Bitcoin Forum

Hi,

Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?

I prefer strong constitution created by politicians elected by majority through fair election.

You missed one: a strong Federal Constitutional Republic...

Can you explain this please ? So i can add it

Neither.

I'm in favor of a feeble state, with few laws and few elections.

that's what i think about with "strong constitution". I find funny some American proud of their constitution speak so much about democracy while in fact the constitution is here to limit democracy.

Not at all. The American Constitution's goal was to limit the power of the State, not the people. Of course it is up to the politicians not to lie or not to cheat. The constitution is a list of "stuff" the government cannot impose on its people. The other way around is pretty much everywhere else where other constitutions list all the rights a government gives to its people. But if a government can give you something, like freedom then a government can change its mind and take it back.

Now a lot of the founders were close to be anarchists, the original definition of the term, not a bomb thrower in a crowd screaming something insane just before an explosion. No system is perfect, but the 14th amendment was added to make sure children of slaves would be born free, unlike their parents the South deemed them to be property like their cattle.

You could also end up with some insane politicians that would reverse all your rights, that is why, unlike other "democracies" in the world you can fight back (or at least not die like a serf) with your weapon in hand when things start to get ugly. That is part of your natural right.

I am not an expert but this is how I understand the American Constitution. Not saying it is the ultimate system, but way better than anything else tried before, including socialism way after... :)
 

https://i.imgur.com/l5h9zMR.jpg
Tibetan Serf (http://shugdensociety.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/goodbye-shangri-la-excerpts-from-the-new-book-by-michael-parenti/)

Every constitution can be change if most of people want it to be change.

Let see for example, There is a law that prohibits the subsidy of free energy if one people disagree. The people would force their politicians to change that law if is not working for everyone. The politicians would be force to change otherwise he will not win in the next election and people would probably elect other politicians that would do the job.

Let see an another example, If majority of the population is crazy enough that want part of the population killed. If they succeed the state will continue. Else if they failed to kill that population there could be civil war or rebellion then when one of the group wins the state will continue. As simple as that. War and killing is all part of political cycle.

sure but limit the power of the state is limiting the power of the people against other people. For example in theory if the majority of people want more "gun control" law and vote for that the law will not exist cause of the second amendment.

@Watoshi-Dimobuto

The goal of a constitution is to not change even is the people disagree with, a constitution that change often is like having no constitution.

If the constitution is against the majority of the population there are always rebellion or secession. It is always like this until they came up with stable constitution.

Constitution can just apply to federal level to help keep competition between state.

Between the two, a strong constitution is the most direct form of democracy, since the democratic process here primarily takes place in the economy: the number of votes you get is directly equivalent to how much you contribute to that economy; nothing could be more fair.  Political democracy is the most unfair form of democracy, as it encourages those who will not work to take the labor of those who do, seeing as everyone's vote is made artificially equal.  I am not worth the same as another man, I do not expect to have as much weigh as him; this is simply an inescapable truth.

Problem with a constitution is that it doesn't actually do anything, it just represents an idea in people; it's just a flimsy piece of paper if anything.  It's like a precursor for an inevitable socialist take-over; when your people are used to having a public military and publicly funded roads, paid for against their will no less, they're essentially trained to bend over and receive the next pounding of socialist concepts like public social nets, public money, public enterprises like education and security and publicly-influenced private enterprises like corporations and regulation, so on and so forth.  I have never once observed a constitution prevent corruption from occurring; so long as there exists a state, it will only strive to get bigger and bigger.  So why use it?  Can we really find no better way to fund a military and build the roads?  Is it worth the pain and deaths which follow? :-\

If the point of a constitution is to limit the state, then the ultimate constitution is the one which does not enable it to exist at all.  I think the notion that we have to control "ourselves" with the threat of violence is an artifact of the past, along with religion, that we won't be taking with us into the future.  Sure, there will always be people who want to bring harm to us, but the idea that we have to ensnare the good 99% to take care of the bad 1% (which wiggle their way into the highest spots of the state anyway making the notion pointless) is slowly, but surely, being acknowledged as completely absurd.

Anyway, here's a funny thing about democracy:


As opposed to what, lizards?

the fact that every land is on the control of a government make me very skeptical about anarchism defense. What will an anarchist society do when a socialist government army will come?

Libertarians and anarchists love their guns. So if a socialist government comes to attack, then they will face resistance, unlike a country who believes they cannot trust their own citizen with weapons...

They will just stay away and fire big enterprise and then smaller enterprise with missile to make investor fear and the economy go back to something like Waziristan.

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected, or the djidahists who kill thousands because their religious book (which should be the base of a constitutional state according to them) tell them they're infidels.

You are free to choose one or the other and I'll keep on refusing both.

True democracy sucks. That's why I roll my eyes when someone uses a majority of Americans supporting a policy as justification. Unless we have basic rights and limited government based on a constitution which is the *supreme law of the land* there is no limit to how the majority can abuse the minority.

"Democracy" itself is not a virtue. A society based on individual liberty, justice and rule of law, such as the one the founding fathers designed is. Don't throw democracy in my face when you are trying to take my rights and interfere in my life. The majority can be just as cruel a master as a king.

I will not choose any of any of those groups. I will leave that country or joined the rebellion that is my choices.

Strong Constitution, people in big groups tend to be moved by emotion more than reason.
Issue with a Constitution is that people interpret it different ways.

For example:
1st Amendment, Congress shall make no law 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.

Patriot Act internet controls could be interpreted constitutional as the 1st Amendment only protects freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. NOT the Internet or Telecommunications...

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%

All this democracy games during 1932-1933 seems like a poor joke, and very similar to some recent events in well known country  :D

For countryfree:

Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.

This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.

Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.

I know all that. It wasn't smart tactics but democracy's always like that. Nothing has changed. In today's democracy, the winner is the one who spends the most in advertising. I shall also remind you of the Bush vs Gore battle for the U.S. 2000 presidential election. Gore had half a million more votes than Bush, but the latter got elected. Democracy may be the best system, but it's far from perfect.

Not exactly, the purported dichotomy is if capital votes or if people vote, i.e. is one dollar bill == one vote, or is one person == one vote. That's a difference. A pauper would practically have zero voice in such a purely capitalistic society, while in a democracy he would (theoretically) have one vote.

But either way, theoretically we have democracy in most parts of the world, but we all know in practice both approaches kinda fail.

Hell, who cares about Bush and electoral college... :)

Successfully blackmail the president to get a post isn't equal to be democratically elected. Isn't that clear enough? %)

Have you even heard about Switzerland ?

Yes, I heard about Switzerland and I know what you mean.
People there have right to ask for national referendum about any issue in their lives, but still they need their political Representatives, parliament, government etc.

I don't know much about politics but isn't constitution a product of democracy?
Also it seems to me that democracy is more dynamic and constitution is more rigid. They are both flawed.
Constitution could work if it were perfect but that's impossible to achieve.

Law to protect individual and privacy are needed via strong constitution.

Strong democracy implies mob rules.

i dont care about thats all . i just want to be rich and  life freedom with sexy gir until i ddie ...

Strong Constitution would be my choice without question.  They say a democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner. 

Hitler did a lot to manulipate the system. He made empty promises and was elected when the economy in Germany was doing very bad. Does this sound familar?

democracy is not when the majority can do wharever they want, but it is when all the powers are more or less balanced, and we have the empire of the law and the fundamentals values above all.

Then the correct would be strong consensus or strong democracy.

Yeah, sound familiar with another guy who unable to read the topic. :D

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=721803.msg8181815#msg8181815

He wasn't elected, he failed to achieve majority even after triple attempt of election. He was appointed by the president.

strong constitution #1 best for everyone

Strong constitution that protect individual right.

I repeat Hitler came to power democratically. He didn't have a majority in 1933, that's very true, but that doesn't change anything. In Italy, the Netherlands, Austria or Belgium and plenty of other countries, the political leaders, today, don't have a majority either. A 51% majority is just impossible as there are too many candidates at each election. So there's got to be a coalition, and the best man to achieve that is appointed.

Saying Hitler didn't came to power democratically is saying there's no democracy in Italy, the Netherlands, nor in all the countries which have the same constitutional system as Germany in the 1930's. And all Germans agree on this: Hitler had the support of a majority of the German people for many years. Just ask a German!

Strong democracy
The choice of the people should generally prevail

(I am German, but I know either way that) Markets can be manipulated, just as people can be manipulated. Nothing new under the sun, an unsolved problem for mankind.

i really believe in strong constitution.

Frankly, I'd be happy to believe in that, but when I see some islamists who think life would be a dream if everything was regulated according to the Koran, I wonder: how do you guarantee the constitution is a good one?

I don't think this is really an either/or type question. The constitution is usually constructed and agreed upon in a democratic fashion. Once the people agree to the constitution it is generally more difficult to change then it is "normal" laws. The constitution is always able to be changed if enough of the people want it changed.

TL;DR - democracy = constitution

i will even prafare strong constitution and a free and fair election and a good government

I'm for strong constitution but only if it is a good one.
I mean, look at european union constitution, it is just shit: not ment for guarantee people's rights but only to annihilate democracy.

The real questions shoud be:
How is done a good constitution?
Which countries have a good constitution?

You have presented a false dichotomy... see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=732610.0

[X] Constitutionally-enforced democracy

I prefer a political system with strong democracy. The beauty of democracy is: you can stand in front of a billion tons giant iron complex working machine, stare at it and criticize it and claim for a change of it, or at least we can scream at it

I believe in a virtuous anti-government that wholly consists of an authoritarian anarchist, like we have with the imperial government.

You couldn't come up with a more oxymoronic idea than that if you tried.

Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.

Rather, enact common law all over. Common law says, do anything you want, anything at all, as long as you don't:
1. Harm other people;
2. Damage their property;
3. Break a contract that you signed into with full understanding.

Who cares about what a constitution or other document says? As law as common law as stated above is the basis for all of it, freedom will abound.

In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."

:)

I agree with this very much. Democracy is touted as the fairest form of government, but I don't think that any form of government that allows the rights of an individual to be taken away at the behest of the majority, just for the sake of it being a more popular position, can possibly be regarded as "fair." A fair government protects the rights of everyone, at all times. Your life, liberty, and property should not be taken from you involuntarily, and the only legitimate function of government is to make sure that those three things aren't.

From http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm :


:)

The point is, in the United States, we have a Constitution that provides a Republic form of government. The only thing that holds people back from exercising their rights is, they don't know how to exercise the laws of a republic... THE COMMON LAW. Start at the above website. Then learn the way Karl Lentz does it.

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

:)

See the reply below for an elucidation of "authoritarian anarchism."
"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."

That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.


Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."

That makes very little sense, but what you appear to be saying is that anarchy can be imposed using the existing mechanism of authoritarian violence... which is exactly like the Orwellian idea that "War is Peace".


That's assuming that the supposed representatives of the majority actually are representing the interests of the majority... which is obviously untrue. The "news" media presents an illusion of choice between millionaire scumbag #1 and millionaire douchebag #2, while largely ignoring 3rd party candidates that are clearly much more honest. Dictatorships are more honest in that they don't put on a big show to make it seem as if they were chosen by the masses.


Common law is still man-made law. Learn about Natural Law for a purely logical basis to moral behavior.

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

If the law among people was simply, harm no-one and don't damage the property of anyone. Other than that you were entirely free. That would be about as free as a nation could get.

The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.

When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.

There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.

To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:

http://1215.org/indexe.html

:)

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

I prefer a strong democracy with general pamilihan fair, honest, free and confidential, with the above principles emapat expected to create a democratic system that truly impartial to the interests of the people, instead of democracy is only concerned with the interests of groups and parties, let alone personal interests. ..  :P

"... dwell among without ..."

Dwell among what?

At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.

Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.

If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.

If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.

If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.

"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.

In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.

This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.

:)

If it did not last, they were not taught.

This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.

In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.

Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.

The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.

:)

Nay, for his virtue, a man must know his lack thereof.

You have that right, and not only because I acknowledge it.  :)

What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).



And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.

If you read Blackstone, you will find that natural law is almost the same as common law. Common law is simply natural law with the breaking of it thrown in to correct it among people. The only important thing that natural law has, which common law may not have, is the recognition of the existence of God.

:)

1. "Entity," there, refers to a system where-within input does not necessarily correspond with output.

2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.

So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?

Your "good," "evil," and "better" mandate necessary correspondence of input and output within a system (which you Homo sapiens are).

Well, it is kinda fun playing. Aren't you homosapien?

I know not my status about that. However, what of my greater posit?

Your "posits" are expressed in such a way that I don't understand for sure what they are, or for sure if one even exists.

:)