• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do you still support our system of government?

Why do you still support our system of government?

  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% who think it is working properly.

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% but think any problems can easily be fixed.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 15% - 20% but think it’s not the system it’s the party running it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it.

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there is anything we can do about it.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there’s enough support to reinvent it.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, just waiting for the right time.

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but just don’t give a crap.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m not American, and not that concernd about your mess.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33
Many people owned houses under monarchies. The issue is not capital (like in houses), but land. A person oppressed under a private government is no different than a person oppressed under a public government.

Houses typically sit upon a piece of land. Every person who owns a piece of land is not a monarch. Again, I think you're making up definitions, and then using your made up definition to claim that Hoppe favors monarchy. He doesn't. He proposes a government that legally protects people and the goods they own from invasion by others. That is not a monarchy.
 
Nope. I did not include any. They occurred during the original NSA secret monitoring revelations. I assumed them to be common knowledge. I still do. Tuff nuggies.

It would seem that your fall back excuse of COMMON KNOWLEDGE actually means "sorry but I an't got squat".

I was asking for the mentioned poll results - not the formula to the atomic bomb or how many aliens are under Fort Knox.
 
It would seem that your fall back excuse of COMMON KNOWLEDGE actually means "sorry but I an't got squat".

I was asking for the mentioned poll results - not the formula to the atomic bomb or how many aliens are under Fort Knox.

Hmm, sorry I guess my reply wasn't clear. My bad.

I. Am. Too. Lazy. To. Look. Them. Up. Does that help? LOL ;)

(SIGH) Okay okay, you've guilted me enough...I'll see what I can do. :(
 
It would seem that your fall back excuse of COMMON KNOWLEDGE actually means "sorry but I an't got squat".

I was asking for the mentioned poll results - not the formula to the atomic bomb or how many aliens are under Fort Knox.

From CNN in April reporting on a Pew Research center poll: Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can't trust Washington and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation's ills…this was reported in several news forums.
Poll: Most Americans Don't Trust Government - CBS News 80 Percent of Americans Don't Trust the Government. Here's Why - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

I chose to use the Pew poll cuz I wanted to, and there was an article around the same time on yahoo citing other polls going as low as 15% trust, but I got tired of looking. Here are some others:

News report of June Gallup showing 10% trust and 90% don’t trust Congress; 36% trust and 64% don’t trust the President; and 34% trust and 66% don’t trsut the Supreme Court. Lack of trust in government a wake-up call - Other Views - MiamiHerald.com

From CBS news: 78% of Americans distrust government most of the time.
Why don't Americans trust government? - CBS News

Fox news, 63% don’t trust the U.S. government Fox News Poll: Most Americans don

Several areas showing major distrust among the majority of Americans for our government. Global Corruption Barometer 2013 - National results

Now I am not going to dispute figures with you, just answer the poll question (or don't). Thanks
 
Houses typically sit upon a piece of land.Every person who owns a piece of land is not a monarch.

Of course not everyone who 'owns' the land his/her house sits upon is a monarch. But that is not the issue I have with Hoppe. He advocates for a select elite to control territories and shape society to their elitist vision. See the following quote:

"In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other." ~ Hans Hermann Hoppe

Of course, Hoppe ignores the fact that this has essentially already happened when we transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to States. But hey, as long as they're "private" states its all good and 'libertarian!'

Also, anyone who disagrees would be "physically removed" whatever that means:

"There can be no tolerance toward democrats ... in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society." ~ Hoppe

"There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." ~ Hoppe

Again, I think you're making up definitions, and then using your made up definition to claim that Hoppe favors monarchy. He doesn't.

He certainly favors it over democracies/republics:

He proposes a government that legally protects people and the goods they own from invasion by others. That is not a monarchy.

He wants a select few elites to appropriate the land, control societies, and pass on authority to their descendents. How is that not monarchy?
 
Last edited:
If the Constitution was actually followed we wouldn't be in this predicament.
 
If the Constitution was actually followed we wouldn't be in this predicament.

Unfortunately, it is the nature of man to acquire more power, despite what a piece of paper may say (with all due respect to the US Constitution). Personally, I think it would be best to scrap everything and decentralize government to the local communities.
 
Of course not everyone who 'owns' the land his/her house sits upon is a monarch. But that is not the issue I have with Hoppe. He advocates for a select elite to control territories and shape society to their elitist vision. See the following quote:

"In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other." ~ Hans Hermann Hoppe

These people are not monarchs. They have no authority to initiate aggression as does a monarch.

Of course, Hoppe ignores the fact that this has essentially already happened when we transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to States. But hey, as long as they're "private" states its all good and 'libertarian!'

Also, anyone who disagrees would be "physically removed" whatever that means:

"There can be no tolerance toward democrats ... in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society." ~ Hoppe

"There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." ~ Hoppe

The Amish remove people from their society. It's called shunning. Are the Amish monarchs?

He certainly favors it over democracies/republics:

He claims that, from the point of view of respect for property rights, democracies are inferior to monarchies. However, favors a libertarian society over either one.

He wants a select few elites to appropriate the land, control societies, and pass on authority to their descendents. How is that not monarchy?

He doesn't want anyone's land taken from them. That would be a violation of property rights.

Also, a monarch controls society via the initiation of aggression. Hoppe does not advocate that sort of control.
 
He certainly favors it over democracies/republics:
off topic

I know it wasn't his (or your) intent but that's one of the best explanations I've heard for abolishing corporations as opposed to owner/operators and partnerships. It's what I consider the main problem with our current economy, the replacement of CEOs from people who have a real stake in the game and are in it for the long term to people who are only looking for short-term profit.

/off topic
 
Don't know. What do you think?

I just think partisan influence on SC judges should be minimized.

In a sense I believe that we already have most of what your suggestion is. We use the word 'appointed' for when the President picks a SC judge, but it's really closer to a nomination in practical application. We don't require a super-majority for conformation, but the overall Senate does vote on it.

I understand and agree with the desire to eliminate politics as much as possible from the process, but I don't think there is a better way. We could maybe do some minor tweaks to the current system, but I would not advocate a complete overhaul. I would not want a non-political body choosing, nor would I go with something like a seniority system where the next one in line is presented.
 
Unfortunately, it is the nature of man to acquire more power, despite what a piece of paper may say (with all due respect to the US Constitution). Personally, I think it would be best to scrap everything and decentralize government to the local communities.
To the first comment, the Constitution was intended and hoped to be upheld by violence every once in awhile to keep the government in check. When the people lose the spine to do so, the laws of the land as written in our Constitution become invalid. Liberty must be upheld and defended by by blood if necessary. Our forefathers were rebels and revolutionaries, so why are we not today? As a people, we have lost what it means to be American.

That said, I would fully support some hybrid of the current Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. States would still have to follow the U.S. Constitution and this would be upheld by high courts, but Congress and the President would either be nonexistent or serve solely as figureheads like the Queen of England. The military would be changed as well, individual states being in charge of their own forces unless and until they as as majority felt that a national system of command be formed in emergencies, to be disbanded later.

The problem with the Articles of Confederation is that at the time communication was very slow. This meant that it could take months to assemble a single vote on an important issue even with the Continental Congress. The Articles would worsen this problem, which is one of the main reasons the document was not adopted.

That said, that communication issue no longer exists. If the States felt that, say, the military needed to be mobilized or that war must be declared, a majority would need to support the action. The only federal powers I feel should be in place would be something similar to the Supreme Court without the conservative and liberal bias, and have only those eligible who have sworn a personal oath to uphold the Constitution even and especially in opposition to partisan politics, as well as swear that they, individually as a whole, had no right to officially interpret the Constitution but merely uphold or deny state or federal actions as the Constitution demands. I'd say that this system should be enacted now, but it has become clear that the current Supreme Court has been overruled and undermined by the rest of the government. Our checks and balances now only exist in secret courts and the checking of individual liberties and balancing of the powers of tyranny into a cohesive system.

Our system of government has been undermined at the most basic level, and thus it will take nothing less than a complete reformation of said system to enact such changes.
 
Oh, you're looking for the form of government that causes humans not to behave like humans. I think that may be difficult, but I'll work on it for a few minutes.

Depends on what you believe human behavior is. Fascism yielded some interesting results. So did East Asian Communism, but to me it made them act more human than what western society allows.
 
I agree. But the problem I see is that waiting for the "crash" would probably end us up in a worse place. I think our nation is too large and diverse, we can't seem to get a real consensus on anything. The only ones who seem to agree are major Financial interests, and they all agree what turns a profit for them is the only important thing. "Greed is Good!" ala Ayn Rand.
If your mischaracterization of Rand is anything like your characterization of government, I'd agree that your beliefs are primarily faith-based (not reasonable).
Rand was about individual freedom, not greed. Remember, because surely you are writing from an informed position, that she was differentiating it morally from the "altruistic" liberals who claimed that they could violate individual rights, because they insisted to be doing it for the greater good. In contrast, she demonstrates that protecting individual liberties (she uses the word selfish primarily), is the most common good. Rand opposed corporations using government for the greater good (banks) as much as anything else.

You do understand that your OP is faith-based by your own admission, and you likely don't actually have a really good understanding of what our public officials elected or otherwise are actually doing at their daily jobs? Please admit that realistically you can't really know that. That, is why it's an issue. Not that they are behaving like any other cross section of our population, that's not the issue, and you're wrong to go down that path. It's that they have significant authority over you. If they had zero power over you other than a 5% tax, would it really matter how awful you thought they were? Would it matter more if they charged you nearly 50% of all your earnings?
 
Depends on what you believe human behavior is. Fascism yielded some interesting results. So did East Asian Communism, but to me it made them act more human than what western society allows.
Yup, but note I was commenting on what one (he) thought human behavior is. Behavior is the result of many things not just what we would be like if no one ever influenced us, intended or not. Most of our behavior is based on external influences, especially when young. Then what is more human? Is it less influenced? Growing up with no influences?
 
If your mischaracterization of Rand is anything like your characterization of government, I'd agree that your beliefs are primarily faith-based (not reasonable).
Rand was about individual freedom, not greed. Remember, because surely you are writing from an informed position, that she was differentiating it morally from the "altruistic" liberals who claimed that they could violate individual rights, because they insisted to be doing it for the greater good. In contrast, she demonstrates that protecting individual liberties (she uses the word selfish primarily), is the most common good. Rand opposed corporations using government for the greater good (banks) as much as anything else.

You do understand that your OP is faith-based by your own admission, and you likely don't actually have a really good understanding of what our public officials elected or otherwise are actually doing at their daily jobs? Please admit that realistically you can't really know that. That, is why it's an issue. Not that they are behaving like any other cross section of our population, that's not the issue, and you're wrong to go down that path. It's that they have significant authority over you. If they had zero power over you other than a 5% tax, would it really matter how awful you thought they were? Would it matter more if they charged you nearly 50% of all your earnings?

Hmmm, I must admit that this was a very convoluted comment. I am going to have to sift through it to see which questions exist and how to provide an answer (if any actually require one). This response is just a place holder so you'll know I am not ignoring it.
 
Hmmm, I must admit that this was a very convoluted comment. I am going to have to sift through it to see which questions exist and how to provide an answer (if any actually require one). This response is just a place holder so you'll know I am not ignoring it.
Convoluted? I sympathize. I'll summarize.

1. You mischaracterized Rand, it's individual Liberty, not Greed.
2. How well do you *really* know what the lives and work of these public officials is really like in the day to day? If you don't have such evidence, it seems inappropriate to base you beliefs on slamming them as human beings as the OP clearly does.
3. The issues I have with government, in contrast, are not about by imagined belief of their behavior or motives like you profess. It's about the system and it's authority over me. An argument that is clearly evidenced, at the very least by my input on voting, and my income leaving in mass quantity via taxation. I offer this example because I'm telling you in #2 that your opposing is inappropriate, and I'm informing you of my understanding of what a more appropriate opposition would look like, that doesn't suffer from the same fallacy (might have other fallacies though :!)
 
Convoluted? I sympathize. I'll summarize.

1. You mischaracterized Rand, it's individual Liberty, not Greed.
2. How well do you *really* know what the lives and work of these public officials is really like in the day to day? If you don't have such evidence, it seems inappropriate to base you beliefs on slamming them as human beings as the OP clearly does.
3. The issues I have with government, in contrast, are not about by imagined belief of their behavior or motives like you profess. It's about the system and it's authority over me. An argument that is clearly evidenced, at the very least by my input on voting, and my income leaving in mass quantity via taxation. I offer this example because I'm telling you in #2 that your opposing is inappropriate, and I'm informing you of my understanding of what a more appropriate opposition would look like, that doesn't suffer from the same fallacy (might have other fallacies though :!)

(Sigh) That was really unnecessary and rather juvenile in my opinion. I have other things on my plate, and wanted to take some time to analyze your comment and then provide an appropriate response if I felt one was necessary. I did not want to provide a knee-jerk reply, but rather a thoughtful one. Being sarcastically disrespectful is no way to garner either respect or a response.

When I have thought things through, and perhaps concluded some research, I will reply. Thanks.
 
Then what is more human? Is it less influenced? Growing up with no influences?

Man is a predatory mammal, and with its standing in the world, an apex predator. To strive for dominance is human. To form a strong bond with others like us, while isolating the rest is human. To kill is human. We in the "civilized world are not human, we're domesticated cattle.
 
I agree with the system of government our Founding Fathers laid out for us, however it is not functioning the way it is supposed to. You see, for a system to work...people need to follow the system to some extent. True, the Constitution was meant to be a timeless document that could not be abridged...however the moment over 75% of the U.S Government becomes corrupted, is the moment that the system begins to fail.

How can we fix it? By once again following the document our Founding Fathers laid out for us. I won't disregard the fact that we are living in a dangerous time, with terrorists and whatnot(our fault, but that is for a different forum). However I think a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin sums it up quite nicely:

"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither."

The world is not a safe place, I understand that better then most people. However, sacrificing our rights is only going to make that worse. What happens when you are cornered in an alleyway by a criminal? eans to defend yourself?

So long story short...I support the system, but not the people running it. If we actually start following the system we are supposed to be following, I think the United States has the potential to become a really special country once again.
 
These people are not monarchs. They have no authority to initiate aggression as does a monarch.

Under Hoppe's system they certainly do have the authority to remove people because it is their land.

The Amish remove people from their society. It's called shunning. Are the Amish monarchs?

I don't think Hobbes is talking about shunning when he refers to 'forcibly removing' anyone who doesn't abide by his elitist standards.

He claims that, from the point of view of respect for property rights, democracies are inferior to monarchies.

So as long as the land is the 'private property' of the landlord then feudalism is 'libertarian'? I disagree with this notion.

However, favors a libertarian society over either one.

There is nothing libertarian about a select group of elitists having the power to physically remove people who don't agree with their views.

He doesn't want anyone's land taken from them. That would be a violation of property rights.

He wants the land to be 'homesteaded' which has very broad meaning when it comes to Austrians. To many Austrians that simply means stepping onto a piece of unclaimed land and declaring that everything he/she can see to the horizon is now theirs, which is imo a ludicrous way to look at property rights.

Also, a monarch controls society via the initiation of aggression. Hoppe does not advocate that sort of control.

As you saw in his quotes about removing people from society he clearly does advocate aggression (though he may not admit it).
 
Last edited:
People seem to have a lot of faith in Polls and Statistics. Recently, several polls have indicated somewhere between 15% and 20% of the American people still have faith in the workings of our government. If so, why do you think we still support it?

I have almost no faith in the workings of our Federal government, and what little there is resides solely within the Federal Court system which seems to be, despite claims otherwise, the last bulwark protecting our individual liberties.

Both houses of Congress are simply whores for banking and corporate interests, and give lip service to the needs of citizens.

The Chief Executive and his cabinet are puppets, acting out roles to make themselves seem important. The upper-level management of the various agencies under their control are cronies and political hacks of whichever party got them appointed, and work to undermine whichever opposing party holds the executive office. Lower management are simply drones, doing as little as possible in order to keep their positions and move up the civil service ladder.

Only the Judicial branch allows some action independent of special interests. Not in all cases of course, political appointments have some sway, but in the main each Judge is trying to balance the scales of justice honestly.

The moment I lose faith in this last small group is the moment I become fully radicalized.

Until then, I’m still willing to work within the system and hope for the best.

So which option did you pick from the poll?

I didn't know which one to pick. I agree with what you are saying. My position is that the system is corrupt, ridiculously and unnecessarily slow moving and outdated in that sense, it is riddled with problems, it needs revamping etc. With all this said... if there are enough people that feel the same way... lets start renovating. We could start by addressing one issue at a time. There are enough intelligent people on this site, I bet we could do a pretty good job. But how would it get pushed through? This site needs some serious connections with politicians who aren't corrupt, aye? The government should pay us if we come up with plausible solutions. I like the sounds of that, lol! Half joking/half serious
 
So which option did you pick from the poll?

I didn't know which one to pick. I agree with what you are saying. My position is that the system is corrupt, ridiculously and unnecessarily slow moving and outdated in that sense, it is riddled with problems, it needs revamping etc. With all this said... if there are enough people that feel the same way... lets start renovating. We could start by addressing one issue at a time. There are enough intelligent people on this site, I bet we could do a pretty good job. But how would it get pushed through? This site needs some serious connections with politicians who aren't corrupt, aye? The government should pay us if we come up with plausible solutions. I like the sounds of that, lol! Half joking/half serious

If I recall correctly I believe I picked "I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it."

I believe I picked it because I still think that the basic system of tri-partite republicanism could be effective if it hadn't been blown up into this colossus of a bureaucratic mess.

Allowing Congress to stretch the Commerce Clause out of all proportion to reality in order to regulate our lives to such an extent was the biggest mistake. Allowing the President to use military forces without a clear declaration of war is another. The list goes on.

When I was very young I used to be an activist. I worked for civil rights, including the rights of 18 year-olds to vote and be given full adult status. After all “They” were sending “US” to war and we had no say in the matter. I was actually so proud of our efforts I joined the Army voluntarily.

Now I don’t see that level of public interest, even after several past and ongoing wars reminiscent of Vietnam. That’s one of the reasons I posted this thread. I want to see what people think is preventing us from corrective action when our government continues to function this way.
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly I believe I picked "I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it."

I believe I picked it because I still think that the basic system of tri-partite republicanism could be effective if it hadn't been blown up into this colossus of a bureaucratic mess.

Allowing Congress to stretch the Commerce Clause out of all proportion to reality in order to regulate our lives to such an extent was the biggest mistake. Allowing the President to use military forces without a clear declaration of war is another. The list goes on.

When I was very young I used to be an activist. I worked for civil rights, including the rights of 18 year-olds to vote and be given full adult status. After all “They” were sending “US” to war and we had no say in the matter. I was actually so proud of our efforts I joined the Army voluntarily.

Now I don’t see that level of public interest, even after several past and ongoing wars reminiscent of Vietnam. That’s one of the reasons I posted this thread. I want to see what people think is preventing us from corrective action when our government continues to function this way.

I think I am somewhere in the following categories:

I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there is anything we can do about it.
I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there’s enough support to reinvent it.
I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, just waiting for the right time.

I would add the following categories that I would be in as well:

I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, but do not know where to start and how I can help.
I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, but need to be very frugal with my time due to the many responsibilities I have.


This is one reason I wish these political conversations could be put to good use :) - it doesn't take too much effort to argue/problem solve at the end of the day in a forum
 
UI don't think Hobbes is talking about shunning when he refers to 'forcibly removing' anyone who doesn't abide by his elitist standards.

Whoops, I said Hobbes when I meant Hoppe. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom