Welcome RPizzle!

[RPizzle]

I will have to meditate over the body of your post though before I can make an informed intellectual response.

OK, maybe you could also share your thoughts on the pros/cons of having an apolitical head of state (not necessarily a monarch!).

I don't find a non-elected (if this is your use of apolitical) head of state ethically viable whatsoever. A head of state must be elected by the general population if one is going to represent the whole of a nation. The head of state is essentially taking autonomy by proxy of the public, and as such can only be warranted if that autonomy is freely given. The head of state is a representative of the people, and thus must be chosen by the people. With non-election, good or bad, the head of state is the head of state.

Any head of state should have clearly defined, and rather short term time limits in office. I personally believe the maxim that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." A head of state without term limits or checks and balances could create a dangerous situation even if effective powers are limited.

So, in conclusion, I seem to be pretty much against non-elected heads of state based mostly on lack of representation and paternalistic action against one's autonomy. The reason I am vehemently against monarchy is similar. One is no more a subject of another human than one is a subject of the big sky guy...it is government sponsored theft of autonomy. I do hope I understood your point.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I will have to meditate over the body of your post though before I can make an informed intellectual response.

OK, maybe you could also share your thoughts on the pros/cons of having an apolitical head of state (not necessarily a monarch!).

I don't find a non-elected (if this is your use of apolitical) head of state ethically viable whatsoever. A head of state must be elected by the general population if one is going to represent the whole of a nation. The head of state is essentially taking autonomy by proxy of the public, and as such can only be warranted if that autonomy is freely given. The head of state is a representative of the people, and thus must be chosen by the people. With non-election, good or bad, the head of state is the head of state.

Any head of state should have clearly defined, and rather short term time limits in office. I personally believe the maxim that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." A head of state without term limits or checks and balances could create a dangerous situation even if effective powers are limited.

So, in conclusion, I seem to be pretty much against non-elected heads of state based mostly on lack of representation and paternalistic action against one's autonomy. The reason I am vehemently against monarchy is similar. One is no more a subject of another human than one is a subject of the big sky guy...it is government sponsored theft of autonomy. I do hope I understood your point.

I'm not a monarchist by any means. But I would take issue with the claim that the queen (of England) is by definition more corrupt than, say, George Bush or Ahmedinnerjacket!

[gooseboy]

I don't find a non-elected (if this is your use of apolitical) head of state ethically viable whatsoever. A head of state must be elected by the general population if one is going to represent the whole of a nation. The head of state is essentially taking autonomy by proxy of the public, and as such can only be warranted if that autonomy is freely given. The head of state is a representative of the people, and thus must be chosen by the people. With non-election, good or bad, the head of state is the head of state.

Any head of state should have clearly defined, and rather short term time limits in office. I personally believe the maxim that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." A head of state without term limits or checks and balances could create a dangerous situation even if effective powers are limited.

So, in conclusion, I seem to be pretty much against non-elected heads of state based mostly on lack of representation and paternalistic action against one's autonomy. The reason I am vehemently against monarchy is similar. One is no more a subject of another human than one is a subject of the big sky guy...it is government sponsored theft of autonomy. I do hope I understood your point.

By apolitical I meant not involved in the making of policies. Ie a head of state that has no political agenda and is there only to ensure that the constitution is maintained (and as such will insist on things like elections at certain prescribed times).

Personally I am a big fan of apolitical heads of state, because I believe the parliament (not the president / other head of state) should have all the political power, but someone is needed above the parliament to ensure the constitution is maintained so that the government of the day doesn't start ceasing a little more power than they're supposed to have.

As for how you choose the head of state - this is an interesting problem. If they are directly elected then they need to be popular, and being popular means that the individual concerned may (it seems almost inevitably will if history is any guide) think they have a mandate to start interfering with the politics of the parliament. For this reason I don't favour directly elected heads of state. They could instead be chosen by a large (say 2/3 majority) of the parliament. (Or they could be monarch ).

Next questions:

1) Do you have any comments on the above?
2) Are you tiring of my questions?

[RPizzle]

I will have to meditate over the body of your post though before I can make an informed intellectual response.

OK, maybe you could also share your thoughts on the pros/cons of having an apolitical head of state (not necessarily a monarch!).

I don't find a non-elected (if this is your use of apolitical) head of state ethically viable whatsoever. A head of state must be elected by the general population if one is going to represent the whole of a nation. The head of state is essentially taking autonomy by proxy of the public, and as such can only be warranted if that autonomy is freely given. The head of state is a representative of the people, and thus must be chosen by the people. With non-election, good or bad, the head of state is the head of state.

Any head of state should have clearly defined, and rather short term time limits in office. I personally believe the maxim that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." A head of state without term limits or checks and balances could create a dangerous situation even if effective powers are limited.

So, in conclusion, I seem to be pretty much against non-elected heads of state based mostly on lack of representation and paternalistic action against one's autonomy. The reason I am vehemently against monarchy is similar. One is no more a subject of another human than one is a subject of the big sky guy...it is government sponsored theft of autonomy. I do hope I understood your point.

I'm not a monarchist by any means. But I would take issue with the claim that the queen (of England) is by definition more corrupt than, say, George Bush or Ahmedinnerjacket!

I meant no offense. From what I've read, the actual fangs of the monarchy have little real bite to them in this era, so the issue of power corruption isn't really present. From what I have read, the British monarch serves more as a figurehead with almost all decisions being derived from the legislative body. However, if we look back to the monarchs of old, who had real power and control... (Not just UK)

Bringing up Iran, the Council of Clerics (unelected) have the final say in everything, as they have the divine right to interpret Shiah [sic maybe] Law. Their true head of state (Not Ahmedinnerjacket) declared an election winner prior to the legal challenges being over, quashed the recount, said the resistance will be "crushed without mercy," scapegoated the British, and called for the deaths of those who promoted opposition. I would find this less probable if one would be a subject to his people, not the other way around.

You are correct about Bush. Bush was a bastard who set America back more years than I've been alive. He took an office which was supposed to serve the people, and used it for his own personal agenda. However, I guess this gets to my point. Those in positions of power should be servants of their constituents. They are gifted with the confidence of their people to lead in the best way that they can. They chose on their own to take such a position, so they should damn well follow the will of the people. A population should not be forced into having someone speak for them without their consent.

I guess some of this stems from my inability to understand why one would accept fealty to another human being. It does perplex me, even if such fealty has no real impact, as its just another super fallible human. I mean at least big sky daddy is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-win. I guess this part, at least, is more of a philosophical question for me which will require some introspection to elucidate.

[RPizzle]

I don't find a non-elected (if this is your use of apolitical) head of state ethically viable whatsoever. A head of state must be elected by the general population if one is going to represent the whole of a nation. The head of state is essentially taking autonomy by proxy of the public, and as such can only be warranted if that autonomy is freely given. The head of state is a representative of the people, and thus must be chosen by the people. With non-election, good or bad, the head of state is the head of state.

Any head of state should have clearly defined, and rather short term time limits in office. I personally believe the maxim that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." A head of state without term limits or checks and balances could create a dangerous situation even if effective powers are limited.

So, in conclusion, I seem to be pretty much against non-elected heads of state based mostly on lack of representation and paternalistic action against one's autonomy. The reason I am vehemently against monarchy is similar. One is no more a subject of another human than one is a subject of the big sky guy...it is government sponsored theft of autonomy. I do hope I understood your point.

By apolitical I meant not involved in the making of policies. Ie a head of state that has no political agenda and is there only to ensure that the constitution is maintained (and as such will insist on things like elections at certain prescribed times).

Personally I am a big fan of apolitical heads of state, because I believe the parliament (not the president / other head of state) should have all the political power, but someone is needed above the parliament to ensure the constitution is maintained so that the government of the day doesn't start ceasing a little more power than they're supposed to have. It's fairly liberating to discuss and break up something taboo. No sacred cows here!

As for how you choose the head of state - this is an interesting problem. If they are directly elected then they need to be popular, and being popular means that the individual concerned may (it seems almost inevitably will if history is any guide) think they have a mandate to start interfering with the politics of the parliament. For this reason I don't favour directly elected heads of state. They could instead be chosen by a large (say 2/3 majority) of the parliament. (Or they could be monarch ).

Next questions:

1) Do you have any comments on the above?
2) Are you tiring of my questions?

1. You make a very understandable point. I thought of the fact that politics would be involved with an election of a head of state. However, can an apolitical head of state ever be apolitical? If the parliament is involved in creating a head of state, then it will be a sort of derivative election, probably more apt to the will of various Congressmen than the people themselves. Monarchs on the other hand are no less biased than any other person, and apt to the same failings. If a monarch does a bad job, can they be fired? I sort of jest, but the people may have to deal with a burden they never signed up for should a monarch be 'out there'. Also, monarchs were generally set-up in systems that required massive amounts of politics in the past to gain their position. Politics taints everything.

I agree with you that the legislative branch should have most of the power. In the US, our President should have overall, much less power than has been used of late, as per the actual powers laid out in our documents. I also have no major problem with our system of Judiciary to protect the Constitution, though I surmise it may not be the most optimal of systems.

2. Actually, your questions tend to keep my mind sharp. It is a nice compliment to the general small talk. As I said before, the content doesn't really matter (I'll discuss anything from organic chemistry to politics to sexual fill-in-the-blank), because everything can be learned from. Consequently, I find that the more risque the topic, the more entertaining in general. There is something inherently liberating in roasting sacred cows over a spit.

[gooseboy]

1. You make a very understandable point. I thought of the fact that politics would be involved with an election of a head of state. However, can an apolitical head of state ever be apolitical? If the parliament is involved in creating a head of state, then it will be a sort of derivative election, probably more apt to the will of various Congressmen than the people themselves. Monarchs on the other hand are no less biased than any other person, and apt to the same failings. If a monarch does a bad job, can they be fired? I sort of jest, but the people may have to deal with a burden they never signed up for should a monarch be 'out there'. Also, monarchs were generally set-up in systems that required massive amounts of politics in the past to gain their position. Politics taints everything.

Australia's head of state (the Governor General) is (except for one notable exception) apolitical. Our system certainly isn't ideal IMO, but the push we seem to be having here towards a directly elected president is worse (again IMO) because I fear one person ending up with too much power and not being sufficiently answerable until the next election. (The Prime Minister has to answer curly questions about every decision s/he makes whenever parliament is sitting and can be dumped by their own party if they go off the rails, but a president would not be subject to such scrutiny. This is fine by me so long as the president doesn't make political decisions, but I don't know a good way of preventing the president from gradually accumulating power.)

I agree with you that the legislative branch should have most of the power. In the US, our President should have overall, much less power than has been used of late, as per the actual powers laid out in our documents. I also have no major problem with our system of Judiciary to protect the Constitution, though I surmise it may not be the most optimal of systems.

I have a bit of a problem with the Judiciary in general - they seem to make decisions based as much on their personal philosophies as on what the law actually says. Thus Presidents (in the US) are keen to get like minded judges appointed. This is a problem here in Aust too, although for reasons I don't fully understand it seems to be less of a problem here.

2. Actually, your questions tend to keep my mind sharp. It is a nice compliment to the general small talk. As I said before, the content doesn't really matter (I'll discuss anything from organic chemistry to politics to sexual fill-in-the-blank), because everything can be learned from. Consequently, I find that the more risque the topic, the more entertaining in general. There is something inherently liberating in roasting sacred cows over a spit.

Yes, sacred cows should be roasted.

OK, next question (sorry it's political again... I couldn't think of anything else at the moment) - when making policy decisions do you think it's best to base your decisions on what's good for the country or on what some well respected, but now long dead, people would have intended?

[RPizzle]

1. You make a very understandable point. I thought of the fact that politics would be involved with an election of a head of state. However, can an apolitical head of state ever be apolitical? If the parliament is involved in creating a head of state, then it will be a sort of derivative election, probably more apt to the will of various Congressmen than the people themselves. Monarchs on the other hand are no less biased than any other person, and apt to the same failings. If a monarch does a bad job, can they be fired? I sort of jest, but the people may have to deal with a burden they never signed up for should a monarch be 'out there'. Also, monarchs were generally set-up in systems that required massive amounts of politics in the past to gain their position. Politics taints everything.

Australia's head of state (the Governor General) is (except for one notable exception) apolitical. Our system certainly isn't ideal IMO, but the push we seem to be having here towards a directly elected president is worse (again IMO) because I fear one person ending up with too much power and not being sufficiently answerable until the next election. (The Prime Minister has to answer curly questions about every decision s/he makes whenever parliament is sitting and can be dumped by their own party if they go off the rails, but a president would not be subject to such scrutiny. This is fine by me so long as the president doesn't make political decisions, but I don't know a good way of preventing the president from gradually accumulating power.)

I agree with you that the legislative branch should have most of the power. In the US, our President should have overall, much less power than has been used of late, as per the actual powers laid out in our documents. I also have no major problem with our system of Judiciary to protect the Constitution, though I surmise it may not be the most optimal of systems.

I have a bit of a problem with the Judiciary in general - they seem to make decisions based as much on their personal philosophies as on what the law actually says. Thus Presidents (in the US) are keen to get like minded judges appointed. This is a problem here in Aust too, although for reasons I don't fully understand it seems to be less of a problem here.

2. Actually, your questions tend to keep my mind sharp. It is a nice compliment to the general small talk. As I said before, the content doesn't really matter (I'll discuss anything from organic chemistry to politics to sexual fill-in-the-blank), because everything can be learned from. Consequently, I find that the more risque the topic, the more entertaining in general. There is something inherently liberating in roasting sacred cows over a spit.

Yes, sacred cows should be roasted.

OK, next question (sorry it's political again... I couldn't think of anything else at the moment) - when making policy decisions do you think it's best to base your decisions on what's good for the country or on what some well respected, but now long dead, people would have intended?

Obviously the law must be dynamic, so what is best for the country is paramount. The will of the founders is only secondary. I simply use their opinion because they usually maintain a thoughtful course of action. Also, they serve as a fairly good system (lens) to look through. Outside of that context, then no, their opinions don't matter whatsoever in regards to current practice.

[gooseboy]

OK, next question:

Is there anything you'd like to ask me?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why are fundies so fuckin' stooopid?

[RPizzle]

OK, next question:

Is there anything you'd like to ask me?

...I'm bad at this. Let's see. You said you went through medical training, I'm assuming as a physician. What is your specialty? What is your favorite ACLS drug? Do you believe that codes should even be worked in the field (outside of confirmed VT/VF)? What is your favorite alcoholic beverage? Do you smoke? If so, what do you smoke? Do you smoke (not the same question)? Redheads, Blondes, or Brunettes? If I asked you a/b/out this reference (amirite)...would you get it?


Edit: I must warn you, my mind generally does not work in linear fashion.

[RPizzle]

Why are fundies so fuckin' stooopid?

To show us just how smart we really are.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why are fundies so fuckin' stooopid?

To show us just how smart we really are.

By "we" you mean us mutant lizard-thingys, right?

[RPizzle]

Why are fundies so fuckin' stooopid?

To show us just how smart we really are.

By "we" you mean us mutant lizard-thingys, right?

Sure, why not.

[gooseboy]

OK, next question:

Is there anything you'd like to ask me?

...I'm bad at this. Let's see. You said you went through medical training, I'm assuming as a physician. What is your specialty? What is your favorite ACLS drug? Do you believe that codes should even be worked in the field (outside of confirmed VT/VF)? What is your favorite alcoholic beverage? Do you smoke? If so, what do you smoke? Do you smoke (not the same question)? Redheads, Blondes, or Brunettes? If I asked you a/b/out this reference (amirite)...would you get it?


Edit: I must warn you, my mind generally does not work in linear fashion.

Sorry, I may have misled you - I meant that when I was at university the med course didn't require you to already have a degree before you could start. I trained as an electrical engineer, but now do mostly software for biomedical applications. I don't know much about heart attacks, so I can't help you with the next questions, but I am a fan of omega-3 (not sure if there's been clinical trial on it but one GP recommended it to me when I had mild (not clinical I think) arrhythmia and it helped. May just be placebo - dunno.)

My favourite alcoholic beverage is a semillon sauvignon blanc, or a sickly sweet desert wine. Also like beer but as I get older I seem to be preferring wine more and more. I don't smoke and don't smoke. Not a fan of redheads in general. Don't know why.

I wouldn't get it.

[RPizzle]

OK, next question:

Is there anything you'd like to ask me?

...I'm bad at this. Let's see. You said you went through medical training, I'm assuming as a physician. What is your specialty? What is your favorite ACLS drug? Do you believe that codes should even be worked in the field (outside of confirmed VT/VF)? What is your favorite alcoholic beverage? Do you smoke? If so, what do you smoke? Do you smoke (not the same question)? Redheads, Blondes, or Brunettes? If I asked you a/b/out this reference (amirite)...would you get it?


Edit: I must warn you, my mind generally does not work in linear fashion.

Sorry, I may have misled you - I meant that when I was at university the med course didn't require you to already have a degree before you could start. I trained as an electrical engineer, but now do mostly software for biomedical applications. I don't know much about heart attacks, so I can't help you with the next questions, but I am a fan of omega-3 (not sure if there's been clinical trial on it but one GP recommended it to me when I had mild (not clinical I think) arrhythmia and it helped. May just be placebo - dunno.)

My favourite alcoholic beverage is a semillon sauvignon blanc, or a sickly sweet desert wine. Also like beer but as I get older I seem to be preferring wine more and more. I don't smoke and don't smoke. Not a fan of redheads in general. Don't know why.

I wouldn't get it.

Interesting, very interesting. I too don't smoke, nor do I smoke (maybe now and again). However, your opinion on redheads is most distressing as it is incorrect. In fact, just pray about it, and I'm sure they will grow on you over time. As a student, my tastes in alcohol range widely. My weekend fare tends toward beer that costs $9 a case, wine in a 2 gallon jug, and Jagermeister. On the other end, I am quite the fan of Bombay Sapphire and Tonic, and Southern Comfort Manhattans /w dry vermouth.

Do you or have you played any sports? I play rugby (hooker/sometimes flanker) and hockey (goalie/sometimes defensive defenseman)
Do you have any particularly nerdy habits? I'm a manga/anime nerd. Plus, what's more, I played D&D in high school AND had a Warhammer 40k tabletop army! Beat that.
Best pick-up line? "How much does a polar bear weight?" "I don't know, how much?" "Enough to break the ice." That's pure gold right there.
Who would win in a fight? The scrappy Dawkins or the drunkard Hitchens? I'm going with Hitch.