[geeks] just to stir things up, a few predictions

[Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:21:19 -0400
  patrick at mail.zill.net (Patrick Giagnocavo) wrote:
> 
> The short answer is, that the Founders were quite 
>concerned about a
> democracy, seeing it as being only a short step removed 
>from mob rule.

Interesting, why exactly were they so afraid of mob rule?
  
> It terms of "representative" govt, I think the original 
>form was
> pretty close to the best we've had, and later changes 
>(popular
> election of senators for instance) have served to make 
>things worse
> rather than better.

Hum, how does the popular election of senators make things 
worse? It seems that any attempt to remove direct input 
from the people who live in the system seems to be a good 
thing (TM) in your opinion. I will respectfully dissagree. 
I also have a bit of a problem with the massive lack of 
balance that the senate provides by default, since every 
state pretty much gets the same weight. Which would be 
great, if it was the case that every state gave the same 
to the union.

I however like a lot of elements of the original design, 
esp. the check and balances system...
  
  
> I don't know exactly what the Founders thought of fiscal 
>policy, but I
> believe they would be greatly against our current 
>greenbacks, which
> can not be converted into something tangible like gold 
>or silver at a
> set rate of exchange (thanks in part to FDR, the most 
>duplicitous
> SOB-POTUS; I still want to take a trip to DC sometime 
>and load up a
> 44oz Big Gulp and then visit his grave and give FDR his 
>due.)

Let me guess you think Reagan was the greatest Prez ever, 
the mere mention of "Clinton" drives your pressure through 
the roof, and a day w/o freerepublic.com is a long one. 
J/K

> 
> BTW Francisco, I don't know how tongue-in-cheek your 
>"liberal pinko
> commie" comment is, but your views (if they truly were
> socialist/communist) would have little place in American 
>politics,
> since the Constitution forbids any form of govt other 
>than a
> republican one; thus socialism or communism in any 
>manner would be by
> definition prohibited.

Well, I am a liberal... and in this country I have been 
called a pinko commie many a time when the other side of 
the discussion ran out of intelligent arguments (which I 
find it funny, so I don't take it seriously). However just 
like capitalism... communism and socialism are 
socio-economic theories of production organization. None 
of which are strictly associated with a specific theory of 
government. In fact the largest communist country in the 
world is actually a Republic. I believe that in the same 
sense that nowhere in the constitution says that this 
country is supposed to be a "Capitalism."


> I think these paragraphs are from Lionel ^^^^
> 
> Essentially you are talking about a Parliamentary-style 
>election, I
> think; or worse, one based on popular votes.  

What is the point of an election then, if popular votes 
are supposed to be a bad idea? It seems almost like a 
non-bidding survey then. Or maybe I am reading it wrong?

> In such a case a candidate winning LA, Chicago, NYC and 
>Mexico City (I
> keed, I keed) would automatically win the election, and 
>would be free
> from then on to screw over everyone else in "flyover 
>country" with no
> fear of retribution.  Which is what the Founders were 
>afraid of.

But in the same sense, you are penalizing people living in 
Chicago... because they happen to live where a bunch of 
other people live. Which maybe it is not a fair thing to 
do in modern day and age. At least when it comes to 
selecting one of the branches of the government. Since the 
Senate already gives a disproportionate weight to smaller 
(read less populated) states.