Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Domestic Affairs
The American propensity of splitting hairs over and over again is a product of the
freedom that we have. We are secure in the knowledge that no matter how
disagreeable a situation we find, we know that it could change with enough support.
Until at some time we arrive at such a broadly based consensus that we consider the
issue beyond change.
Starting from a strong stance on one side of an issue or another, the pendulum
swings back and forth through the courts, the legislature, the newspapers and back
again, swinging in all directions as anyone who is remotely interested in the subject
weighs in. At times, after a court decision, or a law is passed, we feel that an issue is
settled, but we know that it could be revisited if there is only a slim portion of the
people who really accept the conclusion given. So issues might languish in the public
eye for decades as they are considered by so many different people. One person will
give an idea and that will be overturned, or considered too far out of the "mainstream."
So the issue will be debated back and forth -- with no concrete resolution, until the
people pretty much agree that the issue has been sufficiently gone over to arrive at
simply the fairest and most reasonable course of action.
In other countries on the other hand, no matter how strange, or unpopular the law
or court decision might be, or the mere whim of the president, there is no public
discussion of the issue, because the free press isn't so free, or the ruling party
controls the parliament. And with parliaments there is really no balancing body, no
matter how fancy their so-called "upper" house of parliaments are. The reality is that
the one house does all the legislation, and only in the most egregious moves by a
parliamentary majority gets any attention from the upper house.
And in most countries this upper house is filled with old royalty, claimed nobility
and other dilettantes, more intrigued with preserving their own power than they are at
dealing with an issue of the public. They are not on the side of the public at all.
Rather they are on the side of the "people" or the "nation" writ large, but having no
real affect on the common people.
freedom that we have. We are secure in the knowledge that no matter how
disagreeable a situation we find, we know that it could change with enough support.
Until at some time we arrive at such a broadly based consensus that we consider the
issue beyond change.
Starting from a strong stance on one side of an issue or another, the pendulum
swings back and forth through the courts, the legislature, the newspapers and back
again, swinging in all directions as anyone who is remotely interested in the subject
weighs in. At times, after a court decision, or a law is passed, we feel that an issue is
settled, but we know that it could be revisited if there is only a slim portion of the
people who really accept the conclusion given. So issues might languish in the public
eye for decades as they are considered by so many different people. One person will
give an idea and that will be overturned, or considered too far out of the "mainstream."
So the issue will be debated back and forth -- with no concrete resolution, until the
people pretty much agree that the issue has been sufficiently gone over to arrive at
simply the fairest and most reasonable course of action.
In other countries on the other hand, no matter how strange, or unpopular the law
or court decision might be, or the mere whim of the president, there is no public
discussion of the issue, because the free press isn't so free, or the ruling party
controls the parliament. And with parliaments there is really no balancing body, no
matter how fancy their so-called "upper" house of parliaments are. The reality is that
the one house does all the legislation, and only in the most egregious moves by a
parliamentary majority gets any attention from the upper house.
And in most countries this upper house is filled with old royalty, claimed nobility
and other dilettantes, more intrigued with preserving their own power than they are at
dealing with an issue of the public. They are not on the side of the public at all.
Rather they are on the side of the "people" or the "nation" writ large, but having no
real affect on the common people.
| Domestic Affairs |