Best type of government

Have any of you people who have mentioned "communism" ever lived ina communist country?
Because while I have not, I have spoken to many (either family/friends or people I have come into contact with) and none of them would even consider going back.
Do you realize that basic freedoms - like being able to express your opinions legally in forums like this - is extremely limited under those types of governments? Yes, I live in the US and while our system is far from perfect, I would not trade it for communism or a dictatorship.

 

you need to sacrifice something to get something else. you want to get a promotion, then work hard and kiss up to the boss. you want have a good harvest, plant better and take care of your plants carefully.

you want a good government that will give you food, education and heathcare? then sacrifice your right to expression and just do what the state told you. but now, communism is not that strict like back in the Stalin and Mao era, you communism now is a good way to control those large populations.

 

Communism, and even its opposite, total capitalism really only sounds good on paper. As someone said, the best kind of government, if you were to need one, is a mixture of both.

 

A true democracy worked in the past, and would work again. All this mordern nonsense is rubbish.

 

america follows this though it feels like it doesn't. it's mixed with a monarch, aristocracy and democracy. to simply put it, it's by the king, the few [typically wealthy] and the people. the idealogical concept of why it works is that one would try to get more power then the other but remember that since everyone has equal power, they are able to "check and balance" their powers with each other. so what ends up happening is that they resort to finding means that are equally satisfactory with each other so that everyone gets an equal pie.

true democracy as in like athens, greece is okay. but people become corrupted if they aren't checked. eventually the system becomes an aristocracy, ruled by a few and eventually a single ruler.

there is no right system for every country. every country just has to "experiment" with every political and social system that is there to ensure that the people are satisfied with their needs.

 

The best type of government, if the politicians aren't corrupt, is communism, no doubt about it (yes, I want to live in Cuba )

 

Human race will enjoy long lasting peace and prosperity when there is no need of a government but that will never happen because for this to be achieved, we need to think alike and place our options towards the greater good. We are driven by our own desires which can corrupt us.

 

The best government is one that's only role is to protect its citizens (notice I did not say people).

A government where it takes the libertarian view, (not to be confused with liberal) where it only embraces one of the three types of laws:
1. Laws that protect you from yourself.
2. Laws that protect you from others.
3. Laws for the "greater common good."

Libertarians only embrace the second of the three.
For example, if you want to sit in your house, smoke a bunch of crack, do whatever, as long as it does not harm someone else, then it should be legal to do so.

I'm more concerned about the third type of law, since the meaning of the greater common good does not have a clear defined line. Every time you are forced to pay a tax, that money goes towards the greater common good, to maintain roads, pay someone else's medical bills, fund someone else's drinking habit, and whatever else you can think of. Don't you think it's a little unfair that the government has the sole right to take what is rightfully yours? Wouldn't it be better to just tax through sales or usage, where you are given a choice whether to pay that tax or not? If you don't pay taxes under the current method of taxation, you go to prison. However, if you use the second method, you have a choice of whether to pay that tax or not. You can choose not to buy things, or drive on the roads, etc. However, not buying anything at all would be difficult to avoid for an extended period of time, but a way to cut down on the amount of taxes that you pay would be to not buy extraneous, unneeded items. It might be unavoidable to not drive, but on occasions that you have the option to not drive, then that would also cut down the amount that you are taxed.

About the third type of law...Do you think it's fair that someone else is receiving any sort of benefit at your expense, without you receiving any benefit? Do you think it's fair that you don't have a choice in that matter? Let's say that I get $200 a week from unemployment and you go to work and make $600 a week, but $200 was taken out to give to me for my unemployment.

That doesn't seem very fair to me...

About Communism. Theoretically, under perfect conditions, yes, Communism works in its purest form. However, to attain such a pure form, the drive to have more would have to be eliminated, but that is impossible since it is a basic human desire. If I have what you have what he has, that desire to have more than what you have than what he has will always be there. Not only do you have to have a uncorrupted government, but a perfect society as well.

 

Benign Dictatorship (I know there has never been one, but hey!) The problem with communism was best explained to me by a Chinese guy I work with. He was telling me about working on the farm co-op. Quote "They say, I not go to work. My arse is sore". Basically he was saying that the drive to do things isn't there because there is no way to get ahead. Communism would be a good system if it could be implemented properly. Sadly I don't think we as a species are far enough along in our social evolution to sustain such a system.

 

I don't think it's fair that I have to pay into social security when I myself won't get to see any of that money when I'm 65. I don't feel bad about the pensioners that didn't save enough money for retirement. They should have saved their money throughout all those years instead of spending it. It's a system that I'll have to do since social security won't exist by the time I go and get it. Unemployment should really be renamed as the disabled, if you want to screen out all of the lazy asses. Most cases concerning the disabled, if it is a work-related injury, where that person can be compensated from their work, not through taxes.

 

I said if the disability was work related, then it wouldn't come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

Sure, there's going to be some social programs that we have to have, but certainly not as many as there are now. Also, since there would be less money being put into social programs, you would be taxed less, so you have the freedom to do whatever you want with that money: create your own pension, invest, indulge, whatever.

And with that proposal of the only method of taxation would be on sales, you wouldn't have any money taken out of your paycheck, but the money gathered through taxation would be allotted to those social programs that are necessary.

Instead of illegal operations going on with laundering money, and fudging your yearly taxes, simply buying something would pay for taxes. It is unavoidable. When someone slaps down $250k for an Aston Martin, a hefty tax would be put in play, and no matter how that person obtained that amount of money, they still paid a tax on it. Taxation shouldn't be based on how much you make, but how much you spend. You could report that you only make $10k but you spent $20k, whereas if you bought something that totals to $20k, then that $20k would be taxed, and not the $10k.