For help on how to follow a comic title,
I admire their protection of individual liberty, human and civil rights; but I question the Parliamentary system. I like voting for the Head of State and I don’t like the states picking the the members of one of the houses. As a resident of a small state, I would have very little representation in that system. Of course these are opinions and details; but the fact is that there is no reason to believe a system like that in Germany would work in a large diverse country like this. And as we have slowly but surly been increasing human and civil rights, I have every reason to believe it will continue. Admittedly, it would happen a lot faster if a group of other nations smashed up to pieces then stood over us with guns while we reformed. I’d rather avoid the evolution Germany experienced.
Otherwise, I suppose you are referring to the Interlude. I made a good deal of press here but I don’t recall that anything substantial was done or that the people were all pleased in the end. In response to your smug question, I would guess the Weimar Constitution was the model; but to be honest, I don’t see how any Commonwealth Nation could switch to our model. Such fundamental changes are very difficult.
Otherwise, it is not my constitution. It is the nation’s. And as each nation has an individual character, each nation needs a unique system of government. Many of the complains listen in these comments can be addressed in the system; but they take time and effort; and they will never please everyone. I strongly suspect that is the real complaint.
Starting from scratch would be very difficult. That in itself is not reason enough to not try; but it is indeed reason enough to give pause. Furthermore, the present government would have to remain in control during the process to safeguard things like our nuclear arsenal. And there is a distinct possibility that revolution would result.
But like @GreggW, you are very good at telling what’s wrong but not forthcoming what to do. So, let’s say we start from scratch as you suggest. What system do we devise that will address your list of concerns?
As a side note, addressing basic rights to healthcare, housing and food can be done in our present system; and I really wonder what the value of an equal rights amendment is in an authoritarian dictatorship.
No, no and no. Now you are equivocating instead of addressing the words you actually wrote and my response. And once again, almost ironically, after asking “why should your opinion count more than that of others” (which I have repeatedly said it doesn’t), you got to length to explain why your opinion is more valuable than mine. You seem to have expounded on things regarding the needs of the poor which I have never said Quite the contrary, my interests have always been with the people. The only difference is I believe in actually doing something about it rather than paying lip service and calling for the impossible.
Otherwise, I don’t criticize you for agreeing with Rall. I criticize you for never finding even the least bit of fault in him let alone disagreeing with Rall. That is a major difference which you fail to grasp. It is not " impossible that [you] could be being honest". It is impossible for a human to never be wrong, ever.
And finally, just what is it you claim I won’t think about? That we are doomed, that there is no hope for the future, the the entire election was a fraud, that Biden is a mass murderer that needs to be hung and all the rest of your dystopia.
But you are right, all I do is “repeat, […] the self-destructive “post-modern” claptrap about all opinions being of equal value”. Let me address that now by saying that I was wrong. Your opinion is far superior to mine. You, Rall and your mutual admiration society, have a higher value; and it is self-destructive that we don’t listen to superior people like you and agree with all you say. It is terrible that I let my being “equal under law” to other people go to my head.
Indeed I have, so what’s your plan? Furthermore, who did it better? Any plan, to last, must combine a solid framework with flexibility to meet the unknown. Obviously, our constitution, is better that The Roman Republic and lasted much longer that the Weimar. So the combination can’t be too bad.
Then pejoratives aside, I think we do. People are fallible and capable of any level of corruption as well as altruism. However, I have great respect for the Constitution and our system. As there is no way to change the nature of people, it is the system that becomes paramount. And in my admittedly amateurish study of governments and history, I have not found one I consider more functional in the long run. Any reasonable person can conclude that life itself, as well as the government, is “hodgepodge of corrupt, hypocritical BS”. The struggle is in how we deal with it. I’m not arguing with the point if this comic. I agree with it. I am arguing against a depiction of futility, dystopia and the idea that most people are stupid and/or lazy.
We are talking about here, in this forum. You wrote, “why should your opinion count more than that of others?” and I addressed it. I honestly hope you are being coy and trolling me. I don’t see any context where an equivalent to your example exists on this site.
Ok, who’s counts more?
That’s pathetic. My teenager said the same thing to her little sister last week. And I’m being quite sincere, both in that and my earlier comment.
The “we” in this case is @bkincaid and me. That should have been obvious considering the sequence and context of the comments. And my entire point is no one’s opinion counts more than another’s.
I can’t imagine why you think that is clever or even apropos.