The president of the United States of Rukraine would be a man who has familiarized himself with America's Declaration of Independence and it's Constitution determining what makes (made) it work, (or not work.)
Each state would be converted from country-hood to statehood. The citizens of each state would be given a vote to decide, within certain perimeters, how they prefer to live.
For this democratic republic to thrive, our system would have to be studied very carefully, understood and followed.
... and we don't even do that.
So I wonder,
What is the hope of the future on this earth?
There’s a lot of hope for the future of this earth; the American way for Democracy isn’t the only one, nor is it the best.
This is a commonly held POV, but I would need proof.
"The American way for Democracy isn’t the only one, nor is it the best."
Actually, I'm saying that a democratic republic form of government like ours, (not exactly like ours, but patterned after it,) could be applied to any country.
Why or why not?
There is nothing wrong with ‘Democratic Republics’; most countries in the free world are already ‘Democratic Republics’ anyway, America does not have a monopoly on the concept.
And why are you excluding the UK from being a good democracy just because it’s not a Republic?
What makes you think that an American style Democratic Republic is superior to any other Democratic Republic; that comes across as ‘American Arrogance’?
When I was in the UK I would have political discussions with people. A person pointed out how the political system in the UK can quickly oust a bad prime minister and nobody will be upset. She then said BUT in the United States the process to remove a bad president is a long and drawn out affair that has never been completed. You elect a bad leader, then your stuck for years. She was right.
I did learn you can purchase an English title. I wondered if I purchased and English title, if I could then serve in the House of Lords? It would be worth it just to tell people who know me to refer to me at "Your Lordship."
She didn't know if that would be possible, but I love to watch the arguments going on in the chambers between the political parties in Britian.
There are websites that do sell you English Titles but they are illegal and it’s nothing more than a scam; and the UK Deed Poll Office does warn people of this scam on their website.
Such titles can only be inherited or personally granted by the Queen; examples being:-
• Inherited: Lord Bath (7th Marquess of Bath) (1932-2020). Lord bath was a lovable eccentric. Before he inherited his title he created a Regional political party called the ‘Wessex Regionalist Party, and stood as it main candidate in the 1974 General Election; obviously he didn’t win, but he believed that Wessex (in southern England) would be better off if it was a devolved region of the UK e.g. like Scotland.
Then when he inherited his father’s title in 1992 he sat in the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat politician.
• Lord Alan Sugar and Sir Richard Branson are titles bestowed by the Queen.
Lord Alan Sugar sat in the House of Lords as a Labour politician; while Sir Richard Branson can NOT sit in the House of Lords, because only Lords (and those of similar rank) are allowed to sit in the House of Lords, whereas Knights cannot e.g. in medieval Britain Knights were there to serve their Lords.
However, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding the word ‘Lord’ to their name by deed poll; Screaming Lord Sutch (3rd Earl of Harrow) (1940-1999), original name David Edward Sutch, did just that in 1968. Lord Sutch founded the ‘Official Monster Raving Loony Party’ which stands at every General Election and in Local Elections. But of course Lord Sutch was not a real Lord, so obviously he couldn't sit in the House of Lords. Plus the fact that Lords are prohibited from being an elected MP in the House of Commons, unless they give up their title.
Getting back to your first point; Boris Johnson’s days are numbered (current Prime Minster); it’s doubtful that he will survive long enough as leader to see the next General Election in 2024.
More insight into the Lords and Knights referenced above:
1: Lord Bath (7th Marquess of Bath) (1932-2020). Lovable eccentric, founder of Longleat Safari Park, and sat in the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat Peer for a number of years.
Lord Bath’s and his Dogs: https://youtu.be/MukUuxnN3qc
2: Lord Alan Sugar (born 1947); self-made British billionaire business tycoon - sat in the House of Lords as a Labour Peer for a number of years.
Lord Alan Sugar Slams Donald Trump: https://youtu.be/rBy18DRzBu4
3: Sir Richard Branson (born 1950); self-made British billionaire business tycoon – only a Knight, and therefore can’t sit in the House of Lords.
Richard Branson on work-life balance: https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0
4: Screaming Lord Sutch (3rd Earl of Harrow) (1940-1999), formally David Edward Sutch, changed his name by deed poll in 1968; founder of the ‘Official Monster Raving Loony Party’:
Official Monster Raving Loony Party Election Broadcast in Welsh Election:- https://youtu.be/t1bUIycOELw
We know how to prevent mob rule.
Do i read your starter correctly?
Is the only hope for future on earth the "American way"?
In my universe, this thinking is close to fascism, ok with a democratic mask.
Eh..There are better democratic systems to follow then the AMerican one.
Is it not that the US "Democratic" Republic system is in a bit of a crisis at the moment? People yelling about voters fraud. Presidents can be elected by a minority of votes.
Only to have two choices. Often voting against somebody than for somebody.
The US democracy is not a good blueprint for other countries. And besides, every country has its own history. Don't you think it's a bit patronizing to tell other countries how to run their government? What would you think if I would tell you that your country should follow the political system of Singapore? It's like colonialism all over again.
Besides the US doesn't give a damn about democracy in other countries. It only cares if the powers that be in the country are pro-American. (Look at South America in the '80 for clear examples...Or Saudië Arabia at the moment. and the list goes on)
I believe that, if clearly understood and followed correctly, the American way can apply to and be had by any country in the world.
- Divide up the nation into states.
- Apply similar constitutional principles and rules of law.
- Establish the ability to check and balance governmental branches in order to avoid mob rule promoted by any democracy.
- Promote freedom of religion and speech.
- Enable a free market for the sake of a percolating economy where there is opportunity for all.
The real difficulty, one could suppose, is the set up, (the process of set-up.)
America accomplished its free society and way of life by:
Obtaining new territory.
Beginning with a fresh start.
Applying out-of-the-box thinking in a myriad of ways.
Acting on a strong desire and appreciation for national and personal independence.
Lots of time.
Most of what you advocate applies to free and democratic countries anyway, and there is nothing uniquely American about them?
1: Divide up the nation into states.
Britain is divided into 4 nations (States), Australia and Germany is divided into States; and the EU currently contains 27 Member States. None of this has derived from copying the American way, it’s all evolved over time; in the case of the UK, through war.
2: Apply similar constitutional principles and rules of law.
Are you suggesting the rest of the world adopts similar constitutional principles and rules of law as the USA? There are elements of the American Constitution that the rest of the world considers barmy e.g. the 2nd Armament. And a lot of American ‘rules of law’ would be retrograde step for many European countries, including the UK e.g. lower food standards in the USA.
Besides, did you realise that the American Constitution takes its inspiration from the Magna Carta of 1215, which is the foundation of British Constriction e.g. the Magna Carta, signed in London in 1215 AD enshrined in law the right to a trial by jury. The exact wording being a "freeman shall not be... imprisoned... unless by the judgement of his peers".
What is Magna Carta? https://youtu.be/7xo4tUMdAMw
3: Establish the ability to check and balance governmental branches in order to avoid mob rule promoted by any democracy.
My observation is that in America you do not have the check and balances in government branches e.g. they too easily seemed influenced by Powerful Industrialists and Governments alike! While in the UK key sensitive Government Departments are truly ‘Independent’ of Government to prevent unscrupulous governments from using them for political gain; specifically these Government Departments in the UK are answerable not to the Government, but to Parliament only e.g. the Electoral Commission, Office of National Statistics, Ofcom etc.
4: Promote freedom of religion and speech.
In Europe the view is that ‘Freedom of Speech’ is radically different to how Americans view free speech. In Europe the view is that ‘Freedom of Speech’ comes with responsibility e.g. it’s illegal to slag someone off because of their colour, race, creed, religion, age or disability etc. such negative language against the vulnerable is classified as ‘hate crime’; which we take very seriously on this side of the pond.
Yeah, Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) has become a secular nation in recent decades so we have a freedom of religion that unlike the USA also embraces atheism into society e.g. when my wife, and agnostic, got an Admin job in a multi-faith Chaplaincy, the Chaplin interviewing her said “You don’t have to be religious to work here”.
5: Enable a free market for the sake of a percolating economy where there is opportunity for all.
I’m not quite sure what is meant by your last comment; but in the UK we have a mixed economy which seems to work quite well; I certainly wouldn’t want to exchange it for the cut throat sharp business practices that leaves the worker vulnerable to the whims of ‘hire & fire’ of their boss if, as we so often see in American films, where if the worker doesn’t please their boss e.g. by working over the holidays or staying after hours to work, then they’re fired. Fortunately, workers’ rights are quite well protected in European countries.
I am curious as to why we are not on the same page, since we're both from democratic countries. Maybe there are variations and differences in our adaptations to life but who is to say one is better than the other especially since America is much much bigger than Britain.
Just curious . . . what does size got to do with it? Also, when the U.S. government was formed was it larger than U.K.? Certainly not by population.
- none of these points are valid when viewed in light of the greatness and superiority of any democratic/democratic republic type of government over any communistic/socialistic type government.
From my personal experience traveling between communist countries and democratic countries serveral times. Is that communist countries are becoming more democratic/capitalist/ socialist. And democratic/capitalist are becoming more communist like.
but why, do you suppose?
And I guess history reveals that democracies always fizzle out after about 200 years.
In viewing your other comment below “in light of the greatness and superiority of any democratic/democratic republic type of government over any communistic/socialistic type government.” we are perhaps getting a little closer to being on the same page; but there are still some big chasms to cross:-
#1: Your insinuation that everything has to be the American way does come across as being “American Arrogance” e.g. an attitude of bigger and better?
#2: Yes we are both from democratic countries (albeit our cultures are quite different in many ways); and yes “who’s to say one is better than the other”, therefore, what does size have to do with it?
#3: FYI the UK is NOT a Democratic ‘Republic’; the UK is a Democratic ‘Monarchy’. And besides we don’t have an elected President in the UK, we have an appointed Prime Minister to lead the country e.g. the leader of the political party that wins most of the seats in a General Election becomes Prime Minister.
#4: FYI, when Labour wins the General Election (as it does periodically) the UK then has a Socialist type government e.g. it’s because Labour had a landslide victory in the 1945 General Election that a ‘Socialist’ government in Britain was able to establish the Welfare State that we enjoy in the UK to this day; and more importantly the creation of the NHS (National Health Service) in 1948; which provides FREE healthcare for all at the point of use (pure socialism).
So in conclusion, you are making the same mistake that many Americans make in confusing Socialism with Communism.
Where did the NHS come from? https://youtu.be/y4apLmg5XiA
"Americans make in confusing Socialism with Communism."
MOST people confuse Socialism with Communism. Why? Many people define it many different ways.
One definition is "Social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership." This is for those who believe it is the same as communism.
Others believe it is providing vast amounts of social programs for society, but have an economy based on capitalism.
It is a debate that will never stop.
Yep, you are right; but if you live in a country (like the USA) where you don’t have a Socialist Party then there is a great tendency to assume that Socialism and Communism are the same – but they are not.
While if you live in a country where we do have Socialist Governments e.g. Labour; then the distinction between Socialism and Communism is very clear.
In Britain, prior to the 1980’s much of our main Industries were State owned and run e.g. steel, car manufacturers etc., but that didn’t make us a communist country. A better distinction perhaps is that Socialism believes in ‘true democracy’ while Communism doesn’t.
A form of the British type of government is the one used in many of the Democratic countries around the world.
Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada, Israel and others have adopted a form of British governance.
A Presidential republic, like we have in the United States is used mostly in South and Central America, the free countries in Eastern Europe (Like the Ukraine) and several countries in Africa.
Yes, a number of former British Empire countries in particular e.g. the Commonwealth Countries, have as you say, adopted a form of British governance; of which 15 countries still have the British Queen as their Monarch.
Albeit on the 30th November 2021 Barbados transitioned from a parliamentary constitutional monarchy (with the British Queen as their monarch) to a ‘parliamentary republic’.
There remain 7 democratic monarchies in Europe, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium, each one with their own King or Queen; the rest of Europe are parliamentary democratic Republics e.g. the Republic of Ireland, Republic of France etc.
Prior to the world wars most European countries had Kings & Queens, with most being related to Queen Victoria; but those kings who meddled in warfare e.g. the Russian and German monarchs, were ousted after the war, and predominantly, those Kings and Queens who left it to the politicians remained as head of state.
To isolate the difficulty is to try to prevent the fizzle-out.
We would have to understand what causes it.
There are rich, powerful, greedy GIANTS who care nothing for people and treat them like they are mere ants. These GIANTS network and connive, accumulating ever more, more and more money/power/influence and eventually they figure out how to turn the ants into worker bees.
Drones is what they want.
The fizzle-out occurs when we pursue illusionary pursuits outside of Reality. To avoid the temptations of glorified illusion we need to recognize them and avoid them.
This knowledge must be passed down from generation to generation.
Maybe generations respect their parents less and less.
Perhaps, parents loose their way, (become less respectable, less disciplined, less knowledgeable, less focused on their children and raising them properly,) as their lives get easier and easier. What are we to do ... refuse to live easy lives?
The concept of a representative republic, such as in the United States, is not uniquely American. It is a concept of the ancient Greeks. The founding fathers adapted the concepts to create the American system.
Thanks for the info; yes the ancient Greeks were quite an enlightened society.
I rarely find myself disagreeing with you, Nathanville, but the Ancient Greeks were not enlightened in any modern sense of the word. Perhaps you are taking Periclean Athens as your example, but even there, liberty was conditional and women and slaves went disregarded.
Just curious . . . what does liberty have to do with enlightenment? I don't see a correlation.
I wasn't intending to infer that ancient Greece had democracy; democracy is a modern concept that’s barely a century old in most countries, even less in others e.g. Spain didn’t finally become a democracy until circa 1978, a few short years after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco.
When I made my comment I wasn’t thinking of ‘liberty’ I was thinking of the high level of learning, arts, science and technology that existed in ancient Greece before the Romans ransacked it and destroyed most of their culture.
In particular, I was thinking of the Antikythera mechanism as an example; a clock mechanism about 8 inches high, containing at least 37 bronze gears. The Antikythera mechanism was loot stolen from Greece by the Romans which was lost in a shipwreck, not to be discovered until 1900.
Such advanced technology was lost to mankind until it reappeared in Europe in the 14th century.
The Antikythera Mechanism: https://youtu.be/UpLcnAIpVRA
Our government has been a template for other countries. It is a good template which can be adapted to the regional concerns and cultural ways of other countries.
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.
Yeah, as Readmikenow says above, Presidential republics similar to the USA “is used mostly in South and Central America, the free countries in Eastern Europe (Like the Ukraine) and several countries in Africa.”
While as Readmikenow says above, “A form of the British type of government is the one used in many of the Democratic countries around the world including Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada, Israel and others”; predominantly Commonwealth Countries e.g. the old British Empire.
And countries in Western Europe who have dumped their monarchy have adopted parliamentary democracies, many with Presidents and Prime Ministers as part of the ‘Separation of Powers’ (Executive vs Legislature).
So what in your view makes the American Style of Government so special?
From what I can see, from the other side of the pond, is that American politics is less democratic than most democratic countries because it lacks a ‘multi-party’ system e.g. just two main parties, which is just one step up from the ‘single party’ States like Russia and China.
Whereas, all countries across Europe (including the UK) are multi-party systems; and with the exception of the UK (which still has the first past the post system) the other European countries use Proportional Presentation, so that their people have genuine choice, and get the governments they vote for e.g. coalition governments (power sharing) so that all major views are represented. That in my view is as close to true democracy that one can get.
The future is destined to improve. We are at the lower end of the higher ages.
To isolate the difficulty, it seems we should discuss the parliamentary system versus the American system of democracy.
- never even thought about camparing these two,
I never thought that the American non-parliamentary system was at all superior.
By the way.
It was not a matter of parliamentary vs non. It was a matter of what type of government brings the most happiness to the majority of people, preferably all.
What type of government promotes the best psychological, physical and spiritual environment for the citizens of any country.
Are the citizens of some countries better off with absolute rule by despots and the citizens of other countries with presidents?
And what type of people would be better off with despots?
And what type of despots are best for those people?
Curious, are you only asking about other countries with a despot form of government. I ask because I can't think of one today, yet I am not familiar with all countries. Can you give some examples?
They may say they are democracies. But they ain't. They are autocracies as evidenced by the facts.
The world’s least democratic places (last place first):
3 North Korea
1 0 Hong Kong
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … -countries
I don’t think discussing the ‘parliamentary system’ vs the ‘American system’ of democracy is the answer; partly because the statement assumes that all Federal State Republicans are modelled on the USA system; and that isn’t the case.
Yes, some Presidential republics, as pointed out by Readmikenow, are similar to the USA system e.g. South and Central America, the free countries in Eastern Europe (Like the Ukraine) and several countries in Africa; but not all e.g. Germany.
You do raise a good point though “It was not a matter of parliamentary vs non. It was a matter of what type of government brings the most happiness to the majority of people, preferably all.”
I had a close look at the link you provide, listing the 10 most and 10 least democratic countries, which list the UK as the 18th most democratic country in the world, and the USA as the 26th. From the top 10, I focused on what type of democracies each of those 10 countries are, and the summary is as follows:-
In order of most Democratic Country 1st:-
1: Norway: Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. The country is governed by a prime minister, a cabinet, and a 169-seat parliament that is elected every four years and cannot be dissolved.
2: New Zealand: Parliamentary democracy with a governmental structure more similar to Germany than traditional systems like the United Kingdom and Australia.
3: Finland: Parliamentary democracy; a Republic whose head of state is a President.
4: Sweden: Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. The Monarch is the Head of State, but the Prime Minister is the Leader.
5: Iceland: Parliamentary democratic republic, whereby the president is the head of state, and the prime minister is the head of government.
6: Denmark: Parliamentary democracy, and constitutional monarchy, with the Danish Queen, Margrethe II, being the head of state, and the Prime Minister is the Leader (as with any Democratic Monarchy).
7: Ireland: Parliamentary democratic republic, with a President as the Head of State.
8: Taiwan (a surprised one to see on this list!): It’s part of the Republic of China, although it does proclaim its independence and does have its own Presidential election, which is more democratic than the elections held in mainland China!
9: Australia: Parliamentary democracy, and constitutional monarchy with the UK Queen as the head of State and the Australian Prime Minister as Leader of the country, albeit Australia is also Federal Country. So it’s a little bit like the UK with our four nations (Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England)!
10: Switzerland: A direct democracy e.g. Switzerland is governed by the Federal Council whose decisions are made by consensus based on compulsory referendums on subjects where the legislation is drafted by the political elites to a binding popular vote. It’s also a Federal Republic.
So alongside the usual voting rights accorded in democracies, the Swiss people also have the right to vote on specific issues. In simple terms, it’s mandatory that every Swiss person of voting age vote on important issues in a compulsory referendum – so essentially, the people are the government!
So in conclusion, virtually all of the top 10 most democratic countries are Parliamentary Democracies, some have monarchs, some don’t; and some have Presidents as Head of State, while others have Prime Ministers as Head of State.
So really, I don’t think it really matters what type of Democracy it is; what is more important I think is the type of voting system e.g. most countries in the list of the top 10 democratic countries use PR (Proportional Representation), and Switzerland goes even further by having a ‘Direct Democracy’ e.g. where everyone votes on every major issue/topic.
And most democratic countries in the world encourage multiple political parties; whereas the USA system discourages any political party that’s not part of the two main parties (making it less democratic)!
P.S. A despot would be an autocrat, not necessarily a cruel tyrant.
However, an autocracy is a system of government where one person has absolute power and is
u n a c c o u n t a b l e
to the law or the citizenry.
"The 2009 constitutional revision enshrined as the country’s highest administrative authority the supreme leader and chairman of the National Defense Commission (NDC). That position was held by Kim Jong Il, Kim Il-Sung’s son, until his death in 2011 and by Kim Jong Il’s successor, his son Kim Jong-Un. Subsequent revisions in 2016 created the State Affairs Commission, a new body that replaced the NDC as the highest government entity and represented an expansion of the powers given to Kim as its chairman.
The head of government is the premier, assisted by several vice-premiers and a cabinet, the members of which are appointed by the national legislature, the Supreme People’s Assembly (SPA). The president of the SPA is North Korea’s titular head of state. In practice, however, the government is under one-man leadership. During his lifetime, Kim Jong Il was also supreme commander of the Korean People’s Army and general secretary of the Korean Workers’ Party (KWP). After his death, Kim Jong-Un assumed those positions, and he was made chairman of the State Affairs Commission upon its creation.
https://www.britannica.com/place/North- … nd-society
The size of the government and its responsiveness to its citizens determines it democratic strength, robustness, health and effectiveness in granting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Where you say: “The size of the government and its responsiveness to its citizens determines it democratic strength, robustness, health and effectiveness in granting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It’s an interesting point; but what does that say about the USA compared to European Governments?
USA: With a population of just 330 million only have 435 elected politicians in the House of Representatives; whereas –
UK: with a population just over 67 million has 650 elected politicians in the House of Commons.
Therefore, in the UK we have almost double the number of elected politicians in a country whose population is just a fifth of the size of the USA.
And in the USA, you have 100 elected politicians in the Senate; whereas in the UK we currently have 767 unelected peers in the House of Lords, of which 92 are hereditary peers.
Also, in our Local Government in the City of Bristol (where I live); we have 70 local elected politician to represent a local population of just 467,000 residents.
In Bristol 36 seats are required for an overall majority; of which no party currently has, so currently the Bristol Local is a coalition between the Green Party (Radical left) and Labour (Socialists). The full result of the last local election in Bristol (in 2021) was:-
• Green Party (radical left) = 24 seats
• Labour (socialists) = 24 seats
• Conservative (capitalist, similar to the Republics in the USA) = 14 seats
• Liberal Democrats (centralist party, similar to the Democrats in the USA) = 8 seats
Did you know the U.S. ranks 19th for happiness? Why do you think that is when we are to pursue happiness as it is emboldened by our Declaration of Independence. Is it we are only to pursue happiness while lacking in achieving it?
Happiest Countries in the World 2022
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count … -the-world
We’re Learning the Wrong Lessons From the World’s Happiest Countries
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/arch … ay/619299/
Happiness Research Institute
An interesting set of links; thanks for sharing - I found it a fascinating read.
Thanks Arthur! :-) A happy Sunday to you. We changed our clocks ahead one hour today. Did you there too? I know Sweden does it on the 27th.
My journey with Happiness with a semblance of formal understanding began back about 2003 when I returned to our community college to finally complete my Associate of Arts degree at the ripe mature age of 49. Essentially a two year degree. I wound up with two; General Studies and Behavioral Sciences/Sociology. A required class was Health 100 with a strong focus on the concept of wellness. The text was influenced by National Wellness Institute. That changed my life. I used what was learned to make changes in my life to achieve Wellness as best as can be. And, I use that as guide today.
The National Wellness Institute: The Six Dimensions of Wellness
https://nationalwellness.org/resources/ … -wellness/
Later in Life I met a fellow poet here at HP, Sannel, (2012) who is now my a very Dear Friend I have mentioned who lives in Sweden. She turned me on to Mindfulness, which I try to practice and fall back on always when things get weird or out of whack. That soon led to a book a seminar instructor turned me on to titled: The Happiness Trap: How to Stop Struggling and Start Living: A Guide to ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) based on Mindfulness.
A recommended read for anyone no matter if they feel they do or don't need it. I am rereading it today. When I first read it I bought 10 copies to hand out when the opportunity arose with interacting with someone who was seeking a change.
The Happiness Trap
https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Trap-S … 1590305841
Wow, that’s quite impressive. My wife also did a degree at university as a mature student; when she was in her late 30’s (a three year course) and got a BA Degree with Hons. in Business Administration, which included Accounts, Economics, Economic History, Business Law, English and Statistics.
I didn’t go to university myself, but a couple of years after I joined the civil service I did to the Business Administration (a two year course) at Advanced Level (one step down from a degree) at college, on day release from work – covering the same subject matters that my wife later covered when she did her degree.
Although I did do numerous other courses over the years, paid for by the civil service, including Project Management (Prince2); and Project Management is one skill I’ve cherished as I apply it to my social and home life e.g. all my DIY projects are Project Managed so that I do the projects ‘On Time, within Budget and to Quality’ (the three corner stones of Project Management), mitigating against risk (Risk Management), which is another key element of Project Management.
Thanks for the links, fascinating reading; I particular like the ‘six Dimensions’ idea (Occupational, Physical, Emotional, Social, Intellectual and Spiritual); it reminds me of a similar circle of ‘desires’ that was part of the Government Department that I worked for. I can’t remember all the words now (I’ve been retired for over 11 years), but one that sticks in my mind is ‘humour’ as it was good to see a Government Department promoting ‘humour’ as part of its work ethics e.g. the concept that a happy work force is a productive workforce.
And likewise, wishing you a happy Sunday too; yep, the weather is mild at the moment; the sun is shining into our home-office, although a little nippy outside – but at least we’re generating our own electricity from the solar panels on our roof.
Just finished painting and decorating our en-suit bathroom yesterday, and fitting a couple of made to measure mirrors onto my built-in wardrobe; and taking it easy today, as our friend from Portsmouth is visiting us tomorrow (and staying overnight).
Like Sweden, our clocks go forward an hour on the 27th March, from GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) to BST (British Summer Time). Although I don’t like the clocks keep changing ever six months, I do appreciate the BST as it means that come June dusk isn’t until gone 10pm e.g. 21st June Dawn is at 4am and dusk is at 10pm; a nice long day with daylight late into the evening.
People need to vote wisely and our elected leaders need to do the same.
Keep the federal government beholden to the states and the people.
"... Jefferson believed that the House of Representatives had primary responsibility for domestic policy and the executive had equivalent responsibility over foreign affairs."
Joseph J Ellis, American Sphinx.
Article II Section 2 of US Constitution
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
Yes, the President appointing new Supreme Court Judges is another aspect of the USA Constitution that I do find troubling e.g. it clearly contravenes the principle of the ‘Separation of Powers’, namely the Executive, Legislative and Juridical.
In the UK, although new Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister has no say in who to recommend, by law he has a legal obligation to only recommend the person selected by the Selection Commission.
The Selection Commission in the UK who tells the Prime Minister who should be recommended to the Queen for the new Supreme Court Judge is made up of the following:-
• President of the Court: President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
• Another senior UK judge, but one who is not part of the Supreme Court.
• A Member from the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC): The JAC is an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales and for some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
• A member from the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, and
• A member from the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
By British law, at least one of these cannot be a lawyer e.g. they should be a layperson.
Thus, the appointment of the Supreme Court Judges in the UK is not political, and the Separation of Powers is maintained.
As Friedrich A. Hayek said in The Road to Serfdom,
"The guiding principle in any attempt to create a world of free men, must be this: a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy."
Surely, individual liberty is not becoming underrated.
Not at all, the Labour Party in the UK had to fight hard for ‘Individual Liberty’; as is evident in the lyrics of the British Labour Party Anthem:
"The Red Flag" - Anthem of The British Labour Party: https://youtu.be/sHoyoKgRq5U
Remembering that in Europe political colours are the reverse to that of the USA e.g. in Europe -
• Red = Socialism and
• Blue = Capitalism
For example, the first four lines of the Labour Party Anthem being:-
The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed in every fold
As a side issue, even in free democratic countries there are sometimes zones that are void of democracy in the traditional sense e.g. Vatican City and the City of London.
The City of London is just 1 square mile, with a total population of just 9,401 people - not to be confused with a city called London which is more comparable in size to New York City, and has a population of 8.982 million.
The City of London elections are based on traditions that date back over 1,000 years:
Mayoral Elections in the City of London: https://youtu.be/z1ROpIKZe-c
A fair question. Arguably, the modern idea of liberty was a product of the Enlightenment. The idea of individual freedom hardly existed before the advent of rationalism.
Stephen, i was about to write a very similar response.
I would add, that enlightment requires a knowledge toolbox to allow critical thinking. In other words, if Kopernikus, Kepler, Galilei hadn´t done their brave thing, then enlightment would not necessarily have happened a century later.
With respect to our society today: Aren´t we loosing this knowledge toolbox today? Don´t we replace real knowledge by counting likes in social media? Opens all flood gates to conspiracy theories, to unreflected and fabricated and skewed news.
I think we are living in a world much less "enlightened" for free thought than 100 or 200 years ago.
Unfortunately, I think you're quite right.
I would have to agree with you.
Thanks, all, for contributing so much info regarding the best form(s) of government. To conclude in a very generaI way, it seems that the majority of the governments of the world today are adequate and are promoting contentment, if not happiness .... and thats good enough. No county should be overly fearful of loosing individual liberty to the globalists or any other nefarious force.
Does any of you think the Globalist/Elites exist? And are they trying to take over the world to create a One World Government?
I know, I know the majority will laugh at such a question with the answer being a resounding, "NO!"
It is so easy to buy into conspiracy theories.
I would rather not.
I would rather think that everything is fine with the affairs of men and that what we really need to be doing is figuring out how to become more enlightened.
Yep, you are right; my answer is a resounding ‘NO’.
That being said I am a ‘Globalist’ rather than a ‘Nationalist’ e.g. I support global organisations like WHO, WTO, UN and I support the EU; none of whom are trying to take over the world nor create a One World Government, they just advocate global trade and co-operation – which I think is a good thing.
Q."Aren´t we loosing this knowledge toolbox today?" CHRIS57
An enlightened society depends on critical thinking, knowledge and in general, a good education.
Does technology contribute to a good education in some ways and take it away in others?
If computers and the internet are tools for enlightenment or the opposite, how can we use them wisely?
How can we guide the youth toward enlightenment in an age of technology?
Rather than allow it to control, surveil, and rob them of their humanity, their creativity and
their connection to reality.
Yep, another thread for another day.
A good question:
Chris is right, we are much less enlightened now than we were a century back, because the Internet is flooded with conspiracy theories, and un-reflected and fabricated and skewed news, further promoted by pressing the ‘like’ button in Social Media.
The UK Government is making a serious attempt to redress that problem with the introduction of its ‘Online Safety’ Legislation, which is due to become law later this year, which will target ‘fake news’.
When the Bill becomes law Ofcom (a watchdog that’s independent of the Government) will be able to issue fines of up to 10 per cent of annual worldwide turnover to non-compliant sites anywhere in the world, or block them from being accessible in the UK e.g. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter etc.
News on British TV is already heavily regulated (and has been for decades) to ensure unbiased and balanced reporting.
The British Newspapers successfully lobbied the UK Government to not be included in the new ‘Online Safety’ Legislation in exchange that they will self-regulate themselves to eliminate ‘fake news’ in the British Press.
Online Safety Bill: https://youtu.be/h5NTJxUIB4M
... If computers and the internet are tools for enlightenment or the opposite, how can we use them wisely?...
We use the term "enlightment" as if it is applicable today. I believe we can´t do this. From replacing the read of a book by looking up its contents on Wikipedia people don´t aquire any reflectory and critical thinking skills.
Internet takes away the need to understand basic principles. You eat the (internet information) potatoe prechewed and have no idea what it took to grow, harvest, clean, peel, boil...
From "cogito ergo sum" in the beginning to Imanuel Kant´s "Critique of Pure Reason" and the "Humboldtian model of higher education", what is left today?
We think we know more in the information age, but instead we understand less.
What I liked about my time studying at college in Britain is that they instilled in us the importance of ‘proper’ research, ‘sourcing’ and ‘referencing’ our research and source information.
If you didn’t source and reference your theses fully and properly you’d get low grades in your homework, and ultimately not enough marks to pass your course works, so that even if you did well in your final end of year exams, you’d not get enough overall marks to pass, and thus fail to get the qualifications in the subject you were studying.
I found the same thing at work when ‘Report’ writing came an integral part of my job e.g. if I didn’t source and reference my ‘Reports’ fully and properly then senior management would reject them, and just through them back at me.
So my experience is that good education and good work practices can nourish ‘reflectory and critical thinking skills’.
by SportsBetter 10 years ago
Is the United States a Republic or a Democracy?So most people believe the United States is a Democracy. The US was actually founded as a Republic. Some of the founders had put much thought in what they wanted the country to be. They knew that all of the previous democracies in the...
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
Do Conservatives believe in a United States or a united States of America?The Declaration of Independance refers to the united States while the Constitution uses the phrase United States, with a capital 'U'. The Ariticles of Confederation and the Continental Congress epitomize a united States...
by niall.tubbs 12 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
by American View 10 years ago
Ernest Istook once said “While even pornography is protected as free speech, the courts have consciously undermined religious speech and freedom of religion for years. ”Is he right, and thoughts?
by Kathryn L Hill 6 years ago
Democrats expect people to pull together to help one another in a collective way. They do not realize this system removes a certain amount of individual freedom through raising taxes. Republicans want to empower the individual by keeping taxes low. They believe individuals, (through the self-effort...
by Amanda Littlejohn 8 years ago
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me say that without taking offense. But most religions per se enshrine some deeply...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|