• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If people were perfect, what would be the best form of government?

If people were perfect, what would be the best form of government?

  • A libertarian state- complete liberty

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Communism- complete equality and unison of goals

    Votes: 8 25.0%
  • A Representative Democracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other- Explain

    Votes: 15 46.9%

  • Total voters
    32
I'm all about this technocracy someone just showed me the other week. Why would you not put the experts in each field in charge of their own respective field? You could still have checks and balances and you wouldn't have to deal with an incompetent bunch of representatives.
 
If people were perfect I don't think we'd need political systems of any sort.

If a person was perfect he'd be hanging on a Roman Cross
 
If people were perfect, the perfect thing for them to do would be to choose me to be their perfect overlord.

I would feign humility in quite a perfect imitation thereof.
 
A libertarian state would mean complete liberty for a few powerful elites and misery for the remaining population.
 
If a person was perfect he'd be hanging on a Roman Cross

Depends on which scriptures you read. The ones left out of the Bible that discuss Jesus in his adolescence would tend to disagree with him being prefect. I like the one where he pushed someone off of a roof so that he could revive him and show off his powers.

Well, that may not be exactly how it goes, but I think that's pretty accurate.
 
I believe the techincal term for what I am is smart-arse.

But you're the one saying the only way to be perfect is to be a Jewish virgin.

No I didn't
 
Depends on which scriptures you read. The ones left out of the Bible that discuss Jesus in his adolescence would tend to disagree with him being prefect. I like the one where he pushed someone off of a roof so that he could revive him and show off his powers.

Well, that may not be exactly how it goes, but I think that's pretty accurate.

count you as my padawan apprentice I will

much to learn you have
 
Well, this thread went ridiculous in a hurry.
 
A libertarian state would mean complete liberty for a few powerful elites and misery for the remaining population.

yeah sheep want the protection of the farmer rather than taking chances with a few wolves even if some of those in the pasture are loyal and fierce sheepdogs. But while the wolf will kill a few sheeps in random acts of terror, sooner or later the farmer will shear, castrate and slaughter all enjoying the protection of the pens.
 
Yes you did, you said Jesus was perfect, and Jesus was a Jewish virgin, so therefore you're saying Jewish virgins are perfect.

In all fairness, Jewish girls were the best in bed. None of them were virgins though!!!

and I am not nosy enough to know if Jesus was a virgin. I must have missed that copy of NATIONAL ENQUIRER
 
Yes you did, you said Jesus was perfect, and Jesus was a Jewish virgin, so therefore you're saying Jewish virgins are perfect.

Whoa whoa whoa. This is like that SAT question though, I think.

"If Jesus was Jewish and a virgin, and Jesus was perfect, are all Jewish virgins perfect?
 
Whoa whoa whoa. This is like that SAT question though, I think.

"If Jesus was Jewish and a virgin, and Jesus was perfect, are all Jewish virgins perfect?

some would argue a virgin cannot be perfect since they have not experience sex
 
If people were perfect and all people had ideal morality the best form of government is obvious. The Honor System. ;)
 
I think one could argue that you would still need government to have an organized way to help the poor and disabled.

If people were perfect, there would be no poor, and there would not need to be an organization to help the disabled. People would just do it.

To answer your question, all of the above and none of the above. If people are perfect, any pure form of any ideology would work, but if people were perfect, no ideology would be necessary.
 
You try to make the world less complicated if everyone was perfectly moral. But the world would STILL be just as complicated, i would argue. Because, i don't think doctor's would cure people for free because i think there is some merit for being a doctor in the first place, meaning the effort of doing the schooling and the practice would need to be compensated. Remember, in a perfect moral world, EVERYONE would be moral not just those that can help others. A perfectly moral sick man may refuse treatment if he could not pay or compensate for the perfectly moral doctor's service who would do it for free. In a Moral world everything would work backwards because peoples motivations for doing things would just be for fairness and charity, but everyone would experience motivation even when they are in need. I think to be humble in it's self is ideally moral.

But anyway, Ive heard from many people saying that "In a perfect world Communism would be great" or "In a a perfect world Anarchy would work." This just shows how we can idealize morality to be complete liberty or complete equality. I think equality conflicts with liberty, because the effort of making everyone have equal everything does not allow the situation of someone to have more then a another, which is a negation of liberty.

Again i think people are way to quick to judge this question.

Firstly, in a perfectly moral world, doctors would not need to be compensated, montarily, for two reasons. One, their benefit they would be receiving from giving help would be the only reward that they would need, and two, they would have received the education that they got for the exact same reason, hence, they did not have to pay for that education. In a perfectly moral world, a monetary system would be completely unnecessary.

Now, from your postings, it seems that you are not getting the answers you wanted. It seems as if you wanted people to choose libertarianism. Sorry. In a perfect world, libertarianism is no better or worse than any other system, but, ultimately, would be completely unnecessary.
 
Firstly, in a perfectly moral world, doctors would not need to be compensated, montarily, for two reasons. One, their benefit they would be receiving from giving help would be the only reward that they would need, and two, they would have received the education that they got for the exact same reason, hence, they did not have to pay for that education. In a perfectly moral world, a monetary system would be completely unnecessary.

Now, from your postings, it seems that you are not getting the answers you wanted. It seems as if you wanted people to choose libertarianism. Sorry. In a perfect world, libertarianism is no better or worse than any other system, but, ultimately, would be completely unnecessary.

not at all.

First, you did not take into account the morality of the patient.
Second, in a perfect world people still have their various personal goal's, like becoming a doctor.
Third, I think the patient in a morally perfect world would decline the doctor's offer of free service without compensation.
Fourth, it is not the same reason why the doctor would get free education. The doctor would decline the offering of free education because he, in my opinion, would be morally obligated to. So he would give the educational system compensation.

In a perfect moral world people would exactly know the moral "currency" of every single act in every single case, so in turn they would repay this moral 'currency'.
 
Now, from your postings, it seems that you are not getting the answers you wanted. It seems as if you wanted people to choose libertarianism. Sorry. In a perfect world, libertarianism is no better or worse than any other system, but, ultimately, would be completely unnecessary.
Wow, way to make assumptions. I honestly could argue both ways. Tis why i am interested in what other people think.
And why i was trying to open this question up so there was no definite answer, but the only factor that changed things was opinion on what ideal morality is and how we would apply it to government.
 
Last edited:
not at all.

OK.

First, you did not take into account the morality of the patient.

Yes, I did. However, I reject your position that in a perfectly moral world, the patient would reject the offer of a free service without compensation. Perfect morality does not equate to complete selflessness.

Second, in a perfect world people still have their various personal goal's, like becoming a doctor.

That's true... I never said opposite.

Third, I think the patient in a morally perfect world would decline the doctor's offer of free service without compensation.

I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, as I said above, perfect morality does not equate to absolute selflessness, and secondly, the doctor would be getting compenstation. The compensation would be in the knowledge that he did the right thing.

Fourth, it is not the same reason why the doctor would get free education. The doctor would decline the offering of free education because he, in my opinion, would be morally obligated to. So he would give the educational system compensation.

No, for two reasons. Firstly, perfect morality does not equate to absolute selflessness, and secondly, those running the education system would be getting compenstation. The compensation would be in the knowledge that he did the right thing. See how this is going? It can go like this right back to the root.

In a perfect moral world people would exactly know the moral "currency" of every single act in every single case, so in turn they would repay this moral 'currency'.

Yet the value of moral currency would not necessarily be monetary... in fact, it would not be monetary because economics would have no meaning in a perfectly moral world. In fact, I would say that in a perfectly moral world, proportional moral compenstation would also have no meaning. Doing the right thing is just that, Perhaps doing the right thing to compensate the doctor would be to say, "thank you for saving my life, doctor."
 
Wow, way to make assumptions. I honestly could argue both ways. Tis why i am interested in what other people think.
And why i was trying to open this question up so there was no definite answer, but the only factor that changed things was opinion on what ideal morality is and how we would apply it to government.

Just what it seemed from your responses. Folks are consistenly saying the same things, and substantiating what they are saying... yet you are disagreeing, rather than fostering the discussion.

Perhaps what you could do for us is define your term, "perfect morality". That might help.
 
Back
Top Bottom