By what criteria?

Post #48,846 by Silverlock 8/9/02 4:03:16 PM Reply	By what criteria? And as soon as he demonstrates another system that has worked nearly as well, nearly as long, then he can argue that it's writers' business activities or slaveholding contributed to its failings. He doesn't help his argument with blatant trolling like that. "...worked nearly as well" What satisfies that condition? Longevity? see below. "...nearly as long" Roman Empire. Persian. Egyptian. Chinese, etc. etc. Take your pick. (if "longer" satisfies the condition) Re-elect Gore in 2004
Post #48,855 by drewk 8/9/02 5:19:45 PM Reply	The ones they used ;) Seriously, though, I make a distinction between the goal of those who wrote the constitution and the specific methods they articulated. The goal was to safeguard the rights of the goverened against the power of the government. Everything they specified was an attempt to achieve that goal. Representative democracy (OK, a republic) was simply the best moethod they could imagine for achieving the goal. I happen to share that goal. So any actual or possible political system has to be judged in terms of how well it protects the rights of the governed. Does the current system sometimes err on the side of allowing people to do things that may not be in the public interest? Absolutely. Does this allow some individuals to intentinally "work" the system to their own ends? Sure. But every attempt to restrict potential abuses gives more actual power to the government. Power they show a decided reluctance to give back. All things considered, I'd prefer to continue erring on the side of individual freedoms than government controls. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #48,894 by Silverlock 8/9/02 10:15:44 PM Reply	I'm going to play D. A. Let me first simplify. You are saying that the goal of our founders was to protect those without power from the powerfull. I present this science fiction response- SETI bears fruit. The news is not good. The only extraterristral race ever discovered is found to be xenophobic beyond even our standards. We can expect an attack at any time. Should we allow the luxury of personal freedoms if they conflict with the defense effort? Do we continue the support of nonproductive citizens? (This would have to include the retired.) Does the separation of church and state really matter? Wouldn't a fascist type government be more suited to dealing with this? If you agree, then the best government is obviously the one that best deals with outside threats to it's people, not the one that coddles it's citizens. Re-elect Gore in 2004
Post #48,913 by Ashton 8/10/02 3:50:01 AM Reply	Turn it around. Not knowing what SETI might find (as - today) Best government would be that which fosters a social behaviour such that - were we to encounter actually civilized life, for the first time anywhere: Our behaviour would not tend to aggravate THEM into dealing with US (the way we currently deal with each other, always after.. we invent 'differences' to rationalize our next bestial actions). Simple(r) ? :-\ufffd
Post #48,994 by cwbrenn 8/11/02 1:56:05 PM Reply	"Coddles"? Hmmm. People who say "it's better to think about security and stability than comfort" really mean "better to think about MY security and MY stability than YOUR comfort." "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young

Welcome to IWETHEY!