DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**primaveraloler** · 05-01-2007, 02:50 PM

We're Americans, that's what we do, we distrust people with power. It's a long and glorious tradition.

Yep, and with good reason, in my opinion

Jviehe, a look at history shows that powerful governments commit abuses, and given that the US are a republic under the rule of law, I think we should be very, very careful of how that law evolves. This is just a hypothetical and rhetorical question, but are we still a republic when the executive branch has the authority to freely interpret and execute law as its discretion? I know this particular instance of a postal reform law's signing statement is a far cry from the day of a dictatorial executive, but I believe the question bears asking.

I'm not all that familiar with Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," but I tend to agree that any large organization tends to come under the excessive influence of a minority, and the United States federal government is no exception. I don't mean to comment on the positivity or negativity of such a rule by a "knowledgeable" few, a technocratic elite if you will, it is just that a "rule by the few" in general is a self-serving and self-perpetuating sort of government, no matter its original or nominal goals. For that reason, I don't believe it is wise to extend the power of government except in instances of extreme emergency, and America doesn't appear to be in such a situation right now. I've been told once before, on this site, that I should have been watching from one of the windows of the tower as the plane soared toward me, so I would know the terror of terrorism and would understand the need for granting the state more rights; as sick as that it is, it made me understand much more clearly that there is "nothing to fear but fear itself."

05-01-2007, 02:50 PM	#12
primaveraloler Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	We're Americans, that's what we do, we distrust people with power. It's a long and glorious tradition. Yep, and with good reason, in my opinion Jviehe, a look at history shows that powerful governments commit abuses, and given that the US are a republic under the rule of law, I think we should be very, very careful of how that law evolves. This is just a hypothetical and rhetorical question, but are we still a republic when the executive branch has the authority to freely interpret and execute law as its discretion? I know this particular instance of a postal reform law's signing statement is a far cry from the day of a dictatorial executive, but I believe the question bears asking. I'm not all that familiar with Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," but I tend to agree that any large organization tends to come under the excessive influence of a minority, and the United States federal government is no exception. I don't mean to comment on the positivity or negativity of such a rule by a "knowledgeable" few, a technocratic elite if you will, it is just that a "rule by the few" in general is a self-serving and self-perpetuating sort of government, no matter its original or nominal goals. For that reason, I don't believe it is wise to extend the power of government except in instances of extreme emergency, and America doesn't appear to be in such a situation right now. I've been told once before, on this site, that I should have been watching from one of the windows of the tower as the plane soared toward me, so I would know the terror of terrorism and would understand the need for granting the state more rights; as sick as that it is, it made me understand much more clearly that there is "nothing to fear but fear itself."
	Quote