Is the design of the U.S. government flawed?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- "There is no consensus on what the government should be doing and how we should be living as a country and our elections and our politics reflect that," argues Nick Gillespie.
Watch the full episode: • Rank choices | Reason ...
---
Subscribe to the Reason Roundtable:
UA-cam: • Politics Created the B...
UA-cam Music: • The Reason Roundtable ...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple: podcasts.apple...
How do you judge the "design flaws?" We don't adhere to the Constitution in any meaningful way. Nobody actually in the Federal government has even the slightest interest in limited Fed authority. There are zero constraints, the States are funded by the Feds (He who pays the piper calls the tune) and your economic life is controlled by a central bank you have zero representation to. Federalism is dead. Long time ago, FWIW. And the people in power who might bring it back have absolutely no vested interest in doing so.
The 17th amendment to the constitution ratified in 1913 has gone a long way towards growing the federal government and weakening the states. Prior to this, the Senate was elected by state houses, so states governments had direct representation at the fed level. I don't understand why this was enacted. It completely eliminated the Senate as a unique body and made it just a fancy redundant house of representatives.
EXACTLY!!!!! When we question the "design" are we questioning the original design, or the current design that we messed with?
Probably because that was the era where the government realized that they could appeal to people’s greed to get votes.
Could you explain this a little bit more? This is very interesting.
The only major structural failure of the founders was failing to codify lifetime term limits. 20 years of office per lifetime, regardless of which office would have made a world of difference.
Most of our problems have been the result of tinkering with the system; Direct election of Senators being the big one.
Yes, corruption and lobbying are at the heart of most problems where leaders cannot do what's in the best interest of the country because they are worried about getting re-elected and they think they only get re-elected if they make their big donors happy.
Direct democratic election of Senators absolutely needs to be kept. I live in Wisconsin, a very gerrymandered State for the last 12 years so we have ended up with a State Senate super majority for the Republicans, a major majority in the State Assembly for the Republicans and a 6-2 House majority for the Republicans. Not representative at all in a State that is clearly a 50/50 purple State. The only thing that has somewhat balanced that is the ability to directly elect Senators which has at least allowed for 50/50 representation there.
What does the direct election of senators have to do with any of our current or past problems as a country? Senators represent the whole of a state, do they not? Why shouldn't each vote be weighted equally in the determination of who gets to represent that state in the Senate, rather than some less populated districts get more representation in the selection process? I can think of only one reason. You come from a less populated district, and want more representation.
@@xxcrysad3000xx , the senate had a stronger moderating influence historically when senators were appointed by the state governments rather than elected by the population of the state. I can see the case, that some people might prefer that type of function vs just a more powerful representative.
The real problem with the argument is that direct election was so popular that there's no was probably no way to stop it.
@@ElGeecho That's interesting but "moderating influence" in what sense? On the more boisterous and representative House, which was popularly elected? I suppose, but if I were trying to design a constitution from scratch, one that everyone would in theory consent to, I doubt that's what people would agree upon. It took a modicum of power away from states, or at least the governing apparatus of states, which by my accounts (and I hope most libertarians) wasn't that great. Why people cling to it as the beginning of the republic's end is a mystery to me. I think they're just badly confused.
Number one problem is first past the post voting. It mathematically determines a two party system.
Exactly. Hard to hold the state accountable when the two parties are both controlled by oligarchs and there is no reasonable way for a 3rd party to possibly win. Turns what should be a debate between states of various political climates into a cold civil war between statist puppets.
First pass the post voting is not actually a requirement of the system many states and cities will use other systems. They do not however produce multi-party.
Parties are formed because people need to form political coalitions large enough to get political agendas done. In the United States we have primarily two parties because in order to win the presidency without a vote by state in the house you need 50% +1 electors.
You're just assuming that having only two political parties is the problem because neither of them offer an agreeable agenda to most people.
But the reality is even if we had three or four political parties each of them might be more agreeable to their respective supporters but they would be as many times more often out of power.
The problem isn't the political party platform But the overly centralized power of the state they are forced to build platforms agreeable to everyone in everything or even governorable at all.
Considering only a few issues can even be considered in the election.
Not scaled appropriately to population / GDP. 1 individual should not “Represent” 650,000 people. 1 individual should not be in control of spending $13B of taxpayer $ each year. We need 1000 more representatives.
not a horrible idea. reapportion the senate too.
On its face, I agree and having more truly representative Government sounds reasonable but then again, do we really think more politicians is a good idea?
@@xxcrysad3000xx reapportion the senate to population? If you are going to do that why not just eliminate the senate and have a house of representatives alone. The senate and house are supposed to be very different entities. They were SUPPOSE to answer not to the people but the individual state's governments.
@@dcj3831 that's a fair point. i'm not someone who thinks the senate sucks and is unfair or unrepresentative. i am someone who thinks they should be popularly elected, not chosen by state's governments. does the senate overweight the considerations of less populace states? yes. is that bad? yes. but it might be the only way a country as big and as diverse as we are can maintain itself and still call itself a constitutional democracy.
@@derekisthematrix no! But, we have to dilute the power of each politician. Maybe if they knew more spending = less individual power, they would behave differently?
Also, maybe if we had 20,000 representatives, we could have more compromise to get to 50.1%. It’s easier to convince 1 of 10,000 to cross over than it is to convince 1 of 500.
It's not so much that it's flawed... there's no perfect government..the problem is we're almost 4 generations deep in people who were never taught.how limited our founders intended government to be.. plus with modern technology and improved quality of life (none of us are serfs being forced to grab a pitchfork and fight for an oppressive monarch) that people have become apathetic and don't care about what government is doing.... but they damn sure care if their local sports ball team sucks or " needs" a new stadium....the Romans figured it out give them bread and games and they will never revolt
the founders didn't intend for a lot of things. then a lot of history happened. the idea that the United States, in all it's complexity, has to be constrained by the "founder's intent", as if the founders were ever at all unified on anything, is ridiculous. The world doesn't work that way. It was a blueprint. An experiment. It worked. But it worked BECAUSE we colored outside the lines and improvised when needed. To constrain the United States to some mythical notion of "original intent" is to hamstring our potential.
It's becoming more apparent now that the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices was a bad idea. There should be term limits for them, no more than a decade. Bad judges can do a lot of damage.
Also, the SCJ's are appointed by corrupt politicians. In Scotland, their Justices are voted on by Lawyers and they are given terms. Benjamin Franklin advocated for the Scottish System and when the final embers of the current Crash and Burn in our Government snuff out in 2032 or so, we should seriously consider doing this here.
I don't like the idea of Supreme Court candidates making decisions based on an election cycle. The benefit of a lifetime appointment system is that they can make decisions based on what they actually think. I don't think these lifetime appointments would work for legislators or even lower circuits, but it has some benefits for the highest court.
@@iandick1364 The courts have become corrupted by Congress Appointed and Senate Approved Justices for life.
Benjamin Franklin advocated for the Scottish Model where Justices were voted on by lawyers rather than appointed by Politicians.
@@iandick1364 The courts have become corrupted by Congress Appointed and Senate Approved Justices for life.
Benjamin Franklin advocated for the Scottish Model where Justices were voted on by lawyers rather than appointed by Politicians.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!--SCOTUS is the MOST HEALTHY of the three branches BECAUSE of lifetime appointments. You may not like the decisions they are making but you must remember, their job is NOT NOT NOT to represent the will of the people. It is to interpret the laws that were passed by the people's representatives. If the people's representatives did not get it right that is on THEM to go back and fix it.
I’d love to hear you guys talk about something specific that goes towards the title of this video:
1) The fact that this country was on a Gold Standard
2) Exactly and precisely, how was that gold standard removed?
I’d really love to hear you discuss that! Especially #2
1.Obviously a gold standard did not prevent the Government from spending/borrowing too much so exactly how would putting the system back on a gold standard help? It would throw us into a massive deflationary depression worse than the 1930's.
2. The US Government pegged the US dollar to gold ain 1933 and the US Government by edict, mandated the price of gold at $35. When a government mandates the price of their currency, that is called a Fiat Monetary System.
This Bretton Woods Fiat Monetary System failed in 1973 due to Government spending/borrowing(debt) and the fact that Gold was rising in price around the world and so International holders of US debt, payable in gold, took their debt coupon to the gold window and exchanged their debt coupon for gold at 35 an ounce and took that gold over seas where they sold it for $70 draining the US coffers of gold.
Today, we do not have a Fiat Monetary system, we have a Floating Exchange Rate and it is backed by the Productive Capacity of the nations people.
A much better system that has become corrupted by Government Debt.
Nixon removed the gold standard to devalue the dollar in order to pay for the Vietnam War.
The Federal Reserve Act was an end-around move by bankers to establish a central bank. As intended, the Federal Reserve destroyed the gold standard - by creating a mechanism for the creation of fiat money. Prior to the Federal Reserve (established in 1913), the Federal Government had very little influence on the money supply. The 19th century was, for the most part, a century of sound money - ie a century of private money suffering limited corruption by government
@@gregdaugherty6065 Well all I am going to say to that for right now is, you sure got that right.
@@gregdaugherty6065 Well that not true.
The Federal Reserve did nothing to the gold standard. It was Nixon in 1971who got rid of the Gold Standard, not the bankers.
The Federal Reserve Act was an excellent legislation that was hotly debated in 1913 and why it was passed in late December.
Its design was so that tax payer money was not used to bail out banks. It worked well until the US Government began changing the act to benefit the Government.
For example, it was not legal for the Fed Bank to sell Government Debt but the Fed Government changed that right away so they could have the Fed Bank sell Liberty Bonds which paid for WW1, a war the People did not want but the Government did.
And who was the largest holder of the Liberty Bond in 1933 when the Federal Government made it illegal to pay debt in gold domestically?
Banks.
And who did the Federal Government confiscate their gold in 1933?
The banks.
The Federal Government has been manipulating the money and gold and silver for as long as it has existed.
The "silver" Democrats forced the price of silver up to benefit their silver miner donors,
This manipulation by the Government caused the ratio of gold and silver to expand which was arbitraged through trade as people took their expensive silver and purchased cheap gold which depleted the US gold reserves and why JP Morgan gave the US many millions of dollars of gold on loan saving the Treasury from going bankrupt in the 1890's.
You love your Government induced psychosis you call knowledge that is really trauma based indoctrination.
Maybe one day you will begin to really question and stop repeating what someone told you.
In Finland, when someone is elected as President, it's customary for him or her to leave their political party and become independent for the duration of the term. This is not required, but it has become customary, and every president since the early 80's has done so.
The reason for this is simple: The President of Finland is supposed to represent every citizen equally and fairly, with no partisan bias. Leaving your political party (if you were a member of one) symbolizes this perfectly: You are no longer affiliated with, nor driving the agenda of, a particular political party, but are now representing everybody neutrally and equally regardless of any political opinions and party lines.
It would be extraordinarily preposterous in Finland if the President were to start openly and blatantly driving the agenda of one particular political party and undermining another party. In other words, it would be preposterous if in Finland the President acted like he does in the United States. It would be an absolute disgrace. The President is supposed to represent everybody, not just half of the country. The President isn't supposed to take sides and, especially, not try to fight against and undermine some political party he doesn't like.
This is genuinely one of the biggest flaws I see in the American political system, and I find it quite preposterous.
I have seen city councils complaining bitterly about things they are forced to do by the county state or federal government above them. This gives me confidence that we should go back to having state legislators select senators to the federal government. It would provide a counterbalance to the House and members selected by voters. The division caused by geography helps form alliances across those formed by other demographics. The more division, the more attractive decentralization becomes, allowing for state and local governments (and voters) to influence what they do closer to home. Electors should also be able to vote after meeting candidates in person (but seems very unlikely to happen).
The only issue of leaving senator selections to the state legislature is the amount of corruption it invites to gather the political capital to be selected, as well as the fact that during polarized times such as the aftermath of the civil war the party in the state legislature are so divided that they cannot actually pick senate representatives leaving states without representation in the senate. I could see it being an issue where states that have fairly equal representation from republican and democrats not actually getting meaningful representation in the federal government while states that are less competitive are represented.
I have never understood this preoccupation with adding yet another firewall to democracy. It seems like a way for less populated areas of states to constrain the preferences of more populated areas, as if there weren't already considerable checks on their capacity to assert their majority will (constitutions, bicameral legislatures, courts, gerrymandering, ect.). By most accounts, the preferences of low-density states and regions of our country are already overrepresented. How much of a veto on the majority will do you think regional minorities need? And how much of a constraint on the popular will by regional minorities do you think is actually sustainable?
@@xxcrysad3000xxDemocracy guarantees losers. Democracy guarantees the majority on an issue can violate the equal and inalienable rights of the minorities if they are willing to violate the prohibitions on government to do so. We just need to stop violating each other. But there is no question that the population-dense centers control the media centers.
The problem was baked in from the beginning. Where we are now is a result of having a system which allowed for the current state-of-affairs to occur in the first place and grow. It started at the very beginning with the Federalists vs the anti-Federalists, and has never been resolved. Our government has been nothing more than a national game of "kick the can down the road". Eventually, we're going to run out of road.
The founders didn't envision a unconstitutional security state co-opting the constitutional govt. The dysfunction that you observe is the result of the fact that nothing really matters at the little people level as long as the security state is thriving. Everything else is as real and as meaningful as professional wrestling.
I think they did. That's why they wrote the constitution. Maybe they didn't expect the language to be tortured to the point of total subversion, but that's really more our problem than theirs.
@@michaellowe3665 I agree (to a point) they understood that governments seek to protect their own existence, for the sake of their own existence. They just wanted the people to have recourse and input. They needed European allies and the French stepped up, having just suffered the birth of a new, manipulative, aristocracy that was desperately trying to invent conservatism for the purpose of controlling the masses - as a result, we now live in a 'Devil in the gaps' sort of situation. Everything the government can tweak or fill in for themselves, for he sake of control and exploitation, they do.
The design isn't broken. The problems are largely due to user error and outright abuse. Here's one error chain example:
Executive branch agencies were allowed to create rules with the force of law. That is an obvious violation of article one section one (the very first thing in the Constitution) that states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”. That's ALL legislative powers - no provision to cede some of that power to the executive branch despite delegation doctrine.
Chevron Deference gave the interpretations of executive branch agencies undue weight in the judicial process. These are very same executive branch agencies which created the rule they are using to prosecute an offender.
So, what we end up with is the power to legislate, prosecute and judge all rolled into a single convenient executive branch agency run by unelected and uncountable bureaucrats. What could possibly go wrong?
That entire chain is something that is not allowed in the Constitution, the “system”, but it happened anyway.
People can often be corrupt and people who are corrupt often seek positions of power. The design of the U.S. government is intended to separate power into three different branches to limit the negative impact of corruption and political hubris.
Any system will break down if the people using the system abuse the system. Is that the fault of the system or the fault of the users? Today the systems of thought, belief and action that have served the United States of America well for nearly 250 years are under attack from all sides. This is not a accident. Rather, this is a direct and concerted effort to destroy America from within and the deliberate abuse of our governmental system is a key part of that attack. They seek to make us abandon a system that works for “something better” that will leave them in power. Will we, as a country, be wise enough to understand that it is not the system that is “broken”, it is the people who are abusing the system and they will break us if we let them.
The US should have adopted the Westminster parliamentary system. The problem with US politics is that it has evolved into a 2 party system. These 2 parties don't represent Americans properly and often end in gridlock.
No the design is not flawed the flaw is the courts have been interpreting the constitution to allow government power it should not have .
From traffic stops drivers license for non commercial drivers to gun control and drug prohibition.
Government is not society government is force.
The element of the Constitution that draws most criticism is one that was most endearing -- the assumption of the Framers that the document was a "Framework" for laws and not the exercise thereof. Rather, they realized that any social contract relied upon the willing and voluntary participation by reasoned and self-regulated persons -- a bold assumption that caused Jefferson, a Founder but not a Framer, to believe the Constitutional government would last about 20 years, and Franklin who was both to say "a republic if you can keep it."
Gridlock is mostly good when we are talking about stomping on 2a rights.
The flaws came by amending important checks and balances away (such as the 16th and 17th Amendments as two examples of many) and the Supreme Court amending the constitution without an amendment through their decisions and changing what was meant at the time. Examples of that are redefining the 2A to be about self defense and not combat capability or inoring the 10th amendment by allowing many executive agencies the founders never intended, or removing the separation or powers via chevron deference, etc. I could go on forever about the SC not getting the Constitution right.
Also, the people's loss of morality to where we need a law for everything.
Basically, the Constitution was excellent, but we broke it. The only positive changes we made are votes and rights for women and blacks Americans.
I guess the only true issue was the founders under estimated how bad we could eff it up, so didn't say certain things explicitly that they obviously meant at the time.
The primary system is seriously flawed. If all 50 states and U.S. territories had non-partisan primaries, you would see a hell of a difference in candidates. Allow independent voters to participate with whoever in every primaries.
The cause of the current problems is easily traced to the centralization of power that resulted from three changes in our original form of government: 1) direct election of senators 2) direct taxation via the income tax 3) debasement of money through the formation of a central bank. All three of these changes were implemented in the early 20th century about the time of the Wilson Administration. Every idea discussed on this episode is irrelevant compared to these three huge and stupendously stupid changes in the structure of government. The early 20th century progressives were extremely destructive - although it is tough to reverse their stupidity, the first step is to identify it.
Excellent discussion. This is the kind of stuff I want to hear talked about in politics.
I want a more complex voting system that supports third parties, multiple candidates from the same part, and makes everyone's vote count.
Step 1: The voter orders all candidates from best to worst.
Step 2: The voter chooses one candidate as the worst candidate that they still approve of.
Step 3: Count the votes. Check to see if a candidate has an absolute majority; if yes, they are the winner, and if no, go to Step 4.
Step 4: The two candidates with the lowest votes are compared for approval. The lower approval candidate is disqualified. Go back to Step 3.
Ranked voting, we need ranked voting.
This would allow for choosing the candidate we truly want to vote. If the first vote doesn't win, then it goes down to the next vote you have ranked as your second. Therefore, we'd be able to vote for who we want first, then strategic second.
Not enough separation of X and State
The problem is that people vote for charismatic candidates instead of competent candidates. People like Henry Ford, Sam Walton, and Jeff Bezos etc. just aren't impressive to average people despite the fact that they are the type of accomplished people this country needs to solve our problems.
Well, I like the structure of our government and think the Constitution is a pretty incredible achievement, but on libertarian grounds it's pretty weak. For starters, if consent is the condition by which a government or a constitution acquires it's legitimacy, the authority of our constitution rests more on tradition than on some abstract principle of universal consent. People today, if permitted to deliberate, formulate, and vote upon it, would not ratify the Constitution as written in 1787. We would have a fundamentally different governing charter. So libertarian constitutionalists are sort of leaning on tradition more than abstract universalist principles of consent of the governed for revering the Constitution as the be-all-end-all law of the land. It shouldn't even need to be said, but only a tiny fraction of the population at the time of ratification was even considered fit to weigh in on the matter. This casts the entire legitimacy of the document into question if you believe that legitimate political authority rests on the consent of the governed.
1. Reverse the rule that senators are popularly elected. They were representatives of the states in the original constitution. The states should have a right to representation at the federal level. The senators are accountable to the people indirectly though state's governments.
2. The parliament model is superior to the presidential model. The presidency has become a "king of the hill", and each of our binary parties considers themselves to have "won" if they get the presidency. The prime minister model was not designed, it evolved, and the prime minister is both more accountable to the people and to the house. he/she can be turned out on a dime, and that's how it should be. Parliaments generate fights, coalitions, compromises, etc. That's how government should work, not having one person step in and resolve it all. If we had a parliament, we would have more than 2 parties, as other countries do. The current structure of government encourages the model of two parties having all the power.
We need to uphold the law, follow the Constitution, have voter ID, educate younger generations in civics, have better term limits, and get rid of the party system so that we vote for individuals based on their policies instead of a specific party up & down the ballot
No I don't think it is flawed. I think that the people in the roles the Constitution describes are not abiding by the rules set down by the Constitution. The flaws of "leadership" and the media's use of the term has corrupted the individuals that are "representatives".
Rather than having representation by geographical area, Americans should have representation by age bracket. So instead of having, say, California have a certain number of seats in Congress, you would have all Americans age 20 to 25 have those seats in Congress instead.
Representation by age is just as democratic as representation by geography, but it would force new blood into the system.
The reason for geographically defined representation is because these geographies govern themselves when left alone.
Age, groups, sexes and other ethnic distinctions do not self-govern and thus must cooperate with other around them.
A city or county of a state by contrast has a distinct set of interest which are ultimately tied to the geography by way of the economy and cultural accommodations of the same over time.
This is as true of local politics as it is of international politics. Countries do not have permanent allies only permanent interest.
Given Thomas Jefferson’s reckless spending and debt, not surprising he didn’t put any balanced budget provisions in the Constitution.
Jefferson didn't write the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson was not at the constitutional convention but rather in France at the time.
His involvement in the same came mostly in opposition and later administration
You can architect to minitgate human failure, but not enough to defeat them. At some point, we have to stop blaming how the system was built and focus on how we the citizenry have allowed things to get like this. A Republic, if you can keep it. We havent kept it.
There was a time when this country was on a Gold Standard. It keeps the National Debt from going to infinity.
Now, tell me exactly and precisely how that gold standard was removed. And then! Tell me it’s the fault of us U.S. Citizens….
You can only tell me that it’s the fault of citizens after you’ve told me exactly what happened to the Gold Standard.
You have my regards on this matter and I look forward to hearing from you! Cheers
EDIT: Oh, and I recommend you read Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. There, it says what is to be used in payment of debt. Please come back and tell me what our Federal Government, has been mandated by the Constitution to use, as payment for debt that the Federal Government incurs?
Do citizenry vote directly on the laws? Regulations? Taxes? War? No. In a Republic it is the easily corrupted Representatives who do so. Ole Ben studied history and he new a Republic could not be kept.
@@jimmyrichards5595 The Gold Standard did not keep the Government from borrowing money to pay for the Korean war or the Vietnam wars which precipitated the price of Gold rising internationally while the price of gold here in the US was mandated through Fiat at 35 an ounce thus depleting the US reserves due to International Arbitrage.
@@bobann3566 Once we were no longer on the Gold Standard, is when the National Debt started to go on a ballistic trajectory.
I have seen historical charts of the National Debt. Prior to the removal of the Gold Standard, the National Debt looks pretty linear. Not much of an increase over a very very long period of time. Perhaps it’s subjective? Anyway, to me, after the Gold Standard was removed, that’s when the National Debt starts going parabolic.
I am still waiting to hear exactly how the Gold Standard was removed. I already know. But anytime I ask others this question, no one has ever given me an actual answer. Am I the only one who knows? Or perhaps I’m one of a very few people left alive that actually cares.
@@jimmyrichards5595 Sorry, there were more dollars than gold all around the world due to Government spending and borrowing in the 1960's and early 1970's. Gold Standard did not prevent the US Government from borrowing .
As for the removal of the gold standard, The first order of Nixon was for the gold window to be closed. Foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold.
The second order was for a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to check inflation.
of course it is. what would you fix and how?
The problem is America is not a nation. There are multiple nations within.
Yes, get rid of first past the post voting which is designed to end up at a two party and eventually one party system
The system is one of the better in the world but there are distinct flaws that are causing the dysfunction and need to be corrected. The 4 top needs of change are: 1) funding of elected officials allow for so many flaws in human nature (has to be completely open and transparent-it is far from that now); gerrymandering and partisan districting has allowed for money to fund non-representative elected officials (I live in Wisconsin and this point is so clear); 3) lack of term limits at all levels (including the Supreme Court); persons convicted of serious crimes can run for office (Donald Trump is the current prime example). Hardly a thorough list but it illustrates the needs of correcting the system we have now. So, the system is fixable but dramatic changes are needed and the current Supreme Court in the last 24 years has made it worse and not better.
Undo “reform”. The Pendleton Act and direct election of Senators were bad ideas.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
The direct election of senators by the people of the states is bad, why? Senators represent the whole state, do they not? Why should different votes within the state be weighted differently in the determination of who ultimately gets chosen to represent it?
@@xxcrysad3000xx Because they are no longer chosen by state governments. Putting unfunded mandates on states is but one bad effect.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas How can you tell if someone is a vegan? They will tell you.
@@tomhalla426 It still makes no sense to me and I have never understood why this is such a libertarian bugaboo. Why should state governments elect federal senators rather than the people who reside in the states themselves, who elect the state governments? Why insert the middleman? Nothing about the state legislatures choosing senators as opposed to the states' voters as a whole would prevent unfunded mandates.
Maybe the best answer is something like ranked choice voting. Vox just did video about some of the European systems and how they represent people a little bit better. This would require a constitutional convention but if you live in a state of 49% Democrats and 51 percent Republicans and the Republicans win every district, you can still send a decent number of Democrats Republicans or libertarians to Congress.
Founders are dead, we don't need to be so protective of their feelings, haha. Every design has areas to improve and there are so many systemic solutions that modern forms of democracies are deploying successfully.
A thought provoking discussion.
I don’t think the original design of the US government is flawed. I think society is flawed. The Founders established the US to be a republic…not a democracy. Not every creature walking on two legs with a heartbeat is supposed to vote. Government is supposed to have a very limited role with elected congressional officials representing their states and districts, the President representing the Nation, and a supreme court to ensure the government operates within the constraints of the Constitution. Instead, we public officials who are determined to push tribal agendas (by race, gender, or sexual orientation), Presidents who blatantly ignore the Constitution and issue executive orders to bypass congress, justices who are social justice warriors that has no idea what a woman is, and a slew of other nonsensical mess. And let’s not forget about the voters who hate the US, don’t have any life experience because they’re below the age of 21, influence national policy without paying taxes, and bunch of other idiots who shouldn’t have a voice if so many people weren’t so concerned about trying to establish a pure democracy.
I'm just sorry that I can only like this comment once 😊
Yes.
This is simply begging the question, the "flaw" is inherent within the concept of government itself. Its impossible to design a reasonable government because government is inherently unreasonable, no matter how many "checks and balances" you put in place, they will ALWAYS fail, they have to, because any "check and balance" is simply a patch that try to bandage the bleeding truth that for whatever reason people are blind too and don't want to accept and then always rationalise their way out of with incredibly bad reasoning, government is a institution of power through force, a institution of domination and control.
You can dress it up all you want in pretty clothes of "but out domination is a nice domination" all you want, but it does not negate the truth. At the end of the day, government makes slaves out of us all, just in different ways.
You guys all keep missing the obvious. The problem is we have no uniform values anymore. You cannot fix that with architectural tweaks
separation of:
business & state
benefits & state
paychecks, income, assets, property, estate & state
education & state
insurance & state
banking, medium of exchange, investment & state
personal consumption & state
body & state
terms of employment & state
Wealth and power.
We should be maximizing limited government and individual liberty.
maximizing limited means zero. So we should have no government.
@@emperorpicard4901Welcome to that AnCap life
@@lizard450 The only logical conclusion
No.
So you are telling me in over 200 years of history, no inkling of any improvements that could be made; that if the founders returned to see the operation of the government today, they'd make no adjustments?
Good to see the brain trust in operation.
The founders did not think that the system would last 200 years.
But they also wouldn't recognize what we have now as it is not even remotely what the original system was.
So if there were improvements to be made it would likely be in the area enforcement.
No
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh!?
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist”
Is the design flawed? Yes. The End. I just saved you from having to watch this video. You're welcome.
Ranked Choice and Internet voting for me please.
As long as we are in fantasy land:
- let's go back to the Constitution and have one member of the house for each 50k citizens.
- let's set term limits
- let's set a federal budget cap at 2% of GDP as was suggested in the Federalist papers
- let's get money out of politics (and somehow make that an exception to the 1st ammendment)
- I have many more :)
This is good! Could we also include strict and violent penalties for anyone who is convicted of being a congressional lobbyist? Or maybe just _suspected_ of it 🤔
@@LynyrdSkynyrd.4Ever If we get the money out of politics then there won't be any lobbyists :)
I do sometimes wonder if making the Constitution easier to amend might have been better. It would mean more changes to the Constitution and, realistically, one I like less. On the other hand, it might make outright ignoring the Constitution less viable.
of all people SCALIA said his main critique of the U.S. Constitution was how difficult it is to amend. You make an interesting point I had not considered which is, if amendment was more viable would our institutions be less focused on trying to subvert it.
@dcj3831 except if it was easier to make amendments than the institutions would fuk with it heavily, every time one party had a majority and controlled the house and the Senate they would change something.
Look at Democrats literally trying to use the wrong Amendment the 25th Amendment to take out trump, what happens when they can literally reword it so it can take him out
We need proportional representation!
1 per 650,000 spending $13B each. Way too few representatives.
Not gonna watch before i comment because DUH YES
'less painful' you in politics, get out of your feelings.
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
How absurd to argue that people would vote against their own interests in a Democracy and that people need a daddy to tell them what to do.
How absurd to argue that Anarchy would be the result of having no Ruler daddy. Nature has no rulers and nature does just fine with out one.
You claim that Socialism is the result of Democracy is absurd as well look at our Republic shows that we do not have a Democracy, and Socialism has run rampant as campaign promises by the Representatives of the Republic.
ENGLISH americans mocked it by owing me 10 planets worth of resources