Don't you just love representative government?
LRC Blog - 9.27.08.
Michael S. Rozeff writes on the stupidity of representative government :
Don't you love representative government? We take potshots at the bailout bill and send e-mails to Congress. Meanwhile, basically in secret, they introduce various plans. We are clueless as to what these plans are or mean. We do not know the details, only vague hints. We are totally unable to follow the debate much less influence it. Half the time or more, most Congressman likewise are clueless. A great deal of haste is involved (Haste makes Waste, remember?) We mainly get promises that, yes, a deal will be reached by Sunday, as if we actually wanted a deal. A deal before Sunday makes it easier to appear on talk shows. Then, suddenly, a bill will appear and be passed. We the people will then have spoken. Don't you love representative government?
As each day passes, heck, as each minute passes, I become more and more anarchist and panarchist.
Sorry to say
and with all respect to Ron Paul's call to 'restore the constitution' I too think the concept of representative government (as we have it in most western countries) is deeply flawed. I just heard about a concept of 'representation by proxy' where the citizens have the right to take the vote back from their representative on certain issues and vote themselves. I may look for some side about it and start a thread on that.
Freedom brings People together
Ron Paul was right
Actually the representative is supposed to do what is .....
....in the best interest of All of their constituents. Sometimes that is what the majority wants, and sometimes the minority. What has been happening is that we have allowed greed to rule, lobbyists and corporations are the only one's being listened to by our representitives now. We the People are NOT represented in government for many years now. Less than 1% of the population want any kind of a bailout, yet we are going to have a bailout.
Interesting...
I always suspected something was "off" with concept of 'representative government.'
For example, how on earth is the 'elected representative' supposed to represent the diverse and often conflicting desires of their constituency?
Surprisingly, even the Founders seemed to have got sucked into this 'representative government' concept...
It's not supposed to
"represent the diverse and often conflicting desires of their constituency".
And it never was intended to do that.
It is supposed to represent the will of the majority of the constituency under a strictly limited framework, while protecting the inalienable rights of the minority.
But is that much better?
First off, yah I believe you are correct that it never was intended to do that.
2nd, is binding the minority to the whims of the majority that much better?
And, regarding the majority being under a 'limited framework,' what is there to stop the majority from just amending the constitution if they really wanted to get around these 'limitations'?
Furthermore, they could just flat out ignore the constitution (which is what seems to have happened in the history of the US )...
Well, that may be a matter for debate,
but that is the way the Constitution is written, and so it shall be, until there is a new form of government, or we move to a different country.
The simple majority cannot amend the Constitution. That requires a "supermajority(2/3)" vote in both houses of Congress, and the consent of 3/4 of all the states to ratify.
If there is that much consent, the founders determined that would be sufficient to amend.
Yes, they do ignore the Constitution, and that is both sad and criminal.
However, we find ourselves here because of lack of due vigilance in the past, as well as being subjected to criminal scams which many did not recognize.
Unfortunately, a government is only as good as the people who inhabit it, and the people who elect it, and enforce it.
There is very little to be done about it now, short of an all out revolt, and all of the perils and inconveniences which come along with that.
What about Lysander Spooner's insights?
I know Spooner doesn't get mentioned much on this site, but you and Kulza are both ignoring his central insight: the Constitution only bound those who agreed to it and the time of its signing.
How can a bunch of people get together and bind people who haven't even born yet into a contract?
So BigT, I strongly object to the implied notion that the Constitution is currently a legitimate governing document.