What do you think is the most stable government with the least corruption?
The most stable, most ideal, most prosperous, type of government--- people look at ideals like that of what Marx wrote and think, "this will never work with human society." But can it? If not, how close can we get?
Maybe some form of Libertarian Socialism or a Mutualism anarchy kind of thing.
No corruption, not even in business--no capitalism crap where businesses are run like monarchies and no large overpowering governments. How direct can a democracy realistically become? How would such a complex system of social anarchy even work? I guess I can't imagine, living in a society where everyone is so used to and so dependent on the big guy, but the bigger guys don't need us, we're expendable.
Thoughts? Comments? Knock yourselves out. Human society is complex, and I'm curious to understand.
edit: to defend my current political ideals, I do NOT believe in communism. I believe that every single individual that CAN work, should work. If they choose not to they will get no support from society at all.
- Joe SLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
There is no social order that will magically stamp out corruption as long as there are people who have corrupt tendencies. These people will try to game whatever system is put in place. The only check on them is the vigilance of the rest of society against corruption.
It is for this reason that my political views only stress voluntary association. I believe that corruption is least likely when humans work cooperatively to their mutual benefit. Of course, in every interaction there is the possibility of fraud. I can say nothing more than that a person must use sound judgment to protect himself from people who may not be as they claim.
Within the bounds of voluntary interaction, there must be infinite ways in which people can organize themselves. In my opinion, voluntary interaction typically leads to some kind of market order. However, on local levels, people may tightly bind themselves into democratic, socialist, bureaucratic or other organizations. If they are closely aware of the organization, each individual can watch to assure that the organization works to the mutual benefit of the group.
I am skeptical that such organizations can work without corruption on large scales. I don't care whether it is a government over a large population or a massive corporation. Large organizations wield great influence and attract corrupt people who might use that influence to their personal ends.
Sometimes, large organizations may be necessary to achieve some ends that actually are in the common interest. Repeating myself, individuals of good will should watch those organizations carefully. They may even establish institutions for the purpose of watching them (though of course, there is no guarantee against those institutions themselves becoming corrupt). When corruption is uncovered, we should recognize it for what it is: a violation of the principle of voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation. Whatever actions we take should be toward the goal of returning the government of society to that principle.
We should resist the tragically contradictory ideas that suggest that we may stamp out corruption by centralizing authority in one place. Proponents of these ideas speak in utopian terms of forever bettering society and stamping out corruption. Their guarantees, they tell us, are iron-clad.
Well, we should be skeptical of any guarantee. Even in the mundane realm of consumer guarantees, we should realize that no guarantee is foolproof. We may go with a company that stands behind its products on our judgment that they are honest and sound, but we should realize that any company may fall short through either honest failure or fraud. I think that people offering guarantees over the whole of society tend toward the later.
My ideas really center on a philosophy of liberty. In order for them to result in a perfectly uncorrupt society, every human must become perfectly uncorrupt. Failing that, we can only do our best to influence the people within our spheres of influence to be good and honest. And whatever organizations that we put in place, we should be grounded in the realization that many humans fall far short of goodness and honesty.
- 1 decade ago
Everyone is giving complex answers so I'll try to take a different approach. People are different. It's just a fact of life. Different cultures, different ideals, different beliefs. When you try to force sameness you get conflict. People very often don't agree, but at the same time we desire companionship. We come together in communities and groups. When you look at a persons life, they have different groups of companions. Most often it's split between those that know public information about you, those that know personal information about you, and those that know you dreams, fears, and mistakes. Throughout history, governments that grew a larger national government with more and more micromanagement became oppressive and always filled with revolutions and civil wars. The perfect kind of government would be one that had a national government that only upheld a basic list of rights, and a single flat tax such as sales, and left the rest of the law making and taxes to the individual regions/states. That's why our founding fathers had the tenth amendment that stated that anything not covered in the constitution is reserved to the people or to the states. We disagree to much to have someone in california decide what laws and taxes someone in florida should follow.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Source(s): United States Constitution
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think it's all based on humanities ability to evolve socially... no system will work as long as we're still little more than monsters emotionally...
I mean we're only 120 years out from slavery...
and only 50 or so years out from segregation...
we're in a "social infancy" still... we're barely past blatant abuse of others and are just starting to form a value of human life... relatively...
we're only 6,000 or so years old as a self-aware human culture to any real degree...
we're not only going to have to move beyond this... but WAY beyond this... 500 more years maybe, with a few setbacks along the way... I'm sure...
we have to get to the point where greed and gluttony are looked upon as racism is now in our society... that's a start...
also, to the point where we value the individual, but also have value in group and communal goals and a fair sense of how individuals and the community relate and the rights of each... we're really just starting that I think...
get to the point where war is a punchline of a joke, at how silly it is... rather than a reality and an inevitability...
sure, many will say "we'll never get there or close"...
but many also said the same when people said that slavery was bad and should be outlawed...
I'm not going to put limits on humanity... I think we've got a ways to go... and hopefully the best is in front of us...
- George SLv 71 decade ago
Libertarianism and socialism are antithetical. You probably mean Marx's ultimate destination for "scientific socialism." That was his dream of anarchic-communism.
It's not likely. All such dreams are killed by exactly what capitalists say kills them. Most people will not devote themselves to sacrifice for the common good. They will not work extra when it gains them little or no more, just to benefit people they don't even know who aren't working enough to support themselves.
Graduated income taxes work that way and can't go much higher before people give up trying because too much of what they earn is taken from them.
People who advocate such systems are either ones who make too little because their labor is too low in value, have caused themselves to need far more than they earn, or have failed to understand they earn more than most others and would lose some of what they now have.Source(s): decades studying philosophies and cultures
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ChainsLv 41 decade ago
Right off the bat I got to tell you, that anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea is completely out of their mind. The most stable form of government would be a global Empire, where local communities would be able to directly control there own areas democratically if they so wished, provided they were able to contribute adequately to the central government which would maintain the security forces planet wide, and operate the global power grid, and other infrastructure that requires the cooperation of many communities together. Each area would be able to write their own laws and enforce them provided they operated within the guidelines set forth by the Imperial government. Corruption no longer becomes an issue because there isn't any power to gain by anyone.
The economic system would be guaranteed by Imperial oversight to a certain degree, and then beyond that, would be "buyer beware". For all intents and purposes you would no longer need money, although it would be available for those who wished to pursue that kind of lifestyle. For the most part, things that people wanted or needed would be available through a "credit" system run by the central government. This gives people the option of living under the relative security and structure of the Imperial government, OR, more independently if they so desired, OR to some degree BOTH.
This system would offer the maximum amount of both security AND freedom, so that ALL people have the opportunity to live comfortable, productive lives. Violence of any kind would be harshly punished. Without forcing the end of violence, NO system has much of a chance to function without some degree of dissent and instability, hence, the need to establish an overwhelmingly megalithic military security force.
You see, freedom doesn't mean anarchy. Freedom is something that ONLY those responsible enough should be permitted to enjoy. Also, freedom isn't "free". It must be bought and paid for through the cooperation of many people in order to be able to provide for and defend that freedom. Without food, shelter, fuel, energy, security, health care, and criminal justice, you cannot effectively provide for any degree of freedom, without having that freedom fall into jeopardy almost immediately.
For instance, lets say we released an entire prison full of heinous criminals on a deserted island far out in the pacific ocean. Let's say that we released them with the intention of allowing them to live free. There is a limited natural supply of food and other resources on the island that would be required to accommodate their survival. Without anyone to structure the distribution of resources and provide security and some sense of purpose or ability to advance in some way, how long do you think those folks will enjoy their new found freedom? I wouldn't give them a week. Same is true for ANY other population of people.
As long as we have separate groups of people on the planet competing for resources and opportunities and political power, it doesn't matter what kind of government you institute. It will fail all the same. Frankly it can all be boiled down to a very simple phrase.
United we stand.......Divided we fall.
- Anonymous4 years ago
I always spend my half an hour to read this blog's posts daily along with a mug of coffee.
- Mr. XLv 71 decade ago
Democracy may work for some countries like the US but it doesn't work for every country in the world. The US is trying implement its democratic ideas everywhere in the world but its not working for any of the countries they are invading. e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan
Communism is a system which has been tested by many countries and failed and died its own death.
A system which works for one country may not be feasible for another so different systems work for different countries. Some countries are better off with dictators, some better off as democracies and some better off as semi-socialist like Venezuela.