How to fix our political, economic and education system

Propyro · Post by **Propyro** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:43 am

Roke wrote:Everybody knows that the opinions of everyone on earth are reflected by this forum and everything posted in it.

[sarcasm]
by jove it is! THanks for telling me that Kthulhu ... i'm going to send our MP to this site so they can fix the canadien government with our thoughtfull input ... exspecialy mine!
[/sarcasm] (just to be safe)

/|\

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:39 pm

Cardinal.jpg wrote:I´d be interested to know because if there are so many fantastic, surefire, foolproof ways to make this world a paradise then why isn´t it? Surely you wouldn´t have been the first people to come up with them. Maybe because they won´t work.

Maybe it's because they would work that you could never get them passed. See my idea about eliminating political parties. In a nation where the system is literally controlled by two parties and the special interest groups they represent do you think that could possibly get passed? The Democrats and Republicans have actually passed laws to prevent candidates from third parties from getting on the ballot. Your question assumes that the people in power want what's best for the nation they govern. I've got a news flash for you; they don't. And the ideas I've put down are not there to make the world a paradise but to create a system that the people have real influence over and a basis for law that ordinary people can comprehend and argue from, and that is dangerous to those in power, so barring massive visible outrage on the part of the public it won't happen.

Cardinal.jpg · Post by **Cardinal.jpg** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:07 pm

I understand that governents don´t necessarily want what is best for the people but it doesn´t mean that your idea has the potential to work. Maybe it does, maybe it just sounds nice. I don´t know because I have no experience or education in this field. Now if this system you propose is working anywhere comparable to the US at the moment tell me and I will think that maybe it has some cred. If your system is working anywhere tell me and I will retract this next statement. Out of all the countries and all the possibilities maybe most of these systems don´t exist because they have been proven not to work. Note how there is only 1 or 2 officially communist countries left from what there was. Becasue it didn´t work. (Please don´t flame me just because it may have been socialism instead of communism or that it was tried in a country/ies that weren´t ideal cicumstances) It had its chance and it won´t have another for a very long time because it wasn´t all it cracked up to be.
I feel that the main problem is somewhat along what Toecutter said. That all people weren´t created equally, I don´t feel that it is superior/ inferior though. This means that your better place to live would not be mine.
I don´t think anybody here would have an ideal system that would match mine.

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:29 pm

But our Constitutional government was tried and it was working very nicely thankyou very much. It failed not because it wasn't doing its job but because the judicial system just started rewritting the Constitution through opinions. Parties were introduced early on that resulted in government gridlock where there wasn't supposed to be and cooperation between branches where there wasn't supposed to be. My system simply returns us to the Constitution while instituting safeguards against what the founding fathers did not anticipate (or did anticipate but mistakenly believed lawmakers and government officials would follow the law). You can get a good grasp of how they thought the government would work by reading their correspondences, and if you compared that to today you'd see just how different things are. I'm not saying my ideas will solve all the problems, just that it will minimize the abuses in size and duration far better than the system we have now. The point is, the system was working before it was hijacked. And as far as I can tell, no country ever banned all people belonging to any political party from running for or holding office. The reason it has not been tried is because it is against the interests of those in power, not because it would not work.

Cardinal.jpg · Post by **Cardinal.jpg** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:46 pm

Doesn´t your system get rid of a lot of peoples right to change though. Times change and if you persist in keeping things rigidly unchanging you will find that you will be left behind.

alternatefutures wrote:And as far as I can tell, no country ever banned all people belonging to any political party from running for or holding office.

Didn´t the Third Reich do that. I´m not entirely sure but I think it happened in America with communism also. Anyway, preventing people from being able to express themselves in parliament removes the right to free speach doesn´t it. Isn´t that part of your constitution.

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:52 pm

First, my system allows for change, just 3/4ths of the states must agree, as it is supposed to work now. Court opinions do not have the power to change the Constitution.

The Third Reich allowed members of the Nazi party to hold office, and durring the entirty of the 20th Century both the Republican and the Democratic parties had many members of their parties in office. Read; "banned all people belonging to ANY", not "banned all people belonging to SOME".

And members would still have the right to express themselves, they just cannot associate with a political party. As this would be outlined in the Constitution, such a ban cannot be unconstitutional. And the right to free speech is not a part of our Constitution. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law". Both the terms "Congress" and "Law" are clearly defined in Article I of the US Constitution. The fact that the framers of the Bill of Rights choose such specific language instead of simply writing "Government" cannot be ignored. The First Amendment grants no rights as it is a direction to Congress, and as such the Supremacy Clause in the Fourteenth cannot be applied to it. The Fourth Amendment, on the other hand, which begins with "The right of the people," DOES grant rights. Under the First Amendment, the power for regulating speech and religion falls to the States. Nowhere in the US Constitution is freedom of speech called a "right". Feel free to read it if you do not believe me.

Limiting the rights of elected officials is a good thing as officials have proven they cannot be trusted.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:07 pm

ultra-super thinking computers

BrahRizor · Post by **BrahRizor** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:01 pm

Evil Urchin wrote:You want to put the Libertarians in charge? Hell, we'd be better off with anarchy.

MMMM Anarchy, thatd be a lot more fun. But lets face it, the problem with the world is that there is no frontier anymore, there is no where ppl can just run off to, overpopulation is the biggest problem there is, when there is more resources than people, then those who disagree with said system can leave and found another group.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:17 pm

space, the final frontier.

common congress, where's my villa on the moon?

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:10 am

BrahRizor wrote:
Evil Urchin wrote:You want to put the Libertarians in charge? Hell, we'd be better off with anarchy.
MMMM Anarchy, thatd be a lot more fun. But lets face it, the problem with the world is that there is no frontier anymore, there is no where ppl can just run off to, overpopulation is the biggest problem there is, when there is more resources than people, then those who disagree with said system can leave and found another group.

Anarchy is the worst possible 'governmental system'. A quote on anarchy for you:

Imagine junior-school recess, for the rest of your life.

That's more or less what happens.