BF2S Forums What is the "best" form of government

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Jeckelcopy wrote:

That is because the US has been pushing others to adopt a democracy, and has done so with force (occationaly)

Ah, so you would prefer that the UK remained a disgusting monarchal empire, that the russians remained under the iron curtain, and that the rest of europe be engulfed in dictatorships by various tyrants? So far democracy, the idea that the people should be in charge, has been the best for all involved.

No, I dispise unjust government, I was just saying that the US usualy says "Hey! Democracy is great! We want you to have it, now..."

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Jeckelcopy wrote:

Ex:  The US's westward expantion - after the Louisiana purchase from Nepoleon Bonepart (Sp?), the US began to explore and move west from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean...  The US met opposition by Native Americans.  Some US citizens were trying to convert the Natives from their past beliefs to a form of Christianity...  The Natives didn't like... The US then sent the Army there to "restore order"...  The US put them [Natives] into reservations (much like today's POW camps, but more room)  The Natives hated it, and they rebelled...
The reason I bring this up is because that is what happens today...  That (^) is called "Manifest Destiny", which is people belive it is their duty (sometimes from their god) to move and cleanse the land to their liking... That, I belive, is still happening today with the US, like say in Iraq...

Nope, that was about religious atrocities. What happened to the natives is a horrible point in american history and should always be remembered, but it is most certainly not what's happening in Iraq. The Iraqi people were under the oppression of a brutal maniacal sociopath and they are now free to choose their own path in life. You think the brutal slaughter of the native people of this land is the same as giving countless iraqis the ability to vote in the elections currently going on? These people are being allowed to chose their leader, unlike in a dictatorship like Saddam's where they would've been murdered for simply questioning his authority.

People bitch and moan and complain about what America is doing in the middle east but have any of you ever been there and actually talked to the Iraqis? Does anyone here know what it was like to live under that regime and the difference in the level of freedom they now have?

No, I have not been to Iraq, nor I beleive anyone here has.  They like the freedoms since the leader was opressive, not the government....

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I HUMP MONKEYS!!!!

What are you thinking?

FeloniousMonk wrote:

SodaBob wrote:

whittsend wrote:

I think my own preference would be an Anarco-sydicalist commune. People take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of....
:-)

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!

hahahahaha that's one of my favorite scenes

Agree.

Democracy/republics similar to the US, Britain, Isreal, etc.  Although it has many failings, it avoids the tyranny that many dictatorships, oligarchies, etc., go through.  Plus, if a democracy gets real embarrasing, you can just elect some other party to power.  One thing though-the power of the US courts has grown too large and they have begun making laws and interpreting the nitty-gritty which should go through the legislative/executive branches.  Unless something is grossly, undeniably violating a written right or an unwritten right which the public clearly supports like the right to privacy (see amendment 9 or 10), it should be handled not by the courts but by the legislative/executive procedure.  Roe vs. Wade-although I favor it... I am having doubts over whether it should have been interpreted as violating the Constitution.

otorhinorrhea wrote:

How do you see the 9 and 10 amendments supporting the proverbial “right to privacy”…..there is no such thing. By definition the judicial branch determines if the laws created by the legislative branch and implemented by the executive branch are in line with the undying rights/rules laid down in the constitution. Everything that is legal or illegal is supposed to be interpretable in the constitution, and those interpretations are passed down by the judiciary (by the way the judiciary does not make law, but yes it is their job to interpret the laws created by the legislature or viable and legal.

As for Roe v Wade, I also support it, but I disagree it is easy to see how it can be constitutionally based, i.e. the converse idea being all Americans have rights (the question is when are you a person and not a fetus)…..

Bill wrote:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Right there is our Constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Bill wrote:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That doesn't guarantee privacy but it does guarantee that people can't say "well, it doesn't say anything about the right to eat meat!" in an effort to spread the evils of vegetarianism.

Bill wrote:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is still my favorite ammendment. It states very clearly that if something isn't stated directly by the Constitution then it is up to us as a people, who are responsible for controlling the States, to rule ourselves and make the laws that are best for our society within the confines of the established government. Coupled with the 9th ammendment it enforces the ideal that our government is under our control, that politicians are public servants, and that any government we chose to live under only has power because WE decide to recognize it.

But the point is that the right to privacy is protected by the 4th and in part by the 5th.

Put it this way. Best in who's sense?

otorhinorrhea wrote:

How do you see the 9 and 10 amendments supporting the proverbial “right to privacy”…..there is no such thing.

Just because a right isn't enumerated (listed) in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  According to the founding ideals of the U.S., as indicated by the Declaration of Independence, rights come from either nature or God (Jefferson was smart to include both believers and non-believers).  As such, as he states, these rights are inalienable - in other words, indisputable and irrefutable.  He writes that "among these" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But note that this means that there are other inalienable rights as well, such as the right to privacy, the right to property (which was included in an early draft of the Declaration in the place of "pursuit of happiness"), etc.

What this means is that if laws take away these inalienable rights - even if they're not listed in the Bill of Rights - those laws can be considered unconstitutional by way of the 9th and 10th Amendments (the two of which, in short, establish that the government cannot take away rights just because those rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution and that the federal government is granted specific powers by the Constitution, but that all other powers are retained by the states or by the people themselves, respectively).  Thus if the congress passes some anti-terrorist law that allows the FBI to wiretap without a warrant, for example <ahem>, then it could be considered unconconstitutional, even though "right to privacy" isn't specifically listed in the Bill or Rights.

otorhinorrhea wrote:

By definition the judicial branch determines if the laws created by the legislative branch and implemented by the executive branch are in line with the undying rights/rules laid down in the constitution. Everything that is legal or illegal is supposed to be interpretable in the constitution, and those interpretations are passed down by the judiciary (by the way the judiciary does not make law, but yes it is their job to interpret the laws created by the legislature or viable and legal.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution does not in any way establish the idea that the judicial branch, or the Supreme Court, should interpret the constitutionality of our laws.  The idea that the Supreme Court has the power to declare an act, or law, of Congress as "unconstitutional" was actually established by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 - approximately 16 years after the Constitutiona was written.

History of the Marshal court:
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_h … 2_c04.html
Transcript of the US Constitution (see Article III)
http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv … cript.html

otorhinorrhea wrote:

As for Roe v Wade, I also support it, but I disagree it is easy to see how it can be constitutionally based, i.e. the converse idea being all Americans have rights (the question is when are you a person and not a fetus)…..

The problem with allowing abortion is that any point that we choose for when an abortion is okay, and when it's not okay, is arbitrary.  In other words, when does a developing baby become a person whose life and liberty are protected?  Is it at birth?  Is it at 8 months of being in the womb?  7 months?  3 months?  1 month?  At conception (i.e. when the egg is fertilized)?  When the fetus starts to move?  When the fetus' first brainwaves begin?  In short, when does "life" begin?  And before you answer this, are you sure?

And I do not argue this from a religious standpoint (I'm an agnostic).  I simply see this as an issue of human rights, but not, as many see it, as an issue of the rights of the mother.  Instead I see it is an issue of exactly WHEN the rights of the baby should be recognized.  In my mind we should, as a society, err on the side of life, and should therefore say that life and the rights of the human begin at conception.

Bob.

SodaBob wrote:

Actually, the U.S. Constitution does not in any way establish the idea that the judicial branch, or the Supreme Court, should interpret the constitutionality of our laws.  The idea that the Supreme Court has the power to declare an act, or law, of Congress as "unconstitutional" was actually established by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 - approximately 16 years after the Constitutiona was written.

Very interesting.  Now I have something to look up...thank you!  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, by it's nature MUST determine the constitutionality of laws; outside the context of the constitution, the court has no validity, therefore the constitutional ramifications of a case MUST be it's primary concern.  Chief Justice Marshall may have been novel in saying that the Supreme Court can strike down laws, but that is really just a practical measure, as without it, courts would be required to make the same decision time and again by precedent (if a law had been determined unconstitutional in the SC).  When the legislature accepts that a law is dead when the Supreme Court says it is, everyone is spared a lot of unnecessary hassle.

whittsend wrote:

SodaBob wrote:

Actually, the U.S. Constitution does not in any way establish the idea that the judicial branch, or the Supreme Court, should interpret the constitutionality of our laws.  The idea that the Supreme Court has the power to declare an act, or law, of Congress as "unconstitutional" was actually established by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 - approximately 16 years after the Constitutiona was written.

Very interesting.  Now I have something to look up...thank you!  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, by it's nature MUST determine the constitutionality of laws; outside the context of the constitution, the court has no validity, therefore the constitutional ramifications of a case MUST be it's primary concern.  Chief Justice Marshall may have been novel in saying that the Supreme Court can strike down laws, but that is really just a practical measure, as without it, courts would be required to make the same decision time and again by precedent (if a law had been determined unconstitutional in the SC).  When the legislature accepts that a law is dead when the Supreme Court says it is, everyone is spared a lot of unnecessary hassle.

I believe I agree with you, with one caveat:  the courts should be able to strike down a law, but they should NOT be able to indicate how the law makers MUST 'fix' the law.  In other words, they should not have the power to legislate from the bench.  They might advise (though the supreme court has a tradition since the beginning of NOT giving advice), perhaps, but they should not be able to say to law makers, "this law (or lack thereof) is unconstitutional, you must therefore pass this other law".  In other words, they should have power to strike laws, but not force lawmakers to pass other laws.

For example, let's say the court (whether the supreme court, a state court, or whatever) declares a law banning gay marriage as unconstitutional.  Okay, fine.  But they should not then be able to tell lawmakers, "you must now make a law declaring gay marriage legal".

Let the lawmakers (city councils, state legislatures, Congress) make laws, the executives (mayors, governors, the President) execute the laws, and the courts (city, state, federal) interpret the laws.  These are the proper balance to the powers of the branches of government.

SodaBob wrote:

Absolutely agreed, here here!  In my mind, unless the life of the mother is in danger, neither the government nor insurance companies should pay for abortions.

Bob.

I disagree about the insurance part. I feel that a private insurance company should have the right to choose what to pay for and what not to pay for. If Aetna decides to include abortions in its' policies and you disagree, you have the choice to not use that insurance company.

As to the fetus being a part of the woman's body, the unbilical cord does connect them throughout the pregnancy. You're right that at some point the fetus developes those essential biological systems but at what point should it be considered a person? I don't see a single celled organism as a human being. But in my opinion it doesn't matter what I see because it's not my body.

not true a benevelont dictator is not necessarily a ruler by fear.the idea is for one person to be in toal control I.E. a dictator.it is true that most dictators rule by fear and terror.the idea is for a person not a government to be responsible for the running of a nation.there have been cases in history where supporters of a dictator have called him benevolent like tito for example but htis is not my point.a benevolent dictator is to have absolute power but still be trusted to not abuse this power for example abraham lincoln.he was elected as president but became a dictator for the duration of the civil war and he could only be described as benevolent by all except his enemies.it is from this that this idea (read idea) that this is the best form of government.it may not be possible to have such a leader but the question was which form of government is best.i wonder how much of the usas budget is spent on governing its people when this massive amount of money could be spent making the world a better place to live.so a government of any type will not be efficient and cannot compete with the theory of a benevolent dictator.gee it is good to have an intelligent discourse on this matter without flaming each other.people should think before they type and use that vast computer everyone has in their head.this topic required some brain power and there are some highly intelligent(if sometimes mistaken) opinions being cast.well doneall contributors for lifting the tone on this forum.

pokerplaya wrote:

the idea is for one person to be in toal control

And that's the inherent problem. What if that one person feels that cars cause too many accidents and thus they'll all be limited to 30mph from now on? What if that one person decides that since religions are to blame for so many deaths that he outlaws all forms of it? What if that one person disagrees with the theory of evolutions and instead requires that the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory be taught (may you be blessed by his noodly appendage)?

One person ruling a country, no matter how nice of a guy he is, cannot work. The simple reason is that no one person could ever have ideas that everyone agrees with. Rule by the people is the best form of government because it allows for the most freedom. There is no better situation for human beings than when they're allowed to chose how they live.

i love the way it is now, but some aspects of communism i do like. like the unselfishness and equality. But that's impossible to have with humans no offense