Marijuana.com

Merry-juana

Actually, I heard this statement on the national geographic channel. Don't take my word for it, take there word. And yes, that does mean 75 million people are in jail. That does not mean that they are there surving a sentance, that also includes people sleeping there for the night. People awaiting trail, and people who actualy are surving sentances. To me it is actually quite shocking to know that there are so many innocent people in jail, it just prooves how wrong it really is. It isn't justice, it is down right injustice.

 

feedyourhead

actually, you're way off. by about 67 million people...

from Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

ITG

Personally, I strongly favor localized politics dealing with internal issues. What works in one place with a particular people doesn't necessarily work everywhere, and the best people to address an area's issues is themselves. However, I recognize that a central government is necessary for addressing global issues. So, I sort of think that, today, a government built along the lines of the Articles of Confederation could work. With modern communication and travel, the problems that faced the original inarnation of the US would not be an issue- the infrastructure is there to hold it together.

So, locally, I think a democratic system could work. However, on the large scale, I think democracy falls apart- it's unreasonable to expect each individual to be experts on every subject in the political arena. However, we need to address issues of an aristocracy and nepotism in government. We need to make it so that people do not get into politics for the money, but because they desire the society they run to be the best possible society it can be.

For this, I think we need to put discrete limits on the earning potential of politicians. I would recommend a salary graded to family size, based on the minimum necessary salary to provide for their families, and a strong oversight commitee to prevent corporate and special interest bribery. These representatives would be chosen democratically, to serve for life, with a provision that the political unit the represent can choose at any time to call a vote for their presence in office. This way, we do not make the representative need to pander politically to get re-elected to office, while not giving them a carte blanche to do whatever they want.

Mostly, I'd be happy if we just made it so that politics wasn't a way to get really rich. It's my opinion that we need more laws to govern the government itself.

__________________

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.

Acidrain09

I agree with you in many respects, It would improve the curent systems. However, when you said
I dissagree.

"Systems built upon flawed systems only result in more flawed systems"
- Daniel Quinn

ITG

I'm afraid I find that quote quite meaningless, as the only way you could have a system without flaws is if you can completely and accurately predict and prepare for every possible variable. While I can imagine someone possibly creating a computer program or operating system without flaw, I cannot extend that to anything relkating to dealing with the full scope of human society.

We can only have a flawed system, so the only thing that makes sense is to utilize the tools we have to create as flawless a system as we can. And while a government of laws is far from flawless, I find it to be considerabl less flawed than a government of force, which are, when you boil down to it, the only two real choices, because any society that is governed by the exercise of reason and the agreement of individuals that the conclusions of said reason is essentially a government of laws. Unfortunately, since man is not a perfectly reasonable creature, those laws are often backed up by force, thus making a hybrid government of laws and force, which is what we experience here in the United States.

To bring this home to the part you quoted from me, we have two options on limiting government power: direct application of force, or laws backed up by threat of force. That's it. There is no third way, given humanity's current capabilities. You COULD do without laws restricting government, and merely act when you FEEL that they have over-stepped their bounds, but that strikes me as grossly unfair to the people in ofice, not giving them a standard by which to judge themselves.

This would create either a fear of any action being considered as "too much exercise of power" and a stagnant system or an incredibly high turnover rate, resulting in half-trained politicians at best who wouldn't know the terrain and make mistakes that people would then kill them for (actually, it's more of a cycle... first you'd have the latter, which would lead to the former, which in time would lead to the latter again, etc.).

So, realistically, there is no long term way to manage a government except by using the government's structure itself. in the US, this is done by a series of checks and balances between the three major branches of the government. The problem with this system is that the two major political parties have formed to attempt to dominate all three branches of the government, thus bypassing the system of checks and balances.

In a government such as the one I described, since most of the decision making power is on the local, democratic level instead of on the representative power, and it is the people themselves who can call an impeachment, the check would be with the individuals of the populace, who while they might band together in political parties, would have a higher chance of maintaining a more balanced political entity (most individuals who are part of a political party, after all, don't all believe the same things- in fact, somje seem to belong just to oppose the opposite political party).

Even in the current system, the approach of using laws to limit the government's earning potential is the only reasonable way to approach the problem. In fact, it's either that, or outright revolt, and since our system could still be peacably improved, I'm rather reluctant to start throwing people up against the wall, ya know?

 

DOPEBOIFRSH

I voted other, i feel that they need to legalize weed just like they legalized gay marriges just like all the other bullshit.

Acidrain09

Unless we break down the steel structure. I do, however, see what your saying. You yourself said the government is flawed, and the best way is to create more systems. I see a second option. An wobbly base can never support a structurally sound building. So recreate the base.

Trocisp

But that isn't your proposal. Your proposal isn't that we needn't rebuild the base, it's that we attempt to build an invisible, floating house.

ctwalrus

for those who say anarchy is the best: anarchy will only lead to monarchy because of human nature. people rely on other people and their reliance will only bring a ruler over all
who is probably corrupt and thats the only way he got respect.

for me i would like a clean pure and uncorrupted democracy with a group of people as presidents instead of one. they would rule the land together as a whole and separately with land in sections like "states". this would eliminate governors. they would get voted in every year by the people of the land instead of every 4 years, they can be voted in as many times as they like.
below them would be an even larger group of people making laws and keeping the nation in order while upholding the main laws (i still like the idea of the constitution/bill of rights)
after that you would only have police and a court system.

i still have yet to think up a name for my style of government, suggestions and opinions

Hedonist

Other:

One that's not corrupt and driven by greed. Seriously, things are bad enough when you have to deal with ignorance.