We're Supposed to be a Republic

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by spot

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.

I'm not sure you've ever posted a fair statement in your life. You wouldn't know fair if it walked up and introduced itself.

When you show me the respect of watching the vid, which is key to the OP, then we can keep the discussion on topic.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

I'm not sure you've ever posted a fair statement in your life. You wouldn't know fair if it walked up and introduced itself.

When you show me the respect of watching the vid, which is key to the OP, then we can keep the discussion on topic.

Oh my, that video's such illogical propagandist clap-trap!

By all means the rule of law. Finland has the rule of law too. Finnish law even limits government in that it recognizes individual rights, just the way your video discussed. It has nothing to do with the extent of social welfare though. Your chap redefines the political spectrum in order to allow his dismantling of democracy to appear centrist and then has the nerve to put socialism on the 100% government wing of oligarchy?

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.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by spot

Oh my, that video's such illogical propagandist clap-trap!

By all means the rule of law. Finland has the rule of law too. Finnish law even limits government in that it recognizes individual rights, just the way your video discussed. It has nothing to do with the extent of social welfare though. Your chap redefines the political spectrum in order to allow his dismantling of democracy to appear centrist and then has the nerve to put socialism on the 100% government wing of oligarchy?

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.

You're assumptions and presumptions are, predictably, wrong. If you care to start a thread categorizing how you came to your conclusions about me, feel free.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

You're assumptions and presumptions are, predictably, wrong. If you care to start a thread categorizing how you came to your conclusions about me, feel free.

It was "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" in this particular instance, hence the "unexampled vision of your founders" and my comparison with fundamentalist religion.

[OpenMind]

A republic has a certain flaw in that those in government can pass laws that infringe on the constitution or change it completely. It is necessary then that there is a clearly defined path for redress by the citizenry that the government, by law, must obey. Certain laws, therefore, must be immutable to preserve the constitution and its power over the government.
However, there are various factors that can make any form of redress ineffective. For instance, individual disinterest in politics or apathy, and a fragmented society. Most importantly, the resources available to the electorate to force the government to obey.
In a nation the size of the USA, organising the people to reign in the government would be an immense task and may even be impossible.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

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.

It was posted as an initial discussion point-like a link to an article except it was to a video. It's easier than posting screeds to read.

Perhaps if you had watched it you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

posted by accountable

When you show me the respect of watching the vid, which is key to the OP, then we can keep the discussion on topic.

He does have a point you know. Never mind respect how about just common courtesy.

posted by spot

Oh my, that video's such illogical propagandist clap-trap!

Ah so you did watch it. i would agree with you there, it's a load of bollocks showing a breathtaking ignorance of history not only of the world but of their own country and a really peculiar version of the political spectrum and an even stranger definition of what a republic is to promote the ending of the liberal democratic republic the united states has become. Why anyone would want such a thing or have any time for those who promote is completely beyond me.

It does seem to appeal to some americans though. It's interesting to see such strange viewpoints.

The american constitutional convention wasn't the first you know

Putney Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A blast from the past for you. Your founding fathers would have known about these guys.

Agreement of the People

Agreement of the People May 1649

*

The right to vote for all men over the age of 21 (excepting servants, beggars and Royalists)
* No army officer, treasurer or lawyer could be an MP (to prevent conflict of interest)
* Annual elections to Parliament with MPs serving one term only
* Equality of all persons before the law
* Trials should be heard before 12 jurymen, freely chosen by their community
* No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves in criminal cases
* The law should proceed in English and cases should not extend longer than six months
* The death penalty to be applied only in cases of murder
* Abolition of imprisonment for debt
* Tithes should be abolished and parishioners have the right to choose their ministers
* Taxation in proportion to real or personal property
* Abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes

Your founding fathers didn't want universal suffrage as they thought only me of property could be trusted to be responsible. Tell me had you been a soldier in the amerucan army, how would youi have felt about being told you couldn't be rusted to vote for who governed you?

[spot]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

In a nation the size of the USA, organising the people to reign in the government would be an immense task and may even be impossible.

The impossibility stems from the entrenched nature of the two ruling parties. Each is run by an unaccountable oligarchy, what in England we'd call The Men In Grey Suits.

The only possible government in either a US State or one of the US Federal power centers is a combination of representatives pre-approved by those two organizations. No other body is capable of forming a power center, it's been tried and the country's internal security apparatus has invariably suppressed the movement. So, there's no available alternative route to power other than past the oligarchs who control the Republican and Democrat machinery. They, consequently, are the sole source of both Federal and State power in the USA.

Perhaps the only question worth asking is how to make them accountable, and to whom (since, according to the video, democracy is to be shunned).

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

A republic has a certain flaw in that those in government can pass laws that infringe on the constitution or change it completely. It is necessary then that there is a clearly defined path for redress by the citizenry that the government, by law, must obey. Certain laws, therefore, must be immutable to preserve the constitution and its power over the government.
However, there are various factors that can make any form of redress ineffective. For instance, individual disinterest in politics or apathy, and a fragmented society. Most importantly, the resources available to the electorate to force the government to obey.
In a nation the size of the USA, organising the people to reign in the government would be an immense task and may even be impossible.

You're right. Our federal gov't has run roughshod over our Constitution. I don't know how often or in what numbers people have tried to sue to overturn the unconstitutional laws, or if the Supreme court has simply ignored the suits. It's been like this for so long, at least 80 years, that you may be right about reigning in the government. It seems they're trying to scrap the whole thing altogether anyway. Maybe enough people will take action when that happens and we can rebuild a part of what was - or should have been.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Accountable

You're right. Our federal gov't has run roughshod over our Constitution. I don't know how often or in what numbers people have tried to sue to overturn the unconstitutional laws, or if the Supreme court has simply ignored the suits. It's been like this for so long, at least 80 years, that you may be right about reigning in the government. It seems they're trying to scrap the whole thing altogether anyway. Maybe enough people will take action when that happens and we can rebuild a part of what was - or should have been.

You actually need democracy to rein in the power of government. If you don't have mechanisms in plcae for the people to have their say you end up with oligarchy-or state corporatism which is what you actually have had in america, and then the people eventually take power back by force if necessary but they do take it back.

Seems to me you do have those mechanisms in place for the people ti have their say-however flawed and a population that are not just going to sit on their hands and take this ****. The thing is while that is happening you are going to have people like the maker of that video bleating about how democracy is dangerous because of the mob and how the great unwashed can't be trusted with government. They bleat about the dangers of populism-which are real but not as dangerous as secret deals behind closed doors. Whereas his cronies and those who think like him are best suited and should be able to prevent the great unwashed from having a say.

A lot of people don't like democracy because it means they can't get their own way all the time. They have to allow people they don't agree with the right to speak.

That video is very flawed, inaccurate and biased. Why do you approve of it-assuming you do that is.

[Snowfire]

I get from the video that it is assumed, that in the type of democracy discussed, it isn't backed up by the rule of law. I'm not sure 30 cowboys chasing a felon and then on mass deciding to hang him, is a good example of democracy in action.

I do however find it interesting, this supposed difference between democracy and a republic.

My stand point is, is that I would like to see much less interference by government in my life. We have been shepharded into a nanny state over the last 10 years or so as if we are children unable to make sensible decisions ourselves