting the people know that god is wat grants him the right to give rights is what keeps the people in line and in check.

Also thanks for creating quality thread.

But what if "Friendship" were an integral and requisite part of any/all attempts at power?

You know what you are doing with that image...

...

Because that would be nepotism, and putting friends in the state on the basis of being friends could lead to a corrupt and inefficient administration

I think that people should rise to power through accomplishing some great deed. Anyone can become a leader but only if they did something worthy. Like stopping someone from overthrowing the government, or toppling a mad king who usurped power.

Or maybe they're born into it. Maybe it's both? I'm still kinda hazy on that.

Bogdacracy

>Or maybe they're born into it. Maybe it's both? I'm still kinda hazy on that.
I like the idea of it being both through Elective absoultue monarchy. They are raised from birth to be the very best ruler they can be and afterwords they must be elected by nobility on who's best suited for the job. I find it the best way to select a leader.

Ambition is what drives the world forward, but also destroys it

See Byzantium, every year you had many revolts by ambitious lords and generals, straining the army and weakening the empire
Greeks in general are too ambitious and confident for their own good, that's why they were always divided

We need people who are CONTENT with their positions, and their lot in life, someone who wants to the minister of economics and not the dictator, someone who wants to be the cog and not the technician

We need more willing cogs to make the government work, or we need better tools to keep them in check...

You misinterpret. I'm not suggesting that any friends receive largesse, I'm suggesting that the authoritative individuals who participate in a given dynamic understand the value of friendship and participation.
Seratonin and Oxytocin are awesome compounds.

>robots

This is how you get into age of Strife, fool.

Sounds like meritocracy.

They might understand it, but are they willing to be subservient cogs in the state machine? Won't they want to be king themselves?

But that other comment...
Are you implying we should nerve staple them and remove their free will?

I always liked it better that they were born into it. That's how they were meant to be from the start. It added an air of grand mystery about these awesome people whose life deeds were the stuff of legends. Sure, their proteges were meant to take over eventually, but adding wings like that seemed to take something away from both the monarchy, and the protege herself.

Subtle, much?

It's time for technology to put an end to bureaucracy, and a board of eligible (male) citizens selected at random every 4 years to oversee it. The eligible citizens will vote among themselves any changes necessary.
By citizens I mean those who have served a mininum of 10 years in the military.

What if there is a shortage of 'worthy' men? What if there are no feats to be achieved?
regency?

>What about a diarchy, with cultural ties to celestial bodies

Australia's intelligentsia stuns the world again.

No to both. Ideally, they will become individually recocognized and developed participant of whatever community, contributing to it to not an excessive or extreme degree, such that they individually and the group around them ALL experience an increase in means and ability. Thats how it works in industry at least.

>what if they're born into it
You might have a Commodus though, a spoiled brat who destroys the nation because 'muh birthright'

>We need people who are CONTENT with their positions, and their lot in life, someone who wants to the minister of economics and not the dictator, someone who wants to be the cog and not the technician
>We need more willing cogs to make the government work, or we need better tools to keep them in check...
You do realize this is why (((they))) want to replace white people, right?

Ethnonationalist meritocracy with isolationist tendencies. Final answer.

I'm only talking about the government, the kikes want to make it apply to every position of life

Agreed it needs so merit in it, however making the system based on merit to begin with gets you power hungary bastards.

This
Then you start getting people who believe that 'all paths to power are justified' and 'might is right', they're not wrong, only disillusioned, but the illusion was what kept everything going, without 'the grace of God' what is a pope? A man with a robe!

Nearly everyone with political aspirations is a power-hungry bastard, the key is to find a power-hungry bastard who will accomplish more good than harm.
An ideal leader is a man who is thrust into power and reluctantly but _effectively_ leads a group. Unfortunately ideals are not always reality, so it is better to have a man seize power and wield it well than have a man be thrust into power and be incompetent.

Its exactly the White People who are most fitting for these position with little obvious enjoyment in them. Them and Asians.

Other races are too shortsighted, convinced that they have to experience maximum amount of pleasure before they die.

I am not saying we don't have degenerate people like that too but racially, we are ideal option for these positions.

Good points, but I would say that change is the law of life. As long as what is "new" maintains what made the old "good" (AKA, keeping tradition but bringing about positive innovation) there is no harm in might being right.

It's also a man who doesn't care about popularity
Look at us, the most popular candidates are the ones who promise more gibs and entitlement cards to the people, we need people who are willing to place the the survival of the nation over its will, which only will lead it to its own ruin

This is why you need a mix of both, its not either or. An elective monarchy would allow for the nobility to best raise their children to be competent and then thrust into power. Not to be shit leaders.

Sounds like we need eugenics to remove sociopathy.

unironically a riding/neighborhood representative based parliamentary system is the best way to go

the only failing it has is with mass media now, people tend to vote for a party rather than their local member, and that there is still a prime minister who enjoys rock star king status (see: trudeau jr) rather than a national representative who exists only so that you dont have to send hundreds of people to every little international conference. maybe send the governor general instead, and constantly remind them that they don't have any binding powers and are literally just a glorified secretary

but if things were configured such that your local member had more exposure, and eliminated the prime minister position, it'd be perfect. you literally elect /yourboy/, whoever that may be

But the more we change it, the less it's worth
If power constantly switches between power hungry nobles, the people will understand its all about strength and might, and not about justice and order, that's how nations collapse
We need men who understand the illusion and the play pretend of politics, and their importance, power is a thing of cooperation, and the sword that enforces it cooperates with the leader, but what is the leader but a man in a suit? People need to understand their roles and play their part, else nothing gets done

Well, it's obvious that democracy produces short term leadership that kicks cans down the road for the next person to solve. It's why the West is trying to import as many new debt-balloons in the form of immigrants as possible to keep the spending system and economy moving. It won't fix anything, but it'll keep the ponzi scheme going long enough that they'll be out of blame range when the thing falls apart.

You need a balance of powers. A monarch, powerful elite to check it and each other, and a framework of enshrined laws and small fry to keep them both from conspiring too hard against the people. I'd propose a very weak monarch whose few powers are absolute to act as a binding symbol. A partitioned government bureaucracy with a branch for military, civil, and judicial concerns, and an oligarchy of those that climbed the bureaucratic ranks to the top.

All of them must be bound by a constitution guaranteeing certain rights, and very clearly highlighting their goals and reasons to exist.

Either that or just go full Starship Troopers. Either or. The main point is that democracy as we have it now is broken, shortsighted garbage doomed to destroy itself with it's built-in moral hazards.

Exactly! Just compare mighty Caesar to vain Caligula, or incompetent Nero. Caesar is the preferable candidate, and yet still the Roman system he pioneered was not entirely effective years down the line. I say the American founding fathers had the right idea of a "revolution every few decades," although certainly that has not been proven yet either.
>elective monarchy
I like the concept of this idea, but it also had its flaws. Look at the history of Poland, one of the best known (if not only) elective monarchies. I'm sure you know enough about Poland already to gauge its effectiveness.