Let's put an end to this once and for all: Which kind of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

File: 4324124141.jpg (23KB, 358x479px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 358x479px

Theodemocracy

Absolute Monarchy. No room for the degenerates to have a voice in government and no chance of them ever getting into it. One man, trained from birth to rule; one voice; one nation. Beautiful.

Anarchism, it's natural selection made into a political system.

File: stalin lolin.jpg (51KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x539px

>>2642414
Stalinist dictatorship

>>2642414
Feudal Monarchy, if we're to have an Empire, the Persian King of Kings.

Whatever it is, there must be autonomy to the peoples, globalism is a disease.

>>2642414

The Kingdom of God

>>2642443
Anarchism is the ideal.

>>2642430
>No room for degenerates to have a voice in government.

laughinginbreds.jpg

>>2642414

There is no single best system, its always context dependant. For example, if your country contains an incredibly brilliant and compassionate potential ruler, having a democracy with fixed terms is a drawback while having an absolute monarchy would be a plus. But if your next potential leader is a corrupt simpleton, you'd better be running some kind of limited terms democracy or your country is facing a long, dark decline.

File: food.jpg (15KB, 311x162px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 311x162px

>>2642446
This triggers the stalinist.

>>2642414
constitutional monarchy, with a bicameral legislature with supremecy resting in the lower house.

essentially the UK

>>2642414

Distributist republic with strong cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic homogeneity.

>>2643001
I think you mean Canada, Mr Williamsfordshire

faction system

File: 1447523171275.jpg (27KB, 532x485px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 532x485px

>>2642430
>Monarchy
>nation

>>2643013
correct

>>2642414
People are autonomous agents and need to have their inherent dignity respected. And while each individual is different in talent they are equal in moral worth. So an ideal government is one that draws its legitimacy from the people as a whole and from each individual equally, so some form of democracy.

Furthermore, even though the government should follow the will of the people (its source of legitimacy and power) it must respect the individuality of each person. Therefore, it must possess some sort of framework that will protect rights and freedoms against the general will. Also, the mechanism through which these rights and freedoms should be protected must not be susceptible to popular opinion. This means the best form of government will be one with a liberal (in the civil sense) constitution and an independent judiciary.

In terms of the function of the government it must be one that serves the people without consideration for anything other than their benefit as effectively and efficiently as it can. I would say that this means it must be secular, separated from any sort of religious body or private interest. It also means it must ensure the necessities of life for each of its citizens so it should have some sort of welfare system and must provide for the safety of its citizens.

Finally, the form of the government should be small as need be, but composed of various different individuals who each specialize in the various posts the government requires. And the structure of the government would require a hierarchy but also one with division of powers so as to aide in efficiency as well as combat corruption.

Tribalism

>>2642414
>>2643571
So the ideal government would be a constitutional republic that has a distinction between its legislative, judicial and executive.

The legislature must be directly elected by the people and the executive either directly or indirectly responsible to the people. And while the legislature should be composed of whomever the people most wish to be represented by, the executive should be composed of individual who are competent in the areas of government policy. The judiciary must be independent of both, unelected, and have the power to protect the people from a legislature or executive which would infringe on the rights of the individual or some collective minority.

The government must also have welfare policies that provide at the very least the bare minimum standard that everyone needs to survive (food, water, shelter, job, safety etc.)

File: IMG_0357.jpg (209KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 900x750px

Enlightened monarchy.

>>2642414
hunter gather egalitarianism.

Omitting all other factors, hypothetically, don't Autocracies have the capability to be both much better, and much worse, than democracies? When three hundred people of varying competencies are involved in decision making, the result tends to be in the middle. But if one very skilled, or very unskilled, individual is the decider, the results are very good and very bad respectively.

So going off that, a democracy where exceptional leaders can gradually gain more power would be the best right? Democratic long enough to maintain the system until an extraordinary leader arises to take full control?

File: juan_carreno_de_miranda_koenig_karl_ii._von_spanien_teaser.jpg (13KB, 220x281px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x281px

>>2642430
>MUUHHHH degeneracy
kys

Republic , but the masses must be educated

>>2642447
>hates globalism
>advocates for an empire which are globalist by definition

File: 1446681606624.jpg (11KB, 165x170px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 165x170px

>>2643766
/thread

Ethical Leadership.

- The best of the people chosen by the people to lead the people.
- No term limit. Till death does him away.
- Successor should not be his son - unless miraculously his son is also the best of his people. (morally speaking)

Constitutional monarchy. All the liberal benefits of constitutional thought, plus all the benefits of having one ruler trained from birth, a ruler whom the plebs can think of when they think of their state, etc etc

Read Hegel get turnt

>>2642430
>>2643766
>>2644541
Fuck y'all are actually convincing me on this monarchy thing....

How would you deal with the obvious question of a king who abuses his power or just rules badly? The country would just become a shit hole and they couldn't do anything other than overthrow the ruler or wait for him to die and hope his son is better.

>>2644530
Combines the worst of monarchy (irreplaceability) and the worst of democracy (chosen by the people). Way to have a dumb leader whose only talent is convincing the crowd ad aeternam.

>>2644598
A bad ruler would have a tenuous hold of the military at best.
Enough uproar from the people would get him removed pretty quick.

>>2644598
In an elective monarchy the king is there to serve the people, if the people are unhappy with the king's rule they have the right to overthrow him and elect a new monarch to the throne.

>>2644641
This is a good idea because military coups always result in a good government

t. pinochet

>>2644598
>>2644641
Yeah he would just get displaced (likely violently), but the constitution itself would remain, and the constitution would remain binding for the new monarch, who would have a huge reason to uphold the constitution this time (because all of his authority is based on his claim that the previous monarch failed to uphold the constitution). It's a self-regulating system, much more effectively than democracy is.

>>2644645
Forget rights, man, if they aren't able to actually overthrow him (cuz he becomes a tyrant and begins ruling with an iron fist) then whatever people have the "right" to is irrelevant.

>>2644653
That coup wasn't predicated upon the claims to authority of a previous constitution, which was why it failed. There are many forms of monarchy, and the liberal constitutional model prevents pinochet type scenarios pretty dang well

Technocracy.

Hummanity fags would be deemed unnecessary and promptly turned into a nutritious paste.

>>2644664
If you rely on the military to regulate the political system you are essentially turning it into a military dictatorship or oligarchy in which the highly ranked military figures rule over the leader who would simply be a figurehead

File: Portrait_of_George_Washington-transparent.png (49KB, 170x205px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 170x205px

>>2644662
Good luck getting the army to fight for you when you want to remove their legitimate, God given rights.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (114KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1280x720px

>>2644676
And this a bad thing because?

>>2644680
because a military has none of what is sought after in good leadership, other than the ability to acquire it

>>2644598
>How would you deal with the obvious question of a king who abuses his power or just rules badly?
You can't. There's no good answer for this. That's why democratic systems, in general, perform better than autocracies: the populace might not typically be great at selecting leaders but they still do a better job on average than just appointing the guy whose sole accomplishment to date is being the old ruler's son (or worse, being the guy who managed to violently seize power).

The whole "one ruler trained from birth" thing sounds really great until you read any actual fucking history at all and realize that assholes and idiots are represented about equally in royal families as in the general population. And contrary to what the idiots replying to you are saying, there are countless cases of them managing to stay in power for decades, fucking up their country in the process, despite their unpopularity.

>>2644680
There are plenty of historical examples of oligarchies and military dictatorships you can look at. In fact, plenty of them are still around. You're welcome to go visit one. Hell, you're welcome to go live in one.

No, stop typing -- the fact that you can name a few that aren't/weren't outright hellish and were successful by the standards of the time doesn't mean that they aren't in general outperformed by liberal democracies (that's classic liberalism, yes).

I'm not going to waste half an hour explaining to you why most people (rightly) think military dictatorships are bad. You're welcome to do your own research on that. But the fact that they ARE bad is glaringly obvious if you just open your eyes.

>>2644700
I was only memeing.

>>2644702
Cool. Genuinely glad to hear it.

There are plenty of people on here who REALLY DO idolize monarchies, unfortunately, so the rest of y'all, consider that post directed at you. You know who you are.

>>2643013
representative government is so 20th century. Direct democracy is the future.

>>2644677
Suddenly a 100% pay bonus for military members. Plus a complimentary plot of land that's tax-free for 10 years. And all the bunda you can tap every Friday night at Madam's.

>>2644719
>Direct democracy
This might have worked in Ancient Athens and early Switzerland but for moderns nations with populations far exceeding tens of millions the people will gradually consolidate into special interests group and eventually political parties. It happened in the USA, Australia and many other nations and it will happen again. Not even George Washington could stop it, despite his great influence and disdain for partisan politics.

>>2644732
That's just the way people are, m8. Humans in modern industrial states are also somewhat fractured into sub-cultures or socio-economic blocs. These are proxies for ethno-religious differences that used to exist.

Representative forms of government are bretty gud, but fatally flawed, as a look at any will reveal.

>>2644739
I'm not disagreeing with you anon, in fact I agree with everything you just said. Direct democracy may be a superior form of government but it is within human nature to consolidate into groups of like-minded individuals and act in said group's interest.
Therefore any time direct democracy is attempted it will gradually degrade into a representative democracy over time.

Dictatorship lottery.

Random dictator chosen from population every year.

>>2644719
If by
>the future
you mean the thing that will turn us into the last men, then yes.

>>2644764
What if an insane man gets chosen?

>>2644750
Not just in practice, but in principle, direct democracy is only coherent for smaller collectives and city states, where there is a common identity. Lacking that common identity, a representative is necessary, to whom you can point and say "He did it." If every bill and proposal is immediately decided on by the populace at large, all you have is a spambot, hyper-media-centric form of politics. Think the last us political election but on mad crack, and at the end of the day people would feel like they weren't represented at all, because some faceless aggregate "highest vote" is making the decision, rather than a representative human being.

>>2644777
Then he will probably have a ton of fun.

>>2644777
a society where even an insane man can rule without being a danger

>>2644810
We've already got that, it's called an utopia.

>>2644641
>>2644645
>>2644657
That's a nice ideal but in reality the general populace is lazy and will only overthrow a ruler in an ABSOLUTE crisis situation. And so we're left with the same problem as in democracy wherein the apathy of the people allows shitty rulers to thrive.

>>2642417
And that this is running our countries to the ground.
5.6 million citizens in Denmark.
~700.000 is on welfare, and ~800.000 are working in the government/municipals.
So our welfare state is more or less held up by some 1.5 million workers.
Shit will come crashing down within a decade or two.

>>2642414
Constitutional Monarchy

>>2642430
>kings can't be degenerates

>>2645068
>Shit will come crashing down within a decade or two
Doyouhaveasinglefacttobackthisup.jpg

>>2642414
There are two systems. One is social democracy, the best available mainstay system between Enlightened Despots. Enlightened Despotism, with a truly skilled leader, is the perfect form of government.

Constitutional republic with unchangeable checks and balances. Basically the early US

>>2644848
That means the people are generally just as shitty, and when a new leader is installed, debate can cause a war to follow the revolution agianst who is loyal to who. Then eventually another shit person rises to power and the cycle continues.

>>2642414
Tribal gonvernment ruled by the Lex Salica

Why is /his/ so incredibly cucked. THe fact you faggots are even taking seriously the idea of a 'objectively best form of government' pretty much shows none of you fucks have ever read an actual work of political philosophy, or even a history book.
All politics is at attempt at ordering a 'just' society, and there's still no consensus on what a just society would even look like after over 3000 years of trying to work it out.

File: YouCameToTheWrongNeighborhoodRoyalist.jpg (17KB, 171x294px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 171x294px

>>2642430
>>2642447
>>2643766
>>2644518
>all these unironic monarchists

>>2642414
Fascism or Absolute Monarchy

File: 65EEC-british-crown.png (5KB, 135x108px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 135x108px

Constitutional Monarchy with an episcopal state Church, unelected upper and elected lower house. Representative democracy in lower house elected through the first-past-the-post constituency system.

The branches of government check each others' power as they will have differing temperaments.

The lower house will ask for radical change.
Monarch and Church will resist due to their instinctive reactionary attitudes
The House of Lords shall find the pragmatic third-way through the conflict with their learned and experienced minds.
Concessions will be given instead of the original proposal - resulting in a smooth transition of policy.
The inherently conservative nature of the system gives it legitimacy among the intellectual class.
The Crown, Church and Country give the appearance of legitimacy among the general populace - as well as adding royal patronage and beauty for the man's spirit.

It's not perfect, there will be turbulence as is present in any system that isn't complete autocracy.

It's the best sstem of government known to man but it needs to be argued for when the tides of opinion are organising against it.

It's what Britain used to be before the leftists pozzed it up.

File: 1473405225527.png (346KB, 625x941px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 625x941px

>>2642428
>Mormon scum.

Daily reminder, Christ-chan is Catholic.

anarchocentrism

>>2646649
I agree.

Divine monarch ruling from gilded palace by arbitrary fiat

>>2644764
/thread

>>2642414
The government that feeds its people and keeps domestic unrest at an all time low.

File: 1392221810582.jpg (369KB, 1840x1794px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1840x1794px

>>2642414
Let's make it simpler. Do you prefer Reinhard or Yang Wenli on an emotional level?

File: IMG_2899.jpg (30KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x400px

Anarcho-monarchism

File: G9huEmZ.jpg (138KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1080x1349px

Democracy

>>2647059
>>2647201
Anarcho-monarchistic-democracy

>>2647371
Is there anything we can't anarchize?

republic

regicide!!!!

>>2645701
Cromwell was no better, a federation based on nepotism is likely worse than a monarchy...everyone else at the time agreed with this too

I think the warrior gang system in mad max was pretty cool

>>2642414
To have an objective best government you need objective criteria.

Enlightened despotism

>>2645068
Its running Sweden to the ground because here we decided to take in hundreds of thousands of migrants in just a couple of years who all of course need their own fat welfare checks because surprise surprise they cant get jobs.

>>2642414
Victorian monarchy, and catholic theocracy when we reach that point

File: 1458618580242.png (619KB, 1023x682px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1023x682px

>>2647059
My nigga.

>>2647401
Anarchism?
Anarcho-statism is a legitimate ideology as it's just saying we must flood our nation with refugees to create a new strong people like the Nile

Constitutional Monarchy with a strong legislative tradition

>>2642414
Greco-roman republic
>not everyone votes
>there's no retarded tyrant messing up the things
>military is highly valued
>philosophers are aware of the need of having a cohesive motherland

>>2647029
But yang loved the kaiser.

This internal confilct is unescapable, specially worse if prince alec ends up being a better than reinhard

National socialism

>>2642414
Constitutional Republic.

>>2647029
Reinhard

Also sieg heil!

File: Faction-Technocracy.png (30KB, 500x464px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x464px

>>2642414
one where we are rightfully subservient to our machine overlords. Only an all powerful A.I. connected to sum of all human knowledge could possibly control a large populous of humans efficiently without becoming corrupted.

>>2646649
>best system of government known to man
>first past the post voting system

Besides which,

>>2646649
>best system of government known to man
>first past the post voting system

>>2647908
>he doesn't even anarcho-anarchism

>>2647029
R-Reinhard...

>>2642414
Sophocracy: Government where the Philosopher Monarchs rule

>>2644541
We live in a constitutional monarchy in nz and its been nothing but a "bee hive" of corruption and a bunch of ignorant dickheads debating on who can make the most bullshit promises and who has the most diverse vocab to take the piss out of one another.

File: Ow_the_edge.jpg (42KB, 400x366px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x366px

>>2642430

>>2642430
>t. Hobbes

>>2643610
This is the proper answer.

>>2642414
Constitutional Monarchy.

Daily reminder despotism is inherently oriental as described by Aristotle and if you support it you are not supporting a western type of government (I.E democracy, parliamentary monarchy or republic)

>>2643610
>t. Fukuyama

>>2644750
>>2644785
Then the answer is smaller states, where more local identity is fostered.

>>2642414
The Holy trinity
Prove me wrong

>>2642414
Depends upon what they are governing and the infrastructure. I think the modern world has shown most developed countries work best with some form of representative democracy

>>2649088
>FPTP is bad

Creates a 2 or 3 party state.
Forces a strong government with a strong opposition.
Alternative is endless coalitions breeding the (centre is the best) narrative. Centre will change depending on how people vote which will shift the centre-ground ever leftward.
Essentially puts another barrier between the people and the legal system yet retains enough of the democratic element to avoid civil war or armed conflict.
Forces the voter to compromise and vote for his most important issue.

>>2642414
>objectively
If you're trying to systematically build up to the ideal from first principles, I think Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty and MES makes a great case for ancap.