What's the best form of government, and why?

What's the best form of government, and why?

Military Junta, Dictatorship, Theocratic, Democracy, Republics, Gommunism, and so forth.

>inb4 muh ctr!!
>slide thread!!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Many variables, such as the culture of the society, effect the success of a government .

It can be said governments that champion liberty over anything are usually successful.

My personal belief is that a little mixture of other government systems with a strong emphasis on the democracy and republic system are the best governments .

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others

Pure democracies are terrible it's basically asking for civil war
Pure any government is terrible
Any successful govt realizes they have adjust their form of government for it to be successful

I've been thinking a lot about something I call "ideological migration". Basically we start dividing ourselves, not by land, but what we believe. It's a little complex, and so I'm still trying to find the willpower to talk about it, but instead of borders, we cohabitate and our borders and allegiances are dedicated to something more conceptual or virtual. The capitalists are working for the capitalists, the libertarians for the libertarians, socialists for socialists, ethnonationalists for their own race etc. Since there are so many complications with that though, it's not really a practical idea but more of a goal to achieve over a long period of time.

A theocratic republic lead under a good religion like christianity with the proper people preaching the proper interpretations for a society.

The only question is how.

By Allah

CTR has disbanded dude- the elections over and we won. Now is a great time to discuss other topics

>>>out

monarchy

this

Fascist Neo-carmelism.

Basically a government with no limits that is publicly owned by the people who actually hold people. These are the only people with the power to vote making it an authoritarian/meritocratic Democracy.

The government is based on the principles of corporate business, this is the most effective model of running a business so why not of running a state? Further more the state's goals are to maximize efficiency in order to deliver its services just as any corporation would. Eventually this model generates maximum economic efficiency/wealth creation that can circulate and be stuck within a single nation. The personal freedoms are moderate, the economic freedoms are large but unified and there are no political freedoms for they are unneeded.

federalized semi-constitutional monarchy

centralized states only work on small scales, and republicanism is doomed to eat itself from the inside out with corruption.

furthermore, a monarch must be able to exercise absolute authority in times of crisis.

>What's the best form of government, and why?
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others --Churchill

Cause when was Churchill wrong about anything?

he was wrong about the gallipoli campaign

Realistically probably an oligarchy where only males >25 years old that have done military service and are not in retirement have the right to vote

Government type: National socialism

Economic system: Distributism

The US had this back in 1945

How do you ensure accountability without a democracy? Serious question.

Theocracy controlled by an actual god on Earth.

A government can raise its revenue by raising its taxes, so there goes your argument.

98546495
The issue with monarchy is that it's too easy to abuse the system.

Yes, once every 2000y a Cincinnati is born and makes it look like giving him absolute power is an amazing idea, but there's a reason if you know the name Cincinnati in the first place: not many other have done what he has.

2 party quasi-democracies using fptp voting systems ofc

i meant

I just want what they have in Starship troopers. Minus niggers/arabs/muslims (though I'm sure muslims would be terminated in that setting since they are basically separatist).

Why don't you fuck off if you want a king to worship, you monarchist piece of shit? It's not like there isn't monarchist shitholes you can go to.

Durka is right. All things being equal (race, religion, general IQ, accumulated capital,...) monarchy is the best. The monarch treats the kingdom like his property, so he tries to govern it with the goal of increasing its value. This means stopping disgenic effects and capital consumption.

What God said, King David style.. See the Jubilee forgiving of debts etc and so on

A constitutional republic with the constitution having strong libertarian leaning, like in the US, is the best sytem humanity has brought forth so far.
The US's black population and parts of its latino population are basically a third world country within a first wirld country. And despite them making up around 20 % of your population you still are the most successful and free country in the world. Imagine the US being 98% white. You would be colonizing Mars and bejond right now.

setting aside a portion of your field(that they need to harvest) for charity/welfare/for muh community

Parliamentary Democracy

Republican can quite often lead to dictatorship; but Monarchism is superior due to the impartiality of the head of state and the reluctance to use emergency powers.

Any form of dictatorship eventually succumbs to either revisionism or revolt due to pissing off the core support.

They tend to be dependant on the culture though.

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

benevolent dictatorship can do the most good in short time
people will say it can do the most bad but looking at modern democracies I'm not sure I believe it
the amount of harm a government can do is mostly limited by the willingness, not the ability, of its people to rise up against it, and most modern corruption exists in places where the people have extraordinarily high tolerance for abuse

The best form of government is the one where the government is in session for 4 years, followed by 1 year of investigation and 1 year of prosecution vs. the reigning law of the constitution for their actions in the past 5 years. The verdict will be passed down by voters, and the punishment will be severe.
All lower offices will similarly be tried with respect to their own governing statutes.

Even benevolent dictatorship succumb to revisionism or oppertunism.

>The issue with monarchy is that it's too easy to abuse the system.

The issue for you was that your Head of State is Italian.

depends on the geography

Because democracy is working out so great for Sweden, right?

What we need is a brutal dictatorship which purifies all the bad shit in our current democracy, then allows our democracy to return to itself. The ideological subversion of the Bolsheviks during the Cold War demolished our democracy.

Its generally done through an underhanded class with an interest in usurping the ruler efficiently, really your choice is a coup or popular revolution against a corrupt dictatorship.

Russia is probably the best system for this, throughout their history they have a lower class of gentry; in Tsarist Russia it was the commercial class and lesser nobility that ultimatley plotted his downfall; in the Soviet Union it was the Bureacracy and now in the Russian federation it is the Oligarchs.

There is always a central class of money that throws its weight behind certain movements depending on what is most productive.

I believe the best form of government would be the one that was practised by the colonies. You have local government that is directly accountable because of the proximity to their constituancy. Politicians should be part of the populace instead of an elite, therefore there is a 2 term limit. And only once every few years state officials shall meet in a continental congress to discuss urgent matters of national security and after a few weeks they should go back to their state.

...

Technocracy
no voting
no politicians
experts rule, stupid btfo

>Because democracy is working out so great for Sweden, right?

The main issue with Democracy is career politicians, a party system and an under educated populous.

>What we need is a brutal dictatorship which purifies all the bad shit in our current democracy, then allows our democracy to return to itself.

Its normally just leads to a brutal fucking backlash like the left wing in Spain after the fall of Franco, or in the other direction the shift to the far right in Eastern Europe.

So unless you want to endure 50 odd years of Marxist Socialism then I think its best just to hedge your bets on fiddling the current system.

You can't, which is the issue. The problem is you need something to keep the ruler accountable, so you hold him accountable to something that he can't do without - subjects. The issue is that you have no way to ensure the subjects always make the right moves. If they vote incorrectly, the country is fucked.

So ideological subversion kicks in and now cucks and Mexicans are voting to destroy our country and race.

Monarch endorsed by the Holy Church but with freedom of belief, though religion, speech, etc and local elected officials is the best form of governance. Prove me wrong.
Protip: you can't.

Constitutional monarchy

>When your house of Lords hasn't be reverted to an Ex Officio house of Law Lords and Royal College heads.

Feels bad man.

Distributist Constitution Republic confessional state.

In other words, a republic with a constitution to protect the rights of citizens, that emphasizes using the smallest form of government available (mayor>governor>president), like a confederacy. The state doesn't have an official religion or state churches, but it does recognize Christianity as the moral basis of western civilization and seeks to protect the family through laws against abortion, gay marriage, drugs, and stuff like public nudity.

As much as I hate to agree with this trash. He's right. It's perfect for us humans.

Not a 20 year dictatorship, I'm talking a 200 year dictatorship which can utterly upend the entire culture and society of the nation in order to purify it of Marxism, degeneracy, and other ills.

This is essentially what the US had till the civil war fucked you over.

Nice comfy pepe

Nat soc would be best if they hadnt lost

Then all you would have was a 200 year Weimar on crack style backlash to it.

Culture can't be manipulated through authoritarianism; its the main reason why Socialists failed to create the material conditions for Communism.

Might as well wish for the dragon balls to actually exist and summon Shenron to fix your country.

He was wrong about a great number of things, but this wasn't one of them

Islamic communism

t. Churchill

benevolent dictatorship

Yeah, I'm really sad the slavery situation couldn't be resolved peacefully. If it had been resolved peacefully, we wouldn't have seen an increase in the centralization of power, and the USA would be better off for it.

Absolute Monarchy, of course

I am about to blow everybody the fuck out.

The best form of government is minarchist nationalism.

>Nat soc would be best if they hadnt lost

Beyond the 'order is good' meme how is National Socialism at all desireable?

The Situation existed in Germany that each member of the inner circle was the dictator and absolute controller of an area of German society, from Robert Lay and the industrial sector or Goebbels and the entertainment industry.

The whole thing was rigged for once the central figurehead fell; the whole apparatus would tear itself apart in supporting its own figure head as leader; the only reason Himmler was as powerful as he was, was the fact he controlled the largest paramilitary and economic sector of the German reich through labour camps and the SS.

Confederation of monarchies with an elected emperor. See Holy Roman Empire

then how about something new
parliament 500-1000 large selected randomly from the population of 18+ high school graduates, its like jury duty
fixed compensation, no elections, no chance of continuing after term ends
political parties will cease to exist and you'll dramatically lower the number of nation-hating psychopaths in office overnight

>benevolent dictatorship
is just a veiled way of saying
>everyone should be forced to do whatever I want them to

I think we'd all appreciate a little more honesty, Sup Forums.

Slavery was more of a justification than a cause of the war; the Political split between the North and South was at the heart of it; the South had Americas founding principals and sadly it took them to the grave.

'There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.'

But that implies the political system will converge to the interests of said underhanded class, instead of the whole nation. This also happens because some groups of people have a much easier time coordinating some plot against the ruler, namely due to the concentration of costs/benefits.

Portugal during Estado Novo had people voting for the President of Republic, which acted like a king, and he nominated a PM. The PM chose his government. Salazar ruled our country for 40 years using this system. It is exploitable, though, as the PM can rig the system in his favor (as Salazar did).
All systems are vulnerable to ideological subversion, though, but democracy sure makes it easier. Our Estado Novo was actually brought down by foreign ideological subversion (both from the US and USSR), mainly through France, which completely put the already demoralized military because of the war against the state.

Ancient Greek democracy and fell flat on its arse, easier to have people who know what they're doing.

Holy Roman Empire was a fucking mess

What if your ruler is shit?

The Terran Federation from Starship Troopers was pretty good.

2 years of dangerous voluntary service to gain the right to vote or run for office.

>What God said, King David style
God wanted priesthood judges but relented when the Israelites demanded a king. Read 1 Samuel 8

And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. 3And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

4Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

Samuel's Warning About Kings
10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

>But that implies the political system will converge to the interests of said underhanded class, instead of the whole nation.

Generally in the case of Russia, the underclass always produced a system that ensured their prosperity; and the peasants toiled for it.

China has had a similar system historically with the 'mandate of heaven' as long as a Dynasty produces economic prosperity it remains in power; then there is a revolt to remove it for the next; its the same from all Chinese dynasties, to Sun Yat Sen and Mao Tse-tung.

Mark my words when the Communist party stops delivering they'll be out on their arse and they know it.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

God Grants the Request
19Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 22And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

The Roman system, you gained the right of a Freeman to vote and hold office through military service.

The longer you served the higher up you went.

If the south just didn't have slavery, not only would so many more Americans gladly support them, it's likely that they would have won. The British would have likely aided the south then, and the Union morale would be worse without the justification of fighting slavery and the southern morale would be better. If there ever comes a day when the United States has another civil war or revolution, I know who's side I'm on.

small one, with no professionals

Its easy to armchair general with hindsight; but abolition of slavery was a no go, their entire economy was cotton and they knew it.

But the British and French intervention or atleast formal recognition would have probably have came if not for their loss at Gettysburg.

Yeah, the problem is there's not really a way of telling what would've happened in the south after the war. Would they have industrialized and left slavery behind anyways? Or would they have invaded their southern neighbors for more land and slaves (I think I read somewhere that they had planned that)?

there is some suggestion they'd have followed the 'knights of the golden circle' plan but I doubt it, South Africa didn't stick with slavery permanently and even the Boer states had it pressured out of them.

>Dictatorship

>Best government?
No government. We're all independent human beings, we deserve the right to self determination.
(For you stormfaggots, without government, you are more than free to live in an all white community and refuse service to anyone for any reason without media backlash/drama)

technocracy

High Voltage Dictatorship

benevolent dictator. Republics= oligarchy, democracy= mob rule. One leader with all the power who is loved by the people for his policies achieves the most.

Democratic Republic

There is no one size fits all.

What are the most successful governments? Libs always point to the Socialism of the scandinavian countries. Yet what happens when their population grows larger and it gets less homogeneous? It all turns to crap.

N

O

N

E