...unless a big stick gives them pause. That's the purpose government is supposed to serve isn't it, protect the many from the few? Surely you wouldn't propose old world fiefdoms as something better.
The thing the founders forgot to include was a means for the Constitution to "defend itself". Under current and other recent presidencies, there have been multiple egregious constitutional violations and Congress has completely failed to act. The "balance of power" no longer works.
Also, you have it reversed. Constitutional government is supposed to protect the FEW (the individual) from the MANY (the mob, or more powerful interests).
Also, you have it reversed. Constitutional government is supposed to protect the FEW (the individual) from the MANY (the mob, or more powerful interests).
Obviously, since England has neither a constitution, or a government.
Why did you think I would think we would be? Are you seriously suggesting that the sole purpose for the constitutional government of the USA is to protect the few from the many?
I'm not an anarchist. I find anarchy unworkable, just as I find totalitarianism unworkable. Limited, constitutional government is the ideal and that's why there will always be a struggle between individuals and their elected (and non-elected) leaders and laws which are continually being created.
Oh, absolutely I agree.
The problem is, almost everyone things government should be limited, but nobody will agree what the limits should be!
I'm not really interested in the spending side of the argument here though, just the revenue. Once you agree that government should do something (and I think we both agree that it does have to do something), the question then is how do you pay for it, and how do you make the payment of that fair?
Paying for it through taxes seems to be the consensus. I don't think the way taxes are structured are fair.
Once you agree that government should do something (and I think we both agree that it does have to do something), the question then is how do you pay for it, and how do you make the payment of that fair?
Single, flat tax. Same percentage across the board. Different percentage for people and businesses, but identical percentage regardless of the person or business.
That’s not fair by the republican standard of fair, but it’s the closest to fair that is in any way feasible in a society that does not have exaFLOP computers on their desktops. So I accept that without complaint or endorsement.
Comments
The thing the founders forgot to include was a means for the Constitution to "defend itself". Under current and other recent presidencies, there have been multiple egregious constitutional violations and Congress has completely failed to act. The "balance of power" no longer works.
Also, you have it reversed. Constitutional government is supposed to protect the FEW (the individual) from the MANY (the mob, or more powerful interests).
Also, you have it reversed. Constitutional government is supposed to protect the FEW (the individual) from the MANY (the mob, or more powerful interests).
It's supposed to do both, and more besides.
We're not talking about England.
We're not talking about England.
Obviously, since England has neither a constitution, or a government.
Why did you think I would think we would be? Are you seriously suggesting that the sole purpose for the constitutional government of the USA is to protect the few from the many?
I'm not an anarchist. I find anarchy unworkable, just as I find totalitarianism unworkable. Limited, constitutional government is the ideal and that's why there will always be a struggle between individuals and their elected (and non-elected) leaders and laws which are continually being created.
Oh, absolutely I agree.
The problem is, almost everyone things government should be limited, but nobody will agree what the limits should be!
I'm not really interested in the spending side of the argument here though, just the revenue. Once you agree that government should do something (and I think we both agree that it does have to do something), the question then is how do you pay for it, and how do you make the payment of that fair?
Paying for it through taxes seems to be the consensus. I don't think the way taxes are structured are fair.
Once you agree that government should do something (and I think we both agree that it does have to do something), the question then is how do you pay for it, and how do you make the payment of that fair?
Single, flat tax. Same percentage across the board. Different percentage for people and businesses, but identical percentage regardless of the person or business.
That’s not fair by the republican standard of fair, but it’s the closest to fair that is in any way feasible in a society that does not have exaFLOP computers on their desktops. So I accept that without complaint or endorsement.