ESCAPE from the Constitution! -- Saving Modern Civilization

[Bern80]

'
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.

.

Your proposal is utopian in the sense that it will work if[/if] everyone acts the way they are supposed to. That isn't reality. There aren't flaws in the current system and how it was set up any more than there are flaws in the ideas you've presented. They way our system of governeance was set up, does work. Contrary to popular opinion it is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic.

Paul is on the right track as to why the system isn't working. It's not the system that's flawed, it's the people. If you can come up with a system that self esnures accountablility no matter the actions of the people in it, great, but I don't think there is such a system. Adding to Paul's list the things that have caused our system to fail would be our politcians basically ignoring the established rules of governance in our constitution, a public that doesn't seem to under stand the constitution and or doesn't care about and a media that won't hold government accountable which initially was their main job.

 

[numan]

It's not the system that's flawed, it's the people.

Adding to Paul's list the things that have caused our system to fail would be our politcians basically ignoring the established rules of governance in our constitution....

You are quite, totally wrong. It is the System that is flawed -- not the people (at least, not more so than one might normally expect).

The United States Constitution positively invites misrule, and lays out a red carpet for it !!

ONe merely need take an objective look at the history of the USA to see that!!

.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not the system that's flawed, it's the people.

Adding to Paul's list the things that have caused our system to fail would be our politcians basically ignoring the established rules of governance in our constitution....

You are quite, totally wrong. It is the System that is flawed -- not the people (at least, not more so than one might normally expect).

The United States Constitution positively invites misrule, and lays out a red carpet for it !!

ONe merely need take an objective look at the history of the USA to see that!!

.

I think that it is worthy to point out here that claiming it is the people that are flawed is a misnomer. Really that is irrelevant. The fact is that the people are flawed but that reality is a constant. Anything that claims the people are the problem when the system is fines is really reaching for a utopia and such is a real impossibility.

Yes, the people are flawed but a proper system of governance UNDERSTANDS and COMPENSATES for this. If we were to ignore the fact that people are flawed, communism would be the most ideal system out there. It makes the most sense by FAR. The problem here is that communism completely ignores the reality of human nature and therefore is a TERRIBLE system in practice. What we have is a huge leap over that because it recognizes that fact and accounts for it; turning greed and other natural tendencies into a creative force.

The system is flawed precisely because it cannot deal with the constant that humans are also flawed. We can fix the system, there is noting that we can do about the people.


That said, your system does not address the problems. For one, you have consistently said that it is a replacement for the constitution. I don’t see that at all considering you have replaced nothing but a single branch of the federal government. IOW, your system is more akin to a cog than an actual working device. It is lacking almost everything that a government needs and only accounting for a single governmental function. That function is still party based as well; one of the MAJOR sources of corruption that we face in American politics today.

 

[numan]

That said, your system does not address the problems. For one, you have consistently said that it is a replacement for the constitution. I don’t see that at all considering you have replaced nothing but a single branch of the federal government.

Well, to deal with just one of your major errors, if you think it replaces only one branch of the present government, you are truly ignorant of Parliamentary systems.

The executive is comprehended by the legislature in cabinet-style parliamentary government.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

That said, your system does not address the problems. For one, you have consistently said that it is a replacement for the constitution. I don’t see that at all considering you have replaced nothing but a single branch of the federal government.

Well, to deal with just one of your major errors, if you think it replaces only one branch of the present government, you are truly ignorant of Parliamentary systems.

The executive is comprehended by the legislature in cabinet-style parliamentary government.

.

However you never claims that you wanted to replace the entire government with that system. When you leave out MAJOR pieces of your ‘plan’ don’t blame me for the results.

 

[daveman]

The Constitution works fine. No need for it to be replaced by something inferior.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not sure I can properly address your posts, I find myself trying to explain quantum mechanics do a child in 1st grade, and find that the language just doesn't translate to that level.

 

[numan]

The Constitution works fine.

.

 

[daveman]

The Constitution works fine.

.

Yes, Donald Duck seems to be an appropriate representation of you.

 

[numan]

I am not sure I can properly address your posts, I find myself trying to explain quantum mechanics do a child in 1st grade, and find that the language just doesn't translate to that level.

Since this is your first posting on this thread, I don't see how you can say that you have "explained" anything!! -- yet.

.

 

[numan]

'
I will say little here about the civil service of the government, except to note that in parliamentary systems, the civil service is the fly-wheel of government, and keeps the system going, whatever may be the temporary vagaries of the elected representatives. The key element in a good civil service is esprit de corps---an element notably lacking in American governance and, indeed, in American life in general. The American military and parts of the American business and economic conspiracy often flatter themselves with the delusion that they have enfused much esprit de corps into their respective organizations, but, in fact, the only area of American life wherein you see a notable degree of this spirit is within sporting teams.

In societies which are more civilized than that of America and whose civil services rise above the sorry, slovenly American example, honors play an important part in creating and maintaining a high level of esprit de corps within the civil service---and, indeed, within many other social institutions. We need to make a serious study of the use of honors and non-monetary perquisites to stabilize the morale of governance and society.
.

 

[numan]

'
One last and all-important reform is vital in order to create a human society that has any reasonable prospect for long-lasting survival. Long ago, decades ago, long before it became fashionable to decry global warming, I was warning those around me about the fundamental weakness, which overshadowed all others, of modern technological society: I coined the phrase "trigger-effect" to apply to this key danger. Simply, it refers to the truth that as technical expertise increases, it takes a smaller, less expensive, more easily obtainable trigger to set off a series of catastrophic repercussions.

I expect the first major event of the sort in this new century to be biological in character. I expect someone in a small laboratory, set up in the equivalent of a back-yard garage, to concoct a mutant virus or microbe which would wipe out a considerable fraction of the human race. I still expect that to happen, but a few years in the future. We have still a few years to endure supposedly conscious human beings pontificating about oil supplies and the control of postage-stamp-sized bits of desert wasteland. Mercifully, this childish prattle will soon be stilled.

9/11 is a tongue-tip taste of what I mean by the term, "trigger effect." Conceived of as fiction, as a story from a television series of cheap science-fiction, it would be a memorable example of the trigger-effect: a small group of extremists using box-cutters ( ! ) as weapons, unleash a step-wise avalanche of ever-increasing catastrophe, ending in economic collapse, war, dictatorship, environmental devastation, moral failure, death, agony and hopelessness. What a story! (Too bad it is so unbelievable)

Well, whatever the future holds, it is important to form social institutions which will, no matter what happens, act as seeds for positive reconstruction---otherwise all we have to look forward to is a blend of "Mad Max" and Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence.
.

 

[numan]

'
To have some chance of avoiding the dismal fate which the "trigger effect" will surely bring to us, we need a supreme governing body somewhat like the Supreme Court, but comprising eminent scientists and thinkers, rather than eminent jurists -- chosen by the most eminent of their peers -- which is charged with final decisions about the long-term future of the human race. They need to be able to veto fundamental, long-term trends which, in their opinion, will run counter to the best interests of humanity in its long-term development.

This may seem to present dangers, and in fact it does. But it is little different from a juridical Supreme Court, which we have been trained to view with equanimity.

Moreover, eminent scientists have been proven over and over to be much more capable of chosing the best men in their fields than legislators have been in choosing judges for high courts.
.

 

[Flopper]

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


Government is Good -- The Book - YouTube

Multiple political parties are more democratic but have very serious drawbacks. First, it makes government more complex. Coalitions are needed to run the government and control of government can swing back and forth between radically different philosophies making government unstable. For the voter, too many choices simply confuse voters and the result is often a random choice.

 

[numan]

Multiple political parties are more democratic but have very serious drawbacks. First, it makes government more complex. Coalitions are needed to run the government and control of government can swing back and forth between radically different philosophies making government unstable. For the voter, too many choices simply confuse voters and the result is often a random choice.

You apparently prefer the total paralysis of government, and inability to deal with urgent necessities, which is the disgusting spectacle that the present constitutional arrangements of the USA present to our view.

Your objections were dealt with in postings #9, #10 and #11 on the first page of this thread. Please go back and read them again with more attention.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not sure I can properly address your posts, I find myself trying to explain quantum mechanics do a child in 1st grade, and find that the language just doesn't translate to that level.

Since this is your first posting on this thread, I don't see how you can say that you have "explained" anything!! -- yet.

.

Where did I say I explained anything?

 

[numan]

.
Remember, what I am proposing is the election of lobbies, not individual people representing lobbies, nor representing geographical regions --though I see no reason why there should not be a special lobby dedicated to the affairs of a single region, if enough people and money can be collected to form such a lobby.

What is a lobby? In my view, any interest group is a lobby. A lobby for stamp collectors could be represented in Parliament -- if enough people wanted to vote for them.

For purposes of legislative representation, of course, some criteria would be needed concerning a minimum number of dues-paying members of a lobby, and how much money could come from a single source. I imagine it would not be a bad idea to insist on a minimum capitalization of a registered lobby, and probably that a lobby should be limited so that it does not own too much wealth.

Those details I would leave to those who are more knowledgeable about such matters than myself.

Indeed, I think it is essential that such a scheme as I am proposing be the work of many hands, and that it cannot, and should not, be brought into the world as the work of one genius -- even of one so worthy of respect as myself.
.

 

[numan]

'
Really, is it not clear that what I am proposing is a rather small -- though important -- modification of standard Parliamentary government?

Parliamentary government is the most widely chosen form of representative government in the world -- it is vastly preferred over the sclerotic American system, and, despite the psychotic fantasies of the America-self-worshippers, it is the most successful and efficent form of representative government.

To state the obvious, parliament chooses -- and dismisses -- a cabinet and a prime minister, and the Prime Minister, together with the Cabinet, are the executive of the government. None of that would change under the system I propose.

One of the reasons I think it is workable is that, really, it is such a minor modification of what already exists in the more civilized countries of the world.

It is essentially the logical conclusion of Proportional Representation -- raised to higher power, and more justly and efficiently organized.
.

 

[numan]

'
Parliamentary System

Advantages of parliamentary systems
One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it's faster and easier to pass legislation. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature....
Evidently, an executive...is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party's platform/manifesto....

Not in the USA, it seems. · ·

It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system....
In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a uni-personal presidential system, all executive power is vested in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided....
It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.

Maybe foreigners need ideas, but real Americans don't need them, thank you !! · ·

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing for the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.

Ugh!! Disgusting!! The perverted, unnatural US Constitution!! · ·

Some scholars like Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl claim that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns.

A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption.

emphases added
.

 

[numan]

Over and over, people follow the delusive will-o'-the-wisp called "Reform!", which always, in America, leads them into the swamp, where they drown.

"Reform" as much as you like, pass wholesome laws to your hearts' content -- the basic structure of the US Constitution guarantees that corruption will creep in, politicians will be bought, laws will be manipulated and twisted, bad judges will be appointed, voting will be manipulated, and no one of any importance will be punished, other than, perhaps, a slap on the wrist.

After 200 years, the periodic "reforms" have all come to nothing.

Isn't there some saying about insanity being the conviction that if you keep doing the same thing, you will finally get a different result?

Also, a saying about people who keep hitting their head against a brick wall, expecting to knock it down?

"When Dr. Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel, he ignored the enormous possibilities of the word reform!"
---Roscoe Conkling, famously corrupt New York Senator

,