Overthrow the Government

[FreznoBob]

The Etobicoke Proposal

People live within the social structures that they are prepared for. Despots rule where people are unable or unwilling to strive for more representational forms of government. Here in Canada we have achieved the level of social state with capitalist values, should we now rest on our laurels, waiting for the US, Russia and third world countries to catch up, or should we forge ahead as our nature, nurture and abilities dictate? If we do naught then we must admit to being at our peak or in utter stagnation. The latter must be true because everything under the sun can be improved on, ad-infinitum. So, if improvement is our destiny then how can we improve on our present government? A good way to start might be to list what we don't like about our current government then try to solve each item on our list either individually or in groups of items. One thing that a government must do, every government MUST do with continually greater efficiency, is represent it's people! That's what it's all about, and if we continue to strive we must eventually have true democracy where every citizens thoughts carry equal weight and all aspects of government and society are ratified by the populace. This will remain true to the extent and duration to which we involve ourselves in the governing of out country. Thus, you get the government you deserve and I think we deserve better. What don’t we like about government? Politics and politicians. Most of our disapproval can be laid squarely on the backs of the people who ' work' as politicians. Thos maneuvering peacocks and jackdaws who are better suited to their political popularity contests than the complex requirements of their office. I want my finance minister to have degrees in economics, to be a whiz at math and be able to think outside the box, but first he has to look good. This same potential finance minister will also need a stage presence, good diction, a clean bright smile, a firm handshake, the right connections and a long affiliation with a political party. If this same guy keeps his head down and toes the party line for a couple of terms he might be in a political position to make a difference. It's no wonder that government is filled with people who are good at politicking and rather short of people with governing skills. The researchers, mathematicians, economists and humanists in our midst have much more rewarding things to do with their lives than get involved in politics. They may all have great ideas that we might have benefited from, they may have truly wanted to help govern and change things, but they are unwilling to lose their lives to the miasma of politics. One kind of person seems to move easily through politics continually reaching the top and taking a disproportionate number of important positions, often the most important positions. Thus we get a government slanted in the favour of this personality, a government that reflects, nay, has the character of this personality that is predominant in its members. The fast talking, witty, aggressive smart-ass businessman/lawyer that could sell a vacuum to a man with a dirt floor is what politicians are or strive to be, with few exceptions. It is quite possible that we would be served exceedingly well if we placed these people in ambassadorial and foreign relations positions. Their salesmanship, networking and debating skills (read: deception and coercion) could be used to negotiate gainfully with foreign countries. Instead we’ve placed them in a position where they must use their skills against their own populace in an endless popularity contest where they vie for and handout various important positions like so many prizes. Of course they do manage to run the government while doing their political ‘thing’, but let’s face it, that’s only a part of their job and probably the boring part compared to all the other things politicians do. One question you might ask is, which is harder, performing the duties of a ministerial or cabinet posting or gaining and maintaining the position of party leader. Another you might ask is, what are the crossover skills between the two jobs. Does democracy require popularity contests? Do you find your views effectively expressed by a party? Should vote on our favourite party or person and then give them years to interpret our wants and needs as they see fit? It may be that voting on individuals is not the answer; instead we should be voting on how to proceed with each individual issue. There is still a future for the politician of today although it probably isn’t with the government. It is apparent that the public will is inadequately represented when a party or person is given a position of power. People in power tend to legislate themselves more powers until personal initiative is the rule and not the exception. At this point representation has broken down, broken campaign promises tops 50% and dubious pet-projects fill the term. Just before the next election a very public fulfillment of some of the original campaign promises with a bevy of new promises in tow, and a hefty tax bribe/kickback seal a dirty deal for a second term. The only option is to switch parties which means a different set of broken promises and a different group of people utilizing personal initiative on their own agenda while employed by the government. It is quite obvious that if we are to make any significant changes in government then we must remove the first stumbling block on the road to democracy and fair and equal representation, namely the politician. It will be a difficult separation at first, we are fond of our celebrities, but don't shed a tear to soon because I imagine the same faces will turn up on the airways as lobbyists employed by public influence companies who will offer their services to private/special interests. Public influence company may sound Orwellian but it's just another clearer word for advertising agency and would certainly be more transparent than backdoor lobbying with politicians.

Now that we've gotten rid of the preening politicians it behooves us to make changes in the way government operates in order to salvage all of the benefits of their departure and to lay framework upon which the new system can representationaly define itself. The new system should be almost infinitely accountable to the individual citizen, with very few exceptions. A good place to start would be to open the 'books', publish a full financial statement as would be available to a CEO or controlling-share holder in a company. This is our country is it not? If it was our company we would see the financial statements, we could help decide how to make or save money. That is exactly one of the changes we will have to make in our new government, we need to know everything it does and the cost of doing those things if we are to make informed proposals and vote effectively. Gone are the days of an ignorant and uneducated population waiting for a grandfatherly ruler to find some insight to change their lives. The current adult population of Canada is, by a vast majority, very informed, media savvy, globally conscious and able to use a simple computer interface (which will prove to be fiscally essential to the operation of the new government). The current voting system in Canada is so expensive that it actually precludes effective use, the new system will eliminate the costs while improving availability and convenience. Citizens will login to the government intranet through an internet enabled terminal or through free terminals in government building waiting rooms (a perfect moment to reflect on government issues). Citizens will use their SIN I.D and a password to gain access to various government services, vote, write proposals and view files, records, proposals and statistics. Two new arms must be attached to this government in a form resembling subsidiary companies. These subsidiary governments will apply to the central government in the form of proposals for their budget and mandate and will make full financial disclosures. These two arms will be the military and police government and by their nature must remain meritocracies, with their highest ranking officers being subject and answerable to the central government. These two services will be available to support successful proposals (directives) while working on their current mandates. The soldiers and police will probably feel more comfortable and righteous in their actions knowing that every law they are enforcing and every mission they’re on has been voted on and ratified by the majority of the voting population of Canada. Clarity of mission and mandate is no small thing in dangerous situations. Within the central government many things would remain the same with the same bureaucracy in place to do the day to day work and staff the government offices. Only the top tier would be modified, that former realm of the politician. Formerly ministerial and governmentally appointed positions would now be evaluated for their requirements and then posted for job applications. Until such time as all things are representationaly modified a suitable system for hiring government facilitators might proceed as follows. Applications would be sorted for suitability then arranged in order of merit. The top ‘x’ number of applications would then be given to the police government for national and international vetting. The returned list of vetted applicants would be retained and added to as time goes by. From this list, of perfectly suited candidates, one person would be randomly chosen to fill the position thus rendering all human influences, from idolatry to intrigue, moot. They would continue in that position making quarterly financial reports while actively undertaking the government directives that are the domain of or even partially related to their office until such time as they are relieved of their duties by the electorate or voluntarily give notice of retirement. Pensions should be based on number of years served with violators of office receiving no pension. In the new government misappropriation of funds would be a criminal violation along with favouritism, cronyism, and a host of abhorrent practices that we take for granted today. We’ve gotten rid of the politicians now we have to make sure the facilitators don’t fall into the same traps.

So, we have our triad government with the military and police wings acting as the right and left hands of the central government which could properly be described as the mind of the whole. We also have an entire governmental machine in place with all the employees, managers, facilities and systems in place to carry out the directives of the, now, non-existent politicians. These more than capable employees will now work in concert under the supervision of facilitators completing the assignments deemed necessary in order to achieve their government directives. AS we have likened the central government to a mind or, more appropriately, will of the government body so we might liken the facilitators to a brain of the government and rightly they would be some of the most intelligent citizens of Canada (excepting those to intelligent to get involved at all).All the actions and expenses of the facilitators and their office will be transparent and available for scrutiny by the electorate.

Who is the electorate and how do they get the government to do their will? The electorate is every voting age citizen of the country, in effect the owners of the country (well… who else does it belong to, big business, foreign interests, the IMF?...). The influence machine that is in place will always be there but now it will have to schmooze and bribe the public directly. It will use popular media and former politicians to sway the public in it’s own interests but at least someone else will be paying their wages. The government facilitators, on the other hand, will be doing nothing but completing the directives of the electorate.

How does the electorate develop, agree upon, and convey these directives? Why, through the Gov-net of course, a vast multi-computer storehouse of information and computing superpower. The virtual middleman between the electorate and the offices of the facilitators. On the Gov-net the electorate will log in and then be able to view all the operations and expenses of each office. They will be able to read government statistics, accomplishments and goals. The user can read and vote on proposals as well as write and submit their own. A proposal would remain open until a percentage of the population has shown interest by voting and would then proceed to final voting where a time limit for decision would be imposed. Proposals showing insufficient interest would be considered not pertinent and might be submitted at the provincial or municipal level. Proposals from the other two tiers of government or from facilitators themselves will become pertinent immediately and will be flagged for special attention by the electorate. This may be seen as a special dispensation and is open to myriad forms of abuse and should be the most scrutinized of tools lest it be misused. Upon electoral ratification a successful proposal would be delivered to the appropriate facilitating offices where they would be evaluated and given an implementation timeframe. This would be representation, this would be Democracy!

Total votes: 1 For:1 Against:0 Approval rating: 100%

Please comment, vote and then send to everyone on your friends list.

[capricorn]

No thanks.

[no queenslave]

The Etobicoke Proposal

People live within the social structures that they are prepared for. Despots rule where people are unable or unwilling to strive for more representational forms of government. Here in Canada we have achieved the level of social state with capitalist values, should we now rest on our laurels, waiting for the US, Russia and third world countries to catch up, or should we forge ahead as our nature, nurture and abilities dictate? If we do naught then we must admit to being at our peak or in utter stagnation. The latter must be true because everything under the sun can be improved on, ad-infinitum. So, if improvement is our destiny then how can we improve on our present government? A good way to start might be to list what we don't like about our current government then try to solve each item on our list either individually or in groups of items. One thing that a government must do, every government MUST do with continually greater efficiency, is represent it's people! That's what it's all about, and if we continue to strive we must eventually have true democracy where every citizens thoughts carry equal weight and all aspects of government and society are ratified by the populace. This will remain true to the extent and duration to which we involve ourselves in the governing of out country. Thus, you get the government you deserve and I think we deserve better. What don’t we like about government? Politics and politicians. Most of our disapproval can be laid squarely on the backs of the people who ' work' as politicians. Thos maneuvering peacocks and jackdaws who are better suited to their political popularity contests than the complex requirements of their office. I want my finance minister to have degrees in economics, to be a whiz at math and be able to think outside the box, but first he has to look good. This same potential finance minister will also need a stage presence, good diction, a clean bright smile, a firm handshake, the right connections and a long affiliation with a political party. If this same guy keeps his head down and toes the party line for a couple of terms he might be in a political position to make a difference. It's no wonder that government is filled with people who are good at politicking and rather short of people with governing skills. The researchers, mathematicians, economists and humanists in our midst have much more rewarding things to do with their lives than get involved in politics. They may all have great ideas that we might have benefited from, they may have truly wanted to help govern and change things, but they are unwilling to lose their lives to the miasma of politics. One kind of person seems to move easily through politics continually reaching the top and taking a disproportionate number of important positions, often the most important positions. Thus we get a government slanted in the favour of this personality, a government that reflects, nay, has the character of this personality that is predominant in its members. The fast talking, witty, aggressive smart-ass businessman/lawyer that could sell a vacuum to a man with a dirt floor is what politicians are or strive to be, with few exceptions. It is quite possible that we would be served exceedingly well if we placed these people in ambassadorial and foreign relations positions. Their salesmanship, networking and debating skills (read: deception and coercion) could be used to negotiate gainfully with foreign countries. Instead we’ve placed them in a position where they must use their skills against their own populace in an endless popularity contest where they vie for and handout various important positions like so many prizes. Of course they do manage to run the government while doing their political ‘thing’, but let’s face it, that’s only a part of their job and probably the boring part compared to all the other things politicians do. One question you might ask is, which is harder, performing the duties of a ministerial or cabinet posting or gaining and maintaining the position of party leader. Another you might ask is, what are the crossover skills between the two jobs. Does democracy require popularity contests? Do you find your views effectively expressed by a party? Should vote on our favourite party or person and then give them years to interpret our wants and needs as they see fit? It may be that voting on individuals is not the answer; instead we should be voting on how to proceed with each individual issue. There is still a future for the politician of today although it probably isn’t with the government. It is apparent that the public will is inadequately represented when a party or person is given a position of power. People in power tend to legislate themselves more powers until personal initiative is the rule and not the exception. At this point representation has broken down, broken campaign promises tops 50% and dubious pet-projects fill the term. Just before the next election a very public fulfillment of some of the original campaign promises with a bevy of new promises in tow, and a hefty tax bribe/kickback seal a dirty deal for a second term. The only option is to switch parties which means a different set of broken promises and a different group of people utilizing personal initiative on their own agenda while employed by the government. It is quite obvious that if we are to make any significant changes in government then we must remove the first stumbling block on the road to democracy and fair and equal representation, namely the politician. It will be a difficult separation at first, we are fond of our celebrities, but don't shed a tear to soon because I imagine the same faces will turn up on the airways as lobbyists employed by public influence companies who will offer their services to private/special interests. Public influence company may sound Orwellian but it's just another clearer word for advertising agency and would certainly be more transparent than backdoor lobbying with politicians.

Now that we've gotten rid of the preening politicians it behooves us to make changes in the way government operates in order to salvage all of the benefits of their departure and to lay framework upon which the new system can representationaly define itself. The new system should be almost infinitely accountable to the individual citizen, with very few exceptions. A good place to start would be to open the 'books', publish a full financial statement as would be available to a CEO or controlling-share holder in a company. This is our country is it not? If it was our company we would see the financial statements, we could help decide how to make or save money. That is exactly one of the changes we will have to make in our new government, we need to know everything it does and the cost of doing those things if we are to make informed proposals and vote effectively. Gone are the days of an ignorant and uneducated population waiting for a grandfatherly ruler to find some insight to change their lives. The current adult population of Canada is, by a vast majority, very informed, media savvy, globally conscious and able to use a simple computer interface (which will prove to be fiscally essential to the operation of the new government). The current voting system in Canada is so expensive that it actually precludes effective use, the new system will eliminate the costs while improving availability and convenience. Citizens will login to the government intranet through an internet enabled terminal or through free terminals in government building waiting rooms (a perfect moment to reflect on government issues). Citizens will use their SIN I.D and a password to gain access to various government services, vote, write proposals and view files, records, proposals and statistics. Two new arms must be attached to this government in a form resembling subsidiary companies. These subsidiary governments will apply to the central government in the form of proposals for their budget and mandate and will make full financial disclosures. These two arms will be the military and police government and by their nature must remain meritocracies, with their highest ranking officers being subject and answerable to the central government. These two services will be available to support successful proposals (directives) while working on their current mandates. The soldiers and police will probably feel more comfortable and righteous in their actions knowing that every law they are enforcing and every mission they’re on has been voted on and ratified by the majority of the voting population of Canada. Clarity of mission and mandate is no small thing in dangerous situations. Within the central government many things would remain the same with the same bureaucracy in place to do the day to day work and staff the government offices. Only the top tier would be modified, that former realm of the politician. Formerly ministerial and governmentally appointed positions would now be evaluated for their requirements and then posted for job applications. Until such time as all things are representationaly modified a suitable system for hiring government facilitators might proceed as follows. Applications would be sorted for suitability then arranged in order of merit. The top ‘x’ number of applications would then be given to the police government for national and international vetting. The returned list of vetted applicants would be retained and added to as time goes by. From this list, of perfectly suited candidates, one person would be randomly chosen to fill the position thus rendering all human influences, from idolatry to intrigue, moot. They would continue in that position making quarterly financial reports while actively undertaking the government directives that are the domain of or even partially related to their office until such time as they are relieved of their duties by the electorate or voluntarily give notice of retirement. Pensions should be based on number of years served with violators of office receiving no pension. In the new government misappropriation of funds would be a criminal violation along with favouritism, cronyism, and a host of abhorrent practices that we take for granted today. We’ve gotten rid of the politicians now we have to make sure the facilitators don’t fall into the same traps.

So, we have our triad government with the military and police wings acting as the right and left hands of the central government which could properly be described as the mind of the whole. We also have an entire governmental machine in place with all the employees, managers, facilities and systems in place to carry out the directives of the, now, non-existent politicians. These more than capable employees will now work in concert under the supervision of facilitators completing the assignments deemed necessary in order to achieve their government directives. AS we have likened the central government to a mind or, more appropriately, will of the government body so we might liken the facilitators to a brain of the government and rightly they would be some of the most intelligent citizens of Canada (excepting those to intelligent to get involved at all).All the actions and expenses of the facilitators and their office will be transparent and available for scrutiny by the electorate.

Who is the electorate and how do they get the government to do their will? The electorate is every voting age citizen of the country, in effect the owners of the country (well… who else does it belong to, big business, foreign interests, the IMF?...). The influence machine that is in place will always be there but now it will have to schmooze and bribe the public directly. It will use popular media and former politicians to sway the public in it’s own interests but at least someone else will be paying their wages. The government facilitators, on the other hand, will be doing nothing but completing the directives of the electorate.

How does the electorate develop, agree upon, and convey these directives? Why, through the Gov-net of course, a vast multi-computer storehouse of information and computing superpower. The virtual middleman between the electorate and the offices of the facilitators. On the Gov-net the electorate will log in and then be able to view all the operations and expenses of each office. They will be able to read government statistics, accomplishments and goals. The user can read and vote on proposals as well as write and submit their own. A proposal would remain open until a percentage of the population has shown interest by voting and would then proceed to final voting where a time limit for decision would be imposed. Proposals showing insufficient interest would be considered not pertinent and might be submitted at the provincial or municipal level. Proposals from the other two tiers of government or from facilitators themselves will become pertinent immediately and will be flagged for special attention by the electorate. This may be seen as a special dispensation and is open to myriad forms of abuse and should be the most scrutinized of tools lest it be misused. Upon electoral ratification a successful proposal would be delivered to the appropriate facilitating offices where they would be evaluated and given an implementation timeframe. This would be representation, this would be Democracy!

Total votes: 1 For:1 Against:0 Approval rating: 100%

Please comment, vote and then send to everyone on your friends list.

No more nothwithstanding claue. no more self regulating bodies. no more appointed judges. no more personal income taxes BY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Everyone equal; no more exceptions under the law. Everyone innocent till proven guilty in a fair imparshal trial. no more figerhead queen.

[Lazarus]

I tried reading that but gave up. Suggest you repost it and break up your paragraphs to make it reader friendly. As it is, it looks and reads like one long run on sentence.

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed.

I like these types of rants. I often write them too.

But that's hard on the eyes.

There are some good ideas in there, I think.

It is quite obvious that if we are to make any significant changes in government then we must remove the first stumbling block on the road to democracy and fair and equal representation, namely the politician.

Who will bell the cat ?

[capricorn]

Freznobob, I got curious and did a google search and found 301 results many of which refer to UFOs. Are you that same Freznobob? You apparently are in Toronto. Just curious but which is your primary sphere of interest, UFO's or politics? I ask because your lengthy post is political in nature.

[noahbody]

Freznobob, I got curious and did a google search and found 301 results many of which refer to UFOs. Are you that same Freznobob? You apparently are in Toronto. Just curious but which is your primary sphere of interest, UFO's or politics? I ask because your lengthy post is political in nature.

Also, have you ever been probed?

[Topaz]

Whatever your meaning of your LONG venting, as long and it doesn't have the US and Canada joining in one country, and no one loses their freedoms, then we'll think about!

[Michael Bluth]

Most of our disapproval can be laid squarely on the backs of the people who ' work' as politicians. Thos maneuvering peacocks and jackdaws who are better suited to their political popularity contests than the complex requirements of their office. I want my finance minister to have degrees in economics, to be a whiz at math and be able to think outside the box, but first he has to look good. This same potential finance minister will also need a stage presence, good diction, a clean bright smile, a firm handshake, the right connections and a long affiliation with a political party. If this same guy keeps his head down and toes the party line for a couple of terms he might be in a political position to make a difference. It's no wonder that government is filled with people who are good at politicking and rather short of people with governing skills. The researchers, mathematicians, economists and humanists in our midst have much more rewarding things to do with their lives than get involved in politics. They may all have great ideas that we might have benefited from, they may have truly wanted to help govern and change things, but they are unwilling to lose their lives to the miasma of politics. One kind of person seems to move easily through politics continually reaching the top and taking a disproportionate number of important positions, often the most important positions. Thus we get a government slanted in the favour of this personality, a government that reflects, nay, has the character of this personality that is predominant in its members. The fast talking, witty, aggressive smart-ass businessman/lawyer that could sell a vacuum to a man with a dirt floor is what politicians are or strive to be, with few exceptions. It is quite possible that we would be served exceedingly well if we placed these people in ambassadorial and foreign relations positions. Their salesmanship, networking and debating skills (read: deception and coercion) could be used to negotiate gainfully with foreign countries. Instead we’ve placed them in a position where they must use their skills against their own populace in an endless popularity contest where they vie for and handout various important positions like so many prizes. Of course they do manage to run the government while doing their political ‘thing’, but let’s face it, that’s only a part of their job and probably the boring part compared to all the other things politicians do. One question you might ask is, which is harder, performing the duties of a ministerial or cabinet posting or gaining and maintaining the position of party leader.

Tough to read, and a little bit on the histrionic side, but he makes a lot of good points here.

I can think of MPs and perpetual candidates from all three of the anglo-Canadian parties that fit this mode.

It may be that voting on individuals is not the answer; instead we should be voting on how to proceed with each individual issue.

Ideal, but painfully impractical.

A good place to start would be to open the 'books', publish a full financial statement as would be available to a CEO or controlling-share holder in a company. This is our country is it not? If it was our company we would see the financial statements, we could help decide how to make or save money. That is exactly one of the changes we will have to make in our new government, we need to know everything it does and the cost of doing those things if we are to make informed proposals and vote effectively.

You don't have access to everything a public company does, even as a shareholder. Through various web sites and access to information everything you can learn about a publicly traded company could be found about any department of the Federal Government.

That's as much of the diatribe I could work my way through. It's not all tin foil hat stuff, but definitely would benefit from a little formatting.

[FreznoBob]

Freznobob, I got curious and did a google search and found 301 results many of which refer to UFOs. Are you that same Freznobob? You apparently are in Toronto. Just curious but which is your primary sphere of interest, UFO's or politics? I ask because your lengthy post is political in nature.

My sphere of interest includes life and the myriad things it encompasses and consciousness which created matter and exists in life yet is also outside it and outside of existence but these comments, like yours, go nowhere towards the betterment of governing systems. You might want to go out evenings with the clown who asked me if I'd been probed? I, however, will seek intelligent and enjoyable conversation with others at the loss of adolescent ridicule. Adieu

[FreznoBob]

Whatever your meaning of your LONG venting, as long and it doesn't have the US and Canada joining in one country, and no one loses their freedoms, then we'll think about!

Long venting? I'm afraid I don't follow, could you be more explicit?

[FreznoBob]

Tough to read, and a little bit on the histrionic side, but he makes a lot of good points here.

I can think of MPs and perpetual candidates from all three of the anglo-Canadian parties that fit this mode.

Ideal, but painfully impractical.

You don't have access to everything a public company does, even as a shareholder. Through various web sites and access to information everything you can learn about a publicly traded company could be found about any department of the Federal Government.

That's as much of the diatribe I could work my way through. It's not all tin foil hat stuff, but definitely would benefit from a little formatting.

Napoleon believed Paoli's democracy in Corsica to be impractical as well, he crushed it and we havent seen one since.

We own this country more than any shareholder owns a company. When we talk of preserving the environment we speak of doing it for our children. So who owns the country, who is it most important too? Who should know what is going on. Or, put the other way, who shouldn't know and why shouldn't they. If I need to be kept in the dark about government finances for my own mental stability then medicate me but tell the rest of the population so that they can do something about it.

Oh, and if you're gonna comment you could at least finish reading my post.

[FreznoBob]

Also, have you ever been probed?

Maybe you should find yourself a teen forum son, I don't have the patience or temperment to tutor, mentor or punish potty mouth boys.

[August1991]

The fundamental issue here is how to take a collective decision in a manner that leaves each individual in the group better off. For the moment, modern government doesn't achieve that. I wouldn't blame politicians for the problem anymore than I would blame medical doctors for people dying of cancer. No one has a good solution to the problem.

In the case of any collective decision, it is usually hard to get people to agree. Market prices achieve this agreement but a similar mechanism has not been devised for the problems governments typically face. The rant in the OP is expressing frustration with this fact.

[Michael Hardner]

No one has a good solution to the problem.

Wait ! I do !

The problem is that constitutional government was built on a foundation that was assumed to be made of stone, but those foundations changed over time as everything does.

The foundations of modern democracy now need to be revisited in light of the changes that have happened to society over 200 years.

Ignore people who insist that the problem can be solved by having an elected senate, or by changing electoral rules towards PR. The fundamental building blocks for government have eroded !

For example:

1 ) We no longer have a public, we have masses.

2 ) We no longer have a press, we have large media/entertainment corporations.

3 ) The issues that pressed us in the 18th century no longer press us today.

4 ) Unquestioned duty to God, Queen and country no longer exists.

Such things were central pillars to having a functioning government, and they no longer exist.

We can't hope to change the past, but we need to adapt our current institutions to the new reality.

For example,

1 ) We need to re-create the idea of a public, separate from masses.

2 ) We need to find an equivalent of the 'press' that the public can look to for criticism and discussion of government.

3 ) We need to express what our modern challenges are, debate those challenges, and agree on them.

4 ) We need to create an equivalent motivation for individuals to participate in Democracy.

I have more...

[no queenslave]

Wait ! I do !

The problem is that constitutional government was built on a foundation that was assumed to be made of stone, but those foundations changed over time as everything does.

The foundations of modern democracy now need to be revisited in light of the changes that have happened to society over 200 years.

Ignore people who insist that the problem can be solved by having an elected senate, or by changing electoral rules towards PR. The fundamental building blocks for government have eroded !

For example:

1 ) We no longer have a public, we have masses.

2 ) We no longer have a press, we have large media/entertainment corporations.

3 ) The issues that pressed us in the 18th century no longer press us today.

4 ) Unquestioned duty to God, Queen and country no longer exists.

Such things were central pillars to having a functioning government, and they no longer exist.

We can't hope to change the past, but we need to adapt our current institutions to the new reality.

For example,

1 ) We need to re-create the idea of a public, separate from masses.

2 ) We need to find an equivalent of the 'press' that the public can look to for criticism and discussion of government.

3 ) We need to express what our modern challenges are, debate those challenges, and agree on them.

4 ) We need to create an equivalent motivation for individuals to participate in Democracy.

I have more...

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm"

We need to understand we don't have a democratic government , but one that looks like one.

Finally with the internet you can look other information than only government propaganda.

A democracy is created as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq ; by the people writing their own constitution; and then ratifying it by a referendum of all eligible voters.

The federal government tried twice to do this by telling lies that it was an amendment, and failed each time,

In 1931 the Statute of westminster was pasted to recognize the people and provinces as sovereign' and no longer a colony of Britain ; but the old colonial government continued to govern as if Canada was still a colony. To this day everything the government does is in the name of the queen- a dictator.

The only power the government has is the fradulent power they assumed; and perpetuate the myth that we have a democracy, saying the queen is only a figerhead, yet they swear to obey and protect her ; not to obey a Canadian constitution as would be done if Canada had a democratic government.

Edited December 3, 2007 by no queenslave

[Michael Hardner]

I would call that link a 'rant'. Canada doesn't need to re-open constitutional discussions.

[no queenslave]

I would call that link a 'rant'. Canada doesn't need to re-open constitutional discussions.

I would call that a post like jbg

"The Queen pays me to post.....I am not going to take any position contrary to the one I'm paid to take." quote by jbg

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

[ScottSA]

...Statute of westminster ...

Damn, I thought we were going to get through an entire 3 pages without Queenie mentioning the sta...well, you know. We didn't even make it through 2.

[no queenslave]

Damn, I thought we were going to get through an entire 3 pages without Queenie mentioning the sta...well, you know. We didn't even make it through 2.

Just think if you stayed under the queens skirt you would not of noticed.

[Pliny]

Most people do not really wish to concern themselves with politics which is why government always goes astray. It's too bad government couldn't just work with no one being aware of its existence in their lives. I think the majority of people are willing to leave political and governmental affairs up to someone else. The promise of democracy is that if the leaders and politicians of government get a little out of hand we can express our concern and vote for someone else. If the majority aren't concerned enough to vote for someone else then we are not concerned either and just vote ourselves the biggest handout - this is the failure of democracy. Becoming complacent about a government that takes credit for all the good things in society, and the people are, of course, responsible for all the bad things.

As George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

[Michael Hardner]

Colonial America was different though. The government was selected and populated with members of the public, but not masses.

[August1991]

Colonial America was different though. The government was selected and populated with members of the public, but not masses.

In post-revolutionary America, only about 15% of the population had the right to vote: white men who owned land (although New Jersey allowed women to vote until 1807).

That aside, Pliny is correct IMV. It is costly to cast and informed vote and the individual gains no benefit from the single ballot. Not surprisingly, many people don't vote and if we do, it is usually to vote against a government.

I may sound science fiction utopian but I believe that some time in the future, we will find a mechanism to replace the tasks assumed by government now. Such a mechanism will be completely different from what we know as government. I would imagine that it might resemble the market mechanism in its ability to elicit honest valuations.

[Michael Hardner]

They are required to arbitrate the interests of the whole of the population. They are another from of advocacy - geographical advocacy.

There was a day when they weren't needed, and such a day may indeed come again.

[Oleg Bach]

They are required to arbitrate the interests of the whole of the population. They are another from of advocacy - geographical advocacy.

There was a day when they weren't needed, and such a day may indeed come again.

We have a small group of corporate lawyers that run the show- you can vote left or right and it does not matter - there is no democracy - maybe there never was. Who ever controls the secondary governmental policy which is our so-called judical system - plus the bulk of the money supply have their way with us like unprotected virgin girls. These private high officals are not elected - so to have un-elected officals calling the shots means we are under a type of respectable quiet gangsterism. Never thought I would see the day when Canada and America were over powered and taken control of by a type of orgainized crime- there is really no other way to phrase this..Governments are to serve - not dictate - and if you look at the four front men - that head the parties...just have a good look at them gentetically - they control absolutely nothing - second rate human beings of second rate controlable and compliant intelligence - same can be said of the states---welcome to the sweeter and kinder Facism - where greed and power for power's sake rules.