you continue to misunderstand or worse, you purposely distort my points. When a nation WILLINGLY, puts into its constitution that basic human rights are not a part of their nation's right, it is okay because that government will never last.
It's not ok, even assuming it won't be long-lived, that kind of thing should not have any existence. You can justify torture using the same phrase: it won't last.
Also, say where I have distorted your points at all.
By Natural Selection, the current governments of today have been created. Because past types have failed or fell into pieces, new and better and learn'd governments rose from the ashes.
Well, congratulation to the genius who figured that out. The grounds government is here today is since it wasn't thrown away earlier.
[/quote]If a government doesn't allow such basic human rights such as life and liberty or taxation with representation, they are not going to last long from external pressure and internal pressure. The thing that will turn a government's head the most is the mobs that arise from working masses.
If the government does not satisfy its people with decentralization, liberties, rights, etc., the government will not maintain popular support, and without popular support you might as well be non-existent already.[/quote]
Have you not seen, like, every modern government? Some worse than others. And the sad truth is, the more authoritarian governments are the more stable ones, with freedom comes a weak government. It was not Stalinist's paranoid unfree USSR that led to its collapse, even in one of the worst wars to befall Russia ever, but it was Gorbachöv's open free USSR. It wasn't DPPSO Aleksandr III who was killed, but the freer Aleksandr II. In Yugoslavia, in China, Mao-Tsedung had his great time.
It is similar to Gandhi's situation. The British soldiers can only slaughter so many Indians, they will only have so many bullets, and there are only so many Indians. There's a point where they either run out of ammunition or there are no more Indians. If they run out of Indians, there is no labor force. Without a labor force, there is no economy and without economy there is no government because the government has nothing to base itself upon.
Gandhi's a special case, that there is rioting even going on in the first site, and one of the things he constantly talked about in his speeches was how effective basically embarassing the British subjects, disheartening them, if you want to think of it as psychologic warfare, sure, go ahead.
If the government does not maintain a balance of limited government, maintaining the rights of its people and sustaining a free but fair market, the government will collapse because the work force will eventually dissipate, whether through genocide (oh I'm sorry, 'democide', because I care about words rather than sentiments), rioting or other protest methods.
That's few countries, even today. China, a very big government, with little freedom, and doesn't have free markets all over (and even the "free markets" are not fully free). India and America, India's a medium government, America's a big one, with middle speech freedom, mostly free markets. But I don't disagree, governments like these will eventually dissipate, just as everything does, but I guarantee you the confederation lasts less than the federation.
And you literally said something like "How can anyone like Democrats this election year?"! Democrats aren't that much better, but you're supporting folk who want to grow military spending even more, making a new war on immigration, going on with the war on drugs, for uncurbed government surveillence on its population, over the Democrats?
And if you want your republic to last, you need good laws. Those without good laws will die out, those with will prosper.
Law: if you insult the president, we put you in gaol for 2 years. Belarus has this actual law, and is poor on speech freedom, didn't see riots last I checked.
grow foreign help spending but only if you can be sure that the foreign governments arent just going to take all the money
Woah woah, why are you even giving it to foreign governments? Heck no, don't trust them with that money, just pay to Doctors without Borders, and other like organisations.
let the FBI spy on people, if your not doing anything wrong what does it matter to you
It's more what the FBI is doing wrong. This will only make it easier to kill or arrest those spreading bad words, it paves the way to a restricted speech freedom. Just imagine if Trump takes your suggestion here (he says he will), combine that with tougher "libel laws", and you've got little speech freedom. Don't trust the government. They corrupt like everything.
make national teaching standards stricter(like in finland), education is the future of the world and from what ive seen the education in the US is pretty lousy
America's actually quite ahead, it's basically the same argument when saying that America should legalise gay marriage since every other country has - no, still a pretty small minority of countries legalised gay marriage. According to the UN teaching index, America ranks #5.
limit legal suing powers, everybodys suing everybody for ridiculous things and the only people who are winning from this are lawyers
No, folk are paying their lawyers for this, and folk should be allowed to pay their lawyers. Folk should be allowed to sue anyone they want for any grounds, and any curbing of that is basically doing the very thing you hate - making big businesses super-powerful. If suing wasn't allowed in a capitalist world, capitalism would grow ugly.
rid the death penalty, too risky, if it turns out you were wrong about the person there is no going back
Or, or, just have stricter standards for proof, so it won't "turn out you were wrong". And still, there is no going back if say the fellow dies in gaol, no way to get those years back.
implement a carbon tax (fucking tony abbot, removing the carbon tax in Australia)
I'd be for something like this, but I've no idea how it would be measured/implemented.
dont make bitcoin legal currency
Why not?
have GMOs not have to be labelled
Hell, no. GMOs have to be labelled, for grounds I gave earlier. They're dangerous, eaters always have a right to know what is in their food.
