Thread: Mans Intelligence

...and waiting....



















............................and waiting.......










-whatever

-Lou

How can we expect individuals produced by a government dominated education to be capable of dominating the government?

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

How can we expect individuals produced by a government dominated education to be capable of dominating the government?

Good point!

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

How can we expect individuals produced by a government dominated education to be capable of dominating the government?

As with other things, through impartial review of the system.

X

Originally Posted by xman

As with other things, through impartial review of the system.

X

If the impartial reviewers were educated by the government then their impartiality would be in question Don't you think?

Originally Posted by JMS

If the impartial reviewers were educated by the government then their impartiality would be in question Don't you think?

no, I think that's stretching it a little.

X

Originally Posted by xman

no, I think that's stretching it a little.

X

It might be stretching it to assume that the reviewers are definitely government ringers, but in such a situation it would be down right irresponsible for a free people allow such reviewers to go unquestioned!

Not sure about why we would have to dominate the government.
We have a constitution that specifies the separation of powers, and the fundamental rights of all citizens.

The governent does what it is supposed to do. It is not grabbing power. It is not doing evil things. It just does its job. We decide who gets to to form a government, dring government formation a broad plan is made by the elected parties that specifies the goals for the next couple of years, and then specific seats get divided between the different parties.

Come next election, a sort of 'grading process' is applied (usually by political tv and newspaper articles) anything they failed at usually gets rubbed in their face by the opposition.

But basically, our government plays the part that it was given when the constitution was made. no more, no less. the system works.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not sure about why we would have to dominate the government.
We have a constitution that specifies the separation of powers, and the fundamental rights of all citizens.

The governent does what it is supposed to do. It is not grabbing power. It is not doing evil things. It just does its job. We decide who gets to to form a government, dring government formation a broad plan is made by the elected parties that specifies the goals for the next couple of years, and then specific seats get divided between the different parties.

Come next election, a sort of 'grading process' is applied (usually by political tv and newspaper articles) anything they failed at usually gets rubbed in their face by the opposition.

But basically, our government plays the part that it was given when the constitution was made. no more, no less. the system works.

I mean no disrespect Bruno, but your post, to my way of thinking is a little naive.
Republics (which America is) decay into democracies ( mob rule which America is becoming) which finally decay into despotisms. The only way to avoid this, if there is a way, is for the people of a free nation to have a healthy skepticism and a watchful eye towards government of any form and at any stage of its decay!

You have a good point. However, as long as we have the power to vote, we have the power to change what's happening.
What our government does is pretty transparent, as well as the powers it assumes.

As long as there are people like me watching the government, we are safe.
A key point here is that unlike the US system, we do not have a president whom everybody has to listen to. There is no highly centralized point of power that everybody aspires to, and there are more than 2 relevant parties.

I watch my government, and so far it has not assumed powers that it was not entitled to.

I was not going to write this because it might be considered provocative, but
A year ago, Turkey wanted Belgium to extradite a woman they said was a terrorist. No proof or evidence was supplied, and she had broken no Belgian laws. She had a shady past, but nothing to warrant an extradition so Belgium did the only thing it could legally do: keep an eye on her but refused to extradite.

Sometime later she fled the detail assigned to her and the government was criticised, but I was glad that Belgium had stood by its principles and by the constitution. Americans are fond of saying something like 'people who choose security over freedom deserved neither'.
Belgium made the right choice IMO.
Our government may make stupid decisions from time to time, but the constitution is still respected.

I fundamentally trust my government not to be evil because it has not given me any cause to.

I doubt the USA would have done the same thing. Despite the fact that you as an individual respect the constitution does not mean your government does.
Habeas corpus is suspended if you are a suspected terrorist. Recently the Us government assumed the right to freeze your assets indefinitely if you are a suspected terrorist, or if you deal with suspected terrorists. For all practical purposes a violation of the 5th amendement.
There is no right to a fair trial anymore. Instead you get a one-way ticket to some godforsaken country to be interrogated. And if those suspected terrorists are in another country, you can always charter a CIA plane to collect them despite the fact that such is in violation of international treaties.

You have cause not to trust your government. Every time the US administration takes away another of your fundamental freedoms, I wonder when the americans as a people will finally say 'enough' and take back those rights that are theirs by nature.

So no offense, but the fact that your government has proven to be untrustworthy does not mean that all governments are.