ESCAPE from the Constitution! -- Saving Modern Civilization

[numan]

'
ESCAPE from the Constitution! -- Saving Modern Civilization


Some time ago, an acquaintance, who knew and disapproved of my jaundiced view of American society and governance, examined my proposals for governmental change and exclaimed,

Astonishing! You have just described a Rights Based, Free Market System!!

To which I replied with my usual modesty,

Yes, amazing, isn't it ! · · ·
.

 

[numan]

'
HOW TO SAVE MODERN CIVILIZATION---or, a Modest Proposal for electoral reform

I want to bulld up a social order which can moderate the coming world-wide social catastrophe, and, I hope, provide structures for a new order of society which can grow in the wreckage of what is to come. I consider that it is not enough that these changes to the constitutional order be good: first and foremost they must be possible! They must glide as seamlessly as possible into the ACTUAL mechanisms of global society [not the phony window-dressing which is so-called "democracy"], and at the same time result in a radical re-structuring of the relations of power in the society.

Next, I agree with Socrates and Plato that only those who know something about a matter should be making decisions about it. The corollary to this is that those who do not know anything about a matter should not be making decisions about it. At one stroke we cut through the flummery about "the people" governing. As someone said, "Applause, mingled with boos and hisses, is about all that the average voter is able or willing to contribute to public life."

As I was growing up, I was bemused by the fact that Americans are conditioned by modern education and the mass media to be as ignorant as possible, and yet are convinced that they should have a strong opinion about every topic under the sun. Oh, the relief!!! when you go to a foreign country, and you can hear people actually say, when they are asked a question about a complex topic, "Gee, I really don't know enough about that matter to have an intelligent opinion."

The fact is, in the modern world, problems are often so complex and subtle that there is not a hope in heaven that non-experts can even begin to understand what is involved. Moreover, experts in one field are often incredibly ignorant about fields beyond their competence, often even more ignorant than a reasonably well-informed ordinary person. This is also a problem that can have and, over and over, does have disastrous consequences---as we see all around us today.

So, people should know what they are doing; and they shouldn't muck about in affairs they don't understand. Yet common humanity demands that people should have some say in what happens to them, and they should be able to express their concerns, even if they do not understand all the factors that may be in play in a situation.
'

 

[numan]

'
We are supposed to be living in "democracies", yet it is all just a sham; the real powers behind the throne are the lobbies, funded by special interests, controlled by small groups of individuals who are rich and powerful, and who, of all the elements of society, are often the ones who are most insane and disconnected from reality.

Lastly, we want a system of voting which eliminates the problems inherent in ARROW'S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM, a well-known mathematical proof that demonstrates clearly that no system of voting based upon ranked preferences can possibly meet certain simple criteria which we desire to be present in a system of voting. If this is new to you, you can find a basic exposition here:

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

So let us put everything together; we want a system:

1---which is not based on abstract principles which are too rigid.

2---which provides some hope for the future.

3---which is possible.

4---which permits sensible people to make sensible decisions.

5---which allows people to express the degree of concern they have about matters.

6---which escapes the restrictions of Arrow's Theorem.

Does this seem an impossible task? Like most great ideas it is fundamentally simple---but it requires having an open mind.
'

 

[numan]

'
One great idea is the direct election of lobbies. At one stroke vast amounts of corruption are eliminated---and the vast mass of the people wind up with more power, not less---yet it is a power far less susceptible to being exploited by the sinister forces in our society.

A kindergarten model of the system would be to register every society, or group of people who had an interest in participating in government.

Every voter would be given, say, one hundred votes which he or she would apportion at will amongst the registered lobbying groups: five votes going to one group, twenty votes going to another, one vote going here, zero votes going there. The number of votes each lobby would have in parliament would be proportional to the number of votes they received in the election. The passage of legislation would depend upon dickering between the various lobby groups---precisely as it does today. This system, known as FRACTIONAL VOTING, not only permits the masses to express their desires about the direction of political change, but also their degree of concern about these matters.

Pause for a moment---let the fundamental grandeur of this conception sink into the your consciousness.

No doubt the percipient reader has been struck dumb by awe that such an elegantly simple, yet profoundly subtle, solution can exist to all our political, social, and economic problems. In my mind's eye I see my respected reader sitting motionless before his or her monitor, thunderstruck that the privilege has befallen them to be the witness of a conception so vast and noble that it seems to be an emanation from the mind of a deity.

But perhaps there are those whose mind's are wont to run on a narrower track. Could it be that there are poor souls in this world whose reaction to this glorious revolution in thinking would be to say, "So what?"?

Let me attempt to conceive the inconceivable. Let me suppose an interlocutor to say, "You call this practical? You call this possible? Do you imagine that the power structures of the world would permit a change in governance so disadvantageous to themselves? Do you imagine that a transition to this system could be managed without enormous disruption to institutions and procedures which are deeply entrenched and tenaciously defended? Do you imagine that the people would give their consent to such a radical change and one which is so untried?"

I reply that I have answers to the first two objections, but that this exposition will proceed in a more orderly manner if I defer their discussion to a later stage in the argument. To the third objection I reply that it is not a radical change, and it is not untried. I repeat, it is a purification and a rationalization of the system which presently exists: government by lobbies.
.

 

[numan]

'
The procedure of making decisions by fractional voting -- it goes by a number of names -- is quite common in business, advertising, and economics. Fractional voting is one of those many, many advantages which our rulers use to their own benefit but deny to the rest of us. It is a method usually classified under social choice theory. There is at least one mathematical proof---which I have examined---that it is not affected by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. The proof is not well-known. The proof and a brief discussion of its consequences are in the fractional voting link.
The paper is on a Rutger's University site, which I include below:

Arrow's Paradox

A layman should be able to have an intuitive understanding that it escapes the problems of Arrow's Theorem by noting that, obviously, it is exempt from the primary restriction of being a system of preferential ranking of a list of candidates that results in clear and immediate winners and losers. Virtually all systems of voting which today are used and studied are vertically organized, hierarchical systems. They are a barbaric legacy of the past---when robber-kings and feudal despots ruled, and the common people grovelled before them. Some candidates are given the privileges of power, other candidates are excluded from those privileges.

The system which I am beginning to outline here is a horizontally organized system --- no group of any significance is ever excluded from power; all groups are always in power; no group is ever out of power. Elections determine only one thing: the degree of power an individual group shall enjoy during a particular administration.

Each lobby group would be elected and given its power by those members of the community who were most concerned and involved with the lobby and its programs---in terms of money, power, or amenity of life---just as is the case today. The lobby groups, of course would have to be financed---a question I will take up later. A lobby group which became corrupt, or incompetent, or otherwise failed to fulfill the program to which its supporters were committed would find its power and finances sharply curtailed when its supporters transferred their votes to competing lobbies at the next election---not all that different from what happens today. This competitive factor would be a strong incentive for the lobby groups to design and deliver successful programs which would, as much as possible, satisfy as many electors as possible.

This is definitely not similar to the situation which exists today. Each lobby group would need to have trained administrators---just as today; each would employ trained researchers and experts with specialized knowledge---which all too often is not the case today, though it is true of worthwhile and effective lobbies. Lobbies would require skilled negotiators and effective propagandists---and here would be a niche where our present-day politicians could find employment; they would be denied their present opportunities for graft, corruption and bilking the public, but they would be able to fulfill their true calling and nature as: flacks! · ·
.

 

[numan]

'
Because there would be so much pressure on the lobbies to satisfy the electors, the lobby groups would, in general, be more efficient and effective than present lobbies, and to be effective they would need a high esprit-de-corps. This factor could be manipulated to increase yet further their honesty and efficiency. An "honors system," employed both within a social group and emanating from the wider society without, is used in Britain with considerable effect.

Our present political system may be likened to a Punch-and-Judy show, where puppets pretend to fight each other. They are manipulated by a vast, shadowy puppeteer which we may call the miltary-government-industrial-media-entertainment-consumerproduct conglomerate. This quasi-fascist totalitarian entity employs innumerable minions to go out and pick the pockets of the audience while that audience [that is, the public] is gawking at the show.

In the new system, parliament would consist of the sum total of all the lobbies; each lobby would, in effect, be a party; and parliament would be a throng of many, many parties. The Punch-and-Judy show would be over, the curtain rung down. The various parties would watch each other jealously---ever watchful for corruption, inefficiency, hypocrisy. There would be too many, being too watchful, for a massive, totalitarian conspiracy to rule us---as is the case today.

Some may think that this happy state of affairs cannot be guaranteed, and they are right. But cabals would be difficult to form and they would be, by the nature of the system, unstable. It would be so likely that one of the conspiring parties could gain an advantage by betraying it. Furthermore, there are other elements of my proposed new system, which I have not yet even begun to go into, that would provide yet more safeguards to the stability and effectiveness of the system.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

I searched FRANTICALLY for something nice to say about this plan..

And I did find that you are CORRECT about having more than 2 parties to organize the chaotic and widespread interests of a society.. I agree that folks with solid principles ought not compromise on those principles and they should not be hunted and purged from the only 2 "sanctioned" bodies of representation.. Whether you're Dem or Rep -- if you disagree with leadership --- you WILL be marginalized and mocked. There are really only 5 politicians running the country.. The Prez, the House majority/minority leaders and the Senate majority/minority leaders.. No one else really matters in Congress...

But there are MASSIVE problems with reshaping political bandwagons into little fiefdoms of beggars and whiners. Govt is NOT THERE to be doling out favors to individual groups. And corporate/govt collusion is not sanctioned by the Constitution..

Simple truth is -- the more we ALLOW the Govt to go extra-Constitutional on us --- the worst the collusion gets. Take away the power to grant favors and pick market winners/losers and companies will go back to the wild to feed and fire the lobbyists..

I believe that last paragraph is one of the FEW ITEMS that left and right generally agree on. But leftists start to get cold feet when powers are STRIPPED from politicians more quickly than righties..

 

[midcan5]

Solutions are so easy when they are just words. Speculative thinking is fascinating up to the point when you run into real world conflict. One point I completely disagree with is the idea that more parties are a solution, if the tea party has shown us anything, it is that third parties have too much power as they now manage the government. Government now stagnates or simply listens to the loudest and maybe the wealthiest voices and compromise becomes impossible unless power says so. A few interesting links below.

Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution
Government is Good - A Guide to Rebutting Right-Wing Criticisms of Government

'Issues like children's health insurance and maintaining our infrastructure offer progressives a golden opportunity to say that sometimes government is not the problem, it's the solution.' The Failure of Antigovernment Conservatism

Extremely Local | Boston Review
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html
Four dangerous myths about government spending - Salon.com
"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AihZFjqOHI]Government is Good -- The Book - YouTube[/ame]

 

[numan]

'
As if from a distance, I hear a voice (of course, an American voice) full of the certainty that it has found an objection which is unanswerable: "You have mentioned that combinations would be unstable; wouldn't they be too unstable; with so many cooks in the kitchen, would it not be impossible to get any work done? How could such a parliament have enough unity to run a government? In your system you have parties dedicated to everything under the sun; look at the present situation; with just two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, Congress can barely function!"

Now, what is the error in this objection? The key, of course, is in the sentence, "With just two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, Congress can barely function." Yes, that is true! And it is precisely that which demonstrates the inferiority of the present system of American misrule!

I know what a horribly wrenching experience it is for my countrymen to tear their gaze away from the rapt contemplation of their own sublimely beautiful countenance, even for a moment! But gather your courage! Echo, if only faintly, the stern character of your pioneer forebears, turn away from the mirrored reflection of your ceaseless self-congratulation, go to the window--- look! ---there is a world out there! That's it, clutch the window-sill, the dizziness and disorientation will pass in a moment !

You will see, all over the world, parliamentary systems of government, multi-party governments, which demonstrably function more efficiently and deliver to the people greater amenities than the antiquated, deeply corrupt system of American oligarchy. Even right next door, in Canada, there is an efficient parliamentary government of considerable sophistication functioning in the midst of complex federal tensions. Even Israel, with its kaleidoscope of jostling, bickering parties has successfully dealt with a state of constant war for over fifty years !
'

 

[numan]

'
Why is it that, since the middle of the nineteenth century, virtually every new government in the world has adopted a parliamentary system of government, rather than one constructed after the American model? Is it because, as the former tenant of the White House said, "They hate us because we are so good"? No, my friends, it is because anyone with the intelligence of a high-grade moron can see that the parliamentary system is better than the American system.

For one thing, governments will fall when they have lost the confidence of the governed, and new elections will be called. I remember well the Nixon débâcle; the helicopter of the victory-signing presidential madman had scarcely left Washington when a television reporter apppeared on the screen of the boob-tube and intoned, with all the vigor of one newly risen from the grave, that Nixon's resignation "shows that the System works." Well, I have news for you, folks, that multi-year political nightmare proved just the opposite; and the present domestic political nightmare proves and will prove, yet again, that the American political system does not work.

So, parliamentary systems, as a matter of brute historical fact, work better than the American system; and they allow for rapid political change when the need arises, unlike the American system. What are some other characteristics of a parliamentary system? Well, the executive, the cabinet, is chosen by the members of parliament rather than by the whim of the ignorant multitude. That the American voters, brainwashed as they are by the tricks of monopoly media, could have come even close to electing George W. Bush as their president, shows how lacking in political acumen they are at present [The political changes which I am proposing here will train the people to be more politically mature; but I will deal with that aspect presently].

So, competent, trained people will be chosen for cabinet and chief executive by parliament, which can hire and fire them at will. How modern and efficient compared to the inflexible, royalist attitudes embodied in the present antiquated, 18th century American constitutional arrangements !!
.

 

[numan]

'
As superior as present-day parliamentary systems are in comparison with the American Constitution, the political system which I am proposing here advances by giant strides beyond all existing parliamentary governments. Reflect again upon the twin pillars whereon this majestic structure rests. You cannot spend too much time in the contemplation of the subtle and ingenious threads of political wisdom which radiate out into a transformed and transforming society.

To repeat, those twin pillars are,

first, the direct election of lobbies by the citizenry as a whole. This utterly wondrous procedure eliminates, at a single stroke, both the theoretical deficiencies embodied in Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, and the grave practical deficiencies represented by the multitude of corrupt middle-men who, at present, stand between the nation and the expression of its will.

Instead of legislation being in the hands of individuals of questionable character, ignorant of almost everything except legal trickery, over-worked, and ceaselessly harried by concerns about their re-elections---legislation would be studied and crafted by groups of people, always in contact with their constituents, constantly under scrutiny and public supervision---people who are skilled in all aspects of political life and well-trained in their own areas of expertise.

As to the second pillar of a re-born social contract, fractional voting, my remarks will be somewhat more tentative. I can conceive of many possible bells-and-whistles which could be added to the basic plan of the system, but here my purpose is to paint in broad strokes the general outlines of a new social order. Also, it is only for the ease of exposition that I am treating this new order as if it were a monolithic whole; The prudent social engineer would never do so. No!---one would depart from the totalitarian mind-set of the present-day inhabitants of our Orwellian world and act as any sensible business-man would: set up study-groups, do market studies, set up local test-models of the system to ferret out bugs and short-comings, and, in short, employ all those non-totalitarian techniques which are already well-known and used in business and economics, and which are so sadly missing in our political systems, and lamentably lacking in our corrupted intellectual climate.
.

 

[whitehall]

A Brit's advice to abandon the greatest Document ever written while the incoherent British system supports a degenerate monarchy and leans toward Sharia law? Surely you jest. Recently an apparent minor British court ordered an alleged mentally incompetent man sterilized against his will. Why wouldn't the 8th Amendment prevent such an outrageous example of cruel and unusual punishment? The Brits have no such document.

 

[Intense]

'
HOW TO SAVE MODERN CIVILIZATION---or, a Modest Proposal for electoral reform

I want to bulld up a social order which can moderate the coming world-wide social catastrophe, and, I hope, provide structures for a new order of society which can grow in the wreckage of what is to come. I consider that it is not enough that these changes to the constitutional order be good: first and foremost they must be possible! They must glide as seamlessly as possible into the ACTUAL mechanisms of global society [not the phony window-dressing which is so-called "democracy"], and at the same time result in a radical re-structuring of the relations of power in the society.

Next, I agree with Socrates and Plato that only those who know something about a matter should be making decisions about it. The corollary to this is that those who do not know anything about a matter should not be making decisions about it. At one stroke we cut through the flummery about "the people" governing. As someone said, "Applause, mingled with boos and hisses, is about all that the average voter is able or willing to contribute to public life."

As I was growing up, I was bemused by the fact that Americans are conditioned by modern education and the mass media to be as ignorant as possible, and yet are convinced that they should have a strong opinion about every topic under the sun. Oh, the relief!!! when you go to a foreign country, and you can hear people actually say, when they are asked a question about a complex topic, "Gee, I really don't know enough about that matter to have an intelligent opinion."

The fact is, in the modern world, problems are often so complex and subtle that there is not a hope in heaven that non-experts can even begin to understand what is involved. Moreover, experts in one field are often incredibly ignorant about fields beyond their competence, often even more ignorant than a reasonably well-informed ordinary person. This is also a problem that can have and, over and over, does have disastrous consequences---as we see all around us today.

So, people should know what they are doing; and they shouldn't muck about in affairs they don't understand. Yet common humanity demands that people should have some say in what happens to them, and they should be able to express their concerns, even if they do not understand all the factors that may be in play in a situation.
'

This may help, it has before.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

 

[Intense]

Any system, that finds itself in service to Justice, Truth, Good Will, from the foundation, to the service, maintenance, and preservation of Principle, has a fighting chance. Abandon Principle, corrupt the stewardship, and yes, that's all it is, a trust, and Tyranny will follow. There is something in the nature of enough of us, that there will be those that stand up to it and address it, both from the Left and the Right.

 

[FA_Q2]

You claimed that you hate the constitution and had a much superior system over it but the ONLY thing that I see here is changing the legislative branch to a parliamentary system. That is hardly ‘groundbreaking’ or amazing.

You have broken up the parties somewhat but in the end all you have done is shift the power base from 435 people associated with a few parties to cabals that will be even easier to influence. I don’t really see any advantage here at all.

 

[numan]

You claimed that you hate the constitution and had a much superior system over it but the ONLY thing that I see here is changing the legislative branch to a parliamentary system. That is hardly ‘groundbreaking’ or amazing.

You have broken up the parties somewhat but in the end all you have done is shift the power base from 435 people associated with a few parties to cabals that will be even easier to influence. I don’t really see any advantage here at all.

I suggest that you may increase your powers of seeing by re-examining what was written about fractional voting and direct representation of lobbies -- both of which are momentous in their effects.

As to your second point, it is true that the money which gigantic, international corporate monopolies have to corrupt government is vast, yet it does have its limits, and will not produce an adequate return on investment when it must be given to so many representatives in the legislature -- representatives which are not individual humans, but, in effect, corporations themselves.

Also, you have not considered that real limits may be put on excessive bribery by powerful private interests, rather than the window-dressing "limits" which presently exist.

Moreover, there are many ways in which government may be made more transparent -- an examination of which may be more profitably deferred to a later point in the discussion.
.

 

[numan]

A Brit's advice to abandon the greatest Document ever written while the incoherent British system supports a degenerate monarchy and leans toward Sharia law? Surely you jest. Recently an apparent minor British court ordered an alleged mentally incompetent man sterilized against his will. Why wouldn't the 8th Amendment prevent such an outrageous example of cruel and unusual punishment? The Brits have no such document.

This posting contains falsehoods which you cannot possibly defend. Also you bring in red herrings which have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

For these reasons I suggest you delete the entire posting and start again with logically connected statements based on true premises.

For the record, I am not a "Brit" -- that is an assumption you have made, and an incorrect assumption. I am an American born and bred, and my family has almost certainly been here longer than yours.
.

 

[FA_Q2]

You claimed that you hate the constitution and had a much superior system over it but the ONLY thing that I see here is changing the legislative branch to a parliamentary system. That is hardly ‘groundbreaking’ or amazing.

You have broken up the parties somewhat but in the end all you have done is shift the power base from 435 people associated with a few parties to cabals that will be even easier to influence. I don’t really see any advantage here at all.

I suggest that you may increase your powers of seeing by re-examining what was written about fractional voting and direct representation of lobbies -- both of which are momentous in their effects.

As to your second point, it is true that the money which gigantic, international corporate monopolies have to corrupt government is vast, yet it does have its limits, and will not produce an adequate return on investment when it must be given to so many representatives in the legislature -- representatives which are not individual humans, but, in effect, corporations themselves.

Also, you have not considered that real limits may be put on excessive bribery by powerful private interests, rather than the window-dressing "limits" which presently exist.

Moreover, there are many ways in which government may be made more transparent -- an examination of which may be more profitably deferred to a later point in the discussion.
.

The fractional voting is simply hand in hand with the idea of a parliamentary system at least in the awy you framed it so I don’t have much to respond in that particular point. Like I said, I think that you end up with more parties but actually FEWER entities that need to be bribed. Essentially, right now you have to move enough legislators to get what you want done. That leaves you with quite a few that need bribing. With parties in DIRECT control over the parliament itself, you end up with a LOT fewer entities that you need to bribe. How many do you think are really going to have real power? Maybe 4 or 5. That is not a lot of entities and by tying them to the party and NOT to the specific politician you essentially narrowed the required bribes to 2 entities, possibly 3.

That is not more guarded to bribery, it is LESS.

I think that a better system would simply be to eliminate parties period. Why bother with such restructuring when the root problem is not really solved.

 

[PaulS1950]

In a perfect world, full of perfect people, your concept has a chance to work. Let's look at what has caused the problems with the system we have first.

1. the voters, most of them are uninformed and vote with their emotions and not with a calm and logical mind.

2. Our elected representatives or at least most of them work only to get re-elected and not to better the nation.

3. lobbies and their representatives pay to be represented at a higher incident than the people.

4. the people do not enforce their power over the government because they have no idea that they have it or how to use that power.


Now in your "fractional" voting system the people will still respond emotionally and the same situation will exist. The problem is that we have real people living in the real world and no utopian system will function as it is intended.

To make a government work you need an educated society. People need to be aware of the issue more than the emotional rhetoric that surrounds the issue. Let's examine the attack on 9/11/01 and see what the emotional response was:

The towers were destroyed by two planes that were flown into them by a small group of terrorists. The response was that the citizens of the USA should give up parts of their freedom to prevent any future attacks. The "Patriot Act" was put in place, then the Transportation Security Administration, and then "Department of Homeland Security". None of this has prevented subsequent attacks and none of it addressed the real issue. CRIMES HAPPEN. We have neither the resources nor the ability to prevent crimes. The loss of our freedom has been permanent and for nothing.

Emotional responses to actions rarely, if ever, result in good actions. Our government was set up, originally, to make sure that it took time to make new laws. That time was for discussion and discourse to prevent "quick fixes" that were bad laws. We need to slow the process back down and educate people on all the issues to get back the control of our government. We need to stop lobbyists from being able to corrupt our representatives and provide an incentive for them to support the united states and not the corporations in their district. If that means taking the representatives out of the picture and having the people vote directly then as long as we can educate the people on the facts and issues it might work.

 

[numan]

'
Paul, you raise a number of excellent points! Taking them in order :

You are correct; the voters are generally terribly uninformed. That is why their concerns should be represented by people who are informed.
The people are incapable of exerting intelligent power over government -- that is why they need lobbies which know the ropes.

Of course, the ignorant people will often respond emotionally rather than rationally!! We see it every day!! That is why they need an intelligent intermediary which can act on their concerns in an effective and intelligent fashion.

You apparently think the reforms I articulate are a utopian form of government. That is not the case. All forms of government have problems. I suggest that what I have outlined here is a very great improvement on the wacko constitutional system which now misrules the USA.

I hope you do not think that I am so naive as to imagine my reforms could be implemented under present conditions. That is obviously impossible. They could only be brought in under conditions when the present misrule has broken down completely -- conditions comparable to those of the French Revolution or the break-up of the czarist regime in Russia. I maintain that it is incredibly stupid not to plan ahead. Otherwise, there is no way of intelligently proceeding forward when everyone is running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

It is your notion of educating the people that is stupid and utopian. The people, both in the world and in the USA, cannot be educated in the present global and national regimes, since they are fundamentally based on brainwashing and lies.

.