Political Crossfire Forums

[J. Reiner]

David Kelly wrote: melchizedek22 wrote: this is all out dated,in the new Bush order,he is King follows what laws he feels like,all others "forgetaboutit"

True.
But that's a little off topic. We're debating democracy vs. republic, not freedom vs. Bush.

I loathe digressing from the topic at hand(which I am most certainly doing), however it irks me to no end when someone refers to Bush as a King, Emperor, or Dictator of any sort. He simply isn't. He was voted into office, and follows the written code of his office. He is not perfect, and he has many faults, but that does not make him a Dictator.

So I make a humble request, though I fear few will respect it. Until Mr. George W. Bush appoints himself leader of the known world please refrain from referring to him as such.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: It's not authoritarian in the least. Having checks against both the people and the government ensures a balance, which is the best thing for everybody. Too much power in the hands of either is a bad thing. The Constitution was written over two centuries ago; I don't see how that has anything to do with a percieved elite. It was written by some of the greatest American political philosphers ever, as well as by delegates from the several States. Having the people directly write it is both stupid and impractical, and often will result in a democratic government; republican government is better, as democracy is part of the path to tyranny.

Why exactly must the people have checks? If they are not a check against each other, then that is the way the dice should roll. Should government serve conservatives or dead people better than those who seek change as their lives demand? People only fear democracy because democracy is justice, and the more immediate that justice is, and the more responsive government is the needs of the people the sooner the people will taste freedom. If there is a check against the people it should be that unless an emergency is imminent, the people should seek consensus among all peoples concerned with a particular question. If Government does not aim at satisfying all of the people it will sooner or later please none of the people. We can be skwood by halfs, -manipulated majorities or organized minorities, and the only answer is one that reaches consensus. Any government that denies the rights of the people to complete democracy is no better than the tyranny it will become in time.

[Fido]

J. Reiner wrote: David Kelly wrote: melchizedek22 wrote: this is all out dated,in the new Bush order,he is King follows what laws he feels like,all others "forgetaboutit"

True.
But that's a little off topic. We're debating democracy vs. republic, not freedom vs. Bush.

I loathe digressing from the topic at hand(which I am most certainly doing), however it irks me to no end when someone refers to Bush as a King, Emperor, or Dictator of any sort. He simply isn't. He was voted into office, and follows the written code of his office. He is not perfect, and he has many faults, but that does not make him a Dictator.

So I make a humble request, though I fear few will respect it. Until Mr. George W. Bush appoints himself leader of the known world please refrain from referring to him as such.

The presidency as office of the commander in chief is like a war chief among the Iroquois, yet holding those and other powers that make him extremely powerful in America. There are checks, but they are often feeble, and it is no wonder people for and against talk of the imperial presidency. The election has nothing to do with it nor the term of office. Caesar grubbed for votes too, and bought his share. We will find some day that our dictator needs only the support of the military, and the sham of democracy can be dispensed with entirely.

[J. Reiner]

Fido wrote:
The presidency as office of the commander in chief is like a war chief among the Iroquois, yet holding those and other powers that make him extremely powerful in America. There are checks, but they are often feeble, and it is no wonder people for and against talk of the imperial presidency. The election has nothing to do with it nor the term of office. Caesar grubbed for votes too, and bought his share. We will find some day that our dictator needs only the support of the military, and the sham of democracy can be dispensed with entirely.

Ah, but he is, in fact, not yet one. When the day comes I will accept such accusations, because they are true. At this point however, he is not. So I repeat, until Mr. George W. Bush appoints himself leader of the known world please refrain from referring to him as such.

[bigstick61]

Democracy is antithetical to justice; majoritarian tyranny is not justice. Just because the people will it does not make it right. Say a majority of the people voted to repeal part of the Constitution which allows freedom of religion, so they could vote to ban one (this can be done by initiative in most democracies, theoretically, and sometimes in reality), should it just be accepted, because it is the will of the people? Is that justice? An impassioned people left unchecked is even more dangerous than a tyrannical minority. Also, in democracies, the judiciary tends to be directly elected. How can an impartial decision be made if the judge can be thrown out of office for abiding by the law? Justice does not exist there either. How can the executive enforce the law if he can be thrown out of office for doing so, even if the law is just and legitimately created? He can't. A written Constitution cannot stop a sizeable majority who have the will to do something, and never has been. It is too easily amended in democracies. If the people vote to take property away, or pressure their representatives to do so, from a minority, is that just? No, but it happens often in democracies, along with people telling property owners what to do with their money and property. None of this is just, and also quite antithetical to freedom (it is in fact tyranny), yet this is what can happen and has happened before in democracies.

Nobody is saying that the people shouldn't have a say, and certainly there need to be checks, including popular ones on the government, because a government left to its own devices can also tyrannize. That is why all republics have a representative part of the legislature. However, considering that the people's will may not always be legal, good, or just, there is an upper house or a body within a unicameral legislature which may serve as a check upon the popular House under such circumstances. However, there direct involvement must end. The chief executive must be indirectly elected to do his job properly, and his subordinates must be independent from the people. The Constitution must be difficult to amend, and impossible through sheer popular will alone. There must be properly limited suffrage. There must be an independent judiciary. The people may check the government through their right to just revolution against tyranny, which is enabled by the right to keep and bear arms, through their representatives (the House has the sole power to impeach, although not to try impeachments), through speech, and through jury nullification. Having too much power in the hands of anybody is bad and can only lead to tyranny, and the people are no exception to this; a republic creates a balance; you cannot have a balance when there are checks on one and not the other.

Also, on the issue of slavery, it was approached, but compromises had to be made for a Constitution to be adopted in the first place, as the South would not approve without there being no prohibition on slavery, among other things. It was left to be resolved later; there needed to be a Union, and a hard line on such a divisive issue would have prevented that.

[Fido]

J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote:
The presidency as office of the commander in chief is like a war chief among the Iroquois, yet holding those and other powers that make him extremely powerful in America. There are checks, but they are often feeble, and it is no wonder people for and against talk of the imperial presidency. The election has nothing to do with it nor the term of office. Caesar grubbed for votes too, and bought his share. We will find some day that our dictator needs only the support of the military, and the sham of democracy can be dispensed with entirely.

Ah, but he is, in fact, not yet one. When the day comes I will accept such accusations, because they are true. At this point however, he is not. So I repeat, until Mr. George W. Bush appoints himself leader of the known world please refrain from referring to him as such.

He has more powers than Caesar ever held, and a lot more firepower. And tell me if short of some abuse that enrages the nation beyond all measure of acceptance whether he can be removed from office? What exactly does it take to breach that barrier? Since all who might judge him are feeding at the same public trough, how can they be fit judges of one of their own? We are stuck with him because the many headed monster of the senate is made impotent by its own greed and insecurity. He is a dictator, which is well and good, if like many dictators, and even Caesar, he appeals to the will and power and expectations of the people. The rich don't need a dictator because they have a congress stuffed with them. A committee cannot run a war, but a dictator can never run a peace. If we need both branches to cover every eventuality then the peace time powers of the president should be neutered.
The government should all be made responsive to the people. No president should be king for a day or for four years. As in the declaration of independence we should have a right to petition for a redress of grievances. No president should have the power to thumb his nose as Bush has done to such a sizable minority. He is not God, even if he should, like the Caesars, be deified.

[J. Reiner]

Fido wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote:
The presidency as office of the commander in chief is like a war chief among the Iroquois, yet holding those and other powers that make him extremely powerful in America. There are checks, but they are often feeble, and it is no wonder people for and against talk of the imperial presidency. The election has nothing to do with it nor the term of office. Caesar grubbed for votes too, and bought his share. We will find some day that our dictator needs only the support of the military, and the sham of democracy can be dispensed with entirely.

Ah, but he is, in fact, not yet one. When the day comes I will accept such accusations, because they are true. At this point however, he is not. So I repeat, until Mr. George W. Bush appoints himself leader of the known world please refrain from referring to him as such.

He has more powers than Caesar ever held, and a lot more firepower. And tell me if short of some abuse that enrages the nation beyond all measure of acceptance whether he can be removed from office? What exactly does it take to breach that barrier? Since all who might judge him are feeding at the same public trough, how can they be fit judges of one of their own? We are stuck with him because the many headed monster of the senate is made impotent by its own greed and insecurity. He is a dictator, which is well and good, if like many dictators, and even Caesar, he appeals to the will and power and expectations of the people. The rich don't need a dictator because they have a congress stuffed with them. A committee cannot run a war, but a dictator can never run a peace. If we need both branches to cover every eventuality then the peace time powers of the president should be neutered.
The government should all be made responsive to the people. No president should be king for a day or for four years. As in the declaration of independence we should have a right to petition for a redress of grievances. No president should have the power to thumb his nose as Bush has done to such a sizable minority. He is not God, even if he should, like the Caesars, be deified.

I have no intense knowledge of Caesars rule, so I cannot contest the issue of power.

What you ask could remove him? A great abuse, that rouses the entirety of the nation against him. A coup, though I find it unlikely. Most likely however, it will be time. Two years in fact. This is why our system has evolved to it's current state.

To the remainder of your argument I, at least in part, agree. Our current system is fast becoming obsolete. The two party system forms a vicious cycle of inactivity. You also are correct that a committee cannot run a war. This is why we have a commander in chief, because in times where immediate decision must be made, debates are far from practical. In peace time the president is neutered, his power is very small indeed. The flaw comes from his ability to declare how long a war goes on. The senate, as they can agree to go to war, should be allowed to decide to return from war. The time in between is the executive's reign.

What America needs, is a new party. The democrats and republicans have slowly dragged us into a quagmire, where a voter is forced to decide between lesser evils. This can not continue.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: Democracy is antithetical to justice; majoritarian tyranny is not justice. Just because the people will it does not make it right. Say a majority of the people voted to repeal part of the Constitution which allows freedom of religion, so they could vote to ban one (this can be done by initiative in most democracies, theoretically, and sometimes in reality), should it just be accepted, because it is the will of the people? Is that justice? An impassioned people left unchecked is even more dangerous than a tyrannical minority. Also, in democracies, the judiciary tends to be directly elected. How can an impartial decision be made if the judge can be thrown out of office for abiding by the law? Justice does not exist there either. How can the executive enforce the law if he can be thrown out of office for doing so, even if the law is just and legitimately created? He can't. A written Constitution cannot stop a sizeable majority who have the will to do something, and never has been. It is too easily amended in democracies. If the people vote to take property away, or pressure their representatives to do so, from a minority, is that just? No, but it happens often in democracies, along with people telling property owners what to do with their money and property. None of this is just, and also quite antithetical to freedom (it is in fact tyranny), yet this is what can happen and has happened before in democracies.

Nobody is saying that the people shouldn't have a say, and certainly there need to be checks, including popular ones on the government, because a government left to its own devices can also tyrannize. That is why all republics have a representative part of the legislature. However, considering that the people's will may not always be legal, good, or just, there is an upper house or a body within a unicameral legislature which may serve as a check upon the popular House under such circumstances. However, there direct involvement must end. The chief executive must be indirectly elected to do his job properly, and his subordinates must be independent from the people. The Constitution must be difficult to amend, and impossible through sheer popular will alone. There must be properly limited suffrage. There must be an independent judiciary. The people may check the government through their right to just revolution against tyranny, which is enabled by the right to keep and bear arms, through their representatives (the House has the sole power to impeach, although not to try impeachments), through speech, and through jury nullification. Having too much power in the hands of anybody is bad and can only lead to tyranny, and the people are no exception to this; a republic creates a balance; you cannot have a balance when there are checks on one and not the other.

Also, on the issue of slavery, it was approached, but compromises had to be made for a Constitution to be adopted in the first place, as the South would not approve without there being no prohibition on slavery, among other things. It was left to be resolved later; there needed to be a Union, and a hard line on such a divisive issue would have prevented that.

What a big lie you tell! If people deciding their fates for themselves and having power over their own affairs is not justice what imposition of justice would be more just? We do not need checks on the government, we need to understand government as the extension of our own will, and make it so. What makes government dangerous is the surrender of government to injustice, and when that occurs no one is safer than another. If this one has power the other one is in trouble, and if this class has it the other must do without. Only justice can unify a nation without harming anyone. To give up on justice for expediency resulted in more disunion, and greater suffering, and bloodshed and pain than any founder of this country could have imagined. In the end slavery had to be abolished to preserve the sanctity of free labor, but the end of that war found property rights more firmly entrenched, and the black man no more free than the beginning. Solutions that do not solve problems completely only put off into the future the day and the trouble of their solution. The constitution was such a solution, and the civil war was such a solution and the solution to the injustice this nation suffers, breeds, lives upon, and exports awaits a greater understanding than most people possess. The branches of wrongs are too easy a target, while the roots lie unnoticed.
Yes, I agree that the government is separate from the people, and that only the house is in the least proportionately representative. It is this isolation that is the cause of the distress and misery we suffer. In fact it is the cause of this war, or endangered rights, and our fear of the government. Why is representation necessary? When America did not have a single major river that could be crossed, and no effective transportation system at all, and few roads representative government made sense. Why is it that those people two hundred years ago could support with their low technology more representatives per capita than we can support today? If representatives are limited as they have been on at least two occasions in our history to make the place manageable, for whom is it manageable? They limited the supply to boost the price of their honor to a level that would invite their dishonor. Bad government has been the result. So, what makes you believe the government is independent if only because it is independent of the people who make it sovereign? It is hardly independent of its class, or institution in either case. It is only unresponsive to the people because it was made to be that way. But the situation has not remained as it was created, but has worsened. Why? It is because, as in Greece and in Rome, and in England, France, and Germany; where political power is denied Economic power declines, and political power follows economic power until the whole of society is divided into those who have and those without. Political power is the wealth from which all wealth grows, and like all wealthy countries we are wealthy because most of us are poor and without hope. We have created wealth for the wealthy and for the government, but we share none of it but perpetual debt.

[Fido]

Quote: J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote:
The presidency as office of the commander in chief is like a war chief among the Iroquois, yet holding those and other powers that make him extremely powerful in America. There are checks, but they are often feeble, and it is no wonder people for and against talk of the imperial presidency. The election has nothing to do with it nor the term of office. Caesar grubbed for votes too, and bought his share. We will find some day that our dictator needs only the support of the military, and the sham of democracy can be dispensed with entirely.

Ah, but he is, in fact, not yet one. When the day comes I will accept such accusations, because they are true. At this point however, he is not. So I repeat, until Mr. George W. Bush appoints himself leader of the known world please refrain from referring to him as such.

---------------Non sense dear one. America does not need a new party. Parties are a part of the problem. They exhaust the energy needed for change. They baffle it into internal politics and inertia. People need a new understanding, and when they have that they will see clearly how much national parties have robbed them of their rights. Not all issues are national issues, but national parties trade in national issues. We have certain rights spelled out in our constitution. Does that stop people from being elected on pledges to abridge those rights? If I have to elect one man to defend a right that should never be challenged, and defeat a man to protect a right that should never be challenged, in what sense have I gained anything even if I hold my own? Democracy is about the defense of rights, but if that is not the job of government, but if instead I must protect my rights with my time, my wallet, and my votes for my government which is only a beast with two sides but the same purpose; in what fashion am I free? Parties are my enemy, and they make my government my enemy.

There are issues like my own affairs that are my business alone. There are issues that concern my neighbors that are ours alone. There are issues that affect my section of the country, or my state alone. If for some party interest these interests of mine show up on the auction block I take offense. Not all issues are national. The Nation may have an interest in protecting the rights of all of its citizens; but it has no just cause in limiting or interfering in any issue to the detriment of rights. Democracy is control of ones affairs from the bottom to the top. What business do I have in telling you when to go to bed, or who to bunk with? If the individual is not free the nation is not free.

Let me offer you this understanding: Governments and institutions of all sorts are forms of relationships. Very often in formal relationships like Marriage, the form becomes more important than the relationship. Some times the relationship is dead, and people who hate each other stay married because they cannot break free of the form. A Nation is like a marriage in that it is better when the relation is one each desires and embraces apart from the form. Parties are a form that does not work, but shields the form of government from direct popular action. Parties are a layer of inertia protecting an institution already crumbling under inertial weight. The people are ready to move, to change, and to revolt; and equally fearful of the directions such change might take. If they understand that the force of inertia does not have to be met with violence or more inertia, then they will be free to build a new relationship of government entirely apart from the old, much as happened when the constitution supplanted the articles of confederation. We do not need a new party, but a whole new government, and a whole new constitution. When this is written in such a manor as to defend the rights of people and to make old friends new again change will happen quickly and quietly.--------------------------------------------Fido

Quote: He has more powers than Caesar ever held, and a lot more firepower. And tell me if short of some abuse that enrages the nation beyond all measure of acceptance whether he can be removed from office? What exactly does it take to breach that barrier? Since all who might judge him are feeding at the same public trough, how can they be fit judges of one of their own? We are stuck with him because the many headed monster of the senate is made impotent by its own greed and insecurity. He is a dictator, which is well and good, if like many dictators, and even Caesar, he appeals to the will and power and expectations of the people. The rich don't need a dictator because they have a congress stuffed with them. A committee cannot run a war, but a dictator can never run a peace. If we need both branches to cover every eventuality then the peace time powers of the president should be neutered.
The government should all be made responsive to the people. No president should be king for a day or for four years. As in the declaration of independence we should have a right to petition for a redress of grievances. No president should have the power to thumb his nose as Bush has done to such a sizable minority. He is not God, even if he should, like the Caesars, be deified.

I have no intense knowledge of Caesars rule, so I cannot contest the issue of power.

What you ask could remove him? A great abuse, that rouses the entirety of the nation against him. A coup, though I find it unlikely. Most likely however, it will be time. Two years in fact. This is why our system has evolved to it's current state.

To the remainder of your argument I, at least in part, agree. Our current system is fast becoming obsolete. The two party system forms a vicious cycle of inactivity. You also are correct that a committee cannot run a war. This is why we have a commander in chief, because in times where immediate decision must be made, debates are far from practical. In peace time the president is neutered, his power is very small indeed. The flaw comes from his ability to declare how long a war goes on. The senate, as they can agree to go to war, should be allowed to decide to return from war. The time in between is the executive's reign.

What America needs, is a new party. The democrats and republicans have slowly dragged us into a quagmire, where a voter is forced to decide between lesser evils. This can not continue.

Dammit. I got in a rush, and I put my cart before your horse. Drop back and read it if you care to.

[J. Reiner]

Fido wrote: Quite a bit in a baffling order, but no fear I believe I grasp it.

Parties are the problem, this I've already conceded. A new party would surely cause problems and dull down to the current mess we find ourselves in. It is a temporary fix, a finger in a dike.

Government is short lived. How short is often quite variable, but every form has been turned and over turned time and time again. The United States has reached a bit of a turning point. Something is necessary, though what is the subject of much debate(ours seems to follow suit). As you said, form is becoming more important than function. We're merely going through the motions, nothing is being accomplished.

I believe I proposed a new party because it is just enough to shake this nation out of it's stupor. I love my country, and I do not want to see it fall apart. Maybe this love is what blinds me to the inevitable, that this government will be overthrown in one manner or another, and a new form will rise in it's place. If this day comes within my life time, which I truly dread, I wish to be in a position to more than observe. Change can be good or bad, and if change comes, as it always has, I hope for the good.

[bigstick61]

We are all individuals. As such, nobody ever universally agrees upon something. To have the people as a whole determine their fate, even if the minority does not desire this, is tyranny, and most certainly unjust. It is unjust to force someone to a fate to which they do not desire, regardless of how many people wish it so. Nothing I said in my post was a lie.

Insofar as parties are concerned they ultimately are bad for the country, and James Madison recognized this, and addressed this in the Federalist Papers, as some were concerned about lack of prohibition on the creation of factions. However, he argued, the cure, which would be severely restrictiing association, would be far worse than the disease.

[Kindred]

bigstick61 wrote: We are all individuals. As such, nobody ever universally agrees upon something.
To have the people as a whole determine their fate, even if the minority does not desire this, is tyranny, and most certainly unjust.

What about when a minority decides how the majority must live. Why is that not tyrany?

Quote:
It is unjust to force someone to a fate to which they do not desire, regardless of how many people wish it so. Nothing I said in my post was a lie.


Yet, you believe allowing a few to dictate the rules for the rest is not unjust?

[bigstick61]

Actually, the minority does not rule in a republic. The law rules. There are checks against the people, the government, and to ensure that a minoiryt does not come to power in a tyrannical sense. The minority does not dictate anything to the majority, and for the most part, the reverse is true as well, in a republic.

[Kindred]

bigstick61 wrote: Actually, the minority does not rule in a republic. The law rules. There are checks against the people, the government, and to ensure that a minoiryt does not come to power in a tyrannical sense. The minority does not dictate anything to the majority, and for the most part, the reverse is true as well, in a republic.

And what is 'the law', and who decides upon it?

[bigstick61]

The law is originally made by delegates who are chosen because they are the best in such matters, and then approved, directly or indirectly, by the people as a start. After that, in a republic, they are made by the legislature, which includes a popular House and one that isn't that may check it, in the US one which represents the State governments. In almost every true republic, approval is needed by both Houses and the chief executive often has the final say, although that can be overcome by the legislature, provided the bill has enough support. The Amendment process varies greatly, but in almost all cases it is made difficult with little or no direct popular say. I'll give two modern examples. One is the US, where it must be approved by 2/3 of each House, which is where it is proposed (the legislature) by either House, and then it must be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States to be ratified. The other is the Republic of China, where it is proposed by public initiative, by the legislature, or by an electoral college known as the National Assembly, the former two needing approval of a supermajority of the unicameral legislature which is representative, and then it must be approved by the National Assembly, which is an electoral college which also elects the President and Vice President and which is composed of delegates rather than representatives, whereupon it becomes law.

The law originates from the people, hence the name republic, which means a thing of the people, but beyond establishment, the people have a say and a means to check the government, but not an absolute say. The people do not rule, and neither do elites; the law ultimately rules.

[Kindred]

bigstick61 wrote: The law is originally made by delegates who are chosen because they are the best in such matters, and then approved, directly or indirectly, by the people as a start. After that, in a republic, they are made by the legislature, which includes a popular House and one that isn't that may check it, in the US one which represents the State governments. In almost every true republic, approval is needed by both Houses and the chief executive often has the final say, although that can be overcome by the legislature, provided the bill has enough support. The Amendment process varies greatly, but in almost all cases it is made difficult with little or no direct popular say. I'll give two modern examples. One is the US, where it must be approved by 2/3 of each House, which is where it is proposed (the legislature) by either House, and then it must be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States to be ratified. The other is the Republic of China, where it is proposed by public initiative, by the legislature, or by an electoral college known as the National Assembly, the former two needing approval of a supermajority of the unicameral legislature which is representative, and then it must be approved by the National Assembly, which is an electoral college which also elects the President and Vice President and which is composed of delegates rather than representatives, whereupon it becomes law.

The law originates from the people, hence the name republic, which means a thing of the people, but beyond establishment, the people have a say and a means to check the government, but not an absolute say. The people do not rule, and neither do elites; the law ultimately rules.

You write a lot to say very little. I understand very well the idea behind a republican form of government; I understand its structure and its origins, but I also see its failings.

It took you two paragraphs to state that people decide upon the law; and there is no reason why these people would be any less faliable than any other individual; particularly any other elected one (and yes, they are democratically elected most of the time; unfortunately sometimes by only one class or faction of society, but democratic traits exist nonetheless).

Once the law is established, it is hard to change, so once the rules have been decided upon, they are virtually set for all others to obey, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

[bigstick61]

Such occurs with the establishment of any form of government. The Constitution really doesn't say much more than establishing the structure and type of government, establishing powers, a method for Amendment, restrictions on the government, and little else, if it's done right. You're not so much forcing a law proper on people, but a form of government. In practice, a republican form is the best one. Of course, there will always be people who will disagree with a law, regardless of form of government, but in a republic, the laws tend not to be tyrannical in nature, which is common in democracies, and there are means to check it if it is unjust or illegal, such as jury nullification.

[Fido]

J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote: Quite a bit in a baffling order, but no fear I believe I grasp it.

Parties are the problem, this I've already conceded. A new party would surely cause problems and dull down to the current mess we find ourselves in. It is a temporary fix, a finger in a dike.

Government is short lived. How short is often quite variable, but every form has been turned and over turned time and time again. The United States has reached a bit of a turning point. Something is necessary, though what is the subject of much debate(ours seems to follow suit). As you said, form is becoming more important than function. We're merely going through the motions, nothing is being accomplished.

I believe I proposed a new party because it is just enough to shake this nation out of it's stupor. I love my country, and I do not want to see it fall apart. Maybe this love is what blinds me to the inevitable, that this government will be overthrown in one manner or another, and a new form will rise in it's place. If this day comes within my life time, which I truly dread, I wish to be in a position to more than observe. Change can be good or bad, and if change comes, as it always has, I hope for the good.

Look at every modern revolution (since the enlightenment) and you see people working through parties and organizing through parties, and getting their philosophies in order through parties. While parties can act as a vehicle to change, they can act as inertia against change. Napoleon was right to ban all parties once he had control. Lenin was right to make other parties illegal. Not morally, but politicialy.
We are faced with a different situation. If you understand government and parties as the problem, or the bigger part of the problem, the solution will not ever be more of the same in some other form. It is not organization, but the willingness and desire to relate extra organizationally, to dis organize society, and to reorganize it in a fashion that consciously recognizes the value of the relationships within the form of government. Not one of us would wear the clothes of our founding fathers, or suffer their medicine, or endure their technology. Yet we daily put on the straight jacket of the constitution, and hurt when it does not meet our needs. Why should it? It is two hundred years old, and served by parties that were a holdover from England before and after the revolution. These institutions have never served this people and this country. More than ever, America is a relationship with corpses where the corpses get to be on top. Why do we serve the interests of the dead when the living have nothing? If we need new, we cannot have it by growing old. It is not parties we need, but the courage to act as individuals. We do not have to build a new party or a new government to have change. Rather we must have change to have new government. No amount of party or mob mentality will ever give people the freedom to act as individuals. If they do not have the courage to resist evil in small ways they will not have courage to resist evil in a national way. As in all other social change, it is the individual who must change in their own being. When people can change, societies can change, and when people are intransigent, their societies are doomed, inflexible, and frozen. It is understanding that people lack, and that is not the result of party, but is the result of communication and truth. Give understanding.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: Such occurs with the establishment of any form of government. The Constitution really doesn't say much more than establishing the structure and type of government, establishing powers, a method for Amendment, restrictions on the government, and little else, if it's done right. You're not so much forcing a law proper on people, but a form of government. In practice, a republican form is the best one. Of course, there will always be people who will disagree with a law, regardless of form of government, but in a republic, the laws tend not to be tyrannical in nature, which is common in democracies, and there are means to check it if it is unjust or illegal, such as jury nullification.

The problem is that law gives the law enforcers and makers authority above the average, and over time, two hundred years in our case, that little imbalance of power has resulted in a society as divided between rich and poor as the Greeks and Romans before they crumbled. Primitive societies survived much worse hardship and deprivation that we can imagine with far less technology because equality and consensus were their guiding principals. To say fatalistically that there will always be some who disagree with a law, only means that you have given up on laws that have their authority from the consent of the governed. Laws should be minimal, but should also be so overwhelmingly needed when passed that they already have universal acceptance. What all laws do at present is give one class power over others. It is amazing how some organized factions, sometimes church dominated, can get control of local governments and then proceed by statutes to control every aspect of every ones lives. One small community near the city I live in has several hundred such statutes on their books. Why? Are these not redundant to begin with? How did the Hebrews during the most shiftless part of their existence get by with ten laws? The fact is that they would not have survived more than the minimum, because every law is a burden and a source of dissension and disunion. Laws should be by consensus only.
In my county, and perhaps in yours, law enforcement and incarceration is the biggest item in the budget by far. If such laws as there were were passed by consensus there would be little need for a cop on every corner, and a law for every situation. For the most part, people have no problem with the ten commandments or knowing what is right in their relationships. When laws lead to intense differences in wealth and power, they also lead to different interests, and different identities. We may think it is wrong to prey upon our own kind. That is not unusual. What happens is that differences of class give people the opinion that others within ones society are fit prey for theft or exploitation. At the moment this occurs the society is in decline, for such division sooner rather than later reveal themselves as a fatal flaw.

You should look again at the constitution. Does it not attempt to ennumerate rights? It was clearly not a first priority, but close. The problem is that so many rights also require property in addition to person to be exercised. People in their persons can be searched at any time. Warrants are required to search property.

[Kindred]

bigstick61 wrote: Such occurs with the establishment of any form of government. The Constitution really doesn't say much more than establishing the structure and type of government, establishing powers, a method for Amendment, restrictions on the government, and little else, if it's done right. You're not so much forcing a law proper on people, but a form of government. In practice, a republican form is the best one. Of course, there will always be people who will disagree with a law, regardless of form of government, but in a republic, the laws tend not to be tyrannical in nature, which is common in democracies, and there are means to check it if it is unjust or illegal, such as jury nullification.

Deciding what form of government people (current and future generations) have to subsist in is as authoritarian as it comes.

Oh, can you provide examples of these tyranical laws which are 'common' in democracies but are absent in republican forms?