Best form of Government?

So this is my first topic in a long while so why not start off big. Sorry if this has been done before but I couldn't find another topic about this so...

Personally I believe in Imperialism. I honestly think that would be the most effective way to change and repair what damage has been done to tho country. I will get in to finer points if asked but as a baseline under an Imperial Government we could seize the majority of corporate profit and use it to fund healthcare so no citizen would ever have to pay for what I see as a human right. We could eliminate insurance companies as well as all entitlements. That would be enough to balance the national budget over time. If corporations aren't willing to cooperate the they're business would be forced out of the country. So it would be a lose/lose situation for them.

I say that I support this idea because I believe corporations have an obligation to the country and its people who got them where they are. Billions of dollars in profits should not be legal. It should be used for the betterment of the nation. Force them to up wages with what isn't used to fund programs.

Those are a few of my ideas, any thoughts?

But.. many people revolted and tried to gain their independence from imperialist countries..

I mean, it benefited some countries, but caused conflicts between the imperialist and their countries they had control over..

Oh wait, imperialism also refers to being ruled by an emperor..

I believe in Brommunism, a society where the Broletariat is free to practice the Bro Code.

I believe in imperialism. As long as I'm the emperor, of course. >:)

Want honesty? No government would be ideal. Let the morons wipe each other out.

Monarchy.

Democracy.

@orician_seis: Honestly, there are VERY few politicians I'd want to be emperor, and all of the things that you recommended can be done in nearly any form of government.

On paper? Communism

On practice? None, as long as humans are in charge, there's always going to be messed up stuff

Democracy is pretty much proven to work best. I personaally prefer the U.S. system, even though it's not technically democracy becaus it simply means less work for the voters.

A democratic system where the federal intervention is minimal.

Social Democracy.

The kind where we have big government where it save us from the evil corperations but is some how trusted to not violate the citizens rights....you'd understand....if you went to college

Democracy.

Fascist dictatorship

@consolemaster001: You will suffer the wrath of our Chairman, son of Hitler. The proletarians will prevail!

Why do so many people want communism?

Because they don't know how awful it actually is.

It sounds stupid to me :I

It is. IIRC, Marx believed that the conditions of the common worker would never improve, when they have. Communism in a 1st world country would never work.

Brocracy

I think free market is the best

Best form of government is no government.

@comicstooge: Hammer and sickle look cool as a flag though...

America

You just haven't been to college

I just have common sense

Socialism on paper

Practically, nothing short of a hive mind would work.

The best government is one that actually reflects the majority interest of the people that it governs, not the majority interest of the elite, a specialized class or intellectual commissars.

On a serious note a reformed american system, get rid of the electoral college and make the votes truly decide the elections, add a option for "none of the above" so if all candidates suck you can keep the current official a extra 6 months and the parties have to bring up new candidates for a new election, added elected officials that follow other elected officials around monitoring them for more transparency, and term limits for the judges and lawmakers

Also every elected official has to have a anger translater

Constitutional Republic, as long as the constitution is actually followed.

A constitutional, limited-government, non-interventionist Republic is the best form of government.

Imperialism involves the expansion of the nation to influence and almost inevitably take over other nations. This usually leads to war. I believe good government can only come from the consent of the governed, so I oppose imperialism.

Also, what you describe has nothing to do with expanding an empire. What you describe is a socialist dictatorship not an empire.

It is self-evident that people have a right to own property and to make agreements with other people. If in so doing an individual collects to themselves great piles of wealth, what business is it of mine and what business is it of yours?

Socialism, dictatorship, and imperialism all require that people walk in lock-step with the wishes of the government that holds all the power, and thought it is a truth so obvious and well-known as to be trite, yet it is still true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Place all the power in the hands of a "benevolent" dictator/emperor/board, and you will soon find yourself enslaved by them.

The government derives its powers from the people. Just as it would be immoral for you to come into my house, steal my money, and use it to pay for your cold medicine, it is wrong to use the government to steal money from the rich and use it to pay for the medicine of all mankind with the threat of violence if they do not comply.

Freaking Canadian. . .I mean who wants free healthcare like wtf?

@batwatch: What do you think of Anarcho-Capitalism?

A world where the governments are abolished and everything from law enforcement, healthcare, and military are privatised? A world where instead of 196 countries we have, say, 196 landowners each with their own corporate entities?

Not a troll question, I know this sounds ridiculous and laughable but this has gained many advocates by piggybacking Libertarians, minarchists, and Randians.

@mandarinestro:

I've heard of Anarcho-Capitalism, but I haven't looked into it in any depth, so I don't feel like I can give it an official yay or nay, but with just a thin surface knowledge, it seems like a bad idea. Unlike anarchists, i believe there should be a government representing the people, but unlike the current Unisted States political parties, I believe government's role is to protect people's natural rights not to give people special privileges. For instance, everyone has a natural right to property, so if someone steals my property, the government should penalize that person, restore to me my property if possible and balance the scales of justice. This is a system based on natural rights. Most big government systems view property rights as something that must be maintained. You have a right to property, so the government must give you property. (food, housing, clothes, ect.) This is "economic justice" or redistrobution of wealth, and it is incompatible with respect individual natural rights because it requires that some people's right to property be sacrificed for the furtherance of the property of others.

I want a government that says, "Nobody can violate your fundamental rights to life, liberty and property," not a government that says, "You have a right to demand that someone else sustain your life, liberty and property."

At first glance, anarcho-capitalism sounds as if it eliminates the government, (a bad idea all its own) but it speaks of setting up courts and councils, so it seems to me that it is not really giving up government but just forming a new government with less division of powers than the United States Constitution provided, so I would rather go back to the Constitution personally.

I believe Penn Jillette considers himself an anarcho-capitalist, and I greatly enjoy Penn's perspective and agree with him on the direction the country should go, but it sounds to me as if he and other anarcho-capitalists take it too far.

Elitist direct democracy.

There would be a small government elected once a decade whose job would be to propose laws, regulations, projects etc, and then people would vote upon them and chose which laws get to be passed. Not all votes would be worth the same, everyone older than 14, who is interested in voting would have to pass series of tests, made by the universities and the score would effect the value of their vote.

Tests would be about economics, science, ethics, ecology, IQ tests, etc, and depending on the subject, not all scores would be valued the same. For example, if you are voting on a subject of building a thermonuclear reactor on some place, then your scores from science and ecology would play a big role in forming the value of your vote.

@mandarinestro: Very true

You don't know how good it is either) Or how actually it was.

@rubear: ...Are you serious?

If you are going to ask me "why so serious" that's you chance. xD Yeah, i am.