Why Doesn't Anyone Invent a Better Form of Government?

[lockecole]

Why does nobody invent a new (better) form of government?

 

[honestrosewater]

Not everyone agrees on what makes a government good. This is one reason there has been so little peace in the world. And one reason people begin discussions.
I think the best government is personal government, i.e. anarchy, which is effectively no government, in the usual sense. If everyone agreed with me, it would happen ;)
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

Strike that last part. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for government.

 

[Njorl]

Why does nobody invent a new (better) form of government?

There is no pay, and the benefits are terrible.

Njorl

 

[Atrayo]

Hello Lockecole,

Why does nobody invent a new (better) form of government? ---Lockecole.

I've pondered the same question likewise, that's why doesn't democracy or further more capitalism evolve into a better practical form. As it stands the United States is considered a "Federal Republic" as it's form of government. (source MS Encarta) Although the economic system is capitalism ala free market, albeit it isn't fair market.

I'm more concerned with our capitalistic system, than with democracy. I'm not advocating a communist state, although the US already has socialism in it via: social security, veterans benefits, welfare, and unemployment benefits, etc...

Right now in this nation (US, not sure if you live elsewhere) capitalism is profit and cost driven so as to continue it's growth. Capitalism almost seems like the shadow side of government in this nation. I say this, since government only takes into account as a primary motive what it's going to cost. So not until a major negative event occurs does it go into reactive mode to correct it's imbalance in a majority sense. Several examples, voting blunder in the 2000 elections, 9/11 (which Homeland Security came out of), Dopler Radar at all US Airports (after several airplane fatalities), etc...

It is all driven by cost and not so much morality, which appears very cold hearted or self-preserving at the expense of others.

-----------

I also believe that the US Executive branch of instead of having a solidtary President. Should actually be split into a tribunal of Presidents, with their vice-presidents in tow. Since only one man as the head of the nation may be too much work or power for the Executive branch to handle. Perhaps each of the proposed tribunal presidents would represent one political party. Such as one Republician, Democrat, and a third majority party which the US very much lacks at present. Where one of the tribunal presidents could strictly handle domestic affairs. The other just handles foreign affairs, with the third doing anything else the other two tribunal presidents need assistance with for agreed upon intiatives.

As to the Congress & 9 Judicial seats i say they are doing fine as is. But, the Executive branch of the US government needs to be further diversified for the workload, and the even balance of power.

 

[motai]

I also believe that the US Executive branch of instead of having a solidtary President. Should actually be split into a tribunal of Presidents, with their vice-presidents in tow. Since only one man as the head of the nation may be too much work or power for the Executive branch to handle. Perhaps each of the proposed tribunal presidents would represent one political party. Such as one Republician, Democrat, and a third majority party which the US very much lacks at present. Where one of the tribunal presidents could strictly handle domestic affairs. The other just handles foreign affairs, with the third doing anything else the other two tribunal presidents need assistance with for agreed upon intiatives.

Thats not that bad of an idea. But the Executive branch does have a number of departments (15 in all) and that might cause confusion over which party gets juridiction of the departments.

At least the executive branch reform that you are talking about will establish some sort of compromise within the system.

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, I agree, the American political scene is in a mess. But I don't think introducing more diversity at the federal level is the solution. Diversity has already been incorporated into the system, in the form of state and local governments.
I think the solution is to shift the political power back to where it belongs, with the individual citizens, at the local level. The federal government has expanded its jurisdiction far beyond what’s beneficial. People’s disagreement on an issue should signal a further division at local level, not an all-encompassing law at the federal level.
The name says it all, United States. US citizens don’t have to agree about everything. Only agreement on federal issues is required. Each further disagreement is a matter for the different state and local governments. The lower levels cannot contradict the higher levels, which is why the higher level is restricted in its scope, and defers as much as possible to the level beneath it; so that the lowest level, the citizen, retains as much power as possible. That is the whole point of the system. Anarchist that I am, even I think it’s a good system *when it works*.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

Er, more to your point, the president wouldn't have so much to do if he kept his nose out of other people's business.
Having only one president is a symbol of our union, as one country. There are plenty of checks and balances built into the system. The problem is corruption. Figure out how to make people honest and you will earn immortality and my deepest appreciation

 

[jammieg]

The more truly representative of the people's wishes and hopes and stupidity the government is the better off things are likely to be is my guess, because when people are divided they are easier to conquer for selfish reasons, I suspect this because when people delude themselves that we are all the same person they feel compelled not to hurt others and they gain empathy perhaps and that's cooperation, but give them a few good reasons to hate others and hate grows and grows and serves the purpose of getting more than they've got eventually leading to war and a cleansing result, but then can we afford not to try to find a better form of government that is more representative of us, what will the cost be of mass indifference and apathy as time goes by? Why have many people grown indifferent to politics, haven't they?
I don't think it's about selflessness versus selfishness or rich versus poor or dark versus light but it's mostly about recongnizing that we all love to push other people down and look good by relative comparision, just like when people say "well at least you still have arms", that's makes me feel better but what would you say to the person who doesn't have arms? "Well at least you're around to help people to feel better?"
People always seek division and "good" reasons, no one is immune. Maybe it's just me, I tend to see everything as a bigger problem than it is.

 

[olde drunk]

Well, I agree, the American political scene is in a mess. But I don't think introducing more diversity at the federal level is the solution. Diversity has already been incorporated into the system, in the form of state and local governments.
I think the solution is to shift the political power back to where it belongs, with the individual citizens, at the local level. The federal government has expanded its jurisdiction far beyond what’s beneficial. People’s disagreement on an issue should signal a further division at local level, not an all-encompassing law at the federal level.
The name says it all, United States. US citizens don’t have to agree about everything. Only agreement on federal issues is required. Each further disagreement is a matter for the different state and local governments. The lower levels cannot contradict the higher levels, which is why the higher level is restricted in its scope, and defers as much as possible to the level beneath it; so that the lowest level, the citizen, retains as much power as possible. That is the whole point of the system. Anarchist that I am, even I think it’s a good system *when it works*.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

Rach, i agree! just think how much we would save if we bought services from the private sector.

currently, we have layers of patronage. tax collectors and enforcers. authorities to oversee an area of service, charging license fees, etc. not to mention the unions, graft, corruption, payola.

if you don't provide a quality service at a reasonable price, i will take my business elsewhere. if only government would back off, but then again, look at the jobless - usless people it would create.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[honestrosewater]

I saw a show a long time ago about several failing government housing projects that were bought by private businesses and vastly improved. The before and afters were amazing. I disagreed with the underlying idea of the show- that private business could always do a better job than the government in these areas; it depends, of course, on the particular people and organizations involved. What baffles me the most is that so many of the problems the government expends so many resources to fix are problems that the government itself has created.
I have been reading recently about the cat and mouse game the IRS plays with big business, their tax shelters and such. And how much this game costs the average citizens. Unbelievable.
And the marriage amendment Bush proposed made me want to vomit.
Anyway, yeah, it would be great to see things improve.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Janitor]

so many of the problems the government expends so many resources to fix are problems that the government itself has created.- honestrosewater

I know there are some horror stories of this type to be find in the business of agriculture in the USA. Maybe some member comes from a farming family and can tell us a story?

 

[honestrosewater]

Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) did a story called The Famrer's Wife which may be what you're looking for (I haven't seen the show). However, on their homepage is the story (Tax Me If You Can) that first got me interested in the IRS and business taxes.

Some heartland states have passed anti-corporate farming laws. I don't know how well they have worked. Here's a website with some interesting info http://www.renaissancealliance.org/Issact/isspers/ecology/farms.htm
And they have several other articles. I don't know anything about the GRA BTW, it's just a nice site :)

And, back to the topic of the thread, it shows and how much work is involved in making productive changes.