Best form of government?

[Hazardus10]

Lets get real here. The best government is none at all. Look how happy the cavemen were

Anyways, there is no such thing as a best government, each government specializes in certain aspects of improving a country/society. Whether it be communism or capitalism.  Governments are ideally for the people, but do to corrupt politicians each form of government has a slanted view depending on countries that have previously used them.

[northcity4]

I am arguing Trotskyism is the best government under any country.

It is unique in that it is not a government for the people, but the people are workers in it.

Now that we know what it is (my extensive posts on it), why do you think it is not the best?

In philosophy, the biggest opponent was a money theory I heard (can't remember which philosopher it was) which basically bashed Marxist theory and Trotsky's theory in that:
humans will always and have always loved money. It is like it is genetic.

[OldTrees]

First:
I do not think it is reasonable to assume that something magical happens and people stop having their evolved instincts. Hand waving the replacement of inclusive fitness with true altruism is unreasonable when there is constant pressure to develop inclusive fitness. So no, I do not think generations of propaganda will be sufficient to establish altruism. For this reason I will continue to critique with the assumption of individual interests.

Now, without wages...how will people get what they need?
1) Will be fed at work accordingly. So, Jack will probably get the most food.
2) In stores now, you take what you need and public pressure will make it so you don't hoard a store. Force may come if necessary.
3) No expansion to big scale homes and businesses. That is selfish.
Now: Trotskey does allow for small businesses (i talked about those earlier), I will explain that later (You didn't ask, but I know it is an issue that will come up later).

You added wages as a solution to the second laziness problem (discouraging anything better than minimum quality). Now that wages have been removed again this problem resurfaces.

[northcity4]

I made a mistake with the wages.

There are no wages. I am very sorry I ever said that.

You see, I am not saying it magically goes away. It is a working class now. You become the best you can be for the best for everyone.

Trees: it will not go away right away. You are correct.

Trotsky says it will take some time, but never specifies how long.
1st generation will be very selfish, but propaganda and peer pressure will be there.
2nd generation will grow up with selfish parents, but with this propaganda at the same time.
3rd...4th...5th...how ever long, eventually it will go away.

[OldTrees]

Trees: it will not go away right away. You are correct.

Trotsky says it will take some time, but never specifies how long.
1st generation will be very selfish, but propaganda and peer pressure will be there.
2nd generation will grow up with selfish parents, but with this propaganda at the same time.
3rd...4th...5th...how ever long, eventually it will go away.

I will trust the evolutionary psychologist over Trotsky when it comes to evolutionary psychology. Analogy: I can hold a buoyant ball underwater for as long as I want, that will not change the fact it will rise and float when I stop holding it down. Inclusive fitness is not something that will disappear if repressed by propaganda. It will always be pressure against the system. Additionally you will have to deal with the fact that your society depends on propaganda in order to function.

Sidenote: If we are willing to accept a system dependent on propaganda as the "best" form of government, then why not skip to the conclusion and accept the extreme as the "best" form of government.

[northcity4]

Here is my understanding: the wanting to be strong will be encouraged still, but for the sake of the state, not the individual. Now, if you are referring to selfishness:

Is selfishness genetic (like your buoyant example) or is it culturally developed?

Trotsky thinks it is culturally developed.

In this case, it is like hold a buoyant ball underwater, but the pressure of the water over time will eventually 'deflate' it enough it no longer needs to be held down.

Sidenote: I don't agree with propaganda as being the dependency of best form of government. Trotsky only want influence of selfless thinking (which propaganda probably would be used) and knew it would take time. For the best form of government, there was one more element Trotsky wanted: every nation in history needed religion on some way to stay connected.
The other way to eliminate selfishness was by implementing Christianity. In this sense, you no longer think 'I am so great,' but rather 'God, thank you for making me great.' It is selfless thinking and you remember that God could take away your gifts at any time. So, you use them to the best of your ability for the good of everyone else (see pauls letters on gifts of the spirit). Encourages you to help others=selfless as well.
--->Trotskey called true communism the system of God and Capitalism the system of the devil since it promotes selfishness.

Having said that: do you think the best form of government is one in which selflessness is the main influence? I am sorry I got so carried away with my other posts when this is the basic idea behind Trotsky: selflessness.

@revival. If this is true, then your conclusion is half right. The people are important for the government form to work, but it is also the leaders to make sure the principals are enforced.

[kimham8a]

We don't need Christianity to be selfless.

I don't think there is any absolute truth on whether people are inherently good or bad. There are going to be cases on both sides. So we're going to need a government that can handle those who will take advantage of a poor system while maximizing the usefulness of the ones that do not.

As to a best form of government:

Capitalism, but with a much larger focus on helping the lower classes (basically a left-wing government but not so left-wing as communism).

[Hazardus10]

There will never be a best form of government because a country can never reach is maximum potential. Its maximum potential is unknown, so we will need to constantly change they way we perceive things, constantly changing the definition of the best form of government.  Government is such a general word leaving many lose ends to this topic.  A government is a body which oversees things but truly, there cannot be one who oversees all because he will oversee them.  This is a never ending paradox, hence government can never be as truly effective as they should be.

[kimham8a]

Although we can never find a country's maximum potential, we can certainly find the difference between countries that are ruled by dictators and countries that are ruled by presidents. I would in fact argue that a dictatorship would work very well if it was at it's maximum potential, but alas, that doesn't happen. Therefore we look for the system that perhaps either a best average or minimum positive effect on the country which is using the system.

[Hazardus10]

It seems the government are only limiting our countries potential, maybe have a self-governed society, where all look after each other and themselves may be the most effective.  One where there are no superior political roles rather an equality between all politically.

[kimham8a]

That is another form of "government" (sorry, I know that what you are referring to is not a government, I just can't think of a better word). I think what you are favouring is anarchy.

[northcity4]

We don't need Christianity to be selfless.

I don't think there is any absolute truth on whether people are inherently good or bad. There are going to be cases on both sides. So we're going to need a government that can handle those who will take advantage of a poor system while maximizing the usefulness of the ones that do not.

As to a best form of government:

Capitalism, but with a much larger focus on helping the lower classes (basically a left-wing government but not so left-wing as communism).

Trotsky is saying that if we are going to continue selflessness, Christianity is going to be needed.

It seems the government are only limiting our countries potential, maybe have a self-governed society, where all look after each other and themselves may be the most effective.  One where there are no superior political roles rather an equality between all politically.

True communism as I put it is very similar to this. To be honest, other societies, like foraging societies are very much like this...the reason: no wealth. I earnestly believe wealth is the biggest cause of inequality...which @ Kim, capitalism will never 'bend or twist' to help those in need.

I think both of you (hazard and kim) are saying we need to cap/eliminate wealth in a society for true equality to come and function much better. Is this true or not? I am curious to know.