Topic: Strong democracy or strong constitution ? - page 4. (Read 3458 times)
the fact that every land is on the control of a government make me very skeptical about anarchism defense. What will an anarchist society do when a socialist government army will come?
Between the two, a strong constitution is the most direct form of democracy, since the democratic process here primarily takes place in the economy: the number of votes you get is directly equivalent to how much you contribute to that economy; nothing could be more fair. Political democracy is the most unfair form of democracy, as it encourages those who will not work to take the labor of those who do, seeing as everyone's vote is made artificially equal. I am not worth the same as another man, I do not expect to have as much weigh as him; this is simply an inescapable truth.
Problem with a constitution is that it doesn't actually do anything, it just represents an idea in people; it's just a flimsy piece of paper if anything. It's like a precursor for an inevitable socialist take-over; when your people are used to having a public military and publicly funded roads, paid for against their will no less, they're essentially trained to bend over and receive the next pounding of socialist concepts like public social nets, public money, public enterprises like education and security and publicly-influenced private enterprises like corporations and regulation, so on and so forth. I have never once observed a constitution prevent corruption from occurring; so long as there exists a state, it will only strive to get bigger and bigger. So why use it? Can we really find no better way to fund a military and build the roads? Is it worth the pain and deaths which follow?
If the point of a constitution is to limit the state, then the ultimate constitution is the one which does not enable it to exist at all. I think the notion that we have to control "ourselves" with the threat of violence is an artifact of the past, along with religion, that we won't be taking with us into the future. Sure, there will always be people who want to bring harm to us, but the idea that we have to ensnare the good 99% to take care of the bad 1% (which wiggle their way into the highest spots of the state anyway making the notion pointless) is slowly, but surely, being acknowledged as completely absurd.
Anyway, here's a funny thing about democracy:
As opposed to what, lizards?
Problem with a constitution is that it doesn't actually do anything, it just represents an idea in people; it's just a flimsy piece of paper if anything. It's like a precursor for an inevitable socialist take-over; when your people are used to having a public military and publicly funded roads, paid for against their will no less, they're essentially trained to bend over and receive the next pounding of socialist concepts like public social nets, public money, public enterprises like education and security and publicly-influenced private enterprises like corporations and regulation, so on and so forth. I have never once observed a constitution prevent corruption from occurring; so long as there exists a state, it will only strive to get bigger and bigger. So why use it? Can we really find no better way to fund a military and build the roads? Is it worth the pain and deaths which follow?
If the point of a constitution is to limit the state, then the ultimate constitution is the one which does not enable it to exist at all. I think the notion that we have to control "ourselves" with the threat of violence is an artifact of the past, along with religion, that we won't be taking with us into the future. Sure, there will always be people who want to bring harm to us, but the idea that we have to ensnare the good 99% to take care of the bad 1% (which wiggle their way into the highest spots of the state anyway making the notion pointless) is slowly, but surely, being acknowledged as completely absurd.
Anyway, here's a funny thing about democracy:
Quote
de·moc·ra·cy
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
As opposed to what, lizards?
If the constitution is against the majority of the population there are always rebellion or secession. It is always like this until they came up with stable constitution.
Constitution can just apply to federal level to help keep competition between state.
Not at all. The American Constitution's goal was to limit the power of the State, not the people. Of course it is up to the politicians not to lie or not to cheat. The constitution is a list of "stuff" the government cannot impose on its people. The other way around is pretty much everywhere else where other constitutions list all the rights a government gives to its people. But if a government can give you something, like freedom then a government can change its mind and take it back.
Now a lot of the founders were close to be anarchists, the original definition of the term, not a bomb thrower in a crowd screaming something insane just before an explosion. No system is perfect, but the 14th amendment was added to make sure children of slaves would be born free, unlike their parents the South deemed them to be property like their cattle.
You could also end up with some insane politicians that would reverse all your rights, that is why, unlike other "democracies" in the world you can fight back (or at least not die like a serf) with your weapon in hand when things start to get ugly. That is part of your natural right.
I am not an expert but this is how I understand the American Constitution. Not saying it is the ultimate system, but way better than anything else tried before, including socialism way after...
Now a lot of the founders were close to be anarchists, the original definition of the term, not a bomb thrower in a crowd screaming something insane just before an explosion. No system is perfect, but the 14th amendment was added to make sure children of slaves would be born free, unlike their parents the South deemed them to be property like their cattle.
You could also end up with some insane politicians that would reverse all your rights, that is why, unlike other "democracies" in the world you can fight back (or at least not die like a serf) with your weapon in hand when things start to get ugly. That is part of your natural right.
I am not an expert but this is how I understand the American Constitution. Not saying it is the ultimate system, but way better than anything else tried before, including socialism way after...
sure but limit the power of the state is limiting the power of the people against other people. For example in theory if the majority of people want more "gun control" law and vote for that the law will not exist cause of the second amendment.
@Watoshi-Dimobuto
The goal of a constitution is to not change even is the people disagree with, a constitution that change often is like having no constitution.
If the constitution is against the majority of the population there are always rebellion or secession. It is always like this until they came up with stable constitution.
Not at all. The American Constitution's goal was to limit the power of the State, not the people. Of course it is up to the politicians not to lie or not to cheat. The constitution is a list of "stuff" the government cannot impose on its people. The other way around is pretty much everywhere else where other constitutions list all the rights a government gives to its people. But if a government can give you something, like freedom then a government can change its mind and take it back.
Now a lot of the founders were close to be anarchists, the original definition of the term, not a bomb thrower in a crowd screaming something insane just before an explosion. No system is perfect, but the 14th amendment was added to make sure children of slaves would be born free, unlike their parents the South deemed them to be property like their cattle.
You could also end up with some insane politicians that would reverse all your rights, that is why, unlike other "democracies" in the world you can fight back (or at least not die like a serf) with your weapon in hand when things start to get ugly. That is part of your natural right.
I am not an expert but this is how I understand the American Constitution. Not saying it is the ultimate system, but way better than anything else tried before, including socialism way after...
Now a lot of the founders were close to be anarchists, the original definition of the term, not a bomb thrower in a crowd screaming something insane just before an explosion. No system is perfect, but the 14th amendment was added to make sure children of slaves would be born free, unlike their parents the South deemed them to be property like their cattle.
You could also end up with some insane politicians that would reverse all your rights, that is why, unlike other "democracies" in the world you can fight back (or at least not die like a serf) with your weapon in hand when things start to get ugly. That is part of your natural right.
I am not an expert but this is how I understand the American Constitution. Not saying it is the ultimate system, but way better than anything else tried before, including socialism way after...
sure but limit the power of the state is limiting the power of the people against other people. For example in theory if the majority of people want more "gun control" law and vote for that the law will not exist cause of the second amendment.
@Watoshi-Dimobuto
The goal of a constitution is to not change even is the people disagree with, a constitution that change often is like having no constitution.
I prefer strong constitution created by politician chosen by majority through fair election.
Can you explain this please ? So i can add it
Every constitution can be change if most of people want it to be change.
Let see for example, There is a law that prohibits the subsidy of free energy if one people disagree. The people would force their politicians to change that law if is not working for everyone. The politicians would be force to change otherwise he will not win in the next election and people would probably elect other politicians that would do the job.
Let see an another example, If majority of the population is crazy enough that want part of the population killed. If they succeed the state will continue. Else if they failed to kill that population there could be civil war or rebellion then when one of the group wins the state will continue. As simple as that. War and killing is all part of political cycle.
Neither.
I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.
I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.
that's what i think about with "strong constitution". I find funny some American proud of their constitution speak so much about democracy while in fact the constitution is here to limit democracy.
Not at all. The American Constitution's goal was to limit the power of the State, not the people. Of course it is up to the politicians not to lie or not to cheat. The constitution is a list of "stuff" the government cannot impose on its people. The other way around is pretty much everywhere else where other constitutions list all the rights a government gives to its people. But if a government can give you something, like freedom then a government can change its mind and take it back.
Now a lot of the founders were close to be anarchists, the original definition of the term, not a bomb thrower in a crowd screaming something insane just before an explosion. No system is perfect, but the 14th amendment was added to make sure children of slaves would be born free, unlike their parents the South deemed them to be property like their cattle.
You could also end up with some insane politicians that would reverse all your rights, that is why, unlike other "democracies" in the world you can fight back (or at least not die like a serf) with your weapon in hand when things start to get ugly. That is part of your natural right.
I am not an expert but this is how I understand the American Constitution. Not saying it is the ultimate system, but way better than anything else tried before, including socialism way after...
Tibetan Serf
Neither.
I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.
I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.
that's what i think about with "strong constitution". I find funny some American proud of their constitution speak so much about democracy while in fact the constitution is here to limit democracy.
Neither.
I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.
I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.
I prefer strong constitution created by politician chosen by majority through fair election.
Can you explain this please ? So i can add it
Hi,
Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?
Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?
You missed one: a strong Federal Constitutional Republic...
I prefer strong constitution created by politicians elected by majority through fair election.
Hi,
Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?
Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?
Jump to: