Ok, time for an elaborate essay like post, but it should be nice to read…
Overtime, people have ruled themselves in one way or another. With the dawn of humanity came social structures, in which the strongest rose to the top. These structures have developed over time, from nomadic tribes, to fixed depotism, to basic republicanism, to more advanced republicanism (this is about Rome’s peak, by the way…) to depotism, then Fuedalism. Woa! Wait a second, what was that? All these governments are getting more and more liberal and advanced, then, boom- depotism again. The story doesn’t end. Governments develop again (I realize that I’m only talking about western governemts, but because I’m only dealing with the specific US government, it’s ok.) Throughout time, with exceptions, government shows itself to be progressive.
So, jump ahead a few centuries to the modern US. A once bold, powerful, and honorable state- now reduced to something that some might say is based only on greed and corruption, much as Rome was during it’s later years. Though it has yet to happen, the future could find more parralells with the past. Foreign neighbors, sensing its weakness, might begin to harrass the US in more ways than it could manage.
Meanwhile, there’s trouble at home. People are discontent. Greed * is* a prime factor in almost everythng. Why do you go to school? So you can get into college? Why college? So you can live. Money. Not so you can make a difference to humanity, not so you can find ways to improve society. Money.
Then again, the US improves other nations all the time. There are thousands of non profit and charity organizations. Despit what I’ve said, many people indeed dedicate their lives to helping others.
Still, there’s corruption. As I see it, the best way to fight corruption is through a better system of education ,which teaches morals and such, with a strong emphasis on honor and charity. Or maybe that wouldn’t help.
So, dear reader, I leave the choice up to you. Eek! :eek: . God, I love that face…anyway, obviously, back yourself up, and also by all means put in more info, I didn’t use that much…impatience is a cruel mistress.
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
The best new form of government I can think of is to make me King. I promise I will be a benevolent monarch. I will protect the weak, ensure a decent quality of life for all, and always respect the opinions of my people.
Please indicate your agreement to my new benevolent monarchy, or I will have you all tortured and shot.
Well, both, in the sense of actually changing a government. I was actually looking at the neccessity of it, not the practical aplication (a revolution is only one way to do it, there are more peaceful means.) And 2sense, care to elaborate on your answer?
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
Can you name a time when people were not discontent? Can you describe a government that would prevent this? For that matter, what’s wrong with discontent? Discontent leads to striving. It is the striving that defines the life.
Content people are boring.
Yep. Humans want things. Once they have things, they want more things. I guess your assumption is that this is somehow evil. You propose a government that eliminates this? No, wait–it’s worse: You propose to “educate” people not to want things for themselves.
Certainly sounds interesting, but, if it’s all the same to you, include me out.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Better yet, could you give us an example of a country that is run better than this one?
I assume you’re looking for more freedom, less taxes, maybe a better standard of living? If you have a solid example to show me, I’ll consider it.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
I think that excellent quote was from Churchill (aren’t they all).
I am for a better government, but the “devil’s in the details”, what would we change with the current one?
Just for added debate, how about using a parlimentary system instead of fixed limits for Members of Congress, you stay in office until you are voted out (fifty days or fifty years)?
First off, Smartass, I think you could use some educating in this subtle little art called “interpretation.” Greed is not just wanting something for yourself- it’s wanting an excess of things. Now, when you vote for a senator or whomever, are you voting for someone who is most likely to give you the best representation in your government, or are you looking for someone who’s likely to make the most money? I ask because (written to save you the trouble of drawing conclusions on your own, lest you do yourself more harm) many politicians seem to be confused as to how voters might answer that question. Many of these senators are interested in advancing or at least retainign their position and in gaining money, not in representing their voters or following through on their campaign promises. <----- Grin to show my amusement at such annoyances
Ok, I am well aware that Democracy is the best option available so far. Actually, I totally lack the creativity and education (don’t even get me started on motivation) to think of something better. I just asked if there was a need, and left it up to you guys to decide, and hoped you might propose something on your own.
Indeed? And I made my misstatements because of a lack of ability to interpret?
Allow me to interpret the discussion a little more clearly for you:
You use the word greed to refer to something that you obviously think of as bad. Yet, when I mention people wanting things, I am misunderstanding your point. The key issue here is, apparently, the line of demarcation between wanting things and wanting excessive things. Are you now attempting to draw that line?
You are now ready to say when what I want is acceptable and when it is “greedy”? Or are you gonna set up some sort of rule or test to determine what amount of wanting is acceptable?
If this is the direction you’re heading, then my position is that the current government is doing just fine.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
I would like to elaborate. But I am busy in my own thread honing my arguments that the government laid out by the constitution does have serious flaws.
And I am being a poor host by neglecting my guests thoughtful responses. Perhaps I can catch up over there.
I would also be interested in the practical application of your OP. What methods other than revolution do you think could be effective in changing the whole system?
BTW-
I have found that the best way to converse with Smartass is to slow down and ask him questions. He is bright, and his opinions are interesting. But at 1st we both were just jumping to conclusions. If you can move past that stage, then I believe that discussing this with him could be valuable for you both.
(And for me. If I am not posting, rest assured that I am lurking.)
Obviously, there’s that whole bloody revolution thing. That’s not going to work. Basically, it’s far too hard to acquire weapons that would be anything like effective against a decent sized military formation. That alone should rule out an outright rebellion. As I see it, any government founded in blood would have been founded in such civil unrest that it’s laws would reflect this. (Example: 2nd amendment.)
So, if a forceful rebellion is out of the picture, what is there to do? What about something along the lines of terrorist demands? I don’t think so, the government could not possibly give in. Besides, would you want terrorists controlling your country? We must have peaceful transition.
How would we do that? Rallies, protests, petitions? No, anyone with the least bit of power would laugh at that. Basically, you have to organize. If you want a new government, convince everyone. Then, stop paying taxes. The government won’t have much of a choice there, either collapse or force money from you, and in the event of having money forced from you, you have to take a Ghandi-ish approach, and just continue to resist. Failing all else, slowly subvert the government, insert people friendly to your cause at all leveles of the governemnt and army. When the time is right , you’ll be able to overthrow it without difficulty.
All that is, of course, assuming that you have a government unwilling to cooperate. The ideal situation is one where the nation’s citizens get to together in some collective way (I know it’s ambiguous, but that doesn’t mean you have to criticize the theory as a whole because of it) and convince their representatives that the government needed to be taken down. The representatives would consent, and then the government would be dismantled, and hopefully by this time a new government would be ready to be installed. Hopefully.
So, let’s see what actually happens…
My question was directed at the fact that the constitution does not permit wholesale change. Are you aware that the constitution was itself illegal?
Thanks for the reply though. I still have my constitutional debate going. And I started a new disscussion over on the new board. Maybe I will see you there.
To which I reply:
The entire amendment procedure within the Constitution itself not having such verbiage in it makes your statement, at the very least, a WAG.
& 2sense further grasps at a straw:
To which I point out:
Excepting of course for the minor matter of the legislatures of the consituent States ratifying it and thus making it 100% legal. You’re not doing very well with these WAGs of yours.
2sense then forum-shops:
To which I enquire:
Got tired of being proven wrong on this one?
My wife just got home so my rebuttal will have wait a few hours. But I’ve got you this time.
For those of you at scoring at home, the score is:
Monty 1 - 2sense 0
Some mood music while you wait:
Monty, Monty, Monty I’ve been walking down your Hall.
I got beat, lost my seat, but I’m not a man to crawl.
I didn’t get rich, you son of a bitch.
But I’ll be back just you wait and see.
'Cause my whole world lies waiting behind door #3*
The constitution called for ratification by 9 states. The Articles of Confederation (the law of the land) called for unanimous ratification. So the document was in violation of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was, if you will, unconstitutional.
That all of the states did eventually ratify it is immaterial. Although the fact is that not all did until after George Washington was sworn in as President (under the new constitution).
Therefore, as I stated earlier, the constitution was illegal.
I would hardly characterize this as “grasping at straws”.
I also would not characterize this as a “Wild Ass Guess”
I would characterize this as proof.
I forgot to relate what the post above has to do with our disscussion. It is an example of a practical example of establishing a new government. In fact, it might be considered a precedent.
<----- Grin to show my amusement at such annoyances