Ok...well then, doesn't the tea-party movement at the very least threaten to destabilize that trend towards fascism? I mean, the only way to limit government is to defund it, so, who's trying to do that?
(no, I have no affiliation with the Tea-Party)
My question to you, in regards to your theory is whether under the scenario you assert we are now under, was this a natural progression given events and circumstances, or something planned and driven to arrive at the said conclusion?
I think it is exactly as Daniel Webster predicted
"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy."
— Daniel Webster
What we're seeing in our system now is the classic example of how government behaves when it begins to isolate itself from the control of the People it governs.
You will get no argument from me that a majority in this country are intellectually lazy and ignorant.
Well, I certainly can't argue against that.
Which raises the question of why one would bemoan a movement away from democracy.
Mac...you can argue against anything...in you sleep! :violin:
Because it will more likely than not end in a bad place. There are plenty of horrible forms of government, few good ones. And the good ones need constant upkeep from the People. We can sit on our laurels and do nothing as the government slowly degrades over generations. The pursuit of freedom and liberty is never ending, it requires constant input of energy and vigilance and an educated people. These are necessities for a free state. I do bemoan movements away from our Republic because those movements usually entail loss of freedom. I want to be free, everything else is secondary.
But if that input of energy and vigilance and an educated people isn't there, and if we agree it is required....
I see what you did there.
Sure. Modern day conservatism is nothing more than thinly veiled fascism. Though it's not just the "conservatives" which engage in fascism. The Republocrats themselves are quite good at it.
...just being pretty and all.
Conservatives = fascism :roll:
Not the form which actually adheres to the political philosophy of the days of yore. Currently the movement is used instead to excuse gross expansion of government, interventionist wars, and acts against the rights and liberties of the People. You can make faces all you want, but reality trumps your fantasies.
But the majority can be held hostage by the unethical, tyrannical minority as we have seen in the senate, going back years now. Placing anonymous blocks on legislation is an example of that.
I'm trying to get a grasp on what you mean by contributions? Personally volunteering to work on roads, trash pick up, etc...
How do we measure facts? What kind of facts?
I understand it's in concept form, but could you please clarify to this point?
1. If you do away with districts, does that mean each state is not separately represented?
2. Does congress cease to exist?
Unethical according to you? I know the argument you are making, I've seen it before.
Yes, something of that nature but not necessarily those things.
I think we should use things like tested true economic principals, political theory, material like that.
The House congress would be replaced with a Party Congress.
There would be multiple parties of equal strength, none would have more power than another, no matter the membership they hold.
I'd like to see the President appointed by a unanimous vote of all Party seats and Senate, which represents the states.
Yes, it does make things more complicated and somewhat drawn out, but I think it would be for the best.
Wouldn't you agree, that a business person voting for a member of Congress because they support some kind of corporate welfare, is unethical?
Yes, because currently America is not a republic. Hopefully that will change in the future.
Interesting. I see problems with both requirements, like setting up new bureaucracies to administrate and how do disabled citizens satisfy requirements.
How would the congress be chosen? I don't understand what mechanism would ensure parity?
Everyone votes their own self interest. I don't see how that is unethical. What we have now is kind of a free market approach to government, no? Of course it's completely mucked up by corporate money and influence. I would support reforms that would take corporate money out of our elections by publicly funding candidates. Period. No outside money of any kind. No 527's or what have you either. No soft money. That would eliminate the bought and paid for politician.
I think anyone who cares enough about government to actually vote, should have a voice in it. so I can't agree with what you've put forward, but it's an interesting discussion. Thank you.
Harry said:Voting for your self interest, which can harm another, is unethical.
I'd say that to be true for elected officials. I think that its necessary for a person to vote their "own conscience" at the polls. Self interests are hard to separate from common interests or collective interests at times.
Even if people were voting for a candidate out of self interest, I'm not sure how that actually harms another because as for many voters, there could be as many self interest. The likelihood would be slim to none at that degree, but people who see the actions of a political figure hurting them personally... We are a vengeful bunch. That's why parties are voted in like ping pong balls batter across the net.
So in the end, I'm not sure where the unethical part comes in.
I'd say that people who are worried about harming others when they vote...might even lean toward being a socialist or maybe communist. People in this nation just aren't conditions to think about the whole society. It's all about individualism. Its about ME! ME! ME! That's the American way.
Isn't that the reason our welfare system has gotten into such a mess?
Short term self interest, definitely the problem.
It doesn't require much more thought than, what's in it for me.
This is unethical, whether it is purposeful or not.
Long term self interest requires intelligence and considerations for the negative side effects of legislation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?