Your Ideal Form of Government

A democracy where morons are barred from voting, and either has one party or no parties.

The executive would serve non-consecutive 6 year terms. 4 years of mandatory service, before citizens are allowed to vote.
 
An anarchy in a world that has been redesigned to make violence near-impossible. (EDIT: Also, all basic needs are provided for at no cost, perhaps by nanotechnological food assemblers or solar-powered automated farms.)

Going far more practical and slightly less ideal, here's a sketch: a multi-party (>5) parliamentary republic with a 1% minimum vote required for representation (so that every Tom, Dick and Silly doesn't start their own party for fun), transparency of government and of the parliamentary representatives, a Supreme Court whose members are appointed for life so that they can safely take unpopular decisions, and professional scientific advisors who are not elected but recommended by peer review from their respective fields.
 
Based on the current human psychology, I would argue for a benign dictatorship which guaranteed as many civil liberties and economic freedoms as it possibly could.

Failing that, a democracy which did the same thing would be good too.

Both have the problem of falling into statism and authoritarianism though.
 
Libertarianism.
I was under the impression that that was not so much a form of government as a political philosophy largely regarding the role of government.
 
A Federal Republic with four or five major parties.
 
A One City State with advanced AI that takes care of the more mundane aspects of City management, thus allowing for a Eudainomic lifestyle.
 
The absolute ideal would be a Roman Catholic republic that spans the globe.

Seeing as many people refuse to be enlightened, then I guess a secular republic would have to do. At least that would be the case, until the take over.
 
Hmmm...

Iunno, but to my knowledge, the Official RCC ideal is a Constitutional Monarchy. The Constitution being the official teachings of the Church.
 
Probably fairly anarchist in structure... but they're pretty tricky to set up partly because states tend to fight it and anarchist societies suck at self defence (a side effect of being peaceful and non-propertarian). It's also tricky, though, because for states, land is a zero-sum game and one of the key tenets of anarchism is the ability to leave the society and either be on your own or go to another society. Which is hard in a world of borders and barriers.

So I'll go with "non-evil parliamentary-system republic".
 
Some sort of technocratic meritocracy with some random democratic checks to keep the balance, particularly in protecting a bill of rights that is very libertarian. Policy would be decided by experts, though. I'll call it "Demesos" for the sake of nostaligia, even though it's antithetical to the name.
 
Enlightened elective monarchy. A test is required to gain the right to vote but the test should be such as to allow most to pass if they make an effort.
 
An absolute and iron fisted fascist dictatorship, with me in charge (of course). If/when I'm not in charge, then I guess democracy/republic is ok.


Regarding number of parties:
The 2 party system kind of forces people to make their political compromises in the vote, instead of elected party members making those compromises in a coalition. If people are forced to make their own compromises, then perhaps things move along more quickly (and fairly) at the elected official level.
 
Hmmm...

Iunno, but to my knowledge, the Official RCC ideal is a Constitutional Monarchy. The Constitution being the official teachings of the Church.

Monarchy? Even popes themselves are elected.
 
Monarchy? Even popes themselves are elected.

Elective monarchies are still monarchies. Besides, the Vatican explicitly refused to join the UN because it was diametric to its ideals.
 
Top Bottom