TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What would your ideal government system look like?

What would your ideal government system look like? Is a two party system such a good idea?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 16 2012: Life is a feedback loop. What this means is that people need to take ownership of government in as much as they need an ideal government.

    Which is more important:
    1. Ideal government
    2. Government people are invested in

    I call this notion PINER: Political innovation not evolution, revolution. That being said then, in the spirit of Douglas Adams, it is not the ideal government one is looking for but the question of ideal government.

    To put this into brass tacks, we need to start writing books and making movies and telling stories about the kind of world we want to live in.

    Should you be a virgin until you get married? Have only sex with your spouse? Stay married till death to you part? This notions are what our government was built around. Do we still live in that world? Want too?
    Our politicians cannot give us that which we cannot describe. We need to decide what kind of society we want to live before we can provide a political system to manifest it.

    The question to the answer "What would your ideal government system look like?" is "What would your preferred society look like?"
    • Nov 16 2012: In my opinion an Ideal Government would be one that people would be invested in. In order for a system to work fairly people would have to know whats going on in the system.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2012: Chicken or the egg? The founders punted on this and provided various elastic clauses: the General Welfare clause, the commerce clause and the 10th amendment just to name a few. In addition, Jefferson was once asked, "How much should people be taxed so the government can spend on charity?" Jefferson's answer? "As much as the public will tolerate."

        The General Welfare clause can be looked at as the fundamental flaw. Conservatives do not believe it should ever apply and that the government's role should be ideally limited to military protection and interstate adjudication: no safety net and no disaster relief to name a few. Liberals believe the Welfare clause means basic living standards. How can you have an ideal government when folks do not agree on the preferred society? This is similar to the notion that dental plans only cover "necessary" procedures and not "elective" ones. Does the Welfare clause cover such "necessary" basics such as education that is required for Democracy? Or should the Welfare clause also include enriching life as with NASA and funding the Arts? Looking at the tensions today in politics then the shots across the political bows are about the proper role of government: which is just another way of saying the preferred society to live in. Safety net or no safety net?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.