Main > Everything Else
So how does your government work?
itismejs:
USA
leader (official) : Dick cheney
leader (unofficial): Bush
jbox:
--- Quote ---Lots of good things happened because we are here, and because of who we are.
--- End quote ---
For the record I agree with everything else you just said, except for the part where you think it is possible to build a tyrant-proof system. :)
fredster:
--- Quote ---Perhaps, but if you could point out which of those two comments was untrue,
--- End quote ---
Because it didn't relate to YOUR government. See, the thread is to discuss YOUR government.
--- Quote ---was not backed with a technical explination,
--- End quote ---
That would be found in the federalst papers. The themes of the US government were discussed for several years (from 1776 to 1786) before the drafting of the consitution. Most of the concepts our outlined by the founding fathers in their writings. These writings have been used to interpret the constitution's points in law. For instance, many people point to the federalist papers and other coresponence of Jefferson for the basis of the "separation of church and state", which is not specifically defined .
SeaMonkey:
--- Quote from: jbox on February 23, 2005, 09:41:33 pm ---
--- Quote ---Lots of good things happened because we are here, and because of who we are.
--- End quote ---
For the record I agree with everything else you just said, except for the part where you think it is possible to build a tyrant-proof system. :)
--- End quote ---
Oh yeah...that brings us back to the fourth branch of our government...an armed citizenry......heh.
I don't think anything is "tyrant-proof" and to be perfectly honest, I think Jefferson's ideas about Constitutional implementation, would have brought us closer to that than Hamilton's.
For example, if the State had the most power, and the Federation was weaker, then the most important legislation affecting you, would be State legislation. Further, the County would have more power than the State, and the Township would have the most power to restrict freedom, of them all. This idea of Jefferson's would have put the strongest legislative powers "at pistols reach".
It's built on the idea that a town only has "power" because its citizens say it does. A county, in like kind, derives it's power from the cities agreement, that said power exists. A state, then, becomes a mechanism of county agreement. And the federal government, springing up on what few ideals the states making up the union can agree on at any given time.
So the legislation that could most restrict freedom would have to also be the most local. After all, you could hardly get 50 counties to agree on how to best procede with gay unions, and why should they? They are different communities. Jefferson's plan would have protected us MORE than the Hamiltonian model that emerged, IMO.
jbox:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Perhaps, but if you could point out which of those two comments was untrue,
--- End quote ---
Because it didn't relate to YOUR government.
--- End quote ---
(sigh) I see, so bias towards your POV is okay, but bias against is flame bait? ::)
Exhibit 1:
--- Quote ---A woman's right to vote, emancipation, affirmative action, and prohibition are examples of sweeping progressive changes to our culture, that was born of the fertile soil that is our electorate system. Issues that would not have fared as well under a single popular vote.
--- End quote ---
Fair's fair fredster, since the USA is not a single popular vote than by your logic that comment is flame bait if it comes from a USA citizen. Some of the responses were from countries that *do* have a single popular vote and also have the equal rights legislation being discussed, so by your logic the responses were actually *not* flames. :police:
--- Quote ---was not backed with a technical explination,
--- End quote ---
As SeaMonkey correctly pointed out almost all power ultimately boils down to two irreducible forms - the first is the choice to take life, and the second is the choice to give up your own. No document can regulate those two choices, and hence no document can ever prevent a tyrant from eventually taking control of your country. Armed citizenry is an attempt to try to dilute the first choice from just the army to everyone. However, it is much harder to remove people's fear for their own lives, and indeed a productive society needs at least a healthy dose of that to avoid breaking down into anarchy. :-[
I was just trying to suggest that there is no government system yet which is the best so long as humans continue to be involved in running it. Little Johnny sending our soldiers overseas in order to get better trading rights is a great example of a failure of our system, so I never meant to imply I thought our system was perfect either. :'(
SeaMonkey please accept my apology if you did find my comments offensive. I would like to think that the people actively participating in this topic are more interested in a constructive dissection of the differences between governments (and the consequences we can observe thereof), and hope that at least some of my rebuttle was of interest. :-\