|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Where? | |||
| Thailand |
   
|
47 | 33.33% |
| Spain |
  
|
19 | 13.48% |
| London |
  
|
9 | 6.38% |
| Italy |
  
|
9 | 6.38% |
| Ireland |
  
|
2 | 1.42% |
| Jamiaca |
  
|
7 | 4.96% |
| Mexico |
|
4 | 2.84% |
| Canada |
|
7 | 4.96% |
| Australia |
|
16 | 11.35% |
| Other/Results |
|
21 | 14.89% |
| Voters: 141. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
08-18-2007, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
[ QUOTE ]
But you used the phrase too much power which implies that you think that there is a correct amount of power that individuals or small groups of people in the government should hold over others right? [/ QUOTE ] I think its an inevitable consequence of living under a government that individuals have powers over others. I'm not advocating anarchy. My interest is in the extent that separation of powers accomplishes its intended goal of preventing powers from being abused. 
|
|
#12
08-18-2007, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But you used the phrase too much power which implies that you think that there is a correct amount of power that individuals or small groups of people in the government should hold over others right? [/ QUOTE ] I think its an inevitable consequence of living under a government that individuals have powers over others. I'm not advocating anarchy. My interest is in the extent that separation of powers accomplishes its intended goal of preventing powers from being abused. [/ QUOTE ] How do you define an abuse of power? What would you say is a good use of power?
|
|
#13
08-18-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But you used the phrase too much power which implies that you think that there is a correct amount of power that individuals or small groups of people in the government should hold over others right? [/ QUOTE ] I think its an inevitable consequence of living under a government that individuals have powers over others. I'm not advocating anarchy. My interest is in the extent that separation of powers accomplishes its intended goal of preventing powers from being abused. [/ QUOTE ] How do you define an abuse of power? What would you say is a good use of power? [/ QUOTE ] An abuse of power might be pardoning your drug-dealing friend. A good use of power might be criminalizing rape. I am not quite sure where you are going or what you are implying with your questions. Are you against government power in general?
|
|
#14
08-18-2007, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But you used the phrase too much power which implies that you think that there is a correct amount of power that individuals or small groups of people in the government should hold over others right? [/ QUOTE ] I think its an inevitable consequence of living under a government that individuals have powers over others. I'm not advocating anarchy. My interest is in the extent that separation of powers accomplishes its intended goal of preventing powers from being abused. [/ QUOTE ] How do you define an abuse of power? What would you say is a good use of power? [/ QUOTE ] An abuse of power might be pardoning your drug-dealing friend. A good use of power might be criminalizing rape. [/ QUOTE ] But what if someone else thinks that criminalizing rape is an abuse of power and that pardoning drug dealers is a good use? What makes you more correct than him?
|
|
#15
08-18-2007, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
I think the verdict of history is that separation of powers just isn't necessary. Lots of Western countries have much more unitary governments than the US and do just fine.
Also, this thread is exactly what people think of when they say "AC hijack." Not so much because tom's point is irrelevant, but because 2/3 of the posts in this thread are about it and he still hasn't actually made any kind of point.
|
|
#16
08-18-2007, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
[ QUOTE ]
I think the verdict of history is that separation of powers just isn't necessary. Lots of Western countries have much more unitary governments than the US and do just fine. Also, this thread is exactly what people think of when they say "AC hijack." Not so much because tom's point is irrelevant, but because 2/3 of the posts in this thread are about it and he still hasn't actually made any kind of point. [/ QUOTE ] I haven't mentioned anything of the sort I'm just asking questions to get a clear idea in my mind of the OP's position on the separation of powers. The OP seems pretty open ended to me.
|
|
#18
08-18-2007, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
[ QUOTE ]
I think the verdict of history is that separation of powers just doesn't meaningfully exist [/ QUOTE ] Checks and Balances
|
|
#20
08-19-2007, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The importance of the seperation of powers
I linked a study some time back done by the World Bank about degree of corruption vs type of government. Parliamentary governments, with far less in the way of separation of powers, and specifically the Westminster system, came out ahead of any other system.
I think part of the reason is that almost all countries with the Westminster system derived great benefit from the example of British rule. The British just know how to run things, and most countries they've touched have become civilized and extremely stable. I think the presidential system is flawed. It invests too much power in an individual while giving them too little accountability. When the lawmakers and the executive form the same unit, one set of hands guides the entire policy of the nation, and the buck stops entirely with them. Such a system seems to encourage self restraint rather than excesses.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
