Best government system

This is the question humanity has been trying to answer for thousands of years.

Monarchy - A total crapshoot, you never know when the next heir will turn out to be some selfish little shit.

Democracy - Puts WAY too much faith in human psychology. The simple fact that socialism can emerge from democracy should be enough to tell you that democracy is an utter pile of hopeless garbage. As a burger I will concede that a small-government democracy is pretty good, but human nature will always destroy it because long-term planning will always be neglected.

Oligarchy - Can be good if the ruling people are chosen carefully based on merit. But the existence of multiple people will always lead to emotions and backroom power-grabs.

Well here's your black pill. The best form of government is totalitarianism. A single intelligent man calling all the shots. The next ruler is whoever the current ruler chooses. The ruler can even instate temporary periods of democracy when appropriate.

Other urls found in this thread:

wickedweasel.com/en-ca/ww_model_galleries/2573
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Tanastry Succession Monarchy

Democracy without income tax

Aristocratic Republic.

Wrong
Computer controlled democracy
You vote on a scale for each issue

also feudalism - built in power tension - no one group can easily attain all the power - so the most successful ideology wins

A government in between a Republic and a Monarch. Not sure how it would look or how it would work but there is a sweet spot in between there.

Basically a democracy

Demcoracy does not work. Keep in mind that 80% of the population will always, genetically-speaking, be too dumb to even benefit from college. Why do you think (((education))) is so profitable and is pushed so hard on the undesirables in the western world?

Are her bottoms inside out?

>Well here's your black pill. The best form of government is totalitarianism. A single intelligent man calling all the shots. The next ruler is whoever the current ruler chooses. The ruler can even instate temporary periods of democracy when appropriate.
This is no blackpill - it's the literal reason for Nazi Germany's success.

Power tension huh? The western world has checks and balances. And yet the people are still choosing to open the fucking floodgates and do all kinds of retarded things to their own countries.

well monarchy point is stupid as in democracy most are selfish they will try to get as rich as possible before their term ends unless they are already part of an dynasty

Democracy with voter ID, and where only taxpayers can vote

Works fine, until a period of prosperity, where some (((charismatic speakers))) convince the apathetic masses to relax the voter ID laws. Yes that will ALWAYS happen because emotion will always be a weak point of the masses.

is still pretty stupid most people wont know what they are voting for

Do you know that all European feudal countries transformed into absolute monarchies? Technology and infrastructure were holding power consolidation not governing system. Feudalism is consequence not cause, it follows.

Also literal reason for Nazi Germany's failure.

A moderate form of fascism/ethno nationalism that gives some rights privileges to the people (like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms) but ultimately serves and works to make the nation and it's people as strong/smart/prosperous as possible.

It should be lead by the smartest of society but they must rule at least partially for the people or be overthrown and exterminated by the armed and disciplined populace.

You forgot "Constitutional Republic" which is not Democracy.

Small, un-intrusive nationalistic government that is only there to uphold contracts, uphold the NAP, collect taxes and maintain a defensive, non-imperialistic military. Maybe it can also implement tariffs that apply only to imported goods but that is debatable.
It is te obvious choice.
Pic unrelated

This guy gets it. It's not perfect, but you are on the right track.

Constitutional Technocracy.

Total Fascism is the most effective form of government

Meritocracy or technocracy?

Are you retarded? Germany did not collapse itself, it was defeated in war. If Hitler would have shown some restraint and not russled so many jimmies in so little time, the entirety of Europe would probably be under the german flag by now.

A.I. Overlord calling the shots.

Totalism is a fucking Dictation you stupid fuck.

>most passable trap I've seen yet.

White shariah technocracy.

>A single intelligent man calling all the shots.
>A single intelligent man
>Man

That's not how you spell super-computer A.I.

A single man in power, regardless of his intelligence, cannot fathom all of the legitimate issues of his people. He will, at some point, be completely disconnected from them, regardless of his IQ.

So I am going with an A.I.

Every governmental system will have its drawbacks for the record.

I think that Britain, Russia and the United States were the literal reason for Nazi Germany's failure.

I don't trust any system where multiple people are calling the shots. Each person in the oligarchy will try to become the totalitarian, but they will fuck up the entire country in the process. For example, one member might try to win over the masses by promising democracy, that way the masses will murder the other rulers. Absolutely hopeless.

The best form of government is one where you can't be arrested but can own all the weapons you want. People would protect themselves.

Monarchy is the way to go. With a monarchy you have one person to point the finger at. Things more likely to get done. With any other multi-head system US democracy, communism,etc. you have too many heads all pointing fingers at each other, and nothing gets done.

Uh, give me a Constitutional Republic as an option, OP.

what gives...you never heard of such a thing?

you could enhance that single man whe already can geneticaly also better than being ruled by a soulless machine

Gross ass trap

You are forgetting a republic, which takes care of the intrinsic faults of a pure democracy.

>Every governmental system will have its drawbacks for the record

Exactly, the real answer is that there has to be a cycle of systems. Democracy works well for a few decades (or even centuries before the internet existed), but then gets (((ruined))). Then maybe totalitarianism works for a few decades. Then maybe oligarchy for a few decades. Then back to democracy.

The totalitarian ruler can oversee the cycle. Totalitarianism is the only answer

its also in democracy one will try to undo the work of the people who came before him or sabotage the work of the one who is coming next all in the name of whatever party

>you could enhance that single man

How though?

Plus, I feel like we're already ruled by soulless machines.

We need a leader (machine or not) who can balance both logic and empathy. Too much of either one leads to destruction.

But that's not constitutional monarchy

What's crapshoot about monarchy when you can prep a prince from birth to be fit to rule with the aid of advisors, clergy, lords, and even a parliament? That system was what carried us from despotism to modernity, literally a period of thousands of years you mentioned. The only problem with it is how to survive through modernity and an educated, industrialized population capable of assassinations. Which is the same problem with your 'black pill'.

Any modern government can be the best as long as its population is homogenous white. Any country that is and stays white for the next hundreds of years can, in thousands of years, unlock post-scarcity through a digital or energy-based state of being. At that point it may as well be communism that's most efficient, if it even matters

Golden Liberty

>Exactly, the real answer is that there has to be a cycle of systems.
Very interesting concept!
>The totalitarian ruler can oversee the cycle. Totalitarianism is the only answer

But how can we ensure that this totalitarian leader will work for the good of the people, and not be corrupted? How can we know for sure that this leader will cycle governmental systems properly, without any self-interest?

You can take a simple, cursory glance at history and see that heirs turn out to be worthless little assholes despite the best circumstances and preparation. The next ruler cannot be chosen by popping out of the correct vagina. He needs to be chosen by logic.

If the totalitarian rules well enough, he will have enough faithful citizens to protect him from assassination (by constructing a safe home, providing the proper defensive technology and manpower etc)

you could breed them for better traits like monarchy a bit slow but it works or cyberneticaly or geneticaly enhance them like designer babys but with leaders

You are focusing too much on having a perfectly functioning government, and not on its intended purpose; to provide security to personal liberties, and create an environment for the individual citizen to be happy and successful. Totalitarianism cannot be a form of government espoused to be in the interest of the people.

>The best form of government is totalitarianism. A single intelligent man calling all the shots
this. However, the main issue is that once that man is gone, there will be massive instability. But for the short term, it's the best system.

There aren't any half-assed compromised policies. Everything is absolute and exactly as the artist intended when creating law

The Spartan system of government was the best this world has ever seen, even the democratic Athenians who modern historians seem so quick to suck up to knew that the Spartans were far superior. So much so, that they killed their most famous and influential philosopher Socrates for instilling Spartan values in the city's youth.

Democracy works when the constituency is more homogeneous and possess the same volksgeist. Doesn't work with multirace, multiclass, and multiculturalism. Democracy and diversity do not go along.

>like designer babys but with leaders
Why would they need us plebs in this scenario?

oh and i forgot we are ruled by selfish people or stupid ones so that is not the same dont know how much empathy would an AI have does it even have it that is why bio leaders is a more safe bet

If the totalitarian has nothing to gain or lose, and is intelligent enough (genetically speaking), he will do a good job. The best thing is that the next ruler is chosen by the current ruler. The next ruler will be some smart guy, probably in his late twenties, chosen from the general population. Probably a friend of the current ruler. A person who has not been sheltered or anything, with a normal conditioning and a high intelligence.

skin like a fine orange

That aint a trap

>breed them for better traits

aren't most royal families inbred though?

the more I think about it the more the answer is clear, Papal states 2.0 now with less everything that went wrong

sauce?

> If Hitler would have shown some restraint and not russled so many jimmies in so little time
Exactly.
>our beloved leader r moves us into proper direction - praise him
>he moves us to fail - it is not his fault! Kill traitors slandering our dead leader!

By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

The problem with democracy, is that it's never really "true" democracy, as someone is deciding on what to vote for. So it mostly just turns into control of elite dipshits, and it makes it way too easy for them to justify control of the media to protect the democracy.\

Honestly, what exactly is wrong with a constitution with a stable rule of law, like the non aggression principle? Democracy is authoritarian by nature.

And how did the current multiculturalism emerge? Through DEMOCRACY.

A loose, non-bureaucratic union of free-exit
ethno-monarchic city states supported by feudal agrarian colonies, namely North Africa and Eastern Europe.

wicked weasel sara

because you would program them with the traits to do so and raise them well by the brightest minds of the nation
also with robots they wont need plebs any way soon enough

A monarchy where the people can choose to depose the king if he is a shit.

It should be apparent but the city-states would ideally be post-human/technocratic. Those who weren't would most likely be wiped out anyway.

Kind of defeats the purpose of a monarchy but ok retard.

National Nomocracy

>im too lazy/stupid to reverse search

Disgusting this is why I will most likely impose state enforced homosexuality, filth.

True, but not directly. A dictatorship can be just as polluted through an outside influence. Republics have the same ultimate weakness of a democracy but they tend to resist change and decline for a little longer.

A good dictator is exceptional in every sense of the word.

they arent most monarchs today yes they are related but you are ignoring a lot of nobles and pretenders so no

Hitler didn't rustle anyone's jimmies. The U.S. govt. was asked to enter WW1 by Europe, but the citizens were against it. The govt. saw a good opportunity to make a happy dollar and have influence in the reconstruction of Europe, and hired Edward Bernays, the grandfather of propaganda, to convince the citizens entering WW1 was in their best interest. He chose Germany as the scapegoat, and the western world cucked Germany into oblivion. This gave rise to Hitler, who saw the injustice and fought back against the powers that be, in an attempt to reclaim freedom for himself, and his fellow countryman. The western world obviously could not allow this, and WWII started to thwart the resistance and ensure a new Europe, redrawn by western society.

wickedweasel.com/en-ca/ww_model_galleries/2573

I did reverse search nigger, don't assume things.

Oligarchy isn't a political system per se.

If you could get ancapism to resist invasion properly, it would probably be the best because it takes decentralization to it's logical extreme. Decentralized systems are generally more fault tolerant than centralized systems.
If you have a monarchy or a fascist state, it should have a ton of independent provinces under a night-watchman federal government run by generals.

Democracy is obviously stupid because it's a three-legged race where everyone's going a different direction, so the winners help the losers, and the losers drag down the winners.

Can we please turn this into a good/benevolent dictator thread? I personally nominate Lee Kuan Yew

Your argument falls apart when you look at what "true democracy" was supposed to be. Niggers, women, and poor people weren't supposed to be able to vote. If you use that system than you "true democracy" is entirely feasible... Rich men have nothing better to do than dabble in politics.

>because you would program them with the traits to do so and raise them well by the brightest minds of the nation
Why go through the hassle of teaching someone to make your decisions for you when you can just make your own decisions... It sounds like you just want to have someone else to blame when your political system falls apart ("It wasn't me, it was our shitty clone army.")... Thanks, Mr Lucas.

The search results were literally "buttocks" for your first pic, and "person" for the image in this post, fuck off.

Edward Bernays is related to Freud
have you seen century of self yet?

Currently the best you can get IMO is a republic with a lot of checks and balances, and a strongly written constitution backing it all. That said it's not perfect.

In the future the best form of government will be one facilitated by open-source AI's.

Well who would oversee the breeding? How do we know that certain groups aren't manipulating data or breeding certain traits to benefit their small cabal? I just don't trust people to run a totalitarian government, I'm very wary of it. It always seems to end up poorly for the common man (moreso than other government types).

But I am also wary of A.I., I just think it has the potential to do a better job than a single man.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A good leader may think that his own son can do a better job than legitimate candidates. He could very well overlook their flaws, like Marcus Aurelius. He was a great leader for the time, but could not see the flaws in his own son, even though many others could.

no and my system monarchy or fascism did not fail being bombed out of existance is not a fail of the system

>Lee Kuan Yew
He was certainly based. Totalitarian Capitalism is a great way to make a country rich fast.

Wow, you really are retarded.

Everyones always known a benevolent dictator is the best form but they often either die and get replaced by someone awful or become corrupted by their power

This girl is hot but something about the look in her eyes says low iq.

Minimalist (defense, courts, police) direct democracy with no taxes. Funds gained by inflation for projects with over 85% approval
>but nothing will ever get done
good

>The next ruler is whoever the current ruler chooses.
Wouldn't this run into the same problems with Monarchy?

> Best government system
None

fuck your thread, that woman is gorgeous.

Why would you care?

Here's the thing. There is not best form of government. Only the best for certain times places. It's context sensitive. Democracy works great for colonial America. It doesn't work at all for war torn Iraq in the mid 2000s.

Defending against external threats is one of the things that governments do. Getting bombed into the dirt is a governmental failure.

Totolitarianism - A total crapshoot, you never know when the dictator or his chosen successor will turn out to be some selfish little shit

Sounds like North Korea, faggot

Her ass in this photo triggers my trypophobia.

Best form of convenient is a totalitarian regime run by an enlightened despot.

>Absolute power corrupts absolutely

I will not discard my arguments because of this catchy little quip. Yes we run the risk of the totalitarian choosing his son. We run much greater risks in ALL other systems.