Ideal government

@cws910,

I've been putting more thought into this question (and its derivatives) lately. I believe that the government should try to balance both social justice and individual freedom.

I wonder why there is such a big gap between our two major political parties - Democrats and Republicans. Of course we have many other parties...but those are either to the left of the Democratic party or to the right of the Republican party. We need a party somewhere in the middle. We need government regulation and involvement in areas...but we also should support individual freedoms in other areas.

Take driving for example...as an individual a person should be able to scratch if they like or yell at the radio. However, as part of a social system, they must comply with the law and they are bound by social curtesy to use a blinker when appropriate.

0 Replies

@cws910,

There is only one form of government; and that is democracy... All other social forms are the rule of one group by another, variations of tyranny...

0 Replies

@cws910,

Popular democracy would solve the problem. That is the only true form of acceptable government. All other forms are just plain wrong. Simply, the people choose what they want, that's the way it should be. If the smaller majority doesn't like any decision, too bad because they are being selfish. There will be differences and conflicts between people, the best solution is to satisfy the majority. If someone thinks they have a good compromise, bring it up and vote on it, the maybe and even bigger majority will agree. Simple as that. Without the people, a government is just a group of people, who for some reason think that their superior to anyone else, that need something to control and rule.

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;117521 wrote:

Popular democracy would solve the problem. That is the only true form of acceptable government. All other forms are just plain wrong. Simply, the people choose what they want, that's the way it should be. If the smaller majority doesn't like any decision, too bad because they are being selfish. There will be differences and conflicts between people, the best solution is to satisfy the majority. If someone thinks they have a good compromise, bring it up and vote on it, the maybe and even bigger majority will agree. Simple as that. Without the people, a government is just a group of people, who for some reason think that their superior to anyone else, that need something to control and rule.

As much as it is possible, everyone should agree, and if changes are to be made, everyone should get greased, that is benefit...Majority rule is still rule, and that rule can be manipulated to ruin whole segments of the population, and divide it so deeply as to make it useless for its own defense...Majority rule does not work...It is more expeditious...It moves faster, and kills the society sooner because people can be ruined by halves...

0 Replies

@cws910,

If the majority of society wants to ruin itself, then let em do it. Now obviously i as well as others wouldn't want that, but you have to remember the government was setup by the people for the people. The people wanted protection of life, liberty, and property. Popular democracy should do the same then. How does this system not ruin the other half? The other half has to accept that if the majority of their brothers and sisters want something this way, then so be it. I'm assuming that most of the population would want whatever is best for the population. I'm pretty sure more than half of the people today are upset and not content with our government choices, why not shut them up and bring up a popular democracy.

Let me explain it this way, the choices most obvious will have a larger majority supporting it. The choices that are less obvious and could go either way wouldn't upset anyone more than our current party-system would.

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;117557 wrote:

If the majority of society wants to ruin itself, then let em do it. Now obviously i as well as others wouldn't want that, but you have to remember the government was setup by the people for the people. The people wanted protection of life, liberty, and property. Popular democracy should do the same then. How does this system not ruin the other half? The other half has to accept that if the majority of their brothers and sisters want something this way, then so be it. I'm assuming that most of the population would want whatever is best for the population. I'm pretty sure more than half of the people today are upset and not content with our government choices, why not shut them up and bring up a popular democracy.

Let me explain it this way, the choices most obvious will have a larger majority supporting it. The choices that are less obvious and could go either way wouldn't upset anyone more than our current party-system would.

I am certain you are joking...We set up our government using the example of the Roman Republic and commonwealth and even their symbols...The thought that the republic they modeled after was on its last legs, and was destroying itself with slavery, and verging on civil war, and that tyranny did not end the corruption of the rich which was the corruption in time of the whole people, but inevitably, that rule for the benefit of the rich led to limitless expansion and costs which the rich refused to bear until the whole thing crumbled- NEVER seemed to enter their minds.. We started at the point of failure and have only survived because our land was more defensible than Italy...

1 Reply

@Fido,

From my understanding, we are a representative democracy (verses a direct democracy). Thus the majority does not rule in all maters. The founding fathers set it up to be a representative democracy so that our rights could not be overthrown by a simple majority.

Although it is still a numbers game, a simple majority cannot take away your right to life or freedom of speech.

1 Reply

@cws910,

As I said, like Rome...

0 Replies

@cruise95,

cruise95;117636 wrote:

From my understanding, we are a representative democracy (verses a direct democracy). Thus the majority does not rule in all maters. The founding fathers set it up to be a representative democracy so that our rights could not be overthrown by a simple majority.

Although it is still a numbers game, a simple majority cannot take away your right to life or freedom of speech.

If we don't want the right of speech (which is unlikely) then want is the government doing besides going against the population is seeks to govern? What the people want is what should be law. Everyone has a reason for what they believe in. If more than half of the population want no speech laws, then, that's what it should be, obviously those who have opted for such have done so for a popular reason. If not, then the government is upsetting the majority of the population, what's right and wrong is based on perception.

2 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;117994 wrote:

If we don't want the right of speech (which is unlikely) then want is the government doing besides going against the population is seeks to govern? What the people want is what should be law. Everyone has a reason for what they believe in. If more than half of the population want no speech laws, then, that's what it should be, obviously those who have opted for such have done so for a popular reason. If not, then the government is upsetting the majority of the population, what's right and wrong is based on perception.

If a representative government was the goal, then the government would seek out the will of the people...In fact, house districts which once had one representative for every thirty thousand now have one rep for over 600K, and the districts are deliberately divided to give one party or the other a consistent majority...They do not ask the people what is their will, but tell the people what they want...They will do stuff like handing the people a couple of hundred dollars they will take out of them later so they can give millions to the rich...

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;117994 wrote:

What the people want is what should be law. Everyone has a reason for what they believe in. If more than half of the population want no speech laws, then, that's what it should be, obviously those who have opted for such have done so for a popular reason. If not, then the government is upsetting the majority of the population, what's right and wrong is based on perception.

While that is true, it is also true tat a person is not sentenced to execution via a majority of 12 peers. There are many examples whereby a majority is insufficient. The majority does not always rule...thus in certain circumstances a 2/3 (or more) majority is desired. Thus a pure democracy where majority rules may be a good rule of thumb...but it must be wrought with inconsitencies to be fair.

1 Reply

@cruise95,

Concerning the idea of a direct democracy, where every citizen votes on a given issue and whichever side wins the most vote wins;
I do not see how this could be achieved in a nation with such a high population like the United States. Switzerland has such a government, however Switzerland has a population of 7,630,605 versus the U.S. population of 304,059,724 (39x the number of citizens).
In the US, not everyone even votes on the election of the President (perhaps because it's the Electoral College that does the electing?). So you can imagine that in a nation of 300 million people, you would be hard pressed to advertise an issue and get very many people to be aware of it, give them information about it, and supply them with the resources to do the voting and count the votes, etc.
No, for a direct democracy to work in the U.S. there would need to be a new system for voting and for advertising the votes themselves. The current method of popular vote that is being used with people driving to voting stations on specific times of specific days seems absurd considering that the U.S. calls itself the wealthiest nation to have ever existed. We are in the Digital Age, are we not?
I'll give one idea for a solution to this problem. A nation has a voting internet-based data-bank, which houses all the issues that are being voted on and allows citizens to cast their votes via a wireless system. This would undoubtedly put many more votes into the system, which would more accurately represent the majority.
Suppose each citizen is provided with a Citizen's Account that they can log-in to over the internet. They can view the issues being discussed, view debates and articles about the issues, and cast their vote whenever they please. Citizens would be aware of every issue affecting their well-being, not just those that receive funding from wealthy companies that support candidates who spam the radio, television, and postal service with their propaganda.
I'm aware that this system appears to be wide open for hackers and identity thieves to break into and pervert. Consider the CIA, FBI, and any other government administrations that receive a great deal of tax-payer funding to keep them well-equipped to prevent hackers and the occasional armed guerrilla force from taking control of the system. I'm sure the US government (and with a direct democracy in place, the people themselves) would make damn well sure their votes were secure.

----

The initial question of this thread was whether government should be run for the sake of the people or for the sake of the individual.
I say the individual.
The reason is that nothing exists except individuals. There is no church, there is no NRA, no City Council, no faculty, no Microsoft, and no United States of America; only a collection of individuals who run or are members of a tag with such and such a name that deals with affairs concerning such and such a topic (religion, firearms, government of a city, education of a student body, computer software/licenses, whatever it is that a country does [which is another topic completely]). "The Group" doesn't exist, only individuals. Once you start dealing with the Group you must determine what the Group represents and what it wants; who is part of it and what do they collectively want, how much influence does a single member have on the Group's desires?
So what exactly does it mean to "run for the people"? Is a government's objective not to uphold rights for its citizens? Is not every citizen an individual person?

1 Reply

@cws910,

The US is a republic not a direct democrary.
The Constitution specifies a federal government of limited size, scope and specified powers.
The bill of rights guarantees certain rights to individuals and to states which can not be taken away by the majority or by the federal government.
An effort is made to balance the rights of individuals with the need for common government. A fairly sucessful effort in my view.

The size, scope and powers of the federal government exceed that which the founding fathers envisioned largely because of expansive interpretatons of the interstate commerce clause and use of federal funds to bribe states to surrender their autonomy.

I think representative government, separation of powers, limited scope of government and preservation of individual liberties (against tyranny of the majority) are all practices of good or best government.

0 Replies

@cws910,

It's never existed and will never. No one like's being governed by anyone! No one has that right! The reason we have governments is because there is so damn much wrong with those who thing they are govenors.

Many times I have heard the term BENEVOLENT DICTATOR and if that were possible, I think it would solve all those problems. For one to be in that position must come from all people with whom that person communicates with. Most of those who are so benevolent and unselfish have been expired by those who "choose" to rule and are elected by their peers and that is by no means EVERYONE.

When our forefathers issued their edicts as to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not familiar with all, but they did set a foundation for that to happen. Unfortunately those who choose to rule have redefined it to such an extent that foundation has been severely eroded.

In a structure that rewards greed and promotes entrapment regardless of what you wish to call it will never be civilized and will result in decay and ruin. Always has and always will. What we have now that we call a democracy is a joke. It's like putting a bicycle before a child then cutting both his legs off. Democracy should not be at a cost for anyone! Those costs create severe problems, see list.

We are a long way from knowing what is in the mind of all people and efforts have been made to deter what those (all) have to say. It's called preserving ethnicity. BS!!!!!!!!!

America was to be a model where the world could meet in all fairness so they could communicate in one language. It was that way once when to be a citizen here English was mandated. No longer! If we cannot communicate freely with each other, what good can come from that?

There is an order that can be derived from the trilogy that is our existence on this planet that lies in FATHER/MOTHER/CHILD. Father/Universe/Man; Mother/Earth/Woman; Child/Unity/Balance. You might say "a bit OUT THERE" and I will say YES, it is. Most are not there yet for I am not done yet and I will continue in some capacity as will you because there is no end. And that is our problem. Ha! So many think there is and "time's a wastin'". Pity!

Many are too selfish to understand this universal truth. We know of only one trilogy and that is of Father/son/spirit when all three Man/woman/child trilogistic also. That is the imbalance and why those who govern fail so miserably.

He who is of that title will know the importance of FAMILY that is FATHER/MOTHER/CHILD and the importance of it in all contexts universal, global and individually. The govenments now have no such notion of it's importance and why we refer to human kind as MANKIND.

So it can be concluded "if" what I offer is at all a truth, then those discussions trying to define democracy in any other respect will be of no use what so ever and the path we are on will continue to deteriorate, rot and decay.

I am not asking all to understand the depth of what I say; all I ask is that you try.

Who will hold that title will be the decision of all the people, all people! They will place him there through no choice of his own. When that will be. That depends on how really rotten life becomes.

My thoughts, you are more than welcome to offer and have your own. Of course there are those who think life is just fine the way it is. For them, it's all downhill from there. Most do wish for a better one and for those, it will come.

William

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

Smiley451;118937 wrote:

The initial question of this thread was whether government should be run for the sake of the people or for the sake of the individual.
I say the individual.
The reason is that nothing exists except individuals. There is no church, there is no NRA, no City Council, no faculty, no Microsoft, and no United States of America; only a collection of individuals who run or are members of a tag with such and such a name that deals with affairs concerning such and such a topic (religion, firearms, government of a city, education of a student body, computer software/licenses, whatever it is that a country does [which is another topic completely]). "The Group" doesn't exist, only individuals. Once you start dealing with the Group you must determine what the Group represents and what it wants; who is part of it and what do they collectively want, how much influence does a single member have on the Group's desires?
So what exactly does it mean to "run for the people"? Is a government's objective not to uphold rights for its citizens? Is not every citizen an individual person?

Couldn't agree more. The various groups in whose name government claims to be working at various times ('the people' 'the poor' 'the minority' 'the middle class', etc.) exist only as ideas in the minds of individuals. Ideas should not have rights. Ideas cannot work, pay taxes, serve in the military, own property, etc. Only individuals should have rights, and all individuals should have the same rights. Beautifully simple isn't it?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;119220 wrote:

Couldn't agree more. The various groups in whose name government claims to be working at various times ('the people' 'the poor' 'the minority' 'the middle class', etc.) exist only as ideas in the minds of individuals. Ideas should not have rights. Ideas cannot work, pay taxes, serve in the military, own property, etc. Only individuals should have rights, and all individuals should have the same rights. Beautifully simple isn't it?

How about do you feel about corporations having rights?

1 Reply

@prothero,

Corporations cannot (read: should not) have rights in the same sense as a person has rights. Clearly though, they must have a unique legal status in order for them to function as corporations. They should be treated in civil terms like a singular entity: i.e. taxed and dealt with in contracts and in lawsuits as a corporate entity, not a collection of individuals. In criminal affairs, only persons can be liable though, so the officers involved in criminal acts would themselves be liable, not the corporations as a whole - how would that work anyway?

I know the debated issue is that corporations have been granted personhood, but, to be honest, I don't know what rights that entails. If anything other than the above mentioned though, I can't imagine that such is appropriate.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I think the both of you are misunderstanding my usage of 'people'. By people, I mean every single citizen in the country; I.E. is the individuals rights more important then the success of failure of an entirety of people?

1 Reply

@cws910,

I don't know if 'both of you' was intended to include me, but in case it was, let me respond to your question.

cws910;120050 wrote:

is the individuals rights more important then the success of failure of an entirety of people?

Yes. As the maintenance of individual liberty is the only justification for the existence of the state - in my view - there is no sense in maintaining the state at the expense of individual liberty. What is the logic for preserving the nation if the values which define that nation - or should - are abandoned?

The alternate view is the fascist view, and I mean that in a literally correct, non-derogatory sense. Ask Benito or Adolph. It is also the Soviet, Maoist and generally communist view. Of course, this kind of mindless nationalism is also the view of modern American politicians, notably Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, who both talk about preserving our freedoms (from the great terrorist threat :sarcastic:) by eliminating them (through the PATRIOT ACT et al) and about preserving free markets (from destruction) by abandoning them (through massive government intervention).

But these days, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Love is Hate.

0 Replies

Ideal government

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know