Design a more Perfect form of Government

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by questor

I take the trouble to participate in your thread and right off you give me a blast of crap!
''So instead of bitching about what is wrong with the current system how about you help us devise a better system??? Seriously, your missing the whole point of this thread''
If you don't understand or agree upon the problems that need fixing, you aren't going to fix them. Do yo really think any improvements will be instituted
because of this thread?

Sorry if my response was a bit over the top. I fully appreciate your pointing out the problems with the current government, but the whole point of this thread was to think of ways to address those problems, not necessarily to vent about them.

"Do yo really think any improvements will be instituted because of this thread?"
Nope, but it is interesting and a nice exercise. Do you really think your pessimistic response is adding anything to this discussion or is it just attempting to put a roadblock in the way of what the goal is?

[charles brough]

Government cannot be perfect. All through prehistory we lived in communes in which we were sovereign. However, as the irrigation communes grew ever larger, in Sumeria and Egypt, for example, people had to ORGANIZE. That meant they had to turn sovereignty over to representatives who became the rulers. We had no choice and we still have none. There is now no such thing as a democracy. What we have is a representative, two party constitutional republic. What makes it function so poorly is that we are so obsessed with the "democracy" myth that we have grown to hate our rulers. That results in us getting really low quality leadership. We force these psychopaths, once elected, to get what they want through the worst and most devious means. No wonder our government is so corrupt.

This and much more can be found in the new book "Destiny and Civilization":
Thttp://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=54563

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by charles brough

Government cannot be perfect. All through prehistory we lived in communes in which we were sovereign. However, as the irrigation communes grew ever larger, in Sumeria and Egypt, for example, people had to ORGANIZE. That meant they had to turn sovereignty over to representatives who became the rulers. We had no choice and we still have none. There is now no such thing as a democracy. What we have is a representative, two party constitutional republic. What makes it function so poorly is that we are so obsessed with the "democracy" myth that we have grown to hate our rulers. That results in us getting really low quality leadership. We force these psychopaths, once elected, to get what they want through the worst and most devious means. No wonder our government is so corrupt.

This and much more can be found in the new book "Destiny and Civilization":
Thttp://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=54563

Once again, this thread is not supposed to be about criticizing the current government. It is supposed to be an effort to see if, using historical examples of what aspects have worked and what aspects have not worked, a bunch of geeks can logically discuss and hash out a better system of government than there currently is.

I fully appreciate your view point, but would appreciate that either this thread withers on the vine or actually makes progress. Go hijack some other thread

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Nitack

Once again, this thread is not supposed to be about criticizing the current government. It is supposed to be an effort to see if, using historical examples of what aspects have worked and what aspects have not worked, a bunch of geeks can logically discuss and hash out a better system of government than there currently is.

In my study of history and prehistory, my experience is that governing systems change as the need changes. For example, feudalism develops when communes or communities are so plagued by gangs from the outside that they are willing to pay protection and have one gang come in, stay, and then provide protection. This results in longed-for stability. "Democracy" was once a system communes had in prehistory, but when the communes got too large, they had to organize (about 5,000 years ago). That meant a hierarchy, representatives, rulers. We have never had democracy since. We only have constitutional, multi-party republics---or, more often, single-party autocracies---in which the people have the common ideological bond between them that they are sovereign ("democracy"). (The whole reason we have such a low opinion of government and "politics" is that our rulers do not do what we expect and want. But believing in "democracy" helps to ideologically bind the world into a global system which has made possible a common, international trade system in a world so badly divided into religious blocks (Islam, Christendom, Asian Marxism) that constant war over resources would otherwise be unavoidable.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by charles brough

In my study of history and prehistory, my experience is that governing systems change as the need changes. For example, feudalism develops when communes or communities are so plagued by gangs from the outside that they are willing to pay protection and have one gang come in, stay, and then provide protection. This results in longed-for stability. "Democracy" was once a system communes had in prehistory, but when the communes got too large, they had to organize (about 5,000 years ago). That meant a hierarchy, representatives, rulers. We have never had democracy since. We only have constitutional, multi-party republics---or, more often, single-party autocracies---in which the people have the common ideological bond between them that they are sovereign ("democracy"). (The whole reason we have such a low opinion of government and "politics" is that our rulers do not do what we expect and want. But believing in "democracy" helps to ideologically bind the world into a global system which has made possible a common, international trade system in a world so badly divided into religious blocks (Islam, Christendom, Asian Marxism) that constant war over resources would otherwise be unavoidable.

So what I am getting from this post, is that our government needs to have the ability, or flexibility, to evolve with changing times. I think this is a wonderful notion, as we have seen ways in which our government can get bogged down in the past.

Well said Charles.