Communist is only good to an extent... It's good because in theory if everyone did what they were supposed to there would never be any shortages of anything. But in communism, history stops and time stops and I personally think that's a scary thing.

Communism is a horrible and ironic form of government, seconded only by Fascism. Communism is a faux releif from oppresion, replacing shackles with walls, and effectively supporting the idea of individual suppresion which is was originally intended to oppose. A communist nation could never exist, because the very theory of total equity is flawed in that no actual governing can be made without opposition, thus creating a neglected minority and defeating the idea of communism.

The perfect government will never and can never exist, simply because it was always be imperfect in the eyes of one. This is a defunct question, and that is my answer. Go read Animal Farm.

Well, certainly not Platos government. I honestly think that human nature is to try to be as happy as we can possibly be, and if that is true, then I believe that any rigidly structured form of government would not work. Democracy is the most plausable form of government to promote peace IMO, however, certain groups just can not live with each other.... often because of religion. In a peaceful world there would either be only one relgion, or no religion at all, and the world would be seprated into states of around 50000-100000 ppl, each with its own democractically elected government, and one representative to a world congress, which primary purpose would be to promote peace.

Feel free to tear this apart.

[quote=Bryan T]simple it would be a communist nation, true communism not the dumb crap everyone assosiates it to be. In theory communisim is a perfect form of government. [/quote]
I would definitely have to agree. I have a communist friend and he's teaching me about it and I'm loving the idea.

The perfect political model is a realistic one... certainly not communism :) communism and anarchism sound great but just can't work... a balance between socalism and capitalsm (fair trade or the third way) I think is the best way. It surely works in scandinavia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_in_Sweden

And of course it would be totally secular... no advantages for any religion!

Of course... the whole notion of perfection is too abstract and elusive. A perfect being after all would have no need to create anything, these are all lousy humane traits :). I'm just talking about a viable economical/political system.

Well, desiring true communism is basically desiring a contained, docile human race. This means a lot of other things suffer, such as the arts, innovation in technology, and what is avaliable as far as commercial goods go. And since we're talking about a nation and not a world, this means your citizens would see other nations thriving under different systems and object to your own.

Communism is to government what walls are to windows. It's very safe, but impractical to the human spirit.

Also, human beings could not survive without strife and war. We'd lose sight of ourselves as accomplished beings, which is something the human race depends on to keep motivated to improve and expand. Think of what the world would have been like if not for WWII. Would we be so cautious about nuclear weapons? Would we be so cautious about fascism and racialism? What would today's generations know of the evils of genocide?

Leftists would be happy with it, but no liberals. Communism replaces liberty with set standards that mostly are considered leftist. However, there is a difference between leftism and libertarianism.

I'm a libertarianism and a socialist, but I'd be pissed to the point of physical rebellion. I'd be more disgusted with the person who induces communism than the one that voted for Bush.

I dont hate government, but i do hate how people loosely talk about it without being knowledgable, so either please, look up your facts, then post, or post and acknowledge the fact you are unsure. this is not aimed at anyone. but just for future reference . it makes things much more influential

Just a point, but what about the Native Americans? They lived without a government, simply surviving on a social order passed down by tradition. They had a near-incorruptable economy, fuedes beween tribes were rare until the white man fucked it up, and most interesting of all, they were the most recent culture to fully embrace homosexuality. They didn't pollute, they didn't make any holy war, and they had a penal system based on the person as well as the crime, which was directed by a council.

Sounds like the ultimate utopia to me. Just gotta look out for those damned white people with their 'monarchy' and their 'manifest destiny'.

No, no we couldn't. I'm talking regression, as what's-his-face did. But regression isn't solving a problem, it's ignoring one.

I'd make a world with a culture in which the highest shame would be dependency. People would be motivated to never have to depend on others to support them.

Self-defense would be culturally enshrined and so deeply involved that not defending oneself without good reason would be the second highest shame and make you a pariah. Walking outside without gun in your holster would be on par with what going outside naked is today. Muggers, rapists, and murderers would be shot if anyone were able to witness it or the victim was consious when attacked, resulting in very small numbers of these kinds of attacks, which would only be purpetrated by madmen or suicidal idiots.

It would be the end of the world as we know it and the beginning of the world as it should be.

It would be the end of welfare, the end of crime, and the beginning of a world where people worked hard (to stay independant) and cooperated in peace (to avoid potential violence which would surely penalize aggressors).

No oppression. No aggression. That's all the world needs, and I think the best means to that end is a culture of supreme independance.

[quote=Kian]As for a peaceful reality, I really don't think it can exist. Humans are inherently brute. There will always be someone running around causing trouble.[/quote]
I think the intend of the thread was to offer input on ways to minimize violent conflict (prefrably without blowing up the whole world). Not to discuss how perfection is absolutely unreachable.

Sure, I'd be glad to.

I'd arrange for an alien invasion. No really the only way we humans are ever going to stop fighting each other is if we have outside invadors to fight against.

A perfect order would need people to interact on a constant basis. Whenever people interact there will be some crazy people who screw it up for the rest of us. The perfect society would somehow illuminate all dangerous individuals and all disputes would be settled by discussion. - I personally think that the closest thing to this would be to somehow make men more like women. Women are so much less violent then men. The second (or it could be the first) would be to remove the irrationality behind religions, cults, and patriotism. People do crazy things for these organizations. The final thing would be to somehow completely find and treat (nonviolently) crazy people. People that no matter how much social training and rationality - will kill and injure others... and the only way to keep this from happening is either drugs or some sort of restraining... prison or asylum

A nonviolent society would eliminate so much trouble, I believe that without war and other expensive things, people could work together to fix the rest of the ills of society. ( this sounds optimistic... and it proabably isnt pragmatic...)

Well, I was trying to somehow conform to the laws of reality (aside from the one about me being god and changing the world and all...)

I overall I think that if we had a nonviolent society it would be an almost perfect society, because we could focus our efforts to the other natural disasters, diseases, and conditions of humankind - instead of dealing with crazy dictators and other violent individuals.