Federalist 10 & 51 Responses

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

While the government does function as a republic today, with 100% elected officials, I think a different model incorporating democracy would work better. Instead of every senator being elected, I believe that half of the senate should consist of elected officials with the other half being randomly selected everymen. Once selected and appointed, he or she would be kicked out if his or her approval rating drops below 50%, the majority, and replaced on a term basis or until the approval rating drops below 50%.  Because it is not a secret that the government makes deals with "big" companies such as big tobacco or big cable companies (surveillance, etc), a body of randomly selected everymen should be established, since a campaign to gain votes costs money that most people simply don't have. These 'everymen' should be able to pass basic literacy, background, sanity, and IQ tests and then maintain an approval rating of over 50%. This body would be given the ability to veto, in order to counteract shady bills.

"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

The only reason the government functions as it does today is because of the trend of lower and lower IQ per generation. I believe that liberty in the U.S. is severely limited--just look at the ridiculous amount of common sense laws and idiotic court cases. Some examples: Judge Jack Battaglia suing New York for $1M for slipping on a wet floor being cleaned, Suing over hot contents in a coffee cup, New York law restricting soft drink consumption, federally regulated school lunches (that students don't eat and instead eat junk food at home for lunch) while exercise is being ignored, suing a casino for encouraging gambling, and suing a college for not being able to find a job (with a 2.7 GPA).

Some local laws restricting our liberty right now are the plastic bag ban in some bay area cities, 2 household pet limit in San Jose, and it is illegal to feed alcohol to a moose in Fairbanks, AK.

Personally, I feel that people must realize that the government is controlling way too many of decisions they have the right to make.

"This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State"

The checks of power work because each branch is led to believe the other is not in support, so alliances do not occur. Also, on a rare typical day where the majority involved in legislation is ignorant, and approves a dumb bill, the executive has the opportunity to veto.

"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."

To me, the state government just seems like a second layer to strip Americans of their rights. Why does the state government create laws? It only leads to inconsistency between states and also more laws equals less liberty. I believe that every law should be Federal, while only geographical such as building codes should be localized. I think that the system has survived because people have a sense of patriotism to their state and its government, which allows for adoption of unnecessary and extraneous laws without thought. The state also makes taxation more complicated.