Agreed. A lot of times the courts will determine policy based upon their own ideological interpretation.
If you think about it, the salary for the president of the US is only like 200,000 dollars a year I believe. It might be a little less or a little more, not sure, but the point is they are far from making what your average movie star makes, so not considered a rich salary. However, they are practically guaranteed to be rich to begin with anyhow. They are the only ones who can afford to run. Another problem is that they need the backing of their political party in order to win an election because they are the ones who fund all of the publicity and commercials, etc. It's so complicated to find a realistic solution.I never said the person has to be poor, but they have to live under poor conditions while they are a politician.
Exactly! There has never and probably never will be a "perfect" form of government that everyone is happy with.Corruption definetely existed back then. It might even be the reason that Socrates was killed. Because he spoke out against it.
Both of them were deeply unhappy about their government it seems.
I agree with that, but we do need to have laws to protect the vulnerable, as they often times cannot always depend upon anyone else, such as children.I don't support a majority tyrrany. I support a system where an overwhelming majority holds a view. I also support what the good man Ron Paul supports, in regards to the state interfaring with peoples lifestyles. They shouldn't.
I agree with that, but again you'll have people who are unhappy with one thing or another, but the federal government cannot seem to mind it's own business or even do what it's supposed to do, such as secure borders.If homosexuals wants to be homosexuals, they can, but in their own private sphere.
Its not something that the state should promote or demote. Marriage and such should be up to the states to decide on. In that way, people who dont want to have gay marriage can move to a state with no gay marriage. Then we are all free to live in a place that suit us. Not in regards to marriage only, but a whole range of things.
I agree with this too.Actually, that is a strong conviction that I do have. That the world should be under a mininal regime of global regulation and that ALL policies, laws and democracy should be LOCAL and regionally (regionally as in states in the US, and regions in Europe, like Bavaria in Germany).
That way, all regions and states can have completely different laws, and people can move to those regions and laws, fit best with their own views, rather than to have laws, rules and norms pushed down their throat.
Again, I agree with this. Our federal government is way to big and overbearing.I just mentioned is as an example, because you have the most cementing constitution and the most obvious politicians overtramping of it. But yes, unfortunately, its like that everywhere.
Some people would disagree and say it works just fine though. Some people would even like MORE government involvement. People see things according to their own wants and/or needs.I don't support any of todays governmental models. But Switzerland would be the one that would be closest to my view.
I believe the world should seriously look into governance and organise that again. The current model does not work.