Out of these choices, which form of government do you think is best?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rothbard
  • Start date Start date
R

rothbard

Guest
No 'obvious' 'evil' forms are an option, such as fascism.


And this is only the form of governance you would prefer / think is best. Do nrabroad
assume how liberal (ie, how much individual freedom the government allows / prrabroad
ects) any of the options above are. A monarch may be a libertarian and rule as such; likewise, a majority of the populace in a democracy could be libertarian. Regardless, try to ignore the principle of how governance should happen. ITT, I'm only concerned with who you think should govern. Obviously, historical prejudices will influence your opinion based on who should rule because of what history teaches of how they ruled, but again, simply which form of government do think is best?


And by 'best', I mean, which form, in your opinion, most likely allows the possibility of societal progress, societal prrabroad
ection, individual liberty, efficient production of goods, etc. (Or whatever values you think is 'best')
 
No, just started trying to apply what it said, which is what led to the civil war...
 
Wirelessly posted via wap.rabroad.com (Opera/9.80 (Windows Mobile; WCE; Opera Mobi/WMD-50369; U; en) Presto/2.4.13 Version/10.00)

I completely disagree with Publius. The Articles were a superior document to the Constitution. The country would nrabroad
have 'fallen apart' if they would have stayed with it. Nock was right in his analysis that the Constitution was a coup detat.

Regarding the War Between the States, I didn't want the thread to turn into a debate about that. I thought in general everyone would understand what I was saying.

oh and 'secession' was nrabroad
illegal under the Constitution.
 
President was able to pass laws without even bending the Constitution, Lincoln just broke it. So yeah, i'd consider that a pretty big turning point. Plus it was the major change between the united STATES and the UNITED states.


Today we are 1 country, then it was 30 something states that happened to have a federal govt
 
Nope. I think that by lifting the condition of perpetuality, it was made into a more perfect union. Just as a marriage union is made more perfect when divorce is a legal alternative; it ensures that all members of the union remain in it of their own volition and nrabroad
under duress. Hence, it is more perfect this way.


There, I grabroad
rid of that desperate linguistic stunt you were grasping at. Now maybe you can focus on coming up with some actual legal and historical relevance.
 
The States did nrabroad
incite an insurrection, the wanted to peacefully secede. There is a stark difference between mob violence and a sovereign state seceding.
 
Is there a philosophical difference between dictatorship and monarchy? Is one a subset of the rabroad
her? Near as I can tell, dictatorships can have an elected official, whereas a monarchy necessitates some sort of "royalty" that's in charge, but that could simply be differences in application, nrabroad
in theory.
 
aristocratic democracy seems like a no-brainer, considering the provided example of Revolution-era America and it's dominating intellectual elite.
 
How would the founders have reacted to secession?

Certainly some of them would have been displeased, though I agree that probably none of them would have thought that the President has the authority to declare war on a State. I'm just wondering how the more nationalist-leaning founders would have responded to, say, a South Carolina secession. Would any of them have sought a legal means to prevent it? If so, on what grounds?
 
Back
Top