I don't mean to go all "fight the man" here. But not really. No government is the only way to have a clean government. That or keep everything broken into groups so small the people being ruled/governed maintain power enough to fix/dismiss corruption as it happens.

But then we run into problems with this system. How big of a problem/decision dictates 10 million votes? And for the ones that don't, who decides how big of a decision get direct attention, and which ones get to wait for a general vote/decision making "election" know what I'm saying?

Listen brother or sister, I didn't mean to shoot you down here, I'm sad that I'm the only one that responded because this is a great question and gets the thinking juices flowing. I only replied because I too hate our current system, but for everything it does wrong... It just has too much momentum, and it set up at least to do one or two things right. I hate parties and republicans and democrats. Our founding fathers never once even dreamed of voting in a primary or whatever. The two party system is a fucking joke. I hope I didn't kill any potential stroke of genius here. Meant to get ya thinking, not get ya quitting :/ my bad mate

Well, that there makes you a god damned winner :) I don't know if my 20 year old, Only voted once, gets most of my news from reddit ass could teach you anything, but I'm all for debating/talking it through. I tend to find myself looping through these conversations in my head and remember this exact one from a couple of weeks ago. I like the idea of throwing it all out and starting over, but at the same time, they just solve too many problems to give it an honest try. Its like.... Tires. They are horribly inneficient and suck, I'm sure there is a better way/tool we could be using underneath our x-million cars driving around, but since I was born, tires have been used so its damn near impossible to think of am alternative. Same with the political systems in place around the world. Maybe that's what separates genious level intelligence from me and everybody else. The ability to create a truly new idea...

That's what I hope for every damn day. I feel bad because I know that I'm just as capable of being the change. But Idk I just feel anyone else could do the job better. And I appreciate the compliment, though I can assure you. You would tire of me pretty quickly. I tend to find a sticking point in just about any life decision/situation you put me in. It's stimulating at first, but then cumbersome and irritating after a while. Haha

I personally don't have time too work my two jobs, go to school, play football, AND vote once a day on whether or not we should be voting on the new bridge or not. And then once we decide the bridge is a big enough problem it needs voted on I can't go vote again on that bridge. Unless. Well. Unless the whole system changed and we finally began utilizing the technology available to us, but then things like social status/ family incomes become an issue because not everyone is on the same page technologically. And well, some decisions overlap, what happens when district 7 passes a law that overlaps and even contradicts district 4's law. Well. That there is a mess for Disaster

In a world where 1/3 to 1/2 of your money doesn't go to funding wars and maintaining the status quo, I think you could afford to work a little less.

Work less ?!

Isn't that what we were put on this planet to do? Work?

That's why everything needs to change.

Which don't get me wrong, I'm not delusional. I know it's not going to - humans are doomed. I'm just saying something like the Venus Project would be infinitely better for humanity as a whole.

Direct democracys fails. The founders were very clear that they did not want a direct democracy. 1 choice should be made but 10 people want 10 different choices. Im sure you know why else from all the other comments.

The founders looked long and hard for a suitable government and what they laid out, I believe, is the least corruptable government. They believed government to be a necessary evil. "A dangerous servant and a fearful master" I believe the quote to be.

The federal govermnets responsibilty was to make sure all the states followed the consituion. THATS IT. States were primarily in charge as they are more easily manageable by the people. Switzerlands government is similar to this and they are, strangly, more free than the US.

There was never supposed to be one nation, but a land of soverign states and free men. To do whatever they want as long as you dont cause harm to others or property.

The founders are amazingly wise but not infalible. This entire form of government "depends on a virtuous and moral people".

That is not what the people are anymore.

They indeed were not infalible. B. Frank was a troll, drunkard and womanizer, and T. Jeff was a hypocrite as he preached freedom for all men and owned slaves. However, that could be said about any organized event or group of any size. If the people involved arnt on board with it, it will fail.

People are just as every bit as moral and virtues as before. However the government we have today is NOTHING like it was meant out to be. thats why there are all these problems that never seem to go away. it used to be, you can do whatever you want with your life, liberty and property as long as it didnt interfere with another right to do the same. With this mindset, a country can and will thrive without thousands of laws, trillions of dollars in spending and handouts for its people. it has worked and was working.

Yes, a democracy.

Britannia, pre-Roman intervention, was virtually the closest a civilization has gotten to, and in my mind, is maybe the only real world example of anarchy. Now, human kind have SOCIALLY evolved a lot since then, and with more of a civilized approach to the tribal structure, it would be astronomically superior to today's traditional government structures as, in the tribal structure, everyone would get a word - a DIRECT word - in the workings of things. Unlike democracy. Democracy is overrated. It's why the founding fathers didn't even make a pure one.

In all seriousness, a true anarchist government would be the best because no central government

[deleted]

That's fucking beautiful.

Please educate yourself: r/anarcho_capitalism .

I dont agree with regressing into a state like somalia, because somalia is NOT in any way shape or form anarchist, it has its own form of government including war lords and all other governments with their hands in it.

People banding together for safety =/= government. People banding together for safety = voluntary interaction specifically against violence and coercion. In other words, against the means with which a government would perpetuate its self-appointed monopoly on force.

Read up on some Rothbard some time. The only way to have a completely free group of people is in a voluntary world whether the system is capitalism, communism, or something else. They key is the rejection of violence.

Well you asked the question, I answered it. And it would only last for a few hours. So there you have it.

Right, and true anarchy can only last so long, as you pointed out, however, it would be devoid of a corrupt government. It would be the only way to really have a truly corruption free government, if only for a short while.

But then we essentially regress into a state like Somalia, there would be no Electricity, no scientific advancement

Incorrect, the anarchists of civil war era Spain ran telecommunications among other businesses. And they were able to establish fully functioning communities during a time of war.

not necessarily. what we need is a well educated public and free energy. free energy is the key.

A society based on the non-aggression principle run by local governments with no central authority seems like the best solution that I know of so far.

Full transparency and low tolerance will make it work

Honestly the Jamahiriya of Libya was/is one of the most effective systems of governance in the world. It's a system of direct democracy in which everything was run and decided upon by citizens councils. Anyone and everyone has a say in what happens. Jamahirya is like a more structured version of Anarchism. It was so effective it took Libya from being the poorest nation on earth, to being the most prosperous and most progressive nation in Africa and the Middle East in just four decades.

Unfortunately, it failed in part due to the authoritarianism which is rife within certain sections of the Islamic world. You see, Jamahirya was able to make most Libyans happy independent and free. However, the radical Islamists based out of Benghazi and Misrata were not happy with a secular Libya, and the west.....ern oil interests were not happy with a Socialist Libya. The problem was that the weak central government and lack of unified military force makes/made Libya incredibly susceptible to attack from a more powerful military force (interestingly the Republic of civl war era Spain also experienced nearly the exact same problem, you can start to see a trend now by the authoritarians of the world to oppress liberalism and democracy). The problem is (and 9/11 and pre-WWII US in some part prove this) that when you have a people that have everything they need and a high quality of life they aren't all that interested in going to war.

No.

Solution? We really don't need government. That's been the best kept secret for the last 10,000 years. But people are finally starting to realize it now.

The answer to your question is no. However, government is a necessity to some degree. So, we should limit the negative effects by making it a small, limited government.

The problem is that small, limited governments don't remain small or limited for very long... hence the monstrosity we have today.

i agree. thats why the american experiment is failing cause we went away from states rights

Tribal.

No, institutions are corrupt by their very nature.

The problem is that our "community" is too big. There is no way to have a strong government with laws that govern millions of people without stepping on somebody's toes. One size cannot fit all.

The solution is small, autonomous communities governing themselves to their own standard. Inter-community agreements would facilitate trade.

The key to having a government that's not controlled by the wealthy is to have a society where class disparities do not exist. True unadulterated Communism is the answer to your question.

Proven by who? So-called Communist States weren't communist at all, but rather fascist and/or imperialist. The state owned everything. A true communist society has no state power to corrupt in the first place. There is no private ownership, but also no state ownership. Everything is freely shared by all members of the society.

So me and a mate had this conversation a while back and we sort of came to this conclusion. If everything is publicly available, what incentive is there to do the shit nobody wants to do, or to do your job well, or to be any better than the man standing next to you. I'm not gonna clean portapottys every day until I die if it means I'm gonna get to live in the same house and eat the same food that Freddy the guy that sweeps McDonalds at night time gets to eat/live in. And I'm sure as fuck not gonna risk my life as a firefighter if my only reward coming home is. Oh wait there is no reward. Why was I at work today? I could be a leech and still participate in the communist government right? And who is to say I can't if there is not central/private government?

You're looking at communism through capitalist glasses. Most of those jobs only exist because citizens of capitalist nations need jobs to survive. The system forces you to be a wage slave to the rich or go hungry. That's not the case in a communist society. We have the technology to make them completely obsolete. People would be free to do what they enjoy, which for many is to focus on enlightenment, creativity and ingenuity.

And you're looking at communism through a communists glasses. As someone not particularly creative or ingenuitive (wtf word I put there I have no idea) I am putting in my time at uni so that someday I can have a badass house with a badass car and fill that house and car with bad ass people to love and spend my bad ass life with. If car house and things are all shooins you've just lost yourself one electrical engineer, I'll go dig ditches for foundations or something. Being creative is hard and sometimes takes something to motivate. I guess my question is. What gets you up in the morning as a communist? For me, its that big shiny thing/place I'm working for. What about you? What makes Igor the astronaut go through 700+ hours of rigorous shitty astronaut training when instead he could work at a chlorine treatment plant for water and live the same life?

What makes Igor the astronaut go through 700+ hours of rigorous shitty astronaut training when instead he could work at a chlorine treatment plant for water and live the same life?

A healthy interest in science and space exploration. This may shock you, but some people actually desire to do interesting things rather than just sit in a fancy house and waste away.

But interesting can only take you so far, I guess I picked the wrong occupation. My apologies. What about the guy that has to sift through the sewers keeping them flowing? That mother fucker deserves the same life as the guy that drops milk off at the supermarket (or milk dispensery if supermarket aren't a thing in this ideal world)? I should think not. What keeps shit unclogged guy going to work every day when he could still do all the things he loves if he just took a job handing out jackets to people instead

You do the science and hard work, I'll do the sitting in a hammock drinking lemonade. I am excited for this new world!

You're not gonna have a secret police to make sure I contribute, are you?

Jobs and wages are capitalist inventions to legitimize your slavery. These would not exist in a modern communist world. You do what you want to do. There are people who enjoy being inventive. And in a capitalist society, there are people who would enjoy being inventive but are not given the chance for lack of capital. So even though they're extremely creative they end up just mopping the floor at burger king every night.

Man just because you don't see it. I fucking promise there is someone risking their life to be fucking awesome at their job curing some shiity disease, that would not be doing it if their weren't incentive. Yes, creativity and ingenuity would drive much of the "necessary work" but nobody is going to build a better computer if the current computer already does the job and everyone already has one. There just isn't a need, like. Some jobs suck. Have you never worked a shitty job before man? Like people in Africa are dying every damn day because of sewage and water treatment issues, and nobody is doing anything about it because why risk it?

You'd be surprised what meaningful things people will voluntarily do when they're not stuck at a meaningless robot job all day.

Lol were having this talk using speech to text? I fucking hate you. My grammatical errors are because I was on my way to bed after a 16 hour day of LIFTING HAY BAYLES AND SHOVELING HORSE SHIT, and I got caught up on this awesome thready. But I didn't need to be shoveling shit all day, a robot could do that right?

^this

Right. So as soon as you change human nature get back to me.

"Human nature" IS communism. Greed is a condition environmentally imprinted on the human mind.

That's a ridiculous statement. Since the dawn of mankind people have always wanted more food, water, shelter, sexual pleasures. Now there is morality, and we are social beings, but greed and the want for more is a biological imprint on the human species. I honestly don't know where you get this stuff outside of like new-age feel good spirituality. People want more, and when there's less to go around, they get more forceful with getting their share. That has nothing to do with capitalism.

Where were you an hour ago, I've been pulling my hair out trying to make him understand...

Are we talking about the same communism? Just because you level the playing field FINANCIALLY doesn't mean that the playing field is any less corrupt.

Probably not talking about the same communism, but in any case, corruption almost always, if not always, centers around money and the desire to have more of it.

If I didn't know how impossibly awful my friend mike was with a computer I would swear your him over there. I have had this conversation before. So here's my question to you, say we throw money out the window. Metaphorically. We just burn it all or it just vanishes one day, what keeps the world spinning? First and foremost how do we assimilate money centered job working people into into the production oriented world. There's millions of people that do nothing other than trade money. And once they're assimilated, what keeps people working unpleasant/undesirable jobs? And lastly I guess, what keeps people working their jobs/bettering society?

You don't have people doing undesirable jobs. You have people doing what they like to do and have machines doing the rest. Most manual labor jobs ONLY still exist because you need your paycheck to live.

Brother there aren't robots that can shovel shit, someone has to go shovel the cows shit so that the cows don't become sick and contaminate our milk supply. I prmise, there is no automated shit shoveling robot or they would already be everywhere

You don't think the technology exists to have a robotic shit-shoveler? There are robots that diffuse bombs, and you don't think they can shovel shit? Hell, that's extremely basic robotics that a 5 year old in Japan could probably build. The reason they aren't everywhere is because shit-shovelers require a paycheck to live .

Dog no. Like, fine. The 5 year old builds the shit shoveler, why does he build it Btw? Because if its that basic? Its not creative or ingenuitive? So pretending he still wasted his time doing a less than awesome task for no reason because money doesn't exist, how are you going to get the 2000000 shit shovelers across farms all around the world? 20000000 Asian kids in Japan just happen to want to waste their time building a basic robot when they could be exploring their artistic passions and creative overflow? Ok. So pretend for whatever reason they did this. Fuck it. I'll buy into that, now how do these robots get displaced? Like from 5 year olds bedroom to farm with shit that needs shoveling? Nobody likes drilling oil man, and those rigs don't run themselves. Currently people do it it because it pays something like 60-80k a month, but remove the money, who lime drilling oil? Ok pretend some 20000 25 year olds (leaving some room with the age since this might be a more advanced robot) decide they are going to build oil drilling robots, now that oil has to be made into gas and transferred to the ships that apparently a crew is going to volunteer to run (unless were making automatic robots to run oil tankers) to ggo pickul the shit shovelers and then sail back to drop off the robots and get picked up by???? Automatic truckers to drive the robots to rural Wyoming (where the shit that needs shoveling is) what are all these middle men going to be doing now?

You are extremely ignorant of robotics. This ties in well with your support of communism. Carry on

Breh I understand robotics I'm just humoring this guy, I'm currently studying as an electrical engineer haha

no no you're cool i'm talking to valere

This is a great question. Obviously, some systems are better than others, but even America's great Republic was (and is) prone to corruption.

The problem is not the system of government - the problem is the people. Government will always be prone to corruption (look around the world and find me one non-corrupt government).

Look at the apathy in the US, and ask yourself if there is ANY kind of government that would not be corrupted very quickly, no matter what system it was run upon.

Don't blame the system - blame us.

The only type of government I could think of would be some type of confederation, though that still wouldn't be perfect.

A government with very limited powers. But the native American Indians had it right: no central government , laissez faire. If only we didn't slaughter and nearly annihilate them all.

Ask Scandinavia.

Voluntaristic stateless society.

you mistake government and people

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely

It's not the form that matters necessarily, but the composition of the groups with influence. Working people and the middle class need to hold the levers of power - regardless of what you call it.

Honestly with the technology we have today, it's possible to have a completely transparent and democratic government. Think of it this way: There's an app on your phone or something that shows you what your elected officials have been doing. Since you elected that official, you can veto against the elected official's created policy if you believe it doesn't represent what you voted for. There could be a threshold number for the amount of citizen vetoes required to nullify a vote in your state or federal legislature. We could even have a requirement to nullify executive orders if we wanted to. We could also have petitions that actually mattered. We have the technology and capabilities of having a very open and transparent government, it's just not in the best interest in the powers that be. Additionally, I also believe that after experiencing completely transparent government, most people will realize we don't even need a government at all.

It's a human problem - not a government problem - so the answer to your OP question is no.

A global confederation based on values of Meritocracy and Technocracy , and Philosophers , Physicists , Engineers, and Enviornmentalists are elected via global direct democracy given to the people via Internet . To which they convene year round to guide humanity into a beautiful future . Veto power is held by the people . The jury for a world court is the people . An the abolishment of the monetary system . And a resource base economy takes hold

Any form of government is a dictatorship.

The idea that a perfect Government ever be formed is non-sense. A Government depends on it's people as much as it's people depend on their Government. If the people are not educated, how can they make informed decisions as to how they want their Government run?

tl;dr; if people are not educated, there will always be corruption, regardless of the form of Government.

Proven by who? So-called Communist States weren't communist at all, but rather fascist and/or imperialist. The state owned everything. A true communist society has no state power to corrupt in the first place. There is no private ownership, but also no state ownership. Everything is freely shared by all members of the society.

Are we talking about the same communism? Just because you level the playing field FINANCIALLY doesn't mean that the playing field is any less corrupt.

So me and a mate had this conversation a while back and we sort of came to this conclusion. If everything is publicly available, what incentive is there to do the shit nobody wants to do, or to do your job well, or to be any better than the man standing next to you. I'm not gonna clean portapottys every day until I die if it means I'm gonna get to live in the same house and eat the same food that Freddy the guy that sweeps McDonalds at night time gets to eat/live in. And I'm sure as fuck not gonna risk my life as a firefighter if my only reward coming home is. Oh wait there is no reward. Why was I at work today? I could be a leech and still participate in the communist government right? And who is to say I can't if there is not central/private government?

Right. So as soon as you change human nature get back to me.