The Reign of Trump

[JimC]

Yes, but they vest him with "Prime" Ministership, and he is the head of government and the holder of supreme executive power. ... They are not 100% the same, but they serve much of the same functions.

Yes, there are similarities between your government and hours, but to say they are not 100% the same is a gross understatement. You don't seem to appreciate the extent of the structural and procedural differences between our government and yours and our Prime Ministerial powers and functions and your Presidential ones that I tried to outline.

To recapitulate: Neither executive nor legislative power is vested in our Prime Minister as Prime Minister. Both are vested in parliament as a whole, of which he is just an ordinary member for those purposes. He has no formal legislative, let alone executive powers that any other member in the house of reps does not also have. Without the concurrence of a majority in the lower house and the approval by the majority of the upper he can do nothing whatsoever. Unlike your president he cannot decree anything either. He can be sacked in any number of ways before the expected term of his office is over, and the only way he can attempt to get stalled legislation through after failing to do so in three readings is to declare both houses vacant (including his own seat), which means calling an election. It's called a double dissolution. If the previous government gets re-elected, it can try getting the stalled law(s) passed again. (We had one of those a year ago. The previous government got re-elected, but because it has not won a majority in the upper house it faces the same problems getting legislation ratified as before without the help of several independent senators.) Yes, the Prime Minister is the head of government, but his powers and importance is not comparable to your President. The office is so insignificant in relation to the rest of our governmental structure that it is not even mentioned in our constitution.

In addition, current PMs have had only a moderate effective power over their own party, and have often been forced to significantly modify policies they wanted to placate various internal groupings within their parties.

[Hermit]

I was not in that passage rendering judgment on the "betterness" of the decision, I was pointing out that it's easier to kill a single tyrant than it is to kill ten thousand tyrants.

"Tyranny" is rarely of the sort that requires lethal force when we (as you have in the past) spoken of "the tyranny of the majority". It is in this context that I prefer a tyranny of the majority to the tyranny of a minority. At least the former makes the tyranny a bit more consensual. So, to pick an example, though I am opposed to capital punishment, I find its imposition just a little less objectionable when a majority imposes it rather than a minority, and only so because it is the will of the majority. My judgement of capital punishment as such remains unchanged. Same goes for racial segregation and so forth.

[Hermit]

Yes, but they vest him with "Prime" Ministership, and he is the head of government and the holder of supreme executive power. ... They are not 100% the same, but they serve much of the same functions.

Yes, there are similarities between your government and hours, but to say they are not 100% the same is a gross understatement. You don't seem to appreciate the extent of the structural and procedural differences between our government and yours and our Prime Ministerial powers and functions and your Presidential ones that I tried to outline.

To recapitulate: Neither executive nor legislative power is vested in our Prime Minister as Prime Minister. Both are vested in parliament as a whole, of which he is just an ordinary member for those purposes. He has no formal legislative, let alone executive powers that any other member in the house of reps does not also have. Without the concurrence of a majority in the lower house and the approval by the majority of the upper he can do nothing whatsoever. Unlike your president he cannot decree anything either. He can be sacked in any number of ways before the expected term of his office is over, and the only way he can attempt to get stalled legislation through after failing to do so in three readings is to declare both houses vacant (including his own seat), which means calling an election. It's called a double dissolution. If the previous government gets re-elected, it can try getting the stalled law(s) passed again. (We had one of those a year ago. The previous government got re-elected, but because it has not won a majority in the upper house it faces the same problems getting legislation ratified as before without the help of several independent senators.) Yes, the Prime Minister is the head of government, but his powers and importance is not comparable to your President. The office is so insignificant in relation to the rest of our governmental structure that it is not even mentioned in our constitution.

In addition, current PMs have had only a moderate effective power over their own party, and have often been forced to significantly modify policies they wanted to placate various internal groupings within their parties.

True, but in this discussion I am more concerned with the institutional differences between Prime Ministerial and Presidential forms of government.

[Seth]

"Tyranny" is rarely of the sort that requires lethal force

Until it is, and then you need all the lethal force you can produce to put it down, and generally millions of innocent people die in the process. That makes it worth being ever-vigilant and always retaining the necessary tools of force required to put down a tyranny in ways that prevent the tyrants from simply seizing those tools as a predicate to imposing tyranny, which is the practice of every tyrant in history: first, disarm the populace.

when we (as you have in the past) spoken of "the tyranny of the majority".

Tyranny is tyranny. It matters not at all how many people are tyrants, it's just as evil and it's just as likely that force will be needed to put it down, which means it's a good idea to always be prepared and armed to do so. You see, those tools of tyrant-killing are not just useful tools to put down a tyrant, when properly spread among the populace in ways that make it impossible for tyrants to know who has them or how many of them exist, it's a potent and very useful deterrent to tyranny in the first place. That concept was well known to our forefathers and was extensively discussed during the drafting of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, as even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers will reveal...something I suggest you undertake before you opine again.

It is in this context that I prefer a tyranny of the majority to the tyranny of a minority.

You may prefer what you please. I prefer to remain vigilant and well-armed and thus prepared to put down any tyrant who happens along.

At least the former makes the tyranny a bit more consensual.

...so I just plan to lay back and enjoy it...

So, to pick an example, though I am opposed to capital punishment, I find its imposition just a little less objectionable when a majority imposes it rather than a minority, and only so because it is the will of the majority. My judgement of capital punishment as such remains unchanged. Same goes for racial segregation and so forth.

Pure, undiluted moral relativism. If it ain't right, it ain't right because ten people say it's right. Or a thousand. Or sixty-five million. Or a billion.

[Hermit]

"Tyranny" is rarely of the sort that requires lethal force

Until it is

I am speaking of the common sort. You know, the sort that has happened in the US in the past and is happening right now.

when we (as you have in the past) spoken of "the tyranny of the majority".

Tyranny is tyranny.

Lumping all degrees of tyranny together as if they were indistinguishable is idiotic from a practical point of view. Look at the prohibition years. Yes, that was one part of the US population tyrannising another. Would that have been justification to take up arms en masse? What if the people had decided to close down all media and replace them with one government owned and controlled source of information? Would the same response be appropriate?

So, to pick an example, though I am opposed to capital punishment, I find its imposition just a little less objectionable when a majority imposes it rather than a minority, and only so because it is the will of the majority. My judgement of capital punishment as such remains unchanged. Same goes for racial segregation and so forth.

Pure, undiluted moral relativism. If it ain't right, it ain't right because ten people say it's right. Or a thousand. Or sixty-five million. Or a billion.

Have another look at what I wrote, particularly the bits I highlighted. You'll find that I agree with the second half of your response.

[Woodbutcher]

Seth, not a chance in hell you'd do a thing if a tyrant came along. More than likely you'd join his brownshirts and kiss his ass 'till your forehead caved in. People who brag are people who compromise, and I don't think you have a revolutionary army at your beck and call. Trump might very well be the one to limit gun ownership, democrats prefer to go with the majority. Keep an eye out for that.

[Seth]

"Tyranny" is rarely of the sort that requires lethal force

Until it is

I am speaking of the common sort. You know, the sort that has happened in the US in the past and is happening right now.

Tyranny is tyranny. What "sort" it might be is utterly irrelevant.

when we (as you have in the past) spoken of "the tyranny of the majority".

Tyranny is tyranny.

Lumping all degrees of tyranny together as if they were indistinguishable is idiotic from a practical point of view.

No, it's perfectly rational. Tyranny is tyranny, plain and simple. Dealing with different degrees of tyranny on the other hand can take different forms, not all of which involved armed conflict.

Look at the prohibition years. Yes, that was one part of the US population tyrannising another. Would that have been justification to take up arms en masse?

Yes. But we decided not to do so and instead peacefully repealed it. We could have taken up arms however, if we needed to, and THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment.

What if the people had decided to close down all media and replace them with one government owned and controlled source of information? Would the same response be appropriate?

Armed response? Yes, absolutely.

What's important however is not how we might respond to any particular iteration of tyranny, what's important is that we at all times have the tools necessary to put down ANY and EVERY sort of tyranny when and if it becomes necessary to do so. One need not bring out the guns if a political solution will accomplish the goal, as with Prohibition, but that does not mean that having the arms with which to exercise the ultimate veto of a bad law is inappropriate or unnecessary. It's absolutely necessary and highly beneficial that a populace be forever armed adequately to put down the very worst of tyrannical military oppression possible because that capacity alone is a potent and effective deterrent to attempts to impose ANY degree of tyranny. It's always good for politicians and would-be tyrants to understand that they are not invulnerable and that their pretensions to despotism can be ended by a single patriot with a single bullet should it become necessary. That's a large part of what has made it unnecessary to exercise that ultimate recourse to liberty in our national history.


Sic semper tyrannis

Oh, and Molon Labe.

[Seth]

Seth, not a chance in hell you'd do a thing if a tyrant came along.

You keep right on thinking that.

More than likely you'd join his brownshirts and kiss his ass 'till your forehead caved in.

That would depend on how you in particular define a tyrant.

People who brag are people who compromise,

And you base this rather dubious conclusion on what evidence, pray tell? Have you been fingering the augeries of your colon perhaps?

and I don't think you have a revolutionary army at your beck and call.

Don't necessarily need one. Tyrants have one fundamental weakness: They are not invulnerable.

Trump might very well be the one to limit gun ownership, democrats prefer to go with the majority. Keep an eye out for that.

Both eyes, actually. I don't trust ANY politician with my 2nd Amendment rights, ever.

[Tero]

Good news for Seth:
Man charged with removing Obamacare will maximize doctor income and minimize the number of patients they have to treat:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13N1Y3

[Forty Two]

Yes, but they vest him with "Prime" Ministership, and he is the head of government and the holder of supreme executive power. ... They are not 100% the same, but they serve much of the same functions.

Yes, there are similarities between your government and hours, but to say they are not 100% the same is a gross understatement. You don't seem to appreciate the extent of the structural and procedural differences between our government and yours and our Prime Ministerial powers and functions and your Presidential ones that I tried to outline.[/ quote]

I appreciate them fine, and I did not suggest that the "governments" were the same. I suggested the President and the Prime Minister serve similar functions. I know far more about the Parliamentary system than most people, not only conceptually but in practice (as I interned for an MP in Ottawa. In constitutional monarchies, like the United Kingdom, the prime minister often assumes the role of a chief executive while the official executive—the monarch—only holds symbolic authority. A President is also the chief executive. A prime minister acts as head of government, ensuring the passage of bills through the legislature and managing the civil service. In this respect, he is similar to a president, who is the head of his country's executive branch.

The main difference is that in parliamentary systems the executive branch and legislative branch are combined, whereas in the American constitutional republic system the executive branch and the legislative branch are separate.

To recapitulate: Neither executive nor legislative power is vested in our Prime Minister as Prime Minister. Both are vested in parliament as a whole, of which he is just an ordinary member for those purposes. He has no formal legislative, let alone executive powers that any other member in the house of reps does not also have. Without the concurrence of a majority in the lower house and the approval by the majority of the upper he can do nothing whatsoever.

This is rather an understatement. The Prime Minister is head of your executive branch (Australian government) as distinct from the legislative branch and the judiciary. The ministers report to him, and the ministries do quite a lot without having to obtain approval from the legislature (parliament). Authority is delegated to the ministries just as in the US authority is delegated by the legislature (Congress) to the executive agencies (ministries, but we don't use that term). So, your Prime Minister is head of government, leader of the Cabinet (of senior ministers), and the chairperson of the National Security Commission - he or she acts as the chief representative of the country for international affairs.

Unlike your president he cannot decree anything either.

Well, the President's authority is limited to that which is within his constitutional powers, and that which was delegated to the executive branch. But, yes, indeed, the "executive order" thing is not present in most parliamentary systems.

He can be sacked in any number of ways before the expected term of his office is over, and the only way he can attempt to get stalled legislation through after failing to do so in three readings is to declare both houses vacant (including his own seat), which means calling an election. It's called a double dissolution. If the previous government gets re-elected, it can try getting the stalled law(s) passed again. (We had one of those a year ago. The previous government got re-elected, but because it has not won a majority in the upper house it faces the same problems getting legislation ratified as before without the help of several independent senators.) Yes, the Prime Minister is the head of government, but his powers and importance is not comparable to your President. The office is so insignificant in relation to the rest of our governmental structure that it is not even mentioned in our constitution.

Maybe you meant "head of state"

Yes. My mistake.

Indeed, the positions are not the same, but they do share similarities, and it is, in my view, an understatement to suggest that the PM is insignificant. However, I agree with the substance of your highlights of the differences.

[NineBerry]

The situation in the UK and other former Commonwealth nations suffers from the same problem as with the Electoral College: Because of the "winner takes it all" rule, the representatives in the UK Lower House and in the Electoral College do not actually proportionally represent the voters.

This is a difference to for example the German system where (because of the proportional vote evaluation), each representative in parliament represents a (nearly) equal number of voters. This has advantages as well as disadvantages: An advantage is that it is much easier for smaller parties (i.e. smaller interest groups to gain influence on policies). A disadvantage is that the role of parties becomes much more important.

[Animavore]

OMG! He's a fucking fool.

[Animavore]

Jesus Christ! Someone shut him up. I thought the secret service confiscated his Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... wsrc%5Etfw

[Jason]

He can't possibly be worse than GWB and may be even more entertaining. 4 years of popcorn!

[Sean Hayden]

Who reads twitter?