Civilization and government - Page 2

why not take the good qualities from each government and combine them t form a new government? what do you think is the good qualities? And why?

communism+monarchy+republic+anarchy=perfect government system.

who would be chosen to have children? I think anyone should have children as long as they have some sort of permit, using income, criminal history, psy eval, and other measures to make sure, to an extent, that the persons would be able to provide a stable environment for the intended child.

We do. Its called constitutional monarchy.

I think procreation would come to a screeching halt! Hands up if you were raised in a "stable environment"...

OHHH NOOOO!!!! What will we do without overpopulation problems???? We would be screwed if we lowered the amount of air polution due to less people driving. And what about all of those natural recorces we are using up too fast. We would have plenty, then what would we complain about? OH NO!! What would children in non-overcrowded public schools do, they might recieve some individual attention. OH No!!! ect....

Um... how are we going to pay for all these OLD PEOPLE PENSIONS!?

In terms of human creation, I don't think over population is really a problem. I read a paper stating that we could fit 4.5 billion people in the state of texas and that each person would have about 1,600 sqft of space. And hydroponics combined with renewable energy generation can and will feed the world in the not to distant future. If we built cities on a 3 dimensional level using sub sectors as well as vertical population centers, each city could in possibly be populated by hundreds of millions of citizens. Do the math see for your self...

Pensions and retirement should not be the responsibility of the company that one works for, every one should have a 401K and savings/mutual fund, that they would manage. That would solve the social security problem.

I would not expect only perfect people should have children, if you voted in the last US election (hopefully for bush) then you would most likely full fill most of the requirments.

in a constitutional monarchy the king and or queen are merly figure heads, they have no real power. And c-monarchy suffer the same weaknesses as the republic and democratic forms of government in terms of representation and capitalistic ideology, you would basically have the united kingdom, which is not nearlly as perfect as it could be.

Presidents are supposed to act as the symobl of the nation in many countries. Providing symoblic leadership (the USA/France are different in that he also provides hard leadership).

But because the president is elected, he is bound to be political because he has his future career at stake.

A monarch has nothing to gain and nothing to lose (except in extreme circumstances) so they provide far more apolitical symbolic leadership.

They also keep the tabloids in buisness. Anyway, monarchy isnt a big deal, really democracy is the best. There's no way around it.

political future? Bush has no political future (unless he changes the law limiting terms as president?)

By your definition Cturtle, no politician has a political future.

I mean come on, he's the most powerful man in the world for 8 years, that's pretty good.

.

I think you may have misjudged my intent & beliefs, Teen.
I am not against the free enterprise nor democracy.
If this nations government truely served the people instead of elite minorities, I would be more agreeable to it.
The public pays taxes to provide for the services which is were most of money & property came from to start & keep many of the (wealthy) corporations. An example is the high speed rail system admendment which was voted out in this state. Such a system was alloted to be formed in the state constitution (during the oil crunch) Now an energy effect by the reduced dependency on auto and air traffic (let alone road construction cost) would benefit the state's tourism as vacationing people could use the train to visit area attractions after flying into the state.
If private enterprise where to build such they would recieve government land right of ways & funding, if the people are paying the bill why should private corporations profiteering of such a system?
Just like the airlines are making profit the stockholders & corporations are making money but when there are hard times whose funds are used to bail them out?
Why should public services be in the hands of private enterprise & not the public.
As far politicians, I like honesty so I don't have a lot of use for politicians & politics in general.