What is the ideal government?

[°Leprechaun]

12. Is there civilian control of the military?

In an ideal world would there even be a military?

[°Leprechaun]

13. What is the legal status of political parties, are more than one allowed?

I think that as flawed as "democracy" is, nobody has come up with anything better. So, if one's premise is that democracy (or "democratic" government) is the least worst system, then why not make the US more democratic? Examples: open primaries, get rid of "super delegates".

Have a NOTC option in all elections, as you have in Nevada.

Consider making issues like abortion and same gender marriage ballot initiatives instead of letting politicians fight ad infinitum on these questions. The idea that poilicies have "the consent of the governed" seems congruent with democracy.

Why not have proportional representation or at least instant runoffs (or approval voting, if you prefer that idea)? The electoral college has an upside in that it (theoretically) gives third parties a fighting chance. No one need fear voting for a third party if he (or she) lives in a so called "safe state".

[vanguard96]

You did say, ideal, right?

The step to full anarcho-capitalism would be a difficult step in today's world with limited frontiers, established interests who gained property through government-aided monopoly, the global financial system set up to favor nation states and groups and individuals who gained at the behest of special interests, and the endemic war of today's world which would require more than just simply private security or militias to avoid being conquered by other belligerent actors. Trade and mutual individual exchange would be a critical component to how people live their lives.

Still it is an ideal goal to move toward to reduce the damaging effects of the state that has wreaked havoc on the world for over 100 years while offering the best chance for increased prosperity vs other coercive systems which have proven to be regressive and inefficient when applied beyond just a small select group of like minded people.

Private property and the natural rights of all individuals would form the basis of this world. Everything else stems out from these central axioms.

[Kingpoleon]

You did say, ideal, right?

The step to full anarcho-capitalism would be a difficult step in today's world with limited frontiers, established interests who gained property through government-aided monopoly, the global financial system set up to favor nation states and groups and individuals who gained at the behest of special interests, and the endemic war of today's world which would require more than just simply private security or militias to avoid being conquered by other belligerent actors. Trade and mutual individual exchange would be a critical component to how people live their lives.

Still it is an ideal goal to move toward to reduce the damaging effects of the state that has wreaked havoc on the world for over 100 years while offering the best chance for increased prosperity vs other coercive systems which have proven to be regressive and inefficient when applied beyond just a small select group of like minded people.

Private property and the natural rights of all individuals would form the basis of this world. Everything else stems out from these central axioms.

This isn't just to you, but to several others on here as well:

Idealism is no excuse for ignorance and naiveté.

[vanguard96]

You did say, ideal, right?

The step to full anarcho-capitalism would be a difficult step in today's world with limited frontiers, established interests who gained property through government-aided monopoly, the global financial system set up to favor nation states and groups and individuals who gained at the behest of special interests, and the endemic war of today's world which would require more than just simply private security or militias to avoid being conquered by other belligerent actors. Trade and mutual individual exchange would be a critical component to how people live their lives.

Still it is an ideal goal to move toward to reduce the damaging effects of the state that has wreaked havoc on the world for over 100 years while offering the best chance for increased prosperity vs other coercive systems which have proven to be regressive and inefficient when applied beyond just a small select group of like minded people.

Private property and the natural rights of all individuals would form the basis of this world. Everything else stems out from these central axioms.

This isn't just to you, but to several others on here as well:

Idealism is no excuse for ignorance and naiveté.

Nope.

I am far from being ignorant. Or naive. Compromise in your end goals leads to a slide into further interventions and keeps power in the hands of the few & well-connected.

[Flameoguy]

Here's my 2 cents:

My ideal government is that a democratic country: a nonpartisan republic with separation of powers. Legislators would be elected via a proportional system. If the government ruled over larger and more diverse country, then one wing of the bicameral legislature is proportional and the other is regional). The executive (a president) would be elected via a popular Approval vote.

The constitution would have a bill of rights focusing on the rights of the individual. In clear terms, the right to free speech, free religion, the right to bear arms, the right of habeas corpus, the right against unlawful searches and seizures, the right to a free press, and the right to remain silent would be protected, among other classical rights. Universal suffrage would be guaranteed. 

Elections would be publicly funded with a limited amount of private donations (perhaps each citizen could donate up to $1000, or some other small amount). Anti-corruption measures would be taken to prevent bribery and political favors. As stated before, the government would be nonpartisan. While political parties may exist as private organizations, they would in no way be publicly sponsored. A candidate for political office, for example, will not appear on the ballot simply because a major party nominated him. The candidate must seek a petition for candidacy to appear on the ballot; candidates not on the ballot can be written in. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

a nonpartisan republic with separation of powers. Legislators would be elected via a proportional system

Wait what?

[IceAgeComing]

...perhaps he wants non-partisan STV elections or something?

I mean its a dumb thing to say that someone who knows anything about electoral systems wouldn't say, but its a possible explanation...

I'm not going to go into great depth since I don't think that doing that on a train to London is the best time: but my ideal government would be based around the principle of localism: with issues being discussed and decided at the lowest possible level.  This could mean having some things decided at a very low level (at neighbourhood or workplace level - the latter for economic matters); while some incredibly critical things would be decided at a global level - issues like Climate Change, for example.  At the absolute lowest level I'd imagine that you'd have things be decided by direct democracy (since at that level electing people to make decisions would be rather pointless when you could instead gather everyone together in a room and talk about them); higher levels it would be more representative: I'd have an elected chamber using some kind of proportional voting system (I dither between STV, AMS and Open List PR as being the best; all three are good at different levels and in different sort of societies) plus one drawn through Sortition to act as a balance (although this would mean needing to try and instill a spirit of public service in people, probably through the education system) - and perhaps towards the top also involve representatives of lower level administrations.  You'd also have more economic democracy as well: workers self-management, things like that, all based around a universal document of human rights.

None of this is ever likely to happen; but these ideas impact the way that I view the world and the changes that I'd propose - its the reason why I support replacing the House of Lords with a house based on sortition and am a bit of a stan for co-operatives and commonly owned enterprises.

[Lechasseur]

1. Does your ideal form of government have a constitution? If it does, what absolutely must be included in it for you?

It's not essential but it would be preferable to have one in order to determine the structure and powers of government and the rights of citizens.

2. Is it a representative democracy or a direct democracy, or benevolent monarchy, or an elected and constitutionally-limited liberal monarchy, or a military police state dictatorship?

Hereditary but constitutionnally-limited monarchy

3.  Is it fascist, corporatist, feudal, capitalist, mercantilist, socialist, or communist?

Corporatist (the Christian Democratic type)

4.  Is it federal or unitary or confederate?

Federal

5. Is it parliamentary, or presidential with checks and balances and a separation of powers?

Parliamentary

6.  Is there a unitary executive, or two co-presidents for executives, or perhaps a triumvirate of executives, or some other number? Perhaps a cabinet elected on the national scale?

The Executive would be composed of the cabinet, led by the Prime Minister; and the Monarch as head of state

7. How many lawmakers are there? One? Five? Or does each state/province/district get an equal number? Or does each state/province/district get a number based on their population?
Or perhaps lawmakers are chosen based on recognized demographics instead of a people in a particular territory (ex: a national representative for all blacks, a national representative for all whites, a national representative for all jews, a national representative for all atheists, a national representative for all women, a national representative for all those disabled, etc.)?

Laws would be passed by Parliament, which would be comprised of one house where states would get a certain number of lawmakers based on population

8. If there is body of lawmakers, is it unicameral or bicameral or tricameral?

Unicameral

9. Are lawmakers and executives and judges appointed or elected, how are they appointed/elected, who appoints/elects them? If people vote them in, what are the qualifications to be a voter, or is there universal suffrage? Are there term limits?

Lawmakers would be elected by all citizens over the age of 21.
Judges would be appointed by the government.
There would be term limits for judges but not for lawmakers.

10. Is there freedom of religion and separation of church and state, or is it some form of theocracy?

There would be a state church but also freedom of religion.

11. Is there freedom for an independent media, and for freedom of speech/movement/assembly/petition?

Yes

12. Is there civilian control of the military?

Yes

13. What is the legal status of political parties, are more than one allowed?

Yes, they're allowed

14. If there are democratic elections, are they publically-funded?

Yes

15. Is there a respected right to Privacy, and a respected Due Process of law? Protection from torture? Protection from the Death penalty? Protection from Slavery and other involuntary servitude? Protection from Discrimination in the workplace, housing, marriage, adoption, medical treatment, etc.?

There is a right to privacy
There is due process of law
Torture is illegal
The death penalty is legal
Slavery and other involuntary servitude are illegal
Discrimination would be banned in government institutions

16. How much influence does government have in areas like social security, housing/shelter, food, healthcare, education, childcare, infrastructure, resource/environmental management, working conditions and wages, consumer protection, job creation, etc.?

Some (see 3. )

17. What is the tax structure like?

Whichever would be the best structure to fill the government's coffers.

18. Is one component of society valued over another? (examples: Educated over Uneducated, Rich over Poor, Property-owners over non-property-owners, Majority over Minorities, one Gender over the other, Straight over Gay, Old over Young, Able over Disabled, one Race/Ethnicity/Territory over the others, or certain Families/Bloodlines over the others, etc.)

No, everyone would be equal in the eyes of the law but there would be no special treatment (affirmative action or political correctness) for anyone.