Marijuana.com

HappyMan

I was thinking more along the lines of fedual europe c. 1250. Living then would have been rough.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

 

schwadood

An ideal society would be an anarchy without gov't. Everyone would treat each other as if they were family, because things simply work better that way. Short of spontaneous global enlightenment, this is impossible.

I like the libertarian view. The government should only be there to protect my rights and I have the right to do anything I want as long as it dosen't infinge on the rights of others.

As far as government now is concerned, taxes are too high. The income tax was only supposed to be temporary, wasn't it? Government's only role now seems to be to keep the people in power, in power. But thats alright, it just means that we have to play by their rules. Its more difficult that way, but the game is still winnable.

__________________
peace and much love

Shaba Zero

Agreed. Living then wouldn't have been easy.

But other than tax collectors and the church, didn't the common man operate pretty much independently of government? I mean, how well could the lords have policed all the settlements with the limited transportation they had? One constable per settlement would be an incredible strain on their micro-economies. As long as nobody got out of hand, I bet people went months without seeing a government official other than a tax-collector. With a benevolent lord, it must not have been that bad to live in Feudal Europe. Prima Nocta (rights to first night) was just a myth and all.

Conscription would definitely suck though but it couldn't be worse than our globe-spanning wars today. It's more honest to be forced to hack someone apart with an axe. It would make you think a little more about what you were doing.

(My only experience with feudal europe is a "British History Up to 1747" college class and multiple watchings of Braveheart, so forgive my ignorance if I'm way off.)

__________________
"My ignorance pains me."

suede

A government "of the people,by the people,and for the people".That's what it says........That's what it should be.....That's my viewb.s.

__________________
End World Hunger

AlphaWolf

The problem with government is rather simple...

We have the freedom to vote and put into office whoever we as the people choose... But after that, we have very little overall influence over policy or lawmakers.. After a politicican is in office its the special intrests, groups like the "Think Tank" groups in Washington see (Council on Fourign relations and Trilateral Commission) As well as the big business owners that get influence over government.. and the general populous is cut out of the loop..

Marijuana prohibition is a perfect case in point.. While the majority of people are pro legalization the powers that be are against it...

But, in the greater analysis... and the greater scheme of things, I am proud to have been born and been a part of this great nation.. Even though it has its shortfalls, being an experiment in democracy and freedom, we have succeeded where others have failed, and if only once throughout history, we have proven throughout that man can co habitiate in peace.. Every walk of life, have an open door for liberty justice and peace here.. and for that.. I am eternally grateful and hope and pray it never changes. I am proud of my nation... I am proud to call myself an American..

 

Shaba Zero

That's the problem right there. Citizens can't vote directly on the topics that they actually care about. The only things put on the ballot are inconsequential (housing redevlopments, bonds) or are based on the election of political officials (whose choices are arguably influenced by the business donations which keep their careers afloat.)

America would be a very different place if the citizens could vote on the real topics of the day, like nuclear weapon disarmament, war, the legilization of marijuana, the decriminalization of victimless crimes, the space program, abortion, welfare, campaign finance reform, national health insurance, social security, income taxes, digital copyright reform, the education budget, and big business restrictions.

It would be a beautiful experiment in trust of the common man to make informed decisions that effect his own wellbeing. Change implies flexibility as well as risk.

Imagine if a ballot contained a large page (or fifteen) explaining each proposed initiative:

"The creation of a national health insurance system, providing safety and security for each citizen of the United States would cost the U.S. Government $603 billion a year. Bluntly, the U.S. Government does not have a spare $603 billion to spend on this initiative. Income tax will rise by an average of 5.7% per citizen (and 2.3% per corporation) to cover the costs of the national health insurance system. Economists believe the incredible boom in the health care system from this initiative will offset the resulting slowing of the economy from such a drastic change in the income tax..."

Suddenly, the citizen has an informed decision to make about a very real, very personal issue. Does that citizen trade security and peace of mind for a smaller paycheck? He cares. Very real, very sudden change could occur in a system like this.

I don't mean to rile anybody up, but we presently elect our leaders to lead, and I certainly haven't ever seen a president lead in my short lifetime or bring about change as a result of the opinions of the people that elected him. As far as I can see, the president appears to be a talking head for the cabinet members who in turn protect industry because the dollar is God.

This is unsubstantiated, but I remember reading a little while ago that the Motorcycle Helmet law in California was influenced by campaign donations from the car insurance industry. It seems that car insurance companies were paying out millions in claims to motorcycle riders who were the bloody victims of accidents. Motorcycle helmets therefore means more profits.

[shrugs] That can't be good for anybody.

SonicPainter

in california several iniatives that were passed by the voters have been overturned in the courts. It goes to show you that we live here in the u.s. in a representational democracy, not a pure populist system. is it good? perhaps, as you might end up with something akin to a popular fascism, rather than a system of double checks. does it bite ? perhaps when the courts overturn something close to your personal agenda.

pacs. (political action comittees) also carry a lot of weight. it seems in the halls of govt. people listen to the squeeky wheel. and the wheel is even louder when cash contributions turn up the volume. it doesnt mean there is impropriety afoot. moreso than there is a bad side to the system when the will of the many are outweighed by the few. like all things i guess, to get the good. you must also balance with the bad effects as well.

best!
D.

monster

i used to be one of those, "oh i'm such a hardcore kid, ANARCHY FOR ME!" type of people, but i've come to realize that having a form of government is necessary. i don't know a lot about how our government is run, because i've never really been interested in it. i do know that certain things, however little they may be, piss me off extensively.

for example, on the radio lately there's been this commercial about how new seat-belt laws are going into place, and it's something like and 86$ ticket if you get pulled over. what pisses me off about that is..that if i want to put my OWN life in danger, why should someone try and force me to do something i don't want to, and then FINE me, of all things, for it. what right do they have? because they're "the law?" i'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me. just thinking about it gets me worked up.

Elvis_Christ

My view of government is fairly simple. I beleive that the US government should be restricted to those functions defined constitutionally. And in regard to things like seat-belt laws, anti-drug laws, sexual "immorality", und so weiter ...I say we enact one overarching law for them all. And the Wiccan Rede, I think, expresses it best: "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." Any action which causes no harm to another person should not be in any way penalised, in my opinion. Government has no business protecting people from themselves.

CUAN4life

Personally, I'd like to see our government shift more towards the old Greek Republic, where everyone gets the chance to vote on everything. Right now we live in a Representative Democracy. This system was originally put into place, because at the time the U.S. was founded it would have been almost impossible to let everyone vote on every issue, it would've taken years to vote on one piece of legislation, and nothing would've gotten done. Therefore it was decided that everyone was given the chance to elect representatives who would represent the same interests as theirs' and vote that way. This system was a lot more effiecient for early America as only the representatives had to vote for legislation, eliminating all the costly time to collect everyones vote.
Then representatives who shared similar views bonded together in political parties

Fast Forward to today. A huge problem with this system is there are not enough political parties to represent everyone's differing views. We have two major parties: Democrats and Republicans, occasionally we get an independent or liberation candidate worthwile. The problem with two major parties is the candidates don't represent everything you may want them to, i.e. one may feel strongly about Democrats platform on abortion, but feel equally as strongly on Republicans platform on gun control, so where's the middleground candidate for this person? There is none, because over the course of U.S. history politicians have lost sight of the purpose of their jobs as they were originally intended to be by the founders of this country. Instead they use politics as a platform to represent themselves and not their constituents. The point is the system we live in today does not work to represent the PEOPLE's vote, but rather it represents the politician's vote.

So back to my original point - a reprisal of a republic similar to that of Ancient Greece. This may not have been plausible 200 years ago, but I'm sure the founders had no idea that things like cars, computers, tvs would ever come about either. But now with the advent of the internet the ability for everyone to vote on every matter is quite plausible, and I'd like to see the government move towards something like that. Or at least maybe a system, where each congressional district votes on a piece of legislation and then, the representative for that district votes in congress based on the district vote.

"The New England town meeting is democracy at its purest" -- Thomas Jefferson

that's just my 5 cents