How, specifically, do you think government should work?

[dgroves1522]

I'm very new to this, and am already noticing very wide differences, so I'm making this thread to be like the political buffet of ideas, from which anyone else who is new can pick what they like and look deeper.

So, tell me how you think the government should work.

Explain is as if you were talking to a five-year-old, and keep it as brief as possible.

Some ideas for what to mention: democratic? republican (i.e. a republic, not associated with the American political party)? monarchy? police, yes or no? redistribute wealth? everyone paid equally? public schooling? public healthcare? private property, yes or no?

And so on.

Remember: as if you were talking to a five-year-old. Keep it clear and simple.

[bcbm]

there won't be a government and everyone will be involved in making the decisions that effect them, while sharing equally the bounty of the world. all cops will still be bastards but luckily they won't exist.

[Bostana]

It will never work so get rid of it

[Sinister Intents]

It will never work so get rid of it

Exactly!

[BIXX]

No gods, no masters!

Smash the state!

Etc.

Really though, no government. There are far better ways to do everything.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. Police and prisons appear in society alongside "haves" and "have-nots" - and in their particular, familiar form as such, only with the advent of industrial capitalism. Treat the disease, cure the symptom.

2. Authoritarian government seems to be premised on the contradictory notion that people are incapable of governing themselves, yet capable of governing others. Of course, the state didn't emerge out of notions - it has a particular history. Which, not to be a broken record, haveshavenotscapitalismblahblahtreatthediseaseetc.

3. So, what am I saying, practically? People should come together to directly make decisions that effect them, meaning my building decides collectively on building maintenance, my neighborhood figures out how the gardens will work, and my band decides what type of music to play. To varying degrees, these forms either already exist, or could be brought into existence with relative ease.
That things don't currently function this way says less about the difficulty of self-organization in-and-of-itself, than it does about the bureaucratic, technocratic, and managerial forms necessitated by capitalism. Consider the amount of time and energy invested in the useless financialized post-industrial service economy, and think of what its abolition would mean in terms of organizational capacity.

[Brutus]

I assume he's talking about DotP...

Im going to quote Marx:

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

[...]

In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

But ideally we'd be in a classless society where everything is in abundance and there is no need for a state (on the contrary, it would be a hindrance)