John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Put your money where your collective big mouths are. We're having a Constitutional Convention in 2005. The old one is very good, but has some problems, and interpretation issues. Rather than revising it Amendment by Amendment, which will take an interminable amount of time because of all the Party infighting, a handful of US leaders have entrusted the people of PPP to form a Constitutional Convention and hammer out a new one. The first thing we need to decide is what form of government we'll be using. There are, of course, several choices. Ours is currently a Democracy (Parliament/Sep. powers will come later). Monarchy is possible, although probably out, in less we all agree that the Bush's are the first family and can breed our leaders. Theocracy is an option. Aristocracy a possibility. Meritocracy has ummm... merits, although let's set an IQ cutoff one point above Tom's. Anyway, these (and other systems) are on the table. It seems like Democracy is the way to go, but let's hash it out and see if any of the others can work. After the thread dies, we'll move to Topic II.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Put your money where your collective big mouths are. We're having a Constitutional Convention in 2005. The old one is very good, but has some problems, and interpretation issues. Rather than revising it Amendment by Amendment, which will take an interminable amount of time because of all the Party infighting, a handful of US leaders have entrusted the people of PPP to form a Constitutional Convention and hammer out a new one. The first thing we need to decide is what form of government we'll be using. There are, of course, several choices. Ours is currently a Democracy (Parliament/Sep. powers will come later). Monarchy is possible, although probably out, in less we all agree that the Bush's are the first family and can breed our leaders. Theocracy is an option. Aristocracy a possibility. Meritocracy has ummm... merits, although let's set an IQ cutoff one point above Tom's. Anyway, these (and other systems) are on the table. It seems like Democracy is the way to go, but let's hash it out and see if any of the others can work. After the thread dies, we'll move to Topic II. 255328[/snapback] Hoe about Anarchy?
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 Hoe about Anarchy? 255340[/snapback] Some government is necessary to protect borders if nothing else, so that we can live in anarchy.
KRC Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Put your money where your collective big mouths are. We're having a Constitutional Convention in 2005. The old one is very good, but has some problems, and interpretation issues. Rather than revising it Amendment by Amendment, which will take an interminable amount of time because of all the Party infighting, a handful of US leaders have entrusted the people of PPP to form a Constitutional Convention and hammer out a new one. The first thing we need to decide is what form of government we'll be using. There are, of course, several choices. Ours is currently a Democracy (Parliament/Sep. powers will come later). Monarchy is possible, although probably out, in less we all agree that the Bush's are the first family and can breed our leaders. Theocracy is an option. Aristocracy a possibility. Meritocracy has ummm... merits, although let's set an IQ cutoff one point above Tom's. Anyway, these (and other systems) are on the table. It seems like Democracy is the way to go, but let's hash it out and see if any of the others can work. After the thread dies, we'll move to Topic II. 255328[/snapback] Democracy. You still need to make sure that the people have a say in government. You will not get that with other systems. You also need freedom of religion (notice I said of not from). Theocracy will not give that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 What about oligarchy? Make that corporate oligarchy. We can tell the people the exact opposite, they will never know. Tweek out special interest. Who likes competition? That always gets messy.
Terry Tate Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Put your money where your collective big mouths are. We're having a Constitutional Convention in 2005. The old one is very good, but has some problems, and interpretation issues. There are 'big mouths' campaigning to throw the baby out with the bath water?
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 Democracy. You still need to make sure that the people have a say in government. You will not get that with other systems. You also need freedom of religion (notice I said of not from). Theocracy will not give that. 255366[/snapback] Agreed. This question seems pretty simple. Still, for the sake of discussion, how about a meritocracy/democracy where people are electable based on performance in their fields of expertise. Then the electorate nominates representatives from this base of electable folks.
KRC Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Agreed. This question seems pretty simple. Still, for the sake of discussion, how about a meritocracy/democracy where people are electable based on performance in their fields of expertise. Then the electorate nominates representatives from this base of electable folks. 255423[/snapback] Who do you have as the judge of merit? How do that attain that position of judge? This would probably be addressed in subsequent threads, but I wonder the best way to judge the merit rankings. Only a true colleague can judge and if they are qualified to judge, then they can also be electable. It sounds like too much corruption could go on with that.
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 Who do you have as the judge of merit? How do that attain that position of judge? This would probably be addressed in subsequent threads, but I wonder the best way to judge the merit rankings. Only a true colleague can judge and if they are qualified to judge, then they can also be electable. It sounds like too much corruption could go on with that. 255438[/snapback] Politics is hard not to corrupt. Since I'm playing Devil's Advocate on this, how about we identify fields of importance that need to be represented. Legal, Science, Social, Defense, Infrastructure, Medicine, Economics etc., and these are comprised of previously elected members of the merit-based Congress. For our first Congress, we would have to pick the panels, and the mix of representation in each panel, but thereafter, it would be a self-sustaining system. Prone to corruption, sure. But the balance of different committees would hopefully act as a check.
KRC Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Politics is hard not to corrupt. Since I'm playing Devil's Advocate on this, how about we identify fields of importance that need to be represented. Legal, Science, Social, Defense, Infrastructure, Medicine, Economics etc., and these are comprised of previously elected members of the merit-based Congress. For our first Congress, we would have to pick the panels, and the mix of representation in each panel, but thereafter, it would be a self-sustaining system. Prone to corruption, sure. But the balance of different committees would hopefully act as a check. 255483[/snapback] If you have term limits, and those who comprise the panel of judges are only ones who have reached the maximum amount of time served (cannot be elected again), then you might have something. I do not want the judges to later become candidates for election. I also do not want the judges to serve too long as judge (term limits here as well).
Terry Tate Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 For our first Congress, we would have to pick the panels, and the mix of representation in each panel, but thereafter, it would be a self-sustaining system. 'Merit', of course, would be defined by those in power. No cause for alarm.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Ok, Limited Anarchy. Government only provides ONE service. That being protection of the borders.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Just make me King...I'll take care of ya! Niggling point, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy. And yes, we need TERM LIMITS! These "professional politicians" are killing us!
Terry Tate Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Niggling point, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy. Not a small difference, I considered making the same comment. But I've read enough of their posts to assume they're aware of the differences, and just use 'democracy' as a generic overall description.
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 Just make me King...I'll take care of ya! Niggling point, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy. And yes, we need TERM LIMITS! These "professional politicians" are killing us! 255574[/snapback] Yeah to you and Wingnut. Was just trying to make the point that we live in a democracy generally. Our democracy is an indirect democracy, where the power of the reps are derived from the people. You better be careful with that kind of rhetoric, by the way. Bush is going to war against countries that are not democracies.
GG Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 The wrinkle in representing specific fields of importance would by inherent design stifle innovation in fields that are outside the "important" ones. The goal is to minimize the influence of money on political power, while realizing that eliminating it altogether would counter human history and human nature. I do not favor campign contribution limits, but I do favor full disclosure of every cent by every donor. I would also limit contributions to individuals. No PACs can be set up by companies, unions, etc. I am also intrigued by the idea of electoral seats in proportion of votes.
VABills Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Put your money where your collective big mouths are. We're having a Constitutional Convention in 2005. The old one is very good, but has some problems, and interpretation issues. Rather than revising it Amendment by Amendment, which will take an interminable amount of time because of all the Party infighting, a handful of US leaders have entrusted the people of PPP to form a Constitutional Convention and hammer out a new one. The first thing we need to decide is what form of government we'll be using. There are, of course, several choices. Ours is currently a Democracy (Parliament/Sep. powers will come later). Monarchy is possible, although probably out, in less we all agree that the Bush's are the first family and can breed our leaders. Theocracy is an option. Aristocracy a possibility. Meritocracy has ummm... merits, although let's set an IQ cutoff one point above Tom's. Anyway, these (and other systems) are on the table. It seems like Democracy is the way to go, but let's hash it out and see if any of the others can work. After the thread dies, we'll move to Topic II. 255328[/snapback] I prefer republics. People really don't know what is best for them, tough to really disceminate all the detailed info anyhow to all of them. Let them elect a few regional reps who will do the speaking and listening for them. Let that group hash out the details and protect the people from all the bad. Of course if the requirement is only 1 IQ point above Tom, then we are not very high. What is that about 66, 67?
Recommended Posts