[Debate] Best Political sytem

Political System

  • Theocracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Totaliitarianism

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Populism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oligarchy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Monarchy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Marxism/Marxism-Lennism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Liberalism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fascism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • National Socialism

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Democracy

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Maoism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservatism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Communism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Aristocracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Anarchism

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Dictatorshiip

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
That tells me nothing. It's all very vague and nothing specific. Aside from wealth redistribution, how does any of that make you "left leaning."

Based on the vague descriptions you've listed, you are without a doubt a conservative.

im more of a national socialist than a conservative, conservatives would be less authoritarian and i specifically said immigration not illegal immigration which conservatives really dont care about, aswell as main stream conservatism is against socialism which i am (not a marxist socialist though) hence "collectivism" is over 0. here are 2 sites btw that are good,
 

HyuugaHeir

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
7,418 posts 289 reactions
4
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
7,418
Status
Activity Streak
Being in a democratic country with separation of powers, I feel the need for a middle ground. Different parties of the government tend to be somewhat of an extremist. Sometimes, I wonder how power of only one authority works for my country.
My country is grey.
 

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak

im more of a national socialist than a conservative, conservatives would be less authoritarian and i specifically said immigration not illegal immigration which conservatives really dont care about, aswell as main stream conservatism is against socialism which i am (not a marxist socialist though) hence "collectivism" is over 0. here are 2 sites btw that are good,

That's just not true. I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. Authoritarianism can be equal in any political spectrum.

Authoritarianism has more to do with how you enforce a government rather than just political philosophy.

And historically speaking, most authoritarian governments were in fact considered conservative.

Conservatism exists all over the world, including in socialist countries.

You're just using random sites which you take tests on without actually knowing the full context of what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
That's just not true. I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. Authoritarianism can be equal in any political spectrum.

Authoritarianism has more to do with how you enforce a government rather than just political philosophy.

And historically speaking, most authoritarian governments were in fact considered conservative.

Conservatism exists all over the world, including in socialist countries.

You're just using random sites which you take tests on without actual knowing the full context of what you're talking about.

im talking about u.s conservatism where they dont really like the government prying into their everyday lives , i only use those sites to define my transition and concepts which i believe and dont believe in
 

Sir Francis Drake

Leaf Village Regular 🍃
Regular
900 posts 39 reactions
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
900
Status
Activity Streak
On paper? Communism cause it sounds pretty. In reality? Democracy
 

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak
im talking about u.s conservatism where they dont really like the government prying into their everyday lives , i only use those sites to define my transition and concepts which i believe and dont believe in

How is "the right to privacy" exclusive to conservatives? In what dimension are you living in? Conservatives are the ones who constantly vote for policies which include increasing the police state and having things such as "Patriot Act" (signed by G.W. Bush), "Civil Forfeiture", and "Stop and Frisk."

All of those were pushed mainly by conservatives.

Even now in this current administration, they are talking about creating a registry for Muslims. Again, how is that not impeding on the "right to privacy?"
 
Last edited:

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
How is "the right to privacy" exclusive to conservatives? In what dimension are you living in? Conservatives are the ones who constantly vote for policies which include increasing the police state and having things such as "Patriot Act" (signed by G.W. Bush), "Civil Forfeiture", and "Stop and Frisk."

All of those were pushed mainly by conservatives.

Even now in this current administration, they are talking about creating a registry for Muslims. Again, how is that not impeding on the "right to privacy?"
thats because that targets terrorism and crime, "Someone who values traditional values over rights. Someone who espouses traditional personal rights and freedom over state rights. Advocates a free market, non-government interventionist approach. Sees government as a necessary evil, the only function of which is to protect people's rights and freedom"
 

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak
thats because that targets terrorism and crime,

It still violates the constitution and these programs had a high failure rate anyhow. You can justify it however you want, but that's beside the point. The point is that you said conservatives do not want government prying in their lives, yet they voted for these programs.

But coincidentally enough, most conservatives are white people, and these programs primarily targeted ethnic a minorities and those in poverty. You might think I'm sounding like a stereotypical liberal, but that's the truth of the matter. It's a double standard, which makes it unjust.

"Someone who values traditional values over rights. Someone who espouses traditional personal rights and freedom over state rights. Advocates a free market,


"Someone who values traditional values over rights"
typically means that they value religion over the constitution and the rights of others.

In other words, it's ok for the government to be a necessary evil and impede on the rights of others as long as it's not impeding on their own rights. Or they value old views, such as women making sandwiches and having virtually no status in a modern economy, while men make decisions for them.


non-government interventionist approach.

Non-government interventionist? Virtually every conservative favored the Iraq war which had nothing to do with 911.


Sees government as a necessary evil,

Government as a necessary evil? When most libertarians or conservatives are asked to clarify what this means, they typically refer to taxes. Government doesn't have to be evil. It's just people are greedy and don't understand how society functions.


the only function of which is to protect people's rights and freedom"

Government protecting people's right and freedom is not an exclusive view for conservatives. Liberals believe this as well, more so than conservatives. As an example, conservatives were against Gay Marriage, Liberals were in favor of it. Which is protecting one's freedom more?

Conservatism in general is defined as people who abide by traditional values, which typically means suppressing certain freedoms and not taking kindly to change.
 
Last edited:

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
It still violates the constitution and these programs had a high failure rate anyhow. You can justify it however you want, but that's beside the point. The point is that you said conservatives do not want government prying in their lives, yet they voted for these programs.

But coincidentally enough, most conservatives are white people, and these programs primarily targeted ethnic a minorities and those in poverty. You might think I'm sounding like a stereotypical liberal, but that's the truth of the matter. It's a double standard, which makes it unjust.



"Someone who values traditional values over rights"
typically means that they value religion over the constitution and the rights of others.

In other words, it's ok for the government to be a necessary evil and impede on the rights of others as long as it's not impeding on their own rights. Or they value old views, such as women making sandwiches and having virtually no status in a modern economy, while men make decisions for them.




Non-government interventionist? Virtually every conservative favored the Iraq war which had nothing to do with 911.




Government as a necessary evil? When most libertarians or conservatives are asked to clarify what this means, they typically refer to taxes. Government doesn't have to be evil. It's just people are greedy and don't understand how society functions.




Government protecting people's right and freedom is not an exclusive view for conservatives. Liberals believe this as well, more so than conservatives. As an example, conservatives were against Gay Marriage, Liberals were in favor of it. Which is protecting one's freedom more?

Conservatism in general is defined as people who abide by traditional values, which typically means suppressing certain freedoms and not taking kindly to change.
maybe because there is a correlation between terrorism and ethnicity/religion, 2nd point the sacredness of the family should be paramount and feminism has lead to this being destructed now im not an extreme traditionalist but children should be the priority not work, 3rd did they know that? the gov fed them lies and the american their oil and the merhcants wanted their bank, plus it was in the name of counter terrorism, 4th, thats what they view it as, and the us gov is exactly that. 5th yes?
 

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak
maybe because there is a correlation between terrorism and ethnicity/religion, 2nd point the sacredness of the family should be paramount and feminism has lead to this being destructed now im not an extreme traditionalist but children should be the priority not work, 3rd did they know that? the gov fed them lies and the american their oil and the merhcants wanted their bank, plus it was in the name of counter terrorism, 4th, thats what they view it as, and the us gov is exactly that. 5th yes?

But again, and this goes back to my point about making irrational statements; terrorism isn't exclusive to Islam. People in the U.S., specifically, die more from white terrorism than Islamic terrorism. Now I know that's a hard thing to swallow and it stings, but that is the fact of the matter. Yet when it comes to combating white terrorism, it is virtually non-existent. But when it comes to combating terrorism of other ethnicity, then conservatives are eager to create laws that violate the constitution and build walls. Either be consistent and treat all terrorism with the same amount of aggression or admit to the hypocrisy.

What is sacredness of family? That could be defined as literally anything. Obviously family is important, but as I've stated "traditional values" typically refers to the mentally of men being in control of the household, women being sub-servant, and children not questioning their parents methodology, even if it's wrong (i.e. religion.) That is not equality nor is it freedom.

What you call feminism and what I call feminism are probably two completely different things. In your mind, I would assume that feminism is defined by the youtube videos of insane PC police women who "shout all men must die" and the like or defined by people like Amy Schumer and Sarah Silverman. Those people are not feminists, nor do they represent feminism in its entirety. Defining all of feminism based on those people is like definite all of Christianity from the KKK. They are a minority and not a vocal one in the entire community.

If you believe in equal rights, and that goes for men's rights as well, then you are by definition a feminist. Feminism refers to equality of all individual's rights, be it men, women, gay, straight, white, and black. It's about equality, not gender superiority. And again, I have to argue this point because most people don't actually care to know the truth or prefer to live in their ignorance because they can't accept that they're wrong about feminism.


So you're saying that a conservative government lied to their constituents and got their conservative followers to support laws that they were ignorant of and violates constitutional rights? Well who's fault is that?
 
Last edited:

BLAZE

Sage of Six Posts 🔮
Immortal
59,497 posts 3,577 reactions
10
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
59,497
Status
Activity Streak
Democracy is the best political system you can have but the goverment should free from influence of any race;religion or anything
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
But again, and this goes back to my point about making irrational statements; terrorism isn't exclusive to Islam. People in the U.S., specifically, die more from white terrorism than Islamic terrorism. Now I now that's a hard thing to swallow and it stings, but that is the fact of the matter. Yet when it comes to combating white terrorism, it is virtually non-existent. But when it comes to combating terrorism of other ethnicity, then conservatives are eager to create laws that violate the constitution and build walls. Either be consistent and treat all terrorism with the same amount of aggression or admit to the hypocrisy.

What you call feminism and what I call feminism are probably two completely different things. In your mind, I would assume that feminism is defined by the youtube videos of insane PC police women who shout all men must die and the like. Those people are not feminists, nor do they represent feminism in it's entirety. Defining all of feminism based on those people is like definite all of Christianity from the KKK. They are a minority and not a vocal one in the entire community.

What is sacredness of family? That could be defined as literally anything. Obviously family is important, but as I've stated "traditional values" typically refers to the mentally of men being in control of the household, women being sub-servant, and children not questioning their parents methodology, even if it's wrong (i.e. religion.) That is not equality nor is it freedom.


If you believe in equal rights, and that goes for men's rights as well, then you are by definition a feminist. Feminism refers to equality of all individual's rights, be it men, women, gay, straight, white, and black. It's about equality, not gender superiority. And again, I have to argue this point because most people don't actually care to know the truth or prefer to live in their ignorance because they can't accept that they're wrong about feminism.


So you're saying that a conservative government lied to their constituents and got their conservative followers to support laws that they were ignorant of and violates constitutional rights? Well who's fault is that?
refer back to how a large percentage support sharia law, of course they will be targeted since, only thing i hate more than the liberals are the neo cons, now extreme traditionalism does say what you said, mild does not however, now feminism is a whole other story as 3rd wave feminism is actually cancer and is about female superiority, that is also not a minority as many well known feminists that spout anti-white/men propaganda usually share a large audience, sacredness of family refers to the abandonment of children via constant working parents, family comes first, not work, yes you bring up this definition of feminism garbage and you say the other side are the ignorant ones? you need to look in the mirror, women are equal in modern society and men are becoming second class citizens,
 

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak
refer back to how a large percentage support sharia law, of course they will be targeted since, only thing i hate more than the liberals are the neo cons, now extreme traditionalism does say what you said, mild does not however, now feminism is a whole other story as 3rd wave feminism is actually cancer and is about female superiority, that is also not a minority as many well known feminists that spout anti-white/men propaganda usually share a large audience, sacredness of family refers to the abandonment of children via constant working parents, family comes first, not work, yes you bring up this definition of feminism garbage and you say the other side are the ignorant ones? you need to look in the mirror, women are equal in modern society and men are becoming second class citizens,

Again, it's a moot point. You're now trying to justify it when you explicitly stated that conservatives were against surveillance.

What you're spouting about most Muslims supporting Sharia Law is simply not true. Most Muslims that support it live in prominently Muslim countries like Afghanistan.

And you're have this mindset that all Muslims are from the Middle East. A lot of Muslims within the U.S. are African Americans.







Also, understand what Sharia Law is. It's living their lives accurately to the Quran. Obviously I don't condone religion, but you just like how Communism was not accurately adapted from Marxist writings, neither is Sharia Law adapted accurately from the Quran. Things like laws within Holy Books will always be used as political advantage. Christianity is no different.


3rd wave feminism isn't as prominent as you think. It's not real feminism. I agree that it is cancerous, but DO NOT MISTAKE IT FOR REAL FEMINISM.


Well if people can't put food on their table and need to work 3 jobs in order to survive, would you still consider that abandonment of children?
 

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
Again, it's a moot point. You're now trying to justify it when you explicitly stated that conservatives were against surveillance.

What you're spouting about most Muslims supporting Sharia Law is simply not true. Most Muslims that support it live in prominently Muslim countries like Afghanistan.

And you're have this mindset that all Muslims are from the Middle East. A lot of Muslims within the U.S. are African Americans.







Also, understand what Sharia Law is. It's living their lives accurately to the Quran. Obviously I don't condone religion, but you just like how Communism was not accurately adapted from Marxist writings, neither is Sharia Law adapted accurately from the Quran. Things like laws within Holy Books will always be used as political advantage. Christianity is no different.


3rd wave feminism isn't as prominent as you think. It's not real feminism. I agree that it is cancerous, but DO NOT MISTAKE IT FOR REAL FEMINISM.


Well if people can't put food on their table and need to work 3 jobs in order to survive, would you still consider that abandonment of children?
1. maybe not most but a large percentage, im not familiar with african american islam statistics so i cant really say if they share the same or similar stats to arab support of sharia law,
2.it is still barbaric and marxs teachings are a gloop of dribble and will never work, the thing is many Christians dont see christianity as an exact guideline they should follow, they just follow some of its ethical teachings especially since the new testament refutes many aspects covered in the old one,
3. feminism has already been tainted, these days i believe if you do support equal rights you should identify as a egalitarian, unless you actually believe women are an oppressed species in first world countries which obviously isnt the case,
4.thats why the current economic system of extreme capitalism doesnt work and needs a reform,
 

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak
1. maybe not most but a large percentage, im not familiar with african american islam statistics so i cant really say if they share the same or similar stats to arab support of sharia law,
2.it is still barbaric and marxs teachings are a gloop of dribble and will never work, the thing is many Christians dont see christianity as an exact guideline they should follow, they just follow some of its ethical teachings especially since the new testament refutes many aspects covered in the old one,
3. feminism has already been tainted, these days i believe if you do support equal rights you should identify as a egalitarian, unless you actually believe women are an oppressed species in first world countries which obviously isnt the case,
4.thats why the current economic system of extreme capitalism doesnt work and needs a reform,

1. Not in the U.S.

2. It is and Christians did see it and still do to a degree. The influence of fundamentalist Christianity can be felt in our own society. One such example is the mentality that God will fix Climate Change. This is literally the words of people within congress.

3. Not sure where you're getting this information from? Oppressed may be too strong of a word, but definitely disadvantaged and certainly not held in the same regards as men. You can't deny that most of the government is controlled by males and most of those males are also conservative which have that "traditional" mentality of women being sub-servant to the husband.

4. Agreed.
 

Genocide

Banned
Veteran
2,791 posts 222 reactions
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
2,791
Status
Activity Streak
1. Not in the U.S.

2. It is and Christians did see it and still do to a degree. The influence of fundamentalist Christianity can be felt in our own society. One such example is the mentality that God will fix Climate Change. This is literally the words of people within congress.

3. Not sure where you're getting this information from? Oppressed may be too strong of a word, but definitely disadvantaged and certainly not held in the same regards as men. You can't deny that most of the government is controlled by males and most of those males are also conservative which have that "traditional" mentality of women being sub-servant to the husband.

4. Agreed.
1. ok
2. perhaps in congress but the general population i doubt radically follows the exact teachings of christ, actually i doubt many ppl do at all considering the selfless nature of what it says
3. maybe thirty years ago but there is literally nothing holding back women on achieving the careers they desire, however the reason why men still hold majority of the top dog positions are because most of the ceos are old meaning theyve held the position for a long time, and perhaps they are too emotinal and short sided for extremely important positions (now thats not always the case but biology backs me up when females are generally more compassionate and more emotional than men) plus i highly doubt a high enough percentage of the population see women as inferior to men and if they represented the qualities to succeed the position i doubt they wouldnt be denied based on their gender,
 
Last edited:

Lightbringer

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
14,168 posts 1,484 reactions
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,168
Status
Activity Streak
1. ok
2. perhaps in congress but the general population i doubt radically follows the exact teachings of christ, actually i doubt many ppl do at all considering the selfless nature of what it says
3. maybe thirty years ago but there is literally nothing holding back women on achieving the careers they desire, however the reason why men still hold majority of the top dog positions are because most of the ceos are old meaning theyve held the position for a long time, and perhaps they are too emotinal and short sided for extremely important positions (now thats not always the case but biology backs me up when females are generally more compassionate and more emotional than men) plus i highly doubt a high enough percentage of the population see women as inferior to men and if they represented the qualities to succeed the position i doubt they wouldnt be denied based on their gender,

2.
Muslims make up 1% of the U.S. population and Christianity is the predominant religion within the U.S. There are about 280 million Christians and 3.3 million Muslims. More than half of the U.S. is Christian. Even if 1% of Christians were extremely fundamentalist, it would be roughly 2.8 Million.

Here is another example of Christian fundamentalism. A member of Congress said this just last week:

“The free world... all of Christendom... is at war with Islamic horror. Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.
”




Again, this is another politician in a country where Church is meant to be separate from state, and another prime example of how fundamentalist Christian thinking still exists. The reason why you think there aren't many fundamentalist Christians is because the stories aren't covered enough since more than half the U.S. population are a Christian. And let's face it, people don't like giving away their advantageous position. So why would they report on things that would make their own faith look bad? We're talking about mainstream media here also. No one wants to here about how Christians or whites can be terrorists because it would cause controversy.

Have you actually read the bible? Because it has countless violent passages within its text. Many people in the West who don't really know the meaning of Jihad default to it simply meaning acts of terrorism. But there is something in the bible called "Herem" which basically condones genocide.

"And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
- Samuel 15:3

The idea of "Herem" was used to justify the mass slaughter of Native Americans which barely exist today. This is the same bible that people are reading today. So how is that any better than Islam?

If the capacity for violence was possible through those texts, then it will always remain possible
. Just remember that.


3. But you yourself just gave a perfect example of how women are viewed differently than men. It's a mentality that can make it difficult for them to be hired.

"perhaps they are too emotinal and short sided for extremely important positions (now thats not always the case but biology backs me up when females are generally more compassionate and more emotional than men)"

Studies have shown that men tend to hire men over women even if the woman has more qualifications.



There have been cases where women with more qualifications than their male counterpart were offered a lower salary at the start of their job. I've personally witnessed this as well as this happened to one of my coworkers in a previous job.





Also it's a lot easier for men to get promotions because most of the time men are in higher positions, which makes it easier for them to communicate. There have been studies on this where when a woman asks about a promotion or a raise, it is taken differently by their male superiors than if it were a male asking the same questions.



There's also a psychological bias where competent women tend to be detested in the workplace because they are successful, as opposed to their male peers who often find admiration from being in the position they're in.

There is still a wage discrepancy. While it's not 77 cents to a dollar like many suggest, all studies show that it's consistently around 88-91 cents to a male's dollar.



Let's not forget the countless cases of sexual harassment within the workplace where many times the men in power would use their position to blackmail their female employees to quid pro quo, such as not extending their contract or not giving them a promotion if they don't comply.






We have come a long way for sure when it comes to equality, but saying that there is equality today is highly inaccurate. Women are still disadvantaged and discriminated against.

I implore you to read more on both subjects rather than simply believing that you aren't wrong because then you are missing out on the truth, and the truth is more important than pride. It's ok to be wrong, but it's not ok to be willfully ignorant when you know that there are things you might not fully understand. Don't choose to be ignorant and explore the possibility that there is information you have not studied. Be objective, even if the truth of the matter goes against your own preconceived notions.
 
Last edited:

Caliburn

𝕷𝔢𝖔 𝕭𝔢𝖑𝔤𝖎𝔠𝖚𝔰
Supreme
20,953 posts 4,203 reactions
37
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
20,953
Status
Activity Streak
I don't get your poll. Most of what you listed can be a hybrid of each other listing.

This. That poll makes no sense whatsoever.

For starters it's mixing up political ideologies with governmental systems. A system is neutral in the sense that it's specifically anchored in a constitution or something else and thus is not supposed to be influenced by any kind of political or ideological program and this rarely changes in a non-violent way and even if it does, it takes hell of a lot of time. All political parties and groups are a part of the same system.

A republic, a monarchy...these are governmental systems.

A political ideology however is a set of morals, doctrines, principles and the like people follow. These people are active within the system, but their believes are not the system itself. And because it concerns subjective and personal believes, you can easily combine multiple ideologies.

Nationalism, socialism, liberalism etc. these are all ideologies.

So that poll is not a correct representation of the reality as it pretends there is only one option, which is not even remotely the case. And on top of it being possible to combine ideologies, there are some cases where countries favored certain ideologies and tied them to their political system, most known example the USSR.

You then have the additional issues of that every single one of these concepts is strongly time and place bound. A 17th century monarchy is not the same as 21st century one and a 20th century dictator is different from a 1st century one. And that in many countries the official system is different from the actual system. North Korea claims to be a democratic republic, but it's essentially a dictatorial monarchy.


And then I'm still keeping this stuff simple as it's far more complicated. I myself live in a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy. Which means that on top of having a hereditary monarch, we have multiple parliaments that are elected democratically and this is solidified in a constitution. The strongest political parties then in the system have a socialist, nationalist, liberalist, conservative or environmental signature. So yeah that list makes no sense as just being a liberal or nationalist is not a system.

In the end what makes to me the best system is when capable people have the freedom to put their skills to good use, but incapable people are blocked enough to avoid disastrous results.
 

Ludicrous

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
1,567 posts 151 reactions
1
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
1,567
Status
Activity Streak
Communism is a fairy tale. It will never happen in reality because it always turns to dictatorship. Is no good in theory either because is lacking the common sense.

If i have to choose from your list i'd choose monarchy. I am tired of the word democracy. Behind it you can find a lot of hypocrisy and lies.

PS I can't vote is a bug on my phone or in the forum. Edited- finally worked the vote

I don't see how sharing resources in theory is bad. In theory when humans weren't so greedy, yes communism would be the best system. Communism is based on sharing resources so I don't see how dictatorships represent that and actually it was the opposite since a perfect theoretical communist system would share power. It's scarier that you would rather support a monarch than the people.
 

Pumpkin Ninja

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
15,554 posts 1,857 reactions
7
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,554
Status
Activity Streak
Communism is a fairy tale. It will never happen in reality because it always turns to dictatorship. Is no good in theory either because is lacking the common sense.

If i have to choose from your list i'd choose monarchy. I am tired of the word democracy. Behind it you can find a lot of hypocrisy and lies.

PS I can't vote is a bug on my phone or in the forum. Edited- finally worked the vote
Monarchies are still susceptible to the same bullshit in democracy. You just don't realize it because monarchies have died down.

OT: I like America's republic although it does have flaws. It really depends on the circumstances. I think one system will work in one case, and not in others.
 
Top