...and everyone is copying Uncle Sam. Speaking of which, when is your substitute drama teacher-in-chief going the way of the other totalitarian tosspots, Horseface and Mrs. Fish?
Include an unassailable bill of rights and freedoms and freedom of movement. I can't see us being able to do much better than that. Civilization requires some level of cooperation. Also for a bill or law to pass, it would have to have more than a majority; it would have to have a consensus ... just about everyone would have to agree to it ... say 90 percent. Otherwise, people would be free to pick up sticks and move to a community they preferred. Any citizen could propose legislation provided they gained enough signatories, and then it would be put to a direct vote. Also a great deal of decentralization would be required ... less power to federal governments and more to local governments. The systems is never going to be perfect but flattening power structures generally gives more power to more people.
The trouble with unassailable bills of rights is that lawyers and legislators and jurists are all willing to assail them anyway.
We need cooperation, but governments as we know them are not, never were, and never can be principally or even tangentially for that propose as far as I know.
Many people complained the Charter of Rights we have in Canada did not stop the tyranny of the last few years; and that is true, but it absolutely slowed it down, until some form of sense and courage returned.
Polycentrism. I can't pretend I know how to run your life. It's patently obvious a trritorial monopoly hasn't worked out in spite of its present pretended connection with the people through democracy. We need communities, but society is always in reality a potpourri of blended elements. It cannot be homogeneous.
500 years ago, it was just taken for granted that there could only be one church in a territory. People literally killed and died over this. Now we see there is no problem with Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Orthodox, and Lutheran churches (often one sharing a building with Seventh Day Adventists) plus Shiite or Sunni mosques, Mormon temples, Jewish synagogues, and assorted non-Abrahamic faiths sharing a community.
Now we are facing the same hurdle with civil religion, as some scholars and analysts call the trappings of nationalism, patriotism, and political ceremony. We have grown up with the idea of the nation-state, but it is historically speaking still a novel idea, dating back only to the Renaissance era as it slowly supplanted feudalism, first with the modern empires like Britain, and then with the emergence of modern republics.
I'm not proposing a return to feudalism or ancient city-states, but rather the idea that society does not need a professional political class at all. Those few services monopolized by governments can be better provided when people are free to choose. They don't need to be funded by extortion or claim a territorial monopoly. The fundamental crimes against life, liberty, and property would still be crimes, only there would not be a political class claiming a magical exception to those rules. I can't tell you exactly how it will work any more than I can tell you how many hardware stores, churches, or restaurants should be in your tow. All I can say is that when people are free to choose, and bear the responsibility for the consequences of their choices, that is when we see the most innovation and progress.
Sooooo... basically what the United States were (emphasis on were, since "United States" used to be plural) originally meant to be, and not what they actually turned into. Smashing, but now for the obvious question: how do you prevent that system from eventually being corrupted? More precisely, since I can tell you precisely when the shift toward centralisation happened, how would you prevent the Hamiltonians from overtaking the Jeffersonians?
Can you expand on what you mean by Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians?
I would argue that accumulation of power and wealth in the hands of too few is THE problem. In a centralize model, we just have to capture a few people to capture the whole government; this is exacerbated by the need of money to run a successful political campaign and the towing of party line. The system was doomed to fail and has been a failure for a very long time; it has only been the advent of truly independent and mass media(the internet) that has brought this to light. We have been ruled by propaganda for a very long time.
Jeffersonians, named for Thomas Jefferson: those who lean more toward small government, states' rights
Hamiltonians, named for Alexander Hamilton: those who lean more toward centralised government statism
Really though, that's just in the context of American politics. Jefferson seemed to take most of his cues from Marcus Tullius Cicero, whereas Hamilton took most of his from Gaius Julius Caesar, the latter of whom Cicero specifically warned about in his repudiation of representative democracy. "When the body politic is made not of true free men but of slaves who believe themselves free too easily it is swayed by the honeyed words of demagogues," is the best way I can sum up his philosophy. Sorry if it's a little hard to follow, but Cicero was not remotely fond of an at-that-time new linguistic concept called punctuation.
Back to the American system, some people have argued that the US deviated from what it was meant to be in 1945 with the rise of the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex.
No, it's further back.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913?
Nope.
The Pendleton Act of 1886, which effectively laid the groundwork for the unconstitutional fourth branch of government known as the Administrative State?
Still no.
The American Civil War, cementing the notion that the Union was voluntary to join, but inviolable once a part of?
Getting close...
The scrapping of the Articles of Confederation?
And we have a winner! Of course, the counter-argument is that "had the Articles of Confederation remained in place, then the US would have been too weak to fight off the British in the War of 1812." Considering that the US declared war against Britain, I don't think that argument is particularly valid.
Almost as if history repeats itself...
...and everyone is copying Uncle Sam. Speaking of which, when is your substitute drama teacher-in-chief going the way of the other totalitarian tosspots, Horseface and Mrs. Fish?
You forgot anti-science and racist ... oh and my personal favorite ... misogynist.
Yeah, I suppose that 20-year-old meme needs to be updated.
Still pretty accurate
History is repeating itself since 2000+ years.
Change happens slowly, until it happens all at once. I hope we are nearing a tipping point. But which way will it tip?
Direct democracy
What does that mean, though? Naked tyranny of the majority?
Include an unassailable bill of rights and freedoms and freedom of movement. I can't see us being able to do much better than that. Civilization requires some level of cooperation. Also for a bill or law to pass, it would have to have more than a majority; it would have to have a consensus ... just about everyone would have to agree to it ... say 90 percent. Otherwise, people would be free to pick up sticks and move to a community they preferred. Any citizen could propose legislation provided they gained enough signatories, and then it would be put to a direct vote. Also a great deal of decentralization would be required ... less power to federal governments and more to local governments. The systems is never going to be perfect but flattening power structures generally gives more power to more people.
The trouble with unassailable bills of rights is that lawyers and legislators and jurists are all willing to assail them anyway.
We need cooperation, but governments as we know them are not, never were, and never can be principally or even tangentially for that propose as far as I know.
Many people complained the Charter of Rights we have in Canada did not stop the tyranny of the last few years; and that is true, but it absolutely slowed it down, until some form of sense and courage returned.
What kind of system do you propose?
Polycentrism. I can't pretend I know how to run your life. It's patently obvious a trritorial monopoly hasn't worked out in spite of its present pretended connection with the people through democracy. We need communities, but society is always in reality a potpourri of blended elements. It cannot be homogeneous.
500 years ago, it was just taken for granted that there could only be one church in a territory. People literally killed and died over this. Now we see there is no problem with Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Orthodox, and Lutheran churches (often one sharing a building with Seventh Day Adventists) plus Shiite or Sunni mosques, Mormon temples, Jewish synagogues, and assorted non-Abrahamic faiths sharing a community.
Now we are facing the same hurdle with civil religion, as some scholars and analysts call the trappings of nationalism, patriotism, and political ceremony. We have grown up with the idea of the nation-state, but it is historically speaking still a novel idea, dating back only to the Renaissance era as it slowly supplanted feudalism, first with the modern empires like Britain, and then with the emergence of modern republics.
I'm not proposing a return to feudalism or ancient city-states, but rather the idea that society does not need a professional political class at all. Those few services monopolized by governments can be better provided when people are free to choose. They don't need to be funded by extortion or claim a territorial monopoly. The fundamental crimes against life, liberty, and property would still be crimes, only there would not be a political class claiming a magical exception to those rules. I can't tell you exactly how it will work any more than I can tell you how many hardware stores, churches, or restaurants should be in your tow. All I can say is that when people are free to choose, and bear the responsibility for the consequences of their choices, that is when we see the most innovation and progress.
Sooooo... basically what the United States were (emphasis on were, since "United States" used to be plural) originally meant to be, and not what they actually turned into. Smashing, but now for the obvious question: how do you prevent that system from eventually being corrupted? More precisely, since I can tell you precisely when the shift toward centralisation happened, how would you prevent the Hamiltonians from overtaking the Jeffersonians?
Can you expand on what you mean by Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians?
I would argue that accumulation of power and wealth in the hands of too few is THE problem. In a centralize model, we just have to capture a few people to capture the whole government; this is exacerbated by the need of money to run a successful political campaign and the towing of party line. The system was doomed to fail and has been a failure for a very long time; it has only been the advent of truly independent and mass media(the internet) that has brought this to light. We have been ruled by propaganda for a very long time.
Jeffersonians, named for Thomas Jefferson: those who lean more toward small government, states' rights
Hamiltonians, named for Alexander Hamilton: those who lean more toward centralised government statism
Really though, that's just in the context of American politics. Jefferson seemed to take most of his cues from Marcus Tullius Cicero, whereas Hamilton took most of his from Gaius Julius Caesar, the latter of whom Cicero specifically warned about in his repudiation of representative democracy. "When the body politic is made not of true free men but of slaves who believe themselves free too easily it is swayed by the honeyed words of demagogues," is the best way I can sum up his philosophy. Sorry if it's a little hard to follow, but Cicero was not remotely fond of an at-that-time new linguistic concept called punctuation.
Back to the American system, some people have argued that the US deviated from what it was meant to be in 1945 with the rise of the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex.
No, it's further back.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913?
Nope.
The Pendleton Act of 1886, which effectively laid the groundwork for the unconstitutional fourth branch of government known as the Administrative State?
Still no.
The American Civil War, cementing the notion that the Union was voluntary to join, but inviolable once a part of?
Getting close...
The scrapping of the Articles of Confederation?
And we have a winner! Of course, the counter-argument is that "had the Articles of Confederation remained in place, then the US would have been too weak to fight off the British in the War of 1812." Considering that the US declared war against Britain, I don't think that argument is particularly valid.