[Phoenix]

I'd like to open a discussion on the ideal form of government in unitary states. The writing helps me flesh out some ideas I've been mulling, and criticism and competing ideas would temper my theories.

Note that this excludes federations, since with a federation the question seems to be "how do you stop it turning into a unitary state or breaking apart into separate unitary states". Also most states in the world seem to be de-facto unitary states.

We spend a lot of time lamenting the social decay in the West and other parts of the world, but we don't talk much about what social structure (i.e. constitution) is most conducive to maintaining good social order. It feels good to vent dismay and mock the depraved individuals that lead the decay, but it is good to balance this with dispassionate constructive discussion about how degeneration can be prevented.

Also the intent is not to have a discussion about 'laws'. Laws (generally meaning 'legislation') are the actions of one group of society against another, formalized in written statutes, and thereafter enforced by another section of society acting as their agents. For this reason discussion of "this law should be changed to this" are superfluous, since "should" misses the point of the origin of the law.

I submit that the bulk of the social degeneration we are observing in the 21st century West is coming from purely democratic constitutions. These democratic constitutions have entrenched the system of "ideological divide and conquer" as the primary means of the power-hungry gaining power, and thus keep these societies in a constant state of upheaval.

Under a democratic constitution, power is not obtained by force of arms, but by playing off different groups against each other with pure ideology. This is done primarily by inventing imaginary grievances which groups can be tricked into taking up, promising to resolve those grievances, and thereby receiving more votes and gaining power. The origin of the powerful and intellectually rigorous ideological constructions of the Left, stem from an intellectual arms race to out-trick and out-sway the average-minded electorate into giving them power. It is a four-yearly battle of successfully drawing a line through 51% of the population, waged with sights and sounds upon the mind of the average man.

The result of this constant battle is a kind of general mental decay, since facts and people's innate sense of right and wrong fatigue under the constant ideological onslaught of the political class. Since there is no personal benefit to speaking rationally and in defence of common decency under the democratic constitution, such voices are mere whispers, drowned out by the loudspeakers of the ranks of self-interested power-hungry individuals that constitute the democratic machine.

The primary justification for democracy has generally been tyrants, a sentiment embodied in the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely". And this is a fair sentiment - history is filled with emperors, kings, and dictators who were terrible for the well-being of their countries. Whilst many people say they would prefer a benevolent dictator or king over a democracy, democracy and the power to 'vote the bad guy out' if the dictator turns out to be evil, always wins out on the grounds of safety.

I submit that the best social structure is a "mixed constitution", consisting of an individual head of state, a nobility, and a restricted general franchise, all required to consent to legislation, and all contributing to the executive. The judiciary remains an appointed group 'learned in law', as per common law. This system balances the risk of a tyrant and also the degenerative risk of a democratic rabble.

An individual head of state, is necessary for chain-of-command effectiveness in cases of war. I suspect that a king is better than a president. A king kind of "owns" the country, and thus will tend to act in its long-term benefits, especially with hereditary kings since their sons will inherit the country. A president is only a brief democratic caretaker of the country, and thus is less likely to use the military in a way consistent with the country's long-term interests. In either case, the power of the head of state is balanced by the other two classes, who can control the purse-strings and are appointed to parts of the executive.

A nobility, such as the House of Lords prior to 1911, would consist of the top members of the aristocratic class, and would inherit their titles. They would tend to be appointed by the head of state in the same way a schoolyard soccer captain picks his team members - selecting a mixture of his friends and the best. They would be selected based on their merit in the context of being good for the country (brave men, wise men, achieved men etc), and would include the descendents thereof, or in their skill of courtiership. The benefits over a democratic class are as follows:
- For life. Hence the politics of a noble carries a certain randomness (everyone is born different), and doesn't have to toe a party line.
- Hereditary. Since the position is for life and hereditary, their law-making incentive is long-term.
- The lines of nobility that fail to reproduce are extinguished. Hence flawed genetics and philosophies that result in men failing to reproduce are weeded out of the legislature (rather than drawn into the legislature as can happen in democracy).
- They don't have the same personal incentives as a democratic class. They are already generally independently wealthy, and thus their role is more of 'maintenance of the country', rather than using the legislature to their personal gain.

The general franchise would democratically elect representatives, with the vote restricted to individuals which meet certain minimum requirements. Historically, this was based on land-ownership, but I think merely restricting the franchise to the 'heads of households' would be better. This democratic class would be necessary to balance out the residual self-interest of the nobility, namely to dominate the lower-classes by giving themselves special privileges.

This is similar to the system that was used in Britain in the 1800s, and has similarities to the system used under the Roman Republic.

If anyone can point out any flaws and instabilities that would be present in this system then please fire away.

TL;DR: Democracy causes social degeneration, a combined monarch - nobility - restricted democracy constitution is probably the best available in unitary states.

[Samseau]

I don't believe any government is the best. All of them become corrupted over time.

The real problem? Education of the citizens. If the people are properly educated than most government systems will work. But education cannot be centralized for the same reasons governments cannot be centralized. Education must come from two-parent families where both the mother and father play important roles in the upbringing of the children; the mother is most important between the ages of 0-8 and the father is most important afterwards.

Education is more than simply being schooled in various doctrines, as well. Education begins at a man's birth and ends when he dies. Education is a man's complete moral disposition, attitude towards learning and knowledge, and combined sum of useful and marketable skills.

Schools in general, as they stand today, are complete anathema towards a proper education of anyone. Schools today spread corruption and vice, are huge wastes of time that make kids hate learning, and provide very little in terms of marketable skills. They are a shit return on investment.

Without addressing the problem of education, any and all attempts at solving the problem of government will fail. Now that the internet is here, parents can congregate and settle on matters of education without relying on a centralized system to educate children.

A proper government, understood in the light of a proper education, must be structured in a way that facilitates and helps nuclear families grow and provide a stable environment for the education of its citizens. After they reach adulthood, most (95%) children should be able:

- To distinguish right from wrong.
- Be able to teach themselves new knowledge with the help of the internet and discussion boards like this one, and read books on their own inclination.
- Be self-sufficient and have marketable skills.

In short, the best government is the one that produces virtuous citizens. Whether it is a monarchy, democracy, or aristocracy is rather immaterial in my opinion. I think, given how fucked up our world is becoming, a strong dictator will be necessary to guide ignorant people in the right direction. Rousseau called this man the Lawgiver. Afterwards, in order to solve the problem of succession, the dictator must dissolve his state into a mixed constitution as described above to prevent power abuses. However, if the citizens do not have proper educations, no government will survive as it must devolve into the current pile of shit society we have today.

[Phoenix]

On education, sure education is bad, but not as a separate phenomenon. It is stemming from the constitution: education is part of the democratic battle, since it offers a means of indoctrinating children with ideas when young, which takes a lot to unwind. We see plenty of threads on here about depravity in education. Normalize bad morals when they are young, and you reap the democratic benefits when they reach the ballot box. The fact we have public education at all is the root of bad education generally, it should be a private matter, and would be more so under a less democratic constitution.

On 'no government', there's no such thing. Nature abhors a vacuum, and their is always some social structure of men by which power is exercised, be it an absolute monarch, a mixed constitution, or the local Mafia Don. The final means of settlement of an otherwise irresolvable dispute is violence.

On a dictator, there is no angel to choose a good one for us, and no guarantee he'd give up power when promised. That said, this is how it typically goes - social degeneration typically results in a coup, and the head of the coup typically becomes dictator (such as in the case of Pinochet).

[Phoenix]

In retrospect, thread title is extremely dry lol.
Should have made it something like: "Fuck Churchill: Why Democracy is the Root of Our Problems"

[Glaucon]

There will be a never ending battle between the private and the public. There is no ideal form of anything.

[Phoenix]

Yes 'best' would have been a better word than 'ideal'.