The American Form of Government
http://youtube.com/v/DioQooFIcgE
This video does a good job of explaining different forms of government and the folly of democracy. I don't agree with every word, but it is nevertheless one of the best expositions on the subject I've encountered.
Hat tip: Walt, the reader who sent us the video.
Here is my favorite youtube video
LikeLike
Off the topics of domains, but a thought I wrtie about a trend I’m seeing around the US, which may effect everyone of you in the NEAR future, is paying to use previously free interstate highways.
In Miami a month ago, the state took the two left lanes of I-95 and blocked them off, restricting their use to those having a “Sun Pass”, an electronic toll collector which was used for previously to pay the tolls on toll roads without using cash.
This left 3 lanes for use for free on the busy federal interstate road.
The toll road runs for about 7 miles from downtown Miami, through Miami, a highly congested area.
The toll varies between $.25 and $6.25, depending on the time of day and how bad traffic is.
So if your riding out at 1am you will pay $.25 to drive in the 2 left lanes. If you in the mist of rush hour, in bumper to bumper traffic, your going to pay anywhere from $2.65-$6.25 for the privilege of not waiting in traffic.
In taking the two left lanes for the pay as you go Sun Pass, it reduced the free lanes down to three, making the free lanes even more congested, making the pay to drive option even more desirable.
A state run, self fulfilling prophecy.
Find a high traffic area, make it worse and charge people more to avoid the traffic.
Nice.
In removing the 2 revious free lanes, the government took away the HOV lanes which was automatically opened to all vehicles carrying 2 or more persons, Hybrid cars, and some other approved vehicles. (some of these can still ride in the paying lanes for free, but you must apply, and be pre approved)
My first thought was how is this legal.
I mean federal highways, interstates, were build with tax money and previously always free, as opposed to a toll road or a bridge built with the issuance of government bonds which are to be paid back from the tolls from users. Makes me wish I had my own “Boston Legal” type law firm at my disposal to fight all these issues that appear to violate the law. (although in the last episode of the series, the mythical law firm went broke, so maybe that’s not such a good idea)
If you think this is a one trick pony issue, restricted to Miami, think again.
As tax revenues decline all over the country as sales tax collections are down because people are spending less, property taxes are down as real estate loses value and developers put on the brakes, expect government to become more creative to try to get into your pocket.
Doing a little research I see plans are now underway all over the country to take former HOV lanes and convert them into pay as you go roadways, including Atlanta, Denver, Pennsylvania, and Texas, just to name a few.
To go even further, in Oregon they have been testing a system to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, by installing GPS monitoring devices in vehicles. Though the GPS devices did not track the cars’ locations in specific detail, it did track when a driver had left certain zones, and kept track of the time the driving was done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.
The federal government is also looking into going to a mileage tax, rather than a gasoline tax, as drivers use more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.
Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.
In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge of the state’s effort, said he’s also heard talk of mileage tax proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.
“There is kind of a coalition that’s naturally forming around this,” he said.
So as we follow what the government tells us, which is to conserve gas, buy more fuel efficient vehicles, the same government is already planning a way to dig deeper into your pocket to compensate them for your increased efficiency.
Doesn’t quite seem “American” does it?
Yes folks another piece of that America Dream is dying, or at least getting more expensive.
LikeLike
I see that you have not fixed you commetns section yet. Very unprofessinal.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”
Tytler
LikeLike
I can see about history, as the saying goes it repeats…much as in math one will conclude that it (time) will cease to move foreward. But in science all things evolve as in biology of cells, which is the debate between intelligent design and darawinism. Still in either things of regarding to human nature, it still seeks philosophy and many other regards in subjects that are unknown for the purpose of what I would consider what the people will rule of. And that is a much larger debate. Simply because of what is unknown. Now if law was taken into consideration explain mistrials…then a typical response is in retrospect to the system being efficient or not. As for oligarcy, well then are there or were there any forms where the majority and minority reported an equivlance of same opinion in a nuetral or conntent manner? All of these to me lead to a debate of what is the validity for a one government or will that amass to anything prodigious for people? Take a look at the different religions many confide in them and the peacefull ones debate in rhetoric of body language and sheer existance in a peacful way while others do not, so why? What do we need of humanity to produce an effective status for happiness for everyone to get along?
LikeLike
Alchemy said:” But in science all things evolve as in biology of cells,…”
I disagree. All things biological are growing, dying and adapting. Adapting and evolving are not interchangeable terms. The word evolve tends to evoke the meaning to change for the better, or improve with time, for whatever reason. The word adapt would draw the meaning to change for the better or worse due to environmental conditions. An example might be if a species were weaned to a much smaller dose of protein nutrition. Over time the species would adapt as a weaker smaller being. Perhaps a being, such as a human, under such conditions might be forced to, improve mentally/intellectually in order to counter balance the physical de-evolution/adaptation. Historically I think we can use the development of the martial arts and the invention of gun powder as examples. Asians adapted as smaller physical specimens due to their environment but survived and flourished via intellect. Of course all of that is off the point of the video.
Next Alchemy asked: “What do we need of humanity to produce an effective status for happiness for everyone to get along?”
My answer is, never will everyone be happy. However, our Constitutional republic provided the means for the pursuit of happiness for all within the boundaries of basic ethics endowed to us by our Creator. In our case we started with the Ten Commandments and Christian principals as our ethical basis. Such a basis does not imply a spiritual requirement of the populous, but does require compliance. Without such an ethical foundation our Constitution can be dissected by any night school paralegal, and will never stand. Once dissected and interpreted to satisfy whoever for whatever reason, the document becomes living. Once it is living, the Constitutional republic is dead…the whim of the day by the ruler[s] becomes law. Rulers manipulate laws so insure a continuum of power… Oligarchy is born.
LikeLike
So in lies the death of America.
LikeLike
I don’t play with the dictionary, and conotations and denotations are different yes we all know that. I think that you are too much into the idea of the American Revolution and its prestigeous history that you so much tend to draw from, but American started with liberalism and that has evolved towards the French Revolution and around the world changes are being made. If we see sometimes without the distinction that humanity must answer to higher authority, regardless of whether it be privileged or not, I must conclude that we are we to look up to more than it is there, if we can in no ways confide in spiritual leaders that are of philosophic raisings themselves and promote interests of social modifications for peacefull existance. This leads me to relocate to sometimes thinking of higher values of integrity, morality, and words that have not even been concluded in usage of the dictionary yet to progress within the confines of leadership for the betterment of evolutionary existance whether it be to adapt or not. Sometimes we shouldn’t say”you did this, it is your problem, you fix it.” Take the example of the brain for now, conclude that individuality in is the front right temporal lobe, but wait the brain can not function with just one portion of existance…if indeed you ever came across a labotomy example you will know of where cutting off the frontal lobe leads to, and it is not evolutionary. Now on a math scale of positives and negatives can we only see the whole number line without seeing the zero in the middle, we must look at the whole number line which offcourse is one more than infinity, lol… leads to the ideas of both adaption and evolutions, lol.
LikeLike
In my own thoughts I believe to better understand Democracy would be better to understand the concept and formulations of change within the confines Calculus Math, what would one way be to understand better the ideal siuation and progress of the conception of the Repulbic, you have to keep in mind i have lived here over eleven years and am 21 and thus favor a more linear approach towards the tangent of democracy. ANYONE?
LikeLike
Well there is nothing wrong with collapse as long as the next form of the unknown government declares the remedies of privious procedures. Monarchy is still around and the civilization period of existance concludes evidence to show you that the people are ultimatly the rule of law.
LikeLike
Alchamy
I guess I will play, although I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say by your writing style. You mentioned you have only been in the US for 12 years and you are still only 21 so I venture to guess English is not your first language so I will give you a pass your writing since you are one language up on me (evidently).
I get the gist you are one who favors a pure democracy with quotes such as, “…people are ultimately the rule of law.” and “… thus favor a more linear approach towards the tangent of democracy.”
In response- I would say read the article, “The Artificial Reality of the Media Matrix.” With the slightest cognition, I think anyone who is honest with themselves can see how a pure democracy can be a complete subject to the controller[s] of the media, if the right dynamics are in play. The two fundamental dynamics are.
1) A complacent, distracted, self serving and/or ignorant populous. In a perfect world, the populous would be- involved, focused, selfless and intelligent, and in turn have a higher likelihood of disseminating the truth and in turn use the truth and character in the voting booth. In that perfect world only 50.0001% of the people would need to display those characteristics for a democracy to work. Sadly I think a vast majority of the people in this country, and the world for that matter, are not at least one of the following- involved, focused, selfless or intelligent. In this case a constitutional republic (with a trinity of power) that was established by- involved, focused, selfless and intelligent men; will, for a time, protect the people from their folly. Perhaps protect them from the demise they truly deserve.
2) A person or group of people that have the means and desire to promote an agenda in order to influence the perception of reality, and in turn the democratic process. This dynamic is and always will be in play due to the nature of the human. There will always be men that wish to exploit others. Propaganda, word smithng, brainwashing, spin, or whatever you wish to call it, is designed to develop perceptions. It seems that everyone does it; one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Is an unborn child a fetus/tissue mass, or a tender little child, innocent and pure? The spin, you see, has nothing to do with the truth, only perception of the truth. However, truth does exist…in all things and matters. A true democracy however is not at all concerned with the truth; merely perception. The most adept perception purveyors, either through clever means or strength, hold the power. The media today is not only capable of developing issue based perceptions but also acts in world view development. The media and the whores they run with (Hollywooders and academia) can also, imbed complacency, promote distraction, disguise selfishness, and substitute intellect. Alas that is another diatribe altogether.
A pure democracy is merely another Oligarchy, but with the “Purveyors of Perception” with the scepter at hand. Our Founding Fathers suffered great hardship “…that this nation should not vanish from the face of the earth.” That is why they established a Constitutional Republic and made it so difficult to alter. Our founders were brilliant men, blessed with intellect and wisdom. They spoke and wrote quite freely of the foolishness of pure democracy. You might check out the letters of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Benjamin Rush and the like.
LikeLike
The history channel says 7 percent of brain is in utlization of words while the rest is in abstract, language is still important and the language that i grew up with is bulgarian which is cyrillic alphabet, note that while i read russian literature i easily understand it now take the concept and program the theory into other cyrillic language bases and those are the ones i tend to understand easily. Yes you two should try the emphasizing the analytics of the theatre for which your own words relate to, that is if you want for me to better understand you since indeed i know of not all the languages. Now, the dhalie llama ( i know a llama joke too, lol), stated that while in america with consulting on the happiness of the people of america he noted in one of his books recently published that the mentall unhappiness of people in America is about 12 percent of the population, keep in mind that western and eastern medicines clash, can you understand that yes it breads to people to know of others in utilization of other parts of the brain. If you take a look at a brain map you will note that the individuality subject is in the frontal cortex below the subject of comparison, this in math when running with ideas leads to uncalcuated and fearful realities in personality changes. So where i am going is that the mentality of the american system from its early intelligent days to the technical periods, a lot has developed, it turns out to be more based on control and programming rather than shire desire to produce middle of the road decision making. The question to you is where in the world do you think they thought of themselves and their happiness after the retirement and the progression of the advancement of their political theories? Or if you can elaborate more on their decision making, since I need a refresh in history rather than to focus on the timing of your words…The media well, yes subliminal is another part of the brain…who knows more about the brain…i think biblicaly speaking a context of the quote is in the idea that “the magic is in the brain.” What are your comments. Don’t be too radical. LOL. oh and will lookup that stuff at a convenient time.
LikeLike
Walt,
Out of curiosity (and occasionally “necessity”) I have learned a couple of “extra” languages. The process — similar to that involved in one’s native tongue — is somewhat (?) adaptive. I have found dictionaries to be necessary tools along the way.
I wonder, though, why — if the “starting point” for our Constitutional Republic was “the Ten Commandments and Christian principals — those who drafted our founding documents referred to “our Creator” and the “Law’s of Nature” rather than to “the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and the Bible.
LikeLike
T. Bruce,
Please allow a bit of shock value first,
“…they would lie down…the fiery fagots.”
The preceding excerpt remarkably enough came from a letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush 1809. Were they homophobes? Were they gay? I guarantee you if I had an audience of high school sophomores I could convince them of either in short time. However, one of my tactics for convincing them would not be a full context of the letter or a study of the men themselves, The full view and context would not support my intended “truth.” Needless to say the excerpt from the letter is not as it seems.
It is true our founding documents use names like, Creator, Almighty, and “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” [Declaration of Independence], are used rather than, Yahweh (provider), Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (I Am that I Am), Elohim (God), El Shaddai (almighty God), Adonai (master), El Elyon (most high God), Boreh (the Creator) Adon Olam (Master of the World) Magen Avraham (Shield of Abraham). Hopefully, by just reading different the Jewish names for the same God you can see that the Founders, in their letters and documents were not using words like “Creator” as a term of deistic ambiguity. Quite the opposite, they were in English, describing a trait of God as the Jews did in Aramaic. One term you mentioned was, “Laws of Nature..(which is followed in context by) and of Nature’s God.” This says much more than “God of Abraham” this says, there is a Creator; he created all nature, there are laws (ultimate Truths) in nature; and he (God) gave them order. It says to me Creator of all, giver of all Truth. Perhaps it would sound better or more holy if it were translated to Aramaic.
That explanation is designed to help you understand why our Founders used descriptive God terms rather than boiler plate identifier terms like God of Abraham. It was not done as a curiosity or an ambiguity or as a fill god of your choice here reasoning. It was in following of Christian/Jewish tradition. If you want to appeal to God for provisions address him as Yahweh (provider). If you pray for protection in battle address him as Magen Avraham (shield of Abraham, protector). To keep this from turning into a chapter rather than a post I will stop there and hope I made sense enough of it for you.
Now I know what I just said only addresses the why and not the who. How do we know who (which God) they were referring to. We do know many of our founders were Christian ministers, that is without question. Also fortunately enough our founders were amongst the most literate and gifted penmen in the history of the world. We have thousands and thousands of letters, articles, diaries and papers from their hand. Although their writings are fascinating one does not need to go too far to see which God they spoke of. It was not just the God of Abraham, Yahweh or any of the other Jewish names but the Father of Jesus, the Christ. Although some of the letters address some doctrinal arguments, they all regarded each other as Christians. Please DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Search it out for your self, a good resource for Christian related historical text is http://www.wallbuilders.com. Or you can “hear what your itching ears want to hear.” Hopefully I have argued the topic rational enough to answer your question.
LikeLike
Walt,
I would say that your argument is “rational enough.” One question: What is ambiguous about “Creator”…even if the descriptor is used by a deist (or theist, or Jew, or Christian, or fill-in-the-blank)? I do not deny the claim, backed by copious evidence to which you generally refer, that most of our founders considered themselves and each other Christians. Nor do I think anyone would argue that they followed orders of worship in many different sects and/or denominations. And I do not think that, on the whole, they desired to elevate any one of those various sectarian religious dogmas to a position of exclusivity.
Unfortunately, I am unable at present to give this (or you) the time and attention it deserves. Suffice it to say that I truly appreciate the time and energy you devoted to your response. Thank you very much.
Fear not. I have my share of skepticism and won’t take your word for it. But I do enjoy the exchange of ideas!
Indeed, I will check out wallbuilders. I have read much in the Federalist Papers, as well as much of the correspondences exchanged between our country’s founders. You raise valid and timely points here.
With respect and warmest regards,
T.
[Side Note] I am still trying to figure out what to do with the “itching ears” thing, though. My senses — ears/hearing included — all provide means by which I contact the world around me. That contact ultimately results in my perception of the world. In my experience, the phrase (drawn from 2 Tim. 4:3?) has been used as a “critical urging” to see things the “right” way, or to make sure that I am not listening to ONLY those things that I find pleasing to hear. In other words, it was used as a tool of subtle persuasion. I am not taking your use of the concept personally. I guess I just don’t see how it “fits.”
LikeLike
“I am still trying to figure out what to do with the “itching ears” thing, though.”
Full context-2 Tim 2-4
2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
I bring that into play not as a personal jab but more as a reference of the foresight in the scripture. Whatever “truth” you decide you want to hear you can find a world view to accommodate you. A “gal” posted yesterday with encouragement to pick up a copy of “A People’s History of the United States” which is merely a leftist commentary on “history.” The author, I am sure, knew there were “itching ears” and therefore a market for his propaganda.
LikeLike
selwynduke.com 
Leave a reply to alchamy Cancel reply