Is it truly as efficient as it could be?

There really isn't a need for an executive branch; why not get rid of the executive branch and the House of Reps

Give that power to the Senate, and the Judicial also maintains

Wouldn't that be more efficient?

It's not supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to have checks and balances. A dictator or monarch is the most efficient.

It's not supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to have checks and balances. A dictator or monarch is the most efficient.

Yes, therefore obviously a benevolent dictatorship is favorable over an inefficient democracy.


But the point is, efficiency does matter, doesn't it?

It comes at a price. We want the government to be deliberative about things. The president can still act in a direct manner when it's an emergency.

It comes at a price. We want the government to be deliberative about things. The president can still act in a direct manner when it's an emergency.

At what price? A dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy. It has more potential to be good than a democracy does. But, it also has more potential to be bad.

My point is, beauracracy is sometimes a bottleneck, wouldn't you agree?

Is it truly as efficient as it could be?

There really isn't a need for an executive branch; why not get rid of the executive branch and the House of Reps

Give that power to the Senate, and the Judicial also maintains

Wouldn't that be more efficient?

This was tried before and it failed. See Articles of Confederation. It was the first form of American government.

At what price? A dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy. It has more potential to be good than a democracy does. But, it also has more potential to be bad.

My point is, beauracracy is sometimes a bottleneck, wouldn't you agree?

One aspect you said yourself, dictators can be bad. With alot of efficient power to get things done, that power can be misused. Even though things might take longer, that gives the public time to learn about what they want to do, and give them feedback. Even now, bills that are rushed through in the middle of the night often contain provisions the supporters may not know about or agree with.

At what price? A dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy. It has more potential to be good than a democracy does. But, it also has more potential to be bad.

My point is, bureaucracy is sometimes a bottleneck, wouldn't you agree?

Wow. You stated the obvious. "Bureaucracy is inefficient." Great.

So, why direct this commentary at the USA? Do you have any clue as to how inefficient the parliamentary democracies of Europe, India or Japan are? Or is this just another one of your puerile attempts at sounding intellectual all while attacking the USA.

Yawn.

Oh, and you argued the point as to precisely why one should avoid overly "efficient" governments. Everything in this universe comes with a cost. What are you willing to spend in order to gain something of value?

In the USA we've spent efficiency to gain a government of laws. It doesn't always work right, and it may even overstep those laws, but for the most part (and judging it against the long line of governments throughout history) it's one of the better one's on the planet. It's a common sacrifice and you see it around the world. It's worked out well for freedom and liberty. I'm okay with that.

Sleek and efficient Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Saddam Hussein and Napoleon Bonaparte Vs. clunky and inefficient US constitution, French Fifth Republic or Japanese constitution... I chose the latter.

~String

Wow. You stated the obvious. "Bureaucracy is inefficient." Great.

So, why direct this commentary at the USA? Do you have any clue as to how inefficient the parliamentary democracies of Europe, India or Japan are? Or is this just another one of your puerile attempts at sounding intellectual all while attacking the USA.

Yawn.

Oh, and you argued the point as to precisely why one should avoid overly "efficient" governments. Everything in this universe comes with a cost. What are you willing to spend in order to gain something of value?

In the USA we've spent efficiency to gain a government of laws. It doesn't always work right, and it may even overstep those laws, but for the most part (and judging it against the long line of governments throughout history) it's one of the better one's on the planet. It's a common sacrifice and you see it around the world. It's worked out well for freedom and liberty. I'm okay with that.

Sleek and efficient Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Saddam Hussein and Napoleon Bonaparte Vs. clunky and inefficient US constitution, French Fifth Republic or Japanese constitution... I chose the latter.

~String

I hate to say it, but...PWNAG3.

Sorry, I had to go there.

PWNAG3.

What? Speek english. You're not texting to a friend. The keys are really close and easy to use.

~String

Is it truly as efficient as it could be?

:runaway::roflmao::eek:

At what price? A dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy. It has more potential to be good than a democracy does. But, it also has more potential to be bad.

So the question is, do you expect that the average leader, given absolute control over the whole of a government (which is efficient as can be) will tend to use that power reasonably, or tend to abuse it. As Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt..."

The lesson of western history is that people liked absolute rulers so much, that they got rid of them. Hobbesian rulers were systematically replaced with rule by inefficient committees. Why? Because the efficiency that's lost is the ability of the government to efficiently issue orders and to affect the lives of the people. Since we tend to believe "that government is best which governs least" the "inefficiency" of rule by committee is shown to be a virtue in that regard. They are 'inefficient' only because they are less able to force their will down upon us, but usually, when another's will conflicts with my own about how I should conduct my own affairs, it turns out that *I* am right and the other wrong. I simply have better information about my life and my actions that the government could ever have.

Secondarily, but relatedly, it is less likely for a committee to be swayed by momentary passion or decisions that are only half thought out. It's easy for an individual ruler to get a notion in his head and decide that he is right. As examples, the ruler might decide that cell phones should be banned because they cause brain cancer, that alcohol is 'evil' and should be banned, that civil rights are overrated because some races are less intelligent (or, conversely given the posts of yours that I recall, that civil rights are great, so now everyone must accept and embrace homosexuality with open arms), or that the only correct and true religion is [Christianity/Islam/Taoism/Dictator Worship/Rationalistic Atheism/etc], and so all others are banned.

"Dictatorship" is much more appealing in the abstract, where the pet theories entertained by the dictator (and we all have pet theories, often without realizing that they are not well-grounded) are left non-specific. Once you start to specify them, we all prefer dictators who share *our* pet theories. Unfortunately, everyone is so different that, in any society, there will be multiple groups that are utterly incapable of agreeing on a dictator that they can all live with happily.

No, string, I have no interest in attacking the US. I like the US, for the most part.


I was merely wondering if the beauracracy hinders progress too much.


I'd define governmental efficiency as the ability for the government to get things done in a manner by which it directly influences the nation, without beauracracy.

Now, naturally, this implies the government having a lot of power.


But government is only imperfect because it is run by imperfect beings. It is the people behind government that can sway a nation.

But with that being said, it means that a dictatorship has more potential to do good for the people than an overly beauracratic democracy. It also has more potential to do bad.

A republic's saving grace over a dictatorship seems to be only some sort of "safety guarantee". It ensures that the bad can be avoided. But it also restricts the potential for good.

With a leader that is truly benevolent, wise, intelligent, selfless, etc, would a dictatorship not be better than a republic?

No, string, I have no interest in attacking the US. I like the US, for the most part.

:roflmao:

I'd define governmental efficiency as the ability for the government to get things done in a manner by which it directly influences the nation, without beauracracy.

There is no such thing as a government with out a beauracracy, Dictatorship, Republic, Parlimentary, or Monarchy, governments run on beauracracy.

Now, naturally, this implies the government having a lot of power.

No Shit Sherlock, briliant observation.

But government is only imperfect because it is run by imperfect beings. It is the people behind government that can sway a nation.

No governments are imperfect because they require beauracracy to operate, and the smaller the beauracracy, the greater the ability for the beaurocrat to do damage, by comission and ommision.

The larger the beauracracy, the more diluted the individual beaurocrat's power to do harm.

But with that being said, it means that a dictatorship has more potential to do good for the people than an overly beauracratic democracy. It also has more potential to do bad.

It also has more potential to do bad.

Exactly, far more power to do harm.

A republic's saving grace over a dictatorship seems to be only some sort of "safety guarantee". It ensures that the bad can be avoided. But it also restricts the potential for good.

The larger the beauracracy, the more diluted the individual beaurocrat's power to do harm. A Dictator is nothing more then a beaurocrat.

With a leader that is truly benevolent, wise, intelligent, selfless, etc, would a dictatorship not be better than a republic?

No, look to Islam.

Yes there is beauracracy in a dictatorship, but it isn't as hindering as in a republic. As you said, a republic might be a safeguard against a bad leader. But it also loses the potential for a great leader.

It's the people behind government that ultimately sway a nation.

Therefore, it makes my statement true, that a truly benevolent dictatorship is preferable over a republic.

If you can find one, that is.

Yes there is beauracracy in a dictatorship, but it isn't as hindering as in a republic. As you said, a republic might be a safeguard against a bad leader. But it also loses the potential for a great leader.

No a Great Leader Stand out in a Republic, True Leadership is done with out Dictate, it is done with Influence.

It's the people behind government that ultimately sway a nation.

Now are you talking about people in Government, or the people of the Nation?

The bureaucracy, doesn't sway the nation, it is what it is, administration, and enforcement of its fiefdom.

The only thing that sways a Nation is the People.

Therefore, it makes my statement true, that a truly benevolent dictatorship is preferable over a republic.

And pray tell, were does such exist? Power Corrupts, absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

In the end all Dictators are Tyrants.

If you can find one, that is.

Exactly, there are none to be found, Thank You for Conceding the Debate.

Dictators have large bureaucracies, also. There is no gain in efficiency.

"I never ruled Russia. Ten thousands clerks ruled Russia " One of the famous Tzars, forget which. Could have been any of them.

With a leader that is truly benevolent, wise, intelligent, selfless, etc, would a dictatorship not be better than a republic?

Obviously yes, it would. The thing is, people generally can't be trusted with large amounts of power. So the risk is far too high.

With a leader that is truly benevolent, wise, intelligent, selfless, etc, would a dictatorship not be better than a republic?

A leader who was all those things, especially wise, would imo refuse to rule in a dictatorship. Even a wonderful leader with all those traits will have flaws and peccadilloes. He or she will not be as smart and wise on *every* topic that exists, and so you might get better information from a committee decision than you'd get from this one leader (unless we are to posit that she/he has some "magical" power to determine which of his expert advisors are "most right" on the various complex issues with which she/he will be confronted). If she/he has wisdom, she/he will know that she/he is not smart or wise or good enough to wield such power without the chance of corruption. She/He will demand that her/his power be checked and balanced against that of someone else. The dictatorship will fail instantly because no wise leader would want it.

Again, though, even with those qualities there could be some tendency for that leader to decide that she/he knows better than the average citizen how to live a good life, and attempts to guide/cajole people down that better path. At the very least I think a strong argument can be made for a term limit on such a leader to prevent their corruption, but once you go that route, why not add a check and balance to their power while in office to deal with problems more directly. Any check and balance will necessarily mean giving some power to someone else.

Finally though, short of genetic engineering, where do we find this leader you describe. Some would say you have described George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Some would say you've described Bill Clinton. Some Jimmy Carter. Some Muhammed. Others would say that's Khrushchev. Most of those people would balk at the notion that the other suggestions were right.

What you seem to be suggesting, in the best way I can imagine implementing it, is to someday abolish government and cede all control to a well programmed artificial intelligence, whose programming includes those traits, and to whom we give up human control of human destiny. Otherwise I cannot imagine any human who has ever been the perfect exemplar of those traits you list in every possible way.

At lease the programming of our computer-overlord can be independently verified and reviewed by multiple experts in advance. The "perfect" politician likely is only perfect because we are buying into his propaganda.

Again though, would a leader who is "truly benevolent, wise, intelligent, selfless, etc," ban homosexuality or require society wide tolerance for it? I say the latter. The perfect leader cannot possibly disagree with me on that point, because then he would be imperfect, as he'd lack wisdom, benevolence and/or intelligence, imo. Many other people would disagree with me and assert that a leader who demanded tolerance of homosexual acts would be imperfect, since he defies the Bible (or Koran).

Some would think the perfect leader would definitely not be a Muslim, since Muslims (in a certain view) worship a false moon god or seek to spread Islam by the sword, etc. Yet many Muslims likely feel strongly that a "perfect" leader could not be anything *but* a Muslim, since that path is the revealed truth of God (though some go further and want to know "What kind of Muslim?" since soem brands, like Shi'a or Sunni are thought by others to be false).

In short, there is no perfect leader. There may be a leader who one thinks is very good in one's personal opinion, but opinions vary. In any population with multiple disparate opinions, you'll never find one "best" leader for everyone.

I wouldn't mind a dictatorship at all, as long as I'm the one who gets to choose who dictates. I nominate myself for the job.

What? Speek english. You're not texting to a friend. The keys are really close and easy to use.

~String

It's called l337 speak, primarily used by online gamers. He was actually congratulating you.

It's called l337 speak, primarily used by online gamers. He was actually congratulating you.

Compliments accepted. Still, the point stands. Might as well have posted it in cuneiform.

~String

Dictators have large bureaucracies, also. There is no gain in efficiency.

"I never ruled Russia. Ten thousands clerks ruled Russia " One of the famous Tzars, forget which. Could have been any of them.
As usual, you're not making sense. Yes, many of the Czars were weak and ineffective. But a dictatorship is clearly more efficient than a democracy.

Things get done of the dictator's word alone. No competitive bidding. No committees. No deals. Just
"SO SHALL IT BE WRITTEN, SO SHALL IT BE DONE"

That's why the president, acting in his capacity of comander in chief, has dictatorial type powers. IF the country is under attack, we don't have time for the inefficiency of the democratic process. The president can send in troops on his word alone.

Afterwards, when the crisis has passed, democracy comes back into play. But for efficiency, you can't beat a dictator.

Of course, as has been pointed out, we don't always want government to be efficient. In many ways, much of our freedom comes from the inefficiency of government.

I'd be willing to bet that every person on this board breaks a multitude of laws every day without even knowing it! There are so many rules and regulations on the books, literally thousands of new pages coming out every year (the federal register), that the law is essentially unknowable.

So if all laws were enforced with 100% effiency, society would grind to a halt as we'd all be in jail. It's only the fact that most of these idiotic rules and regulations are never enforced that allows our society to function at all.

Yes, therefore obviously a benevolent dictatorship is favorable over an inefficient democracy.


But the point is, efficiency does matter, doesn't it?

Efficiency in the service of what? Efficiency is a quality of how you work towards your goal. If your goal is an evil goal then by being efficient you would be efficiently evil.

The genius of the USA's founding fathers is that they realize that most people will behave badly with power. Bad dictators are much more common than good dictators. The USA's founding fathers were willing to sacrifice efficiency in favor of creating a system that would be difficult for bad people to turn into their own evil empire.

Unfortunately when the government passed the “Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929” they scrapped the founding father primary check on institutionalized corruption. Jame Madison and the founding fathers intended that there be one representative to thirty thousand people. “Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929” capped the number of representatives at 435. Population has grown and we now have more than 700,000 people per representative. The result has been that the representative are now only accountable to big campaign contributers. The representative are no longer "Of, By, and For the People.

Of course even in a pure democracy government is only as good as the people are. If the people want slavery and genocide then the pure democracy would be for genocide and slavery.

I think it's good that Congress deals with economic and social issues, but I don't think Congress should have authority in conducting foreign policy. That is something that must be done by one person, quickly, efficiently, and with a clear and insistent purpose and goal. Congress meddling in foreign affairs is a terrible idea.

I think it's good that Congress deals with economic and social issues, but I don't think Congress should have authority in conducting foreign policy. That is something that must be done by one person, quickly, efficiently, and with a clear and insistent purpose and goal. Congress meddling in foreign affairs is a terrible idea.

Except that major foreign policy decisions like whether to invade a nation that is not preparing an attack on the USA should not be left to the president alone. Congress and even the American people should be kept informed about what theories the president is using to formulate foreign policy. No major policy in any democracy should be carried out secretly because the government wants to engage in a policy that it knows it's people would disapprove of if they were aware of the policy.

I think it's good that Congress deals with economic and social issues, but I don't think Congress should have authority in conducting foreign policy. That is something that must be done by one person, quickly, efficiently, and with a clear and insistent purpose and goal. Congress meddling in foreign affairs is a terrible idea.

It depends on what you mean. Would you want the President to have the right to break treaties without consulting Congress? What about entering into new treaties (Kyoto, the U.N. Charter, UNCLOS, bilateral trade agreements, peace treaties, etc.)? How about enforcing treaties? No court involvement on that end, only Presidential enforcement? Declaring war, in the Clauswitzian view at least, is the ultimate form of foreign policy, should the President do that on his own?

"Foreign affairs" is a very broad category and while the President, through his corps of diplomats and the State Department has "first bit" so to speak at how those things progress, I think there's plenty of room for a sharing of power when it comes to longer term processes and larger commitments by the country, even if the President is entitled to great deference in the short term aspects or in setting a general tone for the foreign service personnel.

No a Great Leader Stand out in a Republic, True Leadership is done with out Dictate, it is done with Influence.
Influence is power



Now are you talking about people in Government, or the people of the Nation?
Both, but moreso the people in government.

The bureaucracy, doesn't sway the nation, it is what it is, administration, and enforcement of its fiefdom.
Yes. But what if this administration is not always able to get things done quickly and easily?

The only thing that sways a Nation is the People.
Yes, of course. Obviously.



And pray tell, were does such exist? Power Corrupts, absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

In the end all Dictators are Tyrants.
Would Confucius have made a good dictator? Or Christ?



Exactly, there are none to be found, Thank You for Conceding the Debate.
No, there has not been one because every dictator that I know of, including Assad, cares mostly for staying in power rather than using it for good.

A leader who was all those things, especially wise, would imo refuse to rule in a dictatorship. Even a wonderful leader with all those traits will have flaws and peccadilloes. He or she will not be as smart and wise on *every* topic that exists, and so you might get better information from a committee decision than you'd get from this one leader (unless we are to posit that she/he has some "magical" power to determine which of his expert advisors are "most right" on the various complex issues with which she/he will be confronted). If she/he has wisdom, she/he will know that she/he is not smart or wise or good enough to wield such power without the chance of corruption. She/He will demand that her/his power be checked and balanced against that of someone else. The dictatorship will fail instantly because no wise leader would want it.

Again, though, even with those qualities there could be some tendency for that leader to decide that she/he knows better than the average citizen how to live a good life, and attempts to guide/cajole people down that better path. At the very least I think a strong argument can be made for a term limit on such a leader to prevent their corruption, but once you go that route, why not add a check and balance to their power while in office to deal with problems more directly. Any check and balance will necessarily mean giving some power to someone else.

Finally though, short of genetic engineering, where do we find this leader you describe. Some would say you have described George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Some would say you've described Bill Clinton. Some Jimmy Carter. Some Muhammed. Others would say that's Khrushchev. Most of those people would balk at the notion that the other suggestions were right.

What you seem to be suggesting, in the best way I can imagine implementing it, is to someday abolish government and cede all control to a well programmed artificial intelligence, whose programming includes those traits, and to whom we give up human control of human destiny. Otherwise I cannot imagine any human who has ever been the perfect exemplar of those traits you list in every possible way.

At lease the programming of our computer-overlord can be independently verified and reviewed by multiple experts in advance. The "perfect" politician likely is only perfect because we are buying into his propaganda.

Again though, would a leader who is "truly benevolent, wise, intelligent, selfless, etc," ban homosexuality or require society wide tolerance for it? I say the latter. The perfect leader cannot possibly disagree with me on that point, because then he would be imperfect, as he'd lack wisdom, benevolence and/or intelligence, imo. Many other people would disagree with me and assert that a leader who demanded tolerance of homosexual acts would be imperfect, since he defies the Bible (or Koran).

Some would think the perfect leader would definitely not be a Muslim, since Muslims (in a certain view) worship a false moon god or seek to spread Islam by the sword, etc. Yet many Muslims likely feel strongly that a "perfect" leader could not be anything *but* a Muslim, since that path is the revealed truth of God (though some go further and want to know "What kind of Muslim?" since soem brands, like Shi'a or Sunni are thought by others to be false).

In short, there is no perfect leader. There may be a leader who one thinks is very good in one's personal opinion, but opinions vary. In any population with multiple disparate opinions, you'll never find one "best" leader for everyone.

Simply because such a leader has absolute power, does not mean he does everything according to his own rules. I mean, he'd have ultimate say, but there should still be some form of a senate in order to voice the opinions of the people to this leader to better inform him for his decision.

Ultimately, it'd be important to both please and help the people, but you'd want to do it more efficiently than you could in a democracy (hence my point)


Perfection is subjective to different cultures and peoples. But as I said, a truly wise leader would listen to the people and understand them.

So for something like homosexuality, whether it is accepted or rejected is based on the opinion of the people. The leader is merely the enforcer of their will, able to enforce it more efficiently.

In this way, I think a dictatorship can, perhaps, be better for the people if you find the right man for the job.

As usual, you're not making sense. Yes, many of the Czars were weak and ineffective. But a dictatorship is clearly more efficient than a democracy.

Things get done of the dictator's word alone. No competitive bidding. No committees. No deals. Just
"SO SHALL IT BE WRITTEN, SO SHALL IT BE DONE"

That's why the president, acting in his capacity of comander in chief, has dictatorial type powers. IF the country is under attack, we don't have time for the inefficiency of the democratic process. The president can send in troops on his word alone.

Afterwards, when the crisis has passed, democracy comes back into play. But for efficiency, you can't beat a dictator.

Of course, as has been pointed out, we don't always want government to be efficient. In many ways, much of our freedom comes from the inefficiency of government.

I'd be willing to bet that every person on this board breaks a multitude of laws every day without even knowing it! There are so many rules and regulations on the books, literally thousands of new pages coming out every year (the federal register), that the law is essentially unknowable.

So if all laws were enforced with 100% effiency, society would grind to a halt as we'd all be in jail. It's only the fact that most of these idiotic rules and regulations are never enforced that allows our society to function at all.

It's not the laws being enforced with efficiency. It's the entire government, such as the aspects of development, foreign affairs, creation and administration of laws, domestic affairs, etc






Perhaps the best form of government, would be a combination between a dictatorship and a democracy.

No, there has not been one because every dictator that I know of, including Assad, cares mostly for staying in power rather than using it for good.

That's the point. Because that's what happens in a dictatorship.

That's the point. Because that's what happens in a dictatorship.

It doesn't have to be that way, though. With a perfect blend between democracy and totalitarianism, I think we can find the perfect system of government.

Hey Norsefire, I'm curious about something. You appear to have a less than favourable view of Bashar Assad, which from everything I hear, is a popular if not often expressed opinion in Syria and pretty much everywhere else in the world. Do you currently reside in Syria? If so, I'm curious what the rules are about criticizing and dissenting from the government, how bad are the possible consequences of being caught and charged for violating these rules, and how much you fear such rules being enforced if they do indeed exist.

Hey Norsefire, I'm curious about something. You appear to have a less than favourable view of Bashar Assad, which from everything I hear, is a popular if not often expressed opinion in Syria and pretty much everywhere else in the world. Do you currently reside in Syria? If so, I'm curious what the rules are about criticizing and dissenting from the government, how bad are the possible consequences of being caught and charged for violating these rules, and how much you fear such rules being enforced if they do indeed exist.

Yes, but most Syrians dont like him because he doesn't agree religiously with the majority (Sunni)

I simply dont like his methods and politics, not some blind prejudice

I do not reside in Syria but I do visit often. I mean, it's not that bad but people have been arrested.

It's not as bad as it was with Saddam in Iraq, though.

It doesn't have to be that way, though. With a perfect blend between democracy and totalitarianism, I think we can find the perfect system of government.

You cannot blend these.

Totalitarianism means that the government or leader has the power to ignore anything democratically called for. It could, for example, deny access to the voting booths with the army.

Just as one cannot blend slavery of one race by another and equality between the races, you cannot blend totalitarianism and democracy.

Just for the sake of argument, I will argue that inefficiency is socially good because it creates jobs. Hey, we could have a dictator/king with 10 ministers and take care of everything, but isn't it better for the people to have 10K people doing exactly the same thing? That is 9989 extra jobs created, not to mention all the office rent, supply etc. bought>>>good for the economy...

No, that's merely selling out a good government for some money.

Also, you CAN blend them. What I mean is, we could have one leader. This leader is the leader.

He has a sort of mini "Senate" that is ELECTED by the people of the nation. This senate is responsible for getting the opinion of the people heard.

However, the leader is ultimately the one with the power. Only, say, a uniform vote by this senate can override his power.

Is it truly as efficient as it could be?

There really isn't a need for an executive branch; why not get rid of the executive branch and the House of Reps

Give that power to the Senate, and the Judicial also maintains

Wouldn't that be more efficient?

Government is not supposed to be efficient. This implies that government should be involved in all, or at least many daily ordinary functions of life. This premise is false. Governments sole duty is protect the people's freedom and liberty. If government returned to this notion, then there would be a massive reduction in bureaucracy (no duh).

We have gone way off the track along time starting with the Civil War Amendments.

There is no more checks and balances, because the Supreme Court has been deemed by the marxists of America to be the sole arbiter of the Constitution. Although, the Court did some of this itself with Madison v Marbury.

Yeah, there is a need for change in this country. But not the change purposed by Obama the marxist, whose idea of change is further movement towards government empowerment and tyranny.

The purpose of government is directly linked to its structure, and the American idea was lost on many Americans (It has been a budding flower of marxist since the CW Amendments) long ago. Ditto Europe, which has never recovered from the French Revolution's idea of liberty; nor from the marxist movement of the middle to late 19th century.

The purpose of government is to govern. Protecting liberty goes against the point of a government unless that is how it must govern.

The purpose of government is to govern. Protecting liberty goes against the point of a government unless that is how it must govern.

The purpose of governing is to protect liberties.

Any government that has some other purpose should be overthrown by the governed people.

The purpose of governing is to protect liberties.

Any government that has some other purpose should be overthrown by the governed people.

It's called government. To govern is to, well, govern, which is to have control over.

Is it truly as efficient as it could be?

There really isn't a need for an executive branch; why not get rid of the executive branch and the House of Reps

Give that power to the Senate, and the Judicial also maintains

Wouldn't that be more efficient?

It's not supposed to be efficient.

It's like this - there are the Owner's - Banks, Founding Dynasties(Rockefeller,Rothschild, etc), Trilateral.

The government works for them. To make sure they get to keep and grow their shit every year. Puppets pretending to be working for "the People". Whom are basically slaves. Nothing has changed(From monarchy/despotism) except people think they are free. Indeed there is enough personal freedom in this system to satisfy most of the lemmings.