Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Best system of government (U.S.)

Porthos
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 2:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've done some research and I believe a devolved presidential constitutional confederacy or a devolved bipartisan-presidential constitutional confederacy is perhaps the best form of government, at least for the United States. Confederations consist of political units, usually by a treaty. Therefore, it is a good platform of government to be devolved. A devolved nation is one that puts more power into the states than in the national government which I believe is a bit better to have (not too much though). Also a constitutional, or even coconstitutional government, headed by a president, or two (one for the two winning parties), sounds like a good idea. Even though this leads to more debating over laws and national decisions, it forces the presidents to work together on behalf of the welfare of the nations. If the presidents are unable to compromise on certain decisions, then the congress will vote on it. And if the two presidents never agree than one or both of them may be impeached. This is just to start the conversation; I can explain more as it continues. What are your ideas?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 9:01:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 2:06:06 AM, Porthos wrote:
I've done some research and I believe a devolved presidential constitutional confederacy or a devolved bipartisan-presidential constitutional confederacy is perhaps the best form of government, at least for the United States. Confederations consist of political units, usually by a treaty. Therefore, it is a good platform of government to be devolved. A devolved nation is one that puts more power into the states than in the national government which I believe is a bit better to have (not too much though). Also a constitutional, or even coconstitutional government, headed by a president, or two (one for the two winning parties), sounds like a good idea. Even though this leads to more debating over laws and national decisions, it forces the presidents to work together on behalf of the welfare of the nations. If the presidents are unable to compromise on certain decisions, then the congress will vote on it. And if the two presidents never agree than one or both of them may be impeached. This is just to start the conversation; I can explain more as it continues. What are your ideas?

I would severely disagree with you. If you recall, the US already had a confederation, and that was a disaster. The national government always needs to be stronger than the states. Without that, it doesn't even matter how many presidents you have - national laws will be meaningless.
Porthos
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 1:16:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
: At 1/1/2014 9:01:20 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/1/2014 2:06:06 AM, Porthos wrote:
I've done some research and I believe a devolved presidential constitutional confederacy or a devolved bipartisan-presidential constitutional confederacy is perhaps the best form of government, at least for the United States. Confederations consist of political units, usually by a treaty. Therefore, it is a good platform of government to be devolved. A devolved nation is one that puts more power into the states than in the national government which I believe is a bit better to have (not too much though). Also a constitutional, or even coconstitutional government, headed by a president, or two (one for the two winning parties), sounds like a good idea. Even though this leads to more debating over laws and national decisions, it forces the presidents to work together on behalf of the welfare of the nations. If the presidents are unable to compromise on certain decisions, then the congress will vote on it. And if the two presidents never agree than one or both of them may be impeached. This is just to start the conversation; I can explain more as it continues. What are your ideas?

I would severely disagree with you. If you recall, the US already had a confederation, and that was a disaster. The national government always needs to be stronger than the states. Without that, it doesn't even matter how many presidents you have - national laws will be meaningless.


I see your concern with a confederation, but remember that that was a long time ago. Times have changed since then. Besides, a confederation and a federal republic (which is what the U.S. is) are quite similar. They both have a central and state government, I just find them a putting a little more power to the states. Besides, the U.S. is similar to a confederation today. the definition of a confederation is: an organization that consists of a number of parties or groups united in an alliance or league. The U.S. is a group of states uniting in a league. Moving on, I feel like the central government controls too much power in today's society and not enough is spared on the states. I'm not talking a drastic change in power, but it seems reasonable for the states to possess more power than they already have. With only a slight change in power national law still remains strong, and anything but meaningless. States will have to negotiate more often therefore strengthening their relationships. I'm open to suggestions though, what do you propose?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 2:06:06 AM, Porthos wrote:
I've done some research and I believe a devolved presidential constitutional confederacy or a devolved bipartisan-presidential constitutional confederacy is perhaps the best form of government, at least for the United States. Confederations consist of political units, usually by a treaty. Therefore, it is a good platform of government to be devolved. A devolved nation is one that puts more power into the states than in the national government which I believe is a bit better to have (not too much though). Also a constitutional, or even coconstitutional government, headed by a president, or two (one for the two winning parties), sounds like a good idea. Even though this leads to more debating over laws and national decisions, it forces the presidents to work together on behalf of the welfare of the nations. If the presidents are unable to compromise on certain decisions, then the congress will vote on it. And if the two presidents never agree than one or both of them may be impeached. This is just to start the conversation; I can explain more as it continues. What are your ideas?

Interesting in theory. But in practice it would cause the United States to implode. a Confederation would not work with a country of the United States' size. That is why the Federal government has gradually gained more power. I also don't like the idea of the two presidents either. Too many problems would arise by pushing a system like this on a large country of the United States' size.

The United States is already the best system currently. There are very few who would dispute it.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 5:03:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 1:16:51 PM, Porthos wrote:
: At 1/1/2014 9:01:20 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/1/2014 2:06:06 AM, Porthos wrote:
I've done some research and I believe a devolved presidential constitutional confederacy or a devolved bipartisan-presidential constitutional confederacy is perhaps the best form of government, at least for the United States. Confederations consist of political units, usually by a treaty. Therefore, it is a good platform of government to be devolved. A devolved nation is one that puts more power into the states than in the national government which I believe is a bit better to have (not too much though). Also a constitutional, or even coconstitutional government, headed by a president, or two (one for the two winning parties), sounds like a good idea. Even though this leads to more debating over laws and national decisions, it forces the presidents to work together on behalf of the welfare of the nations. If the presidents are unable to compromise on certain decisions, then the congress will vote on it. And if the two presidents never agree than one or both of them may be impeached. This is just to start the conversation; I can explain more as it continues. What are your ideas?

I would severely disagree with you. If you recall, the US already had a confederation, and that was a disaster. The national government always needs to be stronger than the states. Without that, it doesn't even matter how many presidents you have - national laws will be meaningless.


I see your concern with a confederation, but remember that that was a long time ago. Times have changed since then. Besides, a confederation and a federal republic (which is what the U.S. is) are quite similar. They both have a central and state government, I just find them a putting a little more power to the states. Besides, the U.S. is similar to a confederation today. the definition of a confederation is: an organization that consists of a number of parties or groups united in an alliance or league. The U.S. is a group of states uniting in a league. Moving on, I feel like the central government controls too much power in today's society and not enough is spared on the states. I'm not talking a drastic change in power, but it seems reasonable for the states to possess more power than they already have. With only a slight change in power national law still remains strong, and anything but meaningless. States will have to negotiate more often therefore strengthening their relationships. I'm open to suggestions though, what do you propose?

People can certainly argue that the central government has expanded in power - that's not even an argument; that's a fact. They are similar, but in a confederation, the national government cannot compel the states to do anything. The interests of places like Wyoming are hardly the same as those in Alabama or New York. The states will only revert to how they were - taxing interstate trade, not contributing to the militia, etc. What happens if a criminal crosses state lines? What happens when state governments start infringing on liberties, as they have countless times? National law can never be strong if states can defy it with impunity. Thus the national government always needs to be more powerful than the states.
Porthos
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 5:29:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into a form better than a confederation, maybe a lesser federal republic. To EndarkenedRationalist who asked What happens if a criminal crosses state lines? What happens when state governments start infringing on liberties, as they have countless times? My response is that there would be a constitution instituted among the states that would be made by the states. To Tophatdoc who said Interesting in theory. But in practice it would cause the United States to implode. a Confederation would not work with a country of the United States' size. That is why the Federal government has gradually gained more power. I also don't like the idea of the two presidents either. Too many problems would arise by pushing a system like this on a large country of the United States' size.
The United States is already the best system currently. There are very few who would dispute it.
I thank you as I do EndarkenedRationalist for the constructive criticism, but honestly I have doubt that," The United States is already the best system currently." If we were debating I would do more research on my case but there are some major flaws within our government today. If anyone would like to debate on this topic, I'd love to. Just message me or challenge me. If I don't accept though I'm probably busy with work and don't want to take on the responsibility of taking on a debate. I was wondering though what you guys think would be the best form of government (i.e.. a federation, empire, unitary state, democracy, republic, monarchy, meritocracy, etc.). I'd love to here specifically what you guys think so I can take in different ideas. Thanks y'all.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 6:06:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 5:29:12 PM, Porthos wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into a form better than a confederation, maybe a lesser federal republic. To EndarkenedRationalist who asked What happens if a criminal crosses state lines? What happens when state governments start infringing on liberties, as they have countless times? My response is that there would be a constitution instituted among the states that would be made by the states. To Tophatdoc who said Interesting in theory. But in practice it would cause the United States to implode. a Confederation would not work with a country of the United States' size. That is why the Federal government has gradually gained more power. I also don't like the idea of the two presidents either. Too many problems would arise by pushing a system like this on a large country of the United States' size.
The United States is already the best system currently. There are very few who would dispute it.
I thank you as I do EndarkenedRationalist for the constructive criticism, but honestly I have doubt that," The United States is already the best system currently." If we were debating I would do more research on my case but there are some major flaws within our government today. If anyone would like to debate on this topic, I'd love to. Just message me or challenge me. If I don't accept though I'm probably busy with work and don't want to take on the responsibility of taking on a debate. I was wondering though what you guys think would be the best form of government (i.e.. a federation, empire, unitary state, democracy, republic, monarchy, meritocracy, etc.). I'd love to here specifically what you guys think so I can take in different ideas. Thanks y'all.

I appreciate your civility. :-)

The problem there is that, without a strong national government, nobody can enforce that constitution. If one state violates it, what are the others going to do? Place economic sanctions? Not to mention that all the other states would hardly agree. It would turn into a mass free-for-all with alliances and backstabbing left and right.

A Constitutional Republic does have many benefits, Tophatdoc is correct there. It prevents tyranny of the majority, and the branches of government and separation of powers prevent traditional tyranny. I don't know if I'd say the US was the best. I like the governments in Europe, particularly Germany, but these require giving far more power to a centralised government, and I acknowledge that what works in a relatively homogenous society like Europe may not in a melting pot like America.
Porthos
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 6:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
: At 1/1/2014 6:06:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/1/2014 5:29:12 PM, Porthos wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into a form better than a confederation, maybe a lesser federal republic. To EndarkenedRationalist who asked What happens if a criminal crosses state lines? What happens when state governments start infringing on liberties, as they have countless times? My response is that there would be a constitution instituted among the states that would be made by the states. To Tophatdoc who said Interesting in theory. But in practice it would cause the United States to implode. a Confederation would not work with a country of the United States' size. That is why the Federal government has gradually gained more power. I also don't like the idea of the two presidents either. Too many problems would arise by pushing a system like this on a large country of the United States' size.
The United States is already the best system currently. There are very few who would dispute it.
I thank you as I do EndarkenedRationalist for the constructive criticism, but honestly I have doubt that," The United States is already the best system currently." If we were debating I would do more research on my case but there are some major flaws within our government today. If anyone would like to debate on this topic, I'd love to. Just message me or challenge me. If I don't accept though I'm probably busy with work and don't want to take on the responsibility of taking on a debate. I was wondering though what you guys think would be the best form of government (i.e... a federation, empire, unitary state, democracy, republic, monarchy, meritocracy, etc.). I'd love to here specifically what you guys think so I can take in different ideas. Thanks y'all.

I appreciate your civility. :-)

The problem there is that, without a strong national government, nobody can enforce that constitution. If one state violates it, what are the others going to do? Place economic sanctions? Not to mention that all the other states would hardly agree. It would turn into a mass free-for-all with alliances and backstabbing left and right.

A Constitutional Republic does have many benefits, Tophatdoc is correct there. It prevents tyranny of the majority, and the branches of government and separation of powers prevent traditional tyranny. I don't know if I'd say the US was the best. I like the governments in Europe, particularly Germany, but these require giving far more power to a centralised government, and I acknowledge that what works in a relatively homogeneous society like Europe may not in a melting pot like America.


I like your input EndarkenedRationalist. Perhaps I'm just wishing for a regional state. It's quite centralized without giving too much power to either national or state government. Here's a link to how wikipedia defines it: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Tell me what you think or if it still is too lenient to state government. Thanks.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 6:36:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 5:29:12 PM, Porthos wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into a form better than a confederation, maybe a lesser federal republic. To EndarkenedRationalist who asked What happens if a criminal crosses state lines? What happens when state governments start infringing on liberties, as they have countless times? My response is that there would be a constitution instituted among the states that would be made by the states. To Tophatdoc who said Interesting in theory. But in practice it would cause the United States to implode. a Confederation would not work with a country of the United States' size. That is why the Federal government has gradually gained more power. I also don't like the idea of the two presidents either. Too many problems would arise by pushing a system like this on a large country of the United States' size.
The United States is already the best system currently. There are very few who would dispute it.
I thank you as I do EndarkenedRationalist for the constructive criticism, but honestly I have doubt that," The United States is already the best system currently." If we were debating I would do more research on my case but there are some major flaws within our government today. If anyone would like to debate on this topic, I'd love to. Just message me or challenge me. If I don't accept though I'm probably busy with work and don't want to take on the responsibility of taking on a debate. I was wondering though what you guys think would be the best form of government (i.e.. a federation, empire, unitary state, democracy, republic, monarchy, meritocracy, etc.). I'd love to here specifically what you guys think so I can take in different ideas. Thanks y'all.

I wouldn't mind debating the topic. I have already debated the subject of whether liberal democracy is the best form of governance. I think liberal democracy is the best form of governance.

I would say that there is no one size fits all solution for governments. To have an efficient government it must be able to coexist with the culture under the government. For example, you can't have a liberal democracy where the rule of law is not respected. Another example, would be how you can't have a monarchy without the respect for hereditary privilege amongst the people.

It is best to separate theory and practicality. Meritocracy seems the most ideal in my opinion but society would not convert to becoming automatons with managerial values of efficiency. A right wing anarchy(libertarian) or Voluntaryist society seem very ideal as well. People would have a choice in how their locality functions. It is ideal but it would not work for long in the real world.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Porthos
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 6:55:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
: At 1/1/2014 6:36:23 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/1/2014 5:29:12 PM, Porthos wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into a form better than a confederation, maybe a lesser federal republic. To EndarkenedRationalist who asked What happens if a criminal crosses state lines? What happens when state governments start infringing on liberties, as they have countless times? My response is that there would be a constitution instituted among the states that would be made by the states. To Tophatdoc who said Interesting in theory. But in practice it would cause the United States to implode. a Confederation would not work with a country of the United States' size. That is why the Federal government has gradually gained more power. I also don't like the idea of the two presidents either. Too many problems would arise by pushing a system like this on a large country of the United States' size.
The United States is already the best system currently. There are very few who would dispute it.
I thank you as I do EndarkenedRationalist for the constructive criticism, but honestly I have doubt that," The United States is already the best system currently." If we were debating I would do more research on my case but there are some major flaws within our government today. If anyone would like to debate on this topic, I'd love to. Just message me or challenge me. If I don't accept though I'm probably busy with work and don't want to take on the responsibility of taking on a debate. I was wondering though what you guys think would be the best form of government (i.e... a federation, empire, unitary state, democracy, republic, monarchy, meritocracy, etc.). I'd love to here specifically what you guys think so I can take in different ideas. Thanks y'all.

I wouldn't mind debating the topic. I have already debated the subject of whether liberal democracy is the best form of governance. I think liberal democracy is the best form of governance.

I would say that there is no one size fits all solution for governments. To have an efficient government it must be able to coexist with the culture under the government. For example, you can't have a liberal democracy where the rule of law is not respected. Another example, would be how you can't have a monarchy without the respect for hereditary privilege amongst the people.

It is best to separate theory and practicality. Meritocracy seems the most ideal in my opinion but society would not convert to becoming automatons with managerial values of efficiency. A right wing anarchy(libertarian) or Voluntarism society seem very ideal as well. People would have a choice in how their locality functions. It is ideal but it would not work for long in the real world.


I like your ideas Tophatdoc, and there are some things I must point out. To begin, anarchism and libertarian are different. Anarchism is: belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. Libertarianism though is: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. If we're adding ideology to the best form of government, I believe that a centre-libertarian conservative ideal formed government is a reasonable idea. If I'm not mistaken, this ideology is a more central one that supports the idea of a somewhat smaller government that leans to the conservative side. You're right though that," there is no one size fits all solution for governments." I just feel though that with a more anarchic form of government that too much freedom is placed in the hands of the people. While some people know how to justly use power others would abuse that right. Nice thoughts.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 7:13:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 6:55:51 PM, Porthos wrote:
I like your ideas Tophatdoc, and there are some things I must point out. To begin, anarchism and libertarian are different. Anarchism is: belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. Libertarianism though is: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. If we're adding ideology to the best form of government, I believe that a centre-libertarian conservative ideal formed government is a reasonable idea. If I'm not mistaken, this ideology is a more central one that supports the idea of a somewhat smaller government that leans to the conservative side. You're right though that," there is no one size fits all solution for governments." I just feel though that with a more anarchic form of government that too much freedom is placed in the hands of the people. While some people know how to justly use power others would abuse that right. Nice thoughts.

Thanks,for the compliments. But it was great that you started the thread. In terms of the difference between anarchy and libertarianism. It depends on who your reading or referring to. I was thinking in terms of Anarcho-Capitalists which tend on occasion to be associated with the term Libertarian.

Also to be clear, Liberal Democracy, I meant liberalism in the classical definition not Modern Liberalism(Democrat in the United States). I don't know what a "centre-libertarian conservative " would be? Could you give an example?

I am not for any of those anarchic governments I mentioned in practice. The results would be horrendous in the long term.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc