Posting a big, grand topic to get this place some activity.

So, politics is all about how we govern ourselves. We've got a shitload of different theories which claim to describe how to best govern ourselves - A whole bunch of competing political ideologies (libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalism etc.).

The question is which ideology is best for society? If one ideology doesn't hold all the answers, what sort of 'ideological combo' would work best? Maybe you think one ideology holds all the answers but there's some parts of it that you disagree with.

So I want to know which ideology/ideological mix you think would be best for society and I want you to explain why it's best.

Democracy with a healthy dose of technocracy, rather than a single political ideology.

If that leads to socialism, free capitalism, liberalism or what ever combination of multiple ideologies., then be it.
The rights of all to be a part of choosing what kind of society they want to build outweigh possible benefits of pure technocracy or dictatorship.
I'd rather not have a singular ideology. I'd rather find the unifying beliefs and desires among the people of the society I'm trying to benefit, democracy is the only true way to find that.

If then the people want socialism, let the people have socialism.

I don't really think there truly is a "best" form of government. Every single one of them has their flaws.

Personally, I'd think that a form of democracy, in theory, would be the most effective. But even then, if you take a look at where the United States is at, even its own system has flaws. We boast about how the people have a say in the inner workings of our government, which in theory is true, but we really don't.

I don't know. It's just a matter of opinion. I'm interested in hearing more.

I do believe that people should weigh heavily in the politics of their country, but at the same time, I don't. I'm just glad that the USA has a system of checks and balances to counteract what could be.

Meritocracy.

This isn't Wibbles. Put effort into explaining your answer.

I really like the politics from neptune.
They are so high evolved and took democracy to the next level by respecting individual opinions by each and every individual

There are different forms of democracy however, and some forms get rid of politicians entirely. The system you've described is a representative democracy, a democracy containing people that we elect to represent us (politicians). Right now (just about every) representative democracy in the world is a democracy in name only, they're essentially oligarchies (controlled by the political elites).

A representative democracy unfettered by corruption might be impossible. If it were possible (through removing representatives), would we even want that? Look around at your average fellow citizens. These are not the people you want deciding geopolitics.

What's your opinion on direct-democracy (or some similar variant)? Democracy that removes any corrupt middlemen and goes straight to the will of the people.


I agree that for system to be called the best, best means the best for everyone.

Democracy in general is slow, inefficient, and often leads to corruption in it's representative variant if not kept in check.

Autocracy while fast, succeeds or fails on the person with the most power, and often leads to nepotism and nonsensical decision making depending on how far detached from reality the leader(s) are. Also, the power plays for people in the upper-middle positions seems to be more important than actually doing their jobs.

On the topic of direct democracy:
One thing I really liked regarding this topic came from Mass Effect from all places. The Asari had a direct e-democracy governing their decisions. That's something I'd be intrigued to see implemented in the real world, since we do have the technology to achieve it. It would probably be a clusterfuck, but at least we'd see how it works out.
I don't really think it'd be affected by group think that much, since that phenomenon mostly occurs in live crowds. You could think about issues in the comfort of your own home, and just vote however you feel like.
There probably would be parties similar to current democratic ones, but I doubt that they could reach that wide of an audience with proper legislation implemented (can't pay people to vote with you, etc).

Pretty interesting article that's relevant:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...inst-democracy


I do like Churchill's quote,
Seems pretty accurate. Some people think it's really dangerous that uninformed people are allowed to vote. The flipside to that is if only the truly intelligent and competent make decisions, they'll lean towards a bias that aids their kind and potentially institutionalize oppression against the working/lower class.

We also run into the problem that people who are in charge work towards aiding the problems affecting their "kind" disproportionately. It's a very real tradition that the rich, intelligent, powerful, and advantaged demographics address, attack, and fix their problems much more quickly and command far more media attention than poor. Just look at flight overbooking. One rich doctor has a problem in how overbooking of flights were handled, which is inherently a problem that troubles the middle/upper-class more than anyone else because poor people can't afford to fly. Within the next month, all the media is reporting are more and more cases of flight overbooking, and now legislation is being passed to stop this issue. Meanwhile Flint Michigan has now gone two years without clean water and surprise surprise, 57% of their demographics are african american. Oh and 40.1% of their population lives in poverty.

But then you have the argument of affirmative action and the problems with the reverse of meritocracy. People who are put into position of power not because of their competency but because of their race obviously do a worse job.

The nature of our political system in the US also has problems with terms and what people do with their terms. It's been said before that you're either working to stay in office, or working to acquire office if you're in the political game. There's not enough of people actually doing their job. People are so worried that they'll lose their upcoming election, that they spend their time kissing babies and shaking hands that they aren't drafting legislation, holding important public conferences, and actually solving problems.

Finally - the people who would actually qualify to be good at the jobs we need in our government are smart enough to know working in government sucks. The way they are treated, their compensation, the way the media misrepresents people, it's too big of a headache and it's not worth it.


---


I don't really think any ideology works best. Democracy isn't terrible. Our two party system is pretty set up with two ideologies, Democrats vs. Republicans. Democrats want the lives of poor people to not suck, Republicans want it to be easier to be rich. Which in term means it'll be easier to go from poor to not poor. It's advantageous to be part of the majority in this country, and we apparently acknowledge that since we do things for people strictly because their a part of a minority. I always say "Republicans are the greedy asses who's system of government works, but some people's lives suck in it. Democrats are living in a dreamland who's system of government only works if people don't suck, and some people tend to really suck". Their counterbalancing of one another seems healthy. I think the only way we improve as a nation is by increasing our education. The smarter our society, the more compassionate we tend to be. When we're smart, effect, and compassionate, we live in a more awesome society.

I think a lot of those problems will be fixed by increasing automation. Once we can allocate most crappy jobs to automation, we're going to find ourselves in a much better spot.

Bolsonaro from Brazil