Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

Our core system of government - which has done pretty well for 200+ years despite all the undermining Congress & the Executive branch have done - is still better than the rest. It has done so well because it's a system built on principles that are eternal, it was specifically not built for any given time, but rather for all time. The only problem we have, is we need to return to a constitutional system of government, not be an extraconstitutional system, where the government intentionally ignores its limitations when it feels like it. We need to be a Republic again, not a mob rule Democracy that eats itself alive as is occurring right now.

The biggest problem America has is a vastly overreaching government, and it's overreaching in every regard possible, from privacy to fiscal to military to general freedom.

The only people advocating for an end or change to the Constitution, are those interested in various forms of authoritarian rule. Their goal is always, one way or another, to give more power to some central authority, and to limit freedom of the individual.

Better than the rest? Sorry, but parliamentary systems with the executive sitting in the parliament, answerable to the members, seem better than the American system. In Australia, we use the nickname "Washminster" to describe our delightful blend of Westminster and Washington approaches.

Question Time might be messy, unpleasant and adversarial, but it's a much better way to hold the executive / legislative branches to account than the duelling, highly staged press conferences that dominate American political conversation.

While I understand your statement and its origins in 19th century thought, you seem to misunderstand the foundations of our government. This is completely normal, as almost no-one really get what the founders thought or why they made the decisions they did.

I'm one of those people that obsessively studied that period of history, however. Please, before you comment about the overreaching nature of our government, read Hume.

If you're so well versed, perhaps you could provide a summary as to what is so wrong about the comment?

Your comment would be much better if you actually outlined what is the correct approach here and summarized what Hume said that you think is important in this particular case. Somehow just saying "I know much more than you, so shut up" and "Go read the Internet^W^WHume" is not very convincing by itself. I personally am willing to believe you spent a lot of time studying the relevant history and possess major insights which other people do not. But why don't you share some of them instead of just claiming you have them?

"Our core system of government ... is still better than the rest."

By what measure?

Yeah seriously. And what are "the rest."

It's better than Communism, but that doesn't mean shit.

Not entirely sure, but I think he's getting that from this famous Winston Churchill quote:

> No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1947/nov/11/parli...

I wouldn't really vouch for "the rest", but Constitution so far held the government from infringing on many rights of the citizens - such as free speech, self-defense, etc. - that are commonly infringed in many European nations, for example. It does not mean it was perfect - many rights were still massively infringed and usurped, Constitution is ultimately nothing but an idea and people should still stand behind it for it to be effective - but it fared better than without it.

Thank you. Very well said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com