Reliable Government

It may come as a surprise for average citizens, but it should not be difficult for critical thinkers to understand; the United States State Department is unable to provide a reliable government charter for developing societies. This is a problem and is why authoritarianism remains an easier solution.

The American form of government is a product of its evolution of ad hoc adjustments, and cannot be replicated. And, we do not have to look very far to recognize that Americans play a game of contradiction when it comes to the reliability of the government. Supreme Court Justice Thomas recently described the government as, “a car with only three wheels.” An awkward analogy for the old man on the Bench, but nonetheless, the audience enjoyed a laugh. There was no murmur of blasphemy, and no congress member called for impeachment the following week.

As it is, there are numerous recent opinions published suggesting that Americans are on the verge of civil war. Some may disagree, but ultimately, our partisan chaos trickles down causing the social disorder we endure. Personal frustration, social disagreements, political protests, riots, workplace violence, and general crime, are not all unrelated to the government system’s failed approach to Domestic Tranquility.

How is this for a theory?

The Three-part Separation Theory is incomplete, it does not define the subdivision of the three parts. Some, if not all, of the founders, were aware of the incompleteness of the Three-part Separation Theory, but there was not much they could do about it. The founders had to improvise everything beyond the concept of three parts. Remember the Connecticut Compromise was about balancing state representation that was unique only to the situation of the “several states.” Just because the founders did it that way does not mean that it is correct and just.

The simple deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. Except, of course, in the situation of Donald Trump with his amazing abilities and ceaseless ambition to rule the world more than Madonna ever dreamed of.

The simple deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory does not prevent the partisan quest for control of the three parts. In political science it is called an, “oligarchy,” and it should have been very easy for political scientists to detect this phenomenon and its cause. James Madison recognized the probable solution and described it in Federalist Paper 51. The passage is often quoted, but comprehending it and pursuing it has obviously been ignored by the most brilliant Constitutional scholars.

The necessary information had yet to be revealed, and the composition manipulation technology had yet to be invented. Even if the founders had the list of executive security departments, congressional committees, and demarcation of courts, that we have now to figure out the proper subdivision of the three parts, they still would have lacked the hierarchy notation technology necessary for organizing the directive systems that are necessary to compose the sophisticated integration of the increased number of separated entities. They needed that kind of technology just to deploy the three parts properly, but they did not have it, and they did not get it right, and the skewed approach to domestic tranquility that we endure is the result of that deficiency.

So the solution is to find a theory for subdividing the three parts - any ideas out there?

Nowhere in history has any government been reliable, unless you want to count China being reliable concerning cracking down on it’s people for everything.

Only if you’re China.

Actually, ancient Greece was a democracy and like the U.S. free men controlled the government, voted, and created laws. Don’t say that’s not the U.S. Abigail Adams asked her husband in a letter to remember ladies, but sadly the other men didn’t care about women or even wanted them in government or having rights. They were a rung above the slaves, which brings us to the slaves who had no rights. Back to Greece and only free men, which wasn’t much different.

Not too good. The fact of the matter is, we have all the social disagreements, personal frustration, political protests, riots (though I’ve not seen any), etc etc due to the inequality I mentioned before. For a democracy to be a real democracy, everyone really should be equal.

However, we do not and never did have a democracy. Some say we have a Republic. Whatever it is, it’s not true democracy. The Native Americans came closer to a true democracy, before the White man came and forced them to be “white”.

IMHO, we’d do better with the Democratic Socialistic form of government the Native Americans had and do have on their reservations.

  1. Athenian democracy must not be idealized.

Only the citizens participated and could vote. They were a minority in ancient Athens. The metics, free non citizens inhabiting the city, had no political rights and the vast majority of the population was made of slaves. Furthermore, many citizens could not come to the assembly for many reasons.

And reading Livy history of the Roman republic shows that democracy is very relative in an ancient city. Political and class struggles dominate the civic life.

I advise you to read Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West (1992)

The author shows that any form of government must use reason, tempered by common sense and morality.

But reason is not the cold reason of the technocracy.

When sight is lost of any of the three is lost, disaster looms.
[Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul :: A Book Review by Scott London]

The ideal form of government would be anarchy: a federation of free communities, self managing themselves.

For people interested by a reflection on this type of system, i advise to read the left hand of darkness, from U.K. Leguin.

[The Left Hand of Darkness - Wikipedia]

Pretty much what I was saying about Greek “democracy”.

Does he explain how to do that, or are those just ideas that are described?

I am very confident he does not explain how to do it, otherwise, it would be incorporated into a government, just as Montesquee’s twenty-year-old theory was incorporated into the almighty United States Constitution; and therefore I have no reason to waste my time reading it. The ideals are already in my silly little brain by virtue of the sophisticated society that refers to those abstract values in many instances, most notably when criticizing politicians as lacking.

What I am getting at is that we are being provided the altruistic ideals, but we are not trying to organize practical means to approach those ideals. We just laugh about the misgivings of the government, and like both of you, carry the crap of the history of erroneous government as reason enough to avoid trying to find a better solution. Like I described in the opening, the three-part separation theory only defines the three parts. It does not define how to subdivide those three parts, and that is where the practical means to achieve the ideals lies.

Although you are one of the most brilliant people I have encountered, it obviously, will not be you who figures it out.

If I knew how, i would promote it !

Now, even if some one finds the " ideal form of government ", I am sure that it will not be implemented as it would destroy the advantages of powerful people.

In fact, for me, the problem is not the true matter,; the matter is the capitalist system.

Nowadays, the function of the state is to protect the capitalist class powers and position. any form of government will be imperfect.

In my opinion, you are hunting phantom wild goose.

Not sure that’s a good way to develop confidence. I think the idea is to build on ideas, not dismiss them.

Did you not read the rest of the paragraph? Did you get all flustered, and wanted to get back at me for offending you, or what?

Um, yes, I read it.

One of the things I like about this forum is that the phrase, “did you read my post”, is very rarely invoked.