[Mutzy]

Sixty, on 08 September 2009 - 09:33 PM, said:

Mutzy, on 08 September 2009 - 12:02 AM, said:

Tapper, on 07 September 2009 - 06:57 PM, said:

Mutzy, on 07 September 2009 - 06:46 PM, said:

Tapper, on 07 September 2009 - 06:22 PM, said:

Mutzy, on 07 September 2009 - 04:44 PM, said:

Happy Cat- If your house is being broken into, you call the police and prepare to defend yourself. That is common sense Happy Cat. You could classify it as practical. Don't need to fix it if it ain't broke.

Tapper- Military training will be mandatory at 18 years of age or at 16 if they volunteer with their parent's permission. Any adults who do not know how to use one or do not have a gun, will be supplied and trained in its use. You may think that this is very facist, but I've never known a facist government who arms its citizenry.

Its not fascist at all, conscription used to be the norm in a lot of countries until the late nineties and still is in Switzerland, for example. Are people in your model allowed to refuse the gun once their military training is over? And aren't you arming your criminals through your model, as well?

Yes, they are allowed to refuse the government issued weapon, though I would advise against it. Of course security measures would be taken to prevent criminals from obtaining automatic weapons legally through the program, by the way of polygraph tests and such and the few criminals who make it through and obtain the guns will most likely be caught, through use of records on who was issued what weapon, which includes address, blood type, fingerprints, DNA, and so on and so forth.

What about criminals who become criminals after their 2 years in the armed services and who could get automatic weapons (ffs, automatic weapons?!) through the program? What about nuts who do their time and then walk into a/their former high school to settle their grudges? You leave them to Kindergarten Cop? That was a movie, not reality, dude, and a bad movie to boot.

Do you think people would donate blood and fingerprints and DNA willingly? Aren't you creating a police state that way, rather than common sense? Who have access to the records? Who is keeping an eye on those who have access? Is it going to be used for any other purposes? Like, 'common sense medical examination?' Genetically carried cancer, for example, will I be able to get chemotherapy to prolong my life if I want to, or is it more common sense and better for the public good to let me die and spend the resources on someone else?

Anyway, I guess you noticed I'm a sceptic, and I guess this thread will never get back to where it was after the Warhammer 40k debacle, and now this 'utopia' that I most certainly wouldn't want to be a part of.

Did I say it was a perfect system? No. I think about it constantly attempting to cover most of my bases. This system requires like-minded people to work effectively. It is definitely not for those who want to live off of the government and refuse to work. And I have never seen a police state arm its own citizens. Police states require fear of the government, if the police state's citizens are armed, then well you can't really do anything can you? The only real full-fledged details so far, are the criminal parts of it. How to deal with criminals, punishments and so forth. And besides you have to give your fingerprints and DNA to the government today to own a gun, I do believe. Plus there are registry and if you want to commit a crime in the state I have suggested where most people have a gun, well go ahead. I give you 5 seconds during the act of the crime before you are shot... My society is hardly an utopia, considering that it is made by man, but it does get rid of the top heavy beaurcracy that we have today, since it is the citizens who vote who they want in office, without all of those special interest groups. They vote on the laws they want. The basics of government is to serve the people, not the people who serve the government. There would be no congress, mostly just one man who enforces the laws that the people want.

This was a reasonable system in Athens, Greece, with a population of 10,000.

Think of the average voting American. Think of THEIR average intelligence. Many Americans don't vote ONCE every 4 years for their President--what makes you think that they'd bother voting on every law that comes up? And think of how unpractical that is! The whole purpose of a republic is to avoid the exact issues that returning to this system creates.

Oh, and by the way, having one man with total power to enforce laws == dictatorship. Doesn't matter if he becomes a tyrant; he has the power to control the law enforcement and therefore there is no one to enforce the law upon himself.

Did I say the average American will work under my system? Hardly. And if that one man conducts a dictatorship against the will of the people who are armed, then well revolution will most likely follow since those citizens are also apart of the army.... And it will be a very one-sided revolution.

[HoosierDaddy]

So, a people armed with guns will successfully overthrow a government, ruled by one man with the army at his disposal, with weapons far exceeding their own? I'm sorry, but rule through brute-force isn't rule. It's tyranny. You invite the most anarchical induced society I can imagine and consider it good. The Dark Ages in Europe or the Wild Wild West is not a good example for governance, and that's what you are supporting with what you are saying.

[HoosierDaddy]

HoosierDaddy, on 21 August 2009 - 07:22 PM, said:

What a surprise!

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

I retook the test:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

Evidently when I'm drunk I'm a little more... left.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 09 September 2009 - 06:07 AM

[Cougar]

HoosierDaddy, on 08 September 2009 - 11:36 PM, said:

Now, would direct democracy work in America? We'll never know, but the tyranny of the majority is a frightening prospect, and why the founding fathers made the country a republic in the first place.

I though that the US became a republic to stop the mean old King of England, Hitler III, stealing babies and levying 2% tax, I've seen the Patriot, I know. It was shortly after Jon Bon Jovi stole the Enigma machine.

Ahh, I'm being facetious, but this topic is getting silly. Direct democracy is totally out of the question in all but the most politically astute of societies, even if you can get the people involved all you get is the tyranny of the majority, or more likely the dominance of a politically active class and/or in opposition to extremists.

Although the US president is indeed a powerful part of the system he doesn't for instance possess the power of the French President in the 5th Republic, I believe if you are going to go down the republic route (for a new country) the US has it as close to correct as you can. If they extended the War Powers act to mean the president could not committ to combat in a foreign country without declaration of war from said country you'd have a cracking system.

[HoosierDaddy]

The constitutional powers of the President and what is currently around today are radically different, and a source of constant debate amongst constitutional scholars and political scientists, though Cougar. The Executive Branch has become exceedingly more powerful as the Republic has aged, to the point where G. W. Bush was able to straight walk around Search and Seizure protections in the 4th Amendment and the power of Congress to "declare war" of the 1st Article of the Constitution.

It's good, but easily corrupted.

[Cougar]

Oh, I agree, nothing's perfect when it comes to systems of government and constitutions must evolve over time to meet the demands of a changing world. The US consititution is notoriously unresponsive, whilst the ability of the president to (in certain circunstances) act decisively is laudable. Contrast this to the UK legislature which holds all the power really, but the constitution is a constantly evolving document with no 'fundamental' elements. Then take France where the President is as overpowered as Anomander Rake or Israel where the Kneset (SP) is crippled by the undue influence of minority parties. All these systems are massively flawed yet none of the framers of the original ideas though they were anything but perfect.

I'm just saying I like the way the US system works, good checks and balances, as HD says maybe not what they once were, but it's swings and roundabouts Congress will be back with avengance at some point. The area I would soften a little is the powers of the supreme court, I think that it has undue power when you consider how overpoliticized it is.

[HoosierDaddy]

The polticalization of the Supreme Court is my favored dissertation project at the Ph.D. level, Cougar. Having spent 5 years in undergrad political science studies and 3 years at law school, the power of the Supreme Court is immense. And yet, if you check any public opinion poll, it is by far the most trusted institution in our government. It is the most conservative, least radical, and most logical institution of the three branches. I am, quite dumbfounded, quite often, at the ability of the Supreme Court.

It is, in my opinion, the most stellar creation of the Founding Fathers, and most of that is due to John Marshall's Marbury v. Madison decision on Judicial Review. If I had any choice of an institution to export to other nations, it would be our version of a Supreme Court. While it might be increasingly political, the Justices are who they are and do not take politics in to consideration. They view the law as they do, and it is the job of the President and the Senate to choose and appoint them. That's where the politicalization comes into play.

[Terez]

Martial law is declared every time there's a major disaster - we were under martial law for a while after Hurricane Katrina. What's funny is that they had goons with automatic weapons directing traffic, for the sake of efficiency (all the traffic signals were destroyed).

[HoosierDaddy]

The difference being, Terez, there was no disaster in D.C. at that point.

[Cougar]

@HD, I think there is something fundamentally inimical to most British people about putting so much power in the hands of an un-elected, not to mention effectively unremovable body. We have a huge ruckus about the EU FFS!

Whilst the fact that judges are tough to budge can be seen as elevating them above politics (and there are plenty of people who would cite examples where the judges have been elected as party x and subsequently confounded said party with their liberalism/conservatism etc) it also means that bad ones are equally hard to move.

My argument against such a thing would be that just because the institution itself is (relatively) successful doesn't mean it's institutionally sound. In fact I'd go further: I'd say that the SC can be cited as an example of something that works almost solely on the qualities of individuals, which, of course are inarguably unpredictable and capricious.

A highly politicised court (1930s vs FDR) can be as destructive as a progressive court (say stages of the 1960s) can be beneficial.

I'll assume too HD that you have little truck with those who call the election of Bush 'a judicial coup d'etat', admittedly an exageration, but I feel an opinion that has some small basis.

So we are off topic, never mind, it's been off topic for a while.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 09 September 2009 - 10:54 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Parse that into sentences, Cougar, and I'll reply! But, I'll note without you have good points, the same points that come up quite often in historical Supreme Court debates.

[Cougar]

Sentences! SENTENCES! This is the internetz, you're lucky I didn't write it in Lolcat .

As I said my knowledge of the supreme court is relatively facile HD, I'm not a scholar of US politics. The arguments I'd put forward I feel are sound, if a little obvious, I guess, to someone who has studied it in any significant depth. All that said it's not a cut and dry question of where I fall on this. The perfect illustration being that by having unelected, unmovable judges you simultaneously surrender power to an (effectively) unelected body (bad) whist insultating them from the vagueries of the eternal popularity contest of party politics.

In the UK I feel that giving such power to an organisation (of course it's moot since the UK has no formally codifed constitutional document) would breach the primary rule of government, that a government can not bind it's sucessors nor be bound by it's predecessors, since a government would be subject to the whim of an imovable unelected body which could strike down it's laws.

[Sir Thursday]

Surely the House of Lords is an unelected body that has considerable power in the UK governmental system? The Supreme Court has a bit more power than the Lords do, I guess, but it's a similar situation.


Sir Thursday

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 09 September 2009 - 10:09 AM, said:

The difference being, Terez, there was no disaster in D.C. at that point.

I think there were probably more differences than that!

[Cougar]

STd the lords as a Supreme Court has very little power, and indeed will be replaced by the new Supreme Court in October. The law lords, as they are now, can interpret the legality of an act by government but since they can only interpret the imposition of the law they are hamstrung by the fact that any government legistlation is law, they have recently taken to interpreting European law too. The difference is that the SC in the USA can strike down mundane legislation as 'unconstitutional' as well as interpret disputes between citizens and/or the government, it makes them the bulwark of constitutional defence. Since the constitution is sacrosanct and can only be amended by (someone tell me if I'm wrong please) the ascent of the President, 2 thirds of both houses and 3 quarters of the state legislatures, compared to mundane law which is passed in the normal manner, the court is able to effectively strike down any law which is not constitutional. Since the UK has no constitution all legislation is immediately law and retrospectively unchallengable.

The Lords as a legislature is a total lame duck. They can't do much more than delay legislation and if they are too troublesome laws can just be forced through. Moreover a comination of convention and the Parliament acts have gradually eroded their ability to effect all but the most trivial of matters. The US Senate would be their nearest comparison and the Lords are nowhere near as powerful.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 09 September 2009 - 01:12 PM

[Mutzy]

Apparently the part where I said the civillians were part of the army, was looked over. So if the cillivians want the president out, if the president becomes a dictator then they can always use force or they could just vote him out. It all depends on what the current president was doing. Hoosier, what I am proposing requires more thought then I have written down. If you read my earlier statements you would have seen that I have not fleshed out everything, except to a degree the punishment of crimes system.

[Morgoth]

Mutzy, on 09 September 2009 - 11:13 PM, said:

Apparently the part where I said the civillians were part of the army, was looked over. So if the cillivians want the president out, if the president becomes a dictator then they can always use force or they could just vote him out. It all depends on what the current president was doing. Hoosier, what I am proposing requires more thought then I have written down. If you read my earlier statements you would have seen that I have not fleshed out everything, except to a degree the punishment of crimes system.

Uhm.. So, you would have an army, but they are civilians? Who are soldiers? How does this differ from the armies we have in place now?

[Mutzy]

Well the entire adult population would be the army o.O Some would be off-duty and some on-duty and the units rotate. Pretty much like a larger scale Switzerland, its population is its army.

[Morgoth]

Mutzy, on 12 September 2009 - 03:14 AM, said:

Well the entire adult population would be the army o.O Some would be off-duty and some on-duty and the units rotate. Pretty much like a larger scale Switzerland, its population is its army.

umh.. Switzerland has a professional army and compulsory military service for all men. Compulsory military service does not however make you an army. The army is the professional part, whereas the idea is that the rest can be called in in times of war. No difference in other words. The professional army holds the heavy weaponry, tanks and all the rest.

What would be the difference from how things are now?

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Cougar, on 09 September 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'll assume too HD that you have little truck with those who call the election of Bush 'a judicial coup d'etat', admittedly an exageration, but I feel an opinion that has some small basis.

The more I read, the more I respect John Roberts. Not so much Alito, but Robert's has had some excellent sound bites and policy choices.