Governments and General Nerdiness
I admit it, I'm definitely at least part nerd. You'll see why as I enter this rant...
I was sitting (well, standing) at work last night, and I started thinking about different governmental structures, and the obvious pros and cons of each. Out of boredom.
Anarchy:
Pros: No corruption, no concerns about elected officials. No laws prohibiting what one can or cannot do with their own bodies. All personal rights are maintained by the individual person; if someone infringes on your rights, you have the ability to defend them, and there is no law to shake its finger at you if you use excessive force in doing so. There is, in fact, no definition of excessive force, because there *is* no law.
Cons: Government was designed to prevent people from doing whatever they like to anyone or anything else. Laws are in place to protect all people and all their rights; in anarchy, there are no such safeguards. The person infringing on your rights might be the first one to use excessive force. Looting, raping, murder are all possible, if not likely, under a lawless system.
Dictatorship:
Pros: A single, strong voice for the nation. As long as the nation fully (or, at least, mostly) agrees with the view, it is well-represented and not subject to the petty whims of every little elected officer. The dictator (usually, if not always) selects officials for each area which closely mirror his or her own ideals, thus creating less friction.
Cons: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any fair ruler, given enough time and power, begins to sway into using said power solely for his or her own personal gain, without concern for the people. Not every person can be trusted to be fair and just from the outset, the people most likely to grab for power the least of all. It's not always feasible or possible to elect people who are entirely like-minded, causing schisms and pockets of unrest. The voice of the people is not guaranteed to be represented; in fact, as often as not, it may be squelched (possibly with bloodshed) to prevent a full-scale uprising. Unstable at best, even under an iron fist.
Theocracy:
Pros: If all members of the society are the exact same sect of the exact same religion, then all laws and governing decisions will be unanimously loved by the people.
Cons: Whenever three people meet, there are at least two religions, or sects of the same religion. An entire country of the exact same belief structure is highly unlikely.
Oligarchy:
Pros: A committee of people have a higher chance of having differing views, which can lead to open, honest discussion about issues. The number of people make it possible to vote on concepts, with the majority supporting the common views of the people, ideally. The people may be elected officials, in which case the electors selected someone who agrees with their views. Minorities more likely to receive support this way than under dictatorship.
Cons: Any committee is open to swaying by fiscal or political pressure. In a closed number of colleagues, tensions may become irreconcilable, leading to individuals opposing one another on principle rather than on the issue at hand. The committee may or may not take into consideration the opinions of their constituents, especially depending on the term in office. Positions may be filled by standing members or by "lottery" (ie. random), which lowers chance of direct impact by the people. Minorities may not necessarily be represented, or if so, the majority vote may still force them into silence.
Communism:
Pros: On paper, it is the perfect Utopian system. No one wants for anything, everyone has everything they need. Power is distributed fairly among people, as are all provisions. No one person is truly higher or greater than another.
Cons: It's not on paper. In reality, people are consumed by greed; this greed leads to people wanting more than what they simply need. Government cannot be effectively controlled if everyone, no matter their differing opinions, has exactly the same voice. In practice, this is either a glorified dictatorship or all-out anarchy.
Capitalism:
Pros: In theory, a strong society where anyone can rise above their beginnings and, with hard work, achieve the "dream". Strong ties to specific socioeconomic trends allow for a single, unified economy, which is often strong for the unity. Often tied to the federalist/democratic model, which means all people have a voice, not only those with the most money.
Cons: In practice, short of winning the lottery or some similar windfall, the top 5% continue to get richer, the bottom 50% get poorer, and everyone in the middle is treading water. Unified economy means that if one area of the economy begins to fail, the entire thing gets pulled down with it. While all people have the potential to vote, not all people are directly heard, only those who have money. Companies are practically encouraged to buy officials' votes for key issues in their favor, allowing the biggest companies to thrive even while smaller companies flounder under those same laws.
Meritocracy:
Pros: The perfect world. No one needs to do anything unless they are inspired to do so. Science and art would be vastly improved, as people are able to do research or create without concern for basic needs. The bottom 10% (per Capitalism) would remain about the same, with all basic needs met. Learning, theorizing, creating encouraged but not forced.
Cons: Outside of a sci-fi novel, impossible. Many basic jobs needed for the survival of a species (growing crops, raising animals for meat), and many basic service-level jobs (cook, cashier, waiter) would not exist. All things would have to be provided by computers (ie. Star Trek) for this to even begin to work. People motivated by greed would begin to show interest in bettering themselves (meritocracies, by definition, reward effort with non-basics), but interest would likely wane. Potential for stagnation of society due to large percent of population laying idle.
...Like I said, a bit of nerdiness. >.>
I was sitting (well, standing) at work last night, and I started thinking about different governmental structures, and the obvious pros and cons of each. Out of boredom.
Anarchy:
Pros: No corruption, no concerns about elected officials. No laws prohibiting what one can or cannot do with their own bodies. All personal rights are maintained by the individual person; if someone infringes on your rights, you have the ability to defend them, and there is no law to shake its finger at you if you use excessive force in doing so. There is, in fact, no definition of excessive force, because there *is* no law.
Cons: Government was designed to prevent people from doing whatever they like to anyone or anything else. Laws are in place to protect all people and all their rights; in anarchy, there are no such safeguards. The person infringing on your rights might be the first one to use excessive force. Looting, raping, murder are all possible, if not likely, under a lawless system.
Dictatorship:
Pros: A single, strong voice for the nation. As long as the nation fully (or, at least, mostly) agrees with the view, it is well-represented and not subject to the petty whims of every little elected officer. The dictator (usually, if not always) selects officials for each area which closely mirror his or her own ideals, thus creating less friction.
Cons: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any fair ruler, given enough time and power, begins to sway into using said power solely for his or her own personal gain, without concern for the people. Not every person can be trusted to be fair and just from the outset, the people most likely to grab for power the least of all. It's not always feasible or possible to elect people who are entirely like-minded, causing schisms and pockets of unrest. The voice of the people is not guaranteed to be represented; in fact, as often as not, it may be squelched (possibly with bloodshed) to prevent a full-scale uprising. Unstable at best, even under an iron fist.
Theocracy:
Pros: If all members of the society are the exact same sect of the exact same religion, then all laws and governing decisions will be unanimously loved by the people.
Cons: Whenever three people meet, there are at least two religions, or sects of the same religion. An entire country of the exact same belief structure is highly unlikely.
Oligarchy:
Pros: A committee of people have a higher chance of having differing views, which can lead to open, honest discussion about issues. The number of people make it possible to vote on concepts, with the majority supporting the common views of the people, ideally. The people may be elected officials, in which case the electors selected someone who agrees with their views. Minorities more likely to receive support this way than under dictatorship.
Cons: Any committee is open to swaying by fiscal or political pressure. In a closed number of colleagues, tensions may become irreconcilable, leading to individuals opposing one another on principle rather than on the issue at hand. The committee may or may not take into consideration the opinions of their constituents, especially depending on the term in office. Positions may be filled by standing members or by "lottery" (ie. random), which lowers chance of direct impact by the people. Minorities may not necessarily be represented, or if so, the majority vote may still force them into silence.
Communism:
Pros: On paper, it is the perfect Utopian system. No one wants for anything, everyone has everything they need. Power is distributed fairly among people, as are all provisions. No one person is truly higher or greater than another.
Cons: It's not on paper. In reality, people are consumed by greed; this greed leads to people wanting more than what they simply need. Government cannot be effectively controlled if everyone, no matter their differing opinions, has exactly the same voice. In practice, this is either a glorified dictatorship or all-out anarchy.
Capitalism:
Pros: In theory, a strong society where anyone can rise above their beginnings and, with hard work, achieve the "dream". Strong ties to specific socioeconomic trends allow for a single, unified economy, which is often strong for the unity. Often tied to the federalist/democratic model, which means all people have a voice, not only those with the most money.
Cons: In practice, short of winning the lottery or some similar windfall, the top 5% continue to get richer, the bottom 50% get poorer, and everyone in the middle is treading water. Unified economy means that if one area of the economy begins to fail, the entire thing gets pulled down with it. While all people have the potential to vote, not all people are directly heard, only those who have money. Companies are practically encouraged to buy officials' votes for key issues in their favor, allowing the biggest companies to thrive even while smaller companies flounder under those same laws.
Meritocracy:
Pros: The perfect world. No one needs to do anything unless they are inspired to do so. Science and art would be vastly improved, as people are able to do research or create without concern for basic needs. The bottom 10% (per Capitalism) would remain about the same, with all basic needs met. Learning, theorizing, creating encouraged but not forced.
Cons: Outside of a sci-fi novel, impossible. Many basic jobs needed for the survival of a species (growing crops, raising animals for meat), and many basic service-level jobs (cook, cashier, waiter) would not exist. All things would have to be provided by computers (ie. Star Trek) for this to even begin to work. People motivated by greed would begin to show interest in bettering themselves (meritocracies, by definition, reward effort with non-basics), but interest would likely wane. Potential for stagnation of society due to large percent of population laying idle.
...Like I said, a bit of nerdiness. >.>