U.S. Government: How It SHOULD Work

Are you saying that the government should be working for the people? That the government has a responsibility to work for its people?

 

Yes, absolutely. That is how it is supposed to be in any relatively free country. Only under a communist/fascist dictatorship are the people subservient to government. I cannot believe you don't understand this concept. Do you know anything about the Constitution or US history? I am not faulting you for not knowing if that's the case, because they probably don't teach it in Canada. Heck, they don't even teach it here in the US. Most people don't have a clue how government is supposed to function, only what they have been conditioned to believe.

 

Actually, this entire charade was spurred to provoke you to admit that government should rightfully be upheld to support services to the people that contribute towards it.

The idea was to see if you'd chirp in and say that government is supposed to function in favour of the people - when it doesn't - it has to change.

Civil Servants are supposed to serve and deliver services to the people. That's what I think you were getting at.

 

Well OF COURSE the government is supposed to work FOR the people. If it isn't, then it's working AGAINST the people, kind of like it is today. However, that does not mean the government is meant to be viewed as a father figure that's there to direct one's life. The role of the government is SUPPOSED to be limited, and is there to protect the freedoms and liberties of the individual. Instead we see government taking those freedoms and liberties away.

 

Yeah, I just don't hear you say often that it's best to take arms against the sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them. It is far nobler, anyway.

It's about time that people defend public rights to shared ownership, to increased say in policy, and be responsible to maintaining civic fundamentals.

 

Shared ownership? I don't think most people support that. Most people like owning their own things. Since when is shared ownership a right? It's an imposition. Is it a right for me to come into your house and start living there when you're the one who owns it or pays the rent? No, it's not.

 

Government services = shared public partnership and ownership in the delivery of rendered services.

You don't think most people support that? Why not? Why don't you?

Participatory government involvement is certainly not a bad thing, as long as it functions for the people.

 

um, I had some okay suggestions.... I guess they weren't inflammatory enough.

 

What then? Anarchy? Fuck that! Government has to work, problem is that we have too big a government now, and they have too much power. And power corrupts. Bush had too much power and look how much y'all love him. Obama has too much power, and is currently making a big mess of things with the taxes.

 

Well, "shared ownership" is usually code for state ownership.

As far as "government services," again it boils down to what the role of government is supposed to be. Some people believe the role of government is to coddle them from cradle to grave, and that might sound good to a lot of people at face value, but of course like all things it comes with its downsides.

 

State Constitutional power that overrides Federal Constitutions is pointless. You might as well re-draft the federal constitution of establish a better tansfer of power between the levels of government.

It's hypocritical to say that gays have human rights to marry in all states, but your own.

Charities and non-profits are separate groups. By bureaucratically reforming these groups into 20 different classes, seems, just that - classist. It would make allocation of funds difficult, sluggish, and it's plain needless.

Why can't you donate to Yale? They have a great Art Museum with one of my favour paintings there.

Medical costs are 15% of USA GDP right now. How are you expecting the costs to drop to 8% in the next ten years with hundreds of millions of people reaching retirement age more than EVER before?

If I were you, I'd cut Iraqi Operatives and quit giving contracts to Bush-ites and Cheney-hybrid corporations.

 

Perhaps you need to re-think what state ownership entails.

Coddle is one thing, but people deserve to be given the opportunity to choose and support public services that decent and affordable.

 

What???

The US Constitution is all about protecting states' rights from the Federal government. The fact that Americans are losing so many of their freedoms is because of the all-powerful Federal government encroaching upon states' rights.

Try reading the 10th Amendment:

The Tenth Amendment [SIZE=-1]clearly states: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"The powers not delegated to the united states by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."[/SIZE]

People need to learn the difference between the united states of America and the corporation which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

Who cares about State rights?

Those are the remnants of colonial scraplings for power. You live in a United States Federation, were basic human rights are whimsically upheld because of the various State Constitutions. There is a de-centralized authority that isn't doing anything to protect and defend the values of what it means to be American.

 

Who cares about states' rights?? Um, anyone who understands the history of this country, which obviously you do not.

Clearly you have never read the Constitution.

Again, there is a difference between the US Republic, versus the corporation that was established by Legislative Act on February 21, 1871 (Fourty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419).

 

I know the history of your country. Why don't you understand that having 50 State Constitutions is problematic to a Federal Constitution?

I have read the Constitution. Too many times to count.

The problem I have is the Separation of Powers - it's not working in your country. State Constitutions are a cop out for a poor Federal Constitution that is so weak, it cannot modernize its human rights principles and pass effective legislation as such.

50 States all operating as these little individualized regional pockets competing with each other to get ahead and grapple one another for provisional separated power - it's no wonder the Federal government gets lost at making an attempt to legalize something like gay marriage.

You're a fan of the dialectic. If you claim that State powers are being stepped on by Federal powers, what makes you think it's improbable your entire Separation of Powers baked into the fold of your Constitution allows State powers to encroach on Federal powers and Federal authority, hm?

 

Like I said, State powers are remnants of imperial conquest and were created to draw lines in the sand in order to create distinct and sovereign territories. They were to be used as satellites for mercantile trade companies throughout the enclosure movements, they weren't about State personhood protection and welfare at all - they were colonies of brutal extraction, enslavement and violent pillaging in lucrative trade networks.

Why are you afraid to denounce this system of power?

Would you prefer that all 50 states be given totally separate power to govern themselves? Because basically, they're operating like 50 different kingdoms within 1 Federal body with 50 totally separate and unequal Constitutions that govern them.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It would work fine as written, but people's opinions and ideology get in the way, some people don't get it,and some people want to change it saying it's outdated, some folks interpret it differently than others....

Then we get to bicker endlessly about the details instead of actually following the thing.

The devil's in the details...

I might ask, do you as a human being not KNOW HOW TO LIVE happily and without putting upon others so that they can be happy as well? Why do we even need to be arguing over details? I suggest that we are born knowing the difference between right and wrong. If we didn't have people hollering at us from birth, telling us what to do and what to think and how to look and how to live, we might actually have the skills necessary to do away with that "damn piece of paper".

The more complex this debate becomes, the farther from truth we get.
All foolishness designed to make someone feel superior to someone else.

 

What I am going to suggest applies to any and all countries and forms of government. These are not meant as a 'do this' and all will be okay, but I think they must be included in this type of discussion.

Public servants at any level, right up to and including the leader, should not be making a significantly greater income then the average person in their country. If I thought it was possible, I would go further and say that it should be capped based on minimum wages for the citizens.

The second part is that close family members (including spouses), say within 2 degrees cannot serve in the same or related positions. As an example, the grandson of a president can not serve in the executive branch of the government.

There are many other things that can be done, but those two must happen before any of us truly see a responsibly run government.

 

And for the most part this is true. I also agree with the comment about the bickering and arguing, which is most definitely counterproductive. At the same time, I have found that it is even more counterproductive when arguing with someone who really does not know what they're talking about, and is more or less just stringing random words together in a desperate attempt to appear as if they actually know what they're saying.

As far as what Aristartle said...

What you're basically arguing is in favor of the status quo -- the current situation where the states have no rights and the Federal government overstretches its bounds, which is what we see happening today, and probably why many states are coming forward to claim their sovereignty -- the most recent example being the State of Texas. As far as this being a genuine move, I don't think it is, though it certainly reflects how the people feel, even if it is just a political ploy.

Anyone who has any basic understanding whatsoever of the US and its Constitution, knows that under the 10th Amendment, states possess sovereignty from the Federal government. This is why states have the constitutional right to secede from the Union if the Federal government oversteps its bounds, as laid out by the Constitution. We have recently seen states such as New Hampshire and, just last week, Texas, threatening to secede from the Union because of encroaching Federal power.

The argument that the Federal government should control everything is of the elitist viewpoint, and is the reason why the US is becoming a tyrannical police state where the people serve the state instead of the other way around.

Yes, states are supposed to have the power to govern themselves without the federal government butting in. Otherwise, what is the purpose in even having states in the first place?

And as far as being a fan of the dialectic, I don't even know what that means. The powerbrokers and elites are fans of the dialectic, but I, as my profile states, am outside the dialectic. Maybe you meant I am a fan of exposing the dialectic.

Most people cannot even fathom the fact that there are really two Americas. There is the constitutional republic of the united states of America, then there is the corporation established under the control of Washington DC, a sovereign city-state, in 1871, called the UNITED STATES, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is NOT bound by the Constitution.