If the bureaucrats were all sane (respectfully) philosophers. And ofcourse a pure democracy. Apparently its theoretical though.

The perfect government is one governed by the perfect governors. If a monarch is perfect, and if a group of democratic representatives are perfect, neither is preferable - they are each perfect.

It's not about the form of government, it's all about the people who govern.

Didymos Thomas,

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I couldn't possibly disagree more. The mistake you make is to think that power is exercised freely - indeed, that power equates with freedom, but it isn't and doesn't. Leaders of any system are presented with a limited menu of decisions, and a limited scope for action based on the dynamics of the system. The system is all important - the personalities are relatively insignificant.

iconoclast.

Actually, my statement does not rely on such an assumption.

Sure, leaders have limited options. However, given that menu of options, the perfect monarch will make the best selection. The perfect democratic assembly will make the best selection. Hence the term perfect.

Ever read any Confucius?

Ah, I have a better idea, let's look at history. Germany's representative government, with free elections, allows the Nazi party to come to power and institute one of the most brutal regimes ever seen. If the German people had voted for more humane leaders, a terrible time in human history would have been avoided. Heck, the German people could have even reinstated an absolute monarchy and given the throne to a humane/wise/ect ruler to a similarly preferable effect.

The personalities are important. It took a **** Nixon to push the Hudson plan and an Ashoka to protect the environment.

edit - The censored word was short for Richard. Heh.

We all know Nixon is a ... Richard.

Ok let's see. How about Modified Marxism sprinkled with a little Rawls? The problem with so-called "Communist" states is we had some jerk that took all the glory, aka Dictator. Be it Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, whoever.

In Modified Marxist fashion, no one person is leader. There may be a representative to deal with non-Communist states, but he is by no means a leader or dictator for the State. Everyone contributes to the State, and the State returns support back to the people.

To deal with the lack of incentive (and thus, innovation) in Communist fashion, we add Rawls' idea of the original position: No one person ought to be made worst off if they are the least advataged members, but there is still incentive for people who work the hardest.

A Marxian-Rawlsian state may not be perfect, but a State led by all the people for the people sounds nice to me.

If people could work in solidarity and sanguine of alterations then there is democracy.

I would suggest a religious monarchy. The leaders view the people as an extension of the family, to be cared for in the best possible manner. Atheism just exploits people for the duration of a single generation and could not give a hoot what happens 40 years from now. Where did all the pension funds go?

Yes, any system can become corrupted, so a society with a strong respect for historical literature, is going to remember the errors of the past and learn from them. People are flexible for the right and wrong reasons. Society reinvents itself every couple of generations. Too much authority stifles ingenuity. Too much freedom destroys strong social structures. Perhaps the error is in thinking that systems govern people too strongly, whereas it is people that create and recreate systems.

Lots of paradox here. But ethics and aesthetics feed off one another.

Assuming everyone is a religious individual, Poseidon? When considering the lessons of history, I highly doubt that would go about peacefully.

I think a dictatorship led by a super-human would be the best. This person should be able to read the feelings ant the minds of his subjects, and always act the most fair and logical way.

The opinion of the majority isn't always correct, If it's one person against a million, this poor little guy could be right. Therefore i don't think that democracy is a good form of government.


Since we cant have a super-human to help us, we have no choice today but to take use of democracy.

The best way to rule a country is obviously that which best serves the people of that country.

Well, since people are imperfect and perfection seems to be the goal here I therefore nominate my Cat to decide. His name is Frank and he likes cheese.

And yea, I'd have to agree that it's more about the 'administrators' themselves than any particular form of government. Except for a religious monarchy, I think any form - well done - could work just fine.

Thanks

But democracy is the rule of averages, so by definition is less efficient then a ruling elite.
And the Original question was the most efficient way to run a country, without stating what the business of countries is, so how can we evaluate effiecincy? Consider Nazi germany, very efficient in that it was mobilized towards one goal, but inefficient in the blood price paid for that.

I see no real need for countries, soon technology will advance us to self sufficiency, and with it true autonomy. Without the need to pledge alegience to the better judgement of the rulers (Be they one or many) people can work towards achieving personal growth in thier own way

Why would a religious monarchy, specifically, fail, when all other systems, "well done", could work just fine?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by religious monarchy... perhaps a monarch who claims divine right, or perhaps something closer to the traditional Tibetan model. Either way, I do not see how either of these models will fail while other models will thrive with the proper administration. I agree that the administrators are more important than the system, so what is it about this one particular system that causes it to fail despite good administration?

Hello Franc. My two cents.

For what it's worth, IMO, I think the more important question is how to "manage" a planet. The work "rule" has never set real good with human beings in that many who "choose" to rule have no right to rule. Whether is be through "free elections" in which the manipulation of language is use to "sway" the majority to vote one way or the other using wit, guile and deceit being choreographed by those of power who hide in the background with agenda's of their own, such as ruling the world.

The "ruling elite" will never see eye to eye as long as national sovereignty exist's that needs a powerful military to defend it. We expend all our time and energy defending that sovereignty, rather than seeking those commonalities that will bring us together as a global community. For that to happen the wit, guile and manipulation's we utilize to "get what we want" will have to be replace with a truth that has never existed in the world. I promise you, I don't have those answer's, but I can assure you those answer's are out there once we begin to think globally and use those "human minds and resources"

in a collective effort to develop that "management".
There is no "altruism" behind power. It's only ambition is to maintain that power for it's sake only. It is a disease, so to speak, and the only cure is to cut off it's food supply. Those are those material "assets" it has "amassed" that allow it to control the minds and actions of others to do it's bidding. It's always been that way and that is the root of all our problems.

Perhaps, I am a bit of an idealist, but I refuse to get bogged down in accepting the status quo as a "natural occurrence" that must be allowed to evolve "naturally" as if we are helpless to do anything about it. When we come to the realization the "amassing" of anything deemed "materialistically valuable" to be used as leverage to promote any agenda is wrong in a finite eco-system such as the planet Earth. I, for one have never had a desire to "amass" anything. Never in my life. Perhaps that makes me "strange". I don't know. All I have ever desired it what I personally needed to get me from one day to the next such a food, shelter, clothing, transportation, warmth in the winter, comfort in the summer, access to medical care, recreation and travel (both leisurely and educationally), education and the ability to offer whatever I could that would give me a since of belonging in that offering. I have never wanted "more". Sure, it would be nice to have more, it's just that I never wanted "more". Go figure?

What is important here is my compulsion to understand what it was about other's that "compelled" them to want more? Because it seems to me there is no end to the addiction once it take's hold. Like I said, I never had it, so naturally I have spent a lot of time trying to figure it out. There is only so much to go around, why would I want more than my fair share? Why would anyone?

In the process of reaching those explanations, I came to realized most people are just like me, it's just that they have just been "programmed"to want more. Now not all people, but remember, I was born and reared in the good ole USA. In this country, it's not who you are, it's what you "have" that gives you worth. If you don't have "stuff" you don't count. IMO. Stuff is a disease in this country. Stuff defines us. We have got stuff running out our ears, and what is so very, very sad most of it is cluttering our attic's, closets, garages, our landfills because most are addicted to stuff for it is that stuff they have been programmed to believe that will bring happiness to their overworked lives.

To me, it would seem we would understand there are two things that are seriously out of balance on the planet Earth. The resources that the Earth provides and the people on it. Of course we are, IMO, it's most valuable resource. And it is the equitable use of those two resources that must be addressed and it "HAS" to be a global, cooperative effort. Once we realize the acquisition of "stuff" is not the answer, we will begin to bring about that balance.

So to answer the question this thread addresses, we are not going to find an answer that will come of "rule, command, threats, or power", in that those have never worked and IMO, never will. What I have said and will continue to repeat, the reason why we don't address the truth is because we are all going to be dead and it really just doesn't matter. Tell that to the children you bring into the world. Let's hear what they have to say about it. Let's just continue raping the planet and let our kid's fend for themselves.
William

In my opinion, none of the governments that we have are working very well. My opinion would be to mix Democracy with Absolutism, where there is an executive government that takes petitions as a major influence. The current leaders would appoint vice leaders to take over after thier resignation/death. So long as the appointees were anonymous to the leaders and the first leaders appointed had the true interests of the country at heart, an effective government for the people could be established.

In my opinon, we should create a minarchist government, which is sufficent to protect the liberty and property of each other. In no way should we create some uptopian state which aim's to create positive liberty's for it's citizens as this will only lead to the gradual decrease of people's negative liberty. It should be strongly democratic, but the constitution should be very limiting of Government power as we should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Without a doubt, a compartmentalized, Fascist state. The highest rulers are the only ones privy to important information. Every other branch and office will only need to know the minimum, to run their compartment without too much criticism.

Any real Science and technology are reserved for the corporations and the followers of them. Oh and make sure that money is held higher then ideologies. With that in place, it can be used to manipulate any ideal that comes along.

To me, that seems to be the best way to rule a country.

Well, secular democracy assumes that people are not religious, and nowadays I have consistantly heard that belief in God is evidence of 'schizophrenia'. Given that for almost all of our history, religion has been the cornerstone of society, and 'modern' society would collapse into a greedy pit of debt and disintegration without religion, I can only shudder.

Demonocracy?
The illusion of choice. An inequitous rule by corruption if ever there was one. The Nazi's were elected in a demonocracy. And as the election of Bush II shows, it does not even succeed in pretending to be rule by vote anyway.

If the secular legal system underpinning demonocracy cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman, how on Earth can I trust it to give an honest vote? After all, if you believe only in you own survival, you will lie cheat and steal to get into power, especially when all you have to do is share your corruption with the corrupt legal system to 'stop the recount'. Such ideas are random mutations at best and will consume themselves within a handful of generations.

Show me a society without religion, and I will show you a dustbowl.

I think it is good how it is now. A democratic-republic.