If we are to accept the idea of stateism, how can we prevent those who rule us from not representing the best interests of the masses? Now, far be it from me to tell everyone to overthrow their governments and replace them with egalitarian and leaderless communes , although I probably have on countless occasions, but surely we cannot deny that states do go wrong sometimes. With serious examples like Hitler's Germany or China under Mao Tse Tsung and less serious examples like America under the Bush jr administration. If these examples prove at least a mild tendancy for states to betray the masses, surely in order for the people to accept the state we need some sort of way to affect the direction of our collective vehicle. Democracy as we know it is only a very weak method for control of the state, it is not abolute, and it can be perverted with relative ease. We shouldn't not forget that two of the above examples occured in democratic states, and totalitarian China occured in an egalitarian state... where everyone was, at least economically speaking, equal.

How do you keep a country from going off the rails beyond democratic elections every four or so years? Is it nesissary to even attempt it? Is a strong democracy simply the only answer?

You can't totally, not without so restricting the power of the state that it can't do anything. The main things I would say are required are a codified and entrenched constitution outlining all civil rights clearly and distinctly, and a referendum to be required to change that constitution. That should prevent our leaders from messing around with us, but leave them with enough power to do their job.

"How do you keep a country from going off the rails beyond democratic elections every four or so years? Is it nesissary to even attempt it? Is a strong democracy simply the only answer?"

Nothing can always prevent leaders from abusing state powers. No matter how strong you make your constitution, or how well you educate and arm (intellectually and emotionally speaking) your populace, a leader can still abuse the powers of the state. And he or she will be especially inclined to do so if they believe it to be best for their country.

Speaking of populace...

In my opinion, the best way to insure a strong democracy (or democratic republic, if you will), is to have a strong populace. If most of your population (most because you cannot achieve 100%) is educated, confident, and at least somewhat appreciative of the workings and basic moral requirements of democracy, then you've taken a big step towards limiting an overpowered state.

Furthermore, an added benefit to a strong populace--and sorry, this is a wee bit off topic--is resistance to other freedom-limiting forces that are NOT from the state, but can aide it. Large corporations, political and religious fundamentalist groups, and the like can inhibit personal freedom and make apathetic the people, allowing the state to more easily oppress them.

Back to the topic, state oppression is, in my opinion, impossible to fully remove, as well as inevitable in the evolution of a civilization. And, of course, a strong people isn't the sole solution. As CommieBastard pointed out, a strong, documented constitution and list of people's rights, as well as inhibitions upon the state, are needed.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

There are, what in the UK, we call 'checks and balances' that are designed to protect against the excesses of the State...

1. Separation of Powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary - where each is independent, accaountable, and effective in what it does free from undue interferrence from each other.

2. Bicameralism within the Legislature, that there is a form of Parliamentary scrutiny and possible guard against an overly powerful and excessive Government.

3. Judicial Review against Policies, Laws and actions committed by the Executive, where any attempt by the Executive to act "ultra vires" (beyond their statutroy powers) can be challenged in the courts.

4. Legislation, Case Law, and Customs that regulate how the State works, from elections to proposing and implementing new legislation to going to war.

5. The UK's membership to the EU and in particular it's acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined within the Human Rights Act (1998), which is the only part of our uncodified constitution that is rigid (difficult to change or repeal) and that specifically provides the people with 'rights'.

6. Freedom (albeit limited freedom) of political parties and the press, and a partial move towards governmental transparency.

7. The partial devolution of countries within the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This splitting of the Super State into regional assemblies that have their own varying powers and rights - allows for local people greater say in how they are governed, something which limits the State's ability to encroach on the people, (to a lesser extent this also includes local government and the proposed City mayoral style councils such as the Greater London Authority).

A shame we don't have this in the UK - our executive is drawn from the legislative, and the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and a member of both the legislative and the executive. The US is a very good example of the separation of powers, however.

It is lamentable that we have such poor separation of powers, but the main advantage of drawing the executive from the legislature is that it gives greater accountability. Prime Minister's Questions are a vital part of our democracy, and I would not like to see our system working like that in the US, where the President needs no debating skills and is accountable only to a favourable media.

Actually I'm from London...

The idea of the Separation of Powers has been around for a long time, however - as you said - other jurisdictions have a clearer separation and maintain it far better than we do.

Under the current reforms the Blair administration has attempted / claimed that reforms of the Lord Chancellor's Dept. (now the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs) will guarantee Judicial independence and impartiality. However, it is more than likely that they will in reality lose their powers to scrutinise the Executive through judicial review. This move away from accountability is thanks to David Blunket's fiasco with Immigrants and Assylum seekers being denied essential services. The Courts found against Blunket's pet policy - who was absolutely seething... looks like he'll get his way soon enough, and there won't be anyone to stop him.

The Lord Chancellor was always an odd character sitting as the head of the Judiciary, as a key figure in the Legislature and on the Cabinet of the Executive... but our political system has had to gradually evolve over a few hundred years, a difficult task given politicians dislike of change and the archaic baggage that Westminster is still carrying.

Ummm...yes? I knew you were in the UK, you said so at the beginning of the post I quoted.

From the other thread, it seems more relevant here.

Err, no. Humans are born with certain instincts. You aren't taught to put your hands up to your face to defend yourself, it is instinctual. That is human nature. Society didn't create that. Propensity for violence is also a natural human characteristic. Look at apes, many of our characteristics are very similar. This is not to say that it cannot be curbed. Far from it, society has a huge impact on human nature, but civilization has yet to reach a point where it has quelled it. It rears its ugly head usually in times of crisis.Many african tribes had direct referendums where everyone got an equal say and there was debate before the vote was cast. That was direct democracy, that is no different then what you are talking about. However that democracy was also influenced by corruption and early forms of "vote buying". The electronic age does not solve the problems of oratorical power of the ignorant, and demagoguery over the angry.Of today, and yesterday, and centuries, and millenia ago. Fantasies of perfect people are nice and airy, and are a minute possibility in the future, but I am dealing with current man. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries we used fuels like nobody's business, and now we are in a serious dillema. Direct referendums wouldn't solve these kinds of problems. The way people act is dictated by an environemnt, this is true. But that does not mean if they are given the responsibility of a vote they will use it correctly. If you put a nation in a region surrounded by peaceful nations, there is no guarantee they will be peaceful. If you give a man a vote, there is no guarantee he will be responsible.You are saying the masses are the only ones with the right to govern, I am saying that from an objective view they have no more right than a king. Rights are a non-issue. They are not universal.The rolly eyes mean sarcasm. Masses rarely start revolutions, they are started by the few. Look at the big revolutions in the past thousand years, how many have started as revolutions of the many. The many become involved later, but usually just another regime usurps them.Where do you get that from? The entire study of history shows that the past indeed repeats itself, and there are many lessons to be learned from the past. Or do you deny the relevance of history?Because I don't want to see failure. If you think we are civilized enough for what you are suggesting, and if you think that a revolution will create that, you've got no evidence.

There will probably never be the revolution. There will be revolutions, and there will be new states. It is only the cycle of civilization.