The "Party of Ideas"

[MarketMasher]

Quote from bullmarket79:


We have 535 people representing a nation of 308 million, we need more reps than that, constitution lays out how many reps n senators we need but we went astray from that. Happy Memorial Day to all of you.

Interesting thought. The system is basically the same as when you needed a few weeks or months and rode to D.C. in a horse and buggy to be a "representative" of (what was back then) a relatively sparsely populated community.

I think it may still be that way because you can hijack the process much more easily if there are fewer people to deal with.

Now, some may think that the "representatives" use their time to analyze legislation before voting - which always brings to mind that clip from Michael Moore's movie (forget which one) where the guy says "We don't read all the legislation."

Well, the citizens can "not read" all the legislation and vote too.

Plus, by coming up with a more democratic (little "D") system, we can save all that health-care and benefits money they get.

 

[Lornz]

Quote from BSAM:

No! That's one of the biggest parts of the problem. Too many crooks to watch and report on.

Here's what we need:

1 President with one 4 year term.

1 Vice President with one 4 year term.

100 Senators with one 4 year term each.

A Supreme Court, with each member having one 4 year term.

All federal judges appointed for one 4 year term.

This fixes a myriad of problems.

You forgot one crucial element:

A knowledgable citizenry with critical thinking skills!

 

[Mav88]

The founding fathers tried to address that shortcoming of democracy by saying only white male landowners can vote. While I don't agree with exactly that solution, I agree with the idea that not everyone should get a vote. What has happened is that democracy has been perverted by the liberals by doing what they always do- win emotional social arguments. By getting enough people to believe that everyone has a right to vote and labeling all who oppose as white racists they have demagogued the issue.

Liberals do this because they think it will tilt power in their favor. Illegal immigrant with no education and can barely speak english? Why they should get their say of course, and if you oppose their voting you are racist. Have a requirement for passing a knowledge test? Again you are racist. The one I am in favor of: voting only if you actually pay net taxes, is a nonstarter because that eliminates the democrats power base and I'm quite sure it would get labeled as racist. The demos love to play into 'let's take down the conservative whitey' when it comes to getting voters, but when it comes to implementing reasonable policy it seems conservatives are not so stupid after all. Missile defense, taxes, and Gitmo were all violently opposed by the left, but when the reality chips are down and one wipes away the tears, it seems like they are decent ideas that the 'party of ideas' quietly bought.

As long as liberals keep winning the emotional social hot buttons over reasonable policy, we will keep spiraling down. Medicare and medicaid will sink us deeper than any war ever did. How many times have I heard someone who is old, very sick etc. cry out "how can you put a price on my life?" when they make claim to millions of dollars of health care on the public dime, and the liberals cheer them on. Reality of course is that there is a price on everyone's life since we live in a world of finite resources. It always has been that way and will be for a long time, Canadians have to ration constantly. Yet if you try and point that out, you are labeled one mean spirited SOB and the crowd of boos drowns you out. All those folks who think the gov't is an infinite money pig that owes them something rush to the polls an vote liberal. Since it is a conservative idea to rein in entitlements, it will be trashed by demos in public but they will be forced to quietly accept it later. Democracy at its finest.. Oh and try and touch farm subsidies, good luck.

The inventors of democracy saw this and didn't think democracy was the best or ideal form of government. They thought that a benevolent monarchy type was best, the problem is those are too rare.

Here's an interesting point of view: http://vcscompphil.blogspot.com/2005/11/democracy-oligarchy-tyranny-and.html

The tyrannical man in the United States can be found everywhere. It lives in all of us, our desires that drive us past reason and logic, relying on the craving and eros. The desires of the tyrannical man seemingly mix with the oligarchic one, desires for money. While it seems perfectly clear that a man in Socrates’ tyrannical mold is unfit to be an all-powerful leader; the unification of each tyrannical person comes under the umbrella of the democratic state where everything can be formed.

This does not mean that democracy is a bad form of government as Socrates’ pupils are cultivated from the democratic state. “This is why Socrates is attracted to those dangerous men, the potential tyrants, who are products of democracy”[1] This kind of government seems the most practical in practice as an aristocratic one in the nature of Socrates is not realistic. The idea of Socrates the pilot is fostered by the democratic nature of his society much as today’s thinkers, regardless of their philosophy, can pursue their ideas in the democratic United States.

The democratic nature of the US is perhaps a product of the economic markets that drive the country. And as we have seen, it is perhaps the best way for the country to be directed. Perhaps it is in these modern times it should be the economy who drives the trends because ultimately it comes back to money or economic benefit for a system to work.

There is of course one problematic point where capitalism and democracy may end up clashing. That is when a majority of the citizens, with their inward thinking ideology, try to resist capitalistic values through democracy, instead going towards more social goals. Provided that the governments can resist moving towards one extreme or another, it seems that capitalism and democracy (and oligarchic people within the democratic state) will continue to be an effective couple. However if the government leans too much to the people with their socialist tendencies “The emerging policy might still be “democratic”—but that would make it no less dysfunctional and, at the extreme, hardly any less tyrannical.”

 

[Hombre]

Quote from BSAM:

No! That's one of the biggest parts of the problem. Too many crooks to watch and report on.

Here's what we need:

1 President with one 4 year term.

1 Vice President with one 4 year term.

100 Senators with one 4 year term each.

A Supreme Court, with each member having one 4 year term.

All federal judges appointed for one 4 year term.

This fixes a myriad of problems.

All of that plus people's tribunals .