PostHeaderIcon American Form of Government

Must see TV:

The American Form of Government

This is really well done, and I wish all Americans could watch and grasp it. I do wish they had put just a little more emphasis on the advantages of a Republic to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority in a mobocracy. The way they collapsed rule by “one” into an effective oligarchy, and summarily dismissed anarchy was elegant. Well worth the ten minutes to watch and pass on to others. â—„Daveâ–º

11 Responses to “American Form of Government”

  • Whats with the universal sound of divinity when they highlight the center?

    The founders also said that we need revolution on a regular basis. Unfortunately, government seeks to expand and survive. Without an occasional heavy dose of those they put on the far right, the centrists will slowly destroy everything.

    “People who demand neutrality in any situation are usually not neutral but in favor of the status quo.”

  • I take your point, Steel; but when the revolution comes, the goal needs to be to reset government back to our founding principles, not anarchy. I have a real problem with the anarchist dreams of so many libertarians, and I think the video makes the point well that without a sheriff we would be spending most of our time defending our turf, rather than being productive. Establishing and enforcing just enough law to maximize personal Liberty, without going too far, is a tricky venture. The longer I live and study the problem, the more convinced I am that our Founders were brilliant and came about as close as anyone could to achieving the optimum.

    The status quo is not always a bad thing. The current situation is intolerable; but if we could start over from first principles, I would be an avid defender of it. â—„Daveâ–º

  • TheLiberal says:

    And what do you do if you disagree with your constitution? Move? Sounds much like an Oligarchy.

  • Without that Constitution, one or the other of us wouldn’t be permitted to speak our minds like this. It wasn’t perfect, but it is about as close as mankind will ever get to the minimal government required to maintain maximum Liberty for the individual. If we had maintained it as designed, there isn’t much I can see wrong with it, and there wouldn’t be an oligarchy “ruling” over freemen. See my Sovereign Rights essay. Perhaps you would share what you find objectionable about it. â—„Daveâ–º

  • TheLiberal says:

    I was talking in more general terms. My point was that in a republic one’s rights are dependent on a piece of paper in the same way that in an Oligarchy one’s rights are dependent on a group.

  • Government didn’t give me my rights, it just hasn’t managed to take all of them away yet.

  • TheLiberal says:

    By “rights” I meant as far as the government is concerned.

  • Exactly, Steel! Natural Rights existed before the Constitution and will survive its demise. The Constitution is meant to preclude government from attempting to trample those rights, it does not and could not “grant” them. Natural Rights refer to the ability to do something; Progressives think of “Rights” as entitlements to receive something.

    Natural Rights are about the Liberty to live life as one wishes to live it. Progressive Rights are a license to violate the Natural Rights of producers, by stealing their produce and redistributing it to the indigent. Natural Rights are the opposite of government; Progressive Rights require one. â—„Daveâ–º

  • TheLiberal says:

    See my above post.

  • See my above post.

    I am not clear on what you mean. Are you talking about Natural Rights, or government “entitlements,” which Progressives call “rights” that government bestows on their serfs? â—„Daveâ–º

  • TheLiberal says:

    I’m talking about the rights that the government respects.

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links