Is it time to get rid of Congress?

[Skyviolia]

You do know that power concentrated in the executive branch (the King) was one of the many reasons we rebelled from Great Britain. We were so paranoid about a strong executive that we didn't even have one in the Articles of Confederation.

[Nocturnalis]

That's less amusing, but does undermine the point about the superiority of authoritarian systems of government.

So yay?

Authoritarian governments, as a general rule, persist longer and are more stable than democratic/mob rule governments. Every single democratic state that exists today was first formed sometime within the last 250 years - a long time by the standard of an individual lifetime, but an insignificant span of time in comparison to the sheer millennia of authoritarian governance. It is only a quirk of the last century that democracy has managed to last this long.

So if one considers order and stability to be the deciding factor in deciding which government form is superior (as some in this thread would, judging by the responses), then authoritarian governments are by and large superior.

[United Ambera]

"Empower the Executive"
Yeah, that will surely fulfill the direct will of the people (sarcasm if you couldn't tell)
And that piece of paper is what help found and develop America, to simply get rid of it would harm the nation in many ways.
It is true that many members of Congress are corrupt, but completely switching to a system of near totalitarian scale wouldn't give people more will over the Government and wouldn't serve them in any way.

It would serve the will of the people better than Congress or the current ruling party ever could. The Bushes and Clintons of the world who dominate, and the people like Trump... They're the standard in our failed dual-party system. It's time to throw off the shackles of established oppression and throw the whole corrupt, rotten structure away.

A strong executive who is able to secure our Race and our nation is what we need. The people are generally not very intelligent, and don't bother learning about the issues. They vote their feelings, not their logic. The problem with the liberal ideology generally.

We need a strong leader who will deport non-whites, who will create policies to preserve the white character of our nation. We need a leader who will institute universal healthcare over the whims of the electorate, someone who will not let weakness hinder us from the necessary policies to exterminate our enemies, such as ISIS.

Gloves off, enemies under ground. That's how it has to be done.

You say we need to throw the whole corrupt, rotten structure away, yet allowing a single branch, like the Executive branch to hold the most power wouldn't serve the people at all. It would only serve the President who is in charge. In fact, allowing the Executive would be a lot more corrupt than our current system could ever be. Once you give all the power to the Executive, people are going to see tyranny written all over it and quickly overthrow it, no matter if it would serve out their will or not.

[USS Monitor]

That's less amusing, but does undermine the point about the superiority of authoritarian systems of government.

So yay?

Authoritarian governments, as a general rule, persist longer and are more stable than democratic/mob rule governments. Every single democratic state that exists today was first formed sometime within the last 250 years - a long time by the standard of an individual lifetime, but an insignificant span of time in comparison to the sheer millennia of authoritarian governance. It is only a quirk of the last century that democracy has managed to last this long.

So if one considers order and stability to be the deciding factor in deciding which government form is superior (as some in this thread would, judging by the responses), then authoritarian governments are by and large superior.

Changes in technology, particularly communication technology, have an effect on political systems.

It is hard to organize elections in a low-tech civilization because the challenges of communicating over large distances make it difficult to collect and tabulate everyone's vote. This is why large low-tech civilizations gravitate more toward authoritarian systems that don't need as much communication to function.

[Grave_n_idle]

Taller.

I think you meant taller than Hillary.

There's literally no metric on which he is better. Except, maybe, height.

His health is (debatably) better than Hillary's, despite the fact he is fat.

You think?

He's morbidly obese, and she campaigned even when she had pneumonia. I think you're gonna have to give this one to Hillary.

[Grave_n_idle]

Taller.

I think you meant taller than Hillary.

There's literally no metric on which he is better. Except, maybe, height.

Well, he also speaks better than hillary. he's more personable than hillary.

He's verbally illiterate. He has a speaking age of about 6. Not buying that.

As for more personable - arguable. I think Hillary scores much better with educated audiences.

[Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire]

Authoritarian governments, as a general rule, persist longer and are more stable than democratic/mob rule governments. Every single democratic state that exists today was first formed sometime within the last 250 years - a long time by the standard of an individual lifetime, but an insignificant span of time in comparison to the sheer millennia of authoritarian governance. It is only a quirk of the last century that democracy has managed to last this long.

So if one considers order and stability to be the deciding factor in deciding which government form is superior (as some in this thread would, judging by the responses), then authoritarian governments are by and large superior.

Changes in technology, particularly communication technology, have an effect on political systems.

It is hard to organize elections in a low-tech civilization because the challenges of communicating over large distances make it difficult to collect and tabulate everyone's vote. This is why large low-tech civilizations gravitate more toward authoritarian systems that don't need as much communication to function.

The moment they reach a certain complexity threshold, they start having incessant civil wars until they fragment.
Civil wars that they usually have anyway.
Utter bullshit to claim that authoritarianism is any sort of universal stability guarantee. Sure we might have a civil war every 40 years but it beats having elections 10x as often

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Authoritarian governments, as a general rule, persist longer and are more stable than democratic/mob rule governments. Every single democratic state that exists today was first formed sometime within the last 250 years - a long time by the standard of an individual lifetime, but an insignificant span of time in comparison to the sheer millennia of authoritarian governance. It is only a quirk of the last century that democracy has managed to last this long.

You're potentially confusing "government" with "state/regime." It's important not to do this, because they are not the same thing. Democratic governments are, in fact, highly unstable, typically being overthrown every few years or so. The trick, of course, is that democratic states/regimes are designed to do this peacefully. On purpose. Cause more peaceful/less bloody transitions of government power are objectively better.

Now, if we wanna measure the value of systems of governance merely by longevity (for the sake of argument, since this is actually a highly silly thing to do), then the extremely decentralized, highly (if imperfectly) egalitarian, (arguably) proto-democratic primitive communism of the earliest hunter-gatherer and/or nomadic people has got everything else beat by a lot.

[The Portland Territory]

No thanks

[Antoura]

Yes, they should be replaced forthwith and posthaste by directly democratic people's assemblies.

[The Portland Territory]

Yes, they should be replaced forthwith and posthaste by directly democratic people's assemblies.

I mean, I'm in more of a support for the Swiss model, but as of now, there's nothing really wrong with how Congress is set up. Rather, it's the people in it that are the problem

[Antoura]

Yes, they should be replaced forthwith and posthaste by directly democratic people's assemblies.

I mean, I'm in more of a support for the Swiss model, but as of now, there's nothing really wrong with how Congress is set up. Rather, it's the people in it that are the problem

The problem is that the institution itself and the political process itself creates those kinds of people. Even if a well meaning and capable idealist is by some miracle elected, they will inevitably be turned into a Congress critter.

[Infected Mushroom]

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

Infected Mushroom for leader 2k21
That was brilliant.

I thank you for it.

[Infected Mushroom]

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

Which is exactly what democracy is about, looking for and electing (ideally) the best and most capable leader or president.

The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

[Biancavilla]

or instead of completely abolishing congess and leaving one person almost completely unchecked we could do something like establish term limits

[USS Monitor]

Changes in technology, particularly communication technology, have an effect on political systems.

It is hard to organize elections in a low-tech civilization because the challenges of communicating over large distances make it difficult to collect and tabulate everyone's vote. This is why large low-tech civilizations gravitate more toward authoritarian systems that don't need as much communication to function.

The moment they reach a certain complexity threshold, they start having incessant civil wars until they fragment.
Civil wars that they usually have anyway.
Utter bullshit to claim that authoritarianism is any sort of universal stability guarantee. Sure we might have a civil war every 40 years but it beats having elections 10x as often

It's not a universal stability guarantee, but there have been some authoritarian systems that were quite stable. The Tokugawa shogunate lasted 250 years and had no major wars. Not every authoritarian regime will be able to replicate that success, but it is still a success worthy of respect.

(FTR, I was not arguing in favor of authoritarian systems. I was only explaining why they were more common in the past.)

[Abidawe]

Cos Trump's sky-high approval rating totally suggests that his bullshit is the direct will of the people...

*upvotes*

Edit: this may be the most quotable thread of all time

[Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire]

The moment they reach a certain complexity threshold, they start having incessant civil wars until they fragment.
Civil wars that they usually have anyway.
Utter bullshit to claim that authoritarianism is any sort of universal stability guarantee. Sure we might have a civil war every 40 years but it beats having elections 10x as often

It's not a universal stability guarantee, but there have been some authoritarian systems that were quite stable. The Tokugawa shogunate lasted 250 years and had no major wars. Not every authoritarian regime will be able to replicate that success, but it is still a success worthy of respect.

(FTR, I was not arguing in favor of authoritarian systems. I was only explaining why they were more common in the past.)

I understand that.

[Thermodolia]

Which is exactly what democracy is about, looking for and electing (ideally) the best and most capable leader or president.

The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

Good thing the only qualification needed for voting is age.

[Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire]

The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

Good thing the only qualification needed for voting is age.

Otherwise there would be civil wars over the qualifications becoming that voters must be "selfless public-minded magnates" which is what seems to be the fashion for authoritarians of all stripes to ask for and not receive.

[Antoura]

The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

And who decides who is "qualified"? You?

[Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire]

The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

And who decides who is "qualified"? You?

No, the half-perfect philosopher-kings who would be able to pick their own kind out of a crowd.

[Empire of Narnia]

Term Limits for Congress would solve a lot of it.

[Thermodolia]

The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

And who decides who is "qualified"? You?

Oh no IM has more pressing matters to attend to, like banning dogs and making honor killings a thing

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It's time to start voting people out of Congress, not to get rid of it.