While we wait...

[alex994]

My, my, aren't we Nesers a bit off the charts in politics Benevolent Divine Monarchy I tell you! I hearken to the Days of the Great Chinese Emperors of Gaozu, Wu, Taizong, Yongle, Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong. Greatness beyond all other nations. What other nation has been so great and splendid for so long?

 

[LittleBoots]

Not far enough in control and too many people, damn you! And my rant is relegated to the bottom of the page! Nooooooo!

 

[alex994]

That is the finest Government known to Man. Benevolent Divine Monarchy. There is no finer Government.

 

[~Darkening~]

That is the finest Government known to Man. Benevolent Divine Monarchy. There is no finer Government.

Wow. O.O. We.....We........We agree for once! Well, except that China's was any good.

 

[silver 2039]

Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan (though the latter isn't a failure, it's simply that we're almost literally ignoring the country outside of Kabul) is directly related to the fact that the government is afraid to send more troops there. If they could manage to rally the home front, the American government could likely conquer the world, though admittedly it would be radioactive.

Hahahahahha!!!! COnquer the world my arse. The American govt can't even deal with a puny nation like Iraq or Afghanistan you expect them to conquer more than 200 other countries, a number of which have massive militaries and a variety of NBC weapons? hahahahah!! Man if you believe that you have to be insane.

Anyway the best government in the world is undoubdtly an absoloute meritocratic beuracratic monarchy in which the Emperor holds absoloute power and can appoint the beuracracy based on their skill and talent.

 

[Niklas]

Keep your opinions and your 30% taxes to yourself, Commie. Having lived in Europe, and having paid the equivilent of $15.00 for a three-pack of Micromachines (let alone gas, or food, or...), I can quite frankly say that if that's the cost of socialism, it can be kept elsewhere. Anything's great on paper until you have to pay for it.

I'm living it and certainly don't mind. I'll gladly pay more for those things, when I think back on my 18 years from elementary school through university for free. Or that my wife's prescription medicine, which would cost in the $1000 range, is capped at $180 a year. Ultimately, it is a question of whether the rich and poor should have equal opportunities or not, say what you want.

Though it is true that as a foreigner coming to live here, and not really getting much of the benefits while still paying the higher prices, it probably wouldn't seem all that grand.

 

[andis-1]

I've born to be a dictator.

 

[das]

Anyway the best government in the world is undoubdtly an absoloute meritocratic beuracratic monarchy in which the Emperor holds absoloute power and can appoint the beuracracy based on their skill and talent.

Except that such a government form depends on the Emperor being both competent and more-or-less insane, which rarely is combined, especially in just the right proportion. Such states are prone to brief golden ages durign the Emperor's lifetime and lenghty crises after the Emperor dies, although it does not exclude revival afterwards (18th century Russia is probably the best example here when taken in its entirety). The problem is, you see, that meritocracy is really impossible in its ideal form and even in its unideal form is prone to corruption. Not that corruption is such a bad thing; nepotism sure is damn convenient.

Really all government forms have their advantages and disadvantages; the more I study them the more it becomes apparent that no government form is good for every type of situation. I suppose that the only criteria of government form evaluation that matters globally would be flexibility, but the funny thing is that both democratic and autocracy (the two basic government forms, seeing that oligarchy isn't all that widespread) are flexible and inflexible in their own ways, for different reasons.

EDIT:

Imperial Republics FTW!

Incidentally, would that be in any way similar to a Royal Republic? These still scare me months after that research I've done on Polish history for an althist... Just look up "liberum veto". Now if there ever was a trully bad government system, that was it.

 

[LittleBoots]

when I think back on my 18 years from elementary school through university for free

No it wasn't Not to agree or disagree with socialism, but from a purely economic point of view, nothing is free. I'm not even talking opportunity costs here. Schools must be funded somehow and somehow, they were paid for. Assuming you had an income, you did, in fact, pay for those years (through taxes). Assuming you did not have an income, someone who DID have an income paid for them (through taxes).

And cheers to das' comment on no government being right in every situation. Its like those citizens who think they know something about economics and demand a balanced budget. Deficit spending and building a surplus is sometimes necessary. It all depends.

 

[Niklas]

No it wasn't Not to agree or disagree with socialism, but from a purely economic point of view, nothing is free. I'm not even talking opportunity costs here. Schools must be funded somehow and somehow, they were paid for. Assuming you had an income, you did, in fact, pay for those years (through taxes). Assuming you did not have an income, someone who DID have an income paid for them (through taxes).

Well, this was my point also. It wasn't free, it was payed for by the populace at large through taxes. But what I was disputing was Symph's implication that there is cost without gain, or that 30% taxes is something to scare children with so they eat their vegetables. What I'm saying is that I don't mind paying those taxes, considering what they are used for.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

The only problem being is that sometimes it makes you financially support things you disagree with.

Incidentally, would that be in any way similar to a Royal Republic? These still scare me months after that research I've done on Polish history for an althist... Just look up "liberum veto". Now if there ever was a trully bad government system, that was it.

Government I used as Malaysia in StKNES5. Democratic, but Monarch has 33% voting power. It was good in an NES because it gave people the feeling of democratic power while I could pass a bill with support from only 25% support.

 

[North King]

ah, so you deny the historical implications of the progressive forces of this world and the benevolance of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

In a word, yes.

Ah how sad that propoganda in America, the purported land of liberty, equality and freedom denounce the very system that would give it to them!

*snorts* I used to be nearly Communist myself, you know. America hardly prevents people supporting socialism, it's just that we have a predisposed bias against it.

The REAL problem with government if you want to get down to it, is that in the end someone will always end up in charge of someone else. So either its anarchy or we just continue to suffer.

Most people like to be controlled, so I wouldn't call it "suffering".

Hahahahahha!!!! COnquer the world my arse. The American govt can't even deal with a puny nation like Iraq or Afghanistan you expect them to conquer more than 200 other countries, a number of which have massive militaries and a variety of NBC weapons? hahahahah!! Man if you believe that you have to be insane.

No, you have to be insane if you doubt American capabilities. Americans are barely deploying a tenth of their all volunteer military to Iraq. If they instituted a draft, and were more willing to go on overseas adventures, they could easily conquer the world. American military technology is the best in the world; period. American technological progress is likely to keep them there. And America has the allies to help them along the way. It's just that the people don't support that.

Anyway the best government in the world is undoubdtly an absoloute meritocratic beuracratic monarchy in which the Emperor holds absoloute power and can appoint the beuracracy based on their skill and talent.

Monarchies inevitably fail; a line of kings does not stay sane.

 

[ThomAnder]

No, you have to be insane if you doubt American capabilities. Americans are barely deploying a tenth of their all volunteer military to Iraq. If they instituted a draft, and were more willing to go on overseas adventures, they could easily conquer the world. American military technology is the best in the world; period. American technological progress is likely to keep them there. And America has the allies to help them along the way. It's just that the people don't support that.

If they invade China on chinese soil... i wonder what'll happen

 

[Symphony D.]

If they invade China on chinese soil... i wonder what'll happen

China would become a radioactive dustbowl. America would lose a few dozen cities. 9,000+ nuclear warheads versus 400. The math isn't difficult.

America could quite easily cripple the entire rest of the world militarily and economically on a whim if it chose to do so and set humanity's progress back by several hundred years (as an example, America currently spends approximately 51% of all funding spent on the military for the entire world). No other hegemonic power has ever had similar capability.

Silver's repeated ignorance of this fact and his seemingly sole focus on only conventional capabilities is rather surprising and disappointing given his reptutation.

"Oh, but America would be destroyed too!"

Yes, probably. But so would everybody else. "I lose, we all lose." This disparity will only continue to grow larger as time passes, technology advances, and the cost of newer weapon systems grows increasingly more severe, leaving a very limited number of nations with the necessary funds to pursue it.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Yes, probably. But so would everybody else. "I lose, we all lose." This disparity will only continue to grow larger as time passes, technology advances, and the cost of newer weapon systems grows increasingly more severe, leaving a very limited number of nations with the necessary funds to pursue it.

Somehow I think that weapons of such mass destruction will only get more expensive with present day manufacturing capabilities. When it becomes too expensive new techniques will come into existance to cut down on costs, etc.

 

[Symphony D.]

Somehow I think that weapons of such mass destruction will only get more expensive with present day manufacturing capabilities. When it becomes too expensive new techniques will come into existance to cut down on costs, etc.

For most countries it already is, and there already are. It's called modularity and upgrading, and only building new systems from scratch every 30 years or so. Even the American military with its vast funding has to rely upon this type of method of proceding because building an all-new system with all-new capabilities every decade or so is no longer practicable.

That's why most nations don't develop new weapons and either buy direct from militarily developed nations (interesting fact: the five largest arms dealers in the world are the five permanent members of the UNSC) or license the design (China and most former Warsaw Pact countries used to do this) and manufacture it domestically. Since about 1960 building new weapons systems has been an expensive business.

It's only logical, therefore, that the ones with the most money will dominate it. This explains why the real America is fooling around with lasers and railguns while everyone else is still dropping gravity bombs on people.

 

[Kal'thzar]

wait till you get the next "enabler" tech...

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It might work if posters were a little bit responsible and didn't let it get too out of hand.

Guess what. It seems to be out of hand.

If you want to discuss real world politics, etc., we have a whole forum called Off Topic dedicated to that stuff.