[Let's Get Political] What form of government do you prefer?

Form of government?

  • Total voters
    30
Tomatketchup

Tomatketchup

Banned
Contributor
I know Skial is filled with people with no real idea about politics, with no interest etc etc. but I think some people might be interested.

So for those that don't know, here's a simple glossary:
Democracy - All citizens of a country votes.
Dictatorship - One guy/council decides everything in the country.
Anarchy - No government at all.
Technocracy - The educated people rule.
Absolute monarchy - A king or queen rules the country.

Myself, I believe in a technocratic direct democracy, the educated (who's considered educated is determined by a national test) directly votes about matters that span the entire nation, local matters are directly voted on by the local educated. The only problem with direct democracy imo is that the uneducated may vote on everything even though a lot of people might not really know what they are talking about. Of course a technocracy won't make ignorant people less ignorant, but it'll create less of them and more educated choices.

The problem with parliamentary democracy is that while the parliament consists of mostly educated people, that doesn't mean a lot of them get elected by dumb people who only elect them because they are nice, and not for their intelligence.

So what about you, fellow Skialers?
 
Maddo

Maddo

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
Anyone who doesn't believe in democracy is waiting to be told what to vote for.
 
Questionable Moose

Questionable Moose

Banned
I just kinda follow the flow in an extremely passive manner, accepting whatever. As long as I have a roof above my head and a job, I do not really want to engage politics unless it is necessary.

An extremely arrogance view I may add! Because I know that politics is extremely important and its decisions affects a lot of people that are in different life situations.
 
Maddo

Maddo

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
I'm pretty much for anarchy, but this would lead to Technocracy, which would lead to dictatorship, which would lead to oppression, which would lead to revolt, which would lead to democracy.
 
Tomatketchup

Tomatketchup

Banned
Contributor
Maddo said:
I'm pretty much for anarchy, but this would lead to Technocracy
Click to expand...
While I see your point, I must disagree, in an anarchistic society the ones with the best tools to survive and oppress are the ones that rule. While intelligence has an upper hand it's not necessarily the intelligent that will survive to create a new state.

Also, technocracy doesn't necessarily lead to dictatorship either. Your political-series-of-events-prediction is flawed.
StaticVoid said:
Where's communism? xD
Click to expand...
Communism is not a form of government, it's an ideology. The times where communism is considered a form of government it refers mostly to a one-party state, aka a dictatorship.
Blade D_Hero said:
And socialism.
Click to expand...
Socialism isn't a form of government either, it's an ideology as well.
 
Maddo

Maddo

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
hXcjedders said:
Q:What kind of government do you prefer?

A:THE ONE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT

Now do you realize how silly that answer is?

As a side note, anarchy in the UK is so 1970s-80s.
Click to expand...
Not silly at all mate, read my thoughts on it.
The government just parade themselves like rock 'n' roll stars, more interested in trends than the people.
The UK has god knows how many taxes, that just cripple the country, income tax, council tax, Value added tax, Bedroom tax, car tax, tax on fuel, tax on booze, tax on cigarettes, damn I even have to pay a licence fee to the government to own and watch a television. what we earn here is soon taken away by the tax man.
The government has used taxpayers money to bail out our banks, we all pay taxes to support our country, but it seems as if we are working to fund another classes extravagances.
Things here have gotten as bad as they were in the 70s and 80s with unemployment rising, and family's approaching the bread line.
Ian Duncan Smith our minister for work and pensions, stated that anyone could live on £53 a week, so he was challenged and asked to spend 6 months living on £53 a week, to which he replied "get a petition with 400, 000 signatures on it and I will" the petition took less than a week to get the sigs, and when they tried to deliver it to parliament they had the doors closed on them, told they weren't allowed in, because of some health and safety violation. Ian Duncan Smith now wants to cut peoples benefits, unemployed, disabled, even the elderly, he wants to reduce the amount that these people get from £53 to £47 he spoke to journalists saying that you don't need £53 a week to live on, while eating his breakfast which cost £43 - £43 that was put on his expenses and charged to the taxpayer.
This is why I believe in people governing themselves, too much power is held by those who abuse it, they spent £3million pounds to bury that cunt Thatcher, full state funeral, they got the papers to edit in people lining the streets to justify what they had spent, no fucker turned out for it NOONE, the whole country hated her, the only ones there were her family and the tory party.. yeah the tory party that paid themselves £13k and upwards each to attend. seriously governments do nothing but maintain power, think of this, if we live in a democracy, why is there opposition parties chomping at the bit to get in power, surely whoever is in office is just a conduit for the people, the top of the triangle... nah, fuck politicians, they are a waste of time... a police force - yes, but not a government.
 
Tomatketchup

Tomatketchup

Banned
Contributor
Maddo said:
Not silly at all mate, read my thoughts on it.
The government just parade themselves like rock 'n' roll stars, more interested in trends than the people.
The UK has god knows how many taxes, that just cripple the country, income tax, council tax, Value added tax, Bedroom tax, car tax, tax on fuel, tax on booze, tax on cigarettes, damn I even have to pay a licence fee to the government to own and watch a television. what we earn here is soon taken away by the tax man.
The government has used taxpayers money to bail out our banks, we all pay taxes to support our country, but it seems as if we are working to fund another classes extravagances.
Things here have gotten as bad as they were in the 70s and 80s with unemployment rising, and family's approaching the bread line.
Ian Duncan Smith our minister for work and pensions, stated that anyone could live on £53 a week, so he was challenged and asked to spend 6 months living on £53 a week, to which he replied "get a petition with 400, 000 signatures on it and I will" the petition took less than a week to get the sigs, and when they tried to deliver it to parliament they had the doors closed on them, told they weren't allowed in, because of some health and safety violation. Ian Duncan Smith now wants to cut peoples benefits, unemployed, disabled, even the elderly, he wants to reduce the amount that these people get from £53 to £47 he spoke to journalists saying that you don't need £53 a week to live on, while eating his breakfast which cost £43 - £43 that was put on his expenses and charged to the taxpayer.
This is why I believe in people governing themselves, too much power is held by those who abuse it, they spent £3million pounds to bury that cunt Thatcher, full state funeral, they got the papers to edit in people lining the streets to justify what they had spent, no fucker turned out for it NOONE, the whole country hated her, the only ones there were her family and the tory party.. yeah the tory party that paid themselves £13k and upwards each to attend. seriously governments do nothing but maintain power, think of this, if we live in a democracy, why is there opposition parties chomping at the bit to get in power, surely whoever is in office is just a conduit for the people, the top of the triangle... nah, fuck politicians, they are a waste of time... a police force - yes, but not a government.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be better with a technocracy in that case? A technocracy doesn't have politicians, only the actual people.
 
Maddo

Maddo

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
Tomatketchup said:
Wouldn't it be better with a technocracy in that case? A technocracy doesn't have politicians, only the actual people.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what I proposed, that anarchy would eventually lead to a formation of that type of hierarchy.
 
hXcjedders

hXcjedders

Australian Skial God
Maddo said:
Not silly at all mate, read my thoughts on it.
The government just parade themselves like rock 'n' roll stars, more interested in trends than the people.
The UK has god knows how many taxes, that just cripple the country, income tax, council tax, Value added tax, Bedroom tax, car tax, tax on fuel, tax on booze, tax on cigarettes, damn I even have to pay a licence fee to the government to own and watch a television. what we earn here is soon taken away by the tax man.
The government has used taxpayers money to bail out our banks, we all pay taxes to support our country, but it seems as if we are working to fund another classes extravagances.
Things here have gotten as bad as they were in the 70s and 80s with unemployment rising, and family's approaching the bread line.
Ian Duncan Smith our minister for work and pensions, stated that anyone could live on £53 a week, so he was challenged and asked to spend 6 months living on £53 a week, to which he replied "get a petition with 400, 000 signatures on it and I will" the petition took less than a week to get the sigs, and when they tried to deliver it to parliament they had the doors closed on them, told they weren't allowed in, because of some health and safety violation. Ian Duncan Smith now wants to cut peoples benefits, unemployed, disabled, even the elderly, he wants to reduce the amount that these people get from £53 to £47 he spoke to journalists saying that you don't need £53 a week to live on, while eating his breakfast which cost £43 - £43 that was put on his expenses and charged to the taxpayer.
This is why I believe in people governing themselves, too much power is held by those who abuse it, they spent £3million pounds to bury that cunt Thatcher, full state funeral, they got the papers to edit in people lining the streets to justify what they had spent, no fucker turned out for it NOONE, the whole country hated her, the only ones there were her family and the tory party.. yeah the tory party that paid themselves £13k and upwards each to attend. seriously governments do nothing but maintain power, think of this, if we live in a democracy, why is there opposition parties chomping at the bit to get in power, surely whoever is in office is just a conduit for the people, the top of the triangle... nah, fuck politicians, they are a waste of time... a police force - yes, but not a government.
Click to expand...

I was more or less being facetious. My point was anarchy isn't a governmental system, it is a lack thereof.

However, on paper, anarchy works 100% perfectly just like every other governmental system on the books. Anarchy can only exist when there are no people that desire power. It is man's natural tendency to gravitate towards power. If there ever is anarchy, there's only a short time before someone or one group of people takes advantage of the lack of discipline and structure to once again attempt to warp society to their will. Anarchy is probably the worst thing to have in the end because it will eventually fade away and most likely it will give rise to a violent seizure of power. Anarchy has the least chance to exist for a long duration in my opinion.
 
Maddo

Maddo

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
hXcjedders said:
I was more or less being facetious. My point was anarchy isn't a governmental system, it is a lack thereof.

However, on paper, anarchy works 100% perfectly just like every other governmental system on the books. Anarchy can only exist when there are no people that desire power. It is man's natural tendency to gravitate towards power. If there ever is anarchy, there's only a short time before someone or one group of people takes advantage of the lack of discipline and structure to once again attempt to warp society to their will. Anarchy is probably the worst thing to have in the end because it will eventually fade away and most likely it will give rise to a violent seizure of power. Anarchy has the least chance to exist for a long duration in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Your absolutely right, which is why anarchy is intertwined with the vision of a lawless society. I think the last time anarchy reared its head was during the wild wild west.
 
Tomatketchup

Tomatketchup

Banned
Contributor
Maddo said:
Well, that's what I proposed, that anarchy would eventually lead to a formation of that type of hierarchy.
Click to expand...
It's not like technocracy is dependant on a communist-like translation from anarchy to technocracy in order to be fully realized.
 
Phaiz

Phaiz

Epic Skial Regular
Contributor
In all honesty I believe communism would be a better form of dictatorship, unlike a totalitarian form such as those present even in modern contemporary societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom