PDA

View Full Version : ...


crud
02-05-2010, 5:45 PM
...

Pyrodyne
02-05-2010, 9:14 PM
Very intriguing. Why isn't this mandatory in schools? I was pushed the democracy line while I was in school. I also remember a stylized bill of rights that was supposed to be simplified. The second amendment bit had a picture of a girl showing her empty, bare arms.

sholling
02-05-2010, 10:35 PM
Very intriguing. Why isn't this mandatory in schools? I was pushed the democracy line while I was in school. I also remember a stylized bill of rights that was supposed to be simplified. The second amendment bit had a picture of a girl showing her empty, bare arms.
Because it's a secret. Some states are even considering dropping any discussion of US history before 1900. Educrats and the media want you to think that the American form of government is socialism.

dantodd
02-05-2010, 10:37 PM
The second amendment bit had a picture of a girl showing her empty, bare arms.

Seriously? Makes me want to puke. I took a firearms safety and a reloading class on campus in middle school.

Thrasher416
02-05-2010, 10:54 PM
Interesting video, I've always felt the same way about Fascism and Socialism being the same thing with just different manifestos.

bigstick61
02-06-2010, 12:46 AM
The guy started off on the right foot. There is a left-right spectrum (something which has been recognized in some form for a long time, well before our major parties came into existence). Fascism and National Socialism also belong on the left along with communism, international socialism, etc. Ultimately, what defines left or right has to do with the power granted to government, along with what the philosophical purpose of government is and the approach to the treatment of people, along with ultimate priorities (he does not go into enough detail here, but it is a short video designed for a lay audience).

After that part though he veers off. First off, a monarchy does not belong on the left or anything considered an example of total government. Modern totalitarian governments have or had more power than a monarch could have even dreamt of having. Monarchy also is generally a concept rejected by the left. Furthermore, monarchy is not at all incompatible with limited government, and it is no coincidence that our system of government was in fact partly modeled off of a monarchy in the form of a mixed government. When he says the Founders dismissed monarchy, he again is wrong. A number of the Founders, to include Hamilton, were at heart or quite openly monarchists. Frederick the Great's brother was actually asked by one of our Presidents predating the Constitution as well as by Baron von Steuben to be our king, as was, as was mentioned in the video, George Washington. Ultimately a majority decided in favor of a republican government, but they did take elements from constitutional monarchies.

Now, when it comes to a republic, there is a sort of meaning in the U.S. which is understood much like in the video. Basically, it is a non-monarchical mixed government, one that involves checks and balances to include checks against a people. However, when it comes down to it, a republic is anything other than a monarchy or what amounts to anarchy, regardless of form.

He is right when it comes to the ills of democracy, although I don't think he went far enough in describing just how bad it can get. I also think it would be useful to mention that democracy is not only not an American idea, but that it is in fact a French import that came here after the French Revolution and which found proponents in people such as Andrew Jackson. By the end of the 1820s our form of government began its erosion and devolution down the path to democracy. Today we are far closer to a democracy than a mixed government, in a way a sort of hybrid of the concepts, nationally speaking, although in practice we are a democracy in the bastardized form it takes on after it has been established for awhile. At the State level, I am not aware of any State that is not a democracy. In the past many States and even at one point all States were not democracies. That is not the case today. The degree to which democratic ideas came to dominate American political thought, combined with the utility it has in reaching the goals of statists and collectivists, along with court rulings that have no constitutional basis that severely eroded a State's ability to have non-democratic and federal government, meant the end of mixed forms of government at the State or lower level in the U.S.

In the end, what we got was an aristocratic, limited, and federal republic which is modeled after a mixed government, simply excluding a formal and hereditary monarch. Basically, the President assumes the role of the monarch and his position is modeled after it. He is, in effect, a non-formal/untitled elective monarch, the elective body being one of elites in the form of the Electoral College. He is neither beholden to the people or the States, although he cannot simply disregard the States (and to a lesser extent the people). He and his electors were meant to be elites or aristocrats, and his selection based on merit-based criteria. He serves as a more neutral, objective check in a system of checks and balances. His executive powers, sans a few taken and given to the legislature based on the Founders' observations, are pretty much a copy of those traditionally held by constitutional monarchs.

The Senate is meant to be the tool by which States checked the Federal government and its non-legislative branches. By being non-popular in origin, they were also meant to be an intra-legislature check on the people. They were meant to preserve the federal character of the republic and prevent large states from dominating small. the Senate was also intended to be aristocratic, and was designed with stability in mind, especially when it comes to their limited involvement in foreign policy.

The House of Representatives was the check of the electorate, which was intended to be qualified and not universal, mainly for good reasons. They were also a check on small States imposing their will via the Senate on big ones.

The judiciary was to be completely unelected, chosen based on merit, and not beholden to anybody once appointed. It was to serve as a seperate check against all branches, and it could be checked in turn.

These checks created a balance or tension of power, which is an alternative way to refer to a mixed government. It is IMO (and in those of most of the Founders) to be the best form of government, whether republican or monarchical in nature. Humanity has yet to devise anything better. Unfortunately, the form of government our founding fathers gave us no longer exists in any form in this country. This is only to our detriment. And it is yet another fact that is sorely missed from this video.

Pyrodyne
02-06-2010, 7:38 AM
Seriously? Makes me want to puke. I took a firearms safety and a reloading class on campus in middle school.

Absolutely no joke. In elementary school they gave us a flag and a small booklet that had the constitution and bill of rights and they explained each in class. In Jr High I encountered the stylized cartoons and dumbed-down version.

I actually read the small booklet and understood most of it, so it stuck really hard in my mind when I was given the second "education" on the constutution and bill of rights.

The caption on it simply said that we have the right to bear arms, unlike many other countries where people had to hide them. Then the cartoon picture of a girl wearing a t-shirt holding out empty hands and smiling.

It really is enough to send one into fits of outrage. When I have children and if I send them to school, I will be watching their progress like a hawk.

keneva
02-06-2010, 8:12 AM
Great video

HAVOC5150
02-06-2010, 8:21 AM
That was a great video!