What's the best form of government and why...

What's the best form of government and why? The government doesn't have to be falwless but still better than the alternative options in your opinion.

Liberal democracy.

>in b4 autistic screeching

Because of its success?

a socratic king whose country then forms empires, like
>king arthur
>Hektor
>Augustus
>maharathastra
>yellow emperor

Social Democracy

"The strongest argument of those who claim Socrates did not actually believe in the idea of philosopher kings is that the view is expressed no earlier than Plato's Republic, which is widely considered one of Plato's "Middle" dialogues and not representative of the historical Socrates' views."

Best at what? For personal liberty, it's and nothing even comes close. I'd say that liberal democracies also have a fairly good track record as far as stability is concerned also. But if you want a government that can make necessary, dramatic, sweeping changes to society very quickly and efficiently in the short term, then there's no better form of government than benevolent dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship is also the best form of government for enacting utilitarian policies improving the general welfare and prosperity of citizens. When one guy makes decisions and everybody has to obey him shit gets done fast. And when that guy is very intelligent, informed, and has everybody's best interest at heart, shit gets better really fast.

And then he dies and it all goes to hell. Hence "short term", but hey it'd be a pretty sweet ride up until the bloody civil war that ensues from the power vacuum.

Pretty much this

>benevolent dictatorship
thats an abuse of power

I'm interested in the idea of a liberal democracy with voting rights removed - essentially rule by bureaucrats. The input of the masses (voting) would be replaced by the input of individual bureaucrats who gain their position by qualifying for a job.

So... the Soviet Union?

Or pretty much any era of China

I should have added that the same checks and balances and division of power would be present, as in a modern liberal democracy. So not like the USSR or China where the bureaucrats can do whatever they want.

So these checks and balances are... what, exactly? A beaurocratic executive, a beaurocratic legislative and a beaurocratic judiciary?

They're all fucking beaurocrats.

If you create a set of checks and balances, and none of those branches are answerable to the people, then they are ultimately only answerable to themselves. Even if they check each other, it will not be in the interest of the people, but in their own personal interests. So the executive branch will be constantly maneuvering to secure more power for the executive branch while trying to keep the legislative and judicial branches from becoming too influential, and the same goes for the other two branches in turn. None of them has any reason to give a shit about the people because none of them depend on the approval of the people to remain in power.

Living standards. Military success. High level of cooperation with other democracies. Economic productivity. Technological innovation. Pretty much everything. The only area where it's come second so far is longevity relative to monarchy - but that's an ongoing thing, and liberal democracies still last way longer than socialist or fascist states on average (because fascism encourages a retarded mentality of war with a billion enemies inside and outside the country all the time).

>a philosopher says society should be ruled by philosophers

Big surprise

Hence why I said it depends on what you consider "the best". Please read my post before responding.

Voting is important because it pacifies the needs of the people in order to lessen the chance of revolt, while ensuring that leaders can't get away with anything *too* outrageous.

I do too

the best form of government would be one that takes the best practices of all other forms of governance and applies them correctly.

direct democracy at the local level.

representative democracy at the regional level with representatives decided by sortition with advice sourced from panels of experts and interest groups.

autocratic technocracy at the national level, hired and fired by the congress of regional representatives, to work efficiently in the interest of the nation.

enlighted despotism

voting for representatives is an undemocratic concept masking as democracy. the greatest trick the western devils pulled.
it only opens up a democracy to corrupt partisanship.

>autocratic technocracy
literally USSR

Fascism.

im not too familiar with the ins and outs of the USSRs successes and failings.
i was thinking more along the lines of China. they say theyre going to build a road to the west and it happens in a few years, very efficient.
the only time the west is that efficient is when it comes to war and surprise surprise the military branch of western governments are autocratic technocracies too.

>the military branch of western governments are autocratic technocracies too.
the military is the state. And its in the hands of presidents or kings. Neither of which can be autocratic

>And its in the hands of presidents or kings.
>Neither of which can be autocratic
nani?
the president is an autocrat within the scope of directing the military actions in most nations, obviously a congress in most places can put parameters on where and how the military can be used but the president has full control within the parameters they've set, he doesn't have to go asking for permissions.
and a king is just a straight up autocrat, literally what.

Their power is constricted by laws and checks and balances. So they're not autocrats. Who are despots who abuse power by temprorarly ensalving and then releasing people. Think of it like tolitarianism but they show mercy after you do whatever 'task' they 'decree' you.

>scope
nice ignoring everything i said.

Constitutional monarchy is the best, everyones power is kept in check by everyone else whilst having a piece of national pride.

you're post had nothing to do with 'autocrats' definition so I didn't respond

So Imperial China with harder boundaries between eunuchs, scholar-officials, assorted ministers, miscellaneous bureaucrats, and the plethora of factions that any individual might belong to. Korean history in particular shows that this does not fucking work. t. gook

if youre not going to observe scope then autocrats simply dont exist as there is always a checks and balance in the form of revolt, coups, war.

>a checks and balance in the form of revolt, coups, war.
thats not the definition of a check or a balance

>the threat or act of assassination is not a check on autocratic rule
you're a fan of semantic scope now, huh?

A.I dictatorship

AI anarchism is better

metaphysic and ontological

...

yeah but with AI so theres no idiots.
like how the self driving cars will be more efficient without road rules getting in the way.

We're still seeing how that one plays out honestly.

a totalitarian democracy.
where you are forced to participate in government.

>communism

so Australia?

...

What if voting vas not routine and only exsisted for popular referundums?

If your citizens are intelligent and well educated then yes, liberal democracy is the way to go.

BUT

If your citizens are bandwagoning, sensationalist, indolent, ignorant, and apathetic then absolutely NO.

Populism is an ever-present threat.

Well American at least doesn't claim to be a democracy, it's a democratic republic

If a government follows the u.s. Constitution to the t, it would be great.

The u.s. Constitution is so god damn good, God knew he didn't have to send more messengers because we got that shit figured out.

Technocratic Meritocracy

Liberal democracy republic is good because of its virtues, not really because of its success. Arguably capitalism with Asian values are more successful, but no goddamn way it's desirable, nor do I want the state founded on such retarded principles. I don't want to die fighting for that bullshit.

Decentralized liberal semi-direct democracy with a welfare state, like Switzerland

Constitutional Republicanism.

Well I think it was recently debated (around thirty years ago) whether aggregative democracy is good or not. It was Habermas who famously raised such problems while still supporting the system. Usually the people who criticized such methods came from fringe ideologies. It's just a method, but it's fetishized now especially with the popularity of polls, surveys and social media that dishonestly shape the the public opinion. Voting usually happens when consensus can't be reached. That is, you'd need to debate rationally first and if you lose the debate then you have to admit, at least temporarily, that the other guy is right.

However, today the public use of reason and its communicative ways are often neglected. People act like if they're opinions don't get passed as a law, they'll throw a hissyfit and immediately turn it into just simple voting or even worse with sheer populism (i.e. bitching at social media etc). In this regard, public sphere nowadays is basically decaying. Everyone wants their own private spheres represented and without reason dictating everything in an ordered manner obviously chaos will ensue.

The form of government doesn't matter that much. The nation will prosper as long as it is made up of high IQ whites.

This is basically how European union works

>High iq
A nation of Ashkenazi Jews?

Republic with earned suffrage. The US constitution understood that men are born free, but it did not have a real way of ensuring the voters would care about these rights. Rights need to be tied to duties.

Above 90 is high enough really.

Has the unique benefit of being small yet virtually invulnerable to invasion. Ie exception case.

Libertarian Municipalism for sure

FUCK CAPTCHA

>it's an "idiot doesn't know what anarchy means and thinks its like 'the purge'" episode

Why go beyond the local level at all? Keep direct democracy and let different communes trade with eachother, with a council resolving diplomatic conflicts between communes

I've been toying with the idea of modern feudalism sans the nobility caste. Democracy falls short on self-determination when it grows too large, resulting in the rule of the largest group at the expense of the smaller ones, whereas a confederation or feudal society has the ability to manage itself as a small and more cohesive unit without overstepping and affecting its neighbors. In this way, men have an easier time getting their voice heard in matters since instead of yelling their thoughts across an entire country, they're simply meeting with local units and working their way up the chain there (IE Town meetings leading to county meetings, county meetings leading to state meetings, state meetings leading to national meetings).

Yeah, I know the current US government is suppose to work like this, but in practice Washington and its caste of politicians are more isolated from the rest of the population.

meritocratic technocracy

Direct democracy free market capitalism

Constitutional democracy. You can go liberal, social, conservative, or whatever from there, but there should be hard for temporary majorities to push around the people not in the majority too much. I would hate unlimited direct democracy.

Dickocracy. It is well known that aggressive, inefficient policies are enacted by lesser endowed males and females trying to compensate for lack of cock length and girth.

By concentrating power into the hands of the most well endowed males, you avoid these problems, as they have nothing to be insecure about.

After the conclusion of the Greek wars, a Greek plutocrat from Megalopolis names Polybius was sent to Rome as a hostage, where he sought to write a history of the city in an attempt to understand the Italian barbarians who had just conquered the whole of Greek civilization.

His conclusion was based in Aristotlean concepts of government which recognizes three basic types of government: rule by one person, rule by a privileged minority, and rule by popular consensus, each one having a good and bad variant. Polybius noted that Rome wasn’t any one of these but all three at once, a mixed system which was notably different in three key ways to the average Greek city-state:
1:mixing the three types provided a system where the weakness of one type was offset by the strengths of the others.
2: power was deliberately distributed in a way that prevented one person from monopolizing political capital, whether through naked force, economic coercion, or demagoguery.
3: a process of Romanization which constantly brought new ethnic groups under the umbrella of Rome and provided them with a chance to earn citizenship for their descendants, which in turn provided a massive pool of manpower for the legions while incentivizing their allies to stay loyal even in the face of brutal military set backs

The sad irony is that even as Polybius wrote glowingly of the Roman system, it was already starting to break down under the weight of its own hypocrisy, and eventually became a system which was still a mixed system, but a combination of all the bad variants of government models, and only kept afloat by continuous infusions of foreign capital, in the form of conquest booty.

the one where everyone voluntarily does what I say because they understand that I'm right

the other ones are pretty shit

>If your citizens are bandwagoning, sensationalist, indolent, ignorant, and apathetic then absolutely NO.
no other form of government does anything useful to control them. you only believe that because some types of government focus heavily on lying about their own competence.

According to this info-graph, Theocracy is the most peaceful and prosperous.