Ideal Government

[Camerama]

This is purely a theoretical and ideological presentation of the utopian society:
Given that society is in its consummate form, and independent of foreign aggression, what would the ideal government be?

The pinnacle of freedom is, contrary to popular belief, not a democracy. When 60% back a specific piece of legislation, what of the dissenters? They are then slaves to the majority, or the society. The interest of the individual is neglected. Majority rule chokes any opposition. Personal merit is taxed and the "wealth is spread." Political factions govern the people. Is this the ideal rule?


What if the legislative and executive branch were dissolved, and individuals were left to genuine self determination?

[Theaetetus]

I agree to an extent that democracy is not a government in which the "pinnacle of freedom" is ever an achievable reality. I am curious as to what you would find as better. Anarchy, some form of authoritarianism, monarchy, or something else. Please expand a bit on what you think the ideal government would be to give the forum some direction on where to go.

[l0ck]

Ideal government is what we have today and have always had to ensure our survival. The term 'government', generally implies a negentropic force, that is one of, organized, non-chaotic, cohesive social form - I.E. an obstacle to be overcome due to our limitations within our creativity. It's interesting to think, how a government can sometimes hinder creativity in certain areas, while forcing momentum into other areas. It is safe to assume, based on our previous creative history, that one day we will create something that will dissolve certain economic ideas which have been established by governments, such as the idea of putting value on mass and limiting one another on access to that mass based on our physical wealth, and even if those negentropic forces take extra precautions to disguise this and combat it, the speed of entropy is still increasing faster, and cohesion is being released from the environment and internalized as awareness faster. As entropy waxes (environment conversion), negentropy wanes (environment cohesion), hints the exponential increase in speed of creativity - We are converting externalized and unaware finite form into internalized aware infinite form.

The physical sciences, ones of which western culture and language and logic revolve around and enforce, have all formed from this negentropic obstacle of government force, and it is this area of mankind's creativity (physical science) that has created the most conflict, and in turn, the most creative influence, and has paved the way to the modern frontier of our creativity/technology as far as releasing energy from mass (1940's nuclear advent), and thus quality gained from the environment. (At first it's easy to assume we will destroy ourselves, as creativity has invented more ways to release energy from mass, from cooking, to nuclear advent, we have become more harmful to ourselves as a population, such quick and enourmous releases of energy change the environment instantly and chaotically. But factor in the idea of survival and you may see things differently. Survival has always been, and always will be, our intention, as a self-created species.)

If we look back, to say the past 10,000 years of our humanoid form, we can notice that it has only been the past 200 years that mankind has developed most of it's inventions. We can also notice, that it has been the past 200 years that the environment has changed the most, in-fact 40% of the earth's forests have been converted into creative form within the past 200 years, let alone other areas of the environment. This relationship demonstrates how creativity is a guiding force of its own (perhaps even more aware of our unawarenss than we our ourselves, it pulls us forward at all times, there is but no direction to go but forward), even as we are not aware of it, and it serves a means to a end, and our creativity and our hunger to learn is literally what creates that entropy within the environment around us as it grows more chaotic.

If we look at the curve of the rate that creativity has increased, and the directly related inversed curve of environmental conversion, we notice we are somehow responsible, and also that this process is gaining speed exponentially. If we continue based off previous trends and draw vector lines forward in time from our current state of technology and creativity, we can assume we can do anything. Even invent tiny nano-robots that can assemble and disassemble mass into other forms, thus scooping up sand and assembling water (or gold), creating forests out of deserts, abolishing old economics, complete prosthetic body replacement, and even disassembling molecules down to their single hydrogen state and harvesting that energy from dissemblance and producing an infinite free means of electricity and energy from that process. (There was a young man once who said energy cannot be created/destroyed, only converted, and thats exactly what we do, do not fear our environmental disaster, because in the future, as in the past, it has only becomes easier to convert mass.)

Our creativity guides us always, and governments, and all forms of negentropic obstacle and force serve a purpose of opposition, it shows how we, as a self-created species, self-create our own obstacles, and thus self-progress towards self-awareness. It is safe to assume, based on this, we can and will and already do create everything (alone from theories of organic self-evolution), and in the future, as more energy is released from mass, and more quality is gained, and more content is discovered and internalized (at a every increasing exponential rate) that we only become more aware of that, and in turn, switch our paradigm of thought from a finite perspective of separation, to a transfinite one of complete creative awareness of our true sovereign absolute and infinite integrated nature, and as such, the environment will of course reflect that, and at some point instantaneously.

And on that note, and a more personal one, I would like to repeat the crayon box quote from the movie Waking Life(2001, Richard Linklater):
Boat Car Guy: "I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality. And this is like my little window to the world... and every minute's a different show. I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it. But I'll tell you what I've accepted: just sort of glide along. You want to keep things on an even key, this is what I'm saying. You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance. That's where you guys come in. It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box. Now you may get the 8 pack, you may get the 16 pack but it's all in what you do with the crayons - the colors - that you're given. Don't worry about coloring within the lines or coloring outside the lines - I say color outside the lines, you know what I mean? Color all over the page; don't box me in! We're in motion to the ocean. We are not land locked, I'll tell you that"

[Camerama]

Political sanction and inflation is a backwards means of reaching a political ideal. Any entity derived from a rational thought has a purpose. That which serves no purpose geared towards a greater good is irrational, obsolete, and is naturally weeded out of society. Steel displaced iron just as the vacuum replaced brooms. The same is indicative in the evolution of government. Monarchy's ceded to constitutional monarchy's, and they to republics. Natural selection is prevalent everywhere within the confines of reason and objectivity. However, each form of government has been geared towards some higher authority and some ultimate interest. Statism and altruist forms of governments like Socialism, Communism, Nazism, etc, satisfies society's "higher authority." They value the interest of the society over that of the individual. Theocracies, in step with statism, recognize a higher authority also. The higher authority differs, but the essence is the same; individual interests are secondary. Republics were the first step in the right direction since the birth of the human race. However, our very democracy is still a variant of the statist doctrine. Our "capitalist" system recognizes the will of the "majority" over that of the individual. What we need is a decentralized, limited government. That is the next step in the political movement: Absolute protection of individual rights and interests in a rational society. This is not a hair trigger reaction that could be realized in any one generation. There are many holes and problems but i am speaking ideally and theoretically. Now the premise for my argument is.

1.) Achievement of individual freedom is the purpose of a government

Law limit and abridge freedoms

Laws are not necessary in a free, rational society

All laws stem from one irreducible primary: You may not initiate force against the right to life of another man. This encompasses any fraud, coercion, extortion, etc. THAT should be the golden rule.

The executive branch's responsibility is to make sure the legislative branch's laws are obeyed. If no laws are necessary, where is the need for either branch? The only necessary branch would be the judicial. It would sanction contractual agreements and uphold the most important virtue in society, justice. Virtues such as equality, tolerance, and freedom all are derived from justice. The one flaw in my theory would be how to check judicial power.

Any unseen flaws?

[Fido]

The ideal government is the same as the ideal person, and is one which practices self control and restraint; in other words: democracy...In fact, democracy is the only government, as all other sorts are some measure of rule, where the people must share power with some distinct group, or an individual...Self government is not majority rule because it is not rule of any over any...

[prothero]

Representative goverment is better than any form of tyranny.
Government of limited scope powers and duties is better than unlimited government.
Government which can not deprive its citizens of basic rights (read bill of rights) is better than societies in which your rights are dependent on the whims of government.

i.e. the design of the US government is good but our systems of checks and balances depends on an informed, educated and involved electorate and things are getting out of balance and drifting far from the original vision. Our society was supposed to be one in which there was a "right to rise" through talent and hard work. There was to be equal opportunity (regardless of race, sex, religion, etc) but it was recognized that equal opportunity does not mean equal results and that the "natural aristocracy" would; (by being rewarded for their initiative, innovation and hard wok) enrich the society as a whole.

Unrestricted liberalism under the banner of "equality and fairness" is destroying the system of "right to rise" and "reward for performance" which ultimately enrich the world and the society. Under progressive liberalism things may end up "equal and fair" meaning we can all be poor together and the society overall will be poorer for the desctruction of independence, self reliance, innitiative, innovation and effort.

The best government frees the people to pursue their own vision of meaningful lives as free as possible (consistent with order and peace) from government interference.

[l0ck]

No unseen flaws, save one disagreement of future politics which I have discussed at the end of my post. But other than the very last quote I comment on, all of this is just comments comparing my network perspectives to yours.

1.) Achievement of individual freedom is the purpose of a government

Law limit and abridge freedoms

Laws are not necessary in a free, rational society

On a personal note, this is beautiful premise.

On a not so personal note that encompasses more perspectives than my own: It is safe to assume, that the entire process of negentropic force, is what government is today - organization of a obstacle that resists our creative means. Little do they know (maybe they do know, it doesn't matter either way), they are actually providng the other half of the artifact that unlocks our creative means. If all is dinner of consumption of quality, neg-entropic force brings the bread, while we bring the butter. Together they complete the proposition they attempt to disguise. A being that has become fully aware of freedom, no longer needs be governed, or rather, no longer allows itself to be governed (as you pointed out). But even though it is our coehsive social ideas that have gave birth to our creative technologies, it is still our creative means that are in control behind the scenes, guiding us always to a means of an end, regardless of empirical excuse or evidence that justifies its neg-entropic expression, as with the authoritarian styles of politics you described. It is still our creative intelligence that grows in strength and speed always, and as seen in the past, our creativity has always dissolved our neg-entropic forces and obstacles, simply by opposing they are providing the missing means to our progression beyond them. Obstacle always wanes as creative means wax, there is a transfer of unawareness to awareness, no matter how big the organized force or how condensed, we still creatively invent means to release that organized energy into a chaotic and free one.

The same is indicative in the evolution of government.

The evolutionary concept is everywhere since we are a self-created species, it is apart of us, and thus we see it everywhere, especially as we become more aware of our self-created nature. As with us, everything has evolved from a single infinite whole. One proposition leads to the next, and the actual progress of these propositions or the evolution of them unfold throughout time as conflict, as 'irrationality', as constraint, as obstacle, only to test our creative means, forcing us to invent new propositions from the old by extending vector lines forward from the past, and thus progress forward to new proposition, and in turn new creative expression, and a new environment. Both sides of the coin have to be expressed and experienced in order for the evolution a process to take place.

All laws stem from one irreducible primary: You may not initiate force against the right to life of another man. This encompasses any fraud, coercion, extortion, etc. THAT should be the golden rule.

The equal have no authority or power over other equals, we are all truly sovereign beings, and only allow ourselves to succumb to the power of our fellow equals if we so choose. Constraint still exists however, force against another man still exists however, and in that is purpose, and this is because freedom (a state without constraint) is yet to be fully understood or achieved by our creative means, so it keeps unfolding as such until that point in time is reached. Therefore, constraint paradoxically makes us aware of what freedom really is as we progress through these obstacles we have created for ourselves to surpass by means of creativity.

Political sanction and inflation is a backwards means of reaching a political ideal.

Ideally, what is, is ideal - Purpose is always to be found in expression, nothing is expressed without purpose and even in the darkest depths of the ocean where light cannot be found, we coincidentally find no anatomical eyes to view that light. We are moving forward at all times by means of our creativity, and as such expressions of 'irrationality' only lead us to 'rationality'. It is a double sided coin, and you cannot fully understand one without the other. Once something is fully understood (internalized) it is no longer not-understood (externalized).

That which serves no purpose geared towards a greater good is irrational, obsolete, and is naturally weeded out of society.

We can look back throughout our history and see this trend within societies, but again, that does not mean it is still not expressed today, hint's constraint and negentropic force, and thus unawareness of freedom. The expression of irrationality still takes place today and as all pertains to creativity, societies have inevitably decided what is 'rational' and 'irrational' as a means of creative progress and gene survival. But as you have pointed out even with the evolution of politics or with all proposition, one thing leads to the next, until the obstacle that manifested is abolished completely, and in turn has no purpose, and in turn does not get expressed.

That is the next step in the political movement: Absolute protection of individual rights and interests in a rational society.

No organized force will ever serve any other purpose than to obstruct and provide paradoxical inference towards a new unknown proposition. As we are a self-created species, it is our duty as individual sovereign beings and infinite monadic extensions to absorb from the environment around us the many infinite qualities of love, tolerance, cohesion, compassion, beauty, and all of which is unmeasurable, it is only then one can and will feel truly free, it is only then when 'irrational' no longer has purpose, and no longer gets expressed, it is not simply a matter of organized people sharing a single view, it is a matter of free and chaotic beings sharing all views, and thus all truths, and in turn the entire truth, only then will constraint be abolished, as well as organized anything.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Camerama

This is purely a theoretical and ideological presentation of the utopian society:
Given that society is in its consummate form, and independent of foreign aggression, what would the ideal government be?

The pinnacle of freedom is, contrary to popular belief, not a democracy. When 60% back a specific piece of legislation, what of the dissenters? They are then slaves to the majority, or the society. The interest of the individual is neglected. Majority rule chokes any opposition. Personal merit is taxed and the "wealth is spread." Political factions govern the people. Is this the ideal rule?


What if the legislative and executive branch were dissolved, and individuals were left to genuine self determination?

I assume you do not consider “the pinnacle of freedom” as an absolute right of the individual to do anything he wants. I hope, rather, you consider it the right to do anything that does not interfere with or injure others.

To put it affirmatively, I am entitled to absolute freedom with respect to that which just concerns me. That right, I believe, is conferred on me by the Bill of Rights. That is my protection when I am on the minority side.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by prothero

Representative goverment is better than any form of tyranny.
Government of limited scope powers and duties is better than unlimited government.
Government which can not deprive its citizens of basic rights (read bill of rights) is better than societies in which your rights are dependent on the whims of government.

i.e. the design of the US government is good but our systems of checks and balances depends on an informed, educated and involved electorate and things are getting out of balance and drifting far from the original vision. Our society was supposed to be one in which there was a "right to rise" through talent and hard work. There was to be equal opportunity (regardless of race, sex, religion, etc) but it was recognized that equal opportunity does not mean equal results and that the "natural aristocracy" would; (by being rewarded for their initiative, innovation and hard wok) enrich the society as a whole.

Unrestricted liberalism under the banner of "equality and fairness" is destroying the system of "right to rise" and "reward for performance" which ultimately enrich the world and the society. Under progressive liberalism things may end up "equal and fair" meaning we can all be poor together and the society overall will be poorer for the desctruction of independence, self reliance, innitiative, innovation and effort.

The best government frees the people to pursue their own vision of meaningful lives as free as possible (consistent with order and peace) from government interference.

Representative government is a form of tyranny... Democracy, always pushing to be direct democracy is essential to justice and survival...Look at Rome... Long after their slave economy had displaced most of the Romans from their land while the representative government did nothing for them they became a force for true tyranny in the form of a Caesar...Representative government is no protection if it does not result in justice which all people find essential...Who does our representative government represent??? Money??? We might elect representatives but we have no power to prevent their corruption, or our division by party, and the most corrupt with the most money can frame the conversation to suit themselves... Can we believe the most able or moral are elected when the proof says otherwise???

Let me suggest that order, and peace have for too long dominated our society... It is economic order, protected by government that keeps the people from fairness, and equality...The difference between blacks and whites and immigrant and native are not nearly so great as the difference between rich and poor...Unrestricted liberalism under the banner of fairness and equality have brought all peoples to this present moment, and the survival of all is threatened by your freedom to rise, and reward for performance...How long would the rich be rich if there were any reward for performance...Rich People did something once that was of value, and for that they can keep their wealth, and never have to support their society with taxes... Such a thought, or situation is non-sense because once they have cornered the resources of society there is no rising...Fairness would mean opportunity, but the want of fairness means more and more stuggling over less and less...
So; where in the constitution do you see a right to rise???.I can easily state simply by reading the preamble of the contitution, what was the goal it hoped to reach through government... Justice was a goal, with unity, liberty, tranquility, and general welfare...

.Even our earliest court cases show that this is our land, because we took it...It is this people and our government which holds the ultimate title to the wealth of this land...Now, we know that much of this land has been sold off from under the natives and the citizens...Why??? Why was the productive capacity of this country put in private hands if the people as a whole did not benefit???The rich plead poverty when it comes to paying taxes, and yet they have money to pervert the democracy we have....It may well be that some public property is better in private hands, but it is the whole people who defend the property of the rich, so the rich should pay to support the whole people, not only because it is fair and equitable, but because it is honorable...If private property is good, let that good be shown...Instead you presume a good that you cannot prove because you take it on faith...Where is your proof???

Give me a world where we can be poor together rather than having some rich beyond their wildest dreams of avarice, and all desparately poor...Extremes of wealth are society killers because they destroy unity... And unity is one of our goals, along with fairness, as justice is...

---------- Post added 11-23-2009 at 08:18 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Camerama

This is purely a theoretical and ideological presentation of the utopian society:
Given that society is in its consummate form, and independent of foreign aggression, what would the ideal government be?

The pinnacle of freedom is, contrary to popular belief, not a democracy. When 60% back a specific piece of legislation, what of the dissenters? They are then slaves to the majority, or the society. The interest of the individual is neglected. Majority rule chokes any opposition. Personal merit is taxed and the "wealth is spread." Political factions govern the people. Is this the ideal rule?


What if the legislative and executive branch were dissolved, and individuals were left to genuine self determination?

Democracy is freedom, and there is no pinnicle of freedom... If you have it, you have it... The fact is that even tyranny has some democratic elements, and only when democracy demands consensus is it true democracy... And that may possibly empower minorities to an even greater extent than they are today with only slight majorities turning elections, and super majorities needed to change the nature of the government or constitution...Yet; the need for consensus also protected minorities from the tyranny of majority... The majority must make the case that the minority will also benefit from any measure, so what ever course is chosen, society goes together... So what if we have majority rule, which is democracy lite??? A larger half is insufficient by itself to determine a whole good, and societies can go to hell by halves... There will always be a majority and a minority and no matter how much the minority is dispossessed and eliminated, there will always be a majority and a minority...Majority rule cannot protect this land or our rights...

If you wish to recreate a working government you must balance the need for speed with the need for justice...At times you may need an executive...It may even be expeditious to have a legislative body, but if the people do not have the opportunity to shape and consent to the laws by which they are governed they do not have democracy...

[Camerama]

Surviving death is not achieving life and absolute freedom is not avoiding censure. You say "there is no pinnacle of freedom, if you have it you have it," and I can agree with that. The inconsistency lies in whether or not you believe we have achieved freedom. I, for one, do not. Freedom is an ideal to strive for, a luxury that under present societal circumstances is not feasible. However, it is an ideal worth achieving, and anything worth achieving is worth the effort. The notion of achievement presupposes the worth of that being achieved, rationally thinking according to the premise of that which is beneficial(i.e towards a greater good) is worth achievement. The purpose of the government should be an incremental progression towards true independence and freedom. What it is, is stagnating the decay of the American dream laid down by our forefathers. Our present statist rule cannot possible satisfy the conflict of interests between millions of Americans. Our govt. is a variant of collectivism, simply collectivism of majority. It subordinates the individual to the majority. It holds the "collective-society, community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.-is the unit of reality and the standard of value.[In this case, the majority.] The individual has reality only as part of the group, and only insofar as he serves it." (Ayn Rand) Every time the govt. appeases one minority, it is at the expense of another. What it refuses to recognize is that the most basic, indivisible minority is the individual. It is this minority that has been neglected throughout history. In a truly free society the individual is the only standard of value. In a truly free society, man's value is not the claim of another man, group, or organization. His only duty is to himself and his only value is his own self worth. Any charity he provides for his fellow man is of his own rational, and volitional choice. NOT CONSCRIPT FORCE. That is rule by the point of a bayonet, and that is the essence of taxation.