making all the things we should not do and if you enfrige on one citizen's rights"" why not fair games for all citizens?
Less people is proven more productive .
2007-03-16 13:07:17 · 6 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Well that philosophy works well on paper because it expresses what would happen under "ideal conditions". It does however depend on the individuals involved committing themselves to the organization as a whole otherwise it turns into what it is.
2007-03-16 13:15:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our founders set the government this way for a reason. I am talking about the elected government and the judicial. The house is supposed to have all those members because it is supposed to reflect the wills of the majority of the population. Thus the reason why the house is based on population. The Senate is supposed to be 2 people a state to give the smaller states a fair voice. This has proven to work very effectively. The problem is not the elected people but the agencies full of unelected officials that are in this country. They are the ones who make it damn near impossible to do anything effective in this country. The elected officials are a problem but not because there are so many of them but because the ones who are there are corrupt and unintelligent.
2007-03-16 20:24:37 · answer #2 · answered by jameshdwyer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure what "mensa" is, but...
If you're implying that there are too many people in the government, I agree. Most of it is bureaucracy... in other words, inefficiency in design. It's like the different between Microsoft and Apple, and has the same flaws.
One has endless thousands of employees, and an incredibly greater degree of design stupidity.... and the other is small and compact, dominated by individual intelligence that can reach the entire company.
Doesn't mean Mac doesn't suffer though. The people on top can still ruin everything, and government is exactly the same, just in a different medium.
2007-03-16 20:11:26 · answer #3 · answered by Dee 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Better grammar also makes a more coherent question.
But if I understand what you are asking -- the fundamental operation of a republic is that the masses elect the people who make the actual decisions. And the US Constitution is written to require that kind of government model.
So, no, the elected officials don't need to be based in DC. But they do need to exist somewhere.
As far as the laws they are making, that's a different story. I agree that many of them (the laws, maybe also the lawmakers) are irrational and unnecessary. So, a better job could definitely be done. And it could be more efficient.
But there still needs to be someone to do that job, which means elected politicans under our current Constitution.
2007-03-16 20:22:30 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Munya is a Mensa member! me me me! right here! Munya = Mensa!
1. Depends on who you talk to.
2. if you don't like the way things are going, then change it--run for office. Campaign for someone who will make a difference.
Ok, I win the Mensa mention for the day.
2007-03-16 20:11:17 · answer #5 · answered by Munya Says: DUH! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That went out the window when the Supreme Court ruled literacy tests as racist.
2007-03-16 20:10:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋