It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new government for America?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I see what your saying, but I think the two worst forms of government because of corruption are Democracy and Communism, both very young forms that have both failed.


Young? Err...Democracy has existed since before Greece. It's thousands of years old.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
Democracy only stands because America stands, with our debt out of control how long will our beloved Democracy last?


Err....

I assume, we over-look Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc, which also all have democratic Nation's. In fact, many existed with Democracy long before the United State's had declared independence.

Sorry. The United State's isn't the beacon of Democracy, that people try and paint it as. It is one of the least democratic nations, with its form of Government. When you look outside of the United State's and start looking in parts of Europe, you'll notice many Nation's actually allow voting on the bills their Parliaments put through. That's democracy in action. That's the people having their say in their country.




posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The United State's isn't the beacon of Democracy, that people try and paint it as. It is one of the least democratic nations, with its form of Government.


Also note that the United States constitution has provides no firm "right to vote". Yes, some amendments prohibit discrimination of voting based on race, poll taxes, etc., but states are free to prohibit voting based on "non-discriminatory" methods (e.g. requiring a driver's license, prohibiting former felons, etc).

The supreme court said in 2000 that the federal Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” In Bush v Gore the court wrote that “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors]". These aren't from the 19th century, but these are recent rulings. Scary stuff!

Interesting article on the subject and secondary source for the two Supreme Court quotes above:
reclaimdemocracy.org...

EDIT: Italics.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

[edit on 19-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Even though our government is some wut corrupted it isnt that corrupted compare to other goverments.......if you dont lyk the united states government, i say you can juss gtfo this country and go to a communist country like russia or china. dont post stupid # like this, our government hasnt failed once, the reason y u post this stupid # is probably because you got screwed by the government or your a Hater because you know United States is one of the best countries in the world. So if you dont like it, no one is making you stay in this country, so right now take your ass and go get a ticket and go to the airport and gtfo out of america, go to another country and be a citizen there, the government of the United States wont really give a #.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by woshimeiguoren
Even though our government is some wut corrupted it isnt that corrupted compare to other goverments.......if you dont lyk the united states government, i say you can juss gtfo this country and go to a communist country like russia or china. dont post stupid # like this, our government hasnt failed once, the reason y u post this stupid # is probably because you got screwed by the government or your a Hater because you know United States is one of the best countries in the world. So if you dont like it, no one is making you stay in this country, so right now take your ass and go get a ticket and go to the airport and gtfo out of america, go to another country and be a citizen there, the government of the United States wont really give a #.


MmmMmmm.... Thanks for the input Woshimeiguoren.... It has.. helped the progress of this thread with such insightful words...

No, I have never been screwed by the government, I just don't like seeing the level of corruption, is that such a bad thing? To want all people to be represented like this democracy is supposed to be like, when it isn't run exactly like it was supposed to?

To Odium Greece was more of a direct democracy, a much purer form then America that is for sure, but it was based in one city state Athens and not used dominantly around the entire empire.

In Europe there is also forms of Democracy, given the examples you give, the United States I would say was the first large country to announce that it would have it's entire government at all levels voted into office, a representation democracy. The reason why I say with out America to force upon other countries Democracy, countries like Iraq, African countries, Asian countries.. no with out us interfering and without a threat of war, those democracies will turn into dictators or be taken over by other forms of government. But this is all rather off topic. Aside from Democracy, would any other form work in America?

And Wosh please try and keep your attacks to your self, not everyone who lives in America must agree with what America is.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by woshimeiguoren
Even though our government is some wut corrupted it isnt that corrupted compare to other goverments.......if you dont lyk the united states government, i say you can juss gtfo this country and go to a communist country like russia or china. dont post stupid # like this, our government hasnt failed once, the reason y u post this stupid # is probably because you got screwed by the government or your a Hater because you know United States is one of the best countries in the world. So if you dont like it, no one is making you stay in this country, so right now take your ass and go get a ticket and go to the airport and gtfo out of america, go to another country and be a citizen there, the government of the United States wont really give a #.


First of all, use proper spelling and grammer on a forum as
austere as ATS, and do not use idiocentric acronyms such as
"gtfo".
It's spelled Like, not lyk, and what not wut, it's why not y and
you not u.
"Hater" is not a word in the way you used it either, it is a useless
slang mutation of the true word.

Also, I suggest you reread the T&C about excessive use of profanity.

Russia is not a communist country, nor was it ever, it was a Lenninist
country, and is now a democracy, albeit just as currupt as we are.
China is not and never was a Communist country, it is a capitalistc,
Lenninist-Maoist country.
There has never been a communist country.

We're far from the best country in the world.
Tre we are currently the leadinf superpower, but that does not make
us a great country.

EDIT:
Spelling.

[edit on 8/19/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Very well put Iori. Apprently I touched a nerve on that man.
Glad I could make his day all the more bright and sunny.

I was wondering what "hater" was supposed to mean... along with gtfo, though I assume I have the right meaning of it..



[edit on 8/19/2006 by Rockpuck]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Very well put Iori. Apprently I touched a nerve on that man.
Glad I could make his day all the more bright and sunny.

I was wondering what "hater" was supposed to mean... along with gtfo, though I assume I have the right meaning of it..
[edit on 8/19/2006 by Rockpuck]


Thanks.

Honestly I only have a vagues understamding of what "hater" is
supposed to mean, since I've heard it in varying degrees of use.

He forgot to either add an "o" to the end of his little acronym,
or add the word out after it to, so I had to reread it a few
times to get it.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Plausible ideas aplenty as a Supreme Court Judge type mentality would probably reduce the complications that come with the many conficts of interest when a different party is elected. Legacies and the like would suddenly no longer be the main concern since the more immeadiate and upfront events would be given a greater priority. As long as the leader is forced to not think that they are better than the people of whom that individual is supposed to serve, than I think such an idea might be worthwhile. We had something along those lines over here in Canada by a Prime Minister that served before our current one Jean Chrétien. In what mysteriously started out as a majority, he also ended that way and only out of courtesy alone did he resign.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
As it has been mentioned before, no government is perfect. Regardless, I don't see our government as being the most corrupt either. Nor do I see that democracy has failed in this country. I believe much of this talk (specifically on the internet), about the US government breaking down and losing all of our constitutional rights is propaganda. A scare tactic of the liberal left.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Well it would surprise you then that I am actually a conservative, as many on ATS would know. How .. or why exactly would I spread propaganda for the Liberla left? That would not make sense now would it?

We are not the most corrupt government in the world by far, we are also far from perfect. Why does questioning the ethics of my states men make me a liberal? If anything I would say that is actually a conservatie concern, while I hope it is bi-partisian? The base question of my thread was is there another form of government besides democracy for our republic? Or what could be changed to make our current system better. We have decided that the two party system is a defect within the system that would benifit if we allowed easier acess for third parties. I do not understand why this topic is so sensitive to some people, the man a few post above flat out attacked me? I have also notice, while I greatly appreciate the responses, that only people supporting our current system have replied?



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I am currently taking political science, and my assignment for now is to imagine that I (and four others in my class) have discovered a new world. We are to decide what form of government will be best for our new world, and then explain how our government will handle different situations. And that's where my dilemma remains...

You ask what form of government would be best for U.S.? I have been searching for days, reading/talking/reading more, and can't even decide what form of government would be best for my make believe new world!

Honestly, it just seems to me that ALL governments eventually become corrupt (or maybe more accurately, they eventually show their true colors of corruption). I am almost feeling like it doesn't matter. I have heard many wonderful things about Australia...so I tried looking into their government. I must admit though, the legal mumbo jumbo is quite confusing. Voltaire once said that the educated would make up words that only they understood, solely for the purpose of keeping everyone else out of their business! It seems so true.

So far, I do agree that the two parties are a ridiculous "decoy", although you have to admit it's worked quite well with the public so far. Also, there is too much "back scratching" and "pocket lining" between coporates and government...I used to think getting religion out of government was a big issue...but now I think corporates might be an even nastier pest in need of control.

What about this? All elected political office holders should have to sign an agreement to make their complete financial portfolio PUBLIC PROPERTY! They would have to forfeit their rights to privacy in the financial matter (moreso than ever before), for the time that they are in office (and maybe a few years after).

Any citizen would have the right to go to their bank and see how much they have and where it comes from. Their assets, liabilities, etc. should all be disclosed to the public on a monthly basis, and any citizen could easily research it to ensure its accuracy! Maybe this sounds far fetched...it would be too hard to implement...but so far, this is my answer...

I think our current form of government is really "not so bad" if it were being ran the way it's supposed to be. So, the true question I am trying to answer is, "How do we stop the bribery and corruption of our government officials"???

I admit, I don't know much about this subject, but I would love to hear what others have to say about my view. As quoted in Batman Begins..."You always fear what you don't understand."



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nogirt
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.


That's funny I thought that the United States was a corporate aristocracy not a Constitutional Republic, or a Democracy as you contend.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by nogirt
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.


That's funny I thought that the United States was a Corporate Aristocracy, not a Constitutional Republic, or a Democracy as you contend.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Uneek222 Nice post indeed, I have been wondering pretty much the same question when I wrote out this thread.
All governments do become corrupt in some way or another, but the way I personally see it corruption is heightened either by someone who has something to gain, or if there is a division in power that one could consolidate that would have to be from illegal means.

My argument is this: If you give someone everything, he owns all the lands, he can take over any corporation if he so chooses, if he controlled the entire financial system he would have nothing to gain and therefore un corruptible.

Now I know that is a Tyranny, however if the Monarch was enlightened, if he had everything and understood people then I think, as long as the people went along with it, it would be a smooth government. Of course the man will die like all great kings of old, and there in lies the problem and the flaw with the system. If the Monarch had an extended life span only then could an enlightened Monarch bring about a golden age if you will.

Democracy I feel is the most easily corrupted form of government, you get voted in and have your pockets lined by corporations, because you will not be there forever, there are term limits or of course the chance of being voted out. So you line you pockets, pull a few favors, push biased legislation and come out a rich man. Communism is also a corruptible government. That is, true Communism, because to have true communism you have to assume that one and or a group of men will never seek power.

When I look at other countries around the world, I see the UK as having a good form of government, of course I don't think that a prime minister is necessary at all, because that leads to corruption, and that the Monarch should stand in his place. The only problem with that is there would then be a power struggle between Monarch and House body, like England has experienced before.

It is a very complex and difficult subject. I feel all government are designed based on the times that the men who formed them lived. We chose Democracy because the colonies suffered suppression from the English Monarch. Had the Monarch been just, and had the colonist had been treated fairly, either we in America would still be apart of England, or we very well may have had a king. Actually Americas first choice was to make a king, the men they chose denied the position. The second thing that effects the choice of government would be the culture of people that live there at the time. If you are a country of poor farmers you will choose a dictator who will promise everything and take it all away. If your well to do or very young in Americas case, you will choose something very revolutionary because you lack the traditions and history of older states.

I hope this makes sense, and I certainly hope I did not offend anyone this time.

Your teacher has given you a very interesting paper to do, I think such challenging questions offer the most in return.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Now I know that is a Tyranny, however if the Monarch was enlightened, if he had everything and understood people then I think, as long as the people went along with it, it would be a smooth government. Of course the man will die like all great kings of old, and there in lies the problem and the flaw with the system.


Yes, that is the major flaw with the "enlightened monarch" system: the heir might not be so enlightened. Perhaps some sort of self-perpetuating enlightened committee (enlightened technocracy?) may be a possibility that goes along with the basic concepts you outline but mitigates this flaw? If one can theoretically have an enlightened dictator, why not an enlightened central committee?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
That in a sense would also work, so long as the committee has nothing personal to gain. They should not be allowed to have children, they should be selected for life and they should be given a paid for comfortable life style. This committee could in fact become an Enlightened Committee (Or a Council of Elders in a way) True philosophical minds.


I believe it was Aristotle that said the only true leader will be a philosopher king.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
That in a sense would also work, so long as the committee has nothing personal to gain. They should not be allowed to have children, they should be selected for life and they should be given a paid for comfortable life style. This committee could in fact become an Enlightened Committee (Or a Council of Elders in a way) True philosophical minds.


I supposed if such a committe were smart and enlightened, once a member of the committee died, they'd have the saavy to select a new, enlightened member. Still, it'd be nice if somehow the will of the common people (not those who have something to gain) could have some modicum of say in the composition of such a committee. Interesting questions...


Originally posted by Rockpuck
I believe it was Aristotle that said the only true leader will be a philosopher king.


It was Plato. But, his philosopher king would have to periodically face plebicite to be reaffirmed by the will of the people.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy
Perhaps some sort of self-perpetuating enlightened committee (enlightened technocracy?) ... If one can theoretically have an enlightened dictator, why not an enlightened central committee?


Great idea. The enlightened central committee would have to keep the people fully informed of thier actions though.

How else could we trust thier judgement, if we could not question thier actions?

[edit on 21-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I have to admit, in all my observations (past/present/possible futures) I agree that some evils are "more productive" than others...and as far as government goes, I think we can all agree we only have "evils" to choose from.

I agree, that the more you divide political power, creating officials with limited powers and riches, the bigger chance you have of corruption, for the "corruptors" can be very persuasive, even if the person is honest and just to begin with. Sad thing is, I don't think we would have much luck ever convincing enough people that maybe we need to choose a "King" and do away with the "fatty parts of our government". So, next best thing?

Attack the corporates. If we can stop, or at least severely limit the power corporates have in politics, thus halting these "sweet offers" to line politicians pockets, then maybe the power hungry individuals, those who take office for the sole intention of becoming rich and powerful, will seek private enterprise and leave the governing to those who are truly concerned about the "people" more than they are about their "pockets". Sound like a good start?
Here's a great site I found that offers a lot of info on this subject...

reclaimdemocracy.org...



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by uneek222
I have to admit, in all my observations (past/present/possible futures) I agree that some evils are "more productive" than others...and as far as government goes, I think we can all agree we only have "evils" to choose from.

I agree, that the more you divide political power, creating officials with limited powers and riches, the bigger chance you have of corruption, for the "corruptors" can be very persuasive, even if the person is honest and just to begin with. Sad thing is, I don't think we would have much luck ever convincing enough people that maybe we need to choose a "King" and do away with the "fatty parts of our government". So, next best thing?

Attack the corporates. If we can stop, or at least severely limit the power corporates have in politics, thus halting these "sweet offers" to line politicians pockets, then maybe the power hungry individuals, those who take office for the sole intention of becoming rich and powerful, will seek private enterprise and leave the governing to those who are truly concerned about the "people" more than they are about their "pockets". Sound like a good start?
Here's a great site I found that offers a lot of info on this subject...

reclaimdemocracy.org...


I don't think that the current american government can be reformed.

I think that the people will have to physically overthrow the government in order for an enlightened central committee to take over.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join