Forums: Index > The Soapbox > What is the best form of government?

I think one of the first things that we need to do is define our terms. And part of the discussion needs to be basic definitions of what the various forms of government are, the advantages and disadvantages of each, and which one we want for our various countries and the world in general.

==Nice government==-- 04:09, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

    • Anarcho-capitalism - economy organized around private property
    • Anarcho-syndicalism - economy organized around worker control
  • Autocracy - "rule by a single individual".
    • Dictatorship - rule by leadership unrestrained by law
    • Monarchy - rule by a single individual elected by ancestry
      • Absolute monarchy - monarch's power is unrestrained by law
      • Caliphate - Aristocratic-Democracy
      • Constitutional monarchy - monarch's power is restrained by law
  • Civilocity - "rule by the watchers"
  • Democracy - "rule by the people"
    • Representative democracy - the people elect the officers of government
      • Republic - representative democracy with elected head of state, as opposed to appointed or hereditary
      • Single-party democracy - one party dominates the government
      • Two-party democracy - two parties dominate the government
    • Direct democracy - the people themselves vote on the law
    • Ancient (Athenian) democracy having three pillars, Isokratia (every citizen has the same power), Isigoria (all citizens have equal right to be heard) and Isonomia (every citizen is equal in front of the laws which are always decided using majority rule).
    • Liberal democracy the people's power through democracy is checked by law, often by means of a written consitution
  • Despotism - absolute rule by a single authority (could fall under autocracy or oligarchy)
    • Enlighted despotism - despot uses absolute authority for the betterment of society
  • Meritocracy - "rule by those who most deserve to rule".
  • Oligarchy - "rule by the few"
  • Plutocracy - "rule by the wealthy".
  • Theocracy - "rule by religious leaders, ostensibly on behalf of their deity or deities"
    • Christian state - ostensibly guided by Christian principles
    • Islamic republic - ostensibly guided by Islamic principles
  • Tyranny - General description of a bad regime
  • Technocracy - rule by the scientifically educated, or ostensibly guided by scientific principles

Wikipedia has an extensive collection of terms and definitions that describe types of governments. The aim is not to duplicate that here, but to discuss generally what the goals of government should be, and which of the forms is most likely to result in the accomplishment of those goals. 22:24, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

A flaw in democracy?Edit

To the Campaigns Wikia community:

I have had a doubt brewing in my mind for some time now and I would like everyone's input on the subject. It seems to be that, by definition, democracy implies an opression of the minorities. Is this true? If it is, is this where we want society to head? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on:
That depends on how we define democracy. What you're referring to is the fact that minority voices lose elections, and thus are often not heard or discounted if their numbers are too low. Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") means different things to different people. Within the word, it doesn't define how the government is established or conducted. Many people believe that the vote is the core of democracy. I don't see it that way. People in US Campaigns always talk about GOTV efforts, for Getting Out The Vote. I'm on a different quest, but one with the same ackronym. My efforts over the past few years and ongoing today are for Getting Out The Voice of the people, because living in a democratic society means that your voice is heard and your views are taken into account, no matter how much of a minority you may be in compared to the 'ruling parties' or whatever. Oppression of minorities is the result of the abuse of power, and does not result from democracy itself. We can learn to be fair regardless of our own views, and deal with things in accordance with written law. Where I want society to move towards is a world where people's opinions and experiences mean something to everyone else, and that everyone works together. Does that help? Chadlupkes 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The three pillars of the (ancient) democracy are isokratia (every citizen has the same power), isigoria (in greek ισηγορία) (all citizens have equal right to be heard) and isonomia (equality in front of the law). You describe the second pillar. Iasson 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Democracy has been called, particularly by anarchists, the "tyranny of the majority". While it certainly has the potential to be this, the theory of democracy depends on enlightened self-interest and the assumption that extremists and others who would want to oppress anyone would be canceled-out by opposing extremes, resulting in a government that resembles whatever passes for "moderate" in that particular society. Sure, a 51% caucasian or 51% christian society could vote to take the right to vote away from the other 49%, but democracy assumes that a large enough portion of that 51% will be enlightened enough to prevent it from happening. It does make things difficult for minorities with drastically different ideologies from the general population, but the assumption is that such ideologies would be (or would become over time) more common if they were in the best interest of the society. --whosawhatsis? 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In (ancient) democracy, 51% cannot vote to take the voting right away from the other 49%. This is against the definition of democracy, and especially against the "isokratia" (in greek ισοκρατία) pillar (isokraria means every citizen has the same (voting) power) Iasson 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's true that democracy doesn't really give the minorities expression. Of course, other forms of government, such as oligarchy and monarchy, don't give even the majority any expression. I think the United States Republic shares a couple characteristics with an oligarchy, since governmental decisions are made by a majority of multiple majorities and not just a simple majority of the people. However, what would a better form of government be? Jfingers88 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that democracy is inherently disadvantageous to ideological minorities, not the ethnic/racial minorities for whom the word is more commonly used. Disadvantages to the latter (aside from statistical correlation between the two) result from abuse of democracy. --whosawhatsis? 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think democracy is "inherently disadvantageous to ideological minorities", at least not as much as any alternative system. In dictatorship, the minority can oppress the majority. In Anarchy, nothing can prevent the majority from oppressign the minority, should it choose to. McLurker 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's a mistake to look for one best form of government for all times and places. In places with long histories of ethnic antagonisms - like Iraq, Yugoslavia, and the Southern US in the Jim Crow era - the majority's suppression of the minority can be ugly, and democracy may just perpetuate that. Other places with different histories may well work better on theocratic or tribal principles. Democracy can work pretty well in post-Enlightenment countries that are ethnically homogeneous and reasonably egalitarian. In other kinds of places, going through the motions of democracy isn't likely to change the way real power is distributed. I'm sure you're right to suspect that democracy isn't The Answer. But I can't see that anything else is, either... Deadplanet 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Iraq was not democratic, and in my opinion still isn't. Milosevic-era Yugoslavia was emerging from dictatorship. The American South was democratic, but the oppression of ethnic minorities depended on flaws in the system that allowed certain people to be denied the vote (even today, felon disenfranchisement- which affects black people more than white people- has the ability to affect elections). In the South it was democratic means which made life better for the minorities, and democracy is having a beneficial effect in Yugoslavia. Democracy tends to make people more enlightened. Democracy is impossible without Enlightenment values, but I think it is very difficult to spread these values without democracy. McLurker 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you're saying. Iraq isn't democratic in any meaningful way, and going through the motions as it's doing now will only make things worse until it, like Yugoslavia, breaks up into more governable pieces. (Whether all or any of those pieces will benefit from democracy in this generation is a different question.) In the USA, on the other hand, the federal government had the strength and legitimacy to go in and open up Southern politics in a way that was opposed by the local majorities in the South. My point was just that history and local conditions always have an effect, and there is no Universal Way Forward.
Do you support the idea of trying to spread Enlightenment values by invading countries and forcing them to hold elections? Call me a nut, but I tend to think democracy has to be something that people really want. Deadplanet 14:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I don't support democracy by invasion. But I do think spreadign democracy is the best single thing that can be done for a country. Though i also think that globalisation means that some form of surpranational democracy is now necessary. McLurker 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the United Nations could become that? Right now they're not a governing body, just a service organization. But that could change. We would need to agree to it, as it wouldn't just be another treaty.
I think the regional mergers are moving us in that direction, from the European Union to the African Union. Economic integration in South America is underway as well. Political integration is going to take a lot longer, if ever. But lack of a formal integration shouldn't prevent nations and regions from working together for common goals. Chadlupkes 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Not just want, the people have to be willing to work for it. Either through violent struggle, like the American Revolution, or peaceful struggle like in India and South Africa. Although the "peaceful" struggles resulted in many deaths as well.
And it takes work not just to create a government of, by and for the people, but it takes continuous work to maintain it. We can't assume that a government will last forever, because no government ever has.
Let's define Enlightenment values. Chadlupkes 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Representative Democracy is our form of government and it only ignores the minority if the minority wants what is not could for the entire country. In the case of where we are at now in our history, the majority is the ones who want what is not good for the country. Examples are Socialized health care, Social Security for everyone that will not care for themselves, and basically providing everything an individual is unwilling to provide for himself. Maybe the next form of Democracy will include in it’s constitution a clause that the Government is forbidden to provide social services to anyone. That would put a country back where the United States was in the 1930’s when it was the greatest growing country in the world. Since we got in to the business of taking care of people rather than requiring them to take care of themselves our standing in the world has declined along with our self esteem. One might argue that there are other reasons for this decline but I believe the root cause is socialism. Socialism has never worked and for well known reasons. Basically it is a flawed form of government just as our form of Democracy is flawed.

Ok, except that Socialism is not a system of government, it's an economic system. Social Security and Medicare are not "socialist" programs, they are Foundational programs. They are part of a foundation for a middle class society. If we eliminate the ability of a society to provide true personal security, we reduce our society to chaos based on fear. If we want a middle class in the United States, we have to provide a floor for us to build on, and provide help for people who live below that floor. Do you know that our minimum wage of $5.25 provides someone with an income of $10,980 per year? Do you know what the Federal Poverty rate is? $9,570 for a family of one. The difference is $1,350. So the Federal minimum wage is that close to putting people into poverty. The standard for housing is one third of a paycheck. So that's $3,660 annually, or $305 per month. How many housing arrangements can be found for $305 per month for a single person. And now think about couples, or families with children. Is $5.25 high enough to provide a living to someone with a family, AND pay for daycare for the kids, Health Insurance, a car, food, etc? What don't people need to survive? You don't need daycare if you don't need to work. You don't need Health Insurance if you don't and won't ever get sick. You don't need a car if you life close to work. You do need food, water, shelter, clothing, etc.
George Washington passed legislation providing direct financial assistance to the homeless. So should we. Thomas Paine came up with the idea of Social Security, Medicare, etc. in the 1790s.
One problem is that we see Social Program, and think they are handouts. Some are, and they should be monitored. Most are not. Training programs are required in most places to qualify for financial aid. Unemployment benefits are dependent on a search for work. You talk about people who will not take care of themselves. What about the people who can not take care of themselves? Like the Disabled or children of workers that are currently getting Social Security benefits.
The VA is a socialized program of medical treatment. The doctors work for the VA, the hospitals are owned by the VA, etc. Does it work? Ask the veterans. As long as we as citizens are willing to provide the funding necessary to keep it going, yes it does.
I'm amazed that you consider the 1930's a great era in our history. From whose perspective? The farmers who were dealing with the drought? The people in the bread lines? The children in orphanages? We were the greatest country in the world from the late 1930's when war production started producing jobs up to 1981 when Reagan declared war on the Unions and started our downward spiral again. What makes a country good, the amount of goods and services that we can produce for our internal markets, or how high the Dow Jones gets?
I don't want the government providing 100% of the food, water and shelter for 100% of our people. I want the government to define a floor and make sure that a high majority of our people have enough opportunities to rise above that floor and achieve the American Dream. And I'll pay taxes to help those who are unable to climb the ladder. Chadlupkes 21:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You are an idealist. To bad your ideas are just a dream. Any attempt to make all your ideas a fact will crumble before your eyes. I know it's sad but it's also true. I also would like for life to be simple and great for everyone, especially me. Truth is life is always much less than that of your ideal. I never mentioned those unable to provide for themselves. You are the one that brought them into the equation. It's not that I forgot them it's just that they were not part of what I was talking about. You were just not paying attention. More like you were trying to say something opposite of what I was saying. Socialism is socialism no matter what you choose to call it and it just won't work. What part of social security did you not understand? Was it the "social" part? In reality it is pure socialism. My only income is social security and I can still see it for what it is. Why can't you? It is evil only because it is an excuse for every other social program. take food stamps for example. We constantly hand out a living for those that will not do it for themselves. Yes I know there are those that can't. Productive society can not provide for the non productive part that grows day by day. if you can't see it today the you most deffinately will see it tommorow. Sad but true. Some folks just will not see what is before their eyes. These are the ones that choose to be blind. Wake up this can not continue to be a give away society. If you think differently then you are the one that will be dissapointed in the end. A society can afford only so much. Ours has reached beyond what it can support.
Please sign opinion pieces and avoid "name calling".
You call Chadlupkes an idealist as if it were a bad thing. Do you think having ideals is bad?
--CocoaZen 17:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like a sort of say in this. I think democracy IS the best fomr of government, no doubt. It essentially allows everyone a say (as in a direct democracy). But, I agree it does have a flaw. If the majority is convinced to agree with someone, who knows what they can do? They could permit laws to do anything, essentially. They could establish an oligarchy (monarchy)! So, therefore I do beleive democracy works the best in society, but is never truly stable unless restricted bya REPUBLIC. What do you guys think?


Hello, I just turned 59, and I already see the demented throughout the whole world. You see corrupt politicians fleeing the country and taking billions, rape, and lots and lots of coke. If I were to create the perfect government, it would be a governmet that is relativley Socialist. it would'nt have a president, but everything would be controlled by a parliament, each representative of that parliament would defy a certain geological area (Nature and Human made). This way, funding of that region could go to (in the agricultural envornment) specialized fertilizers and crop seeds so we could maximize our yield. Everything would be domestic, and only the luxuries will be imported. If we run out of oil to tap, the federal oil administration (considering that there would be no commercial buisness) would automaticlly switch all of it's funding to dismantling the pumps and building nuclear reactors on top of that land. Everything commercial will be governed federally, including manufacturing, agriculture, construction, etc., etc.. The only area that the government won't own (but regularly inspect) are the culinary industry, hotels, etc., etc.. Every mere luxurious industry will be commercial.

Every residence/family will own a 1 acre lot, and every resident will be on a grid system, to every population increase where the housing space needs to be divided, everyone in that region will relocate, and the houses will be dismantled and the lots will be divided by 2. In a case that every residence will have less than a 50x4 square feet lot, houses will be built on top of one another. Everyone will have the same residence, and the pay will be relativley the same. Everyone will be given a heafty ration of food, but the actual job you have will determine the amount of luxuries you have. Everyone will start with the employment in a commercial company, and federal inspectors will apoint people to jobs depending on the education they received.

The manufacturing of essential goods and education will be the most funded, as well as construction (depending on how large the nation is). Everyone will receive the best education possible, and the education will continue to the age of 25, where as in between the ages of 19 to 25 can "drop out". When 19, you can choose the education you want to head at, wether it be research to inspectment. After 25, you can choose to take further classes, along with a commercial job.

Please note that I am very, very left-wing, this is a broad description, and I am 13. Thank you

Another viewEdit

As a 15 year old, it might seem exceedingly strange for one of my age to have their own answer to this, but I do. Please note that I have at some point indenitfied myself with all sides of the (one dimensional at least) political spectrum, so I have ahad a feel for what each type of government really holds for the people. But to answer your question, I'll quote John Loche, an english philospher who wrote one of the first modern manuscripts on the subject. According to him, all people had rights given to them from their begginings. Life, liberty and property. (Thomas Jefferson redid the last one to not only make it sound better, but also to encampass lifestyle as well) These ware rights that 'legally' can't be taken away from us as human beings. However, in an anarchy, few will respect it. Government is designed to protect those rights, but the cost is some freedom. As government as a system gets bigger and more controlling, it demands more freedoms, but grants more rights. So on the far left side of the scale, communism and/or dictatorship, you have no freedoms, but you have a huge bunch of rights. The USSR's constitution directly lists some of those rights, including the right to work and others like it. The far right side, anarchy (I'm going with the one-dimensional scale, so normally its facism, but that is including rightish belief on political issues, not the type of government. So I'm going to say that in this case, right side means the same as libertarian) In anarchy, you have 100% freedom to do anything you want, but you have no rights. Neither of which are very appealling. But let us look at why we want government sitting over us. Apart from protecting/giving rights to us, it does the same to the person next to me, who might feed me, or just as likely to murder me. It brings a sense of organization and control to the picture. Which is nice. But to me, my philosphy on life is to have as much fun you can possibly have and enjoy life as long and as best as possible. I really couldn't care less about the success of our great communist nation over the next 100 years. But I can't enjoy my life in this anarchic state. Government should serve the people, not the people serve it. Democracy is possibly one of the greatest inventions since the wheel, but then it got screwed up when we made it a representive democracy. A direct democracy has everybody's voice, or at least in a modern nation it would. An easy way to picture it is by imagining government has having x amount of power. It always has x amount of power, and it will always stay the same. It doesn't in real life, but its simplifies the picture for now. The less people with a share of x, the more of x that goes to each of those persons. In a democracy, x is equally cut for everybody. While in the representive version of it, x belongs to a few people, for a few years. Face it, the average person in America has 0 power when it comes to voting a bill in congress, once they have elected their represntives. Unless it is direct, which it is not. The more people that have x however, the slower it takes to push x from point a to point b. Is there a perfect medium? Yes, Pure Direct Technocracy. The problem is that not everybody is a genius, and a pure form of government is impossible. To make a pure form of anything, everybody needs to think the same way, the entire time. Which will never happen. So our best subsitute? Well it depends upon the population size of the governed. In a group of 5 people, more direct control is needed to ensure that nobody dies or is hurt. But as the population gets bigger, you need less control or the people get restless and revolt. And like in Mathematics, you can never divide a number by 2 and reach 0, you can never make government smaller and reach anarchy. If it gets that close, and does fall into anarchy, then the entire system breaks down and we star back at where people started, in dictoral governments. Like a father heading a family. So the best for a nation like America? Simply put, a minarchy. Which is a minimumal government thats only duties is to sustain a police force and tax to fund it. Thats it. -User:JtikssPies (19 Feb 2010)

Edit in bold to show discrepancy in logic, wording not changed.

A view from overseasEdit

Hi, and hope you don't mind me adding a view here - I think sometimes when looking solely within the US, we forget there are many other countries where things are being tried which are very different, to varying degrees of success. I cite as examples of different models the systems in Canada, Germany, the UK, Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. My focus will be on Australia as that is where I live, but much can be learned from all of these.

Australia - The plus pointsEdit

I live in a country where the minimum wage is twice that of the US (presently AU$14.31 per hour, or US$11.88 at present exchange rates) and the majority of the population are on awards or certified agreements above the minimum wage. National healthcare (known here as Medicare, but different to the US Medicare) is so entrenched that even the most conservative government must express approval of it to win office. Education is largely equitable thanks to the HECS/HELP system where students don't pay for their education until they reach a certain taxable income, and social services are (despite being below the minimum wage) at levels which people can actually live on. In terms of democracy, GOTV is unnecessary here as voting is an expectation, not simply a right, of every citizen - you get fined if you don't - and the "preferential" voting system means the candidate who gets in must be preferred by more than 50% of the overall voting population, almost eliminating strategic voting in one fell swoop as it allows protest votes while still directing the votes to potential winning candidates ensuring they are not wasted. I can only imagine how different things could be in the US if the progressive left and the "tea parties" alike had such opportunities. Furthermore, elections in Australia are run by an independent, national body which is responsible to the Parliament as a whole, ensuring both fairness and consistency.

Australia - The minus pointsEdit

That's one side of the equation. The minuses are almost all democratic deficits:

  • Australians have almost no rights under the constitution - we have the right to vote, an implied right to political expression, and must be justly compensated if the government takes our land, but that's actually about it.
  • Our government is unaccountable in between elections and like most countries we have in effect a two party system where the two parties do not represent the pinnacles of their supporters' ideals and can be influenced by external forces which have nothing to do with democracy. Internal forces matter too - at each election, only one candidate for each party is put before the voters (we do not have primaries), but that person may have been selected by an internal faction as part of a bid to take over the party. In effect, especially in so-called "safe seats", this means the member elected may owe more to the faction boss than to the people who voted.
  • Our system mandates that all ministers (secretaries) be members of Parliament. It has the positive that ministers are accountable to the people and can lose their seats if they go off the wall, and can be easily changed midstream by a Premier or Prime Minister in a "reshuffle". However, it also assumes, sometimes incorrectly, that there are in the winning or governing party sufficient competent and capable individuals ready to assume such duties - in Western Australia, where a minority government had to be formed after an indecisive election, the government is "coasting" due to a lack of talent on the front bench, and in the federal government there are clear underperformers in the ministry who it is not politically expedient to sack. I do not make this as a partisan point - the last government had duds too, and it was part of the reason they lost.
  • The preferential voting system leads to a certain level of timidity in public affairs where a centre line is rarely departed from. This means the bold decisions sometimes necessary in the national interest are sometimes avoided.
  • Our constitution is too inflexible - the paranoia of our nation's founders means the only way to change it is a majority of voters in a majority of states at a referendum, and only 8 of 44 referendum propositions have passed in the required manner.

All of these are to some degree or another a problem in the US system too, but often in different ways.

So... what to do?Edit

The question is - how to address these issues? And which ones need addressing?

For example, I have labelled the imperviousness of the government to public opinion between elections as a democratic deficit - but if we turned that around, would it be a good thing? Do we really want a population informed by tabloid media empires setting the agenda - if they do, would they necessarily act in their own long term interests? The complexity of the machinery of government in anything bigger than a Pacific island of a few thousand people is such that one practically needs a degree in public policy as a minimum requirement to understand the wider implications of measures (if you do this, then the flow-on effects will be this) and a degree in science to understand the competing oceans of bullshit on a range of subjects. An uninformed public is easier to lead, but a well-informed public can make effective decisions in its own interest and should be heard. We actually have a live laboratory of that here in Australia - the city of Canberra has effective self-government and, due to being a purpose built capital city, has very high education levels and standard of living in its mostly imported population, so their media can't get away with the sorts of stuff the rest do.

There's also the question of how much influence the voting system has on the system of government. Any local member system usually delivers perverse majorities to governments relative to their share of the vote. I could give examples but that would clog the attention span - suffice it to say that a Government getting 52% of the vote yet so crushing a majority of seats (e.g. 70%) that the Opposition cannot recover for three terms is not a system which assists democracy and encourages hubris on the winner's side. In Canada in 1993, the Government won just 2 seats out of 300 or so, destroying the party and permanently exiling many experienced and talented people to careers outside politics, despite them actually getting a fairly commendable slice of the vote.

In New Zealand and in Germany, they have a "mixed member proportional" system allowing people to both elect local members and have proportional representation. Germany has further safeguards where state elections can change the balance of the federal Bundesrat (Senate). The end result is a consensus style of government where the two main parties have to work together to at least some degree and voices normally excluded from the political process (e.g. the Greens and Libertarians in a US context) win seats and can effectively champion their causes while, in the interests of the entire system working, make appropriate compromises with their coalition partners. Sometimes this results in stalemate, where the policies of the two parties are too different to allow effective compromise, but New Zealand has seen some very strange coalitions which have actually served full terms and delivered for the electorate. Incidentally, New Zealand got its system in 1996 effectively under public protest against the failure of either side of politics to function in the interests of the people.

So I realise this is a bad place to end a rant where I've raised more questions than answers, but my main purpose was to get people to think outside the US to places which have tried or are trying some of the ideas being bandied about, and seeing what would work best to run a very large and diverse country.


(If you don't like something just keep reading.)
There are five levels of power
Power level Size of power unit Ruler(s)
Cities (seAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

lf explanatory)

Residents of the city (anyone with a highschool diploma can join city councils)
county consist of multiple cities man elected by the people of the county
district consist of multiple counties elected by people of the district
province multiple districs elected by province citizens
country (self explanatory)

elected by direct popular vote

Each person has to rise through the ranks to become president. Citizens in a city elect a person to be leader of the county. He/She must then be chosen by the other counties to lead the district. The citizens of the districts then elect one of their leaders to lead the provence. Finally the leaders of the provinces can run for president.

Of course the people need a good education system to make sure unintelligent people dont become politically powerful. Children are taught basic political science by eighth grade and then in the early years of high school take mandatory economics classes. after awhile the voting age can be reduced to 16.

The country will also be socialistic in economy and liberal in governing (with one exception)

  1. Endowed with their knowledge of economics, people can now work in cooperatively owned buisnesses. Somewhat like corporate democracy.
  2. There should be state healthcare, the government will pay the doctors through taxes
  3. state housing to some degree. People can still own homes but apartment buildings are the government's
  4. state run buildings (weapons factories, oil refineries, power plants, ect)
  5. Income tax will be very important and a prime source of income. Any taxes that hit the poor too deeply will be avoided
  6. Almost all forms of education will be free.
  7. No private banks, all should be nationalized
  8. The right to bear arms. It is important that all (who aren't mentally insane) protect themselves from everything (even the government when it is called for)
  9. Right to Euthanasia, abortion, and gay marraige.
  10. All are equal under the law regardless of ethnicity, religion, beliefs, wealth, sexual orientation, or gender; All have a right to vote 07:44, April 1, 2013 (UTC) J. Guzman

See alsoEdit