|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:54 pm
(first off, I've read the rules, but if it turns out this post should be somewhere else, I apologize.)
I feel like we should really get things going, so I'll start a political discussion here and now. I'd love nothing more then take the knuckle-heads in power and say "Right, here's how things are going to work from now on" and set things right. Things like that aren't likely to happen, but it's nice to dream. So if you could change your government, what would you do? Would you change the power structure (like, change a president to a council or vice versa) or the political agenda or what? What is your ideal government?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:31 pm
Well, it's really hard for me to know exactly how to achieve all the dreams I have of how the world should function. Or how to get to the "ultimate goal". At least in any way realistic?
What I want to happen is: something to be done about wages since middle class is just decreasing and the separation between lower and high class is increasing. I'd like gay marriage become legalized, equal rights amendment to actually be passed. And on and on and on, with illegal immigration, abortion, the environmental issues... a lot of things need to be resolved but it won't be till a long time.
But well, I just want a government that was more concerned about individual rights. I know it's hard to think of everyone individually, but I think the first step to that would to take into consideration a person's autonomy: to choose and direct their own life. Of course, also, that as long as they aren't impeding on anyone else's autonomy for example: by threatening them, oppressing them...
But that's still very vague, with a lot of holes if there isn't other things to support it. Umm, I'm rambling and I'm not sure if I even make sense. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:05 pm
I doubt that I'm the best person to involve myself in politics, having nearly no opinions about things I don't fully understand. It's not that I don't understand our government, It's just that I don't have a solution to the problem. I have a buddy that does, though.
My best friend, Rachel, thinks that we need a monarchy after visiting England last summer. I don't think she realizes how many problems come with the system though. She counters with saying that it's better than a democracy. To which I respond by saying that I'd totally love having my freedoms ripped away by some pandering fool who was born into power. She attempts to save face, claiming that she meant a figurehead monarchy, almost exactly what the UK's got with a cabinet and prime minister and whatever else. I didn't mean to bash her point of view, I just felt that she ought to make a decision based on historical facts, rather than what she visited.
I suppose my point is that no matter the system you prefer, there are going to be problems that no one will agree upon. I think that we're working with what we've got right now in the U.S. and it's not likely we'll find a saint with a ton of cash to govern us any time soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:17 pm
In response to "having [your] freedoms ripped away by some pandering fool" might I remind you that monarchies were mostly successful, and were the forms of government in use as several European nations rose to unity and became known as international powers. The British became arguably the most powerful nation in Europe for a time under a monarchy, and during their revolution, it turned out that having a monarch was better then not having one. In addition, they tend to be more effective then an oversized democratic republic like in the USA, which is corrupt, mostly partisan, slow, bloated, and ineffective at almost everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:58 pm
Scrya In response to "having [your] freedoms ripped away by some pandering fool" might I remind you that monarchies were mostly successful, and were the forms of government in use as several European nations rose to unity and became known as international powers. The British became arguably the most powerful nation in Europe for a time under a monarchy, and during their revolution, it turned out that having a monarch was better then not having one. In addition, they tend to be more effective then an oversized democratic republic like in the USA, which is corrupt, mostly partisan, slow, bloated, and ineffective at almost everything. True, especially that last bit. But when I think of the monarchies of Britain, I tend to think more towards the negative side of things. I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is the English Civil War, like you referenced. It seems like there were two sides unable to see the other side of the story. Charles I was the classic monarch: arrogant and far too pious, as far as wikipedia can tell me. Parliament of the time appears to be the party vying for power, or at least a better leader. Things didn't get much better when the parliamentary Cromwell rose to power in the Third Civil War. Ah, the world's eff'd up now, was, and probably will be for a long while! Well, no country can function while in anarchy! 3nodding Revolutions are hard on all the parties involved. I also consider "divine right" to be pretty asinine to begin with, which doesn't help my preconceived notions of the system. I understand that this was the way of the time, but divinity is not something I can regard, as a whole, justification for any action. I don't mean that it's ineffective, I wouldn't know how to go about the transition to any new form of government. And you're exactly right about the size of our government. Things have gotten far too out of hand by means of size to be effective. Thoughts? whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:05 pm
Leuven Scrya In response to "having [your] freedoms ripped away by some pandering fool" might I remind you that monarchies were mostly successful, and were the forms of government in use as several European nations rose to unity and became known as international powers. The British became arguably the most powerful nation in Europe for a time under a monarchy, and during their revolution, it turned out that having a monarch was better then not having one. In addition, they tend to be more effective then an oversized democratic republic like in the USA, which is corrupt, mostly partisan, slow, bloated, and ineffective at almost everything. True, especially that last bit. But when I think of the monarchies of Britain, I tend to think more towards the negative side of things. I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is the English Civil War, like you referenced. It seems like there were two sides unable to see the other side of the story. Charles I was the classic monarch: arrogant and far too pious, as far as wikipedia can tell me. Parliament of the time appears to be the party vying for power, or at least a better leader. Things didn't get much better when the parliamentary Cromwell rose to power in the Third Civil War. Ah, the world's eff'd up now, was, and probably will be for a long while! Well, no country can function while in anarchy! 3nodding Revolutions are hard on all the parties involved. I also consider "divine right" to be pretty asinine to begin with, which doesn't help my preconceived notions of the system. I understand that this was the way of the time, but divinity is not something I can regard, as a whole, justification for any action. I don't mean that it's ineffective, I wouldn't know how to go about the transition to any new form of government. And you're exactly right about the size of our government. Things have gotten far too out of hand by means of size to be effective. Thoughts? whee Well, I concede that divine right is pretty backwards. Maybe a Roman-style empire? We still need something fairly depoliticized, and a consolation of power in the hands of the few allows effective and swift decision making, less gov't B.S., and a senate or such stops a complete "evil dictator" scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:10 pm
First of all, all my armed forces would be focused on defense, no offensive crap. We'd be neutral, but not pussies. There would be about a million less politicians. I'd have a triumvirate in place of the president. And last but not least I'd abolish seatbelt laws for adults (protect the kids with the law, sure. Parents are slackers these days). If the adults wanna kill themselves, more food for us. I wouldn't keep anyone from harming his or her self. Others is a whole different thing, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:05 am
Scrya Well, I concede that divine right is pretty backwards. Maybe a Roman-style empire? We still need something fairly depoliticized, and a consolation of power in the hands of the few allows effective and swift decision making, less gov't B.S., and a senate or such stops a complete "evil dictator" scenario. Hm . . . You know, that doesn't sound that bad, but I don't know too much about it, so I may have to do some research! Hold on, please. I'm back! From what I've read, a Dictator was supposed to rule for only six months. Is that enough time for us to see events through to the end? How long do you recommend a leader stay in power? Also, under TAW's article under Rebellions of the time, there were very few in peace time and when warring, were liable to get out of hand, but were otherwise well managed. That's something that I can support, but what would happen if the "Dictator/President/Inserttitlehere" gained too much power and sought to limit the freedoms of the commoner? Do you think that one group, a senate, would have enough power to stand up to the man in charge, or would the senate have grown too corrupt by that time? Or does this ideal Roman society have some form of constitution that we can live by? Where do you stand on power using the military? Should the army be used to quell uprisings, as was normal under the Roman Empire, or purely for the country's defense? I very much agree with The Lunatic On The Grass. But, basic principles, without altering our system too much, could do a world's worth of good. Though, I think that Wikipedia's description of Triumvirate is quite accurate: TAW "The term triumvirate is commonly used to describe a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals. The arrangement can be formal or informal, and though the three are usually equal on paper, in reality this is rarely the case." Negative connotations abound in this one, but it could work! Again, I think that any system would be effifient if we hammered out the kinks, but are we asking which one is best or creating our own? Personally, I like to take what history (Or the History Channel) has shown me and make my own view on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:15 pm
Maybe 6 months is too short for a ruler, but we don't have to copy the Roman style completely. I think Rome did have a constitution of sorts. I still believe that there should only be a few or even one person in power. A proper senate of some sort would be able to keep power in check. Maybe something like the British parliament was supposed to do. The reason it didn't work then was because the king didn't really want it. It's like one of the problems in the middle east; you can't force democracy on people, or any type of government for that matter. If a triumvirate or ruler accepted a council as a ruling partner, instead of begrudgingly, then they would have no delusions of absolute power and a system could work out, at least for a first elections.
As for the military, I don't believe a large one is necessary, I believe in quality of quantity in that matter, and only a small, highly trained standing force would be needed. I would never draft, but reserve forces should be able to be called upon almost immediately. Force is never necessary, but I'd build a strong defense in case anyone else thought differently.
Corruption is nearly inevitable. That's why it be important to have elections on numerous positions, so that a leader can't just install his own people. Different term lengths would also force different party ideas to be discussed and mixed to come to an agreement on government issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 4:17 pm
i don't think i'd get rid of my government completely, (UK government), which is changing prime minister at the moment. Instead of changing the government completely, i would make it so normal people could have a say in more than just general elections. and if they want to do something the people don't agree with, they can't , if that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:35 pm
potoroo99 i don't think i'd get rid of my government completely, (UK government), which is changing prime minister at the moment. Instead of changing the government completely, i would make it so normal people could have a say in more than just general elections. and if they want to do something the people don't agree with, they can't , if that makes sense. How would this work? How would each person be able to have a say? That's a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:48 pm
potoroo99 i don't think i'd get rid of my government completely, (UK government), which is changing prime minister at the moment. Instead of changing the government completely, i would make it so normal people could have a say in more than just general elections. and if they want to do something the people don't agree with, they can't , if that makes sense. It's a little flawed since a lot of people have a lot of different ideas for what should be done and such. It would cause utter chaos or nothing would really be done effectively. Since there will be something people will disagree to. Let's say people want to decide to have gun control or not. Who's to say which is allowed? Since people will either agree or disagree with gun control. Hard to say one of these will never be allowed. Since then majority rules and it's a totally free democracy, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:27 am
'OK... I am going to ramble on about this so I say sorry right now..'
First we need to change everything there is about the gov's to make one that really works.
First Money....! Is not needed! I show you why...!
Daily life! : Everyone has a job that they do. You don't get payed for working. Nope there is no money! Lets start with the young and move up from there. Kid go to school lake any other country, at the age of 16 they pick what they want to do in there life, after they pick they head to another school Specializing in the job area that the kid wishes to be, the teen trains in that school training him in the classes needed for his wanted job.
After school he is given his wanted job if there is an opening, if not he takes on a low level job like Dishwasher, until a opening appears.
(food, clothing, health care, Tech, schooling and more is all free.) Need something go out and get one.) Everyone Is assigned A Home, families are given a slightly larger home. (yes all homes are the same, till you your self remodel them to how you like it. (hay its Your House!)
"The government and the people/community are one in the same. (in other words people have the power, no one is in charge or is given more power than any other person.
Government set up! Everyone is given the raw info, and they vote on what they want to do, votes are tallied and the most votes is what they go with, backup plan is the 2nd place winner in the votes. (this is where computers come in handy A!)
As I said before No one has more power than any other person. There is no rich, there is no poor.
how can such a government interact with other governments?
Trade, money is made on exports and that money we made, is used to bring in imports. (its the only time money is ever used.)
I post more about this Idea if you have any other questions about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:19 am
doctor_logical 'OK... I am going to ramble on about this so I say sorry right now..' First we need to change everything there is about the gov's to make one that really works. First Money....! Is not needed! I show you why...! Daily life! : Everyone has a job that they do. You don't get payed for working. Nope there is no money! Lets start with the young and move up from there. Kid go to school lake any other country, at the age of 16 they pick what they want to do in there life, after they pick they head to another school Specializing in the job area that the kid wishes to be, the teen trains in that school training him in the classes needed for his wanted job. After school he is given his wanted job if there is an opening, if not he takes on a low level job like Dishwasher, until a opening appears. (food, clothing, health care, Tech, schooling and more is all free.) Need something go out and get one.) Everyone Is assigned A Home, families are given a slightly larger home. (yes all homes are the same, till you your self remodel them to how you like it. (hay its Your House!) "The government and the people/community are one in the same. (in other words people have the power, no one is in charge or is given more power than any other person. Government set up! Everyone is given the raw info, and they vote on what they want to do, votes are tallied and the most votes is what they go with, backup plan is the 2nd place winner in the votes. (this is where computers come in handy A!) As I said before No one has more power than any other person. There is no rich, there is no poor. how can such a government interact with other governments? Trade, money is made on exports and that money we made, is used to bring in imports. (its the only time money is ever used.) I post more about this Idea if you have any other questions about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:02 pm
Scrya doctor_logical 'OK... I am going to ramble on about this so I say sorry right now..' First we need to change everything there is about the gov's to make one that really works. First Money....! Is not needed! I show you why...! Daily life! : Everyone has a job that they do. You don't get payed for working. Nope there is no money! Lets start with the young and move up from there. Kid go to school lake any other country, at the age of 16 they pick what they want to do in there life, after they pick they head to another school Specializing in the job area that the kid wishes to be, the teen trains in that school training him in the classes needed for his wanted job. After school he is given his wanted job if there is an opening, if not he takes on a low level job like Dishwasher, until a opening appears. (food, clothing, health care, Tech, schooling and more is all free.) Need something go out and get one.) Everyone Is assigned A Home, families are given a slightly larger home. (yes all homes are the same, till you your self remodel them to how you like it. (hay its Your House!) "The government and the people/community are one in the same. (in other words people have the power, no one is in charge or is given more power than any other person. Government set up! Everyone is given the raw info, and they vote on what they want to do, votes are tallied and the most votes is what they go with, backup plan is the 2nd place winner in the votes. (this is where computers come in handy A!) As I said before No one has more power than any other person. There is no rich, there is no poor. how can such a government interact with other governments? Trade, money is made on exports and that money we made, is used to bring in imports. (its the only time money is ever used.) I post more about this Idea if you have any other questions about it. Yes Its incomplete because I am still working out the bugs. As now I can make this post a lot longer, but I am fearing the Idea of having to post all of it. Maby I post some info little by little. I start with, what would you like to know more about. The peoples role in creating the laws, creating the limits and laws, of the country or what? I let you pick a starting spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
