The American Form of Government

[Anthony Gratl]

Oligarchy is the "natural order" for human society.
It takes men of the caliber of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams et al to preserve freedom ...

you mean george "the slave owner" washington? this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

seems you've a conditioned sense of history, Peter.....

And who says that oligarchy is the natural order for human society? At what population levels and density and in which part of the world?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Its true that people need some set of rules to say not to infringe upon other peoples' rights. Personally I believe this country moved away from being a Republic some time ago and it going through the final stages of Democracy.

Exactly. Take a step back and look at what our country is supposed to be. If you look at the Constitution and how our states are set up, we are supposed to really be 50 small countries. United in defense against our enemies and each other. That's it. That's what was so beautiful about that document! Keeps the federal government small and puts the power into the states. You don't have to worry so much about the Republic getting out of control because the Federal has very little power. Therefore, it's easy to stay a Republic.

Matthew

 

[Joel Kaye]

Seemed accurate at the 7th grade civics level.

It sort of assumes an elected Republic can't be controlled by an oligarchy that chooses, bankrolls and promotes their own candidates. Pretty big assumption.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Power in the hands of individual states is a perfect prescription for tyranny by simple majority over minorities of all kinds. The abuses are legion; racial discrimination, gender bias, religious persecution, and more. The innocent have suffer egregious violence whipped up by the zealots in the majority.

If we still enjoyed, "state's-rights," to the extent many wish, we would still have segregation and ubiquitous Jim-Crow laws. Perhaps too many here yearn for the plantation days. I do not.

Why should Alabama, a pitiful wretch of a state which survives on the Federal dole, have the same voting strength as New York?

What's the advantage of a patch-work quilt of individual state laws? Why should what's legal in Ohio be against the law in Mississippi? Why have 50 state constitutions? I'm certain it's good for the fortunes of lawyers; is that not sufficient damnation?

We come a long way since we were 13 individual states, moving closer to the ideal, "justice for all."

Best regards,

Leo

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Power in the hands of individual states is a perfect prescription for tyranny by simple majority over minorities of all kinds. The abuses are legion; racial discrimination, gender bias, religious persecution, and more. The innocent have suffer egregious violence whipped up by the zealots in the majority.

If we still enjoyed, "state's-rights," to the extent many wish, we would still have segregation and ubiquitous Jim-Crow laws. Perhaps too many here yearn for the plantation days. I do not.

Why should Alabama, a pitiful wretch of a state which survives on the Federal dole, have the same voting strength as New York?

What's the advantage of a patch-work quilt of individual state laws? Why should what's legal in Ohio be against the law in Mississippi? Why have 50 state constitutions? I'm certain it's good for the fortunes of lawyers; is that not sufficient damnation?

We come a long way since we were 13 individual states, moving closer to the ideal, "justice for all."

Best regards,

Leo

Amen Brother, although i think you might get some flak for that Alabama comment lol

 

[Ethan Cooper]

Amen Brother, although i think you might get some flak for that Alabama comment lol

Yeah, I mean over here in Louisiana we're looking up at Alabama as a well run, well to do state. How dare you put them down?

Whenever I feel bad about living in Louisiana I think to myself, well, there's always Arkansas and Mississippi.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Power in the hands of individual states is a perfect prescription for tyranny by simple majority over minorities of all kinds. The abuses are legion; racial discrimination, gender bias, religious persecution, and more. The innocent have suffer egregious violence whipped up by the zealots in the majority.

If we still enjoyed, "state's-rights," to the extent many wish, we would still have segregation and ubiquitous Jim-Crow laws. Perhaps too many here yearn for the plantation days. I do not.

Huh? That's why we have the Constitution. All those "racist/sexist" laws you quote of can no longer exist because the Constitution outlaws them. That's also the beauty of it. If you don't like one state's laws, then you can move to another state. The only thing I think they missed writing into the original Constitution was that all people are made equal and have equal rights (of course, there is now much debate as to what is a "right.)

Why should Alabama, a pitiful wretch of a state which survives on the Federal dole, have the same voting strength as New York?

Ummm, last I checked AL and NY don't have the same amount of votes-unless you are solely talking about Senators. The Electoral College and Congress both are based on population and the bigger population states DO have more representation.

What's the advantage of a patch-work quilt of individual state laws? Why should what's legal in Ohio be against the law in Mississippi? Why have 50 state constitutions? I'm certain it's good for the fortunes of lawyers; is that not sufficient damnation?

Because it lets the people who live in their state rule themselves? If we want our state to have no business taxes and a 12% sales tax, then that should be our right (and it is according to the Constitution.) Each state has their own Constitution because the people of their state said we want to live "this way." If you don't like it, then move to another state-it's not like you don't have 49 other states to pick from. That's the true beauty in the whole states make up a country thing. There are a few basic laws (natural laws) that we agree on as states, but what's not define is to be left up to the states.

You ask what the good is in it...it's freedom. The people in their states have the right to chose how to live-as long as what they chose doesn't interfere with the natural laws.

Matthew

 

[Liam Hall]

This thread just gets funnier...

 

[Brandon Fraley]

This thread just gets funnier...

lol, like i said, we still have about 8 hours before it gets closed, so gets your kicks in while you can

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Matthew, those racist, sexist laws and practices persisted long after the Emancipation Proclamation. Southern states, although they do not have the exclusive franchise on intolerance, in particular do all they can to restrict the rights of minorities.

Of course we're talking about the Senate.

I was hoping the tired and completely repudiated call for, "love it or leave it," would remain a pickup truck bumper sticker, but no. Simply fleeing is not the way things improve in any society.

Finally, tyranny of the majority may be "freedom" to the majority, but I assure you it's not freedom to the oppressed, whatever their minority status, be it ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, religious, economic, etc.

Best regards,

Leo

 

[Ethan Cooper]

Finally, tyranny of the majority may be "freedom" to the majority, but I assure you it's not freedom to the oppressed, whatever their minority status, be it ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, religious, economic, etc.

Leo - care to propose a governmental system that can do away with oppression of any type?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Matthew, those racist, sexist laws and practices persisted long after the Emancipation Proclamation. Southern states, although they do not have the exclusive franchise on intolerance, in particular do all they can to restrict the rights of minorities.

And your point is? Those laws are in question were questionably unconstitutional (Amendment 14, section 1), and even if not, were horrible. But that doesn't change what the constitution says about states rights. The power really for the people lie within their state, and not the Federal government.

Look at it this way, there are plenty of things that the Federal Government does and allows others to do that are unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to stop things. Unfortunately, laws are only as good as the people willing to enforce them. Do you feel like the Federal Government does a good job of enforcing the Constitution? Do you feel, as a citizen, that you have a way to put a stop to those acts within a reasonable amount of time (<6 months)?

I was hoping the tired and completely repudiated call for, "love it or leave it," would remain a pickup truck bumper sticker, but no. Simply fleeing is not the way things improve in any society.

Ummm....that's how America got it start. Remember, people left England and came over here? But here's the thing, is a small group of people going to be able to change a huge group? Very doubtful. That's the whole point of the states and state rights. The smaller groups of people could govern how they saw fit (to a certain point-see natural law) and decide what they wanted for themselves. I would never move to a country like Cuba or Iran because I simply do not believe in their form of government. I don't love it, so I can leave it. I would be very surprised if most American can not find a state that shares more their view in how they should be governed.

Finally, tyranny of the majority may be "freedom" to the majority, but I assure you it's not freedom to the oppressed, whatever their minority status, be it ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, religious, economic, etc.

There will always be evil people so there will always be some form of oppression. Since we can not have a policeman for every person, it just is not going to disappear. There is no system that can make life truly fair for everyone-it can't happen.

Matthew

 

[rod bradley]

Hiearchy & lust for power -- alas, do seem to be almost inevitable in human societies (whether natural or not, I don't know -- perhaps natural in the primitive part of the brain which we need to keep in check.)

The Founding Fathers feared this and tried to create a structure that would keep power of all sorts in balance, including the government itself. I think it was pointed out at the time, that it was an ongoing struggle against abuse of power. I also think there was at least an implication of evolution as part of that process, that the constitution was regarded as a living and adaptive framework -- and certainly the framework has evolved through amendment.

Several of those orginal drafters made mention of two other essential ingredients to our governmental structure (whatever moniker you choose to give it ) that often seem to be overlooked: a well-educated electorate and a vigilant 4th estate, ie the press in their times, the media in ours. Only with those two forces at full strength could the inevitable oligarchies (such as the military-industrial complex, corporate-financial-insurance complex) be held in check. Maybe the internet is becoming the new player in the 4th estate (the optimistic view) as the very corporations and powerful interests now rule our our media.

Perhaps the filmmaker's contribution to our "education" falls prey to his own prejudice (and maybe simplistic views) compounded by the reductionist nature of the medium -- something many of us struggle with in making any kind of film almost every day. But cheers to the several forum contributers who've taken up a lot the slack.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

The only oppression that matters is when it's enforced by the power of the state. As for a form of government that can eliminate it, there are quite a few doing very well at it, notably our Federal government. It's not perfect, but certainly heading in the right direction.

As to oppression by individuals, by "evil" people, that is not germane to this discussion; we're talking about state actions.

When contemplating abusing the rights of others, it's well to remember that not everyone subscribes to the model of Dr. King and Gandhi.

Best regards,

Leo

 

[Liam Hall]

Ummm....that's how America got it start. Remember, people left England and came over here?

Really? I thought there were already folks there... ...I guess they didn't have any rights, right?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

HAHAHAAHA. Any movie which shows a christian church getting trambled by the majority is a comedy fiasco in my books.

Ahhh yes. The federal government really needs to look out for the 80% MAJORITY! Don't want those christians to get trampled underfoot by the 1.5% muslim population. The Christian Church is on the ropes! Quick call your senators before that godless 20% majority flexes there enormous political might of ... 0 senate or house representatives and outlaws the poor oppressed and powerless christian minority!

What a circus.

Seriously. When you control 95% of the government and 80% of the voting population you would think the Christian Church would feel pretty secure in its dominion over US policy. But nooooo they're the poor under dog who needs protection from the non-existant majority.

Great comedy.

---

"The government is limited by law leaving the people alone." Ummm... which law? Maybe the law says the government is unlimited in its power to completely dominate every single aspect of the citizen's life.

Let's say you found a republic on a constitution that says. "Everyone shall do exactly what the constitution says or be put to death. The law (constitution) is whatever Gavin Greenwalt says it is." There you go a republic... based on "left" wing government. I just showed how stupid this entire video is in one example. Want more?

How about a constitutional ammendment which says the government must monitor all conversations? How about a constitution that says only men are human and women are property? How about a constitution that says men can be slaves but only beaten twice a day. How about a constitution that says: "It is the law of the land that all peoples must put all of their money into a giant pot. The glorious officer of the law shall evenly distribute it back to the people. Should the people grow beyond 100 the people shall appoint but one officer of the law to divvy the money and per 100 officers of the law those 100 officers shall appoint one officer to overlook them and so on and so forth. So Sayeth People. So Sayeth the Law." There. I just setup a 100% socialist nation under a constitution.

This isn't even worthy of a second grade class on government.

---

More bullshitery: A mob of men called a 'lynch mob' voting to execute a criminal = democracy. A mob of men called a jury voting to excute a man = republic. Riiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhttttttt.

That's not a difference between a republic and a democracy that's the difference between a random sample and biased sample. Both groups are operating on the same notion. "This here cowboy dun break the law!" Both voted on the same law. Both followed the same procedure. The only difference in the cowboy scenario is one jury was random and one wasn't. That has nothing to do with the law. (Also both instances resulted in unanimous votes.) Have we already forgotten the 'trials' of the Jim Crow laws? "This black man raped this woman." "It's in the law." "Yes it is." "He looks guilty." "Yes he does." "So we all agree unanimously?" "Yes!" "GUILTY!" There you go. Perfect republic right there. Nothing went wrong. They followed the law. They were unanimous what more do you want!?

Also... there is NOTHING INHERENT IN A REPUBLIC WHICH MANDATES A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Again. Stupidity where you just say "Republic is awsome because it's awesome unlike the other thing which sucks." I see lots of hand waving but nothing of substance in the entire film. Not to mention he just invented his own definition for right vs left which I haven't ever heard agreed upon.

"Some people would say socialist means someone who believes in a fair and balanced burden of taxation. But this definition is wrong. It actually means you eat babies. I know it's been used in many confusing ways recently. But actually a socialist is a baby eater. Therefore we don't want to be a socialist and socialism is wrong."

I can play this game too.

"A Republic is a tyranical form of government in which the courts and government decide everything for the people. It has to be run by a select few unelected by the people otherwise it would be an evil form of government called democracy. Therefore no real republic actually exists it's actually always a form of Oligarchy. Also Democracy doesn't really exist because it's actually a form of anarchy where the rule of law is determined not by a piece of paper written by oligarchs but by a mob of people. This mob is by definition is larger than the government and therefore the government effectively doesn't exist. Therefore Democracy is actually anarchy. But since Anarchy cannot exist we can rule that out and all we are left with is oligarchy. The only real form of government."

----

Hehe. Yes the downfall of Rome was because it enacted wellfare. What a joke.

Does nobody ever pay any attention to Sweden? Seriously.

If the framers of the constitution really thought they had written down the perfect law for all time and all places they wouldn't have added a mechanism for ammendments into the law. The law has a law which says we get to change the law. That means the original law can say whatever we ant it to say? How do we choose what the law says? Democracy! The brilliant and perfect godlike (but mostly humanist and atheist) founders of our nation were so terrified of democracy that they set up their perfect document in such a way that the people get to rewrite it our leisure to say whatever we want. Yep. They were Air Tight on that one!

 

[Peter Hodgins]

Why should Alabama, a pitiful wretch of a state which survives on the Federal dole, have the same voting strength as New York?

New York is not on the dole? New York is not the most corrupt, poorly run, basket case State in the Union? The State of Clinton and Schumer is a joke ....

 

[Eki Halkka]

Quick call your senators before that godless 20% majority flexes there enormous political might of ...

Atheism is the fastest growing world view - wait 50 years and it will probably be the majority.

Anyway, Republic being "rule by law" is just semantics. Laws aren't something that exist on their own, they're made by people. Those people are (hopefully) elected by democratic means. If the author meant strictly the original US constitution*** when he talked about "law" - that system would best be defined as "post-mortem oligarchy" ;-)

***US constitution has been modified at times, last time in 1992, by democratically elected representatives of the public.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Hi everyone,

Didn't have time (or interest so to speak) to watch the movie, but I am very into politics (in a very broad way, nearly everything is politics in my point of view).
But frankly I wouldn't tell that we live in a democracy. We live in a moneytarism system that puts profit before everything including humans life, and I don't think that's the majority that decided it.

Without addressing the fundamental change that occurred in 1913, it won't tell you all that much.

The Money Masters

Yeah everyone should learn more about the Federal Reserve Bank and the way money is created out of thin air!

Waiting for the "next gen society system".

cheers,
antoine.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

New York is not on the dole? New York is not the most corrupt, poorly run, basket case State in the Union? The State of Clinton and Schumer is a joke ....

You are misinformed.

Alabama receives about $1.66 for every Federal tax dollar, while New York receives only 79 cents.

Of course there's always Mississippi and New Mexico to kick around; they get back over two dollars for every dollar in Federal taxes.

I also find it humorous that Sarah Palin's Alaska is number three on the list of beneficiary states. Interesting that the states most dependent on the Federal government have the most vocal anti-federal government populations.

There's also a very interesting correlation with educational levels.

Best regards,

Leo