Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

 
 

View User's Journal

Report This Entry Subscribe to this Journal
On a Journey Through Darkness...
Some random thoughts from the disturbed mind of a 18 year old. Remember that not everything should be taken seriously. Read responsibly and responsively.
...Those I meet on the way, enemies or friends?
WARNING: Frapping huge post follows. sweatdrop


I was really amazed, and way pumped last night when Adam Corola, the host of Love Line (A radio show that comes on at midnight here where people call in about sex/relationship problems), basically said on the air what I've been thinking about the contestants in this election. Now, I usually don't have much respect for the opinion of hollywood entertainers on the election, but, like I said, he nearly echoed my opinions, and gave me more reasons then I had already thought of.

For one thing, he said that Bush is smart. His reasoning was that an idiot can't fly a fighter jet, something I completely forget when I reason it. For another, he mentioned how with Kerry, you don't know what he's thinking or planning.

And another thing that got me thinking, is they mentioned how, no matter the good intentions of the president, things don't really change that much between presidents. While they change a little bit, and who is president is still very important, there aren't many big changes. So it got me to thinking about how democracy as we know it doesn't really work as well as we all think of it as working.

As they pointed out, the president really can't make many changes on his/her own. As a friend of mine pointed out, many polititians today are career polititians. So it's in their interests to make sure that they stay in office, rather then think about the good of the people they just do whatever will make them be better thought of. The same friend also pointed out that supreme justices tend to be different, because they are elected for life; They have no reason to fight for the next term.

So I thought up this form of government that is sort of a Monarchy, and I'm trying to think of what else it is. You have the King/Queen which is a life position (Or to retirement) that is passed down by generation (To the eldest child- But they can refuse it, and it be passed on to someone else.). The parents bring their children up to keep the will of the people in mind.

The King/Queen can make any decision stick -right now-, except those dealing with the death of people or anything dealing with the Congress.

The Congress is a group of people also elected for life, and are sworn into office. There are severe consequences for not following the oaths, which include protecting the rights of the people, and doing what is best for them. The Congress doesn't really have to do much for the monarch, and so aren't paid a huge amount. It's more of a stipend, with the assumption that they will have a normal job also. Their real duties are to make sure that the monarch doesn't step outside their bounds. They have the ability to overturn any decisions made by the monarch, or to lock down the monarch's powers and take them over themselves. In the case that the royal line is broken, they choose the next Kind/Queen.

None of them know who the rest are. When they meet, it is under assumed identities that only tell, essentially, what state they represent.

There is also a supreme court system much like the one we have now, and elected positions much like the ones we have now for state and local officials.

Obviously it's not perfect, but what is on first draft? whee


I.Am
Community Member
  • [07/20/08 10:12am]
  • [06/23/06 07:38pm]
  • [06/09/06 06:07am]
  • [02/10/06 11:36pm]
  • [01/09/06 08:23am]
  • [12/06/05 04:56am]
  • [12/01/05 07:14pm]
  • [10/05/05 01:45am]
  • [09/17/05 07:32am]
  • [09/02/05 07:25pm]


  • User Comments: [5]
    It's a nice ideal. I dont' think it'd ever work. Power corrupts. Think about it, they wrote in an ammendment (22) to prohibit a president from serving more than two terms. It was because FDR started really taking more control...he was good and all and got us outta depression, but he was definitely starting to get power hungry. Justices have been known to do this too, but when they do it outrageously enough to get caught, they're asked quietly to retire so no scandal is raised. The president has no power to declare war, only to send the troops. He is head of the military. Congress can declare war, it has to be a large majority I think 2/3? maybe less. I don't remember quite, but checks and balances we have here with temporary terms keep politicians on their toes doing things. Are you gonna work harder if you might get kicked out, or if there's competition, your job isn't set in stone, and in order to get elected you can't afford to neglect a number of people because they are the ones who will put you back in office. The founding fathers purposely went out of their way to get away from a monarchy; magna carta didn't exactly hold up too well, parliament's nice but it's got its flaws, just like our government does. BUT....within the next 4 years, 2 seats in the Supreme court will most likely need to be filled. I respectfully disagree that more lasting jobs would make congress progress (hahaha, get it? :scream: I'll shut up....) and counter that it will corrupt more than anything. People will always be people. Human beings do wrong, a lot, and people in power have time and time again throughout history (who would punish when the people with the authority to punish are benefitting from the system?) that keeping people working for their seats is better for the society. I don't think they get paid tons, but maybe I'm wrong, most go in with money. It's how they can afford to campaign and all, well, except for fundraising but you need starter money to start the fundraising. Mm, and then there's pay. They decide on the pay...but raises and cuts don't come into effect until after that person's term's up, so they don't give themselves tons of money, I guess.

    comment lymelady · Community Member · Wed Nov 03, 2004 @ 03:12am
    I disagree... I think that the 22nd amendment was, in a way, a try at doing the same thing I'm trying to do in ways. That is, it's keeping someone from having a goal of being the ultimate president who's in for life, so he spends all of each term working the people up for the next election, meaning that he gets virtually no real work done and gets paid huge amounts for it.

    And the whole thing on war: That's one reason why I think this should be done. Rather then needing the Congress to give him permission to go do something, the King would say "let it be done", and the congress can probably come to a quick agreement as to whether it's bad enough for them to overturn it or not.

    Actually, they were originally people who were suited to the job that got elected, rather then rich people. My idea of making them not be paid quite so much would ensure that rich people wouldn't want it because of the money.

    comment I.Am · Community Member · Wed Nov 03, 2004 @ 06:07pm
    they don't get paid much, though. I believe the president gets paid less than....ah, here it is. thought so The system where the President controls the military but the congress declares war protects us from a dictator. It keeps us from being a military-run nation. It protects people from power abuses with checks and balances. Look at some of the men who have been president before. Look at the monarchs of Europe through history. There are always abuses of power, unsuitable people have the job, and.....where they've got monarchs now are the countries that make the UN so grumble-worthy. It's the system we broke free from in the 1700's, we fought so that people would not be subject to the cruel treatment of one corrupt man.

    Or, here, this is an example...

    Look how close Kerry was to getting elected. Do you honestly want someone like that in power for life? And passing it on to his children? With the same strategies, beliefs, morals? And them passing it on, etc? That's actually a dynasty I guess, isn't it? But the thought scares me. I feel safe with the 3 branches of govt. set up like they are.

    comment lymelady · Community Member · Wed Nov 03, 2004 @ 06:33pm
    It certainly is an interesting idea for a form of government. There would be one or two problems that I could see;

    1) If Congress is elected for life, what if members start going corrupt? Human nature dictates that someone will always look to better themselves. How would you prevent that?

    2) If the Congress can take away Royal Power, what's to stop them from doing so and forming an oligarchy?

    3) How would all the views and concerns of the people be expressed? That government suits those in power very well, but what about the people? If the Congress goes all uber-conservative, there wouldn't be a hope for gay rights, or any other commonly argued "liberal" stance. Would there be a way around that?

    Like you said, rough draft, but pretty interesting nontheless.

    Kyo

    comment [Bunny Luv] · Community Member · Wed Nov 03, 2004 @ 08:37pm
    It's not a dictatorship because the Congress can overturn any decision/impeach the King, essentially.

    And congress is prevented from becoming corrupt by the fact that they don't individually have much power, and they can't go and 'put pressure' on the others because they don't know who they are.

    Like I said, the Congress can 'impeach' the King, and that keeps him on the straight and narrow.

    As for Oligarchy, the way I have it set up there really is no way for it to keep from becoming an oligarchy. I guess that's something I'd have to figure out how to fix. whee

    All that stuff about current pay is interesting though... I didn't know that. eek

    comment I.Am · Community Member · Wed Nov 03, 2004 @ 09:25pm
    User Comments: [5]

     
     
    Manage Your Items
    Other Stuff
    Get GCash
    Offers
    Get Items
    More Items
    Where Everyone Hangs Out
    Other Community Areas
    Virtual Spaces
    Fun Stuff
    Gaia's Games
    Mini-Games
    Play with GCash
    Play with Platinum