Originally posted by JS357Where would I start? How about with the Constitution? Just follow what it says, not by what you think that it should be saying or implies.
You aren't thinking realistically about this. Imagine yourself having the power to establish the kind of society you think we should have. Where would you start? Whatever your answer is, that would be step one in a program of social engineering. I think we are already so far away from your ideal world that we can't get there at all, but the only way it would e ...[text shortened]... ngineering.
PS They are tearing down our old bay bridge. Engineers are planning how to do it.
You'd have a society free of government interference.
Originally posted by EladarOK So what media will you use to issue this directive, how will you motivate them to so so, and how will you enforce it and decide differences of understanding? Or will people just start doing what Eladar says?
Where would I start? How about with the Constitution? Just follow what it says, not by what you think that it should be saying or implies.
You'd have a society free of government interference.
Originally posted by EladarIf it was crystal clear how the Constitution ought to be interpreted and it should not be amended, then why did the Framers implement a system where the Constitution is interpreted and can be amended by politicians?
Where would I start? How about with the Constitution? Just follow what it says, not by what you think that it should be saying or implies.
You'd have a society free of government interference.
There is only one kind of society "free of government interference", and that structure (i.e. anarchism) blatantly violates the US constitution.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot to mention that anarchy has to be enforced by,... Eledar...think about it...(a word that starts with g).
If it was crystal clear how the Constitution ought to be interpreted and it should not be amended, then why did the Framers implement a system where the Constitution is interpreted and can be amended by politicians?
There is only one kind of society "free of government interference", and that structure (i.e. anarchism) blatantly violates the US constitution.
Originally posted by JS357The people will do what the ruling elites want them to do. The people are inherently stupid, little more than cattle.
OK So what media will you use to issue this directive, how will you motivate them to so so, and how will you enforce it and decide differences of understanding? Or will people just start doing what Eladar says?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't mind amending the Constitution through the amendment process. I do mind amending the Constitution through court decisions.
If it was crystal clear how the Constitution ought to be interpreted and it should not be amended, then why did the Framers implement a system where the Constitution is interpreted and can be amended by politicians?
There is only one kind of society "free of government interference", and that structure (i.e. anarchism) blatantly violates the US constitution.
Of course this leads to the fact that if Congress has the courts in its back pockets, the Constitution is totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by EladarSo pragmatically speaking, people who think like you have to become the rulers, then change, announce, and motivate the people to obey your rules. That's social engineering.
The people will do what the ruling elites want them to do. The people are inherently stupid, little more than cattle.
Originally posted by EladarSo you disagree with the system the Framers devised for the constitution's interpretation?
I don't mind amending the Constitution through the amendment process. I do mind amending the Constitution through court decisions.
Of course this leads to the fact that if Congress has the courts in its back pockets, the Constitution is totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by bill718I don't believe that government is too large.
[b]Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
I believe the government generally spends money on public goods. It make society more equal, safer and healthier.
The problem is that large companies have too much influence and don't pay enough tax. They donate large sums to political parties in order that government does not make society too equal, safe or healthy.
2 edits
Originally posted by bill718I don't think the US has too much govt, you need even more! health care, a centralised energy policy etc etc I don't know....
Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
1. Oil company exec's want to reign in runaway government spending unless it adversely affects their big fat government subsidy payments.
2. Construction workers want government spending cut, except when it may cost ...[text shortened]... g as it does not adversely affect them. Is it possible we have seen the enemy...and it is us??😲
I think when people (me) argue for smaller govt we want the police out of our business and taxes to be simple and easy to pay - ideally straight out of my wages and no more paper work - we need councils, schools, hospitals welfare, army, there's no reducing the size of any of them really. Make them modern - like corporations that work for the govt is what I want.
In the UK council tax is bad oppressive govt that everyone except for those who work for the council hates. But that doesn't mean get rid of the council it means have a modern centralised tax system not 100 different dreadful systems like we have now. That's reducing govt well. But its easy to slip into really drastic policies if you talk about shrinking govt too much.
I still don't know how much government I want to be honest...