« L'homme c'est rien — l'oeuvre c'est tout. » Je suis né et je vis à Babylone, là où les enfants tuent, dealent et volent...

Report content RSS feed A perfect form of government?

Posted by feillyne on Jul 7th, 2012


So, what's your idea of a perfect government or a perfect sociopolitical system?

IMHO, a council-based government:
1) abolishment of all godheads/idols/single-concentrated forms of governments - a gov't of Councils rather than presidents/PMs/ministers/whatever, a group-based government, the top power to one specific group without a presidential spokesman or anything similar
2) purely resource-based
3) communication of needs through the Internet or similar technology

Everything for free, and work would be also for free. Any products of work would go to the community. Additional resources & rewards for quality work. (Right now this world is all profit-based: as cheaply as possible as quality as possible.) As high quality as possible and as safe as possible, with less consideration of amounts of resources used to achieve that. More prevention & responsibility-based system. Doing what's needed with high safety measures (instead of doing what's needed but as cheaply as possible resulting in drawbacks, flaws due to economical and time constraints).


1. councils instead of presidents
2. minister groups instead of ministers
and so on.

Generally groups & boards deciding about everything. No central person at all or even any form of a leader of a committee/council.

2) & 3)
1. The council government distributes the natural wealth and resources. (In the current world "natural wealth" and products are distributed by companies/corporations/banks/etc and people among themselves while the gov't only regulates everything.)
2. This distribution of wealth to those who actually need it would be possible thanks to the Internet or any similar technology. (Communication of needs was heavily limited in tribal barter/resource-based governments.)
3. Only people actually interested in governing, gardening/agriculture, would do their jobs. That includes specialists, passionate hobbyists, etc.
4. In a society & culture where everything is free, there would be still many people interested in doing arts, gardening, hobbies, etc. So still everyone would do their kinds of "jobs". The only difference is that it all would be for free.
5. There would be no jobs such as digging rows at all unless there would be extremely advanced technology to make it lightning fast with very little effort. So less manual labour, everything would be more dependent on right technology to achieve better results with drastically less hard work.

Further points

1. No classes or political parties, only councils
2. Preferably no nations as countries at all, just nations as local/national councils
3. Entire society of geniuses (children from 4 years old up to 8 years old taught ethics and advanced science to have easier & better grasp on studies & science later on)
4. Peaceful technology open/open-source


This whole text is licensed under Creative Commons Zero (public domain): Creativecommons.org

Post comment Comments
Admiral_Skeybar Jul 7 2012 says:

I would be very happy with the above-mentioned system. It would be a great step forward for humanity as a species/"evolved lifeform". =)

+3 votes     reply to comment
asif_ridwan Aug 22 2012 replied:

Yes and more importantly in Bangladesh. The country really needs a remake and besides is F******

+2 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165 Jul 7 2012 says:

There is one drawback I found in here and one thing that i need explained in more detail.

The drawback is the fact that whenever you have a group of people governing and deciding things, the procedures get bogged down a lot. With differences of opinion will come much debating and so forth. Between a committee and a single leader however... It's hard to say. If you have a single benevolent leader then the government would work better. If you have a single malevolent leader then you'd have a bad government. The idea of the committee is the safe way to go since the choice is evenly distributed across many people. So i suppose it's strength is also its weakness...

One thing i need explained more is the 'advanced tech' used to do manual labour. This is also the problem i had with the Venus Project. If we use advanced robotics to do manual labour jobs in a couple of seconds (or at least a shorter amount of time) then it would put a lot of people out of a job. Theoretically all you would need is someone who knows how to operate the machinery in order to do the job. I don't really understand this since, what would everyone else do? Just sit around and do nothing? Or would there be more jobs elsewhere? Remember this is the future so the planet's population is likely to be greater than it is now (8-9 billion), but even if this were to happen now (pop 7 billion) i think there wouldn't be enough jobs...

Overall a government ushering it's people towards a greater good or purpose is the best kind. I would also assume there would be a greater emphasis on technology in this system as well?

+3 votes     reply to comment
OrangeNero Jul 7 2012 says:

Jamahiriya. All explained in the Green book. For my taste without the Islam. Of course such a perfect government was not meant to survive and thus got bombed into oblivion replaced by a government that entirely disregards what made libya. What else to expect from a gov provided by western bombs... but I already talked too much.

+2 votes     reply to comment
OrangeNero Jul 7 2012 says:

I as swiss think we share some similarity with what you write up here. It does not work. The people do need power but also a direction, just letting the mob do whatever it pleases without proper education is heading nowhere.

The fukushima effect has shown that, we lived so many years without worrying with AKWs now we want to totally rethink out energy spending money we don't have into restructurizing and shutting down plants that could very fine run for decades and would if japan didn't mess up.

Every "council" or part of it wants something else and the one with more votes wins.

Its also all about populism, the trend would lead to decisions not the need. Also in this type of gov you write up I'd see potential for major mass enslavement.

+1 vote     reply to comment
feillyne Author Subscriber
feillyne Jul 7 2012 replied:

The mass enslavement = godhead-type gov't and religions: popes, presidents, PMs, CEOs, and so and on. (Yes CEOs too, Gulf Oil Spill? Does it ring any bells about irresponsibility and a lack of care?)

Do any of those really cared?

Councils come to decisions, and a decision/conclusion is obtained thanks to unison and agreement at the end of a serious debate.

And it's rather clear that technocracy, science and advanced education of children up to 6 years old would be needed. A society of geniuses is possible. Who would lose? Religions, godhead/idol-based governments definitely.

+1 vote   reply to comment
OrangeNero Jul 8 2012 replied:

"Councils come to decisions, and a decision/conclusion is obtained thanks to unison and agreement at the end of a serious debate."
Councils come to a debate and the outcome is unknown.

+2 votes     reply to comment
OrangeNero Jul 8 2012 replied:

Also you can't get rid of everything and establish something completely else. Once this gets into the phase where it can actually be considered possible all the religious people and CEOs and representants of the current establishment would like to have a word with you. There's no reset button, thats just wishful thinking so I can't see why this should be debated as a possible solution.

+2 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Author Subscriber
feillyne Jul 8 2012 replied:

You can establish a group/council-based government, or demand such a one.

With that, you can change things bit by bit and then start preventing e.g. school defunding, start better education plans etc etc.

+1 vote   reply to comment
feillyne Author Subscriber
feillyne Jul 8 2012 replied:

Councils come to a debate and the outcome is unknown.

Is this a council or perhaps it's only 3 random people / individuals fighting and screaming at each other?

And yes, a council would consist of more than 3 people. Most likely top contributors (to arts/science etc) & socially active & most knowledgeable people. Elegant, polite, active, truly knowledgeable.

+1 vote   reply to comment
OrangeNero Jul 8 2012 replied:

A council is a group of people who made it somehow into it and can then debate about topics. The problem is that if the people inside the council cannot agree with each other it ends like in that video. They talk all kind of nonsense without listening to each other and eventually at the end one pulls a gun and there goes your perfect government.

We have this in switzerland about every debate, sure they don't pull out guns and throw with shoes, but they entirely disagree about so many solutions that one side is always ****** off at the end. That caused all kind of intrigues and politic wars fought out with alliances populism and diplomacy.

Besides our top people are already in the elite and they are messing it up. To think you can get rid of them, educate and establish an entirely new elite, and then because they are geniuses would find a good solution is highly virtuoso.

Besides we shouldn't judge too bad about the current establishment. The biggest problem is that the people are messed up throughout all classes. Democracy is meant for one kind of people not a 50% foreigners and 20% right wing 20% left wing 10% diverse stuff. Such a chaotic kind of people never comes to a compromise thus its why you want to get rid of everything that identifies us today.

Perhaps a tabula rasa wouldn't be all that bad, in general all sides are so messed up with bad blood and lies that they can't come to any kind of agreement. Probably it will be either that or one lier kills the other one and then we have peace.

Not to forget that since there are civilizations they have always been at war with each other, what is called peace is only the absence of military fighting. A group of geniuses would know that and hence logically destroy everyone else with all their might while establishing the lie that they are the good guys. Guess what its what our elite is doing now and they are all councils of geniuses.

+2 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Author Subscriber
feillyne Jul 8 2012 replied:

An entire society of geniuses. Who said it was a council of elite? It would be a council of top contributors to science and community, those who do most rather than those who were "born" doing "most" (in which case doing "most" is being born).

Note that politicians whether in Switzerland or elsewhere, are rarely inventors/contributors/activists and rarely scientists.

The resource-based system would require both activists+scientists & professors+contributors as its leaders. Those who invent and contribute to community, most knowledgeable, socially talented, those who are capable of coming to a practical agreement.

There would be no classes or parties at all. Only councils and fields.

+1 vote   reply to comment
OrangeNero Jul 11 2012 replied:

I'd have to see it first before believing it. So suspect.

Ya there are many horrid swiss politicians, it stimulates my diabolic fantasy.

They are always required :) hence why were always short on them.

Why do I think of bees where they are all drones.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Templarfreak Nov 19 2012 says:

This is something I have thought of so much, but could never actually agree on anything to myself.

I'm not quite sure what kind of Government I'd like.

I most certainly do not like America's Government, simply because of how corrupt it is and how not only the rights of so-called, "Minors" are non-existent, as well as the people themselves have almost no rights, because so many of them have been taken away.

+2 votes     reply to comment
TheUnbeholden Apr 15 2013 says:

I would add to the list:
Compulsory organ donation upon death of everyone (after they are declared dead, ie being dead longer than 5 minutes) The organ waiting list is so long that most people die before they can get their organ, all thats needed is what? A signature.. its a formality thats costing lives). This has another benefit or reducing the value of black market (illegally obtained) organs.
Alot of government funding for finding alternative fuels, in particular efficient car engines that run on only electricity. Tesla motors could use it so we can finally walk away from the ineffecient and expensive oil.

+2 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Author Subscriber
feillyne Apr 15 2013 replied:

Yeah, more organ donations would be useful as well. Actually IMHO early age education in schools should address these issues a long time ago - make it easier to accept/sign for organ donation, or as you suggested, made it into the system itself so nothing is wasted by default.

So it's rather should be the other way round - there should be only signatures to refuse such a donation (for various valid reasons, such as medical ones etc).

TheUnbeholden wrote:Alot of government funding for finding alternative fuels, in particular efficient car engines that run on only electricity. Tesla motors could use it so we can finally walk away from the ineffecient and expensive oil.

Yeah. The only problem with electricity is that something still has to generate it, which comes to raw resources anyway.

Not just cheaper but much less... culturally destructive than oil.

+1 vote   reply to comment
Post a comment

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community. Or sign in with your social account:

Last Online
1min 13secs ago
Poland Poland
Become friends
Member watch
Start tracking