Arcadian
you people are kinda cool
Staff Sargeant Sniper
My kingdom for a save point!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Arcadian on Feb 6, 2005 18:52:45 GMT -5
Considering every time a single person tries to run an entire empire it goes to hell, shouldn't we have more people be co-presidents? Like 3?
I was just pondering this on my way home today. What do you all think?
|
|
PoeticInjustice
more magical than the magicalest
teh cut3 on3's bitch
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Posts: 300
|
Post by PoeticInjustice on Feb 7, 2005 1:02:17 GMT -5
this should prolly be in politics, but, yeah, that is an *excellent* idea
do it sorta like the senate does
make it a 6 year term instead of the 4 year that we have
but every 2 years, elect a new one and kick the oldest one out (no re-elections probably, or maybe oldest can run for re-election or something. meh, dunno)
that way there's always 3, and it changes somewhat every 2 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 7, 2005 12:34:13 GMT -5
I presume you are talking about the United States; in the first, we are not an empire. In the second, having a council as our executive defies the purpose of the executive. The reason we have a single person as our Chief Executive is that sometimes decisions need to be made very quickly, and one man can do that. By contrast, a council takes time to decide things.
And a 3-person council would essentially be pointless; assuming each gets one vote and majority makes the decision, what we'd see is the president with different views quickly marginalized as the other two always voted together on everything.
Besides, it is also true that no nation has ever achieved greatness without the guidance of a single strong individual of vision. I would rather be a nation that tastes greatness briefly and then falls to dust than live out eternity as a meaningless failure.
|
|
PoeticInjustice
more magical than the magicalest
teh cut3 on3's bitch
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Posts: 300
|
Post by PoeticInjustice on Feb 7, 2005 15:26:03 GMT -5
Besides, it is also true that no nation has ever achieved greatness without the guidance of a single strong individual of vision. I would rather be a nation that tastes greatness briefly and then falls to dust than live out eternity as a meaningless failure. I would also argue that no nation has ever acheived greatness of their evils without one single strong leader. And I'm sure a quick study of history would back that up |
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 7, 2005 16:23:17 GMT -5
The point of that argument being? We are defined as much by those things that were great and terrible as those things that were great and glorious. To lack either is to be devoid of meaning, significance, or value.
|
|
Arcadian
you people are kinda cool
Staff Sargeant Sniper
My kingdom for a save point!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Arcadian on Feb 7, 2005 19:35:30 GMT -5
And a 3-person council would essentially be pointless; assuming each gets one vote and majority makes the decision, what we'd see is the president with different views quickly marginalized as the other two always voted together on everything. I did think about this too, but wanted to start discussion on it first. (Oh, and yes, I thought I did put this in politics, go ahead and move it if you want, Ben.) If the party system is going to stay around awhile, which I think it's going to, then they should be party members. Republican, Democratic, and Independant; so it would be in their best interests not to marginalize. As for a nation being guided by an individual, last I checked the US had founding fathers. |
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 10, 2005 18:06:10 GMT -5
True, we did have founding fathers; but every nation is permitted more than one hero. You'll note they did not all lead simultaneously, and that they only offered George Washington the title of King.
And I'm still certain that marginalization would eventually be the case for a three-president system; although I'll agree that three equally powerful parties would switch which one is marginalized. And mandating that they be of different parties is a bad idea; that would legally mandate specific parties, as opposed to merely having them be a quirk. Maintain civil society!
On an interesting side note, there were (if I recall correctly) 7 Presidents under the Articles of Confederation. Why is it we never learn about them? Aside from they're being impotent and unimportant? You'd think the symbolism alone would be worth mention.
|
|
DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 16, 2005 19:13:18 GMT -5
The president is the one that makes the final decision for his branch, but you have to take into account all of his advisors. And pure republics take to long to make split desions. They have to debate every possible outcome, look how long it takes congress to get a bill going. I think it would take forever to get anything done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 16, 2005 19:19:29 GMT -5
I don't know about that; the true Republic is a thing of certain true power and glory. Behold; Rome's greatest successes were had under her Senate, as a Republic. As long as a simple majority vote (or a reachable margin, like 60% when the body isn't too huge) can make the decision. If ever the letters 'SPQR' grace a nation's flag again, let the world temble.
|
|
DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 16, 2005 19:24:33 GMT -5
They also had sex with little boys and drank out of lead containers... sorry, couldn't help myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 16, 2005 19:30:59 GMT -5
Guess that knocks Socrates off your list of valuable people in history, huh?
|
|
DarkNeopagan
damn i love posting here!
1st Sargeant
"One case, One kill" Broadsword Motto
Posts: 185
|
Post by DarkNeopagan on Feb 16, 2005 19:42:03 GMT -5
I said nothing of their Societal or historical significance and value, although there is a fine line between a genious and a madman, and I believe every civilization has yielded both in abundance. I do however hold the teachings of Socrates in high regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 16, 2005 21:46:06 GMT -5
here, blough, is a perfect example of relativism. the greeks and romans had no concept of sexuality, they had the drive, and so satisfied it, period. men were for fun, women were for babies. they had no conception of gay and straight, just didn't even occur to them. and yet here, we make a movie about one of the greatest people in history (all hail alexander.) and it flops because he has some "gay" preferences. so obviously, alex, being a fag, is a loser and a ho, and the movie's wrong. great men, according to us, weren't fags, weren't gay.
cultural relativism babay yah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 16, 2005 23:21:17 GMT -5
Alexander wasn't gay. We would consider him bisexual. Besides, I hardly consider the value judgements of historically unaware fag-haters defining for our culture. As I have expressed elsewhere, American culture is far, far greater than the misconceptions of a chunk of the populace. Our Presidential system is a better gauge (segue from outside argument to topic, man I'm awesome). Our overwhelming emphasis on the individual and representative government is what keeps our Congress from making speedy decisions; if our government were not defined by the limitations on its own power, it would not be necessary to have a single man in a position make decisions for the sake of having it function at all. Incidentally, I feel we should remain with a single President. If the country fails, it's Congress' fault. They do the taxes and make all the laws. That's what will send us down, not a cowboy President.
|
|
