the monarchy point is right (although a largely irrelevant point as much as i dislike the monarchy), but it is a democracy that enacts social-democratic ideas. Venezuala is a better example for you then. And it doesn't if you put 's around it but i don't want to argue over the details of language here. Your point of normal majorities and fundamental changes in the system of government seems out of place to me but whatevs I guess.

Good, you've all been active.

While Plato's ideas are deeply flawed, they form a primitive skeleton for an altogether different form of government. One for which I don;t really have a name.

I believe that the average person wants no more than the freedom to work productively to better themselves, the peace to raise a family, and the prosperity to enjoy some luxury. If these needs are met, then most people will be content, and will not seek too much more, but in order for these need to be met, one must have good governance. What I propose based on Plato's ideas is a government composed of the very best and very brightest, and one in which those with power are reluctant to accept it. Any who seek to higher position becomes immediately inappropriate for it.

This class of leadership would be raised by the previous generation and instilled from an early age the importance of the people over themselves. Candidates for such a class would be drawn from all sectors of the people based only on the potential of each child. To offset the responsibility and rigors of such a position they would live at a higher point of luxury than is common, but only enjoy such luxury when they are not actively governing.

To ensure the proper behavior of such an empowered class, a third class of watchers would be created whose sole job would be to constantly evaluate the work and governance of the leadership class. The watchers would likewise be educated from an early age primarily in ethics and other useful studies in order to properly evaluate the leadership. In order to prevent co-opting of this class, they would also enjoy a certain state of luxury, which they are guaranteed, so long as good governance is maintained by the leadership class.

Obviously this is a very rough sketch.

Sounds like Singapore.

Obviously this is a very rough comparison.

I don't like Putin very much.

Why is it that every Commie-loving fool says, "Oh...THAT wasn't a *real* communist experiment...if it were only tried properly it would be great!" But then when it comes to Democracy -- which arguably there is no pure form of Democracy in existence, either, will always say, "Democracy sucks, capitalism sucks, blah blah blah..."

the lack of intellectual integrity amongst the commies is *astounding*.

That being said...there is no pure Communist Government or Democracy in existence...but Democracy clearly represents the most successful form of government ever. To suggest otherwise (as you read this on your iPhone, etc...which are the result of Democratic/Capitalist societies, mind you...) simply makes you a foolish ideologue who will forgo *evidence* in favor of insane utopian beliefs...

Going way back here in the thread guys, so just bear with me.

Putin, you said that slavery led to the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. In many ways it did, because the cotton industry relied on slavery or imperialism to get cheap cotton imports into England. However, communism could not have spread in an agrarian society. All of the soviets in Russia were in manufacturing towns, and there was always trouble incorporating peasant farmers into the communist society later on. Ergo, yes slavery -> industrialization, but industrialization -> communism, so slavery -> communism.

I like your ideas Puddle although I still feel it lacks the participation of the people, and I actually agree with Plato over you with regards to the rulers never living a life of luxury (if we were to have said system).

@Krellin I'd accept stalin as a communist leader of 'communist' country but if we were to accept the purges that is not indicative of communism (correlation causation), and I just think that there is no way Pol Pot's regime can be construed as communism (not because of the murders, but the ideologies were starkly different). And I stated numerous times democracy has lots of different meanings. Capitalism does suck though, it is a foundational point, capitalism naturally can't exist without inequalities in wealth, and, if we want to go further, the exploitation of people. This is a fact without even looking into it's application, it is basically an analytic truth.

Democracy being a vague idea can only exist with its various interpretations (communism is the same although there are some things that obviously aren't communist) doesn't have a pure form so can't exist in a pure form. I wish I had an iPhone, do you reckon they are worth the money? What is your criteria for succesful? I still would say that Cuba, all things considered,is immensely succesful.

@goldfinger, surely you don't think that because something happened after something that the two things are really so associated? Just like saying that since without slavery there would have been no industrialization which was a precusor to democracy democracy is tarnished fails, surely this does to? (this is assuming when putin says slavery he meant what we commonly accept as slavery and not something else)

Participation of the people is not a necessity of good governance, and in fact I think it makes good governance less likely.

Where exactly are you from Puddle? (I mean, probably US given your OP, but where in the US?) And tell us about how your life sucks due to your system.

Participation isn't for good governance, although I would argue it does help. Participation is good for the people themselves, makes them care for the state, think about the issues - it has many positive things, and is why I think a state that does not have democratic participation is a state with a deep flaw

Krellin! Making sense and shit! Keep going man!

except that rogue line in between your paragraphs of substance, try without that next time :)

I'm from south Florida, currently residing in Tallahassee. I have no complaints of the system, my life is quite good actually. But I am aware of the minority in which I am a part of. Furthermore, there are far too many children in the United States who will go to bed tonight without food, and far too much greed in government, far too much death in war, and far too much intolerance in casual conversation.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying the U.S. is some awful place to live, in fact if you are not poor it is by far the nicest place to live in the world. I am also a political realist. I intend to run for political office one day, as well as serve in the judiciary, this is merely a discussion on a hypothetical government that might be superior. A thought experiment if you will.

I am a Political Science and Economics dual major undergrad, and I'll be attending law school in the fall of 2015.

Haven't agreed so much with a comment I've seen on this site thus far! ^

Which comment Socrates?

The one that ended with 'I am a Political Science....' :)

And what did you do today to alleviate the suffering of these poor and hungry children so close to your home?

voted dem.

You go girl.

Question was for Puddle though..

Fine, but for the record I'm awefully sick of righties (and I know you're not one, red) throwing that in our face whenever we talk about social injustice. It's like they're trying to say that if I don't personally dedicate vast portions of my own money and time to it, then I'm just not allowed to comment on how we can fix the institution.

Just out of curiosity, have any of you ever spent extended time in a "third-world" and/or totalitarian country?

not extended, but I've seen enough to get some perspective, yes.

probably not extended but I've spent a fair amount of time in all three of those types of countries

Cool. I spent a year in Zaire when I was a kid. Third-world and a totalitarian regime. Gave me a LOT of perspective.

@YJ I disagree. If you really feel there's a problem in your country, the best way you can do is find some other lefties in your area to tackle that. I'm currently living abroad for an extended period but if I'm back in the Netherlands and I find a problem in my neighborhood, say, people are stealing all the bicycles, then I won't wait for elections to hopefully solve that. I'll set up a neighborhood watch to see if I can do something. If people really feel there's so much injustice in their democracy, let them set up local stuff to help people before installing King Plato here.

@Redhouse - well said. Although you wouldn't have to just find lefties to work with locally. My experience is that in general righties tend to think more locally, so you might find more allies there than you might expect.

@Red, I've not done anything today, or recently even, been rather busy with school and work, but when I get some free time, I intend to go back to volunteering at a soup kitchen (cliche'd I know), and if I can get in on one, a meals on wheel deal again.

Which are both things I've done previously

I think with regards to your average person you're right redhouse, but let's say, hypothetically, if Puddle here works hard at college and his (I'm assuming you're male, sorry) own personal development he will become president or some other powerful position, and from here he can do a lot of good. Surely it would be better that he did this rather then spend all his time and efforts helping at the cost of this bright future from where he could achieve more.