Can We Have a "Perfect" Political System? Will We Ever?

[Esceen]

The perfect political system needs 3 things in my mind:

1. More than two parties
2. No Tony Abbot
3. Smart people

But these 3 things are likely as impossible as pleasing everyone

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

It all starts with Uncle Vlad....

Vladimir Lenin, right?

Vlad the impaler?

[Uncle Vladimir]

Vladimir Lenin, right?

Vlad the impaler?

Vladimir Lenin Putin the Impaler of American hordes

[Idzequitch]

But is it perfect?

No. There is no perfect political system. Man made systems aren't perfect. Only G-d's system of government is perfect, and we no longer have that. So I'll attempt working towards my imperfect preferred form of government.

And if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is God's system of government, and what makes it perfect?

[Vazdaria]

No. There is no perfect political system. Man made systems aren't perfect. Only G-d's system of government is perfect, and we no longer have that. So I'll attempt working towards my imperfect preferred form of government.

And if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is God's system of government, and what makes it perfect?

You'll need to read Torah to figure that one out.

[Zybex]

its impossible because people run them and people are corruptible, so no matter what its flawed in some manner, because its also made my people who are flawed, so my answer is no, its impossible

[Atomic Utopia]

No system, however simple in design, can be perfect unless we somehow know all of the things altering that system, as a system that may work in small groups quite well (communism) is absolutely terrible in large groups of people (also communism) due to the changing political situation in those environments. The inverse is also true for capitalism.

This is because the world is ever changing (throwing whatever carefully balanced system out of the window) and the lack of knowledge of all factors effecting society prevent the creation of anything that can be described as "perfect". So the best option we have is to pursue the least-worst system possible, which at the present time seems to be Nordic model capitalism seems to be the most effective from my point of view.

[NuevoPaisVasco]

the answer is that as there people(which are imperfect)there will be imperfection in political systems

[Genivaria]

Worship me as your god and obey my every wish an everyone gets free pizza on friday.
Perfect system.

[Uawc]

Such a political system doesn't exist. Many political systems, such as communism, capitalism, and socialism, are good in theory, but mankind has a way of screwing up everything it touches.

My opinion exactly.

[Napkiraly]

Perfect is 1) subjective 2) not achievable since humans are not perfect due both 1 and other shenanigans.

[Dalcaria]

No. There is no perfect political system. Man made systems aren't perfect. Only G-d's system of government is perfect, and we no longer have that. So I'll attempt working towards my imperfect preferred form of government.

And if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is God's system of government, and what makes it perfect?

Oh I can answer that! None. As a Christian, I spent a lot of time asking "what government would God most support"? Well, he never actually laid out which system he supported. In fact, the statement "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", among other quotes, implied ALL systems are acceptable in his eyes. When a system becomes contrary to God's will (loving God and loving our neighbors), that, I think, is when a system becomes "ungodly". Neither Christian nor atheist (among others) should burn in a state, and if they do then I think very much that replacing that state is acceptable. That said, are there any other requirements to being a "Christian" state? No, none. Gay marriage, sex changes, porn, none of that is anything we need to concern ourselves over, because it's not our business, and a part of 1 Timothy confirmed as much I believe. Christians are responsible for the moral health of Christians, not anyone else. If they want gay marriage, let them have it.

As for your last question Idze, what makes this perfect? Well the fact that we're supposed to be minding our own business, not other people's! Of course, my views on this matter differ slightly from others, so expect to get different responses to this than the one I gave. A government of God shouldn't make your life better or worse, because it frankly shouldn't exist, and that's from a Christian standpoint.

[Dalcaria]

its impossible because people run them and people are corruptible, so no matter what its flawed in some manner, because its also made my people who are flawed, so my answer is no, its impossible

I take issue with this for one reason, the reason being that people are corruptible. To be perfectly honest, some of the greatest examples of human evil prove the opposite of "power corrupts". Those two people are, of course, Stalin and Hitler. Why do I say power didn't corrupt them? Because no matter what, they were still preaching the same things, had the same plans, and the same tactics before they were even in power. The chances that Hitler never thought of killing the Jews before he was finally brought into power are very slim if you ask me. And Stalin? If I remember correctly, he killed just to get in power, what does that say about him later on? Power didn't seem to corrupt them, it just gave them an avenue to apply that corruption. And certainly, I'm sure some politicians today are flawed because the taste of power and money left them wanting more, but most of these people (from what I can tell) didn't get into a system through murder, deceit, and with intentions of genocide. Most of them were just average, middle class to upper class folks who really enjoy their money! And there are people out there not like this as well! Not common, certainly, but they exist. We can't say "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", since the statement itself demands absolute truth in all cases, which it doesn't have. But, in fairness, try finding someone that isn't like this. It's very difficult so far. Tito seemed like he fit the bill, but I can't speak certainty on that as my knowledge of him is limited, and knowledge on what was really going on in his head is impossible to find (unless he had a journal, that might indicate something).

[Camelza]

Nope, Humanity is perfect in being imperfect.
Plus, perfect doesn't equal good.

[Great Nepal]

Wait, so the fact that other people have ideas invalidates my own ideas? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

A "perfect" system would please everyone.

If just one person is displeased, its not perfect.

That is terrible, utterly terrible criteria to judge "perfectness" of system of governance. Any system which maximises use of resources in a sustainable fashion to maximum possible benefit in living conditions of its inhabitants, without violating any individuals very basic rights such as right to life and without causing significant damage to living quality or sustainability of rest of mankind would be a perfect system, regardless of whether it pleases everyone.

its impossible because people run them and people are corruptible, so no matter what its flawed in some manner, because its also made my people who are flawed, so my answer is no, its impossible

Perhaps we need to tackle the issue at the core then - remove people from running the system. Obviously we dont have the technology nor to create a sufficiently advanced AI at present but question is would we ever have such an AI - and answer is naturally yes.

[Lyncanestria]

It's like asking the question will there ever be a 'perfect' flavour? The way I see it, it's a matter of opinion and therefore there is no such thing as a 'perfect' political system.

[Shilya]

its impossible because people run them and people are corruptible, so no matter what its flawed in some manner, because its also made my people who are flawed, so my answer is no, its impossible

I take issue with this for one reason, the reason being that people are corruptible. To be perfectly honest, some of the greatest examples of human evil prove the opposite of "power corrupts". Those two people are, of course, Stalin and Hitler. Why do I say power didn't corrupt them? Because no matter what, they were still preaching the same things, had the same plans, and the same tactics before they were even in power. The chances that Hitler never thought of killing the Jews before he was finally brought into power are very slim if you ask me. And Stalin? If I remember correctly, he killed just to get in power, what does that say about him later on? Power didn't seem to corrupt them, it just gave them an avenue to apply that corruption.

Let me get this straight: You don't think power corrupts because it also attracts people who were already corrupted before power ever had a chance to corrupt them?

[Wizlandia]

See Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

Basically, it proves that there cannot exist any political system that satisfies the below criteria (quoted from Wikipedia).

If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.

Source: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

[Vashtanaraada]

Yes. Utopian socialism.

[Roski]

A "perfect" system would please everyone.

If just one person is displeased, its not perfect.

That is terrible, utterly terrible criteria to judge "perfectness" of system of governance. Any system which maximises use of resources in a sustainable fashion to maximum possible benefit in living conditions of its inhabitants, without violating any individuals very basic rights such as right to life and without causing significant damage to living quality or sustainability of rest of mankind would be a perfect system, regardless of whether it pleases everyone.

its impossible because people run them and people are corruptible, so no matter what its flawed in some manner, because its also made my people who are flawed, so my answer is no, its impossible

Perhaps we need to tackle the issue at the core then - remove people from running the system. Obviously we dont have the technology nor to create a sufficiently advanced AI at present but question is would we ever have such an AI - and answer is naturally yes.

Does the US have a perfect political system, then?

[Esternial]

Only in the world featured in the movie Equilibrium, without Sean Bean to corrupt Christian Bale's mind with thoughts about emotions.

And no puppies.

Puppies are the bane of a functional political system.

[Serrenissima]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[Valloria]

"Perfect" is a subjective concept. Some think that a single autocrat should rule, and that life would be perfect then. Others (myself included, unless I am said autocrat) think that's a terrible idea. We thus cannot have "perfect" political system because there is no such thing. Nothing makes everybody happy. This is why we have NationStates: the all-mighty Overlord Max decided that us underlings deserved an outlet for our frustration with the world's political systems.

[Great Nepal]

That is terrible, utterly terrible criteria to judge "perfectness" of system of governance. Any system which maximises use of resources in a sustainable fashion to maximum possible benefit in living conditions of its inhabitants, without violating any individuals very basic rights such as right to life and without causing significant damage to living quality or sustainability of rest of mankind would be a perfect system, regardless of whether it pleases everyone.


Perhaps we need to tackle the issue at the core then - remove people from running the system. Obviously we dont have the technology nor to create a sufficiently advanced AI at present but question is would we ever have such an AI - and answer is naturally yes.

Does the US have a perfect political system, then?

No, it fails in efficiency, is failing to maximise living condition of its inhabitants (by lack of free basic healthcare) among other things. All in all it is pretty poor system relative to a hypothetical perfect system which I envision will be largely based on a learning artificial intelligence managing and directing political decisions as well as resource distribution methods.

[MERIZoC]

Of course not. Perfection is subjective, and so long as there's disagreement over things, I doubt it's possible for anyone to view the system as perfect. Utopianism is a pipe dream.