I think the best form of government is a normacratic/adoptive republic with checks. That is because it allows certain politicians to make decisions based on experience without leading to corruption because of the checks instead of just doing what is "popular". That would insure that our ploticians learned more about history and less about polls.
The government would erive its authority from common norms like that of honesty, life,tolerance etc. It wouldn't be as simple as just deciding on certain norms though as some norms have an effect on others, for example if people value peace as a norm, then one could not make a religious norm because that would create too much conflict. However a nomr like "do not murder" would be acceptable.
The government would also use the epistemic norm of reason to decide on truth claims and method of examination of other norms.
Now I know someone will say "but who decides these norms" In whort nobody does, they are just a part of our nature, the only thing decided is what norms will be sanctioned/enforced.
But someone else might say "well only norms that are popular/powerful willbe followed". To which one can point to democracy as the ultimate expression of popularity made law. And the fact that someone had to decide on the contstitution. In short all governments are implicitly normacratic, the only difference is the one I'm proposing would be explicitly normancratic. Also that when one starts down the path in which all values are a matter of opinion so normacracy won't work, one has to bear in mind that democracy won't improve matters. In democracy is just a normacracy where majority opinion or decision rules. The major flaw I see in democracy though is that the majority in any given field tends to be more ignorant then specialists.
If one does admit norms are not totally arbitrary though and admits some are more core or common then others, and some are more felxible/variable/weaker/based in falsehoods. Then one can admit that value based issues can be decided by a sort of value based reasoning.
Of course there will be a constitution that is somewhat flexible, in which certain norms are estbalished as core or primary. Norms I suppose like the most basic, honesty, tolerance,freedom,happiness. Though the constitution can change though it would take a consensus between different branches, and could not be changed by lets say, one radical/quack politician. There would be necessary safeguards like "if anyone tries to end religious/philosophical freedom they will be subject to immediate recall".
So what's you take on this and what's do you believe is the best kind of government?
The government would erive its authority from common norms like that of honesty, life,tolerance etc. It wouldn't be as simple as just deciding on certain norms though as some norms have an effect on others, for example if people value peace as a norm, then one could not make a religious norm because that would create too much conflict. However a nomr like "do not murder" would be acceptable.
The government would also use the epistemic norm of reason to decide on truth claims and method of examination of other norms.
Now I know someone will say "but who decides these norms" In whort nobody does, they are just a part of our nature, the only thing decided is what norms will be sanctioned/enforced.
But someone else might say "well only norms that are popular/powerful willbe followed". To which one can point to democracy as the ultimate expression of popularity made law. And the fact that someone had to decide on the contstitution. In short all governments are implicitly normacratic, the only difference is the one I'm proposing would be explicitly normancratic. Also that when one starts down the path in which all values are a matter of opinion so normacracy won't work, one has to bear in mind that democracy won't improve matters. In democracy is just a normacracy where majority opinion or decision rules. The major flaw I see in democracy though is that the majority in any given field tends to be more ignorant then specialists.
If one does admit norms are not totally arbitrary though and admits some are more core or common then others, and some are more felxible/variable/weaker/based in falsehoods. Then one can admit that value based issues can be decided by a sort of value based reasoning.
Of course there will be a constitution that is somewhat flexible, in which certain norms are estbalished as core or primary. Norms I suppose like the most basic, honesty, tolerance,freedom,happiness. Though the constitution can change though it would take a consensus between different branches, and could not be changed by lets say, one radical/quack politician. There would be necessary safeguards like "if anyone tries to end religious/philosophical freedom they will be subject to immediate recall".
So what's you take on this and what's do you believe is the best kind of government?