Goriller

I think most Americans would change their minds once a 5% flat income tax gets "imposed" on them.

Goriller

I value the lives of women so much that I think men who rape them should be executed. Do you value the lives of women that much?

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Goriller ]</p>

Goriller

Good point. That could definitely be an option.

Goriller

galiel:

Before I answer your many questions I have just one to ask you.

Is the Bible correct when it says the sun is a light in Genesis 1:16?

Yes, or no?

HelenM

Thanks for the response, Goriller. I did want to know how you'd respond to that passage in view of what you had written, so I appreciate it.

Helen

galiel

Before I answer your question, answer mine: Is this a question?

What relevance does that have to do with anything?

galiel

I didn't even address the two most obvious problems with this Monarchist Constitution. With the power invested in the King, and no balancing body elected by the people, what is to prevent a corrupt King from simply suspending the Constitution, dismissing the judges he appointed or even locking them up (or, since he appoints them in the first place, he could just appoint co-conspirators), and using the military he controls to install a tyranny (in its original meaning, that of a government that lacks legitimacy)? It's nice that he would "await the Judgement Day of God". but what happens in the meantime?

There is no system of active checks and balances in your system. A mere theoretical compact, a "Constitution", has no force if there are not institutions created to protect it. The very basis of Constitutional government is a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances that protect society from tyranny.

The second fatal flaw is that there is no mechanism for fixing a flawed Constitution. Even if you believe in Divine Law, as I do not, your Constitution is created by men, who are fallible. What if there is a mistake, an unforseen circumstance, new revelations, a new interpretation of holy books? You have no mechanism for revising the Constitution.

It's really a very primitive and anachronistic proposal.

Alludium Fozdex

One might look to this:
This creates an implied threat of armed insurgency against a corrupt ruler, which would, presumably, prevent activity that is too over-the-top. Of course, history shows us that, in practice, an armed populace is no match for a dictator with an army.

Alludium Fozdex

Oh really? Then you'll love this: A husband who would put a woman in that position would have no reason to treat her like a human being.

That makes for a pretty poisonous household atmosphere. I can just see some swine telling his young child "Mommy did a very bad thing, but I need her to help raise you. When you turn 18, the Judges will come and take her away."

I suppose it would be the husband's responsibility to keep "the slut" from, say, taking her own life. Would he be liable if she did so?

This whole arrangement puts a person in a position of "I need you to do a job, but I'm going to kill you when you finish it." There's no incentive to do the job well. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Gerald ]</p>

galiel

No kidding.