I never said that freedom of religion or separation of church and state are bad. In fact, I was sort of saying that they are a little bit weak. Religion has still managed to crop up as indirectly affecting politics (politicians making laws about social life based on religious scriptures, i.e. LTGB Rights and abortions). My basic theme in my arguments has been that the laws of yore have become outdated in this country. The basic principles are failing to withstand after 230 odd years of progress, and unless we change our basis of government, we could very easily have a metaphorical George III who takes advantage of the lapses in written code and breaks precedents to take power. It has happened in Rome with Julius Caesar, Britain with George III, France with Napolean, and Germany with Hitler. All of these dictators rose from the discontent of the people with the current status quo, and the inability of the system to accommodate. I would tend to think that America will be due for our major revolutionary fatal lapse in legal code fairly soon, judging by the world environment.
On a different note, I do not know the Village People very well, aside from the fact that they are from a place call Ymca.
I believe you just refuted yourself. First you were saying that we should model ourselves after the British because they managed to keep their government stable, now you say we shouldn't be like the British looking at the ascendance of George III. I would also like to add my thoughts on the examples you gave:
Julius Caesar: This wasn't a shortfall of their republic per se, just a coup d'etat that was carried out. There wasn't exactly a plebiscite to elect him. He just was the guy with the best army. They didn't really start liking him until he instituted reform, and then the Senate killed him.
George III: Might have been an improvement. George I and George II were both Hanoverian kings, and did not have a terribly large interest in the colonies or Britain. Contrarily, George III took eager interest in his colonies, which basically led to his downfall.
an improvement over the reign of terror. Probably not the best person for the job, but if most of us were in that time period, we probably would have supported him over the earlier terror council.
Hitler: This could possibly have been avoided for one thing: the socialists hated the social democrats. Together, they had more votes in the reichstag, but could not reconcile their differences in the face of a determined right. This is different from today, however, because now the Right is divided, while the left is weak.
Basically, Julius Caesar and to a lesser extent George III were not really monarchs who took over through paperwork and changing legal documents, as you imply. Rather they took advantage of a weakened opposition to consolidate power. They did not change anything in their government documents to make it legal. Whether or not there was a constitution or not was a non-issue. The government just became dysfunctional, and someone took over. Changing the constitution probably would not change this situation.
First of all, I did not refute myself because I was referring to the continuity of the system in both cases, and how changes must be made to prevent tyrants like these, and though the British system survived because of its resilience, it took a major loss to close a loophole.
And yes, Julius Caesar was a failure of their Republic. How do you think he got to have power? The Republic laws failed to foresee anybody doing what he did.
The British system wasn't perfect. But it was resilient, allowing for the system to survive a major blow like losing a huge portion of its colonies. It failed to protect against a revolution. But it survived.
Napolean-But is it better than a democracy or other similar form of government? No. He took power due to a revolution because the original system didn't expect that the people, and the council of terror, could take power from an absolute monarch.
I did not necessarily say that the underlying problems were the same for us and Hitler, but the situation it puts us in is similar. And the problems are similar anyway. The left is weak because it doesn't have a leader strong enough to unite it, while the right is determined to defeat its ideals. Yes it is divided, but only about how to go about the left's destruction.
Please guys, just:
I fail see how this was an at all useful post.
Politics eh? OK, 3 things needed.
1. Get Rid of The Debt
2. Get Rid of the Taxes and Tax Codes
Really? I wonder if they have tried that.
Maybe I will just tell that to Congress "Hey, how about you don't
But honestly, it isn't quite that simple. Low taxes have caused just as many problems as taxes that are too high (in fact, it is the reason we are in so much debt).