What is your most favored form of Government?

THE ROAD TO AN ANARCHIST REVOLUTION

The first step in changing the world around you your way is to realize that the ideals that you expect for yourself, such as, freedom, liberty, love, friendship, justice, equality, can be obtained for yourself only by giving them to others.

If you are a Christian then you know too that when Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as thyself," he was speaking to the anarchist that exists within every person. Reminding all of us of this basic fact of life. Or, to put it in non-Christian terms, "What goes around comes around."

Anarchists make their greatest mistake when they become militantly anti-government. The real object of pragmatic anarchists is to change government from their antagonist to their servant. To accomplish this feat it is necessary that you take the next step. You must learn Government's source of power, where it came from, and how it has been changed in the past. Remember that your power to change is derived directly from your understanding and knowledge.

Governments as we know them today arose at during the rise of Nationalism at the end of the Mediaeval period. Nationalist governments were instituted to fill the vacuum created by the disintegration of feudalism. Therefore, it is through a study of the evolution of political philosophy of this period that we can learn at least one way the forces that give governments their legitimacy change over time. All of these historical descriptions are taken from God Science and Reason, which is the story of how one assumption, that the world is a rational place, affected the evolution of Western Culture. As such it does not attempt to present a complete picture of Western political evolution. But historians are primarily interested in the outcome of wars and the deeds of great and little political individuals. As Anarchists we must understand the forces that give them power more than we are of their actions. These are usually the result of fortune rather than brilliance.

Democratic, but with a constitution, tradition, or other system to prevent sudden changes. In a pure Democracy, the people could revoke the Bill of Rights with a simple majority vote, which would be unacceptable.

In a Republican system (which we have) we do not vote for the issues, we vote for the prople who decide those issues. I would like to see more democracy, which means issues on the ballot: Referendums, like those in California: Do you favor a pullout from Iraq; Do you want National Health Insurance; Shall we deport illegal immigrants; etc.? If our elected representatives had to work to create solutions within those and constitutional mandates, that would be ideal.

Parliamentary systems have become dictatorships in many countries because they do not have the tradition of compromise that the British have.

The Communist slogan is "all power to the people", which sounds very democratic, but power is concentrated in a single party. This party has reinforced their own power rather than that of the people in most cases.

Monarchies have worked, but only if one is lucky enough to have a good Monarch. Where the Monarch's power is limited by constitutional law or tradition it can also work. If the Monarch becomes a dictator, he will be deposed.

Socialism is an economic, not a political system. It stands for the proposition that business cannot run roughshod over the people, that the government can operate essential utilities, industries and transportation services, that free education, old-age and disability pensions, unemployment insurance and basic health care for the poor (or everyone) is a right, not a privilege. Almost the whole world (the US included) has blended this philosophy into its system.

Pacifism is not a governmental system. Although many nations will go to extremes to avoid conflict, every nation will defend itself if attacked and no nation, no matter how tolerant of opposition, will allow you to overthrow it.

True democracy is the best form of government, even though many people believe it can turn into chaos. The "town meeting" form of government so prevalent in Colonial New England worked well, invited everyone's participation, and caused little chaos.

A representative democratic republic, as we have here in the United States, lends itself to easily to a bloated and corrupted government, inept leadership, waste, fraud, and power being place in the hands of a few for the benefit of a few.

In a true democracy, 'we the people' could vote on every issue, hold referendums, replace politicians at will, and monitor our own community privilege. Instead, we are running toward a totalitarian form of government which will one day take away all of our freedoms and rights. That day is coming - sooner rather than later.

But until we get off the couch, put down the remote and take up our "right to keep and bear arms" against an oppressive and tyrannical government, nothing will change. Like lobsters languishing comfortably in a pot of lukewarm water, we won't start screaming in agony over our own apathy until it's too late. Then, we'll find ourselves in similar situations to that of the great, late Greek and Roman empires which collapsed in ruins once arrogance, avarice and hubris set in. -RKO- 09/03/07

The Democratic-Republic. A hybrid where certain matters are decided by elected representatives, and certain matters are decided by the general vote.

I think it is the ideal form of democratic government on a large scale. The United States has this, but only at the state level. If we could vote for constitutional amendments, then the federal government would have it, too. Unfortunately, such a system where the people vote for constitutional amendments requires some other check, because of the inherant danger in allowing total popular rule, meaning abuse of the minority.

An Constitutional Monarchy (with the monarch having some powers) with land-owning (not capitalists) aristocrats as the ministers. They'd be free to make principled decisions and not have a business to look after.

Representative republic. Not like we have now but the way it was intended to be. In other words more local control. What we have now is waaay too much federal power. It was never intended that we pay direct taxes to the federal government. It gives them too much power to redistribute wealth. Translate that to 'buy votes' (with your money). It was never intended that we have a PRIVATE central bank in charge of our money system. We don't get to know who the stock holders are. Their meetings are held in secret. They're never subject to any kind of an audit. They pay no taxes. They OWN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT lock stock and barrel. Think I'm crazy? Think again. I'm as sane as anybody out there. I invite you to prove me wrong.

Democratic. Even though the people don't really have a say, they really control how the politicians behave/the choices they make. Not everything they want gets done, but at least stuff gets done especially around re-election time.

democratic republic, like we have. the others allow gov't to get too big and involved in our lives and thus control us. they may not do it at the start, but when they get there, it is impossible or nearly impossible to correct the move. our constitution is what protects us from an oppressive gov't.. thank god for this wonderful democratic republic of ours.

The New England Town Meeting - the only true democracy I have ever seen.

democratic