The Curious Case of the Fall in Crime.

[Seth]

The witless protecting the helpless, in the land of the brainless.

What could possibly go wrong?

I'd rather an average citizen have the power, rather than someone who could turn his "protection" into a dictatorship.

Intelligent people, and indeed most people of average intelligence agree with you.

As for the rest? Well, petard and all that...

Anybody know where you go to create a smiley? I need a petard ride smiley.

[Blind groper]

To be a successful politician, all you need is charisma.

To be an effective politician, you need charisma and competence.

To be a great politician, you need charisma, competence and benevolence.

Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Ghandi were great politicians.

Anyone know of a practical way to weed out all of those would-be politicians who lack charisma, competence, or benevolence?

[Warren Dew]

Elections are a pretty good way of weeding out those who lack charisma.

[Seth]

Elections are a pretty good way of weeding out those who lack charisma.

Problem these days is that thanks to the Marxist useful idiots it's also great at weeding out anyone who might actually be able to lead the country in a positive direction.

The dependent class always votes for the candidate who promises them the most largess from the public treasury. This time around it's Obama. Who knows who will be next.

[Blind groper]

The point I was making, more or less, is that no perfect system exists. If we could set up a hereditary royalty in which every ruler was charismatic, competent and benevolent, it would be better than any system so far invented. Of course, royalty is characterised by inbred idiocy, lack of charisma, selfishness, corruption and incredible incompetence.

We have settled on a form of democracy (democracy comes in all sorts of flavors) as a compromise method that avoids some of the worst problems, but is still prone to corruption and incompetence.

I do not know of any system that is perfect. The NZ form of democracy is quite good, since we have a titular head of state (the queen) who has almost zero power (her representative can in theory dissolve parliament, but this is an extreme rarity), but whose existence tends to keep the prime minister and his minions from getting seriously corrupt, or doing anything contrary to the constitution.

[Seth]

The point I was making, more or less, is that no perfect system exists. If we could set up a hereditary royalty in which every ruler was charismatic, competent and benevolent, it would be better than any system so far invented. Of course, royalty is characterised by inbred idiocy, lack of charisma, selfishness, corruption and incredible incompetence.

Of course no perfect system exists. All such systems involve human beings and they are therefore intrinsically and axiomatically flawed, some more than others. Some WAY more than others.

We have settled on a form of democracy (democracy comes in all sorts of flavors) as a compromise method that avoids some of the worst problems, but is still prone to corruption and incompetence.

What you mean "we" paleface?

I do not know of any system that is perfect.

Heaven I suppose. Under God's dictatorship and Jesus' management so long as you sing the right hosannas you'll do alright.
But wait...if you don't, the penalties are rather...satanic.

So no, no perfect system.

The NZ form of democracy is quite good, since we have a titular head of state (the queen) who has almost zero power (her representative can in theory dissolve parliament, but this is an extreme rarity), but whose existence tends to keep the prime minister and his minions from getting seriously corrupt, or doing anything contrary to the constitution.

The problem with the parliamentary form of government is its political instability and it's lack of representative power in the executive, ie: checks and balances.

Also, it's lack of a constitution that first and foremost guarantees and protects the rights of the individual and of the people against the machinations of sinister ministers, prime or otherwise. Ministers make law by regulation, much as Obama is trying to do here with his executive branch power. That is the crux of the Progressive agenda, which I'll get to in a moment.

The other gross failure is the monarchy, titular or otherwise. There is no real check and balance should a despot take the throne and dissolve parliament, which no small number of English kings have done in the past.

In all socialistic governments (like the UK and NZ) the government (or the UN) declares the rights of humans, thereby implicitly limiting the scope and nature of those "rights" to only those which are expressly acknowledged and recognized by the government. This gives government the power to apportion out rights as it sees fit, and deny them where it is convenient to do so merely by "democratically" (or otherwise) revising the list.

What's unique about the United States and our Constitution, which was written explicitly to address the problems of monarchy and parliamentary systems, is that it is written as a charter of "negative liberties," which means that our system presumes a priori that the rights of the individual, and of the People as a whole are only limited in their scope by the imagination of man. The "right" to own 40 acres and a mule a hundred years ago became the right to buy a house and a car today.

As I've said before, if one examines the nature of "rights" down to the core, beginning from first principles, one can construct a structure and hierarchy of rights by doing two things: Defining a right in objective, rather than philosophical or political terms; and acknowledging that no right is absolute and that all are subject to social balancing and adjudication of some kind in any form of society where more than one individual exists. This is based on first principles because it is observed natural behavior in all living organisms, so it's as good a place to begin as any, and a far better place to start than either with deity OR democracy.

That course will take us down the road to the Organic Rights, so I'll turn back to the US and it's Constitution for a while.

The purpose of our construction in the Constitution is based on the principle that the only just government governs only with the consent of the governed, and the understanding that all forms of government are flawed and subject to abuse and tyranny.

Therefore, our system holds, all original power and authority lies with the People themselves, and not with any organ or system created by them to manage social relations. Because (we recognize) government is a useful servant but a dangerous master, our Constitution does not tell government what it CAN do, that is determined by the People themselves, it explicitly tells the government what it shall not do. It says "No person acting under color of authority of the government ("Congress" originally, but applied to all government agents by the 14th Amendment) shall make a rule, law or regulation "...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

(I'm avoiding the 2nd and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights so as not to cloud the issue, I hope you appreciate that)

Thus, unlike the parliamentary system where the incumbent Prime Minister and his ministers so sinister can pretty much do as they please UNLESS they are somehow constrained by the Crown, both houses of Parliament, or the People themselves, act to negate their actions. And they can do so in literally any sphere of public or private life, and the burden is placed on the individuals or groups affected to find the political support to overturn such regulations.

The "Censorship Zone" around the houses of Parliament in London is a classic example of this principle. It was enacted because some people in government found it to be untidy and distasteful to have demonstrations and petitions for redress of grievances being held immediately outside the building, where they sometimes interrupt the solemn and dignified duties of screwing with people's lives going on inside.

This is because the "right" of the individual, or many individuals, to protest and petition their government for redress of grievances does not originate with the People, it's a permission granted by the government at it's whim and caprice. And if it's inconvenient or unruly or disruptive to have protesters shouting outside, why that permission can be (and has been) revoked.

That cannot happen in the United States precisely because of the First Amendment Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition prohibitions against government interference with the exercise of those rights forbids Congress from insulating itself from the will of the people and their petitions. This right is natural to and inherent in the People, and in each individual person, and government can neither grant it nor remove it nor unduly infringe upon it. It can regulate to some degree the time, place and manner, but only when doing so is based in a compelling government need to regulate and if the regulation is the minimum possible regulation that actually achieves a legitimate governmental objective...the silencing of dissent not being among those legitimate objectives.

But the most important principle of our system is that the individual stands on an equal footing with the collective when it comes to balancing and adjudicating of rights. Our system of "rights", which calls them "natural" or "inherent" says that rights originate with the individual, each and every individual, and that where there exists conflict between the free exercise of the rights of the individual and the exercise of powers of the government or the will of the collective, the individual stands on an equal footing in that adjudication. In other words, the individual's rights are not necessarily superior to the power of the collective to regulate conduct, but neither is the individual's rights inferior to those of the collective merely by virtue of the greater numbers of the collective.

Rights are balanced and adjudicated based on rational analysis of the conflicts with due regard for the practicalities and necessities of any social adjudication of conflicting rights, but the burden is always on the collective, in the form of the government and the judicial system (another check and balance) to show that a) it's infringement upon or regulation of the free exercise of rights by the individual is not explicitly or implicitly proscribed by the Constitution itself; and b) that it's exercise of the authority of government to infringe upon or regulate the free exercise of rights by the individual, where necessary and reasonable, meets a very high and strict standard in order to avoid arbitrary and capricious conduct by the government. The purpose of the Judicial Branch is to examine the acts of the Legislative and Executive branches to make sure that the exercise of power falls within the just and reasonable ambit of the powers and authorities granted to government by the People.

And the explicit protection of the right to petition for redress of grievances and the right to freedom of speech and assembly are all serious bars to government's attempts to quash or silence dissent, as they are intended to be, based on our experience with Mad King George and his obstinacy and tyrannical acts towards the Colonies.

And this is why the United States is not a "democracy." It's a Constitutional Republic that happens to use limited democratic processes in some decision making situations. But all such "democratic" decisions by the People are themselves subject to the overriding principles of the Constitution and the purposes of the Republic as expressed by its Founders.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if 75 percent of the public says that the right to free speech (and religion) of Islamists is objectionable and shall be prohibited, the right of just one individual Muslim to freely (but peaceably) practice and speak about his or her religion outweighs all those votes by the public.

The sole exception to this is the process of amending the Constitution itself, which is a long, burdensome and difficult process, and it's specifically intended to be that way precisely in order to slow things down and pour oil on the waters of the crashing waves of public whim and caprice.

But the fundamental difference between the US (and Libertarianism) and socialism of any stripe is the primacy of the rights of the individual over the "democratic" demands of the masses or the unauthorized actions of the government.

This single distinction is what separates the sheep from the goats when it comes to political philosophy and the just exercise of powers over the individual by the collective.

[MrJonno]

Problem these days is that thanks to the Marxist useful idiots it's also great at weeding out anyone who might actually be able to lead the country in a positive direction.

The dependent class always votes for the candidate who promises them the most largess from the public treasury. This time around it's Obama. Who knows who will be next.

Would have thought as a 'libertarian that you would realise there is no such thing as a national interest only your own interest and that's how people vote.

[Blind groper]

And Seth once more presents his arrogant, and ignorance based, view that only the USA is free.

Go back to school Seth.

[Seth]

And Seth once more presents his arrogant, and ignorance based, view that only the USA is free.

Go back to school Seth.

Go fuck yourself, Groper.

When the government grants or revokes rights, there are no rights, only permissions and privileges doled out according to the whims and caprices of whomever is in charge.

If you are incapable of defending and taking back your freedom from a tyrant, you are not free, you only think you are.

[Seth]

Problem these days is that thanks to the Marxist useful idiots it's also great at weeding out anyone who might actually be able to lead the country in a positive direction.

The dependent class always votes for the candidate who promises them the most largess from the public treasury. This time around it's Obama. Who knows who will be next.

Would have thought as a 'libertarian that you would realise there is no such thing as a national interest only your own interest and that's how people vote.

You would have, as per usual, thought wrong because you are utterly ignorant of Libertarian philosophy.

[Blind groper]

My country has never had a national leader that comes within a million miles of being a tyrant. Nor do I believe that has happened in Australia. The last tyrant in Britain had the title HRH. The USA has skated on much thinner ice than we have.

However, New Zealanders and Australians and Britons put their lives on the line to fight tyranny in WWII while you Americans were still refusing to admit there was a problem. My father fought in North Africa against the armies of Rommel, and risked his life in the great campaign to depose a dictator. So do not accuse us of being unwilling to fight tyranny when it is needed.

[Warren Dew]

The point I was making, more or less, is that no perfect system exists. If we could set up a hereditary royalty in which every ruler was charismatic, competent and benevolent, it would be better than any system so far invented. Of course, royalty is characterised by inbred idiocy, lack of charisma, selfishness, corruption and incredible incompetence.

I'd question that characterization. Elizabeth II seems reasonably charismatic, competent, and benevolent, as was probably the case with Elizabeth I for the most part as well. Henry II and Henry VIII were charismatic and competent, though arguably not benevolent. In between there were plenty of less charismatic or less competent monarchs, of course.

I think on the whole monarchs are about as good as any other politician. They might even have a bit better of a long term planning horizon since their position is hereditary.

[Seth]

My country has never had a national leader that comes within a million miles of being a tyrant. Nor do I believe that has happened in Australia.

Ever hear the term "past performance is no guarantee of future performance?"

What you say is quite simply an example of head-in-the-sand denialism of exactly the same kind that led the Weimar Republic straight into the hell of World War II. You think it can't happen to you so you just put it out of your mind and deny everything...until one day you wake up and the Gestapo are knocking on YOUR door looking for your Maori tribe identification card. And when you can't produce it, you go into the ovens along with all the rest of the European "invaders."

The last tyrant in Britain had the title HRH. The USA has skated on much thinner ice than we have.

Never. Not once. And that's because the citizenry have always retained the arms and power necessary to depose a despot who refuses to cede power when unelected.

However, New Zealanders and Australians and Britons put their lives on the line to fight tyranny in WWII while you Americans were still refusing to admit there was a problem.

For all the good it did you...until American came along and bailed your sorry asses out...with OUR guns.

My father fought in North Africa against the armies of Rommel, and risked his life in the great campaign to depose a dictator.

He was a smart man. I can't say the same for his son, who fails to understand or acknowledge that every society is one despot away from tyranny. Just ask the Venezuelans who have been disappeared into shallow graves in the jungle. Or the Cubans who never got the chance to have kids because they got buried in shallow graves in the banana groves by Che Guevara and Castro.

So do not accuse us of being unwilling to fight tyranny when it is needed.

It's not that good Brits might be unwilling, it's that they will be entirely unprepared and unable to do so precisely because they have given up their rights as Englishmen to keep and bear arms...you remember, the one that's in the Magna Carta...along with the necessary warrior spirit that is required to stand up to a tyrant.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As I have told you before, those who fight against tyranny get guns, one way or another. The people fighting against the dictator in Syria right now have guns. What they do not have is helicopters, jets and tanks. Your system will not provide those.

[Seth]

Seth

As I have told you before, those who fight against tyranny get guns, one way or another.

Tell it to 7 million Jews who died in Nazi death camps. Tell it to the millions who died in the killing fields of Cambodia. Tell it to the 60 million who died in China or the 40 million who died in the gulags of the Soviet Union. Tell it to the 12 million who were starved to death by Stalin in 1933 in Ukraine.

You're so fucking ignorant it's beyond belief.

The people fighting against the dictator in Syria right now have guns. What they do not have is helicopters, jets and tanks. Your system will not provide those.

Sure it will. The problem in Syria is that those opposing the tyranny in power don't have ENOUGH guns and ammunition, and the standing army has TOO MANY guns and weapons.

That's precisely why the US military has been kept proportionally small, so that they are ALWAYS strongly outnumbered by an armed citizenry that is prepared to put down a mutiny and attempt at despotism.

Every National Guardsman or full-time military person I've asked the question of has told me their allegiance is not to the President, or a General or any other individual, but to the People and the Constitution, to whom their oath is sworn. THAT'S where the People get their tanks and helicopters and fighter jets.