The ideal government.

[Vikanias]

So the ideal government is a modern democracy? You have limited the other arguments to just one. A ‘democracy’

Don’t want to say anything because this scenario is limiting the answers to one and maybe two ideologies.

[Senkaku]

There isn't one. Government must be fluid and adaptable because the world is ever changing.

How about a world state governed by benevolent superintelligent AI caretaker, that seems like it might do ok most of the time at least

[Elwher]

I believe that a government that devotes itself to three primary tasks and stays out of people's lives otherwise would be best.

1) defense against external violence (in your case, alien invasions)

2) defense against internal violence; police to protect against robbery, assault, murder, rape, and the like.

3) defense against fraud; courts to enforce voluntarily entered into contracts and to punish false statements made to induce signing of contracts. Please note that actual falsehoods are punishable, not statements that can be misinterpreted or express an opinion.

These functions should be performed at the lowest level possible, i.e. individual cities should do whatever functions concern residents of the city only, etc.

The size of the legislative body should be determined by having one representative for each certain number of people and anyone getting that many votes is a representative. On a city level, I would suggest that every 20,000 people be granted one seat; on a national level, the number should be somewhere around 1 representative for every 500,000 voters.

Education and infrastructure should be the responsibility of the government, but private alternatives should be allowed to compete in both cases.

Businesses above a certain size should be required to issue non-voting stock with the first call on dividends as their taxation. This stock would be held by the government in a giant mutual fund and the dividends from this fund would be distributed to the citizens as a UBI. Each citizen would, at birth, be granted one share, non-transferrable and non-assignable. Citizens could also buy additional shares which could be resold at will.

[Heloin]

The ideal government would make booze free.

[Poop hahahahahhahahahhahahahaha]

The ideal government is the one were I get to rule it.

[Vikanias]

The ideal government would make booze free.

Aye I can get behind that

[Drunkerland]

The ideal government would make booze free.

Yes

[Ilessia]

The pursuit of an ideal or utopian society or government will turn against itself due to said societies being enforced top-down rather than derived from the bottom up, which is how a working society is built. That said, here's some kind of answer.

All parts of society would have to be under democratic decision-making and control. This democracy would necessarily have to utilize multiple models of democracy, with representation in local-to-national-to possibly union level councils like in an African, European or Global Union for instance, direct democracy through binding referenda, an economic democracy through nationalization as well as democratization of workplaces and guaranteed participation by ways of safeguarding everyone's immediate needs, safety and security as well as extending compulsory education and making third degree education free of charge or at least extremely cheap.

Depending on definitions, this may or may not overlap with the rest of your differently labeled proposals. This may or may not also infringe on the rights of certain people depending on their position in society at this point in time. What is liberty? What is justice? These questions are hard to answer and rarely do people agree with them and when they do, they end up at odds with each other on whether to implement them or not.

You can say the best government is no government, but I doubt you'd love societal collapse or a chaotic anomie either.

So the ideal government is a modern democracy? You have limited the other arguments to just one. A ‘democracy’

Don’t want to say anything because this scenario is limiting the answers to one and maybe two ideologies.

OP has defined what is ideal and/or perfect, so that is to be expected. I would argue that while modern, liberal or representative democracy indeed has the representative component in it, it severely lacks the democracy component.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

The system must:

Represent the wishes of the people.
Ensure minority protections.
Guarantee liberty.
Protect individual rights.
Maintain a safe environment.
Uphold justice.
Protection against tyranny.
Upholding human rights.

(Criteria selected based on the ideals of modern democracies)

Considering, then, the box you have worked yourself into, and not the sphere that we are stuck on, together:

Why?

Why is it "ideal" for your system to do these things?

Also - what do some of these terms, even mean? What is the difference between "protection against tyranny" and "upholding justice and human/individual rights and guaranteeing liberty?" What is the difference between "upholding human rights" and "protecting individual rights"? What is "liberty" if it isn't just a human/individual right? If it's just one of those, why did you write a tautology?

What are these, "human/individual rights?" Where did they come from? How did they come from that thing, which you have not demonstrated? You are surely about to demonstrate this, since you think that these things, "human rights", as things which exist, originate from something.

For comparison, I can explain where "survival" as a civilizational objective comes from - it comes evolutionary psychology, so it represents the objectively proven natural interest, or invariable interest of people - even though they are not always effective individual agents in the pursuit of their own collective interests. It also predicates any other moral system, including the one of "human/individual rights, justice, liberty, anti-tyranny" which are slogans to refer to Liberalism. All moral systems, including this one, are predicated upon the notion that there must be people alive in order to execute the system. So, it is a pre-moral, or meta-moral imperative, to which moral systems or objectives are subordinated.

Can you explain where your thing comes from?

I left them vague, as to encourage creativity.
As for your other post, yes, they may compete, or contradict with each other.
The trick is to balance it.
(Respect the will of he people, and minority rights, might be interpreted as majority rule, minority rights, which was the compromise for instance in Congress. Senate and house, state based, and population based)

Also, many people found the criteria constraining, that was not the intent. But then, here is another way to think about it, what is a system that will have the most people getting what they want/happy ?
I am basically saying, what would an as-close-as-possible utopia look like. A realistic, ideal, government.
Ideal in the sense that you satisfy everyone as much as possible.

There are the properties of a system that is near ideal for everyone that I cannot sufficiently express in a more conscience way, thus the imperfect guidelines.

But really, the question is this.
What system can you make that appease, benefit, satisfy, and otherwise be ideal, to the maximum extent, for everyone. What is the system, that is best for everyone. (Not just the majority)
What could a realistic utopia look like ?

(Changing the op to reflect this)

[Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan]

A Stalinist one-party state, of course. No bourgeois liberal moralistic nonsense about consent and dissent.

[Snowish Republic]

Communism
Next question

isnt the idea of communism to eventually dissolve the state? or is that what you're saying?

[Koengukao]

respecting the wishes of the people is ridiculous
people are idiots and need the government to tell them what to do to survive
if you give the people rights
they will vote away those rights and elect corrupt politicians that will ruin the country
the ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship run by the smartest, most experienced individuals that society has to offer, that are as non-corrupt as humanly possible

[Ethel mermania]

There isn't one. Government must be fluid and adaptable because the world is ever changing.

How about a world state governed by benevolent superintelligent AI caretaker, that seems like it might do ok most of the time at least

Skynet

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

respecting the wishes of the people is ridiculous
people are idiots and need the government to tell them what to do to survive
if you give the people rights
they will vote away those rights and elect corrupt politicians that will ruin the country
the ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship run by the smartest, most experienced individuals that society has to offer, that are as non-corrupt as humanly possible

(Ignoring for the moment that you know what you want best.) “my way is better because I say so!”

Ahh but now how can you guarantee they will be as non corrupt as possible.
If they are the “best”, and because judging yourself for corruption is pointless, would “lesser” people judge the corruptness ?
Besides, how can you determine who is the smartest, the best.

Dictatorship is almost synonymous with corruption. And is not practical or realistic in the best of circumstances. Your scenario is ripe for corruption.

[Ilessia]

respecting the wishes of the people is ridiculous
people are idiots and need the government to tell them what to do to survive
if you give the people rights
they will vote away those rights and elect corrupt politicians that will ruin the country
the ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship run by the smartest, most experienced individuals that society has to offer, that are as non-corrupt as humanly possible

(Ignoring for the moment that you know what you want best.) “my way is better because I say so!”

Ahh but now how can you guarantee they will be as non corrupt as possible.
If they are the “best”, and because judging yourself for corruption is pointless, would “lesser” people judge the corruptness ?
Besides, how can you determine who is the smartest, the best.

Dictatorship is almost synonymous with corruption. And is not practical or realistic in the best of circumstances. Your scenario is ripe for corruption.

Friend, it just so happens that I have invented this here corruption meter and coincidentally it says right here that I have a corruption value of zero, so therefore I should be the leader.

[Pasong Tirad]

A confederation of freely associating municipalities governed by directly democratic neighborhood assemblies.

Where booze is free.

[Kubra]

Communism
Next question

isnt the idea of communism to eventually dissolve the state? or is that what you're saying?

yes
Next question

[Incelastan]

Complete incel oligarchy and Revolutionary citizen state.

[Kaczynskisatva]

What I'm saying is that it is essentially impossible to create a perfect government. Some people want an authoritarian government, but that government would be terrible for the people that want a more liberal government, and viceversa.

Everyone wants the same things, and has different ideas of how to get them. Some of these ideas are wrong.

[Saiwania]

I'd want the Galactic Empire from Star Wars, or one that is as close as possible to it with just our technology/resources. I'm deep into the dark side if there were a force. I more or less would never defect to the rebellion unless I had no choice like if Tarkin was expecting me tomorrow, to account for my failure.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I'm hardly surprised by your response. I realize that your indoctrination was rather inevitable therefore I don't begrudge you your ignorance: however I will never take you seriously simply because your philosophy is so elementary. It's hard to agree with a philosophy built upon false pretense and promises unfilled. Your ideas aren't original, your philosophy isn't proven and your character is a fabrication of ideological imcompetence. Fear and ignorance control your opinions like most peoples and this only exacerbates humanitys tragic condition. But don't worry about what I think, I'm just a crazy invalid who can't keep his thoughts to himself…

This is a copypasta btw

I was morbidly enchanted by the formal purity of this copypasta. I was quoting it, to simply break down, line by line, the purity of its tone, when I noticed the disclaimer.

Sometimes, people write a beautiful proof of something, which is not what they intended. In this pasta, its author thought he was responding to something particular - instead, he wrote an example of how to string together negative value statements.

As a genre, the copypasta, like the meme, is mostly used unseriously but has serious applications. Pasta demonstrates the sorts of arguments which necessarily have no particular relation to the context into which they are inserted, and so necessarily contribute nothing of value to the context, and yet pass for organic speech inserted into the context.

They're a sort of Turing test - they test our expectation of what sort of things people will say, in context, that are actually not sequential in the context. Those who respond to pasta, knowing what they do, demonstrate a failure to respond to non-sequence by saying "this is non-sequential" and instead respond to the pasta.

I was just going to marvel at how non-sequential this was, and raise a process objection - to point out that this had nothing in particular to say about the case - while being awed at its ideal conformity to non-statements.

The takeaway lesson from this bait experience, for me, is that perhaps I can just respond to all non-sequential statements with the form of copypasta by writing, "this is pasta" even if they were written out by another human being for the instance who did not realize he was writing out the form of pasta. Fascinating. Thank you.

[Hemakral]

My favorite form of being curbstomped is not getting curbstomped, thanks.
Obligatory edginess aside, I'd prefer a small government.

[Hemakral]

I was morbidly enchanted by the formal purity of this copypasta. I was quoting it, to simply break down, line by line, the purity of its tone, when I noticed the disclaimer.

Chakun is a very quick and easy way to determine one's ability to differentiate between preformulated humor and original wording, you should try it

[Kaczynskisatva]

I left them vague, as to encourage creativity.
As for your other post, yes, they may compete, or contradict with each other.
The trick is to balance it.

Okay, but, if you are aiming to balance two or more objectives, then your "objective" is the scale, not the two things you are balancing with it. Your primary civilization goal is for the scale to be in balance, and secondary metrics are the different things - like, for example, environmental safety and individual autonomy - which will result in the balancing of the scale, your final objective.

The problem then, aside from not quantifying some of these things in themselves (by explaining what they are) is that there is no clear way to balance them, in relation to each other. If my objective is to fill up all the space in my car and spend all of my money, and I am at a store which sells gold and rice, there is only one balance between purchases of gold and purchases of rice which will both spend all of my money and fill up my car. This is because these things have comparable measurements, of cost and weight.

If two social objectives like environmental safety and human autonomy have a comparable measurement, like "human well-being", then that measurement is the actual objective, and the other two things are means.

This may surprise you, but it's a proven historical fact: when you start a mission without clearly defined and achievable objectives, you tend to get a clustershow. This is true not only of particular modern military campaigns, but particular modern civilizations.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Chakun is a very quick and easy way to determine one's ability to differentiate between preformulated humor and original wording, you should try it

This six-letter word is not of sufficient minimal length to return mostly non-random results when searched, and you knew this when you wrote it.