A better government

Every country needs a better government, and I think that is especially apparent in America right now. Nobody believes or trusts the President or Congress, approval ratings are at record lows, nothing gets done, there is no confidence in the government, they seemed to have lost their purpose is to help and obey the people and protect their rights. Someone once said democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.

If we could start things totally anew, what would the ideal government form be? Everyone can have an opinion and idea, and maybe the whole Senate can come to agree on what the best would be. You don't even have to believe in yours 100%, and just give ideas so others can test and judge them.

I'll start with an idea, feel free to criticize or make corrections.


There are two main groups of governments: dictatorships and democracies. Dictators are quick and effective and strong, but usually don't have the interest of their people in mind, or allow the people to have a voice at all. There are rare times there are good and kind dictators, but they aren't immortal, and can soon enough be replaced by someone less benevolent. Then there is the bureacratic, often corrupt, mess of a democracy, but true democracies are created by the people for the people, and usually good with respecting human rights. Maybe the right combination would be good??

There is a constitution, supreme law of the land, where it is clear the government exists to protect the rights of individuals, and makes sure all the essential liberties/rights/freedoms are listed. Create the office of a ruler, democratically elected by the people, who can never invade these rights. And a court system to balance out the power, and especially make sure the ruler always upholds the constitution. There is no congress, the legislative and executive are not separate, the single ruler is both. But the judiciary is still separate, to balance and check the ruler. And the people still have a major voice, in directly choosing a ruler in regular term elections. The ruler can have more than two terms, but still a reasonable term limit. But because of the importance and power of his office, the ruler's terms are shorter than four years, maybe around two. The Supreme Court judges are approved by a majority of the state governors, a way for the state governments to also check the federal. The Consitution can be ammended, but only if over 2/3 of the populaion also agree. So there is a powerful ruler, but he is checked by the people in regular democratic elections, checked by the constitution by the judges who interpret it, and checked by the state governments by approving the judges.

Opinions?

 

Ummm, ---nevermind.

I might get myself into trouble. Let me cool off awhile first.

 

Interesting "what if" thread.

Let's keep this focused on the merits/problems with governmental systems in general, and see what proposals develop...

 

I'm not entirely sure a legislative/executive combination would work, as law-writing is time consuming, in addition to the other duties of a head of state. I suppose if there wasn't a debate over a law, like a congress would have, then the time would be shortened. I don't know - have dictators allowed congresses to write/debate/pass laws (that they must approve) or do they just pass laws themselves?

Even with the judiciary checking the ruler, you could still run into problems of the interpretation of that Constitution.

I would really like to see a government where politicians can only be elected for one term. That would eliminate a lot of the corruption and pork projects, I think.

 

Darth_Ghost, youre not taking into ac**** the fact that people lie (to get into power), that people are corrupt and can easily be swayed (the judge judging the ruler) and the fact that, in some cases, what is best for the people is something they would not vote for. Take for example global warming. everyone knows it would be best if everyone stops driving and such-like. but if a leader wrote a manifesto saying he would ban cars, no one would vote for him.

 

Even with the judiciary checking the ruler, you could still run into problems of the interpretation of that Constitution

The judiciary in these contemporary times (but perhaps it has always been so) seem far removed from objectivity - and beholden to those who appoint or nominate them for the bench thus destroying the concept of a separate and impartial branch.

 

Actually, I disagree on that take on global warming.

 

Not really changed since I last checked here, has it? I started this thread a while ago, but I'm still looking forward to anyone's ideas! Many people always complain about how their government is, and have their own opinion on how it would be better or what they would do. So here's your chance to tell everyone about your ideas!

 

The problem with democracy is that not everyone who votes understands who or what they're voting for. When the people are in charge, the people had better know what they're doing. On that note, what democracy needs most is good, accessible education.

 

I agree with completely. Education is a must for a successful democracy, or any type of society. Do you think our current form of government would work fine, just if we placed more emphasis on education, especially if we had mandatory government classes in school?

 

Mandatory classes wouldn't help the current situation in the USA. It would provoke an already vicious dispute (look into Colorado's CSAP testing and when it started about 8 years ago). Many teachers would find that mandatory government classes would take away funding from the other subjects, and ultimately leave things worse off. Money should be pulled from funding bass-ackwards pork-barrel projects and other non-essential projects (probably thousands of them in Congress each week), put into funding secondary education more than primary. Primary gets more than enough, and universities suffer for it.

To make the government better, we need better police action against corruption, in other words, time in a federal penitentiary, loss of office, etc..., also punish those offering the money, even huge corporations. Make it like the tobacco lawsuits, and have them pay the taxpayers billions (in tax refunds). (Completely ambitious and unrealistic, but it sure as hell would help).

Another thing that would make the government run smoother would be an easy, flat-rate 8% tax rate, taken from EVERYBODY. No tax breaks for the top 5% of money-earners, just a flat tax rate, and an easier tax code. [sarcasm]Oh wait, can't make the tax code simpler! Then thousands of IRS employees would be obsolete![/sarcasm] Just like lots of factory workers when robots started assembling cars, electronics, etc...

 

[image=http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/motivation.jpg]

Kimball Kinnison

 

That is excellent, KK. Pure Genius! I want that poster.

 

You can get it (and others like it) here.

Kimball Kinnison

 

This government was set up so that the people could either forcibly or democratically put into place a new government. Observing George Bush and parade of goons, I think force may have to be necessary someday, but that would take massive amounts of people on a revolutionary scale with the ability to organize and access to weapons/weapons-making materials. I think to cause a major revolution at this scale, a few major catastrophic events would have to take place--Bush and his Regime would have to get caught doing something seriously effed.

That's my two cents.

But yes, it is time for a new government. Let's elect a new one.

...oh wait....

 

Enter the second ammendment. Not to mention that if it is a point where the people rise up, I think its a fair bet that those numbers will include the ranks of the police and military.

 

Certainly. It would be great to have a former member of the armed services join your militia.
The idea of revolution is possible, but I don't know if the American people have the strength to unify for one cause like that. Given that no one really cares about their freedoms being taken away as much as they are already, I can't see how it won't be too late by the time anyone DOES get off their ass and start caring.

But one can hope that if revolution is necessary, we as a people can be successful. Or even better: we can overthrow the government at the ballot box. Considering voting is mostly a symbolic act of patriotism, I don't see thing looking well for that alternative.


Only time will tell.

 

First of all, as I view it, we ARE the militia. In the sense of keeping the gov't in check, the American people as a whole form that militia.

I also don't think we're at the point where we've had so much done that we have to revolt with force. There are issues regarding freedoms and the shortcomings of the gov't, but we're at at point still where it can be handled through votes and trying to sway legislators.

 

These type of posts are definately not allowed.

 

That won't change the government at all.

 

Especially when you could just wait until the 2009 SOTU for there to be a new president.

 

what's wrong with it?

What? McCain might win? what would his foreign policy be?

Not to mention all the things the Bush Regime has done in the past. You woiuld not allow the millions crying for direct action to be satisfied. Considering 9/11, the 'War on Terror', the 10,000 black People killed during Katrina, thge Religious fundamentalism and the other things the Bush Regime has done and the MILLIONS wanting Radical Change NOW, you would deny them their freedoms, to end the Military-Industrial COmplex, for UFO disclosure, for freedom?

 

The next people in the chain of command and in line for the office of President (eg Bush's cabinet members and so on) and it would be the same policies continuing, that is why what was deleted previously wouldn't work to create a "better government." It would just continue the same policies, but with different faces.

 

There's so much there to go after, but I figure questioning everything at once would be less effective than asking on just one... but, what source put that at 10,000? Sources list the number of deaths at around 1700 or 1800, nowhere near the 10,000 you claim, and that still requires assuming that every single person killed was black. Not to mention that large portions of the failures to act came from Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco, including that Blanco had to be the one to activate national guard. As someone who seems clearly concerned with the power of Bush, I would think you would appreciate the inability of the federal government to send the national guard into a state under its own power.

 

Nagin was overwhelmed, however by the sheer enormity of the storm and did plead for help, as did Blanco. She issued an State of Emergency 4 DAYS before the storm hit. They were overwhelmed. And the point was that where was no help sent for 3 days after the storm. 3 days for the evacuation to happen. Where was FEMA? Where was the help offered by Venezuela? That wasn't accepted.

And sorry for being so aggressive. Normally I would've said '10,000 African-Americans killed based on some estimates'

"Friday, August 26

GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA [Office of the Governor]

GULF COAST STATES REQUEST TROOP ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON: At a 9/1 press conference, Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, commander, Joint Task Force Katrina, said that the Gulf States began the process of requesting additional forces on Friday, 8/26. [DOD]"

Saturday, August 27

"GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: ?I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.? [Office of the Governor]

FEDERAL EMERGENCY DECLARED, DHS AND FEMA GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO KATRINA: ?Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.? [White House]"

MORNING ? LOUISIANA NEWSPAPER SIGNALS LEVEES MAY GIVE: ?Forecasters Fear Levees Won?t Hold Katrina?: ?Forecasters feared Sunday afternoon that storm driven waters will lap over the New Orleans levees when monster Hurricane Katrina pushes past the Crescent City tomorrow.? [Lafayette Daily Advertiser]

nagin.jpg 9:30 AM CDT ? MAYOR NAGIN ISSUES FIRST EVER MANDATORY EVACUATION OF NEW ORLEANS: ?We?re facing the storm most of us have feared,? said Nagin. ?This is going to be an unprecedented event.? [Times-Picayune]

AFTERNOON ? BUSH, BROWN, CHERTOFF WARNED OF LEVEE FAILURE BY NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER DIRECTOR: Dr. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center: ??We were briefing them way before landfall. ? It?s not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped.?? [Times-Picayune; St. Petersburg Times]

http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

And the 10,000 people killed...I believe it's in here.

Want To Know: Hurricane Information and Cover-Ups (?mainstream media? links included)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/hurricaneinformation

And considering how they burned bodies and such.

Has The Bush cartel Ordered FEMA and/or Blackwater Mercenaries to Destroy Evidence of Katrina Casualties?
http://tinyurl.com/hm8vd

Kidnapping POTUS would be a symbolic victory, if anything.