What do you all think is the best form of government available?
These are the ones in this poll and my definition of each one (it may not be 100% to an expert but suits this poll). There are variations of these but I wanted to keep the poll simple and was limited to 5 options

Monarchy: Hereditary rule by the head of a single family.
Democracy: Individual/party voted into office by general consensus.
Communism: The concept of every citizen being equal to each other.
Thocracy: Rule by a religion or religious beliefs.
Anarchy: Free for all, each man (or woman) is responsible for himself.

I know I missed a type in there so don't even bother pointing it out

I voted for monarchy because I believe it is more likely to lead to a successfull and prosperous country for those under that governments care. I am not accusing any of them of doing this but what is to stop Blair, Chirac, etc from abusing their positions and just lining their pockets? They know that when they leave office it is because they have essentially been given the sack and Bush has no chance of serving another term under US law. None of them can leave their position ot their son or daughter so have nothing to gain by leaving the country in a better condition than when they came to power but for a monarchy it is different as it would be passed down to the next generation of that family and it is natural to want to leave it better for your family. I do however recognise the need for controls as absolute monarchy is not good for anyone so the monarch much have limits to their power for the good of all.

On the other hand, an acquaintance of mine from college who was in the states doing gene research would probably go with Fascism. His name was Waterhouse, and he was blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and fair-skinned. He looked British and you would believe it until he spoke. He was from Argentina, and we once had a roundtable discussion such as this forum. He would point out that some of the freedoms we take for granted in the U.S.A. do not exist in Argentina, but the streets and cities were clean because you were made to clean up. The garbage, trains, planes, and buses always run on time. The best selling point for him, that is that he was proudest of, was the fact that he and his wife could walk ten blocks to the BaskinRobbins ice cream parlor at 11:00p.m. in the middle of Buenos Aries (a city with a population comparable to New York City) without fear of being mugged, attacked, etc.... I pointed out to him that was great, but I side with Thomas Jefferson who said you could have freedom OR you could have peace--not at the same time though.

A couple of interesting facts about Switzerland. Their form of government, a sort of confederation, has been pretty much stable and in existance since 1291 C.E. And believe it or not, Switzerland has a navy. Well, actually it is a merchant marine. If you would like to know more about the Swiss, check out this site: Yes, you are not seeing things. It is information on all the countries existing as observed and reviewed by the CIA. In fact, the Swiss information was updated 051101. These days, guns, knives, and WMDs can kill you dead, but now many would consider information to be the most dangerous weapon of all.

One point in favour of a monarchy is that because the power is held within the family the skills are kept there as well, that is something democracy sorely lacks. What is to stop someone who has good personal skills running for office whether on local or national level and making a complete mess of things because he/she is not suited and cannot do the job? There are no qualifications that must be earned before being able ot run for office are there?

In answer to your statement about the missing government types I didn't forget them but polls on here are limited to a maximum of 5. I also view those types of government as being sub-classifications because you can have elect someone who later becomes one of the other types of leader but communism tends to come into power due to revoltion.

True democracy is close to anarchy. The root of the word is, literally "mob rule", and the founders of the American gov't were meticulous to prevent it from occurring. Democracy is an amoral system, with tyranny an almost inevitable result.
Here's an example:
Let us suppose there is a shipwreck on a small island. There are 17 people on that island, 9 men and 8 women. They all agree to a true deomcracy, where the majority rules in all cases.
One day, one of the men asks to put an issue to vote. His plan:
Any or all of the men may, at any time demand and receive sexual favors from any or all of the women. The woman so asked woule be REQUIRED to perform whatever sexual act was demanded of her with out any resistance. Should she refuse, a group of the men would be permitted to force her compliance.
There is a vote, and all nine men vote YES, all eight women NO.
In a TRUE DEMOCRACY this would now be law.
In a constitutional/representative republic, there would be a brake on simple majoritarianism, and the tyranny of the mob would be disabled.
For a long time now, the shorthand for most western governments has been "democracy", and this is not the case. In fact, by touting democracy, an oligarchy can SEEM to provide democratic government, while actually ruling by controling the mob indirectly.
Democracy, like any tyranny is not a good choice.

Democracy is, I believe, largely unworkable because it is too open to corruption (there is no perftect form of government). Who is to say that votes are counted as they were cast? Added to this most people are not capable of making a good decision because they don't take the time to study the facts behind the issues but instead make an emotional decsion usually led by the press and media who have their own agenda's. I am not convinced that Labour was really the peoples choice in our last elections and we all know the claims made by the various camps in the last American Presidential elections. This link is similar in nature: [iwilltryit.com].

I BELEIVE THAT THE ONLY WAY MANKIND WILL EVER BE ABLE TO HAVE TRUE EQUALITY AND PEACE AMONG EVERY RACE OF PEOPLE AND ELIMINATE STARVATION WAR POVERTY AND DESEASE IS THROUGH THE GREAT SPITUAL LAWS OF GOD.NAMELY LOVE,MESSIAH CAME TO GIVE US THE MESSAGE THAT ONLY WHEN EACH INDIVIDUAL MAN ON THIS EARTH WILL ELIMINATE HIS OWN SELFISH DESIRES [SIN] FOR THE GREATER GOOD [LOVE] OF HIS FELLOW HUMANBEINGS, WILL THE WORLD EVER GET TO WEAR MOST OF THE HUMAN RACE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WANT TO GO.NAMELY HEAVEN ON EARTH.WITH GOOD WORK,HEALTHY LIVING,WITH A REAL PUPOSE IN LIFE,NAMELY THE UNBORNE CHILDREN OF TOMORROW.WHILE CARING FOR OUR SACRED EARTH,[THE HOLY EARTH]MESSIAH TAUGHT THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU [LUKE 17;21] 1 JOHN 5;2 ONLY WHEN MANKIND AS A HOLE ARE TAUGHT THESE LAWS AND OBEY THEM ONLY THEN WILL THE HUMAN RACE EVER GET TO WEAR IT WANTS TO GO NAMELY SALVATION FOR ALL.THE KINGDOM OF GOD THEOCRACY,ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SELF RIGHTEOUS OPPOSER TO SALVATION FOR THE HUMANRACE 1JOHN 5;19

OW,MY EARS!

17231, are you quoting from the King James' version of the Bible? This may be the most recognized and most used text by Christians today, but remember how it came about. To promote his reign, James promised the masses a bible in the common language which he delivered. However, of all the availible canons, James had his advisors selectivly choose ones that promoted meekness and adherance to state law (i.e. the monarchy). Why else would the entire Bible end with a book saying none else shall be added to this book-- "Book of Revelations" by John the Baptist-- which would have been chronologically written before the rest of the texts? James was trying to prevent any more religious uprisings.

"mankind as a hole (sic)" seems to sum it up quite well, 17231.

or: ONLY WHEN MANKIND AS A wHOLE ARE TAUGHT THESE LAWS AND OBEY THEM, ONLY THEN WILL THE HUMAN RACE EVER GET TO WEAR =what= IT WANTS

and I =never= follow spitual laws.

anarchy

I spit on =spitual= laws and always wear what I want

It is heartening to see so many of my followers voting as they have been trained.

Seems more likeyou have been voting multiple times Mao. Monarchy is much better in my opinion but I have not tried to cheat by voting multiples times.

How are we supposed to answer ? Since it would be next to impossible for any of us to have lived and experienced all of these types of governments we would only be able to guess what it would be like. Guessing what would be good and bad about each type.

Guessing seems kind of lame.

Have you never heard of educated guesses? Study each type of government and then you will be able to give an intelligent answer and not just repeat someone elses opinion.

kind of like guessing how much better the us would be if al gore or jennifer kerry won the election instead of bush, eh aDC Beast?

don't forget ross perot!

i have lived under 3 different. and democracy is 10 times better than the other 2!

I have lived under conservative and Labour and prefer hope the Lib Dems never get in. Mind you, I wish we had a PM who worked for us instead of against us.