A few minor points: first of all, not all viewpoints are correct, simply because somebody happens to believe them. A "balance" between truth and a lie is not better than the truth, any more than there is an "ideal" mixture of milk and cyanide.
In other words, consensus should be not seen as an end in itself. Just because an argument has two sides doesn't mean both are equally in the right.
That being said, you make some good points. Analysis has actually shown that government growth is actually lowest when the government is split up.
But sorry...that's not going to convince me to vote in more socialists. I know where they want to go, and I've seen it before. No thanks.
Too bad that the ideals of limited central government set up by the Founders was pretty much shot to hell by collectivists in later years.
One of the reasons we all sweat blood over who gets elected is because we have cheerfully assigned the Federal Government nearly absolute power over everything we do. If the government was simply operated on Constitutional lines, it wouldn't make that much damn difference who was President.
We have set up a system of government that allows people to vote themselves money out of the pockets of other citizens. This is a positive feedback system that we still haven't seen the end of. It also tends to encourage the election of people who believe in an all-powerful government, which is how the collectivists got in charge in the first place.
Flame » in reply to Why the need for absolute power?
Premises
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Why the need for absolute power?
- I'll happily settle for good government. (n/t)
- Premises
- You seem too obsessed with religion
- Sounds like sour grapes to me.
- They're called elections
- re: Why the need for absolute power?
- Perhaps you should address it to the Islamo-fascists?
- re: Cohabitation