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.
Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.
The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.
We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.
The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.
We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.
The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.
The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.
We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.
The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.
Not sure I follow you.
How is smaller government a guess?
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.
The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.
We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.
The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.
Not sure I follow you.
How is smaller government a guess?
OK,
How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?
Originally posted by nickendres
We can keep the current structure in place, if we divide each respective branch by 5.
The separation of powers in the United States is represented in the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches. The current system is based upon
· 100 Senators in the Senate
· 435 in the House of Representatives
· 535 people in Congress
· 9 Supreme Court Justices (President appointed)
· President, Vice-President and the executive appointed Cabinet
I propose the division of the Legislative and Executive branches under the terms of re-organization establishing 5 ideological affiliated groups in terms of the political “right and left”.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.
The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.
We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.
The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.
Not sure I follow you.
How is smaller government a guess?
OK,
How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?
As many as are required to perform the duties given to them by society.
Give the government less duties and it will require less people.
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.
The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.
We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.
The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.
Not sure I follow you.
How is smaller government a guess?
OK,
How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?
As many as are required to perform the duties given to them by society.
Give the government less duties and it will require less people.
That is exactly what I mean by guess...
Everyone is going to have a different idea of how many people that will be.
Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Government isn't the problem, it's power and corruption. The more power you give a person or group of people, the more corrupt they can potentially behave without facing consequence. This is why you need checks and balances within any governing system, but what to do when every nook and cranny of a balanced government becomes corrupted?
Just look at the current situation in America; Obama and his seeming countless scandals have met no resistance. The people calling to bring him to justice are both powerless and starving for attention. Congress is a brothel where despicable, corrupted old men and women whore their power and influence to the highest bidder. The supreme court is no different, with 4 members polarized to the left, 4 members polarized to the right, and a douche who whores his vote to whoever makes him the better bribe.
Any system of government can work in theory, but when you put real people in those seats, your theories all fall apart. Greed is our unraveling. The answer is grossly limiting the role of government so that it serves one purpose: to provide a unified defense against potential aggressors in a war setting.
Everything else can, and should, be left to private industry. The competition of corporations prevents the incompetence of government. Why does every government service suck? Because there is no incentive to make it better. You are not a customer to the government.edit on 3-6-2013 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hamburgerler
The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.
Originally posted by nickendres
Once sustainable infinite energy is achieved, progress can be made. Once the burden of scarcity by way of energy is eliminated, serious transformations can happen.
It will be at the point, that the notion of absolute abundance will soon follow, and once people recognize that it is possible anything less will cause civic upheaval.
A completely autonomous system must follow after. People will no longer physically labor through the implementation of civil drone technologies, including the building structures, the harvesting of agriculture and mining of metals.
I just wonder if most people would be willing to go along with such a notion. I guess I'm not different than FDR saying "a chicken in every pot", but I can see the potential of technology and more importantly the human spirit. Our best days haven't passed us by yet.
When it comes to addressing socio-economic statuses, Machiavelli stated "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles", and I think that would hold true regardless. I believe a system of absolute abundance would allow for humans to be praised based upon their intellectual achievements in reference to the benefits the collective can generate from an individuals insights.
Sporting events would still occur, but individuals would participate namely for the sake of praise.
I feel like the crazy guy rambling about a real Utopia but I suppose the alternative will cause more interest.
edit on 3-6-2013 by nickendres because: (no reason given)