When You're Thumbing Your Nose at the Law With a Laser Jammer, Maybe You Shouldn't Also Flip Them Off

Similarly, our English speaking brethren might need to sit down and understand what American freedom really is. Here's a short compare/contrast from Subotai Bahadur over at the Chicago Boyz blog: 'In Canada, the purpose of the Canadian Constitution [in both its written and unwritten parts as codified in the Constitution Act of 1982 is to allow freedom except when the government wants to restrict it. There are no absolutes, and like in Britain, the Parliament can do anything. It is a different viewpoint than ours. The UK and Canada views the government as the guardian ad litem for the people who are viewed as legally incompetent and in their custody. The American view in the Constitution as written is that the government is the employee, agent [with revocable agency], and servant of the people who are competent to determine their own fate. Part of the problem we face today, is that both major parties have adopted the UK/Canadian view with that additional perk of being able to line their pockets and be above the law completely. That view is not agreed to by the American people, or at least not all of them, and the issue is currently in dispute.'

Roader, It's good to see you have a belief. How I look at it is a little differently. I view governments role to support what the nation/people needs first, then wants second. Using or terming governments role as subservient to the people as you used might make you feel better inside. But the reality is you have little input into how the US is run. Large corporations and the mega rich lobby the US government to get and run things the way they want. This is no different than any other democratic nation, or for that matter even Russia. The differences lie in how we manage influential groups and hold those with power to account. I see the President of the US as a "voted" King. I don't believe the "King" of the US should have the powers he does. His role should be that more of a figure head, like the Royals in other Commonwealth nations, including the UK. The British learnt a long time ago having one person with greater powers is not wise. Imagine the US people voted a fool in for President, he can easily move the country backwards. The problem with the way in which the US uses it's President is it reduces the separation of power. The Parlimentary system allows for far greater separation of power than the US system does. I do think you believe in Americian Exceptionalism. I don't mind and I'll tolerate the views of American Exceptionalists, just as I tolerate religious people.

@Big Al from Oz It's a matter of scale, Al. Tiny countries like New Zealand and Norway are much easier to govern than a large country like the US, Brazil, Russia, or Indonesia. Hence US federalism with its emphasis on individual states power vs. a powerful national government. The states electing the president and that president not being beholden to the elected legislature is one way to limit the power of a national government. Electing fools for the head of government is hardly restricted to presidential systems, as Neville Chamberlain, the current Canadian PM, and Billy McMahon prove. But it's good to see you have a belief.

Roader, We are talking Federal/National powers here, not second level government. I believe it's more the size of the land that dictates whether you have states, along with how a nation was initially colonised. Pre-existing nations that go back hundreds of years did not have a Federalised system of States like many "new" nation have now and they are generally smaller, ie, EU. Australia has states as well, but in the 1930s the individual state power was reduced with the use of taxation. This has worked out well. The US like Australia had separate Colonies at the inception of our lands. To organise them into a coherent workable group is how we arrived at individual State powers. This was palatable in offering them that ability to remain individual, but have the protection of a collective. Maybe it's time to change that. As for the Parliamentary leaders, like Chamberlain, etc. They might have been fools, but their power was greatly reduced by the system. I do believe the greatest asset with a Parliamentary system is nothing can be enacted or passed without going through both Houses. Whereas, in the US the President has was too much authority to make decisions, and as the current President has shown, decision making can be quite poor and wanting. Another issue is the ability to modernise government to reflect, culture, technology, etc. Like Charles Darwin's "The Evolution of the Species" we will find out eventually which system of Democracy prevails. Somehow I don't think the US system will be the one.

@Roader Al, when I referred to tiny countries being more easily governed, I was talking about population, not geography. For instance, about half the states of the United States have more people than New Zealand in its entirety. The parliamentary system with just two separated powers probably works well for such a tiny country, small countries like Australia, and maybe even medium sized countries like the UK. A large country like the US however benefits from a third power in the form of a powerful executive branch chosen by the states. 50 laboratories of democracy and all that, with a severely limited (originally, anyway) national government. And it seems to have worked well since the US has had the same constitutional republican government for 230 years come this 4 July. Compare that to France, a parliamentary republic, which is on its fifth government in about the same number of years. To paraphrase Mark Twain, your report of the eminent death of the United States is greatly exaggerated. Re: the current US chief executive's "decision making can be quite poor and wanting". Compared to who? The US economy is booming, unemployment rate is at historic lows, the US is due to become the world's larges oil producer either this year or next, and we may have peace on the Korean Peninsula for the first time in 60-some years. Plus he's reducing the size of the bloated national government quickly and efficiently. If that's "poor and wanting decision making", please, may I have some more sir?

Roader, Somehow I think I've discussed this with you previously, under a different alias. Trump did very little to put the US economy where it is right now, and it "ain't" powering along. 2.56% over the year? This is not very good, not bad. Very good or powering along to me is 3.5% and above over a sustained period. As for the size of a country and managing it, I do believe bigger should be able to do more as costs will be reduced. Countries like Australia and even Canada have far larger overheads to maintain infrastructure than highly populated countries or densely populated regions. There are pros and cons to every story. As for the US, its like Brittania and Brittania is sinking further right now. The US will take longer to deflate than the UK, unless an upheaval occurs. The US is now in transition and it's fighting the wrong issues. Great Britan as it was called slowly lost it's "Allies" and Colonies over a 50 year or so period. Initially the Brits fought, ie, War of Independence. As time went on the British wars became smaller with less significance, until they just let Colonies go on their merry way. Now with Brexit, it will lose the EU, which it needs for it's very survival. Once the UK leaves the EU the vultures will come in and clean up the rest. The two most important Anglo countries are in decline. That leaves the younger Anglo countries the future.

I don't think his age has anything to do with it - the law applies even to old people.