4 ms·
I don't think it's realistic to expect a structure imposed by law to withstand the abuse of people who make, interpret, and enforce those laws, unless a superio
by JasonFruit 5y ago
I don't think it's realistic to expect a structure imposed by law to withstand the abuse of people who make, interpret, and enforce those laws, unless a superior force (the entire people) is opposed to it.
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y agoI think it's very realistic. Proof is the US has outlasted and bettered most other systems by a substantial margin. Same as switzerland
- JasonFruit 5y agoWhat I'm suggesting is that, insofar as the U.S. (or Swiss, or whatever) system has survived, it is due not only to its structure, but to the activity of its people in opposing governmental "mission creep" — what the U.S. founders called "usurpation". The structure has to be right, it has to be susceptible to popular control, but the people also have to be on guard, or the structure will be destroyed while they're not looking. I'm not as confident as you are that the American system is intact. I think some important elements have been discarded, in large part because the people did not understand their value. For example, the reorganization from the state militias to the largely federalized National Guard, along with the imposition of a large standing army, removed the general population of the states from the defense and federal law enforcement roles, allowing both to get out of the people's control. There are numerous other examples.
- wolverine876 5y agoThat assumes that the US system's success has been due especially to the laws and not to other factors. The question is, which factors had how much effect?