We're Supposed to be a Republic

[Accountable]

The American form of government. (Video)

There's a tendency here in the Garden to ridicule a point by sarcastically yanking a person's argument to an extreme far beyond what the writer meant. It's usually when someone complains that government is growing too large or gaining too much power; someone responds that yeh, we should toss out government completely and just starve to death.

That's not helpful.

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.

This means that we cannot allow government to prevent the consequence of failure -- not on a corporate level and not on an individual level. This doesn't equate to anarchy. It doesn't equate to tossing the entire government and allowing people to starve on the streets.

Government is a tool - a very powerful, hard-to-control, addictive, necessary tool. We must use it as sparingly and carefully as possible.

[Kindle]

Great video. This clearly explains the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The US is clearly being fast-tracked into ruin.

[Accountable]

The democrats and republicans are side-by-side near the left end of that continuum.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

The American form of government. (Video)

There's a tendency here in the Garden to ridicule a point by sarcastically yanking a person's argument to an extreme far beyond what the writer meant. It's usually when someone complains that government is growing too large or gaining too much power; someone responds that yeh, we should toss out government completely and just starve to death.

That's not helpful.

<Snip>

It's not ridicule Acc, it's a form of logical argument of long standing - indeed it was a favoured tool of Aristotle and is often the easiest way to show that a statement holds an untenable position.

If a statement is true then it's implications must also be true. By taking those implications to their logical conclusion to show that those conclusions cannot possibly be correct you can show that the original statement cannot possibly be correct.

[Accountable]

To call for smaller or limited government is not to call for no government at all.

[Clint]

Originally Posted by Accountable

To call for smaller or limited government is not to call for no government at all.

No, it isn't, it is a call for freedom. It is also a call for efficiency and agility.

[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?

[gmc]

Interesting perspective on the political spectrum. In the french revolution the left-wing referred to the seating arrangements in the french parliament parliament; those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy and supported radical reform. Those on the right favoured the divine right of kings and oppression. The left rule by the people the right rule by a monarch or a small group. Therefore fascist are right wing-state corporatists, communists are left wing but it's a circle extreme left or extreme right you end up with a dictatorship. Liberals are somewhere in the middle or on the other side of the circle. We talk about centre left and centre right, right wing and left wing and understand each other.

Most UK posters and Europeans will view left in right in those terms left wing tending favouring freedom and democracy right wing authoritarianism but with an awareness of where left wing can lead. It's one of the reasons some of the debates get heated-we use the same words but the connotations are very different to us. Liberal is not the same as left wing socialist we make a clear distinction.

Stalin wasn't an anarchist, In fact the communists hated them and exterminated them whenever they came in contact with them, the flaw in communism-dictatorship of the people leading to a free communist society is that it ignores human nature-you basically swop one set of masters for another-is one most of the people in educated advanced societies saw straight through. They might favour some socialist policies but not communism while Americans conflate communism with socialism we don't and socialism has kind of moved on beyond a purely economic issue about the ownership of the means of production.

It's a very American viewpoint of things and a bit simplistic quite frankly. kind of detached from the European perspective and reality seeing things in isolation as they have influenced effect the US and putting his own perspective on it to back up what he wants to believe.

He has an odd definition of republic.

republic

• noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

— ORIGIN Latin respublica, from res ‘concern’ + publicus ‘of the people, public’.

He puts a very simplistic right wing view of the fall of the roman republic-one could equally argue that the fall of Carthage and the availability of so many slaves ruined the rural economy and made it economically viable for a land grab to take place effectively creating a disenfranchised underclass without the economic power to exert themselves.

Your founding fathers were heavily influenced by the roman republic-just look at all the roman symbols in your regalia and on you public buildings-you even have a roman eagle and used the roman salute until hitler hijacked the gesture. They did everything they could to prevent democracy because they wanted to rule themselves-it's a very very old argument about who should get to vote. I doubt very much any american politician would dare suggest that people should not be allowed to vote because they don't own property or are not the right "type" for whatever reason. They might think it though.

But you live in liberal democracies where freedom of the individual and the rule of law are paramount with structures to allow the people to have their say and prevent an oligarchy keeping control. Supreme power rests with the people government if how they exert that power. You can't have freedom without that democracy and rule of law to curb the power of govt at it's heart. Over the last few decades the US IMO has moved to the right with rule by a narrow interest groups-something both democratic and republican presidents warned about in the past. An oligarchy in other words They have had to convince everybody that they were right and doing things in the national interest, not that they had the right to rule because they couldn't say that openly any more.

What has happened though is that the people have re-exerted themselves by voting out those who have acted in the interests of that oligarchy and voted for change. be interesting to see what happens. I'm not an american but personally anyone suggesting that democracy should not be at the heart of any government is a closet fascist and should be viewed with extreme scepticism.

Combine democracy with protections of individual rights from government power through the rule of law and you have liberal democracy.

You have a republican form of it. We have a constitutional monarchy version of it. We had a civil war where the issue of the divine right of kings was settled once for all by chopping off his head. We might have kept to a republic if the Christian fundamentalists hadn't taken over but that's another story altogether.

[Snowfire]

Originally Posted by Accountable

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.
Government is a tool - a very powerful, hard-to-control, addictive, necessary tool. We must use it as sparingly and carefully as possible.

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 ?

[Clint]

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 ?

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).