Any ideas to change the government structure

We have a system that was designed over 200 years ago. Companies update their system quickly in comparison. People, companies, technology have all changed. The 200 year old system has yet to change at all. There may be updates but how do these updates influence our own government and the abilities of the people within the government.

I have concerns for the following reasons.

We have CIA buildings that have designs which lasers can't penetrate to get sound from the building. So what would be the necessity to have that amount of security while there is a president on the road giving speechs.

What is the influence of the military information on the president? The president doesn't have any confidential information before he enters into the White house. He has no facts strategies or knowledge. We are throwing a person into a position that has no knowledge at all or any experience and we expect results in a matter of 4 years.

When I see a position that is running the country of any sorts I would see a person that is actively involved and has the ability to look at all numbers at one time in different areas. Having the ability to have these seperate numbers and comparisons leans you to know where the money should be spent.

Future expectations with no military information is out of the question. This type of information is what allows you to create a situation to prevent an attack that you foresee coming in the future. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the president would be in control of that at all.

For some reason we have all this information on how buildings are sound proof and we are more concerned about a speech that the president will give. Give or take the time period it takes to get to and from different places and does the president even have time to look at everything else.

There become a lot of nots clogs in bills overspending.

We can even look at quotes by Abraham Lincoln himself

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

It makes me think of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe it truly is about oil and people are losing what they feel they have been brought up to stand for. Yet that can never be admitted instead its fought by keeping our democracy and our own ability. There has to be an individual in charge of looking at Peak Oil our energy levels and comparing it to intelligence gained on other countries.

We are so far out of the loop but we seem to be creating our own input that will never be listened to by our own lack of ability to have information. With our true lacking of ability to have information I believe we sound like a bunch of hicks making noises to each other.

[Scott]

I think the USA government is more adaptable than most corporations. The fact that it has been around in some form for centuries is consistent with the idea that it is adaptable. The tree that doesn't bend breaks.

I also think the USA government is very effective at doing its job. But I do not think its job is not to represent the best interests of the general public and the average civilian. You and I may wish that that was its job and that was what it is trying to do; but it is not. The government does not really work for us; it works for wealthy special interest groups. As far as enriching the oil companies and military industry that really hires the politicians, the Iraq War was one of the government's greatest achievements--billions if not a trillion of tax-dollars spent to create new expensive problems that will lead to even more government spending. Sure its bad for regular taxpayers like you and I, regular families whose son or daughter may be an enlisted solider who dies in Iraq or dies in what the CIA calls blowback from its illegal, undemocratic activities. But its good for the wealthy people who are receiving their huge cuts of the trillions of dollars, and those wealthy people are the ones for whom the politicians work because they use that wealth to buy the politicians and decide who gets into major office namely via campaign funding.

I further explained that inherent tendency of government spending to represent the interests of the wealthy few at the expense of the majority in the post The Philosophy of Government Spending.

The government has changed, there are many amendments to the constitution.

Do you want something besides a representative democracy(republic)?

I second Scott's remarks.(I think your concern is misplaced slightly.)

I’d like to call everyone’s attention to the article “the” that Scott and the rest of us commonly tack on when we say: “government”. Why do we say “the government” and hardly ever say “our government”? Most of us in these discussions are U.S. citizens talking about U.S. government. We are a democracy. We, the voters, rule. We are part of government. Why don’t we admit that it’s our government, that it is us?

We, the descendents of the brave, wise, and energetic men who designed and founded this democracy, lack the collective confidence and will necessary to keep the system in good working order. We have allowed ourselves to become so ignorant in political matters as to be unable to agree on and implement the policies and procedures necessary for us to keep up with the rest of the world. We are increasingly fearful and distrustful. We agree on one thing: the buck doesn’t stop here. We defend ourselves by concocting excuses and inventing villains. Some of us talk wildly about switching to forms of government that would actually regiment us to the extent that these people fallaciously believe we are being regimented now.

There does seem to be some unanimity among us on the need to operate government so as to benefit the greatest number of people to the greatest extent possible. We do seem to generally recognize our representatives’ inability to operate to that standard because of their special interests obligations. Our big, big problem, one we MUST resolve is the campaign funding fiasco. So, what are we doing about it?

What we are doing is continuing to chip away ineffectually at the edges of the campaign funding problem. We are collectively refusing to deal with the problem pragmatically and instead are pettily bogging ourselves down in ideologic squabbles. We continue to set on our hands and watch while our incoming representatives compromise their ideals by having to solicit the funds they must have from favor-seeking sources. We force them into special interest thralldom; then we denounce them – no, we insult them – with our hypocritical characterizations of “those corrupt politicians".

Let’s see now, what did I start to say in this post? Oh yeah! It was just that we need to remember that we can’t pretend we are outsiders to the government (and that candidates for office likewise can’t pretend that). This government is of, by, and for ourselves. We are all politicians. We are all pursuing one or another of these so-called special interests. Does that mean we are all corrupt?

I’d like to call everyone’s attention to the article “the” that Scott and the rest of us commonly tack on when we say: “government”. Why do we say “the government” and hardly ever say “our government”? Most of us in these discussions are U.S. citizens talking about U.S. government. We are a democracy. We, the voters, rule. We are part of government. Why don’t we admit that it’s our government, that it is us?

We are a Republic, and we have representatives that are violating laws left and right. You are right that it is we, though, that are the ones liable for allowing them to do so. I fully agree, Dewey.

We, the descendents of the brave, wise, and energetic men who designed and founded this democracy, lack the collective confidence and will necessary to keep the system in good working order. We have allowed ourselves to become so ignorant in political matters as to be unable to agree on and implement the policies and procedures necessary for us to keep up with the rest of the world. We are increasingly fearful and distrustful. We agree on one thing: the buck doesn’t stop here. We defend ourselves by concocting excuses and inventing villains. Some of us talk wildly about switching to forms of government that would actually regiment us to the extent that these people fallaciously believe we are being regimented now.

We are increasingly fearful and distrustful for one important reason. I'd like to direct you to a very interesting article written by LTC(R) Allen B West called Of Lambs and Lions. In it, he begins by quoting Alexander the Great:

I do not fear an army of lions if they are led by a lamb. I do fear an army of sheep if they are led by a lion.

I think the fear and distrust is a product of the ignorance and/or apathy of the general population; which is ultimately a result of plain old lethargy.

Not to be so particular or to in any way imply that you are in this category at all, but one example of this is how you yourself keep calling America a "Democracy". We are not. In fact, we were established as even less of a Democracy and more of a Republic prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, when direct election of Senators eclipsed State Representative election [likely a result of "general distrust"].

But what people don't generally understand is the wisdom of the systems they by-passed to get their precious "democracy" in the first place. Limits that used to exist [checks and balances] and that used to force Senators to be held accountable to their local legislatures vanished in the people's ignorant urge to "get their vote".

The point is, the general desire for a "feeling" of participation has only furthered people from their true ability to control their government. This occurred DUE TO ignorance, and only as a RESULT OF a furthering "feeling" of lethargy, in the hands of seemingly impotent leaders that led the general populace to want more personal power without the personal accountability.

There does seem to be some unanimity among us on the need to operate government so as to benefit the greatest number of people to the greatest extent possible. We do seem to generally recognize our representatives’ inability to operate to that standard because of their special interests obligations. Our big, big problem, one we MUST resolve is the campaign funding fiasco. So, what are we doing about it?

We're trying to raise more money for our own ends! Unfortunately, though, I don't see how limiting campaign financing will help anything unless you ultimately limit government's expansiveness overall.

How else can you diminish the tyrant's will than to take away his power?

What we are doing is continuing to chip away ineffectually at the edges of the campaign funding problem. We are collectively refusing to deal with the problem pragmatically and instead are pettily bogging ourselves down in ideologic squabbles. We continue to set on our hands and watch while our incoming representatives compromise their ideals by having to solicit the funds they must have from favor-seeking sources. We force them into special interest thralldom; then we denounce them – no, we insult them – with our hypocritical characterizations of “those corrupt politicians".

But isn't this precisely the point? The ideological struggle is the quintessential solution!

A government without the expansive authority to take over companies at will, to intervene in all matters of private life, etc. will continue to entice tyrants, will it not?

Please explain how you can deter a power-hungry individual from exploiting the power of an office that lends itself to near-limitless authority?

Let’s see now, what did I start to say in this post? Oh yeah! It was just that we need to remember that we can’t pretend we are outsiders to the government (and that candidates for office likewise can’t pretend that). This government is of, by, and for ourselves. We are all politicians. We are all pursuing one or another of these so-called special interests. Does that mean we are all corrupt?

I think so. I think it means that we all need to realize what the root of the problem is; that men are naturally corruptible, and given a position where corruption can be legitimately exploited, we will fail without proper checks and balances.

I think that we need to re-educate ourselves as to how effective checks and balances within Republics past [our own included] have worked. And then we need to re-institute them. It's as simple as that