First of I feel the need to say that it's an excellent essay. That being said, there are some areas which I feel need improvment. There are also some areas that could raise questions, and by telling you the ones I spotted I hope it'll strengthen your views. Onwards, my first problem with the essay is this paragraph-
Quote:
Along with the 2 primary functions of government that were expressed in the intro, America also has the added responsibility of a “world policeman”, as Theodore Roosevelt put it. We are the last super power on earth. With the power available to us, it would be a selfish waste if we refused our services to other less fortunate nations. We must take the responsibility to watch over our brethren nations, else it would be like the fire department refusing its service to a burning building; Unethical. Realize, it is not Theodore Roosevelt that made us the world policeman; it is our duty and responsibility brought upon by our supreme power. Our ability to police the world, is the reason we do. Also, Policemen do not control our lives, they only prevent us from doing wrong, or continuing to do wrong. America has the same duty. we are not to form an imperial system, controling the governments of other nations, nor invading any nation whom we do not agree with. we are to make sure no country treats it's people unfairly, nor mistreats a neighboring country's population.
My question is this- If there are police, what is the system they use? Are there jails, and if so, is that still a utopia? Can there be a utopia when there are people in jail, and how would jails exist and what would be the state of prisoner's rights? Plus, how do we deem a bad situation? At current times there are two things the US will invade another nation for- power and money. Power generally comes because an opposing political view reigns there and we want to stop it (like in Vietnam or World War 1 or even 2, although I think WW2 was just). When it's for money we generally give the excuse of a bad regime, and that innocents are being killed so we bomb them. A lot of the money ones don't get turned into full blown wars (Iraq, Gulf War, any attack on the middle east really). SO how do we deside what is just? There a tons of places where bad things are happening- Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Kumait, Sudan, Tanzania, a lot of Africa and Asia, Guatamala, Honduras, Jamaica (the world bank is evil), Peru, etc., etc.). We don't have the power or the money to go to all of those places with aid. Do we only go is they ask for it? Or is our aid in the form of weapons, food, first aid, etc. to the side we support, and who chooses that side to be the correct one? It's quite complex actually, and I think that it would make the essay much better if the ideas were more concrete and a little less general, maybe some examples would help but wouldn't be too neccesary.
The next thing that I noticed is this-
Quote:
Though Dictatorships undoubtedly "gets things done", always their overgrowth of production leads to their demise. What is needed is a steady, stable, government, not regressing nor growing too rapidly. But, when the times are unstable, a counterweight is needed, and a dictatorship should (temporarily) be established, only if the preservation of the state is in jeopardy.
What keeps this dictatorship from becoming permanent at the will of the dictator? What do you propose instead of a dictatorship, considering that democracies almost always end up as monarchies of sort, with the same groups of people always running for office. How could you make a really fair democracy?
Next-
Quote:
The Bureau would be a cabinet of non-partisan officials, elected by voters. In times of hardship, a temporary dictator will be established. This dictator must be a know selfless citizen, educated in both politics and the situation(s) in which he/she was appointed to solve. This dictator will be selected by the bureau on the pretext that the certain person has already proposed a solution viable to the crisis at hand. In an atempt to prevent corrupt and the dictatorship amassing into a tyranny, when the dictator is apointed, they will be given no power over the military, instead, Congress will control it.
What keeps the dictator from taking control of the military (assuming they'd get to know congress, and it wouldn't be hard to use the generals as puppets to overtake congress if you knew the generals well)? Why shouldn't the people elect him or her? How can you be sure they are selfless?
OK, all that being said, I really, really like the essay, and I think you're right on on a lot of it and that your ideas on private ownership are great, Lenin put that into practice on a small scale, and I think you're absolutly right, as well as on things like Legislature. The thinks I asked questions about I didn't ask because I disagree, but because I think that it could be made into a better essay by being a bit more specific on them. The thing that intrested me the most though was the last part on the economy, and I think I'll write something based on it although it may not get finished. I think it's a great essay that just needs a bit of revision- polish if you will, and that you absolutly should show it to your teacher.
Reply
