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

**jerzeygymwolf** · 01-20-2006, 12:13 AM

The United States government is likely the best in the world, but is far from perfect. It is going to take time, but we can do better.
For one thing, we have to discard or at least ignore our present designation of parties. We are built on the two party system, but there is no more pure Democrat, or pure Republican. We now have ALTRA Conservatives,and ULTRA Liberals on the two ends of the spectrum, with persons leaning towards conservatism, or liberalism, and moderates in between. but you will find Cons and Libs on BOTH sides of the isle.

Everybody complains but no one offers a plan so here is my case for a NEW United States Government. Obviously, There would have to be a constitutional convention, or at the very least, some new amedments to the Constitution.
...

As a general principle, I object to all prescriptions of 'solutions' to address 'problems' that haven't been properly defined at the outset.

To begin with, it is not 'self-evident' that the United States Government is "likely the best in the world". It might be, but it might not be - that has not yet been definitively determined by anyone to my knowledge.

Indeed, the parliamentarian model has been more widely and successfully adopted than the American presidential model - if anything remotely democratic is your concern (that is to say, the presidential model has more real-world examples of perversions to autocracy than the parliamentarian model). I'm not saying (here) that one is better than the other - only that your assumption that the American model is better than the other is totally unsubstantiated.

That being said, you also assert that there seems to be something wrong with the present American format of governance (and I generally agree with that assertion), but you haven't said just what is the key problem to which your solution is meant to address?

From a theoretical perspective, this is critically important in the process of evaluating the efficiency or effectiveness of any of your proposals in achieving that desired goal.

Thus, doniston, if you want a learned and reasonable critique of any aspect of your proposals from me, you shall have to first provide some kind of answer to the above.

My reason for insisting upon the point is because I detect quite a bit of 'parliamentary' type changes in your suggestions, amongst other theoretical directions. Evaluation is impossible without a framework.

01-20-2006, 12:13 AM	#24
jerzeygymwolf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 392 Senior Member	The United States government is likely the best in the world, but is far from perfect. It is going to take time, but we can do better. For one thing, we have to discard or at least ignore our present designation of parties. We are built on the two party system, but there is no more pure Democrat, or pure Republican. We now have ALTRA Conservatives,and ULTRA Liberals on the two ends of the spectrum, with persons leaning towards conservatism, or liberalism, and moderates in between. but you will find Cons and Libs on BOTH sides of the isle. Everybody complains but no one offers a plan so here is my case for a NEW United States Government. Obviously, There would have to be a constitutional convention, or at the very least, some new amedments to the Constitution. ... As a general principle, I object to all prescriptions of 'solutions' to address 'problems' that haven't been properly defined at the outset. To begin with, it is not 'self-evident' that the United States Government is "likely the best in the world". It might be, but it might not be - that has not yet been definitively determined by anyone to my knowledge. Indeed, the parliamentarian model has been more widely and successfully adopted than the American presidential model - if anything remotely democratic is your concern (that is to say, the presidential model has more real-world examples of perversions to autocracy than the parliamentarian model). I'm not saying (here) that one is better than the other - only that your assumption that the American model is better than the other is totally unsubstantiated. That being said, you also assert that there seems to be something wrong with the present American format of governance (and I generally agree with that assertion), but you haven't said just what is the key problem to which your solution is meant to address? From a theoretical perspective, this is critically important in the process of evaluating the efficiency or effectiveness of any of your proposals in achieving that desired goal. Thus, doniston, if you want a learned and reasonable critique of any aspect of your proposals from me, you shall have to first provide some kind of answer to the above. My reason for insisting upon the point is because I detect quite a bit of 'parliamentary' type changes in your suggestions, amongst other theoretical directions. Evaluation is impossible without a framework.
	Quote