Assessing the best form of Government

[TheOldColonel]

You haven’t faced big government until you’ve face Communism. I don’t recommend it.

 

[ATraveller]

And in the Prairies we feel the feds have too much power. Many would want greater autonomy kind of like what the American states have. And an American-style Senate too where Ontario and Quebec won’t dominate. They already dominate the House of Commons and all the political parties spend their time wooing them and completely ignoring us.
At the very least, we want what Quebec has.

 

[HarryStotle]

Universal health care also works well in Canada and most European countries. The USA is the only western developed country not to have it, so in this sense it is the exception rather than the rule.

It works reasonably well until the ruling party begins to travel down the road of which persons can be cared for and which no longer can be. Euthanasia and various other politically correct dogmas may soon change how health care is managed and who will be cared for. The elderly and those with high medical needs will be the first to be culled. It is just beginning to happen now, and despite attempts to allay fears these will not be so benign once the ideologically disposed gain sufficient power.

Recall that abortion started out as a medical necessity only to save the life of the mother, but the unborn soon lost all rights. You can bet that right to life will be weighed and apportioned based upon how “affordable” such care will be.

The “welfare” state and a powerful left-wing socialism are not a good combination.

https://cdn.idka.com/8a628baa-d9a4-45d5-ada4-bb6fa4637de3

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ltwin]

The majority of people will do whatever they’re told to.

Not sure this is true. Yes, if you live in totalitarian society where the slightest deviation is met with harsh censure, then yes you probably will do just what you are told. However, if the majority have truly sought to foster an open society–a truly liberal society in the classical sense–then you get cases like the American Revolution. In that situation, the American colonists had been so thoroughly educated on the Whig philosophy that they knew what their rights were and they were not going to wait for the British government to actually take them away–they were going to mount a Revolution before they lost their rights.

A democracy is just a system where the media are the real power. Democracies for this reason tend to be corrupt, since those with power have little chance of being held responsible, even in people’s minds, for bad governance (even an absolute ruler will be at least resented if things are going bad, no one will blame any particular journalist for the country’s ills).

The media have influence, and they certainly can shape national debate and conversation. They also perform a watchdog role for society in which they investigate and bring to light abuses of power. But are they actually the ones running the country? No. In a true democracy, power is held by elected officials–who can abuse that power if they are so inclined. In return, the people can hold them accountable through impeachment or simply by refusing to vote for them in the next election. Congressmen get voted out of office and even Presidents fail to get elected to a second term–like the first President Bush.

Can media have biases? Of course. Do they tend to treat certain politicians by different standards? Almost certainly. But take for example Trump. The mainstream media was nearly universally against Trump, and he still won the election.

Most people vote for who they think will best promote their own interests. Some may get their information from the media and use that information to base their decision on. But many more probably are not as informed as we’d like them to be.

 

[FiveLinden]

at its worst can take farms from white South African farmers, force people to speak certain pronouns and dispatch Jews into death camps. (Apologies for the crassness of that last example)

I’m sorry but if you think that murder and genocide are the equivalent of discussion of how not to offend people who feel strongly about their gender identity then you … (I have no words)

 

[Arkansan]

the American colonists . . .

The leaders of the American colonists decided to launch a rebellion against the British government, the majority of the people followed along with it.

A democracy is just a system where the media are the real power. Democracies for this reason tend to be corrupt, since those with power have little chance of being held responsible, even in people’s minds, for bad governance (even an absolute ruler will be at least resented if things are going bad, no one will blame any particular journalist for the country’s ills).

The media have influence, and they certainly can shape national debate and conversation. They also perform a watchdog role for society in which they investigate and bring to light abuses of power.

The real power in a society casting itself as the watchdog that denounces abuses of power (whether real or not) is by no means a new strategy.

But are they actually the ones running the country? No. In a true democracy, power is held by elected officials–who can abuse that power if they are so inclined. In return, the people can hold them accountable through impeachment or simply by refusing to vote for them in the next election. Congressmen get voted out of office and even Presidents fail to get elected to a second term–like the first President Bush.

You’ve made my point for me. If elected officials can be easily removed (and they can) then they aren’t the real wielders of power. OTOH, there is no easy way to remove journalists.

But take for example Trump. The mainstream media was nearly universally against Trump, and he still won the election.

And who’s political will is done? Trump’s or the media’s?

 

[dochawk]

The leaders of the American colonists decided to launch a rebellion against the British government, the majority of the people followed along with it.

Not even close.

As John Adams noted , probably a third were for, a third against, and the other third didn’t care.

hawk

 

[abucs]

I’m sorry but if you think that murder and genocide are the equivalent of discussion of how not to offend people who feel strongly about their genre identity then you … (I have no words)

no not discussion, compulsion under force of law.

At some level you must realise how terrible this is by describing it as a ‘discussion’.

It is not as evil as genocide by government but in controlling what people must say it is definitely on the continuum of authoritarian control which leads to the darkest of places in human history

They are my words.

 

[Arkansan]

Arkansan:

The leaders of the American colonists decided to launch a rebellion against the British government, the majority of the people followed along with it.

Not even close.

As John Adams noted , probably a third were for, a third against, and the other third didn’t care.

hawk

And which third got its way?

 

[MonteRCMS]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

 

[MonteRCMS]

The big question is this: is health care a commodity to be bought and sold? or a person’s right regardless of income level?

Do individuals have the right to seek out the best health care?

Or are people required to accept the health care that is offered?

Or are health care providers allowed to compete to provide the BEST health care?

 

[Arkansan]

He should have stopped speaking earlier . . .

 

[dochawk]

And which third got its way?

Why the patriots, of course!

Being in control of the militias and legislatures had a lot to do with that

hawk

 

[Dan_Defender]

No system is perfect, but I prefer a system where more people (ideally all) have access to health care, instead of only the working class. Just my opinion.

 

[HarryStotle]

No system is perfect, but I prefer a system where more people (ideally all) have access to health care, instead of only the working class. Just my opinion.

And what, precisely, are you willing to trade for that access?

The State’s right to decide whether and when you or your loved ones live or die?

Just a detail.

But it is a serious question.

With rights for some, come responsibilities for others, because a right to something can only be a right if others are responsible for insuring that you receive the attendant benefits.

By turning your right to health over to the state means you turn the responsibility for your care over to the state. If the state then decides it can no longer be responsible for your health, it might be too late to rescind the loci of responsibility for your right.

Euthanasia: Belgium & the Netherlands’ Slippery Slope | National Review

If you can be comforted by the direction current liberal/secular governments are headed then feel free to assume the ruling elites are only concerned about your best interests. I remain just a bit suspicious about that.

 

[Arkansan]

Being in control of the militias and legislatures had a lot to do with that

That is precisely my point.

 

[ltwin]

The leaders of the American colonists decided to launch a rebellion against the British government, the majority of the people followed along with it.

The elected leaders of the American colonists.

The real power in a society casting itself as the watchdog that denounces abuses of power (whether real or not) is by no means a new strategy.

So, you are claiming that Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times , etc. are actually running America?

You’ve made my point for me. If elected officials can be easily removed (and they can) then they aren’t the real wielders of power. OTOH, there is no easy way to remove journalists.

I’m glad that in a representative democracy the people’s representatives can be removed relatively easily. If this were not the case, then they would not be representatives of the popular will. And in a democracy, the people are sovereign.

As for journalists, why would there need to be a way to remove them? They are not office holders. They investigate and report the news for a living. If they are bad at their job, they should be fired. If they act illegally, they should be charged with a crime. If they act unethically, they should lose credibility.

And who’s political will is done? Trump’s or the media’s?

According to the Constitution, the executive power of the United States is vested in Trump as President, who directs the executive branch and is sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The legislative power is vested in the Congress; it makes the laws with the approval of the President, who then must direct the various executive departments and agencies to put those laws into action.

So, if you’re asking “who’s political will is done,” the answer is Donald Trump and the majority of the members of Congress. Usually, what this means is that the 2 parties and various factions of Congress will have to negotiate and compromise with each other to first reach a Congressional majority to pass legislation, and they will also have to make sure that Trump is willing to sign whatever legislation they bring to him.

 

[Arkansan]

The elected leaders of the American colonists.

The point being that, as will always be the case, “the people” cannot exercise collective agency independent of their leaders.

So, you are claiming that Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times , etc. are actually running America?

The media, collectively, holds real power because it can control public opinion. In a democracy, that gives it real power.

As for journalists, why would there need to be a way to remove them? They are not office holders. They investigate and report the news for a living. If they are bad at their job, they should be fired. If they act illegally, they should be charged with a crime. If they act unethically, they should lose credibility.

What if they influence public opinion in a bad way?

According to the Constitution . . .

You can write whatever you want on a piece of paper. I was asking a question about the real world. On all of the concrete issues that the media opposed Trump over (e.g. the wall, chain migration, an end to nation building), whose will has been done in reality?

 

[ltwin]

The point being that, as will always be the case, “the people” cannot exercise collective agency independent of their leaders.

OK. I think everyone acknowledges that. That’s different from saying that people just do what they’re told. Influence flows both ways. Elected leaders cannot ignore public opinion without risking the loss of their seats.

The media, collectively, holds real power because it can control public opinion. In a democracy, that gives it real power.

So do schools, universities, churches and any other collective institutions.

What if they influence public opinion in a bad way?

Then it is the responsibility of informed people to speak out and counter the bad influence with good influence.

You can write whatever you want on a piece of paper. I was asking a question about the real world. On all of the concrete issues that the media opposed Trump over (e.g. the wall, chain migration, an end to nation building), whose will has been done in reality?

It wasn’t just the media that opposed Trump. Democrats oppose him. Many Republicans are not in agreement with certain Trump policies. Many interest groups and individual Americans are opposed to Trump policies–not because of the media, but because Trump policies go against their own self-interest.

Take border security and immigration reform as examples. Countless Americans and interest groups do not need the media to tell them what to think. They can use their common sense and see that if the border is closed to mass illegal migration and you get rid of chain migration that prevents potential Democratic voters (either through amnesty or through natural population growth) and for business owners it will stop the flow of cheap labor. And then you have the humanitarian people who think everyone from a poor and depressed country should have the right to find a better life in America and the religious people who believe we are required to “welcome the stranger.”

All of these different groups are not brainless. They can see what will happen if Trump succeeds without the media telling them. This is where the Constitution comes in. Our government system presumes that people will vote in ways that reflect their own self interest. Those interests then get represented in Congress, and if the President wants to be successful he has to be a leader and bring a majority of Congressmen along with him.

It’s not the media’s fault that Trump has accomplished very little. He is a master at self-sabotage.

 

[KJW5551]

I’ve seen this repeated several times on CAF. Is it true though? France, U.K., and Germany all have large and powerful militaries as well as universal health care. The sheer might of the U.S. certainly helps keep their military spending down, but let’s not forget that both France and the U.K. are nuclear powers. And if the E.U. were a nation, it would easily be the second most powerful military in the world after the U.S.

The reason they have universal healthcare is that they have agreed as a society that it is good, and they as citizens are willing to pay a little extra for it.