Wertbag Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I recent development here in New Zealand got me thinking of how generally useless all forms of government are. We currently have a debate raging about whether to build a new stadium on the waterfront, or save a couple hundred million and refurbish the existing stadium. What got me is that both the paper and TV polls have shown a 75-80% support of the cheaper option, yet the councils and government are apparently ignoring the population and going for what they have decided on. Now to my mind they are meant to be representing the people. They are spending our tax dollars to put something that will effect the lives of a huge number of people, and yet they seem to have no reason to actually listen to what the people want. It was a similar thing to the stem cell research debate in the US. They had a majority of support, got the support of congress and it was all ready to go when Bush veto'd it. Now to my mind no one man should have veto power (unless hes a dictator), and as a representitive of the people surely he should listen to what the people want? Theoritically there could have been 100% agreement throughout the country and he would have still been able to say "Nah I don't agree". Two elections ago in NZ we had an additional referendum asking a few major questions. The two that stuck out: "Do you want harsher penalties for crime?", and "Do you want labour used as a punishment in prisons?". The election had about a 80% turnout (one of the best in history), and these two questions had around 95% say yes. You'd think this was a pretty clear message to the government, yet since this time neither of these results have been acted upon at all. Elections seem to be more of a personality war than actually basing the result on who is best, big money gets you very far in politics while people better qualified may miss out due to the high cost involved. But thinking of alternatives there really doesn't seem to be any perfect way. Any dictatorship or monarchy gives power to the next person in line, regardless of their abilities or mental health. They also suffer from the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" problem, whereby eventually the people either get crushed or fed up and revolt. The best government type I'd heard about was Saudia Arabia (I think). While it was a monarchy, the government departments each had a minister picked based on his CV. When a job for a ministrial position comes up, they advertise the position exactly like a company, recieve CVs, check references and compare qualifications. Then either the King or Princes make a decision based on these qualifications and an interview process. Makes sense to have the minister of defence from the military, the minister of health a doctor or hospital admin, minister of finance a business man or banker etc. Maybe a similar system but making the final decision a vote by the people based on the qualifications of the top 3-4 candidates? Kind of one party business style government based on skills rather than money or personality. Of course the western nations will never change, but I really feel there must be a better way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Wert... Howzabout I give you the Answer to the Question, and it not be "42'? Do a quick websearch for the term 'social contracts' or 'social contracting'. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/gregg3.html Follow your way to this article at Lew Rockwell dot Com and try the principles author is writing about. There is not one simple answer to your question, save to stand up on your feet and demand a "NO" in the stadiums use of public monies. At some point when the Proctors have nothing left to fear from their parolees other than grumbling, the "bread and circusii" begin to flow. Until a goober/politician is made accountable for his or her action as an individual, this kind of spending will never abate. My solutions are usually not elegant, usually messy, fraught with 'immorality', and have always worked. Goobers fear loss of power, prestige, and potency. Remove their money, ability to tax, and abridge their spending habits and you've got yourself a semi-honest set of crooks that will stay bought... Think smart on this, they have all the taxpayers monies on their side for 'spin', lawyers and guns.. kFL Political Junkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lady Heather Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Hello, All forms of Government aren't useless...they are just "ineffective". The thing about a representative government is that people will turn right back around and vote the same fools back into government (although they didn't do a good job). Many times representatives (congressmen) cast their votes for their own political reasons (to rise among the ranks of congressmen within the House or the Senate). They have got their own game going on and we don't even know all the specifics. Yes, they will sacrifice public policy to become "Speaker of the House" for example. About the power to VETO...its supposed to be a check on the other two branches of Government (a check on the Judicial and Legislative branches) so they don't run amok and decide to run the whole country themselves. I'll admit that right now America is a lot larger than it was at the time of the founding and it would be nice if some other group could be a part of that VETO process...instead of just the president. One way that Congressmen get re elected is by pleasing some of the people some of the time--just enough to get re-elected. Also many people are misinformed. Last but not least the whole "moral" issue thing. (Talk bad about homosexuals and you get a whole bunch of Christians voting for you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts