Clarification/Follow-up by Choux... on 01/07/07 10:27 pm:
Ever since I have known you on Askme, you have leaned toward having a Nazi mentality. Favoring eugenics for one thing! Always thinking how to force your values on others!
You have to **be careful of your authoritarian mind set** because it can lead you to a bad place!
My take on your post is that you want America to become a right wing extremist dictatorship!!!!!
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/08/07 6:30 pm:
Tom,
You will noticed that I prefaced my answer with "as a Jew". I was actually thinking of the Jewish monarchy of the Biblical period, the Davidic Dynasty as my model. It included a "constitution" of sorts, called the Torah. The Sanhedrin and the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) acted as advisors to the king. And the King was constrained in what he could and could not do by the law itself. The Sanhedrin was able to interpret the law and apply it to modern day situations, much as rabbis do today, but they could not actually change the law. (If you assume that the Law is from G-d and therefore perfect, there is no need for it to ever be amended.) So that was the model that I was looking toward when I made my comments.
Naturally, the model didn't really match the real-world application. In reality the Davidic Dynasty became corrupt shortly after the death of King David. It managed to last as long as the reign of King Solomon, but thereafter the model fell apart, with succession wars, usurping of power, corrupt monarchs, assasinations, etc. The ideal was much nicer than the reality became.
I still like the IDEAL as a system of government. But as with any system of power, power corrupts. Its no different in our system... how many corrupt congressmen are there on both sides of the isle? How many legislators are more interested in maintaining power than they are in actually doing their jobs. How many are willing to say and do anything, no matter how rediculous or dangerous, in order to push a personal agenda? So I don't really think that the problem is with the ideal, but rather with the fact that mankind is selfish by nature, and therefore ANY system of government is naturally susceptible to corruption.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/08/07 7:12 pm:
ok ;I understand .
That falls in line with Clete's perfect gvt.; which although unsaid ;his benevolent dictator is the 1000 year reign of the messiah on earth that many fundamentalist Christians believe will happen .
Its no different in our system...
true ,however since we live with our known human weaknesses ,I prefer the "ideal " that they are ultimately responsible to us. Perhaps that is my own naivety showing again .
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/08/07 9:40 pm:
Tom, I see your point, and I don't really disagree. However, in reality, every man is responsible for themselves. Government can't stop people from acting as they wish. They can only react after the fact, and poorly at that. ALL Governments are ultimately responsible to the people they govern. Every nation's citizens outnumber the government and the military of that nation. Even if they are armed with only pitchforks and big sticks, they outnumber their governments by 100 to 1. Therefore, any government ultimately rules only with the consent of the people, even if the people hate the government. If they hate the government enough, they should be able to overpower the government and assert their own will. The fact that this does not happen means that the people are giving at least tacit consent, either from fear, or because they agree with the government, or else as in miost cases because they are too lazy to do anything about it.
So ultimately, even a monarchy of the type that I describe is only able to rule so long as the people allow it. That is the natural "checks and balance" on any monarchy. The king can only abuse the people so far before he ends up like King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. That is true of a Democracy or Republic as much as a monarchy or dictatorship. The people have the ultimate control over ANY government. So I don't really fear a monarchy the way most Americans do. But I understand the hesitation of any American to support monarchy over democracy. I suspect that had I been alive during the Revolution, I would have backed the idea of Washington for king rather than president.
That's not to say that I think just any old monachy will do. There has to be a strong set of laws in place and boundaries on what the king can and cannot do. But I believe that ONE PERSON making decisions at the top is superior in an emergency to a committee trying to make decisions. Groupthink is NEVER efficient as a decision-making process.
Elliot
