A Formal Review on Government & Order

-By, Marquell Garrett
DATED: March 12, 2008; Wednesday @ 1700hrs EDT



Introduction:



Looking at the world today there are very few people who will disagree with me when I say that there is no order and peace about the world today. There are several contributors to this crises but the prominent contributor is that of a lack of an ideal government. Many nations and citizens of humanity turn to the United States of America for guidance but the fact remains that the U.S. hasn’t symbolized the basic principles of freedom and a government for the people and by the people in a long time. The world is in desperate need for order as it is only natural that without order and freedom, human beings will revert back to their natural animal instincts of survival. The purpose of this review is to educate others and make aware of past governments, the collapses and failures of other governments, and the ideal government in order to truly have peace and order. This is not a proclamation or declaration of war on any nation. Nor should it be seen as an act of treason or betrayal. This review will simply address the issues of past and current governments and the ideal government in order to avoid some of the current and past crises of different governments and in order to maintain peace, liberty, and order.

Purpose of a Government:

Definition:

The definition of government can be broken down as the following:
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.

Function of a Government:

The whole idea of a government is to provide some type of order and peace amongst the people and to remain independent from other lands or governments. Naturally all living things have a basic instinct of survival. Animals are willing to do anything to survive and or protect their offspring. Homo sapiens are no exception to the rule. It seems that it is a universal instinct and reaction of all living things to survive and protect their offspring. It is also universal that all animals, Homo sapiens being no exception to the rule, will do anything to get what they desire or need in life in order to survive or satisfy some other need or pleasure. So, what is it that makes human beings so great? For one, Homo sapiens have an incredible passion and desire to care for others, love, and hate yet control it all. More importantly, human beings have the ability and knowledge to organize and live together under unity and hopefully peace. However, when a person’s life or peace is in jeopardy you begin to see people revolt against their government and revert back to their natural animal-like instincts. The whole idea of a government is to maintain unity, in order to maintain order, which is too also help maintain peace. What typically comes into question when looking at previous and current governments is whether or not order is producing peace and happiness and whether or not peace, liberty, and happiness should come before order? This is a tricky question. The real answer to this question will hopefully be answered by the end of this review. Traditionally a government is suppose to provide four basic things. The first basic responsibility of a government is that a government has is to provide domestic and foreign protection against all domestic and foreign invasions and or enemies. First I will discuss a government’s role in domestic security. As I mentioned above, Homo sapiens are like any other animal in the sense that we will do virtually anything and everything to get what we desire or need to survive or have a plentiful life. With this being said, one major role of the government is to provide security and a system of justice domestically in order to maintain order. There are several different ways to do this. Basically the current trend seems to be the use of a police department, privet security such as private detectives and security guards, and also other departments such as the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, etc. Now by providing these departments the overall objective is to help catch those who break the law, bring those personnel to justice, and more importantly, keep order amongst the communities. The government has a job to protect its citizens against ciaos and criminal offenders. Remember that I stated earlier that Homo sapiens are naturally a wreck. We see something we want or need and naturally we want and are willing to do anything to get it. We also have the ability to overcome these urges and also have the ability to ignore these urges altogether while there is still a sense of order about things. However, as soon as that order is jeopardized Homo sapiens tend to turn to their natural defense, every man being for themselves. It is the job of the government to provide a domestic security and justice system to focus on this underline problem and to control crime. There are many people that will tell you that criminals are all prisoners of the same frame of thinking and that there is a criminal behavioral pattern that can be observed in all criminals to help one capture criminals, essentially saying that there is a formula that will give you a criminal. I for one am too smart to recognize this as a fact. The fact is that Homo sapiens, like many other species, are a natural wreck and without order we will lose all control. It is the government’s job to prevent this from happening by fulfilling multiple responsibilities for the people, domestic security being one of them. It is also important for the government to protect its people from foreign invasions and foreign enemies. A government is suppose to provide order and remain separate from other lands and governments. This can only happen, and the people will only feel secured, if the government protects its people from foreign invasions. Most of the time this is done using a military or paid mercenaries. There have been many occasions where civilians have been drafted out of their homes and placed on the battle field by force. Nonetheless it is the duty of a government to protect its people domestically and foreign in order to maintain order and control. The second responsibility of a government is to provide a system of justice and law. This is to also help establish order but more importantly it is suppose to maintain peace and get rid of the peace disturbers. It doesn’t matter how a government choices to provide a justice system, as long as there is a system were laws can be interpreted and forced. With this being said, a third responsibility a government has is to provide laws to the people in order for the people to know what is expected of them and to set some standards for order and peace. If the people do not know the law and do not know what is expected of them then they will naturally at like any other animal and develop a mind set and attitude of every man for themselves. This will also happen if a government fails to provide their fourth obligation. A government is also suppose to provide prosperity and economical welfare for the people. A government is responsible for providing all the basic economical needs and basic needs of life to all people who cannot independently achieve these needs. It is also the responsibility of a government to be sure that all of its citizens have basic needs such as a home, food, water, and other basic necessities of life. By failing to provide these needs order will disappear as the people will be forced to use their natural instincts and do anything and everything to survive including murder, stealing, and abandoning their young to increase their own chances of survival. If this happen then the government will have failed to maintain peace and order and therefore be defeating the prominent objective of a government. In addition to establishing and maintaining order and peace a government is suppose to maintain a sense of pride with its people and spread happiness to its citizens. Now that we know the purpose and role of a government I will now talk about some different types of governments and some problems and benefits of these governments.



Types of Governments & Their Pros and Cons:

Anarchy:

Definition: By current definition anarchy is the absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

Historically anarchy can be described as a theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder). The ideal of anarchy is that the people should have the right to control their lives and protect themselves without oppression or influence from others and that people do not need a government in order to establish order and peace because these principles can be established amongst themselves as a person, family, and or communities. Many people believe that anarchy is anti-government and against order and peace but in all fairness anarchy is pro-individual liberty and pro order and justice without government influences. Historically the idea of anarchy has been around for a while and it could be argued that it holds some of the greatest ideas of freedom and human rights than any government ever offered. Anarchists have played a part in revolutionary movements throughout history. The French Revolution that begun in 1789 had a strong proto-anarchist element. Anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and Errico Malatesta played an essential part in the development of revolutionary anarchist theory in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Anarchists played a substantial role in the revolutionary movements in Russia in 1905 and 1917, but were suppressed, often ruthlessly, once the Bolsheviks had consolidated power. The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 set the stage for the most widely known large-scale manifestation of anarchist practice, in which anarcho-syndicalist organizations (the FAI and CNT) successfully created workable, non-hierarchical social and economic alternatives. In the United States, as well as in Mexico and Latin America, there was an anarcho-syndicalist influence within the trade union movement (for example the Industrial Workers of the World). Prominent anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman participated in a variety of radical causes throughout the early 1900s. There was a strong anarchist current in many of the social change and alternative lifestyle movements of the 1960s (including parts of the feminist movement, the gay liberation movement and the anti-war and free speech movements); although in many cases these were overshadowed, if not frankly repressed, by Marxist/Leninist/Maoist currents. The whole objective of any anarchist or anarchist group is not to overthrow the government, which may very well happen in the process, but the overall objective of the anarchist is to grant 100% human rights and liberties to the people and not have these rights controlled or dictated by any government. This may sound very familiar. Many would argue that the founding fathers of the United States had these same ideas in mind. Also we see throughout U.S. and world history that there have been many men and women who have not seen themselves as anarchists nor portrayed as such argue for the rights and liberties of human beings to be granted to all and not influenced or controlled by the government. Historically this is all anarchism means.

Monarchy:

Definition: 1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person 2: a nation or state having a monarchical government 3: a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am sure we have all heard of this phrase. This phrase derived from the failures of the monarchy government. The whole idea of a monarchy government or kingdom is that one person will have all power and be in charge of appointing others as he or she sees fit. Also this person typically will derive from royal bloodline or noblemen. The structure of this government is centered around one person on the bases of tradition but more prominently to establish a strong since of order. The benefit of this government is that if you have one great leader serving the best interests of the people and listening to the people, along with sharing power, then the state of the nation will be magnificent and almost undefeatable. The problem is that when you have a bad king acting in his or her own interests, ignoring the people, and not sharing power there is no peaceful solution to this problem and it would be hard to stop such ruler because legally and traditionally they will have all of the power and the people will have no way to challenge such ruler. In addition to this problem you will find that the ruler’s replacement or successor may not be so popular either and even a worst ruler. Historically we have seen Kings, Pharaohs, Russian Zars, Queens, and emperors make deals with the church and force religious ways and convictions on people, deny people basic individual rights and liberties, and deny people basic welfare such as shelter, food and water due to a poor sense of order and importance of welfare. Because monarchy leaders cannot be controlled and have absolute power, when monarchists act in ways that harms the people, the government no longer is effective and no longer functions as a government because it brings ciaos amongst the people which is exactly what a government is suppose to be preventing. One example of this is the French King during the French revolutionary war, King Louis XVI. Under this King’s reign we seen France become a horrible nation to live in while the King and his wife drove the nation into debt, destroyed the moral character of France, and abandoned the welfare of the citizens of France by leaving them with no money due to high taxes and no food or shelter being they were all confiscated due to the inability of common men and women to pay their overpriced taxes. It is safe to say that King Louis XVI failed to provide welfare for the people and failed to maintain order amongst the people. The monarchy hence failed the people and ultimately the people reverted back to their natural animal-like instincts of every man being for themselves. We also saw this with other monarchies such as with China during the era of the Emperor Qin Shi Huang. Under such emperor Chinese citizens who opposed or disagreed with what the emperor wanted done was killed. In addition to this people were forced to build a wall around the entire empire which is now known as the Great Wall of China. Men who became ill and died while building the wall were said to have been buried inside the wall. It is also known that the emperor exhausted all of his resources on the wall ignoring the economic and social welfare of the Chinese people. The people were starved and dissatisfied with their government but powerless to change it. It can be said that the only way to change a monarchy is through violent means being that having one person with absolute power really doesn’t leave you with much room to politically challenge the government. Ultimately a monarchy government relays too much on one man and does not provide all the basic needs a person needs from their government. It can be said that a monarchy creates ciaos and misery instead of order and peace.

Theocracy:

Definition: Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government.

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Some democratic political parties and other organizations advocate reconstruction of governments as theocracies. Some alleged examples include the Unification Church and Christian Reconstructionism. Theocracy is a government that is centered on a common religious belief and governs the people according to such religious convictions. One example of this government is Afghanistan during the government rule of the Taliban. During the Taliban leadership you see many citizens of Afghanistan forced to uphold and prescribe to certain religious beliefs under the laws of the country although many women who were forced to prescribe to such tenets and convictions vigorously opposed such notions and convictions. The Taliban set the religious standards for the nation and the nation’s religion of Islam and forced all citizens of the nation to follow the law. The problem with this is that not all citizens practiced Islam or believe as vigorously or believed in certain aspects of Islam as the Taliban. This meant that the Taliban set standards for people’s religion and forced religion onto the people, denying the people happiness, peace, and their basic human rights. A government is suppose to provide peace and order to its citizens but in the case of the Taliban rule we see the government fail to provide peace and happiness thus they failed to provide true order and liberty to the people and so failed as a government. The government could not be challenge by an individual person because it was against religious convictions to challenge religious leaders and Allah and so it was impossible to challenge the rule of the Taliban without facing your very own death. Another example of a theocracy is the government of modern day Iran. Iran also currently has their government structured around religious convictions. We do here about people who talk about religious oppression in the nation of Iran and the structure of the government being so one-sided that it is impossible for any one person or group of people for that matter to change the structure and role of the current government. We see that with a theocracy people are denied their basic civil and equal rights to practice or not practice their own religious and personal beliefs and convictions as he or she see fit. It also forces certain preferences and denominations of religions on people and fail to provide the people with a way to challenge their government and fight for justice and equality without being considered as criminals, terrorists, and committing an act of treason. The only way that any theocracy can be challenged is through violence and blood and to a dominate degree; challenge the religion of the nation. For those who do not believe in a god or religion a theocracy provides no liberty, order, or protection and only cause this person to live in misery and as an unwilling slave to religion. Theocracy fails to provide order amongst the people because it fails to provide a way to peacefully and rightfully challenge the government and fails to provide all of its citizens with a path to happiness that they can accept and a path to peace. Each citizen of humanity has a right to choice religion as a path to happiness or not to choose religion as a path to happiness. Theocracy eliminates this right and forces religious convictions onto its citizens. This is not maintaining true order, peace, and liberty and so is failing as a government.

Dictatorship:

Definition: 1. The office or tenure of a dictator. 2. A state or government under dictatorial rule. 3.

Absolute or despotic control or power. A dictatorship is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) Example of dictatorships and governments in which a dictatorships can derive from include a monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, absolutism, autocracy, autarchy - a political system governed by a single individual, democracy (if the people fail to challenge their government or can’t reasonably challenge their government-republics included), and police state - a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police). A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. For some scholars, like Joseph C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed, while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what the government regulates). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) corresponds to liberalism (government emphasizes individual right and liberty). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When a governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life. One example of a dictatorship is the Iraq government during the time of Saddam Hussein. We seen under his rule the Iraqi people denied basic necessities of life. We also seen under Saddam’s rule the people treated inhumanly, i.e. Being exposed to chemical and bio-agents in order to test such agents although the agents were known and expected to cause thousands of innocent lives. We seen Saddam so subsisted with building palaces that he denied people basic things like food, water, and a job in order to focus all of the nation’s wealth and resources on him and his palaces. It is clear that this dictator has no regards to his citizens and no regards and respect for order and peace. We seen Saddam deny his people the right to freely oppose him by killing anyone who spoke or fought against him. We also see the constitutions and laws of the land centered around Saddam’s absolute rule and his right to make and bend laws as he sees fit. The problems with a dictatorship is that regardless of the laws and constitution the dictator becomes unstoppable through peaceful means leaving the only option for homo sapiens to revert back to their animal like instincts and to act out in violence against the government. This is not peace and more prominently it is definitely not order. A dictatorship can never maintain order and peace because there is no way to challenge the dictator and the dictator always become far too powerful and concerned with their own ideas and interests instead of the people’s ideas and interests.

Totalitarian:

Definition: Rule by a single political party. One single party controls all the nation’s legislation, human rights and civil rights of the people, military, and the nation’s judicial matters. People are forced to do what the government tells them and may also be prevented from leaving the country.

Totalitarianism is state regulation of nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. One example of a totalitarian government is China. China considers themselves a republic but is a communist practicing nation versus capitalism. China is governed by one single political party. This party often acts in matters that are not of the people’s wishes and not in the best interests of the people. The problem with this government is that when it comes to the judicial matters of the nation, the people will always face harsh judgment and will not be given a realistic and fair trial where their side of the story will be heard and the truth will be sought after. Totalitarian regimes differ from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny. Totalitarian regimes seek to establish complete political, social and cultural control, whereas dictatorships seek limited, typically political, control. Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished: Nazism and Fascism which evolved from "right-wing" extremism, and Communism, which evolved from "left-wing" extremism. Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes. Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn their popular support primarily from middle classes seeking to maintain the economic and social status quo. Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth. A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective ownership of such capital.
Totalitarian regimes mobilize and make use of mass political participation, and often are led by charismatic cult figures. Examples of such cult figures in modern history are Mao Tse-tung (China) and Josef Stalin (Soviet Union), who led left-wing regimes, and Adolph Hitler (Germany) and Benito Mussolini (Italy), who led right-wing regimes.
Right-wing totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis) have arisen in relatively advanced societies, relying on the support of traditional economic elites to attain power. In contrast, left-wing totalitarian regimes have arisen in relatively undeveloped countries through the unleashing of revolutionary violence and terror. Such violence and terror are also the primary tools of right-wing totalitarian regimes to maintain compliance with authority.
The problem with a totalitarian government is that the people are forced to do what the government tells them to do. This leaves little room to question or challenge the government peacefully because the judicial branch will be nonexistent. Also people will be monitored and their basic civil and human liberties will be denied in the name of the government, freedom, and security. This will ultimately leave people oppressed by their government, denied the basic right to independently pursue economic welfare, and denied the right to freedom which is not true order but only outrages people and can cause an eventual revolt and overthrowing of the regime or government which is defiantly not order. Totalitarianism does not keep control and order over the people and ultimately does not address the basic will of the people to be happy and do anything to get there and remain happy.

Parliamentary:

Definition: A parliamentary system is led by representatives of the people. Each is chosen as a member of a political party and remains in power as long as his/her party does. A parliamentary system, also known as parliamentarianism (and parliamentary in U.S. English), is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential republic.

Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an elected (either popularly or through parliament) president or hereditary monarch. Though in Parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet will exercise executive power on a day-to-day basis, actual authority will usually be bestowed in the head of state, giving them many codified or uncodified reserve powers, providing some balance to these systems. The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary countries that use "first past the post" voting usually have governments composed of one party. However, parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional representation, and tend to produce election results in which no single party has a majority of seats. Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. The council-manager system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears many similarities to a parliamentary system. One major example of a parliamentary system is play is the United Kingdom. In the UK parliament pretty much controls the government and is chosen by the people. Also you see one house of the parliament is chosen by their bloodline (House of Lords). What mainly should be pointed out is that generally as long as your party is in power (elected) the parliament members of the part can remain in power. This may sound similar to Totalitarianism but I assure you it is far different and far better. For one Parliament doesn’t have secret police or force people to remain in the country. Parliament is chosen by the people and is similar to a republic but varies in the since that a Prime Minister (member of Parliament) is the chief head of state. In some cases there is a President but the Prime Mister typically have more power and the Parliament typically have the authority to vote out the President and replace he or she. The problem with all governments is that people will not always agree with government decisions and may wish to become a government official to change things. With a Parliamentary system this is hard to do being that if you are not a member of the party already in power then you will have to become a member (which is not easy to do) and wait in line for your party to give you an ok to run. If you wish to run as an independent you can’t because you have to be a member of one of the parties’ that are already in place. So this being said, there is no way for someone to challenge the government peacefully and change the government by means of running for public office which means that ultimately not everyone can have an influence or control over their government. So when the government acts in ways that the people don’t like they will have to simple vote in another party which may be just as bad or just deal with it. It is impossible for one man to make a huge impact which brings chaos to the common men and does not maintain control and order over the people in the long run.

Republic/Democratic:

Definition: A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of the people) have impact on its government, and that is usually indicated as a republic. A democratic government is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of the state or country (or at least a part of the people) have direct impact on its government, and also have the direct ability to pick individual people to led them (similar to a republic).

In most modern republics the head of state is termed president. Other titles that have been used are consul, doge, archon and many others. In republics that are also democracies the head of state is appointed as the result of an election. This election can be indirect, such as if a council of some sort is elected by the people and this council then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics the usual term for a president is in the range of four to six years. In some countries the constitution limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president. If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the head of government, this is called a presidential system (example: United States). In semi-presidential systems and parliamentary republics, where the head of state is not the same person as the head of government, the latter is usually termed prime minister, premier or chancellor. Depending on what the president's specific duties are (for example, advisory role in the formation of a government after an election), and varying by convention, the president's role may range from the ceremonial and apolitical to influential and highly political. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing the policies and the central government. The rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, in some republics permit the appointment of a president and a prime minister who have opposing political convictions: in France, when the members of the ruling cabinet and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called cohabitation. In countries such as Germany and India, however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan. In some countries, like Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The Roman Republic had two consuls, appointed for a year by the senate. During the year of their consulship each consul would in turn be head of state for a month at a time, thus alternating the office of consul mayor (the consul in power) and of consul suffectus (the subordinate consul who retained some independence, and held certain veto powers over the consul mayor) for their joint term. Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic. Similarly, countries usually qualified as monarchies can have many traits of a republic in terms of form of government. The political power of monarchs can be non-existent, limited to a purely ceremonial function or the impact by the people on the country's government can be exerted to the extent that they appear to have the power to have their monarch replaced by another one. The often assumed "mutual exclusiveness" of monarchies and republics as forms of government is thus not to be taken too literally and largely depends on circumstances:
• Autocrats might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or princeps or princeps senates in the case of Ancient Rome), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology.
• For full-fledged representative democracies ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, nor, in fact, whether these countries call themselves a monarchy or a republic. Other factors, for instance, religious matters can often make a greater distinguishing mark when comparing the forms of government of actual countries. For this reason, in political science the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy: the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of political philosophy is treated in republicanism. However, such theoretical approaches appear to have had no real influence on the everyday use (that is: apart from a scholar or "insider" context) of the terminology regarding republics and monarchies. The least that can be said is that Anti-Monarchism, the opposition to monarchy as such, did not always play a critical role in the creation and/or management of republics. For some republics, not choosing a monarch as head of state could as well be a practical rather than an ideological consideration. Such "practical" considerations could be, for example, a situation where there was no monarchical candidate readily available. However, for the states created during or shortly after the Enlightenment the choice was always deliberate: republics created in that period inevitably had anti-monarchical characteristics. For the United States the opposition of some to the British Monarchy played a role, as did the overthrow of the French Monarchy in the creation of the first French Republic. By the time of the creation of the Fifth Republic in that country "anti-monarchist" tendencies were barely felt. The relations of that country to other countries made no distinctions whether these other countries were "monarchies" or not. You may have noticed that I have not mentioned a democratic government. This is because a democratic government is bound by the same principles of a republic, the only difference between the two is that a democratic government tends to show a little more concerns to the people in terms of human rights and choosing a government but is so similar to a republic that at the end of the day it works the exact same as a republic. This is why you will hear people say that all democratic governments are in some form a republic, at least by tenets. The problem with democratic governments and republics is that is can become so concerned about the republic and less concerned about the people that the people become screwed out of their basic civil liberties and necessities of life. Also republics and democratic governments have such high potentials of producing dictators that without a government being able to be recalled and constantly directly challenged by the people the government will produce a dictator or function as a Totalitarianism government and we all know the final outcome of this. There is no republic or democratic government that allows the people to directly recall and challenge all government officials and so the republics and democratic governments all will fail in the end. We see this by looking at the history of the Roman Republic. We seen that political officials and military generals became so upsisted with power and money that they stopped acting in the best interests of the people, consolidated power to one person, and used the military to keep order and control while they acted in their own interests. Republics and democratic governments have so many great tenets but have the ultimate flaw on relying on the government in the end and not the people. The government has to be checked by the people otherwise the people will become unhappy and un-orderly when they can’t control the government quick enough to seize their own fate.



Economic Systems & Their Pros and Cons:

Socialism:

Definition: Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community or government.

Socialist governments own many of the larger industries and provide education, health and welfare services while allowing citizens limited economic choices. The whole idea behind this is to be sure that all people are provided with an equal amount of wealth, educational opportunities, and other necessities of life and economic blessings. The government essentially is the CEO of all of this and is directly responsible for providing the people with all the things that are needed and desired. The problem with this system is that it leaves little to no room for independent companies and business, as well as individual entrepreneurs, to control their own economic welfare or to improve their economic welfare as no matter how hard a person works the reward will remain the same or maybe even grow for others but decrease for them. This does not address the need of the people in terms of seizing what is needed for their happiness and wellbeing and this will cause chaos. People are very impatient when it comes to their finances and other economic well beings. The other huge problem with this system is that the government doesn’t have to bother representing the people in terms of taxation. Since the government will control the economic sector all together the government will simply raise prices of everything because there will be no competition and the people will be forced to pay for the higher prices. Socialism is typically supported by the working class being they generally are not doing well in terms of economics and the large businesses seems to ignore their concerns and economic crises.

Communism:

Definition: Communism is a form of government which attempts to empower workers and eliminate social class. Its socioeconomic structure promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.

In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with representative democracy, capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and colonialism. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism. Karl Marx is sometimes known as the "father of Communism", but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist. Communism is a form of socialism and Marxism. An example of a communism government is Cuba, China, and also North Korea. There are other communist governments but mainly what needs to be known about these governments is that like socialism, communism is a huge problem in that the government doesn’t have to bother representing the people in terms of taxation since the government will control the economic sector all together. The government will simply raise prices of everything because there will be no competition and the people will be forced to pay for the higher prices. Communism is also highly supported by the working class people versus middle class and high class people.

Capitalism:

Definition: Capitalism is an economic system made up of free market with little to no government influence. The consumers, independent business, entrepreneurs, and corporate business essentially control the economy.

In a capitalist or free-market economy, people own their own businesses and property and must buy services for private use, such as healthcare. This is an excellent system in the sense that it allows for consumers, independent business, entrepreneurs, and corporate business opportunities and expansions. Because of this there is also high competition which ultimately helps the consumers because it forces lower prices. The problem with this system is that it does not provide a failsafe against a group of citizens being economically oppressed. We see with this system that the working class personnel are economically oppressed and denied basic necessities of life. Also this system does not provide protection against monopolies which will end competition and increase inflation and prices forcing harsher lives on the consumers. This will untimely cause chaos utmost the consumers and force them to act in ways that demonstrate homo sapiens’ natural instinct to do anything and everything to survive and be happy.



Picking A Government & Their Pros and Cons:

Totalitarian Style:

Definition: The government and government officials are nominated and/or chosen by a single party or group of government officials.

A totalitarian style process is governed by a single political party that does not allow votes for alternative candidates and parties. Citizens are allowed and 'encouraged' to vote, but only for the government's chosen candidates. There are many examples of a totalitarian style government in terms of election and nomination processes. One example of this government is North Korea. In this country we see the party of the government nominate government and political officials and then the people are forced to choose from the nominees selected by the government. No one have the right to run independently or under another party and voters are forbidden to vote for such candidates. The problem with this election process is that the people have absolutely no say in who will control and influence their lives and have no peaceful way to challenge their government process and so this creates chaos in the long run. The only positive thing about a totalitarian style election process is that the government officials currently in power will most likely always remain in power. The problem is that this may only be good for the government officials and not the people.

Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style:

Definition: Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Plutocracy refers to the rule or power through wealth or by the wealthy.

Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style government is a form of government which consists of rule by an elite group who rule in their own interests, especially the accumulation of wealth and privilege. Only certain members of society have a valid voice in the government. This can reflect (but is not limited to) economic interests, a particular religious tradition (theocracy), or familial rule (monarchy). In an Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style special interests groups picks the government and political officials and also picks the government. One example of this style of government is Pakistan. In Pakistan you large special interest groups show very high influence in the election process and nomination process. The problem with Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style governments is that the special interests groups are often only concerned with themselves and leave the people out to dry in terms of economics, and basic necessities of life. The only positive thing about this government is that the people can simple create a special interest group or corporation to gain more influence over their government. The problem is that the government still isn’t controlled and chosen directly by the people.

Revolutionary Style:

Definition: Revolutionary is organizing and revolting against the existing government in forms of violence.

Revolutionary style government is when the existing structure is overthrown by a completely new group. The new group can be very small - such as the military - or very large - as in a popular revolution. After a period of time, this 'becomes' one of the other types of government (unless there is another coup or uprising). This form of selecting a government is excellent when it comes to eliminating totalitarian regime, dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies, and other extreme governments. However this form selecting a government should never be used to force a government on the people. Historically we see that the Romans and Alexander the Great used a revolutionary style to overthrow governments and reestablish new ones. The problem with this is that if the revolution is not initiated and controlled by the native citizens of the country going through the revolution then this form of selecting a government will never work because for one the people have to want the government, and secondly the people are going to be the ones stuck with the government in the end and so they have to be able to challenge the government peacefully and be overall satisfied with the structure of the government. If this form of government remains permanent then the people will be forced to overthrow the government when they decide they want new officials of the government or a new government entirely.

Democratic Style:

Definition: The government is selected directly by the people and by small groups that are selected by the people.

In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Everyone who is eligible to vote - which is a majority of the population - has a chance to have their say over who runs the country. This provides the people with a way to challenge the government peacefully and to have an overall say and control over their government. This prevents violent overthrows and maintains a sense of peace and order amongst society. The problem with most democracies, in fact all active democracies and inactive democracies in the history of this world, is that democracies does not provides a clear and simple natural right for even one person to gather a certain percentage of the population and recall government and political officials. Overall a democracy is stronger than other known forms of governments with the exception of the ideal government. Nonetheless the process of selecting a government through a form of democracy is far better than the other forms listed above.


Ideal Government:

Government:

The ideal government should provide all or as many as possible of its citizens with the basic necessities of life, and economic welfare. The ideal government should also maintain peace and order and establish a sense of pride amongst its people. There is no doubt the idea government should be a democracy-anarchy style government but each branch of government, government officials, and political officials should be able to be directly and indirectly challenged by the people. The ideal government should not be allowed or able to challenge the individual, human, and civil rights of the people. With this being said, the people, church, religious leaders or groups, and or one person should never be allowed or able to challenge and or limit the human, civil, or equal rights of another citizen. The basic right for a person to pursue their happiness, have a family, purchase and live in a home/house, run for political office, marry another regardless of gender or age as long as the relationship is mutual, etc, should never be challenged. The basic common-sense rule of separation of church and state should always be enforced. The people will not catch everything that their government does that is not of the people’s wishes and not of the people’s consent. In order to counter this, a small board or committee should be put together directly by the people each year to monitor a certain government branch and government/political officials. This committee should have the power to call a vote amongst the people and should also have the power to fire or suspend government and political officials. Essentially the ideal government will be ran by the people and so the people will be able directly challenge and change their government, government officials, and political officials eliminating the need or desire to violently overthrow the government because the people will be the government. This will maintain order while not restricting people’s basic rights but instead expanding and protecting such rights. Every citizen will have the right to vote and the government can be petitioned or a vote can be called upon by a simple 10% of the nation’s population or 100,000 of the nation’s citizens, whichever is the least amount. The people should have the authority to also set their own laws directly through voting on the issue themselves and should have the authority to overturn a law or decision made or passed by the government, government/political officials/or a board or committee. No one in the Ideal government should be able to deny its citizens with the fair and equal representation and opportunities that every government owes its people. In terms of criminal justice and terrorist interrogation, neither the ideal government nor its military will use torture or other cruel integration techniques. Everyone will have the right to heitis courpus and the right to be informed of their rights and provided with an adequate, fair jury and attorney. All criminal suspects should be innocent until proven guilty. The ideal government’s military criminal justice system should work the same and top officials in the military should be voted to such positions by the people. This may seem odd but it actually provides a fair representation of all military personnel that can be challenged and recalled when not in times of emergency or war. During such time their should be a special committee to control such matters. Such committee should be put together by the people and answer only to the people unless an emergency arrive in which the commander and chief of the military will take command of the military. The commander and chief don’t necessarily have to be the head of state or President. The ideal government’s citizens’ rights to free speech and bare arms should never be challenged or regulated. People should have the right to a free trial. People should also have the right to vote, not be discriminated against, and the right to not answer questions from the police, state or federal agents, local law enforce, and or any court. Government officials’ and political officials’ terms should be limited. These are all common-sense things that should be rooted deep within the ideal government. There are other things that should be included in the ideal government but the overall point is for the people and the individual to have far more authority and control than any legislative body of government. The people are capable and will govern themselves if only presented with the structure and opportunity. This is the only real way to peace, order and happiness. The people must rule themselves.

Selecting the Government:

There is no doubt that the ideal government should be chosen by the people and the people should be the essential aspect of the government. The ideal government will be a democracy style government when it comes to the selection process, however, the ideal government will be fixed where as its citizens can recall, suspend, and replace all government officials, political officials, and top military leaders. This is a real democracy and the only foreseeable and realistic way a government will ever truly protect the people while giving the people absolute control. People who remain in power for even the smallest amount of time will become corrupt, greedy, and selfish. Giving the people the right to recall such officials will protect the people from dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy, and all other foreseeable forms of governments. There are going to be situations were a revolutionary process will have to be used by the people to overthrow the current government in order to establish the ideal government. This is ok only as an initial selecting process and then should be consumed by a democratic process in addition to the people being able to recall government officials, political officials, and top military leaders. The ideal government, like any other government, should never be forced on anyone even when it is a better way of living. History teaches us that not only this technique totally ineffective but it also leads to the political and militarily destruction of a government and nation.

Ideal Economy:

The ideal economy should be set up exactly like most capitalism economic systems with a few exceptions. An open market controlled by the people is the ideal economy. However, in order to be sure that all citizens receive fair and equal opportunities and also receive their basic necessities of life, the government should be sure to provide lower class people or whatever group of people that are suffering, with the basic necessities of life and a decent income along with the opportunities to maintain such standards. In order to keep competition high and prices low for the consumers, monopoly should be banned and a special committee should be put together by the people to monitor such prospects of a monopoly.



Conclusion:

There is no doubt by looking at the world today that there is no order and there is an abundance of inequality and injustice while the world lacks justice and peace. There are some nations that are heading toward the right direction but the fact is that this is not good enough and immediate actions should be taken to immediately have an ideal government to set the example and to establish a place where human beings can live free and be human. The ideal government is the only way to peace and harmony. The United States of America has failed to attain the ideal government and is now heading far away from the ideal government. People’s human and civil rights shouldn’t be questioned and never regulated. By sacrificing even the smallest of liberty for security means that there is no more need for security because by sacrificing your liberty you no longer have anything to protect. Big Brother will take over and the Ideal government will be no more. This is not order and not peace. Homo sapiens need order and a government but people can also naturally bring order to themselves and protect their liberties if only presented with the structure to do so. The ideal government is the only government that will stand at the end and the only government that is for the people and by the people.