We're Supposed to be a Republic

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

I couldnt agree more but how is it achieved. The very process of electing a government hands over to a group of people a vast amount of power, influence and even corruption. How do we as people, ensure that is tempered and designed, to serve us as you describe ?

Even at local level, our government is officious, greedy, interfering and over bearing.

How do we get politicians to understand that they are our " tools" , "servants" and not our " masters". How do we limit this power and interferance in our lives and regain the freedom and liberty we dream of ?

Vote them out of office and elect someone you prefer. Surely you don't need to ask.

posted by clint

I could go on but unlike the people who are shaping our future with their constant presence on the internet...I have to go to work (in local government).

Some of us are skiving while at work

[Snowfire]

Originally Posted by gmc

Vote them out of office and elect someone you prefer. Surely you don't need to ask.

Of course I need to ask. Thats what a discussion forum is about. Throwing in a few crackerjacks in order to watch you jump about and dance .

Do you really think its that easy. We've been doing that since we had a system of government and since we were able to vote. How does exchanging Mrs thatchers vegetables for Mr Blairs imbiciles, improve the way we, the people, are given precisely what we thought we voted for. If the government of the day think that they can get away with something then they will. For all the shouting we do and all the vilification by the press.

Lets say I voted for this £%$*& Brown and part of his promise was a referendum on certain aspects of EEC governance and law. What if he decided a referendum didnt suit him. Wheres my recourse ?

Of course, as Clint rightly points out, we should get more involved in local politics. But thats not for everyone. We cant expect everyone to be involved in local politics. We're not all political animals but that doesnt mean to say they arent part of politicians/ councillors decision making

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

Of course I need to ask. Thats what a discussion forum is about. Throwing in a few crackerjacks in order to watch you jump about and dance .

Do you really think its that easy. We've been doing that since we had a system of government and since we were able to vote. How does exchanging Mrs thatchers vegetables for Mr Blairs imbiciles, improve the way we, the people, are given precisely what we thought we voted for. If the government of the day think that they can get away with something then they will. For all the shouting we do and all the vilification by the press.

Lets say I voted for this £%$*& Brown and part of his promise was a referendum on certain aspects of EEC governance and law. What if he decided a referendum didnt suit him. Wheres my recourse ?

Of course, as Clint rightly points out, we should get more involved in local politics. But thats not for everyone. We cant expect everyone to be involved in local politics. We're not all political animals but that doesnt mean to say they arent part of politicians/ councillors decision making

We need proportional representation. We should also link pay to the UK average and confiscate all their property if they leave the nation bankrupt. However I feel it would be rude to hijack a thread about the american republic and take it off in to the exotic world of British politics. The poor dears are still trying to work out what right and left wing actually mean and reminding them they live in a liberal democracy freaks them out-which is why I like doing it. Mind you we could take a leaf out of their book and restrict the number of years someone can be prime minister. two seems a good number off the top of my head.

[TheNewDG]

In my opinion, less government means less laws over stupid bull****. I will give you two examples.

1) Seat belt laws. If you are dumb enough not to wear it you deserve what happens to you as a result. Same for helmet laws.

2) Food Posting Requirements for Restaraunts: Forcing restaraunts to post all ingredients, calorie counts, etc for all foods they serve. You know a freaking Big Mac is fattening.

It costs money, time, and labor to enforce laws like these.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Lon

Do you think that the Founders of our Republic had any inkling that one day there would be 300 + million people residing within it, with all the problems that this many people create, and if they had the foresight to envision this, would they have formed the government differently?

I'm sure they didn't conciously think we'd be coast to coast and 300 million, but the basic idea is sound. Limited central government with most of the power and decision-making decentralized. Making more of the government centralized in one corner of the country as the country grows larger is exactly the opposite of logical.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

The United States is a republic. We were set up to have a limited & well-regulated government. The larger & more remote a government becomes, the less it serves the citizens and the more it serves the elite. We need to have as small and limited a government as possible to increase freedom, liberty, and self-determination as much as possible.

What does "The United States is a republic" have to do with it though? Finland's a republic too, for example, and it has among the highest-quality social welfare provisions on the planet because it has such extensive national government spending. I honestly can't see why the form of constitution has any bearing at all.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

What does "The United States is a republic" have to do with it though? Finland's a republic too, for example, and it has among the highest-quality social welfare provisions on the planet because it has such extensive national government spending. I honestly can't see why the form of constitution has any bearing at all.

Did you watch the video?

[spot]

Originally Posted by gmc

Did you watch the video?

I've never watched a posted video on FG in my life, I use words. This thing about turning FG into a television accessory doesn't have my vote at all.


eta: except, reasonably enough, when the thread's about video clips.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

I couldnt agree more but how is it achieved. The very process of electing a government hands over to a group of people a vast amount of power, influence and even corruption. How do we as people, ensure that is tempered and designed, to serve us as you describe ?

Even at local level, our government is officious, greedy, interfering and over bearing.

How do we get politicians to understand that they are our " tools" , "servants" and not our " masters". How do we limit this power and interferance in our lives and regain the freedom and liberty we dream of ?

Originally Posted by Clint

1. End the practice of digging into elected officials personal lives and finances. Hold them accountable for thier decisions and their example while in office. Good people won't serve because someone might remember they were to wild at a frat party or something.

2. Get involved. Good people have to be holding governmet accountable.

3. Think and act locally. This is going to get fixed from the bottom up. Go to City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, School Board meetings and County Commission meetings. Find out what the people you elected are REALLY like.

4. Give a qualifying test at the voting poles. Ask people basic questions like who the President and V.P. are..who is the Mayor, Who is the Governor. If they can't answer they shouldn't be voting.

I could go on but unlike the people who are shaping our future with their constant presence on the internet...I have to go to work (in local government).

I agree with most of what Clint said, except about the voting qualification. Just because someone shouldn't be voting is not a reason to remove their right to vote. All people are endowed by their creator with the unalienable right to be stupid.

I think we would do well to remove the idea of the professional politician, especially at the federal level.

• Term limits, certainly, to help them focus on their jobs rather than reelection.
• Guarantees such as we give to military reservists to return to their civilian jobs once they complete their term(s) of service.
• Cut the pay so something closer to what the average citizen makes, since they need to consider the impact their laws have on the average citizen. We don't have to pay so much to retain the best. Monetary reward shouldn't be a reason to enter legislative service. It attracts the wrong type.

I could go on as well, but I'm not firing on all cylinders at the moment.
Of course the necessary changes are impossible now; we've already installed the professional pigs and they're the ones who we've entrusted to make such decisions into law. That ain't gonna happen; not anytime soon.

The best thing for America might be the economic collapse Washington seems hell bent on accomplishing. Maybe then we can get back on the right path - the one we were set on with the Declaration and Constitution, and knocked off by the New Deal.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

The best thing for America might be the economic collapse Washington seems hell bent on accomplishing. Maybe then we can get back on the right path - the one we were set on with the Declaration and Constitution, and knocked off by the New Deal.

It's on a par with religion, this harking back to the ideals of the creators. Not many countries have a founding principle. Britain doesn't, for example. We have a history as several independent jurisdictions which over the years have dismantled barriers and come together but there's no invariable principle underlying it, no statement of intent. Christians who take their founding statements as perpetual truths are fundamentalist Christians, I'm wondering whether Americans who regard their Founding Statements as equally perpetual truths are fundamentalist Americans.

Accountable, you appear to have a belief in American superiority and you appear to base it on the unexampled vision of your founders. Is that fair comment? Because if it is I'd ask whether it's an evangelistic creed and whether your country's ever tried to spread it abroad.