We're Supposed to be a Republic

User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

The American form of government. (Video)



There's a tendency here in the Garden to ridicule a point by sarcastically yanking a person's argument to an extreme far beyond what the writer meant. It's usually when someone complains that government is growing too large or gaining too much power; someone responds that yeh, we should toss out government completely and just starve to death.



That's not helpful.



The United States is a republic. We were set up to have a limited & well-regulated government. The larger & more remote a government becomes, the less it serves the citizens and the more it serves the elite. We need to have as small and limited a government as possible to increase freedom, liberty, and self-determination as much as possible.



This means that we cannot allow government to prevent the consequence of failure -- not on a corporate level and not on an individual level. This doesn't equate to anarchy. It doesn't equate to tossing the entire government and allowing people to starve on the streets.



Government is a tool - a very powerful, hard-to-control, addictive, necessary tool. We must use it as sparingly and carefully as possible.
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Kindle »

Great video. This clearly explains the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The US is clearly being fast-tracked into ruin.




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

The democrats and republicans are side-by-side near the left end of that continuum.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1163624 wrote: The American form of government. (Video)



There's a tendency here in the Garden to ridicule a point by sarcastically yanking a person's argument to an extreme far beyond what the writer meant. It's usually when someone complains that government is growing too large or gaining too much power; someone responds that yeh, we should toss out government completely and just starve to death.



That's not helpful.






It's not ridicule Acc, it's a form of logical argument of long standing - indeed it was a favoured tool of Aristotle and is often the easiest way to show that a statement holds an untenable position.

If a statement is true then it's implications must also be true. By taking those implications to their logical conclusion to show that those conclusions cannot possibly be correct you can show that the original statement cannot possibly be correct.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

To call for smaller or limited government is not to call for no government at all.
User avatar
Clint
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:05 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Clint »

Accountable;1164112 wrote: To call for smaller or limited government is not to call for no government at all.


No, it isn't, it is a call for freedom. It is also a call for efficiency and agility.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Lon »

Do you think that the Founders of our Republic had any inkling that one day there would be 300 + million people residing within it, with all the problems that this many people create, and if they had the foresight to envision this, would they have formed the government differently?
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by gmc »

Interesting perspective on the political spectrum. In the french revolution the left-wing referred to the seating arrangements in the french parliament parliament; those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy and supported radical reform. Those on the right favoured the divine right of kings and oppression. The left rule by the people the right rule by a monarch or a small group. Therefore fascist are right wing-state corporatists, communists are left wing but it's a circle extreme left or extreme right you end up with a dictatorship. Liberals are somewhere in the middle or on the other side of the circle. We talk about centre left and centre right, right wing and left wing and understand each other.

Most UK posters and Europeans will view left in right in those terms left wing tending favouring freedom and democracy right wing authoritarianism but with an awareness of where left wing can lead. It's one of the reasons some of the debates get heated-we use the same words but the connotations are very different to us. Liberal is not the same as left wing socialist we make a clear distinction.

Stalin wasn't an anarchist, In fact the communists hated them and exterminated them whenever they came in contact with them, the flaw in communism-dictatorship of the people leading to a free communist society is that it ignores human nature-you basically swop one set of masters for another-is one most of the people in educated advanced societies saw straight through. They might favour some socialist policies but not communism while Americans conflate communism with socialism we don't and socialism has kind of moved on beyond a purely economic issue about the ownership of the means of production.

It's a very American viewpoint of things and a bit simplistic quite frankly. kind of detached from the European perspective and reality seeing things in isolation as they have influenced effect the US and putting his own perspective on it to back up what he wants to believe.

He has an odd definition of republic.

republic

• 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.

— ORIGIN Latin respublica, from res ‘concern’ + publicus ‘of the people, public’.


He puts a very simplistic right wing view of the fall of the roman republic-one could equally argue that the fall of Carthage and the availability of so many slaves ruined the rural economy and made it economically viable for a land grab to take place effectively creating a disenfranchised underclass without the economic power to exert themselves.

Your founding fathers were heavily influenced by the roman republic-just look at all the roman symbols in your regalia and on you public buildings-you even have a roman eagle and used the roman salute until hitler hijacked the gesture. They did everything they could to prevent democracy because they wanted to rule themselves-it's a very very old argument about who should get to vote. I doubt very much any american politician would dare suggest that people should not be allowed to vote because they don't own property or are not the right "type" for whatever reason. They might think it though.

But you live in liberal democracies where freedom of the individual and the rule of law are paramount with structures to allow the people to have their say and prevent an oligarchy keeping control. Supreme power rests with the people government if how they exert that power. You can't have freedom without that democracy and rule of law to curb the power of govt at it's heart. Over the last few decades the US IMO has moved to the right with rule by a narrow interest groups-something both democratic and republican presidents warned about in the past. An oligarchy in other words They have had to convince everybody that they were right and doing things in the national interest, not that they had the right to rule because they couldn't say that openly any more.

What has happened though is that the people have re-exerted themselves by voting out those who have acted in the interests of that oligarchy and voted for change. be interesting to see what happens. I'm not an american but personally anyone suggesting that democracy should not be at the heart of any government is a closet fascist and should be viewed with extreme scepticism.

Combine democracy with protections of individual rights from government power through the rule of law and you have liberal democracy.

You have a republican form of it. We have a constitutional monarchy version of it. We had a civil war where the issue of the divine right of kings was settled once for all by chopping off his head. We might have kept to a republic if the Christian fundamentalists hadn't taken over but that's another story altogether.
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Snowfire »

Accountable;1163624 wrote:



The larger & more remote a government becomes, the less it serves the citizens and the more it serves the elite. We need to have as small and limited a government as possible to increase freedom, liberty, and self-determination as much as possible.

Government is a tool - a very powerful, hard-to-control, addictive, necessary tool. We must use it as sparingly and carefully as possible.


I couldnt agree more but how is it achieved. The very process of electing a government hands over to a group of people a vast amount of power, influence and even corruption. How do we as people, ensure that is tempered and designed, to serve us as you describe ?

Even at local level, our government is officious, greedy, interfering and over bearing.

How do we get politicians to understand that they are our " tools" , "servants" and not our " masters". How do we limit this power and interferance in our lives and regain the freedom and liberty we dream of ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
User avatar
Clint
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:05 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Clint »

Snowfire;1164337 wrote: I couldnt agree more but how is it achieved. The very process of electing a government hands over to a group of people a vast amount of power, influence and even corruption. How do we as people, ensure that is tempered and designed, to serve us as you describe ?

Even at local level, our government is officious, greedy, interfering and over bearing.

How do we get politicians to understand that they are our " tools" , "servants" and not our " masters". How do we limit this power and interferance in our lives and regain the freedom and liberty we dream of ?


1. End the practice of digging into elected officials personal lives and finances. Hold them accountable for thier decisions and their example while in office. Good people won't serve because someone might remember they were to wild at a frat party or something.

2. Get involved. Good people have to be holding governmet accountable.

3. Think and act locally. This is going to get fixed from the bottom up. Go to City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, School Board meetings and County Commission meetings. Find out what the people you elected are REALLY like.

4. Give a qualifying test at the voting poles. Ask people basic questions like who the President and V.P. are..who is the Mayor, Who is the Governor. If they can't answer they shouldn't be voting.

I could go on but unlike the people who are shaping our future with their constant presence on the internet...I have to go to work (in local government).
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by gmc »

Snowfire;1164337 wrote: I couldnt agree more but how is it achieved. The very process of electing a government hands over to a group of people a vast amount of power, influence and even corruption. How do we as people, ensure that is tempered and designed, to serve us as you describe ?

Even at local level, our government is officious, greedy, interfering and over bearing.

How do we get politicians to understand that they are our " tools" , "servants" and not our " masters". How do we limit this power and interferance in our lives and regain the freedom and liberty we dream of ?


Vote them out of office and elect someone you prefer. Surely you don't need to ask.

posted by clint

I could go on but unlike the people who are shaping our future with their constant presence on the internet...I have to go to work (in local government).




Some of us are skiving while at work:D
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Snowfire »

gmc;1164413 wrote: Vote them out of office and elect someone you prefer. Surely you don't need to ask.






Of course I need to ask. Thats what a discussion forum is about. Throwing in a few crackerjacks in order to watch you jump about and dance :D.

Do you really think its that easy. We've been doing that since we had a system of government and since we were able to vote. How does exchanging Mrs thatchers vegetables for Mr Blairs imbiciles, improve the way we, the people, are given precisely what we thought we voted for. If the government of the day think that they can get away with something then they will. For all the shouting we do and all the vilification by the press.

Lets say I voted for this £%$*& Brown and part of his promise was a referendum on certain aspects of EEC governance and law. What if he decided a referendum didnt suit him. Wheres my recourse ?

Of course, as Clint rightly points out, we should get more involved in local politics. But thats not for everyone. We cant expect everyone to be involved in local politics. We're not all political animals but that doesnt mean to say they arent part of politicians/ councillors decision making
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by gmc »

Snowfire;1164428 wrote: Of course I need to ask. Thats what a discussion forum is about. Throwing in a few crackerjacks in order to watch you jump about and dance :D.

Do you really think its that easy. We've been doing that since we had a system of government and since we were able to vote. How does exchanging Mrs thatchers vegetables for Mr Blairs imbiciles, improve the way we, the people, are given precisely what we thought we voted for. If the government of the day think that they can get away with something then they will. For all the shouting we do and all the vilification by the press.

Lets say I voted for this £%$*& Brown and part of his promise was a referendum on certain aspects of EEC governance and law. What if he decided a referendum didnt suit him. Wheres my recourse ?

Of course, as Clint rightly points out, we should get more involved in local politics. But thats not for everyone. We cant expect everyone to be involved in local politics. We're not all political animals but that doesnt mean to say they arent part of politicians/ councillors decision making


We need proportional representation. We should also link pay to the UK average and confiscate all their property if they leave the nation bankrupt. However I feel it would be rude to hijack a thread about the american republic and take it off in to the exotic world of British politics. The poor dears are still trying to work out what right and left wing actually mean and reminding them they live in a liberal democracy freaks them out-which is why I like doing it. Mind you we could take a leaf out of their book and restrict the number of years someone can be prime minister. two seems a good number off the top of my head.
TheNewDG
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:42 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by TheNewDG »

In my opinion, less government means less laws over stupid bull****. I will give you two examples.

1) Seat belt laws. If you are dumb enough not to wear it you deserve what happens to you as a result. Same for helmet laws.

2) Food Posting Requirements for Restaraunts: Forcing restaraunts to post all ingredients, calorie counts, etc for all foods they serve. You know a freaking Big Mac is fattening.

It costs money, time, and labor to enforce laws like these.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

Lon;1164276 wrote: Do you think that the Founders of our Republic had any inkling that one day there would be 300 + million people residing within it, with all the problems that this many people create, and if they had the foresight to envision this, would they have formed the government differently?
I'm sure they didn't conciously think we'd be coast to coast and 300 million, but the basic idea is sound. Limited central government with most of the power and decision-making decentralized. Making more of the government centralized in one corner of the country as the country grows larger is exactly the opposite of logical.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

Accountable;1163624 wrote: The United States is a republic. We were set up to have a limited & well-regulated government. The larger & more remote a government becomes, the less it serves the citizens and the more it serves the elite. We need to have as small and limited a government as possible to increase freedom, liberty, and self-determination as much as possible.What does "The United States is a republic" have to do with it though? Finland's a republic too, for example, and it has among the highest-quality social welfare provisions on the planet because it has such extensive national government spending. I honestly can't see why the form of constitution has any bearing at all.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by gmc »

spot;1164743 wrote: What does "The United States is a republic" have to do with it though? Finland's a republic too, for example, and it has among the highest-quality social welfare provisions on the planet because it has such extensive national government spending. I honestly can't see why the form of constitution has any bearing at all.


Did you watch the video?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

gmc;1164944 wrote: Did you watch the video?


I've never watched a posted video on FG in my life, I use words. This thing about turning FG into a television accessory doesn't have my vote at all.



eta: except, reasonably enough, when the thread's about video clips.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

Snowfire;1164337 wrote: I couldnt agree more but how is it achieved. The very process of electing a government hands over to a group of people a vast amount of power, influence and even corruption. How do we as people, ensure that is tempered and designed, to serve us as you describe ?



Even at local level, our government is officious, greedy, interfering and over bearing.



How do we get politicians to understand that they are our " tools" , "servants" and not our " masters". How do we limit this power and interferance in our lives and regain the freedom and liberty we dream of ?


Clint;1164381 wrote: 1. End the practice of digging into elected officials personal lives and finances. Hold them accountable for thier decisions and their example while in office. Good people won't serve because someone might remember they were to wild at a frat party or something.



2. Get involved. Good people have to be holding governmet accountable.



3. Think and act locally. This is going to get fixed from the bottom up. Go to City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, School Board meetings and County Commission meetings. Find out what the people you elected are REALLY like.



4. Give a qualifying test at the voting poles. Ask people basic questions like who the President and V.P. are..who is the Mayor, Who is the Governor. If they can't answer they shouldn't be voting.



I could go on but unlike the people who are shaping our future with their constant presence on the internet...I have to go to work (in local government).
I agree with most of what Clint said, except about the voting qualification. Just because someone shouldn't be voting is not a reason to remove their right to vote. All people are endowed by their creator with the unalienable right to be stupid. ;)



I think we would do well to remove the idea of the professional politician, especially at the federal level.


Term limits, certainly, to help them focus on their jobs rather than reelection.

Guarantees such as we give to military reservists to return to their civilian jobs once they complete their term(s) of service.

Cut the pay so something closer to what the average citizen makes, since they need to consider the impact their laws have on the average citizen. We don't have to pay so much to retain the best. Monetary reward shouldn't be a reason to enter legislative service. It attracts the wrong type.

I could go on as well, but I'm not firing on all cylinders at the moment. :yh_tired

Of course the necessary changes are impossible now; we've already installed the professional pigs and they're the ones who we've entrusted to make such decisions into law. That ain't gonna happen; not anytime soon.



The best thing for America might be the economic collapse Washington seems hell bent on accomplishing. Maybe then we can get back on the right path - the one we were set on with the Declaration and Constitution, and knocked off by the New Deal.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

Accountable;1164948 wrote: The best thing for America might be the economic collapse Washington seems hell bent on accomplishing. Maybe then we can get back on the right path - the one we were set on with the Declaration and Constitution, and knocked off by the New Deal.


It's on a par with religion, this harking back to the ideals of the creators. Not many countries have a founding principle. Britain doesn't, for example. We have a history as several independent jurisdictions which over the years have dismantled barriers and come together but there's no invariable principle underlying it, no statement of intent. Christians who take their founding statements as perpetual truths are fundamentalist Christians, I'm wondering whether Americans who regard their Founding Statements as equally perpetual truths are fundamentalist Americans.

Accountable, you appear to have a belief in American superiority and you appear to base it on the unexampled vision of your founders. Is that fair comment? Because if it is I'd ask whether it's an evangelistic creed and whether your country's ever tried to spread it abroad.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

spot;1164955 wrote: It's on a par with religion, this harking back to the ideals of the creators. Not many countries have a founding principle. Britain doesn't, for example. We have a history as several independent jurisdictions which over the years have dismantled barriers and come together but there's no invariable principle underlying it, no statement of intent. Christians who take their founding statements as perpetual truths are fundamentalist Christians, I'm wondering whether Americans who regard their Founding Statements as equally perpetual truths are fundamentalist Americans.



Accountable, you appear to have a belief in American superiority and you appear to base it on the unexampled vision of your founders. Is that fair comment? Because if it is I'd ask whether it's an evangelistic creed and whether your country's ever tried to spread it abroad.
I'm not sure you've ever posted a fair statement in your life. You wouldn't know fair if it walked up and introduced itself.



When you show me the respect of watching the vid, which is key to the OP, then we can keep the discussion on topic.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

Accountable;1164962 wrote: I'm not sure you've ever posted a fair statement in your life. You wouldn't know fair if it walked up and introduced itself.



When you show me the respect of watching the vid, which is key to the OP, then we can keep the discussion on topic.
Oh my, that video's such illogical propagandist clap-trap!

By all means the rule of law. Finland has the rule of law too. Finnish law even limits government in that it recognizes individual rights, just the way your video discussed. It has nothing to do with the extent of social welfare though. Your chap redefines the political spectrum in order to allow his dismantling of democracy to appear centrist and then has the nerve to put socialism on the 100% government wing of oligarchy?

Accountable, you appear to have a belief in American superiority and you appear to base it on the unexampled vision of your founders. Is that fair comment? Because if it is I'd ask whether it's an evangelistic creed and whether your country's ever tried to spread it abroad.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

spot;1164967 wrote: Oh my, that video's such illogical propagandist clap-trap!



By all means the rule of law. Finland has the rule of law too. Finnish law even limits government in that it recognizes individual rights, just the way your video discussed. It has nothing to do with the extent of social welfare though. Your chap redefines the political spectrum in order to allow his dismantling of democracy to appear centrist and then has the nerve to put socialism on the 100% government wing of oligarchy?



Accountable, you appear to have a belief in American superiority and you appear to base it on the unexampled vision of your founders. Is that fair comment? Because if it is I'd ask whether it's an evangelistic creed and whether your country's ever tried to spread it abroad.
You're assumptions and presumptions are, predictably, wrong. If you care to start a thread categorizing how you came to your conclusions about me, feel free.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

Accountable;1164968 wrote: You're assumptions and presumptions are, predictably, wrong. If you care to start a thread categorizing how you came to your conclusions about me, feel free.


It was "Maybe then we can get back on the right path - the one we were set on with the Declaration and Constitution, and knocked off by the New Deal" in this particular instance, hence the "unexampled vision of your founders" and my comparison with fundamentalist religion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

A republic has a certain flaw in that those in government can pass laws that infringe on the constitution or change it completely. It is necessary then that there is a clearly defined path for redress by the citizenry that the government, by law, must obey. Certain laws, therefore, must be immutable to preserve the constitution and its power over the government.

However, there are various factors that can make any form of redress ineffective. For instance, individual disinterest in politics or apathy, and a fragmented society. Most importantly, the resources available to the electorate to force the government to obey.

In a nation the size of the USA, organising the people to reign in the government would be an immense task and may even be impossible.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by gmc »

spot;1164946 wrote: I've never watched a posted video on FG in my life, I use words. This thing about turning FG into a television accessory doesn't have my vote at all.



eta: except, reasonably enough, when the thread's about video clips.


It was posted as an initial discussion point-like a link to an article except it was to a video. It's easier than posting screeds to read.

Perhaps if you had watched it you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

posted by accountable

When you show me the respect of watching the vid, which is key to the OP, then we can keep the discussion on topic.


He does have a point you know. Never mind respect how about just common courtesy.

posted by spot

Oh my, that video's such illogical propagandist clap-trap!




Ah so you did watch it. i would agree with you there, it's a load of bollocks showing a breathtaking ignorance of history not only of the world but of their own country and a really peculiar version of the political spectrum and an even stranger definition of what a republic is to promote the ending of the liberal democratic republic the united states has become. Why anyone would want such a thing or have any time for those who promote is completely beyond me.

It does seem to appeal to some americans though. It's interesting to see such strange viewpoints.

The american constitutional convention wasn't the first you know

Putney Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A blast from the past for you. Your founding fathers would have known about these guys.

Agreement of the People

Agreement of the People May 1649

* The right to vote for all men over the age of 21 (excepting servants, beggars and Royalists)

* No army officer, treasurer or lawyer could be an MP (to prevent conflict of interest)

* Annual elections to Parliament with MPs serving one term only

* Equality of all persons before the law

* Trials should be heard before 12 jurymen, freely chosen by their community

* No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves in criminal cases

* The law should proceed in English and cases should not extend longer than six months

* The death penalty to be applied only in cases of murder

* Abolition of imprisonment for debt

* Tithes should be abolished and parishioners have the right to choose their ministers

* Taxation in proportion to real or personal property

* Abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes




Your founding fathers didn't want universal suffrage as they thought only me of property could be trusted to be responsible. Tell me had you been a soldier in the amerucan army, how would youi have felt about being told you couldn't be rusted to vote for who governed you?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

OpenMind;1165008 wrote: In a nation the size of the USA, organising the people to reign in the government would be an immense task and may even be impossible.


The impossibility stems from the entrenched nature of the two ruling parties. Each is run by an unaccountable oligarchy, what in England we'd call The Men In Grey Suits.

The only possible government in either a US State or one of the US Federal power centers is a combination of representatives pre-approved by those two organizations. No other body is capable of forming a power center, it's been tried and the country's internal security apparatus has invariably suppressed the movement. So, there's no available alternative route to power other than past the oligarchs who control the Republican and Democrat machinery. They, consequently, are the sole source of both Federal and State power in the USA.

Perhaps the only question worth asking is how to make them accountable, and to whom (since, according to the video, democracy is to be shunned).
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

OpenMind;1165008 wrote: A republic has a certain flaw in that those in government can pass laws that infringe on the constitution or change it completely. It is necessary then that there is a clearly defined path for redress by the citizenry that the government, by law, must obey. Certain laws, therefore, must be immutable to preserve the constitution and its power over the government.

However, there are various factors that can make any form of redress ineffective. For instance, individual disinterest in politics or apathy, and a fragmented society. Most importantly, the resources available to the electorate to force the government to obey.

In a nation the size of the USA, organising the people to reign in the government would be an immense task and may even be impossible.
You're right. Our federal gov't has run roughshod over our Constitution. I don't know how often or in what numbers people have tried to sue to overturn the unconstitutional laws, or if the Supreme court has simply ignored the suits. It's been like this for so long, at least 80 years, that you may be right about reigning in the government. It seems they're trying to scrap the whole thing altogether anyway. Maybe enough people will take action when that happens and we can rebuild a part of what was - or should have been.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by gmc »

Accountable;1165072 wrote: You're right. Our federal gov't has run roughshod over our Constitution. I don't know how often or in what numbers people have tried to sue to overturn the unconstitutional laws, or if the Supreme court has simply ignored the suits. It's been like this for so long, at least 80 years, that you may be right about reigning in the government. It seems they're trying to scrap the whole thing altogether anyway. Maybe enough people will take action when that happens and we can rebuild a part of what was - or should have been.


You actually need democracy to rein in the power of government. If you don't have mechanisms in plcae for the people to have their say you end up with oligarchy-or state corporatism which is what you actually have had in america, and then the people eventually take power back by force if necessary but they do take it back.

Seems to me you do have those mechanisms in place for the people ti have their say-however flawed and a population that are not just going to sit on their hands and take this ****. The thing is while that is happening you are going to have people like the maker of that video bleating about how democracy is dangerous because of the mob and how the great unwashed can't be trusted with government. They bleat about the dangers of populism-which are real but not as dangerous as secret deals behind closed doors. Whereas his cronies and those who think like him are best suited and should be able to prevent the great unwashed from having a say.

A lot of people don't like democracy because it means they can't get their own way all the time. They have to allow people they don't agree with the right to speak.

That video is very flawed, inaccurate and biased. Why do you approve of it-assuming you do that is.
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Snowfire »

I get from the video that it is assumed, that in the type of democracy discussed, it isn't backed up by the rule of law. I'm not sure 30 cowboys chasing a felon and then on mass deciding to hang him, is a good example of democracy in action.

I do however find it interesting, this supposed difference between democracy and a republic.

My stand point is, is that I would like to see much less interference by government in my life. We have been shepharded into a nanny state over the last 10 years or so as if we are children unable to make sensible decisions ourselves
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Accountable;1165072 wrote: You're right. Our federal gov't has run roughshod over our Constitution. I don't know how often or in what numbers people have tried to sue to overturn the unconstitutional laws, or if the Supreme court has simply ignored the suits. It's been like this for so long, at least 80 years, that you may be right about reigning in the government. It seems they're trying to scrap the whole thing altogether anyway. Maybe enough people will take action when that happens and we can rebuild a part of what was - or should have been.


As such, from what I can make out so far, the constitution protects you from any laws that are unconstitutional. I should think that any such laws would be null and void regardless of whether they were passed by Congress.

What do you think?
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Snowfire;1165234 wrote: I get from the video that it is assumed, that in the type of democracy discussed, it isn't backed up by the rule of law. I'm not sure 30 cowboys chasing a felon and then on mass deciding to hang him, is a good example of democracy in action.



I do however find it interesting, this supposed difference between democracy and a republic.



My stand point is, is that I would like to see much less interference by government in my life. We have been shepharded into a nanny state over the last 10 years or so as if we are children unable to make sensible decisions ourselves


Worse than that, our electorate has been seriously fragmented and divided over the last century which tends to counter any notion for us to organise something to challenge the Government's behaviour. There is also an immense apathetic attitude amongs the working population along the lines "What can we do?". We need to do something though.
User avatar
Clint
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:05 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Clint »

Snowfire;1165234 wrote: We have been shepharded into a nanny state over the last 10 years or so as if we are children unable to make sensible decisions ourselves


As I see it, the problem is that we act like children and don't want to make decisions. Most people only care what government can give them. They don't know how it works and don't want to know. They vote without knowledge of the issues for the best looking candidate or the one with the most signs.

I fear we have "progressed" to the point we can't help ourselves. The only revolution I see coming will be started by those who, like spoiled children, will throw a fit when the working class can no longer generate enough wealth to support them.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Clint;1165252 wrote: As I see it, the problem is that we act like children and don't want to make decisions. Most people only care what government can give them. They don't know how it works and don't want to know. They vote without knowledge of the issues for the best looking candidate or the one with the most signs.



I fear we have "progressed" to the point we can't help ourselves. The only revolution I see coming will be started by those who, like spoiled children, will throw a fit when the working class can no longer generate enough wealth to support them.


This tends to come from our past. We are used to being ordered about and told what to do be it the church or the monarch's reps.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

gmc;1165216 wrote: You actually need democracy to rein in the power of government. If you don't have mechanisms in plcae for the people to have their say you end up with oligarchy-or state corporatism which is what you actually have had in america, and then the people eventually take power back by force if necessary but they do take it back.



Seems to me you do have those mechanisms in place for the people ti have their say-however flawed and a population that are not just going to sit on their hands and take this ****. The thing is while that is happening you are going to have people like the maker of that video bleating about how democracy is dangerous because of the mob and how the great unwashed can't be trusted with government. They bleat about the dangers of populism-which are real but not as dangerous as secret deals behind closed doors. Whereas his cronies and those who think like him are best suited and should be able to prevent the great unwashed from having a say.



A lot of people don't like democracy because it means they can't get their own way all the time. They have to allow people they don't agree with the right to speak.



That video is very flawed, inaccurate and biased. Why do you approve of it-assuming you do that is.
Pure democracy is too slow and cumbersome for day-to-day use. If every citizen were expected to understand, discuss, and vote on every issue - local, county, regional, national - there wouldn't be time to go to work to earn taxes to pay for anything ... which, come to think of it, wouldn't cost anything since nothing would ever be decided. :yh_think



Since pure democracy is too slow and cumbersome, we decide instead to democratically elect representatives to democratically make decisions in our stead. We are a state of states (known collectively as the United States) in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote (those being aged 18 and up) and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. We are a republic.
User avatar
Clint
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:05 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Clint »

OpenMind;1165253 wrote: This tends to come from our past. We are used to being ordered about and told what to do be it the church or the monarch's reps.


The people you mention don't have power unless the people give it to them. That's why our founders here decided we should be a republic. The problem is we began electing people based on their abilty to bring home the bacon rather than for their wisdom. We also allow them to make carreers out of representing us when we should be voting the ones who don't understand they are representatives in a republic out of office.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

OpenMind;1165235 wrote: As such, from what I can make out so far, the constitution protects you from any laws that are unconstitutional. I should think that any such laws would be null and void regardless of whether they were passed by Congress.

What do you think?
They should be, but it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to approve new laws. That job belongs to the President, and Lord knows he seldom has the Constitution foremost in his mind no matter which one is in office. As I understand it, the Supreme Court only decides constitutionality of a law when someone brings it to them. I guess if nobody complains then it's okay. No harm no foul?
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Clint;1165262 wrote: The people you mention don't have power unless the people give it to them. That's why our founders here decided we should be a republic. The problem is we began electing people based on their abilty to bring home the bacon rather than for their wisdom. We also allow them to make carreers out of representing us when we should be voting the ones who don't understand they are representatives in a republic out of office.


Sorry, Clint. I should have been clearer in my reply. I was referring to us here in the UK when I said we're used to being told what to do. Before we had a parliament, the common man had no say in anything political whatsoever. Although we were given male suffrage once a parliament was elected, the commoners still did as they were told. Parliament and its affairs was the domain of the wealthier citizens.



Back to your points above though. What happens when your government starts assuming power regardless of the electorate? What can the electorate do if your government pass unconstitutional laws? Other than the power to elect a representative, what recourse do they have to pull the government back in line?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by spot »

OpenMind;1165248 wrote: Worse than that, our electorate has been seriously fragmented and divided over the last century which tends to counter any notion for us to organise something to challenge the Government's behaviour. There is also an immense apathetic attitude amongs the working population along the lines "What can we do?". We need to do something though.


Hang on a minute there. In the last century organizing to challenge the Government's behaviour we've had the Suffrage movement, the General Strike, the Rolling Stones, the Three Day Week and Arthur Scargill.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Accountable;1165276 wrote: They should be, but it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to approve new laws. That job belongs to the President, and Lord knows he seldom has the Constitution foremost in his mind no matter which one is in office. As I understand it, the Supreme Court only decides constitutionality of a law when someone brings it to them. I guess if nobody complains then it's okay. No harm no foul?


Yes, I can see the sense of that. No point wasting time over it until it becomes a case in court. We have a similar method here as such.

What I was trying to say is that if a new law is unconstitutional, it can be ignored by the electorate. I would only add that it would be as well to get sound legal advice before ignoring any such law.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

spot;1165280 wrote: Hang on a minute there. In the last century organizing to challenge the Government's behaviour we've had the Suffrage movement, the General Strike, the Rolling Stones, the Three Day Week and Arthur Scargill.


These have been challenges to the law as opposed to a challenge to the behaviour of the Government.
User avatar
Clint
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:05 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Clint »

OpenMind;1165278 wrote: Sorry, Clint. I should have been clearer in my reply. I was referring to us here in the UK when I said we're used to being told what to do. Before we had a parliament, the common man had no say in anything political whatsoever. Although we were given male suffrage once a parliament was elected, the commoners still did as they were told. Parliament and its affairs was the domain of the wealthier citizens.



Back to your points above though. What happens when your government starts assuming power regardless of the electorate? What can the electorate do if your government pass unconstitutional laws? Other than the power to elect a representative, what recourse do they have to pull the government back in line?


Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

OpenMind;1165281 wrote: Yes, I can see the sense of that. No point wasting time over it until it becomes a case in court. We have a similar method here as such.

What I was trying to say is that if a new law is unconstitutional, it can be ignored by the electorate. I would only add that it would be as well to get sound legal advice before ignoring any such law.
It seems to be happening now. Washington is sending our tax money to state governments and calling it bailout money or stimulus money (doesn't matter), though I haven't heard of anyone but California claim they were too big to fail. Anyway, this money has tons of strings attached that would force state legislatures to change state law to satisfy Washington. A few states are calling that unconstitutional (and I agree) and are taking measures to clip the strings or refuse the money.



One example is that states will get X amount of dollars to bolster the state unemployment insurance, but a state must extend benefits to part-time employees, which many states don't currently cover. If they change the law, the law remains and must be paid-for long after this stimulus check is gone.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Clint;1165309 wrote: Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.


So, it would come down to civil war which would be very devastating really. Especially since, as you say, the Government would have control over the military. On the other hand, the rest of the world would take a dim view of such action if it actually came to genocide.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Accountable;1165312 wrote: It seems to be happening now. Washington is sending our tax money to state governments and calling it bailout money or stimulus money (doesn't matter), though I haven't heard of anyone but California claim they were too big to fail. Anyway, this money has tons of strings attached that would force state legislatures to change state law to satisfy Washington. A few states are calling that unconstitutional (and I agree) and are taking measures to clip the strings or refuse the money.



One example is that states will get X amount of dollars to bolster the state unemployment insurance, but a state must extend benefits to part-time employees, which many states don't currently cover. If they change the law, the law remains and must be paid-for long after this stimulus check is gone.


That's interesting. I didn't know that. It would be interesting to see the outcome.
User avatar
Clint
Posts: 4032
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:05 pm

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Clint »

OpenMind;1165316 wrote: So, it would come down to civil war which would be very devastating really. Especially since, as you say, the Government would have control over the military. On the other hand, the rest of the world would take a dim view of such action if it actually came to genocide.


I think that if anything that drastic happens the world will be part of it. It will be, at least in part, about globalism. As Accountable points out we are being purchased with our own money to adopt a European style Socialism and this week our "leaders" followed China and Russia to say they would consider a global currency.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

OpenMind;1165317 wrote: That's interesting. I didn't know that. It would be interesting to see the outcome.
I doubt it will come to anything. Remember that most politicians at state level have their eye on a federal seat.



It's happened before. Each state sets its own age limit for drinking, usually 18-21, depending on the state. Washington decided it should be 21 across the board. Why? Because Washington can, I suppose. But since it would be unconstitutional to legislate it from the federal level, Washington linked it to federal highway money. In other words, change your drinking age to 21 or we won't give you money to maintain federal highways. Some states resisted, and I was too young and drunk to be paying much attention to know specifically what happened. I do know that my home state of Louisiana was one of the last to comply ... but comply they did.



Mandatory seatbelt use was handled similarly.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by Accountable »

Clint;1165321 wrote: I think that if anything that drastic happens the world will be part of it. It will be, at least in part, about globalism. As Accountable points out we are being purchased with our own money to adopt a European style Socialism and this week our "leaders" followed China and Russia to say they would consider a global currency.
You can bet your last worthless dollar it would be international almost instantly. China and/or Russia would fund the rebels/freedom fighters/patriots/insurgents/terrorists with glee. NATO would be called in for the government.



The UN would probably go into meltdown.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Clint;1165321 wrote: I think that if anything that drastic happens the world will be part of it. It will be, at least in part, about globalism. As Accountable points out we are being purchased with our own money to adopt a European style Socialism and this week our "leaders" followed China and Russia to say they would consider a global currency.


I read something about this in the Telegraph today. I shall go and dig it out and put a link here for it.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

We're Supposed to be a Republic

Post by OpenMind »

Accountable;1165335 wrote: I doubt it will come to anything. Remember that most politicians at state level have their eye on a federal seat.



It's happened before. Each state sets its own age limit for drinking, usually 18-21, depending on the state. Washington decided it should be 21 across the board. Why? Because Washington can, I suppose. But since it would be unconstitutional to legislate it from the federal level, Washington linked it to federal highway money. In other words, change your drinking age to 21 or we won't give you money to maintain federal highways. Some states resisted, and I was too young and drunk to be paying much attention to know specifically what happened. I do know that my home state of Louisiana was one of the last to comply ... but comply they did.



Mandatory seatbelt use was handled similarly.


I have never hungered for power. In fact, I balk at it. I cannot understand its attraction considering the responsibilities it carries with it. I think I would have hated being raised as a royal for instance.
Post Reply

Return to “Social Human Rights”