Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz
Says you. Many people have many different beliefs as to what the purpose of government is.
|
Okay, even ignoring what it's
purpose is, a governement (realistically speaking) has to place limits on society. Can we agree on that? ...I was merely trying to make the point that "if you won't let us do this, then what else won't you let us do" isn't exactly a valid argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz
In the ideal concept of America, anyone (who is a citizen over a certain age) can run for office. It is up to the people, not the gov't to decide who runs.
|
Yes. but this is somewhat impractical. At least I would imagine it to be. If it turns out that there are not an inordinate amount of people that wish to run for office, then it could be done with no "fee". Even if there was this nominal fee that I mentioned, it would still be much mroe enabling than the current system, where if you're not in a party you're horribly outfunded.
Also, please keep in mind that I'm not discussing this as an ideal. I'm discussing a possibility as it pertains to reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz
We know how terribly too well how the mass media can be used as a biased tool to the higest bidder. Relying on the mass media to inform the people would be a huge mistake.
|
Okay... Your original statement was that the political body (parties) was necessary to mobilize voters. So relying on political parties to relay information and encourage voter participation and activism is any
less biased?!? They're a large part of the reason for the bias in the first place!
Personally, I would love to see the US government charter a BBC-esque national news agency, but that would never work out (or at least never work out well) because neither party wants objective truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz
Political parties areinevitable, if the government outlaws them (along with some other rights to assembly as someone mentioned earlier) they'll form underground and still vote for their candidate of choice. A no-party system would 1) not be a democracy and 2) be impossible to regulate.
|
1) I don't see where parties are embedded in the definition of democracy, and all the elements of democracy are still perfectly functional and applicable without them.
2) regulate in what sense?
Legislators will always collaborate, true. However being wholly individual to begin with promotes individuality to a much greater extent than being grouped, and the likelihood of a political bloc forming among individuals would be unlikely in my opinion. This is not to say that there would be no concessions or negotiation within the legislature, but such activity would be much more subtle.