Your Government

[Bayou]

Well as my 1st post. mine as well post on the poll.
Is not Democracy a system of politics- not a type of government?
Just like Capitalism is a system of trade- they do not supply answers or goals, which is what govenrments are suppose to do.
anyone who voted for democracy plus communism, basically voted for communism (me included).
The problem isnt with Communism, it is in the slow (compared to the capitalist system) developement of democracy that truly threatens our freedoms and rights compared to the speed and efficiency that the capitalist system can now accumulate money and leverage it for power.

Monarchies are only good when the inheritor is an enlightened leaders, which have been few and far in beetween as history teaches us.

Oligarhy, well just look at the UN of late I wouldnt say they are a model for accountable government.

Despotism= works in the game Civilisation, not really civilised though.

Well thats all, this place looks like a very professional site, I hope to have some constructive debates here!!!

[Geoff332]

You're basically right. Communism is certainly not an alternative to democracy, but a parallel to it. Communism, like capitalism, is an economic framework. Democracy is a political framework. I haven't (and won't) vote in this poll because the options are scattered across a spectrum that doesn't fully make sense to me (the setting of democracy and communism as opposites is an historical residue from the McCarthy-type thinking during the worst of the cold-war).

You can, for example, have totalatarianism and democracy combined (where a popularly elected Government ignores the basic rights of a minority). Capitalism and communism are alternative (but not opposite) economic systems, but both can be enacted within democractic societies -- each limiting the full realisation of democracy in different ways.

Most of us live in what is best described as a representative democracy. We periodically elect representatives to make governmental decisions on our behalf, including protecting our rights and interests.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

The only form of government listed that has ever existed in 'pure' form would have to be dictatorship, which should be labeled totalitorian, since dictatorship is just a variation on that form. The UN is actually a rather pathetic example of an oligarchy, since it is so influenced by outside forces.

Actually, Oligarchy is the most losely defined system on the list. It can range from two powerful leaders competing over control for a country, to several dozen specific comittees that have power over the section that they are in charge of. The word simply means rule by the few, but it was as opposed to rule by the one (as in dictatorship) and rule by the many (as in republic). Therefore, few simply means that it is elitist, and has a larger power structure than a comparitive totalitarian form. Hardly limiting at all.

The dictionary's available on the net seem totally in the dark about what the system even is. Definition #2 is apparently simply someone's opinion...

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-28-2003 09:44 AM The only form of government listed that has ever existed in 'pure' form would have to be dictatorship, which should be labeled totalitorian, since dictatorship is just a variation on that form. The UN is actually a rather pathetic example of an oligarchy, since it is so influenced by outside forces. Actually, Oligarchy is the most losely defined system on the list. It can range from two powerful leaders competing over control for a country, to several dozen specific comittees that have power over the section that they are in charge of. The word simply means rule by the few, but it was as opposed to rule by the one (as in dictatorship) and rule by the many (as in republic). Therefore, few simply means that it is elitist, and has a larger power structure than a comparitive totalitarian form. Hardly limiting at all. The dictionary's available on the net seem totally in the dark about what the system even is. Definition #2 is apparently simply someone's opinion... Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chies Date: 1542 1 : government by the few 2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control 3 : an organization under oligarchic control

Totalitarian regimes are different to dictatorships. Dictatorships can sit back, do as they please, and let their populations do similarly as long as they don't break laws/piss off the top guy. Totalitarian regimes however attempt to control or define the lives of all of their citizens/subjects.

From Rod Hague & Martin Harrops Comparative Government and Politics

the totalitarian governments...sought control over their populations in an attempt to construct a new order of society, whether fascist or communist. Such governments demanded the active support of the people, not merely the passive acquiesience with which most authoritarian rulers rest content

First useful thing I've learnt at Uni so far is that redefinition, apart from drinking games and how dangerous barbed wire is in the dark.

[PatrickHenry]

What we have now is a Constitutional Dictatorship, misleadingly labeled a democratic republic.

Excerpt from: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/waract.htm

America's Constitutional Dictatorship Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Senate Report 93-549 (written by Congress in 1973) states in the very first sentence "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and... control the lives of all American citizens" This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. We have been in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 63 years without knowing it. According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]". On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application". This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution. Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title 12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency. 12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes". This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It was here that every American citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration. According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, we have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain. This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know why we no longer receive allodial freehold title to our land... as enemies, our property is no longer ours to have. Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the Constitution is automatically abolished. We are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. We are under a system of War Powers. Our stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as Americans are considered enemies of the state. What we have is not ours under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine. Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's signature because Congress granted him these emergency powers. For over 60 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power and terminate the original proclamation. Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship.

John Dean says it hasn't happened yet but is on the horizon. IMO, he's wrong. It's already here, but that is what debate is for...
excerpt from: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/columns/fl....an.powers.0607/

the distinction between a "constitutional dictator" and a strong president is remarkably thin, if not non-existent. As Writ columnist Michael Dorf has noted, there are few checks on our Commander in Chief.

[Mia]

I only voted for "other" because a pure democracy isn't what I want. But a real democracy is my vote.

[dotcoma]

I would say a constitutional republic.

[Osborn F Enready]

Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic for me. Oh wait, that is what I am supposed to be promised already?

I just want what I was promised, ok?

Why is Constitutional Republic not listed? The framers of the US Constitution did a really good job of establishing the best form of Government. We the People have screwed it all up over the decades and need to have a re-revolution to re-establish the original Constitution and Government, with most amendments of course.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by dave654, Why is Constitutional Republic not listed? The framers of the US Constitution did a really good job of establishing the best form of Government. We the People have screwed it all up over the decades and need to have a re-revolution to re-establish the original Constitution and Government, with most amendments of course.

dave, good to see you again. I agree with your conclusion. Is there a way citizens can accomplish this? How do we even begin? Would you agree that most Americans are unaware of the seriousness of the present dynamic? How close to tyranny has the US actually gotten? Do you think there are "built in" safeguards that could resolve the crisis without major citizen involvement?

Edit-- on re-reading your post, dave, I must respectfully disagree that the "screwup" is from "We the people." My apprehension of the source for unconstitutional rule is much more conspiratorial than the citizenry at large...

[Gorgo]

I voted democracy, because socialism is the best way.

[samsara15]

All real, existing governments are blends of the basic concepts. None are pure.

[AlfredTheGreat]

I personally would say that communism could work. It has never been tried in a completely developed country, China, Russia (and ex-soviet states), Cuba, South East Asian countries and those in Africa at the time at which they accepted communism, were all fairly or very unstable and undeveloped both politically and economically.
After all, according to Karl Marx, we need a period of capitalism in which an economy can develop before progressing to communism!

[Libertarian]

The USA is not even a ture democracy. It is a representitive democracy. Democracy is everyone vote on everything. They dont vote for people to vote for them, like the US.

[G. Adams]

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say the US is a liberal democracy, while a country like the UK is a representative democracy. I say this because the winning party in the UK can do as they please, without fear of it getting bounced out by another branch of government. In the US, a liberal constitution has prevented that.

[Libertarian]

But the true phlophlicy of a democracy is that everyone votes on everything. But a true democracy would actually be uneffetive and would not work, b/c lack of security. But still, our system is very unfair to many people.

[asterix404]

I like a mix, a quazi socilist govt I bealve would work wonders. Tax me 70% but damn it give me a house a college edu, all insurence, 2 years off for a kid, free meds, unlimited doc visists.... that somehow sounds a lot like... Europe... does that country still exist I have forgotton... all the nationalist crap has drowned out a system that actuilly helps the people...

[G. Adams]

The only people in Europe who usually get taxed at those rates are those who are earning many 100's of thousands, the average is around 30-50%.

[caspian88]

A complete lack thereof. It's the only way to have true freedom. However, as that's unfeasible, I'd have to say that a constitutionally limited democracy is the only fair form of government, something that protects the rights of minorities while at the same time allowing the people to directly control government.

[Cephus]

None of them will work as a pure system. Pure democracy is as impossible as pure communism, but some mixtures might be workable.