What's the best form of government?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
What's the best form of government?
What's the best form of government?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
One where I get to rub one out and eat beefaroni at the same time.
Impossible question because it depends on what's being governed
Filtered you boring Black person
The one ruled by me
Liberal democracy is the least bad.
Yeah we can bake cookies, hold hands, and let the LGBT perverts frick kids, until real enemy nations get real weapons like nukes.
Move to North Korea if democracy is so horrific for you.
North Korea is a democracy though. Literally in the name of the country.
Norko is the end form of liberal democracy, so you first homosexual
What do you believe in?
>There are only two forms of government
Based moron
You seem to be under missimpression that you don't live under a somewhat enlightened oligarchy.
And then what? They don’t seem to be using the nukes moron hmmm maybe thats for a reason.
They'll sell such weapons to criminal organizations, especially those they sympathize with, to do their dirty work. Stupid homosexual.
Why didn't the Ottomans innovate throughout the extent of their rule? Why'd they let the religious caste hold back technological progress? Maybe a Caliphate can work, but the historical examples of it do not instill confidence.
>They'll sell such weapons to criminal organizations, especially those they sympathize with, to do their dirty work.
Bet it won’t happen
For the lurkers ITT and not this homosexual, Norko nearly succeeded in supplying nukes to Syria recently. When you have Arabs with frick-you-too power in the area, Europe will have to bow to their lessers in a desperate bid to keep peace.
>nearly
So it didn’t happen
Hurr durr dint happen
Ok I'll bite. Why shouldn't you have a say in government?
Can you ever make any tangible arguments against democracy? Do you really expect not to be laughed out of any public space when all you do is incoherently ramble about homosexuals?
Ridicule from your sort is far better than praise. It may make you insecure, but sodomy to day is the natural religion of "democracy," (plutocratic oligarchy) and we all know it. So it is as important to bring up when discussing it as Islam would be for any sultanate.
>tfw you're a limp-wristed democracy and sodomy supporting cuck.
Do you expect not to be laughed at for being a limp wristed cuck?
Lynch mobs are pure democracy in action. Everyone's in agreement and there's only one dissenting vote.
kek. if true then armed robberies are pure monarchy in action: only one person has a say over who lives and dies and the distribution of goods.
National Socialism
Objectively wrong because it doesn't exist anymore.
China is NatSoc my guy. Look at its actual structure, how its government is poised amidst its people, and what its government expects of the people. It doesn't matter what its official name is, or what its Soviet alliance origins make it seem.
China is severely lacking on the "Nat" side of things. They're not really big on rhetoric about the master race or how some race or another is a pestilence that needs to be eradicated, things that were absolutely central to Hitler's ruling philosophy
Their closest ideological-historical cousin would certainly be the USSR under the NEP, not Germany under Hitler.
Middle kingdom, middle kingdom race. Their self perception is that they are the rightful owners of the lands, and any civilization going against them is inferior and should be subjugated. This was true during Confucian times, and the mindset is still living and breathing now. They just know they have to be defensive about self presentation for the moment, otherwise their alliances would suffer.
They were far more successful at being a self centered race than Hitler ever was. As they continue to experience more success, the more they will be emboldened to make their mindset explicit. It's already evident in how insufferable their tourists are.
And how is their brutal treatment of the Uighur not systematic cultural eradication? Their disrespect by forcing Han officials into their homes alongside their children, coopting their uncle toms to serve pork and alcohol and other marginalizing roles while denying their other community members sustainable employment, and forcing their religious leaders to dance at command? They'll do this and much worse to anyone they can bring under their boot.
The Chinese aren't just nationalistic, they're the most successful and powerful nationalistic race in history ever.
>And how is their brutal treatment of the Uighur not systematic cultural eradication? Their disrespect by forcing Han officials into their homes alongside their children, coopting their uncle toms to serve pork and alcohol and other marginalizing roles while denying their other community members sustainable employment, and forcing their religious leaders to dance at command? They'll do this and much worse to anyone they can bring under their boot.
And while these kind of testimonies are verified and provable by tourism into Xinjiang, I acknowledge the brutality of the concentration camps aren't totally verified. But it's well within their power, some of the people going into those camps haven't come out for years.
>NOOO NOT THE POOR PEDO WORSHIPING MUSLIMARINOS, NOT THE LITERAL WHO ETHNIC GROUP
I sympathise with China on that issue, it is the only way to deal with troublesome minorities if you are not neurotic enough to conduct genocide. If white people still had Empires I might view China as a rival, but as it stands any imperivm is a good thing, wherever it comes from.
>in b4 Chang
the west is already finished, succumbed to its own decadence, I am just being a realist pragmatist, maybe central and eastern europe can salvage something of it over the next 100 years but it will never be globe spanning, it will never accomplish anything of note
Tbf it took the entire Western world combined and 4 years to take down ONE NatSoc state (and it's incompetent autocratic friends).
That NatSoc state also single handedly increased scientific understanding by 2 decades in nearly every field, while fighting against the entire world.
>Tbf it took the entire Western world combined and 4 years to take down ONE NatSoc state
Having the entire world declare war on you sounds like a failure of your state.
COPE
O
P
E
this
Meds now.
a mix of democracy with oligarchy and/or autocracy
Wrong question, it should be - what is the maximum amount of money we should be giving to the government? In the past they were satisfied with 10%, now 30% is not enough
Can the philosopher king exist?
Yes
no, because he would be subverted by palace intrigues
Yes. The Monarchy would still have problems because the king cannot rule by himself and depends on the support of elites that are not enlightened philosophers and only care about their own wealth and power.
Why is it so hard to find diligent sages motivated to work for the interest of society instead of selfish creature comforts? Do you think humanity will emerge at some point to bring the ratio of sages compared to common men to much higher, in favor of the sages?
The most obvious way to do this is totalitarian style purges, or global epidemics, after which the sages would be granted harems to repopulate the Earth and raise the average IQ to China or israelite level.
I don't want a ~~*great reset*~~, but it's gonna happen anyways. *sigh*
Which is funny because I _do_ want Putin to push the launch buttons. Same thing in the end, I guess.
I have no problem with israeli Y DNA taking over the world. Or any race, as long as they're at least as good as East Asians, Euros, israelites, or smaller inventive races like the Mayans. Most of the post-nuked world israelites will realize how stupid their religion is, then most of the planet will be neo-Carthaginians.
It seems elite israelites are the most prepared for and due to spread out numbers, have the least to lose in a nuclear war. But plenty have bunkers. Who would emerge as the new masters of the planet? I have no idea.
>Why is it so hard to find diligent sages motivated to work for the interest of society instead of selfish creature comforts?
Because it's incredibly hard to stop people from acting in their own self-interest, especially if you centralize power into one person appointed for life. There's only two realistic possibilities to a dictatorship/monarchy, and usually it's a combination of both:
1. The ruler appoints an heir. He'll usually pick family since it's in his interest and it tends to make succession disputes harder to make.
2. The death of the ruler results in a succession crisis ranging from the political elite being purged of all rival claimants, or outright civil war.
The "philosopher king" in practice relies on the idea that the successor will be trained from birth to be a ruler, but there's reliable way for him to be replaced by someone else if he proves himself to be too incompetent to be a good successor besides, well, killing him.
Aristocratic republic
DALL-E mini says that it's pic related
What the frick is this? It looks like how voting process works but it feels like something I read in a dream.
Looks like partial balkanization into a loose confederacy of states.
NeuralBlender generated pic related as the best political system
Enlightened monarchy
.t leftoid
Futarchy. Futarchy involves using prediction markets in order to determine the best policies. The basic idea is to use prediction markets to make political decisions, and to vote on values, but bet on beliefs.
>inb4 futa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy
https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html
This is an interesting concept but it lacks grounding in what's considered the best policies. China's tianming or the general idea of benevolent despotism would have to inform this.
This sounds stupid as shit. Can you back this up? This just sounds like people being ruled by bots or trannies. It sounds like all kinds of haywire and wrong would be the end result of this.
Moldbug refuted it over a decade ago.
Mold bug is a moron monarchist.
one that works
aristocratic republic with some peasant representation
mandatory genocide of all living beings
Giga-based
One that doesn't let the synagogue of satan subvert and destroy it
There isn't one, because Governments are human designed systems, and humans are fallible and flawed creatures. It doesn't matter what kind of government you attempt, it will always wind up becoming a corrupt nepotistic mess, with a strong oligarchy at the top and teeming masses of poor on the bottom. That's simply how humans organize themselves because that's our genetic programing. All Governments will eventually fail and the teeming masses of poor will kill the old oligarchs (and themselves in large numbers) only for a new ruling class and a new form of Government to take it's place.
The specifics of Governments are irrelevant, because humans always self organize into corrupt nepotistic pyramid schemes over time, and the pyramids always collapse violently given enough time. You can't fight against or change human nature. Imperfect creatures will only ever give birth to imperfect systems.
finally some good answer
>genetic programming
that's a shit answer, we are not ants, we have only had civilization for a minute fraction of our evolutionary history, while we are tribalistic there is nothing on the scale of civilizations of millions
>we have only had civilization for a minute fraction of our evolutionary history
One time I saw an empty file with no extension appear on my desktop, 0 bytes. It had a name though: "God doesn't exist lol"
I pondered on the metaphysical implications of this filename, and how it was able to appear on my desktop without any intelligent force to guide it through the obstacle of entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that causes things to decay overtime and require maintenance to not completely disintegrate into an unintelligible mess. Screw it I'm gonna copypaste this into GPT-J 6B, that sweet, sweet AI and let it finish my copypasta for me
Humans are capable of abstract thought and they used this tool to form bureaucracies and such. They invented it, like they invented the bow and arrow. There is no innate instinct behind it like love of booba.
>There is no innate instinct behind it
What do you mean by "instinct"
>like love of booba.
Hang on, are we forgetting about hippa? Those delicious, birth-giving hi- Whoops, said too much. Jokes aside, isn't that kind of _exactly_ an instinct thing?
Even though I was the one who made this copypasta here:
, in the end I agree with you, editing human genetics (or _any_ organism's genetics) is moronic at best (we haven't even really scratched the surface of DNA) and dystopian at worst, so sorry I had to open with that. I actually agree with you, just not for the same reason(s).
don't project your Amerifat shitshow onto my country, fat boy
Revolution happens when there's too many elites not getting a piece of the pie. Countries like Sweden or the Netherlands are very stable because they have a high degree of equality. France collapsed in 1789 because it did not.
Caliphate. A restoration is long overdue. Daesh are zionist larpers and cutthroats and don't count.
Islam is proven to lower IQ and the effect is independent of race.
Proven where? I don't think Islam is good, but I've examined the core religion and its ability to adapt, and there's no inherent reason why the religion itself should make people stupid. The religion's status quo i poor because the people it spread to are stupid. If Islam were under the control of medieval Eastern Europeans, it would be an intellectual religion comparable to Christianity, one that just happens to have a core population of Arabs and other mediocre browns.
Absolute Monarchy
Why shouldn't you have a say in government?
>1 vote in tens in millions is having a say in government
Having a high ranking position is the only way to have any effect, democracy merely increases the number of rulers a man has.
Because I'm moronic
benevolent autocracy, be it a monarch or dictator
the downside is it is incredibly short lived, and as soon as the autocrat dies, the government should revert to some sort of democracy until a new capable autocrat can be found
I’m sure it depends on the state.
elective monarchy but the elector is a comprehensive AI system
Hey Curtis.
A republic or federalist governemnt that has checks and balances and a constitution it strictly follows.
Heavily decentralized monarchy.
Constitutional monarchism, constitutional Republicanism, one party states, etc. have all experienced civilization flourishing since the enlightenment. The best systems tend to combine aspects of autocracy & democracy, without falling to tyrannical incompetence or mob rule. Organic Democracy seems solid conceptually, although more so along the lines of National Socialism rather than Italian Fascism. America and Germany are particularly worth studying as it pertains to effective governance, given their abundance of prosperity & innovation in the late modern era (1776-1945) despite the prominence of Britain, France, and Russia.
Absolute monarchism can be phenomenal when the ruler is highly competent (Augustus, Frederick II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, etc.), but hundreds of years of progress can be undone within decades if a moron ascends to the throne. Also, as society becomes more complex and specialized, some sort of limits & distribution of authority is pretty much necessitated. A constitutional monarchy in the vein of pre-WWI Europe seems more effective.
>Absolute monarchism can be phenomenal when the ruler is highly competent (Augustus, Frederick II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, etc.)
Frankly even in cases where absolute monarchy would suit a highly competent ruler well, it's on principle better to stratify the power. Even with a judicious, fit ruler, ersonal issues and sickness can paralyze the body politic to the point of crippling a state.
lost
>A constitutional monarchy in the vein of pre-WWI Europe seems more effective.
When the monarch is a figurehead like in Britain. When they are invested with power like the Kaiser it attracts a clique that eventually surrounds them and cuts them off. A similar error was made when they invested the Weimar President with special emergency powers and in Japan which had a system modelled on Germany's. Also Britain eventually sunk into modern decadence and socialism in the end anyway.
It seems modern systems are stuck between a rock and a hard place. You either have Mugabe or North Korea tier levels of totalitarianism or the careerist state bureaucrats take over, then what follows is a gradual decline into mob rule. The Soviet Union survived long enough to see this process. Stalin was replaced by an oligarchy which declined before mass nationalist movements took over.
Also I wouldn't take this seriously, it is not like a law of physics. Nothing beats a more thorough analysis of the actual power structure in place. Most rulers are not all-knowing avatars of their nation, they inhabit a bureaucratic cocoon which only reacts to the information fed to it, often manipulated and restricted. It is an old observation that few care about the "good of the nation", often a careerist does not benefit from acting in its interest, if they do, their career suffers and they don't rise further in power. For example Fort Sumter, neither side wanted war but an escalation was inevitable.
The one where I’m king
Monarchy
>What's the best form of government?
Let me see...
I swear most of these world rankings are made by the Nords/Germanics to jerk themselves off.
Falangism
Democracy has never existed above the city-state level, and is, at any rate, the most crude and totalitarian form of government imaginable. Aristocratic republics may start off competent enough, but it is a form of state intentionally designed to prevent any change or reform, and therefore the worst men imaginable quickly become solidly entrenched at the top.
There's also something inherently illegitimate and arbitrary about a government that is designed to constantly do battle with itself; a state that commits to a course of action simply because 55% of its parliament voted on it. It is very hard to see what the justification for such an arrangement is.
Hitlerism
Funny how Hitlerism plunged Germany into war killing millions of people and under liberal democracy Germany rebuilt itself from ruins to became the richest country in Europe.
Germany will be the dominant power in Europe even if 5 Hitlers come and go
90 million people sacrificed their lives to delay the inevitable for 80 years
Democracies are richer, healthier, happier, better educated, have higher innovation, lower crime, lower corruption, higher social capital, more political stability, have better protections for individual rights, the environment and animals. Democracies give more to charity and have higher rates of volunteerism. Support for democracy is positively correlated with IQ at both the individual and national level. No two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. There has never been a genocide under a democracy.
There is an alternative though...
He was an exception. One of the truly based people post-war
By "democracy" you only mean "the kind of government western republics have today," since none of this applies to historical democracies, obviously, and thus can not be said to be the natural consequences of the system.
What you're describing is the success of the West, which was once the most brilliant of all civilizations. Republics took all of the glory that this civilization built up over a thousand years and completely squandered it in less than a hundred.
More democratic African countries are better off than less democratic African counties. More democratic Asian countries are better off than less democratic Asian countries. More democratic white countries are better off than less democratic white countries. China began rolling out local elections and the regions that allowed a little democratic representation had better public investment and better educated leaders than the regions without it.
but they are doomed to inevitable decline as their population becomes decadent hikkikomori NEETs
the perfect government is probably something like democracy but with anal retentive cultural and social controls to prevent the slip into coomer hedonism
>There has never been a genocide under a democracy.
Except for the one where people who look like me are a minority in the only homeland I've got, we were never given the option to say no to our own replacement, and if I say I think that's bad I won't be allowed to have a job.
Technocracy with an enlightened arbiter or supervisory council at the top (a bit like what Saint Simon had in mind, or basically what the French Empire was for the few years Napoleon wasn’t at war).
Choosing the supervisory council would be nigh impossible in new world countries, but in the old world there is still a class of highly cultured (and educated) old bourgeoisie that has not fallen to decadence.
theocratic monarchy
A system of townships that function as direct democracies, all of whom are beneath a federal government with only the power to administer the military and national infrastructure projects.
Social Democracy
Democracy where only net tax payers are allowed to vote.
A representative democracy but where only homeowners, married men, and Christians are allowed to vote. One vote for a family.
This would make the whole "democracy" thing pointless as you're deliberately describing the outcome system in advance and narrow down the possibilities.
Just admit that democracy (and "majority will") is moronic.
I think a problem with this is that the probable tax incentives and vote privileges will make men marry for the power involved, and not more relevant reasons like personal fulfillment and stability. A system like yours will have a strong filter in favor of prostitution and hateful spousal relations. This leads to simpery, because most men who could get married, but are not wealthy enough to own a house, would be pathetic simps, and this is evident in the onlyfans period. This would mean while married men are the nominal voters, prostitutes would have a large shadow influence, and because the commitments of those voters would be conflicted--they're already too poor to afford a house, it would lead to much turmoil among common families and society as a whole.
Unironically a Republic (a thing the israelites like Americans to forget the USA was founded as), or a Monarchy. At least Republics don't just let people vote willy-nilly, and at least Monarchies are honest when they want to oppress you.
We create our own government an AI that has no emotions or actual ego it instead adminstrates humans accordingly and is incorruptible because it killed everyone who knows how it works.
Lol, I never said their genocide of Muslims was bad, in fact, I support them doing it. I just don't want it to happen to anything I actually care about, and especially not me.
I don't think the west's fate is solidified, but it does feel like its resources and potential for the near future are being exhausted into oblivion.
Meant to quote
I guess I can quote this post. AI government is fricking stupid. HFT for the near future can't even manage manipulating the stock market without occasionally having a schizo hiccup costing the AI's owners millions in USD.
>A.I's owners
It has no owners no one owns it it OWNS YOU.
Low IQ spotted.
Because you saw a shitty scifi movie about it before that has no correspondence to actual philosophy of AI, which cannot give definite conclusions on the matter.
The idea of an AI ran or heavily AI assisted government is stupid because current day trading algorithms aren't flawless?
They point to signs that any project like it will run into bugs, and those bugs will result in catastrophic losses. Even if an AI could be designed to run a world like our contemporary world smoothly, there's no guarantee it could adapt to new human behavior. In that case, AI would always be have to be eventually surbordinate to human judgment, which isn't AI government at all, but technocracy.
AI philosophy has no definite conclusions on whether AGI can or can't exist. We won't know till we reach the edge of those potential breakthroughs, which may just be disappointments.
>They point to signs that any project like it will run into bugs, and those bugs will result in catastrophic losses
Do you think a system like this would be rolled out before we were sure that catastrophic errors would either not be an issue, could be prevented by human oversight or reverted if necessary, like how flash crashes were fixed? Human governments also result in occasional catastrophic errors - if an AI was capable of governing more efficiently overall then wouldn't it still be preferable to let it do so with the occasional error? People lose their shit when self-driving cars get into accident without taking into account that humans would have gotten into ten thousand accidents by the time they've driven the same distance, it's important not to lose the big picture by focusing on dramatic but largely irrelevant issues.
>Even if an AI could be designed to run a world like our contemporary world smoothly, there's no guarantee it could adapt to new human behavior
Once we have AI good enough to run branches of government then there's no doubt in my mind that it would also be able to adapt to new human behavior, almost assuredly many times faster than a human bureaucrat, especially those artificially limited by a system of checks and balances.
>then there's no doubt in my mind that it would also be able to adapt to new human behavior
This is stupidly self confident, and how AI research runs into dead ends, because some idiot thought it would be cool or profitable. While machines can and could replicate much behavior capable by the brain, there's no guarantee they could ever truly learn. All our storehouses of and conceivable developments in computation don't even scratch the surface of consciousness. We've ran into many walls regarding consciousness, and there will be many new fields toward understanding it that haven't even begun yet.
>This is stupidly self confident, and how AI research runs into dead ends
There's only going to be more interest and money dumped into AI and the data sets they have to train on are only growing and growing. There have been AI winters before but interest has always been renewed sooner or later and this time around things are different.
>While machines can and could replicate much behavior capable by the brain, there's no guarantee they could ever truly learn
Even if this was true, does it even matter? If you had an AI doctor that made accurate diagnoses 99.9% of the time compared to a human doctor which only did so 80% of the time, would you discard the AI because you had no idea how its inner workings looked like?
~~*Modern Medical Science*~~ is corrupt in large part (or mainly) because people are told they'll get a bonus if they suggest certain ~~*pharmakeia*~~ to patients, and I _still_ would rather have a human doctor or nurse over a fully AI-controlled doctor or nurse. I wanna give humans jobs, not give big-nose Dr. Robotniks who are already rich more money, thanks. That would play right into their plan.
Now you're just schizoposting, you should have just said from the start that you don't like AI because you're convinced that israelites have/will corrupt them. If the Spotify algorithm autoplays a song you end up really enjoying are you grateful that you've discovered a new song/band or do you immediately assume that the label has paid off Spotify to shill their music?
>Well they'd still be human overwatched, and human overwatch with biased goals under the guise of scientific machine intelligence isn't impartial at all. Like Robotnik anon said, it's sus to even trust it at all.
Deciding their goals and avoiding bad biases is a huge unsolved question in AI ethics but there are simple objectives you can give them which don't require anything like that. If you train an AI to go through medical data and it eventually becomes better than humans are discovering early cancer then you can just feed it data and outperform doctors with no real moral dilemma as long as it works properly, if you're still skeptic then it could just flag files for further human inspection but honestly AI will eventually outperform many skilled workers in most fields,
Then make sure every society gets a chance at having them, or its open source, or its code is verified by institutions who aren't Regulatory Captured.
He's not schizoposting at all. Every race especially the israelites have factions that want to monopolize major industries.
Thanks bro, just looking out for anons' backs. I don't wanna be part of ~~*The Gay Reset*~~, that's all
(And yes I know Klaus Schwab is just a frontman, I just think this image is keksexual)
>Then make sure every society gets a chance at having them, or its open source, or its code is verified by institutions who aren't Regulatory Captured.
Ideally AI should improve as many aspects of our lives and government as possible and that should apply to all nations, though I don't think this is likely since it's essentially a winner takes all scenario for whoever invents the first true strong/general AI. I wasn't talking about the ethics or dangers of AI though, my initial post only suggested that government could be improved by replacing or assisting it with AI.
I asked a simple question about whether he would/should care about the fact that it was an AI that produced the results if the results in question are significantly better than what a human would produce. Instead of just answering like a normal person he randomly brought up how the entire thing is controlled by israelites and any criticism of this is just going to make him call me an NPC. There are interesting questions here, like why we feel the need to know, why we can put our faith in doctors (despite not understanding how they reached their conclusion) but people can be apprehensive about doing the same thing with an AI even if it objectively would give you a better diagnosis, how liability is handled when it comes to medical malpractice when AI is involved, those sorts of things. Instead we get boring "its da joooooooooooos" shit.
Well they'd still be human overwatched, and human overwatch with biased goals under the guise of scientific machine intelligence isn't impartial at all. Like Robotnik anon said, it's sus to even trust it at all.
That's not a israelite in picrel, that's a walrus with a nine pointed seaweed rack, man.
Kek, I guess I'm Walrus with a nine-pointed seaweed rack anon now
Just pointing it out to janny so they don't ban you
Huh
>Now you're just schizoposting
Yeah you're an NPC lol
Just calm down, I wasn't attacking you.
He's either a israelite or a useful idiot. In either case, remember Hitler's approval rating was 40% in 1933 and 90% in 1939. They can't misdirect forever and people will awaken.
Now that you mention it, useful idiot covers glowies/commies/progs/leftoids/NPCs/etc. These people don't realize how dangerous to the species' survival secular israelites are. If they did, they'd turn against the israelites in a blink.
Democratic, however you can't allow ((them)) to vote in any elections nor work for government.
The first thing a governing official needs to do is to have no self worth outside of serving the people and being for the people, for that reason human government are never ever gonna be good no matter what system you create.
How about there is a guy and girl in a room. They make up laws some dudes keep a list of them and if the guys dont like them they remove the laws or change them, they do this all day so never actually leave the room until its bedtime.
As for who is the guy and girl well thats up to the guy and girl the guy can select a new guy to replace him and the girl can select a new girl to replace her btw once you have been the guy and girl you cannot be it ever again. For that reason potential candidates are educated on law, commerce, and warfare and left in waiting for when they will be chosen to take the position as guy and girl.
Absolute monarchy.
Based lol
AI totalitarianism
Government run by the community and the people who will have to endure the consequences of their own actions.
Philosopher king > Warrior-poetical elite > bourgeoisie & proletariat.
Philosopher king is elected from the lower caste.
Warrior-poetical elite is earned from deeds.
Nothing hereditary unless science proves eugenics effective. Then hereditary after like thousand years or something. The state should aim for absolute sublimity.
None.
Oligarchy where the members debate and discuss laws is the best system because its our current system. Oh yh you dont elect the people in the oligarchy before you say shit its a hereditary oligarchy.How large should it be 6 people 10 people 20 people?
Dickocracy. Rule is exercised by the men with the largest penises. It's well known that most evils on the sociopolitical stage are caused by men who
A) Can't get laid
B) Are trying to compensate for having a small penis.
By putting rule in the hands of the most well-endowed men, you avoid these problems, as they can be secure in their masculinity and run the country in between sessions of anal with b***hes.
World spaning constitutional monarchy led by an immortal benevolent philosopher president elect
Sounds like Leto II
cybernetic fungi theocracy.
>government
Lmao at the morons in this thread clamoring for the return of systems so shitty they got BTFO by literally every other system.
national socialism, or at the very least, some sort of reformed neo-bonapartism
Semi-constitutional monarchy coupled with a parliamentary democracy system..
What you're referring to is a system of parliamentary sovereignty where the masses and king have no power whatsoever, but that can't be said out loud because it would be embarrassing for the rulers of the country. Pathetic.
Constitutional Republic