Your Ideal Government / Political Philosophy?

[JBeukema]

JB supports a representative Democracy with constitutionally limited powers distributed across a federated system- like that of the U.S. My reason is simple, I know of no other system that has shown itself to better protect the liberties of the People and liming the power of the governmental body while allowing for a strong enough State to ensure longevity. perfect? far from it. The best option I'm familiar with? I believe so.

Which system do you support or find to be the closest to ideal and why?

 

[Metternich]

Hmm, divided between Republic and Confederacy; decided to go with Republic.

 

[Steve Jobs]

My ideal government is one in which I have absolute power.

Of course, this really isn't to be considered a true form of government since only *I* could pull it off correctly without eventually becoming extremely greedy and egotistical and thereby fucking everything up. Which of course is what always happens to dictators.

Basically I'd use my absolute power to clean up the shit stains left by the radical Left and the religious nutcases, throw a few of them in jail and then retreat to a comfortably large mansion with high-speed Internet. I might post on USMB occasionally, you never know...

 

[KittenKoder]

My answer: Me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A strictly limited constitutional Republic.

 

[garyd]

The job of the federal government is to protect the people from outside military threats and insure some sort of cohesive transportation structure which is instrumental in accomplishing that goal. It will also have to adjudicate to some extent disagreements between the various states.

Beyond that is the prerogative of the individual states, which can and do have far more latitude in dealing with various subordinate issues.

 

[code1211]

JB supports a representative Democracy with constitutionally limited powers distributed across a federated system- like that of the U.S. My reason is simple, I know of no other system that has shown itself to better protect the liberties of the People and liming the power of the governmental body while allowing for a strong enough State to ensure longevity. perfect? far from it. The best option I'm familiar with? I believe so.

Which system do you support or find to be the closest to ideal and why?

Our system is a good one, but any system of government is is only the window dressing for how the government collects then spends taxes.

I have said before that our tax system needs to be adjusted so that the Federal Government publishes the budget for the upcoming year and divides whatever the total dollars number is by the number of people in the country.

Whatever that number is, each state multiplies that number by its own resident population. That is the amount that the states must individually come up with to send to the parasites in DC.

Obviously, the high population states would pay more than the low population states.

This would do two things:
1. The money and the power would be shifted from DC to the State capitals.
2. The base tax number is would be an understandable and transparent benchmark of what the government is spending. Everyone is able to understand $10,000 and nobody is capable of understanding $3,000,000,000,000.

Each state would be free to raise this money as it wishes whether by sales tax, property tax, business tax, income tax, resource and use tax, tourism tax, gambling or so on.

A by product of this would be to see how taxes drive investment. If one state has one system to tax investment and another uses a different method and the businesses all move to one or the other, this might provide a model for how to attract a thriving business base for employment or tourism or retirement or whatever is deemed to be the goal of the state's residents.

This would provide a ready example for those who think that increased tax spurs the economy or for those who believe that decreased tax spurs the economy. 50 models to emulate or discard in a wide open free trade zone, assuming that tarriffs are not enacted by individual states.

Mainly though, this would serve to dismantle the huge and growing Federal Government and return the power to the people. (Head bowed, fist raised)

 

[Oddball]

A strictly limited constitutional Republic.

Ditto.

 

[9 Volt]

A strictly limited constitutional Republic.

Ditto.

Ditto 2

 

[JBeukema]

A strictly limited constitutional Republic.

I'd expect nothing less of a Son of Liberty

 

[Citizen]

A strictly limited constitutional Republic.

Kinda like the one the Framers set up for the United States of America, YES.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A strictly limited constitutional Republic.

Kinda like the one the Framers set up for the United States of America, YES.

Well I'd make a few alterations to our Constitution if I could, but essentially yes.

 

[Gunny]

JB supports a representative Democracy with constitutionally limited powers distributed across a federated system- like that of the U.S. My reason is simple, I know of no other system that has shown itself to better protect the liberties of the People and liming the power of the governmental body while allowing for a strong enough State to ensure longevity. perfect? far from it. The best option I'm familiar with? I believe so.

Which system do you support or find to be the closest to ideal and why?

Ideally? None.

 

[JBeukema]

JB supports a representative Democracy with constitutionally limited powers distributed across a federated system- like that of the U.S. My reason is simple, I know of no other system that has shown itself to better protect the liberties of the People and liming the power of the governmental body while allowing for a strong enough State to ensure longevity. perfect? far from it. The best option I'm familiar with? I believe so.

Which system do you support or find to be the closest to ideal and why?

Ideally? None.

You prefer anarchy? Why?

 

[Gunny]

JB supports a representative Democracy with constitutionally limited powers distributed across a federated system- like that of the U.S. My reason is simple, I know of no other system that has shown itself to better protect the liberties of the People and liming the power of the governmental body while allowing for a strong enough State to ensure longevity. perfect? far from it. The best option I'm familiar with? I believe so.

Which system do you support or find to be the closest to ideal and why?

Ideally? None.

You prefer anarchy? Why?

Remember the word "ideally." Ideally, everyone is responsible enough to take care of themselves. What is government for? To protect the weak. What is law for? To punish criminals who cannot abide society's rules.

Ideally, if everyone acts responsibly, and accepts the responsibility of their actions, government is not necessary. It exists to tax us to perpetuate itself.

However, that is not the case where the US is concerned. The weak have legislated the strong out of power. Their idealism isn't reality-based. Look at Obama ... kissin' ass to the Middle East and they're just flipping him off.

The people that the strong protected, who ungratefully pushed them aside, have doomed themselves, and us, to a slow, painful death.

 

[garyd]

Unfortunately we live in a less than ideal world...

 

[Zoom-boing]

A fiscally conservative, smaller government with a huge amount of common sense.

 

[JBeukema]

Gunny, I said 'ideal system' not 'magical dreamland utopia you saw while high'

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ever read Robert Heinlein's "Starship Trooper"? Only those who have served in the military or otherwise volunteered to serve their country...like in the Peace Corps, something like the old Civilian Conservation Corps, the public health system, etc have the franchise. Only those who have put their lives on hold and placed them in harm's way to protect their country or serve to better it...can vote or hold elected office. Everyone else has the same rights save for those two.

Now, there are a lot of decent people who haven't served in the military or some other capacity. But they have not demonstrated a willingness to give some portion of their lives, or put their lives on the line for the good of their country. They have not demonstrated the courage of their convictions.

 

[sealybobo]

Ideally? None.

You prefer anarchy? Why?

Remember the word "ideally." Ideally, everyone is responsible enough to take care of themselves. What is government for? To protect the weak. What is law for? To punish criminals who cannot abide society's rules.

Ideally, if everyone acts responsibly, and accepts the responsibility of their actions, government is not necessary. It exists to tax us to perpetuate itself.

However, that is not the case where the US is concerned. The weak have legislated the strong out of power. Their idealism isn't reality-based. Look at Obama ... kissin' ass to the Middle East and they're just flipping him off.

The people that the strong protected, who ungratefully pushed them aside, have doomed themselves, and us, to a slow, painful death.

Bush made Amadenijad look like he was right.

Obama makes Amadenijad look like the bad guy.

See the difference?