Is a complete collapse imminent?

I see it the other way, where government is running corporations. But I could be wrong, since the corporations are the ones generating money that the government needs to finance it's socialist agenda. But I agree, we do need a shift towards Libertarianism. Put the People back in charge of the government. Institute term limit's, repeal the 16th amendment, and turn the postal service and the education department over to private industry. Then institute the FairTax and get rid of the IRS, and enforce our immigration laws. That would make for a great start!

ACougar said:

Authoritarian Capitalists and State Socialists have had thier shot and both have failed. It's time for a healthy dose of Libertarian Socialism, direct democracy and mutualism. Give GM to it's employees and watch them make it a profitable company in no time.

Click to expand...

I am not understanding how you go about calling this "libertarian socialism". Direct democracy seems ineffective to me. People who do not know what they are doing and do not wish to know should be allowed to proxy their votes out to people who they feel do. (That's kind of one of the more difficult to unravel knots in all of government in my view -- what to do exactly with the people who do not know what they are doing. They are always important due to the sheer numbers, will always demand and really, have a good argument that they deserve a vote of some sort, but cannot always be counted on not to go self destructive on you if an effective communicator shows up and can rally them around a cause they do not realize is against their own better interests.) I also have no idea what you mean by "mutualism".

c71clark said:

I see it the other way, where government is running corporations. But I could be wrong, since the corporations are the ones generating money that the government needs to finance it's socialist agenda. But I agree, we do need a shift towards Libertarianism. Put the People back in charge of the government. Institute term limit's, repeal the 16th amendment, and turn the postal service and the education department over to private industry. Then institute the FairTax and get rid of the IRS, and enforce our immigration laws. That would make for a great start!

Click to expand...

The "fair tax" will destroy the nation. People who are on subsistence wages that have been getting subsidies all of a sudden owing tax is going to blow up all in your face.

There's nothing particularly fair about leaving people who have had their wages pushed down by corporate entities, given a pass on taxes because of it, and then suddenly doing away with the corporation, doing nothing to increase wages, and saddling these same people with their low wages with an additional crushing tax in comparison to their expenses.

If you are anything between well to do and up, you need to take some responsibility for what has gone before. It is not as if this stuff happened overnight. Trouncing all over the working class (not the middle class, there is a difference) should not be an option.

Direct democracy is the best possible system as it affords all of us complete control of government, it makes makes us stakeholders instead of serfs. I believe that the people providing a product or service are often the best ones to decide the best way to provide that product or service. Their focus isn't just going to be on next quarters profits but on the strength and stability of the company 10-20 years from now. I'd like to see the day that all businesses are owned and managed by the people that work there. Where all decisions are made at the lowest possible level. Management from the bottom up, instead of the top down.

Mutualism simply involves transferring the means of production, back down to the actual producers.

Shane Roach said:

I am not understanding how you go about calling this "libertarian socialism". Direct democracy seems ineffective to me. People who do not know what they are doing and do not wish to know should be allowed to proxy their votes out to people who they feel do. (That's kind of one of the more difficult to unravel knots in all of government in my view -- what to do exactly with the people who do not know what they are doing. They are always important due to the sheer numbers, will always demand and really, have a good argument that they deserve a vote of some sort, but cannot always be counted on not to go self destructive on you if an effective communicator shows up and can rally them around a cause they do not realize is against their own better interests.) I also have no idea what you mean by "mutualism".

Click to expand...

First.. I would transfer 51% of the ownership in every company or corporation in the US over to the employees of those companies in the US. I would make the employees of every company the majority shareholder.

Second, I would open a central bank and make capital available at a low interest rate 1-2% to anyone who looked like they had a decent business plan, wanted to buy a house or car and could prove they were able to make payments.

Third, I'd withdraw from the WTO and the IMF, I'd levy at least 25% import tax on all imports unless those imports originated in a country which had environmental and labor laws roughly on par with our own.

Fourth, serving in the house of representatives (state or federal) would be like serving jury duty. Anyone with at least a four year college degree could be called up for 1 year.

Fifth, I'd make it illegal for the government to keep anything classified for more than 5 years.

Sixth, estate taxes would be 100% on anything over 1-2 million dollars... wealth must be returned to the people from whose labor it was derived.

Seventh, I'd eliminate the ability of Presidents or Governors to grant a pardons for any crime. The only people who would be allowed to grant a pardon would be the electorate in a general election.

Eighth, Government would kick in x amount of dollars for any candidate who obtained a minimum amount of signatures. Campaign contributions over and above that amount would be illegal. Elected officials would actually be in office... not because of the people who contributed to their campaigns but because of the people who voted for them.

Ninth, Anyone on government welfare of any sort (except for military veterans) must work at least 20 hours a week contributing to their community... can be sweeping streets, reading to kids, or landscaping city parks.

Tenth, Government would get out of the whole legislating morality bussiness... all drugs would be (heavily taxed) but legal, churches could marry anyone they wanted (so long as everyone involved was a consenting adult.)

Eleventh, All education would be Federally funded... everyone would have access to any degree... they only need qualify for the program. Teacher salaries would be brought on par with those of professionals in fields with similar requirements, more where shortages of excellent teachers exist. We would identify what was required in order for American public schools to become the best in the world and then make it happen. We did it with national defense when faced with the Soviet threat, we can do it with education.

c71clark said:

I see it the other way, where government is running corporations. But I could be wrong, since the corporations are the ones generating money that the government needs to finance it's socialist agenda. But I agree, we do need a shift towards Libertarianism. Put the People back in charge of the government. Institute term limit's, repeal the 16th amendment, and turn the postal service and the education department over to private industry. Then institute the FairTax and get rid of the IRS, and enforce our immigration laws. That would make for a great start!

Click to expand...

Shane Roach said:

The "fair tax" will destroy the nation. People who are on subsistence wages that have been getting subsidies all of a sudden owing tax is going to blow up all in your face.

There's nothing particularly fair about leaving people who have had their wages pushed down by corporate entities, given a pass on taxes because of it, and then suddenly doing away with the corporation, doing nothing to increase wages, and saddling these same people with their low wages with an additional crushing tax in comparison to their expenses.

If you are anything between well to do and up, you need to take some responsibility for what has gone before. It is not as if this stuff happened overnight. Trouncing all over the working class (not the middle class, there is a difference) should not be an option.

Click to expand...

Uh, not sure if you've read up on the FairTax, but it seems like you haven't, considering your suggestion that people will owe taxes. There is a link in my sig. There are also a few threads on it with more info.

There are a couple good ones in that list, but a lot of bombs too. First of all, a direct democracy leads to tyranny, since the majority would rule the minority, and would let some charismatic person have their way on anything. Germany comes to mind.

The central bank thing might work out this time, but you would have issues of who decides who can afford stuff? Remember it was Carter who set in motion the "fair housing" initiative that led to government forcing banks to give loans to people who normally would not qualify. Then the banks decided to make the best ofit and got greedy.

The import tax thing would be a bomb, even if it's fairly attractive. It would certainly make almost every country hate us. They'd levy fee's on things we export as retaliation, and it would get ugly. Shoot, just the oil we import alone would cost so much more that gas would go through the roof, along with a lot of other oil-derivatives. It also smacks of isolationism.

I love the term limit stuff and mandatory service, although I'd make it 2 or so years since it's hard to get anything lengthy done in only a year.

Estate taxes would not work. The rich would pull in their assets, hide stuff, and generally work harder to keep their money away from the government. It would lead to massive unemployment and depression as they scale back on their businesses. Don't forget, the very rich don't *need* to work anymore. Most of them can wind down their businesses and live the rest of their lives on what they have now. Or they will just leave the country. And of course, they are not obligated to give any more of their money to anyone else save for what they pay people who work for them. Just because I get paid $10 an hour and through the course of my job make them a million dollars does not mean they owe me more money. I agreed to the employment contract, and that's that.

I like the no-pardon thing. It's mostly a political tool.

Taking the money out of public office is a great idea. People should do it because they are honor-bound to serve their country, not to get rich.

Love the welfare thing too. Food stamps, medicaid, etc.. should all be included. In urban centers especially, there are a lot of ways to save money this way. Instead of paying someone $20 an hour to walk around picking up litter, let a welfare recipient do it for half that. The rest they make up in their benefits.

Legislating morality is a tough one, since who get's to decide what is moral, and what is not? A gay person doesn't believe getting married is a moral issue, others do. Some people believe legalizing drugs will solve many of our drug-related problems, others believe it will make them a whole lot worse. And who gets to set limits like how old is old enough to get married? People were getting married at 12 years old for a good part of our history, and in some parts of the world, they still do. There has to be a national standard, or you will find people voting in the right for them to marry kid's. It's a pandora's box.

Making sweeping changes just to enable one small group the right to do something that they can not already do is asking for trouble.

c71clark said:

There are a couple good ones in that list, but a lot of bombs too. First of all, a direct democracy leads to tyranny, since the majority would rule the minority, and would let some charismatic person have their way on anything. Germany comes to mind.

Click to expand...

It's important that a strong constitution be in place to protect the rights of the minority, however with a strong constitution in place... a direct democracy is the best possible system.

The central bank thing might work out this time, but you would have issues of who decides who can afford stuff? Remember it was Carter who set in motion the "fair housing" initiative that led to government forcing banks to give loans to people who normally would not qualify. Then the banks decided to make the best ofit and got greedy.

Click to expand...

26% of income with nothing down, 28% of income with 10% down, 30% of income with 20% down. The central bank would exists to facilitate economic growth, not to make money.

The import tax thing would be a bomb, even if it's fairly attractive. It would certainly make almost every country hate us. They'd levy fee's on things we export as retaliation, and it would get ugly. Shoot, just the oil we import alone would cost so much more that gas would go through the roof, along with a lot of other oil-derivatives. It also smacks of isolationism.

Click to expand...

It would not apply to most EU countries since thier environmental and labor standards are similar to our own, and it would encourage nations like China to adopt those labor and environmental standards.

I love the term limit stuff and mandatory service, although I'd make it 2 or so years since it's hard to get anything lengthy done in only a year.

Click to expand...

Asking someone to step away from thier bussiness or profession for a year is asking a lot, two years doesn't seem reasonable...

Estate taxes would not work. The rich would pull in their assets, hide stuff, and generally work harder to keep their money away from the government. It would lead to massive unemployment and depression as they scale back on their businesses. Don't forget, the very rich don't *need* to work anymore. Most of them can wind down their businesses and live the rest of their lives on what they have now. Or they will just leave the country. And of course, they are not obligated to give any more of their money to anyone else save for what they pay people who work for them. Just because I get paid $10 an hour and through the course of my job make them a million dollars does not mean they owe me more money. I agreed to the employment contract, and that's that.

Click to expand...

Laws would need to be put in place that made hiding your assets illegal. I do not believe having wage slaves is moral, if you want someone to work with you to provide a service or product they should also be stakeholders in that project.

Love the welfare thing too. Food stamps, medicaid, etc.. should all be included. In urban centers especially, there are a lot of ways to save money this way. Instead of paying someone $20 an hour to walk around picking up litter, let a welfare recipient do it for half that. The rest they make up in their benefits.

Click to expand...

The focus would be on getting people to the point where they didn't need support, while providing training, child care, whatever was necessary to insure that individual no longer needed government support.

Legislating morality is a tough one, since who get's to decide what is moral, and what is not? A gay person doesn't believe getting married is a moral issue, others do. Some people believe legalizing drugs will solve many of our drug-related problems, others believe it will make them a whole lot worse. And who gets to set limits like how old is old enough to get married? People were getting married at 12 years old for a good part of our history, and in some parts of the world, they still do. There has to be a national standard, or you will find people voting in the right for them to marry kid's. It's a pandora's box.

Click to expand...

People, Families & Churches decide for themselves what's moral or what's not... government doesn't get involved unless some sort of violence, theft or damage to others is being done. Consenting adults was a key component of my earlier statement.

ACougar said:

Direct democracy is the best possible system as it affords all of us complete control of government, it makes makes us stakeholders instead of serfs. I believe that the people providing a product or service are often the best ones to decide the best way to provide that product or service. Their focus isn't just going to be on next quarters profits but on the strength and stability of the company 10-20 years from now. I'd like to see the day that all businesses are owned and managed by the people that work there. Where all decisions are made at the lowest possible level. Management from the bottom up, instead of the top down.

Mutualism simply involves transferring the means of production, back down to the actual producers.

Click to expand...

Direct Democracy only lasts until the people realise they can vote for themselves an ever incresing largess at the publics expense. Which leads to loose fiscal policy, collapse, and then dictatorship. Our problem stems from too much democracy. The people are demanding more and more.
If youwere to take feedback from the people, you would be getting demans for:

- Plenty of gasolibe at cheap prices without any oil wells or refineries in thier own back yard or off thier own shore.

- Abundant electricity, once again at cheap prices without any smoke stacks or nuclear power plants.

- An 8,000 lb slab faced Hummer which gets 50 MPG while going 60 MPH

- And now, abundant food at the supermarket without any farmers.
(When discussing water rights for farmers here in the San Joaquin Valley, one votor remarked "Farmers are obsolete! We don;t need them enymore! We get our food from supermakets now!")
Irinically, the same people who voted for the eco nazis which cut off water to the farmers are no protesting the loss of thier farming jobs.

Give GM to the employees and everything will be ok:

Wrong! The UAW are a bunch of beer drinking druggies who crank out junk cars and ask for a raise. Just as the CEO's award themselves bonuses from Government money, The UAW is demanding a raise from that same bailout money. One "Job" at a Chevy plant was a worker who had to search the cars comming off the line and remove all the beer and wine bottles workers would toss into the cars. The employees are just as much as fault as the CEO's. They all want to return tot he good old days where they could kick any piece of junk out the door and respond to the customer complaints with "You bought it! Its your problem!"

I don't buy it. For one thing the people are the public, if we vote for more taxes to pay for more programs that's our right. If we vote for something that has negative reprocussions on the future, we then have to endure those reprocusions. I am not afraid of liberty.

I don't see how the government has a lot of control over the price of gas, the public may want lower prices... however market conditions dictate the price. People should get to decide if thier going to risk a well or a refinery in thier back yard. I don't believe that the oil companies couldn't start build 10 refineries tommorrow if they thought it would mean guarenteed profits. Thier simply adverse to the risk involved in the investment, the cost would be astronomical and the demand isn't really guarenteed.

As for all the rest, your supposing that the public would vote for things that simply aren't possible with todays technology. That the public wouldn't have access to good information upon which it could base it's decisions. I want to see wealth and power distributed much more horizontaly than it is today in the United States and I believe that people can manage thier own government, labor and production as well as or better than the "elite." The UAW isn't a good example because the UAW doesn't own GM.

Good examples are the Mondragon Cooperative Corperation and FaSinPat.

BernieEOD said:

Direct Democracy only lasts until the people realise they can vote for themselves an ever incresing largess at the publics expense. Which leads to loose fiscal policy, collapse, and then dictatorship. Our problem stems from too much democracy. The people are demanding more and more.
If youwere to take feedback from the people, you would be getting demans for:

- Plenty of gasolibe at cheap prices without any oil wells or refineries in thier own back yard or off thier own shore.

- Abundant electricity, once again at cheap prices without any smoke stacks or nuclear power plants.

- An 8,000 lb slab faced Hummer which gets 50 MPG while going 60 MPH

- And now, abundant food at the supermarket without any farmers.
(When discussing water rights for farmers here in the San Joaquin Valley, one votor remarked "Farmers are obsolete! We don;t need them enymore! We get our food from supermakets now!")
Irinically, the same people who voted for the eco nazis which cut off water to the farmers are no protesting the loss of thier farming jobs.

Give GM to the employees and everything will be ok:

Wrong! The UAW are a bunch of beer drinking druggies who crank out junk cars and ask for a raise. Just as the CEO's award themselves bonuses from Government money, The UAW is demanding a raise from that same bailout money. One "Job" at a Chevy plant was a worker who had to search the cars comming off the line and remove all the beer and wine bottles workers would toss into the cars. The employees are just as much as fault as the CEO's. They all want to return tot he good old days where they could kick any piece of junk out the door and respond to the customer complaints with "You bought it! Its your problem!"

Click to expand...

c71clark said:

I see it the other way, where government is running corporations. But I could be wrong, since the corporations are the ones generating money that the government needs to finance it's socialist agenda. But I agree, we do need a shift towards Libertarianism. Put the People back in charge of the government. Institute term limit's, repeal the 16th amendment, and turn the postal service and the education department over to private industry. Then institute the FairTax and get rid of the IRS, and enforce our immigration laws. That would make for a great start!

Click to expand...

its too late.

governments are only good as the people runing them.

and the people have what they want.

ACougar said:

First.. I would transfer 51% of the ownership in every company or corporation in the US over to the employees of those companies in the US. I would make the employees of every company the majority shareholder.

Second, I would open a central bank and make capital available at a low interest rate 1-2% to anyone who looked like they had a decent business plan, wanted to buy a house or car and could prove they were able to make payments.

Third, I'd withdraw from the WTO and the IMF, I'd levy at least 25% import tax on all imports unless those imports originated in a country which had environmental and labor laws roughly on par with our own.

Fourth, serving in the house of representatives (state or federal) would be like serving jury duty. Anyone with at least a four year college degree could be called up for 1 year.

Fifth, I'd make it illegal for the government to keep anything classified for more than 5 years.

Sixth, estate taxes would be 100% on anything over 1-2 million dollars... wealth must be returned to the people from whose labor it was derived.

Seventh, I'd eliminate the ability of Presidents or Governors to grant a pardons for any crime. The only people who would be allowed to grant a pardon would be the electorate in a general election.

Eighth, Government would kick in x amount of dollars for any candidate who obtained a minimum amount of signatures. Campaign contributions over and above that amount would be illegal. Elected officials would actually be in office... not because of the people who contributed to their campaigns but because of the people who voted for them.

Ninth, Anyone on government welfare of any sort (except for military veterans) must work at least 20 hours a week contributing to their community... can be sweeping streets, reading to kids, or landscaping city parks.

Tenth, Government would get out of the whole legislating morality bussiness... all drugs would be (heavily taxed) but legal, churches could marry anyone they wanted (so long as everyone involved was a consenting adult.)

Eleventh, All education would be Federally funded... everyone would have access to any degree... they only need qualify for the program. Teacher salaries would be brought on par with those of professionals in fields with similar requirements, more where shortages of excellent teachers exist. We would identify what was required in order for American public schools to become the best in the world and then make it happen. We did it with national defense when faced with the Soviet threat, we can do it with education.

Click to expand...

Yikes I'm glad our country doesn't look like that. No offense.

Heavy taxes on imports in the past have hurt the working class more than anything. Maybe it would be different today I don't know.

On the welfare reform I agree, and on classified information as well. Though I think only certain types of information should be able to remain classified (matters pertaining to national security, military intel, ect.)

On gay marriage, such a simple solution would most definitely not work. And on the education thing, it's debatable. The flaw I see in making college education free, is the number of people getting degrees which would amount to nothing for them in the future would increase. Why should the public pay for somebody to get an art degree, or in a similar field where they won't be able to find a job which will earn them a return?

MarkSB said:

Heavy taxes on imports in the past have hurt the working class more than anything. Maybe it would be different today I don't know.

Click to expand...

What are the current taxes on imports? And where is the evidence to support this charge?

Direct democracy leads to real problems. If the majority decides I need to pay (through my taxes) for public-funded abortions, grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants, or support an vast expansion of the welfare state... yeah, I would have my rights as a minority trampled on.

Part of the problem is that too many American's are too lazy or apathetic to let the elected representative know what they think about things. And of course there is a lot of money to be made for the fat-cat's in Washington thanks to special interests and influence-peddling.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good place to start in shifting our government back towards the day when they represented the interests of their constituents, instead of themselves. Then term limits.

The import taxes would cause some short term difficulties for the working class however as long as capital was readily available it should only be a matter of time before most of those goods were produced in the United States at a lower price.

I don't see why gay marriage would be a problem, gays get married even now in Churches where "Gay Marriage" is permitted. It's just that most states refuse to recongnize these ceremonies and grant a license.

We are making an investment in the future, if that student persuing an art degree is making the grade then we should allow him that education. I believe our society derives benefits from people with an education in art as well as electrical engineering.

Myth 1: A Bachelor of Arts degree is not enough to find a well-paying, interesting job. You need to go to Law School, the Faculty of Education, or a technical training institute to be competitive for professional employment.
Fact 1: Based payscales.com salary survey conducted in 2006, average salary for bachelor's arts degree graduates in various job fields at United States are ranging from $32,000 to $55,000 annually, without having any further college or university study.
Myth 2: A Bachelor of Arts degree will get you a job of flipping burgers.
Fact 2: Based recent job survey conducted by a well-known survey company, arts graduates are often employed in a professional or managerial capacity (50 - 81&#37. This compared favorably with those in Commerce (60%) and those with technical or vocational diplomas from colleges and technical institutes (24 - 35%).
Myth 3: A Bachelor of Arts degree is a waste of time and money and does not earn as much money as a bachelor degree in science and technology.
Fact 3: According to a job survey report from "Express News" of University Alberta, Those with a general arts degree do well in the long term, although initially they may not make as much as graduates of professional faculties, what's really striking is the gains they make over five years, the gap starts to close. This is because Arts graduates emerge with highly developed research, communication, creative problem-solving and critical thinking skills that are in high demand because they are difficult to teach in the workplace. Many employers want this type of well-rounded employee, who can be trained for more specific skills.

Click to expand...

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Are-Your-Career-Futures-with-an-Art-Degree?&id=389630

MarkSB said:

Yikes I'm glad our country doesn't look like that. No offense.

Heavy taxes on imports in the past have hurt the working class more than anything. Maybe it would be different today I don't know.

On the welfare reform I agree, and on classified information as well. Though I think only certain types of information should be able to remain classified (matters pertaining to national security, military intel, ect.)

On gay marriage, such a simple solution would most definitely not work. And on the education thing, it's debatable. The flaw I see in making college education free, is the number of people getting degrees which would amount to nothing for them in the future would increase. Why should the public pay for somebody to get an art degree, or in a similar field where they won't be able to find a job which will earn them a return?

Click to expand...

I fail to see how your rights would be trampled, you have the same right to vote, speak out and protest as anyone else. It is true you might not get your way... but then again don't we all face that risk?

Your rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, keep & bear arms, ect... would all still be in tact. Without the power to finance election campains, those fat cats would be powerless.

c71clark said:

Direct democracy leads to real problems. If the majority decides I need to pay (through my taxes) for public-funded abortions, grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants, or support an vast expansion of the welfare state... yeah, I would have my rights as a minority trampled on.

Part of the problem is that too many American's are too lazy or apathetic to let the elected representative know what they think about things. And of course there is a lot of money to be made for the fat-cat's in Washington thanks to special interests and influence-peddling.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good place to start in shifting our government back towards the day when they represented the interests of their constituents, instead of themselves. Then term limits.

Click to expand...

My rights would only be intact as long as those in power... the majority... allow it. As soon as some charismatic person(s) convinces enough of the masses to do as they (the charismatic people) want, I suddenly no longer have the right to speak, listen to a favorite radio show, go to a certain school because there are no slots for my ethnicity, and so on.
This is why the Republic part of our system is important. It's all about those checks and balances to keep the minority or the majority close to parity.

You seem to dismiss the possibility that a charming person could become a "spokesperson" for a vast number of people... especially if there is some sort of ongoing crisis. Again, sorta like Hitler.

We cannot build refineries because "The people" voted in the eco nazis who forbid them and then complain about high fuel prices. "The people" are the probem. They want sopmething for nothing and vote in the con artist who promises it to them.
The UAW and other unions can't build anything, they are drug addicted drunkards who demand a raise for making junk. The UAW IS the problem. They could care less about quality. it is THEY who shove junk out the door and demand a raise.

We need to gpo back to the Bible. NOWHERE in the Bible is "The will of the people" EVER spoken of favorably. EVER! God was "Voted out" 2-0 in the Garden of Eden. The entire world "Democratically" rebelled against God to the extent where de wiped out all life sparing only Noah and his family. Once again, "The People" voted God out.
Abraham was called out to be Gods people. Even among the Jews, who had Prophets and direct miracles, Moses NEVER had a high approval rating. During the "Golden calf incident" Moses was "Democratially voted out. God was voted out and a golden calf was "Democratically" Chosen as thier new god. Moses executed over 3000 people in one night. When the people were commanded to enter the promised land, Moses and Arron were once again "Democratically voted out". This time, the people tried to kill Moses and Arroan only to have God cause a great earthquake which opened the ground and swallowed the rebels.

After 40 years and the death of an entire generation, the people entered the promised land under Joshua. After Joshua passed away, "Democracy" Once again returned to Israel and the period of Judges came about. The Book of Judges was a very dark period in Israels history, it sums its self up with "Everybody did what was right or wrong in thier own eyes".

Once again, the people cried out for a King. Once fed up with the kaos "Democracy" causes, the people will sign over absolute power to any dictator of King who promises to lead them out of it. Saul was "The peoples choice" of King. He was a bad King who ended up being removed by God himself. David was God own choice of King and once again, Absalom was able to rally "The will of the people" To overthrow him. God returned David to power. The worst example of "Democracy" was in the NT. Probabaly the only time Pilate EVER made a decision based on "The polls" He sent Christ to the Cross. Christ entered Jeruselem qith "The People" Praising him and laying palm braches at his feet. When he gave them what they needed rather than what they wanted, in one week, the "Will of the people" was "Crucify him!"

Nowhere! Is the "Will of the people" EVER spoken of favorably in any of the Bible stories. The people will always vote for themselves an ever increasing largess at the publics expense. "The people" Are the probelm. They will always vote for something and Bill it to that guy over there".
"The people" bought V-10 magnum trucks while voting for eco nazis who outlawed domestic oil production and then have the nerve to complain about high gas prices.
"The People" Build 4,000 square foot homes while screaming "No Nukes" and "No smoke stacks" And then complain about high utility bills.
The people are the problem.

You seem to be forgetting that the constitution exists to protect your liberties... the Republic does nothing to protect your constitutional liberties, the constitution does that. That's why protecting the constitution is so important... that's why the military and public officials swear to protect and defend the constitution.

c71clark said:

My rights would only be intact as long as those in power... the majority... allow it. As soon as some charismatic person(s) convinces enough of the masses to do as they (the charismatic people) want, I suddenly no longer have the right to speak, listen to a favorite radio show, go to a certain school because there are no slots for my ethnicity, and so on.
This is why the Republic part of our system is important. It's all about those checks and balances to keep the minority or the majority close to parity.

You seem to dismiss the possibility that a charming person could become a "spokesperson" for a vast number of people... especially if there is some sort of ongoing crisis. Again, sorta like Hitler.

Click to expand...