Does America stand for one system of government?

[Technosoul]

We call our self a Republic and we call our self a democarcy. But is seems clear to me that we also mix in a healthy helping of socialism, and some degree of dictator-ism.

So our systems of government are at least four types (as indicated), a melting pot of methods that normally act as a singular kind of government.

Where do we really stand? Not sure if any other types of governing concepts are weaved into the tecture of Ameircan politics or not.

Should we have only one and boot out all others, or is it working okay the way it is now designed or employed?

Oh yeah, in addition to the above four we are now starting to weave in a little faith-based policy for our religious majority - church run type of governing So that would be five and still counting.

Good or bad, wise or unwise, whatcha think.

Before you ask about "dicator-ism' you should finish up your tax returns - or else!

[SteveA]

Yes, we should have one form of government - constitutional federalism, like we're suppose to have. That way we can have 50 different governments all working peacefully under one system. As long as people are free to move to a state they feel is better, I don't see how returning to a system where the federal government was limited and the states had a greater say on issues would hurt.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SteveA Yes, we should have one form of government - constitutional federalism, like we're suppose to have. That way we can have 50 different governments all working peacefully under one system. As long as people are free to move to a state they feel is better, I don't see how returning to a system where the federal government was limited and the states had a greater say on issues would hurt.

I would tend to agree with that in principle. But what about people who have jobs where the jet around from one state to another on business? It is not like we still ride horses or walk from place to place, our high speed transportation system has sort of srunk us into a more compacted environment.

But then, we also do that globally, so my questioning might be pointless this time.

In small ways we do have that system in operation. For example if I am a smoker I might want to move from California over to Arizona where smokers have more rights and freedoms. If I liked gambling and hookers - I might move from a state where that is unlawful to one where it is okay.

We have a few options now in the way of local governments.

And in fact the states and city governments are still taxing us and not just central government in Washington DC.

However I get your point. Now the DC or the presidental government should just be there to insure that the Consitution and the Bill of Rights are being conformed too by the states in our federation of states. Each state should have the most power so that indiviuals can select the kind of place they feel most comfortable in - relative to rules and regulations about other stuff.

But the DC people have control over the military, the CIA, the FBI, and the Homeland Security operations, and the National Guard (even the boarder patrol units). That puts the local states in a much weaker positition as we only got police departments and local judges who do not have any power to overrule nor to defend us from the "dictations from above". Also, the DC governement is in charge of international trade policy concerning products and human resources. So a state government cannot encourge local production of goods to insure more jobs by banning those same products via imports. Example the DC people say that our local governments cannot buy prescription drugs from Canada (a vastly lower costs). So it cost us more to operate our emergency rooms and departments of first responders - paid for out of city and state taxes.

However, if you don't mind me saying so, you might be thinking of a kind of government that the Native Ameircans employ - tribal government. Each tribe has its own area and each has its own paticular culture and rules, being small everyone can have a voice about what's happening or what needs to be done. But they also have a pow wow once a year with other tirbes, where they set forth agreements with each other about particular topics of concern for the whole nation of tribes.
Each person representing the individual tribes in the big pow wow is very involved with his tribe and knows what the tribe members want. They are not "out of touch" with the people they represent nor taking bribe money form some lobby group.

[Technosoul]

Now I forgot to mention capitalism as a kind of government - where rich companies that control the most money are in charge of the political establishment, and can override the wishes of local protesters who might otherwise prefer more 'rights for workers' and so forth.

[Osborn F Enready]

Capitalism like Socialism is a form of economics, not government.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Capitalism like Socialism is a form of economics, not government.

What you said is true, it is about the economics of a country or some other indenity.

Sometimes, I was informed by people, wars are for economical reasons, as well as for other reasons like defense.

Forien policy often deals with trade and other economic concerns.

All that can become very political and politics are what governments are made out of, more or less.

They (political office holders) often run for office talking about the budget, about how the other side spends too much and so forth.

But I will agree this time, capitalism and socialism are political and governmental concepts having to do with the economy or what to do with taxes collected by that government
, as well as from what tax payer bracket you would collect taxes from - but that they are not actually the government.

It is evident that presently the big money companies do not run the government otherwise you would not see so many lobby groups attempting to influence our leaders.

In fact - soscialism, capitalism, democary, and even the consitution, are all just 'ideas' and concepts that can be employed for governing, but the idea is not the government persay - the government is the people whom we give power to so they can run things on our behalf. The body politic

oh oh, confusion in the darnyard. Hmm?

[Osborn F Enready]

The point is, you have to seperate humanitarian, and economic issues.

That is politics.

Economics is a law, like math.

Humanitiarianism is based on feelings, compassion, necessity and kindness. NOT a law, like math.

The struggle is to find harmony between the two, and Capitalism and Socialism are two different methods with two different approaches.

Socialism fails, because it goes against the laws of nature and the nature of individuals.

Capitalism is failing, only due to the INTRODUCTION of socialist principle into capitalist economics, which is overburdening the system, and causing it to break at the seams. This is due to people being duped into thinking that the state or fed knows better how to spend your money than you do, and the false proposed "benevolence" of a safety net, that disregarded the math required to justify it.

Human issues, and economic issues must be kept seperate. Why?

Because, we as individuals are very different. Survival is dependent on ability in nature, therefore it is natural that any successful form or marriage between economics and humanitarian issues must also be dependent on ability. That ability is citizen acceptance, and the limitations of laws as per our WRITTEN and ADOPTED contract of laws, we call the Constitution.

If you want to ignore law, that is fine, and your right. It is also your right to accept the consequences for breaking those laws, and bringing such a lacking argument to arm your peers to judge for or against your choices in your decisions once justice is to be served.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The point is, you have to seperate humanitarian, and economic issues. That is politics. Economics is a law, like math. Humanitiarianism is based on feelings, compassion, necessity and kindness. NOT a law, like math. The struggle is to find harmony between the two, and Capitalism and Socialism are two different methods with two different approaches. Socialism fails, because it goes against the laws of nature and the nature of individuals. Capitalism is failing, only due to the INTRODUCTION of socialist principle into capitalist economics, which is overburdening the system, and causing it to break at the seams. This is due to people being duped into thinking that the state or fed knows better how to spend your money than you do, and the false proposed "benevolence" of a safety net, that disregarded the math required to justify it. Human issues, and economic issues must be kept seperate. Why? Because, we as individuals are very different. Survival is dependent on ability in nature, therefore it is natural that any successful form or marriage between economics and humanitarian issues must also be dependent on ability. That ability is citizen acceptance, and the limitations of laws as per our WRITTEN and ADOPTED contract of laws, we call the Constitution. If you want to ignore law, that is fine, and your right. It is also your right to accept the consequences for breaking those laws, and bringing such a lacking argument to arm your peers to judge for or against your choices in your decisions once justice is to be served.

Okay, good point - economics must follow some sort of mathamatical law, here is some math for you to concider.

In a capitalistic society you must add up how large the population is (number of people who should be employed) and then add up the number of jobs open, which must be provided for by that capitalist system. Capitalism will fail the population if everyone cannot be hired to take part in that system. How can we insure this math is workable?

Also the population must buy enough stuff or services from the business that make up the capitalistic system otherwise they cannot create new jobs by expanding their production. More math. Unemployed people cannot buy very much stuff so that takes us back to the first math problem and its correct answer. (math is about finding the right answer for a problem).

Needless to say outsourcing jobs, imports, and any technology that might replace humans in the workplace, are also factors in that can effect the mathamatical outcome of a capitalistic system - relative to the population within this country. Such can minus jobs just like taxes cane minus profits made.

Nature provides the birds with enough bugs to eat. So should not our economic system do likewise relative to providing enough jobs to eliminate hunger - etc.?

What is the basic plan to insure we can avoid another great depression like we had back in the 1930s? And so that we do not need tax funded safty nets "just in case" enough jobs are not provided for the population by our industry?

I could go into other aspects of your last message but I wish to see your reaction to this message before making additional comments.

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: economics must follow some sort of mathamatical law.

I say:
Not to be insultive or demeaning in any way, but may I ask how old you are? I ask this because I want to know what level of government and social studies education level you are at so to better approach the issue and make sense. (I am not trying to pro-rate your understanding here, just get a better angle of explanation to be clearer and easier to understand without being verbose.)

Economics simply is another evolution of technology of trade for survival. Coins replaced goods, Promissory notes have replaced coins, and fiat replaced promissory notes. Even if no money existed, trade would occur. Promissory notes and Fiat are different forms of "coupons" that were created to take the place of transporting goods to market for trade, and "fostering" a sense of financial stability, often mistaken for SECURITY.

Trade can be very confusing, or very simple, depending on the views you are taught. I think the Capitalist system best represents modern societies reality, which is that populations are too large to work from a collectivist system, due to the lack of strength in ANY bond that could be formed past the basic fact we are all human. Capitalist economics is dependent on classes in society, and nature has shown that all societies, form the lowest to the highest form of life as we know it, has classes. Classes are essential to a successful society, but there are good and bad types of classes. To base classes on labor, is the natural way to form classes in society, since labor is the key to survival for all living things. Labor is used to provide survival, in all forms of life whether it be hunting or gathering, labor is involved.

In a collective system, the individual is non-existent in all senses of property, much like a family that has no luxury items. The collective toil to continue survival by labor being donated to the collectives necessities, and no more. A very simple system, that works as long as the common ties are strong enough to whether the storms of human nature, such as jealousy, greed, temptation, lust, anger, indifference, hypocrisy and can instill honor, trust, virtue and respect and survival above all. This system is BASED on feelings, therefore STRONG ties are ESSENTIAL for its success and "forced labor" for those unwilling or unable to labor for themselves. This is why mans natural instinct is the collective, because the collective is an essential stage of growth (family) and of human evolution from a basic needs human, to a more refined and capable human through education and technology(natural progression).

In a Capitalist system, the system operates on the "supply and demand" principle of a free market. This is a system that is basic in root logic, hence its success when employed correctly. The concept works from the basic premise that if there is a need, the individuals that make up the market, will fill the need once the need becomes great enough to allow room for a profit to be made for the individual. The system hinges on the individuals, that make up any collective. The only way it seems it can work as an effective collective, is to limit the ties that bind that collective to the bare minimum, which allows the freedom of the individuals the greatest amount of creativity, modes of wealth creation, and furthering of education and technology. The individual has historically pioneered almost all great things we know today that make even the most crude elements of our existence more tolerable, and liveable. That alone should be a testament to the value of free minded individuals who have the ability to pursue what THEY deem of THEIR intrest. It also shows that once ties of "kinship" expand in society, to a level where common threads are far and few between, the root core to an effective collective is to loosen the ties that bind to a point where the "common threads" are the root of the individual. This is the system that our forefathers understood in theory, but had trouble explaining without offending the "beliefs" of the time. For example, the idea that all rights come from a "creator". This was added to pacify those who were of such strong religious belief, that they could not accept this "newly conceived" level of freedom to committ sin. (according to THEIR individual beliefs). The way they handled slavery during the creation of this nation, was also directly influenced by the "common perception" of mankind of the times. Blacks were not seen as equal humans to whites, which many of the forefathers agreed was inhumane and naturally wrong. However, the greater good of all mankind in their eyes was the most amount of freedom that could reasonable be accepted, to protect themselves from the other "hostile collectives" out there. They sought a place of individual freedom, and unfortunately, at the time, blacks weren't in the eyes of the American, or most of the Worlds eyes, equal.

It was however, our Bill of Rights, and the persistence of those within the society for public discourse and education, that blacks were equal, as were women and they proved so in the eyes of the public both in numbers of feet on the ground in protest, as well as in "courts" with intelligent debate and solid casemaking. The freedom of all to be equal in the eyes of the law was a natural progression of our society. The current trends toward corporatism and financial ruin however, are not natural effects, they are results of subversive tactics being employed by those in government, against the writings of the Constitution, to implement Socialist economics theories into law, in a free market capitalist system. They did this through the combination of judicial activism and power consolidation by bi-partisan takeover of the major parties with sympathizers, and a bi-partisan monopoly of all elected positions and appoinment powers, using them to subvert the perception of law, and introducing new theories to constitutional interpretation, going against the basic design of our entire system of law.

Our system of law hinges on the individual, being able to understand and identify clear lines of his abilities and freedoms while being legally compliant. Our system was subverted almost fully by the year 1850. After 156 years of subersion and laws built upon false ideals, and bad logic, we are at a critical point as a society, where we will either right ourselves peacefully, or violently, or perish due to ignorance.

It is the peoples choice, and as of now they are being led astray by the partisan dynamic our first President George Washington so clearly spoke of and warned against.

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: In a capitalistic society you must add up how large the population is (number of people who should be employed) and then add up the number of jobs open, which must be provided for by that capitalist system. Capitalism will fail the population if everyone cannot be hired to take part in that system. How can we insure this math is workable?

I say:
Because, history has shown that mans needs rule the market, and when left a room to profit, the market WILL ALWAYS fill the gap eventually. The problem is in the system, when false agitators or regulators are put on the market, it has the habit of showing human err to predict the market, which results in a skewed market dynamic that often leads to speculation and failure, or GROSS voids of market gap.

If all people that operate within a free market system, are truly equal in access to the market on both the buying end, and the selling end, the market will stay true to its laws. However, the creation of corporations, and the removal of individual responsibiliity from market interaction affects, removes the "danger" of market interaction when corporations are allowed to run rampant, as they are. The market naturally kills individual small business when it is a bad business, since people stop using it, it becomes unprofittable and dies. This is because a small business has limited resources, and limited dependency. Corporations can span large areas of the market, and be largely removed from the "dependency" of repeat customers, especially when given the freedom to isolate the market by outpricing all smaller competititors before being exposed as bad business. Once they create this "monopoly" of dependency, they can significantly alter the "market appearance" to favor their needs, and investments. Corporations owners are isolated from the effects of their bad decision making past the point of losing their job,or their "individual investment". This means they are free to rape and pillage markets getting rich, while isolating all that they aquire from lawsuits and reclaimation by those they hurt, by legal protection due to incorporation. This is government law sponsored INJUSTICE in the system.

This is why the rights of incorporation MUST BE CHANGED to regain our republic.
This is also a key reason why are laws, our system of ecnomics, our government, is so corrupted beyond the point of reasonable men to control their anger. This change that favored "corporatism" with regards to the laws of incorporation being taken out of the "reach of the community" the corporation served, was so close to the change of concept of slavery and that it causes one to wonder if the parties in power at the time, did this as a trade-off for public acceptance to the removal of the concept of slavery, to pacify the industries that were DEPENDENT on slavery to profit while ALSO pacifying the people to quell another revolt after the civil war.

That is one of the things instrumental to understanding the failure of our system if we continue down the path we are now.

Technosoul said: Needless to say outsourcing jobs, imports, and any technology that might replace humans in the workplace, are also factors in that can effect the mathamatical outcome of a capitalistic system - relative to the population within this country. Such can minus jobs just like taxes cane minus profits made.

I say:
Outsourcing is only a problem, if the countries the jobs are outsourced to don't respect the basic rights of humans, as our bill of rights specifies. This means that if the free market allows nations to trade, while being nations who do not respect the rights of their citizen workers, then both nations will profit of off labor extortion for ridiculously low wages.

The nations like China for example, are profitting of their workers being FORCED to work for low wages, because THEY CAN. As a free market person, I struggle with this, since I don't see the free market system working unless nations such as China are held accountable for this action of extorition either by tariff or exclusion from the market, since their tactics SERVE to destroy the market, and the reasoning for the creation of it, which is to better the plight of man, and his pursuit of freedom of thought, belief, expression and creativity. How could one be an HONEST free market advocate, and NOT recognize this OBVIOUS necessity for its success? As it is, we too can profit from this system, but it is the GOVERNMENTS and CORPORATIONS that profit, at the EXPENSE of PEOPLES LABOR, and the PERCEIVED VALUE OF THAT LABOR.

Technosoul said: Nature provides the birds with enough bugs to eat. So should not our economic system do likewise relative to providing enough jobs to eliminate hunger - etc.?

I say:
That is not a good analogy. You fail to notice that nature only provides enough bugs to balance out the food chain. If there are to many bugeaters, the bugs will soon be extinguished, and all bugeaters will die if the change is so abrupt or spanning that it doesn't allow evolution to take its course. Much like man, being a meat, vegetable eater, if man kills off all of these things through consumption, man will cease to exist if the nature of the change is faster than the technologies ability to address the problem. Nature has a beautifully complex, yet interdependent system of balance, based on natures market on life and death. Nature is very, very cruel, yet very rewarding to those that have a chance to experience it. In life most see great wonderment, and joy, as well as great pain and sorrow. That is nature. We are here a short time, and then we leave the world as we know it. The biggest struggle of man is to successfully marry all things logic can predict, which is the basic root that all men are individuals, at this level of basic education we are now born with inherant in language, history and mankind in general as a society. Knowing this, mankind as a whole should, and has been struggling against the powers that be (government/tradition/perception) to free the individual to the largest amount, which would allow an all encompassing global market, of equals, void of national lines, prejudice and culture.

Obviously, man takes great pride in culture, and history, as well as personal beleifs, hence the struggle continue to enlighten man of his common plight as a whole, against the majority of his enemies, which are his own creations of pride, prejudice and perception.

At least, that is my honest opinion, in summation.

I will also point out that INDIVIDUALs, have pioneered human understanding of cloning, which could be the keys to mans living to the ability of the planet and its atmosphere to sustain it. With the rate of technology now, man could theoretically live without earth, for a certain period of time. Over time, this period of being without the needs of earth will grow and grow, until eventually, man will inhabit space through sealed systems of life that is self reliant and fully self dependent. The loss of our common mother earth, could be the necessity that refires the common threads again of collectivism, but time and mans path will be the answer to that theory.

Technosoul said: What is the basic plan to insure we can avoid another great depression like we had back in the 1930s? And so that we do not need tax funded safty nets "just in case" enough jobs are not provided for the population by our industry?

I say:
To either guarantee that our nation sticks to its root core, and avoids entangling alliances while still holding true to the beacon of our roots which is personal, and individual liberty, with justice for all, by a government of the people, by the people, for the people, with certain limitations on laws to prevent encroachment of these basic self-evident truths. That is where democracy fails, when it does not prevent rights of the individual from being subverted by the will of the majority. This is also where collectivist views fail, because they fail to recognize the basic errors and necessities of humans in society to have security through property, and protection.

In other words, get the Constittution and its principles back to work, and remove all laws that conflict with the original intentions and interpretations using the words of the time it was written, and the meanings expressed as per the writers in the surrounding writings.

And again, in other words, get Libertarians in government at all levels to once again right these wrongs without the theocratic oppression views of the Constitutionalist party.