All democracies are constituted by laws, both traditional like English Common Laws and by laws that have been constructed, by statute. Or are you now asking for the purpose of laws? To my mind the laws that constitute a government circumscribe a normative morality, a sense of fairness, and not the other way around. — Cavacava

I'm not asking you to define laws, I'm asking you to give examples of laws.

This does not answer the original question. Everyone alsready understands that morals affect how a government is run, you do not have to tell us this. What I am asking is which morals should we have, which ones are the best for a good government. — Sigmund Freud

There is no one best set of particular morals for all environments across all of time.

Different factors can render different policies and approaches to civilization more and less beneficial/potentially harmful, and unfortunately changes in circumstances can outright break our individual capacity to adhere to any particular moral position.

Hanging someone for stealing a cow in today's world is considered to be murder (and it is), but in, say, frontier America, killing a captured cattle rustler was in some senses necessary for survival on an isolated ranch with no safety net or prison system.

The allowance, and to what extent, of individuals to own and control vast swaths of land and resources is another moral dilemma that comes with varying moral weight given different circumstances. The degree of wealth disparity and resource scarcity seems to more or less determine how justified an individual would be in seizing the wealth of their economic betters. But in a world with more affluence and freedom than ever, ought we equalize all accounts in order to alleviate the pangs of the wealth gap in the same way that widespread starvation would justify?

Should we have capital punhishment? Which industries should be owned and operated by the government? Should our justice system merely seek to remove threats to society and deter others from being a threat or should it seek to reform individuals if we have the resources and capacity to do so?

The relevant question worth answering is "what is the ideal form of government for today's world?".

Off the bat I can tell you that since it takes so much debate and discussion to come to agreeable answers, some form of voting system would probably best to approximate our consensus. At the same time, we want to be very cautious not to have a gung-ho government who just rushes ahead with whatever idea pops into it's head, so we need to create some very basic and agreed upon set of rules and standards which the government itself cannot infringe upon (rationally this would include not interfering unfairly with our voting process, and some basic set of individual rights and freedoms we think we all can afford and deserve to have).

I've got host of more specific political views, but they take up too much space to lay out here. A democratic system with a constitution (a set of restrictions on government) of some kind is the closest thing we have to ideal largely because it can change according to our growing understanding and our changing needs.

I'm asking you to give examples of laws.

Civil, criminal, international, municipal laws?

Not really very sure what you are asking? Laws typical protect freedoms, rights such as those outlined in the Bill of Rights here in US...freedom of speech, right to protect oneself, to petition....

I think a democratic government is superior because it ideally able to address issues justly/fairly for the majority of the most diverse segments of a population, those who are advanced, the elite in society as well as the most needy, the destitute and poor in society.

I'll give you an example, what is the best government for the U.S.A?

Laws typical protect freedoms, rights — Cavacava

Define a right.

You define a right

As i recall, I'm the one asking the questions

You're dodging the questions, my friend

This is a conversation, not an interrogation and as such you ought to contribute to it.

Amigo, which question.

Mon ami, I asked you to give a definition of democracy.

Of course it is a conversation but before we can proceed we need a definition.

Have to split....I'll try to catch up latter or in am

@Slobodan Milošević
@Sigmund Freud

Since you are both so keen on a definition why dont you provide it and we can wrok on it from there

Sure thing. Hope to talk to you soon.

I shall, a right is something that a person is entitled to no matter what.
A right is not only meant to protect them but also give them a decent standard of living.
A right is also supposed to restrict people from taking certain actions.
The state must make sure these rights are upholded.

An example of an undeniably important right is the right to life, or the right not to be murdered.

There is no 'ideal government'. As Churchill observed after WWII, democracy is the least worst option, because at least the citizenry have some say over who represents them. One may agree that democracies, in practice, are often flawed and distorted by all kinds of powerful interests who wish to exploit it for their own ends, but what real alternatives are there?

As Churchill observed after WWII, democracy is the least worst option, because at least the citizenry have some say — Wayfarer

Fair point, however the majority could go against a minority in what is called the tyranny of the mob, and the minority have no say in their fate. How can we stop this from happening?

I would argue a republic is better than a democracy as a republic has checks in place to protect the individual citizen's rights.

Ever heard of the German Democratic Republic?

'ideal government' — Wayfarer

Also, I have already stated that there is no ideal government in my question, I want to know what the best government is.

I would argue a republic is better than a democracy as a republic has checks in place to protect the individual citizen's rights. — Sigmund Freud

Who says that a democracy can't be a republic, in fact most democracies are republics

@Slobodan Milošević
Democracies are not republics we just generally use the wrong vocabulary, calling democracies republics is technically wrong

republics use democracy to elect positions, ruled by the people, democratically

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

I have already stated that there is no ideal government in my question, I want to know what the best government is. — Sigmund Freud

Democracy is not really a form of government, but a framework which enables the choice of a form of government. The Westminster System of the UK, and the Presidential system of the USA, are forms of democratic government that are similar in some respects, different in others.

But if you remove the ability of the citizenry to elect representatives, then what alternatives can be considered, and by whom? Who will be deciding what government is, and what it should do, if it's not the inhabitants of the nation being governed.

republics use democracy to elect positions, ruled by the people, democratically — Slobodan Milošević

But that still makes a republic different to a democracy. A republic uses democratic ideas just as Communism uses fascist ideas yet you would not compare Communism to Fascism.

a democracy is not a form of government, it is the way decisions are made in a government such as a constitutional monarchy, federal republic etc. As opposed to a direct dictatorship where the leader has ultimate power.

So the ancient greeks had no form of goverment? They got as close to democracy as humans have ever been. I would say the ancient greeks were governed democratically.

I think you contradicted yourself there:

First you said

democracy is the least worst option — Wayfarer

Then you said

Democracy is not really a form of government — Wayfarer

First you say democracy is the least worst form of government, now your saying that it isn't a government at all but a framework. Why did you contradict yourself.

their government was essentially enlightened despotism, with democratically made decisions. Democracy is not a form of government, it is the way decisions in specific government are made.

Now your saying that it isn't a government at all but a framework. Why did you contradict yourself. — Sigmund Freud

It's not a contradiction. 'Democracy' is a way of choosing various forms of government. You can have democracies that operate along completely different lines - it could be a constitutional monarchy, it could be a republic, and so on. So these are different forms of government, but what these different forms have in common is that political and legislative power reside in elected representatives. So - is that 'a form of government'? I suppose democracy a system of government. And if the question is, 'is there a better system of government than democracy', my answer would be: name one. What kind of system of government might be better than a system where the citizenry elects representatives.

[The ancient Greeks] got as close to democracy as humans have ever been. — Tāmati wāka nene

Except that women and slaves weren't allowed to vote, which is a major divergence from what we would consider 'democracy' isn't it?