Bevin Chu
November 20, 2008
Special Posting for Mr. Christopher DiFranco's Social Studies Class at Georgetown Middle/High School in Georgetown, Massachusetts.
See: The Myth of Checks and Balances
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/02/myth-of-checks-and-balances.html
Additional Closely Related Articles:
See: The Non-Aggression Axiom
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-03_011_the_non_aggression_axiom.mp3
See: Economic Selections, not Democratic Elections
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/03/economic-selections-not-democratic.html
See: Frogs and Fraud, a Fable
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/08/frogs-and-fraud-fable.html
See: How Democracy Really Works
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-democracy-really-works.html
See: The Founding Fathers' Next Step
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/09/founding-fathers-next-step.html
36 comments:
I read the article you wrote entitled,"The Separation is Illusory, The Power is Real" and it was very informing. I had never thought about how the government is similar to the "Mafia", like in the aspect that they rob the people by taxing them. I guess in a way the only true difference between a government and the mob is a flag! Although this is true I dissagree with your opinion of checks and balances. In the U.S. government each branch has it's own set of checks and balances that are enumerated, without these our government would be chaos. Also it is writen that resistance is futile against the government, in many ways this is very true, but resistance could happen. A rebellion called Shays' Rebellion in early America caused the government to be dissrupted, even though this was a small rebellion it have it's affects.
Thank you for your opinions about the U.S. government.
-J.H.
Wow! Your article "the myths of checks and balances" was a real eye opener to me. your comparisons of our government to the mafia and microsoft gave me a completely different view of America's government. However, although most everything you said is spot-on true, I believe our government is not the same as the mafia or bug-riden computer software. You compared the three branches to "three divisions" of microsoft, talking about how they can't be "separate and Independent" since they are all part of microsoft and in the same way our government's branches are not separate and independent. I believe this is not true because that "microsoft" that unifies the division in relation to the government's branches is America as a whole, including us. that's not a weakness, thats a strength. Also, although the government might be strikingly similar to a crime family, its working for us. its been over 200 years since the constitution passed and we haven't been oppressed(at least in mass scale) quite yet. sure we get taxed and the government has lots of power but what country can say otherwise and still have all of the rights, freedoms, and luxuries we do? Maybe you're right and we will all be slaves to tyrant America in a few decades but for now i think we have more important things to think about than the faults of our relatively successful government.
Still a fascinating article though :)
-D.S.
Dear JH, DS,
Thanks for reading. Be sure to listen to the podcast I've just added to this post.
It's entitled The Non-Aggression Axiom, and underscores how all monopolistic governments, including democracies, resort to naked coercion to make us "belong" to them, and how we truly are not free under such systems.
I read your article "The Myths of Checks and Balances". It really showed me new ideas on government that we definitely do not learn in school, like you said in the article. That does not mean that i agree with these though. I found your comparisons to the mafia and Microsoft very interesting and eye-opening, but i do not agree. Though the comparisons seem similar, a notorious crime family and a computer software are not similar to government, so they are not very easy to see distinct similarities between. They may function similarly, but the function for very different reasons. If separation of powers and checks and balances are really "firewalls" when "given enough time, burns right through" why has our government not failed yet? it has been thriving for over 200 years!
Thank you for opening my eyes to this new outlook on government. Even though I do not agree, it was good to read about your ideas.
-ND
Dear Bevin Chu,
I recently read an article of yours called "A reluctant Anarrchist". Although it was interesting to read another person's point of view on the government of the united states, I unfortunately found a few flaws in it as well. One of these flaws would that you stated that "Democracy is a form of dictatorship". I found this statement very flawed because although they are both forms of government, a dictatorship's power is put into the hands of one person alone and a democracy's power is put mainly into the hands of the poeple.
Although I may not agree with what you have posted, I still found it interesting to hear another persons perspective. Thank you.
-VW
Dear ND,
Actually, our government has already failed. It is well on its way to becoming a police state. Especially since 9/11. It's merely that we are like frogs in a pot. The temperature is turned up gradually enough haven't noticed.
But thanks for reading. And please keep reading about this subject, even if you disagree. It's important.
Bevin
Dear VW,
I would urge you to listen to the podcast I've just posted. It explains why democracies are a form of dictatorship.
I read your article, "The Myth of Checks and Balances." This article was very interesting to me in the respect of is our system of checks and balacnes working? When you stated that our government is like a "mafia," I agree with DS in the sense that it is not. Our governement is not corrupt and its citizens have individual freedoms that allow them to be their own person. The government does not decide what I will do today, I do. Sure, a United States citizen has to pay taxes, but the money benefits the country. If The United States was under attack, in order to protect ourselves we need money. Children need to receive a proper education so past mistakes will not happen agian. This education needs funding and it comes from the government. Since the Founding Fathers created the Constitution, any rebellion that has occured has been put down. If these redellions have been put down, then something must be working. In your article, you stated that "...the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp." You also stated that "Real world experience has demonstrated that overtime, the executive invaribly co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature." How can this be true if a series of checks are placed on the executive branch? If the executive branch vetos a bill, the legislative can ovderride that veto. If the executive branch appoints judges that the judical branch does not agree with, the judical branch refuses the appointments. The executive branch can not be a dictator with multiple restrictions from the other branches. Yes, our government has some faults, but everything that occurs has faults.
-MR
Your Article "The Myth of Checks and Balances" is a differenet view of checks and balances then I have seen. Some of your points I do not believe are true. I agree with DS and MR that our government is not like the mafia. It is not a overly powerful group. I also do agree with your statement that the executive branch mainly controls the government. Checks and balances keep this branch in check with things like presidential override. The legislative and judicial branches are just as important, and checks and balances do help.
-LH
Dear Bevin Chu,
All your articles have some sort of meaning and are very influential.I have just read an article of yours titled "Why the Executive Branch always becomes the Government". I agree with you that the executive branch is the "highest ranking officals" of the three branches. I also agree with you that the other branches provide checks and balances to protect the rights of the citizens. I disagree with you with the thought that the executive branch "monopolizes" the power. Our government has checks and balances so not one person can take too much control of our government. When you added the quote that President Bush said that he is the decider and he decides what is best, I agree with him, partly because he is the president, and he knows what to do. The citizens of the US elect a president to enforce laws, and presidents have the interest of the people at heart. On your other articles, I do not agree with what you said including the idea that our government is like the mafia. I agree with LH, that it is not a overly strong bunch. All three branches are just as important, and no branch holds more "important powers" then another. If not for all the three branches in our government, and the checks and balances, then our government would be unsure and unsteady of the future.
Although I do not agree with some of your thoughts, it was still a very informing and moving article. Thank you.
-GD-
Mr. Chu,
You made an interesting comparison between the government and the Mafia but forgot some very important differences, many of which occur in everyday life. How about the roads we drive on, the schools that educate us, the water we drink? We may pay taxes to the government, but unlike the Mafia, they do not just pay officials but also get us our everyday needs. The people of Massachustts recently voted to keep the income tax for a reason. You also stated that there is no difference between democracy and dictatorship. If this is so, then why does change, whether good or bad, continue to happen within our country and with our laws? In Massachusetts dog racing has been banned and marijuana decriminalized, and in California equal marrige rights have been legalized and then banned. Countless other acts, laws, and amendments have been passed since this country started, and by whom? The people. If the government were so omnipotent as you say, then how could this have happened? The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy the people have power, and are able to influence the government and create change, and in a dictatorship, one person decides everything that goes on and the people can't do anything about it.
oh and that last comment was by MLN!
Mr.Chu,
Sorry, but i do not agree with your perspective on how you see how the government works with the system of checks and balances. I do not think that the government is like a mafia because a mafia does not really do anything in return for you. An government gives you many things back like protection and other services that many people need in our country. Our founding fathers set up our government so it would not be tyrannical like they thought the British government was to them. Otherwise i thought the article was very well written and i enjoyed reading what you thought on the system of checks and balances.
Thank you,
-W.I.-
I read “The Myth of Checks and Balances” and it really showed me a whole new view of government. I was so used to being taught about the positives of checks and balances and it was really strange to read a negative view on it. While I see you point, I think that the comparison to the Mafia is a little bit of a stretch. For the most part, our government does a good job at protecting us, especially compared to many other governments around the world. We do have to pay taxes, but we also get a lot in return, like public education and welfare. You mentioned that you thought we should have competing PDAs but I think this would eventually lead to a weaker, less united country. Despite our different opinions, I still liked reading you article.
Thanks!
-MRM
Dear Mr. Chu,
Your article, "The Myth of Checks and Balances" allowed me to think about our government differently than we are taught in school. We are taught about the origins of government and what was wrong with it when it was first established. But we do not talk about how our government could be flawed in the present day too often. But i do have to disagree with you when you say that "separating the powers doesn't really result in separate and independence bodies checking and balancing each other." We have had this system of government for a while and everything has always seemed to flow pretty smoothly. I believe that the three branches of our government do a good job of keeping each other in check. There have not been many cases of one branch becoming stronger. I also do not agree with how you compared our governemtn to the "mafia" and how some citizens are just like "battered wives who belive they can't live without their abusive husbands..." to me, these comparisons are a little extreme and do not relate to the way our government treats us. One final thing, is that when you state, the "champions of freedom and human right comple us to subscribe to its products and services-or else." I do not think that our government threatens us into liking it and going along with it. Even though this government is not perfect, without it, we would live very chaotic and unfair lives. But in the end, even though we have different opinions, I like how your article made me think about real life government and how it affects some people and not just the facts we take down in a notebook every day.
Thank you,
EF
Bevin Chu,
I really enjoyed reading your article for I have never really been exposed to a different view of our government other than how the three branches are fully equal and help balance the powers of government. Your article gave me a whole different perspective on how some people feel. Seperation Of Powers, even though part of one government, is not always inseperable as stated in this article however. Sure they all work together in one way or another, but it is not like the same people control all three branches. Seperation of Powers and Checks and Balances are strategically set up so not one branch will be able to take full control of power. The other branches, with different purposes and ideas, will see the beginning of corruption and have power to stop and take actoin to make things right. Also, taxes are not necessarily crimes either. Taxpayers dont have a say about paying taxes, however I agree with MR on how taxes keep the nation going. Without taxes, certain things would not be able to be achieved, for example a sufficent education for all children. In addition, the executive branch does include the President who is obviously one of the most powerful people in America. Not everything the President says however, goes. There are also some things that the President really has no say about. For example, the President does not have the power to declare war which would inevitable affect the lives of everyone in the United States. Overall, your article states how the executive branch has "limitless power" and respectfully, I believe this is not true. Even though I do disagree with most of your ideas, your article truely did make me stop and think about the truth.
Thanks, M.D.
Mr. Chu,
I read your article, "The Myth of Checks and Balances" and I agree on some points. In the subarticle "Why the Executive Branch always becomes The Government" I agree with you. The executive branch has the highest ranking officials and does hold most of the power. George Bush's quote further promotes your argument. Although I agree on that aspect, I do not agree with your statement as the government being like a mafia. As W.I. said, the government does give us protection and services, which I agree with. The founding fathers that created the Constitution were not trying to be tyrannical, but provide a needs to keep each branch in check, unlike British monarchy.
Overall, your article brought a new light to the system of checks and balances and it was interesting to see a different take on it. Thank you!
-S.F.-
Mr. Chu,
Similar to many others above, i read your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances" as well. Even though i do not agree with you, i felt that you had many strongs aspects in your arguements as well as in your writing in general. You used words that are easily understood to more than just a political expert, you used relevent, current, and connective ideas and phrases such as the mafia examples. However, i feel that some of your arguements are a bit of a stretch. For example, when comparing the government to the mafia, you said the only difference was one has a flag. I know you meant it in a comical way, but the fact of the matter is, their two totally different things. The mafia kills people, ruins lives, and is a dangerous mob. Our government might have people killed as you said, but its not our people, its terrorists and other similar groups.
Our government does not think us to be their prey, in my opinion. The executive branch can not take total power because every move has to be CHECKED AND APPROVED(checks and balances)and in order to be done and it is approved by citizens like you and me who elect normal citizens who speak and act on behalf of us and the rest of their state or area in which they came from and who will allow or not allow the executive branch to precede with thier actions unless it is reasonable and beneficial to the whole country. Also, it is not like the government can create a gang or anything within itself because officials are being removed and re-elected and brought into office every year.
Overall, I think that the system of checks and balances works. However, I think you did a good job relating your arguements, even if wrong in my eyes, to events and circumstances that we, non-polital experts, can understand.
Thank you,
-M.M.
Mr. Chu
i read your article and i think it is very interesting, and i agree with many of the arguments you make. I think that your argument about taxes and the government robbing you at gunpoint is particularly interesting and valid as well. The government could be acting like the mafia in a sense. But I also agree with W.I. and that the government returns the favor by providing protection, or at the least the illusion of protection and thats all that is needed to prevent anarchy. I also thought your comparison of citizens to an abused wife was interesting. I never had pictured American government as corrupt or abusive and us just taking the abuse without question until now. This article has made me see that such is possible and an illusion of stability has been cleverly set by the press and they could be lying to us without us ever knowing.
Mr.Bevin Chu,
I have just read your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances". Reading your article has portrayed the three branched system in a whole different perspective i never would have thought of. Thinking that the president is nothing more than an elected dictator, is an odd way to think about it but, actually kind of true. Another strong point you have hilighted was that the branches need the checks and balances so they do not "gang" up on the citizens of America. I agree with you on this because with just one branch of power there would be abuse and ultimately one group ganging up on the people of America. I would have to say that your argument analogy about Microsoft and the government being the same monopoly wise, brought my views of government to a new light. I appreciated the different views on governmental powers.
Thank you,
A.Du
Dear Students of Mr. Christopher DiFranco's Social Studies Class,
Thank you all so much for your highly civil responses, both those that agree and those that disagree. Mr. DiFranco has taught you well.
There is nothing wrong with dissent. One must stand by what one believes. But one can disagree without being disagreeable. To your enormous credit, you have done just that. You are to be commended.
Forgive me for responding collectively, but the (highly welcome) number of comments has left me unable to respond as rapidly as I would like.
Allow me to invite you to read one or two additional articles closely related to this topic. I have added the links to this article. They will fill out some of what I have said more fully. They may answer some of your objections as well.
Sincerely,
Bevin Chu
Dear Mr. Chu,
I read your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances" and it was very eye opening. I never thought of the government this way, simply because as a high school student, I've never been taught about the dark side of the government. Your different comparisons help make your points clearer on how corrupt our government really is. I especially liked the Microsoft comparison because it is very true. Our government is kind of like a monopoly. But, I do not completely agree with the statement "the only difference between the Mafia and the government is a flag." I do agree that they do unfairly take money from people through taxes, like the mafia unfairly takes money from people, but the government does not do it in such a violent way. I do agree that both do many things with force. The government does many things that are corrupt and not right, and as citizens we do not think twice about it. Thank you for giving me a whole new perspective on our government.
R.S.
Dear Mr. Chu,
I just finished reading your article, and I have to say that I do not agree with some of the points that you made. I believe that the checks and balances system is a secure way of keeping our government under control, that does not allow any one branch to have too much power. Along with what MD said, the same people do not control different braches. Everyone may be working together, however i believe that they are working in a way that keeps each branch under control. I also agree with MR that taxes keep the nation going because the country needs some way to bring in revenue in oder to provide protection and programs for its people. Without taxes, where could the money possible come from?
Although I disagree with most of the points in the article, I must say that you make a very strong argument about how the government is like the mafia and "the only difference is a flag." It definitely is a different way of looking at our national government, and in a somewhat twisted way, could potentially be true. However, the only problem is that if the government is truly like this and is really this bad, how come it has lasted our nation for over 200 years? Even though I disagree with most of the ideas discussed in this article, I think that you did a good job of giving people a different way of viewing our federal government.
M. Nutter
Mr. Chu,
I must say your comparison of the "monopolistic state" and abusive husbands is a little extreme. However, after reading your arguments I feel you make a good point. Another point I found enlightening was how you mentioned over time, "the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature". An example of this is that the US Congress holds the power to formally declare war. As of late, Congress has not declared war since 1941. Despite this, the executive branch of the government is currently taking military action and calling it the War On Terror. This fact helps secure your point that over time the executive branch becomes more powerful than the other two. Finally, although I disagree with some of the statements regarding how different forms of government are inadequate, I did enjoy being enlightened about a different side of the argument of checks and balances. Thank you.
~M.P.
Dear Mr. Chu
I have just read your articles on "The Myth of Checks and Balances". I thought you did a grat job providing examples. My favorite was the experiment dealing with Microsoft. It was a good parallel to separation of powers because it shows that not ony does the government need restrictions and regulations, but so do many everday buissneses. I noticed you refered to the government robbing individuals. i do not think this is the case because they use the tax money that they recieve to fund common uses for the citizens. I really enjoyed your views on the government.
Thank you,
J.D.
Dear Mr. Chu
I read your article, "The Myth of Checks and Balances," and I believe that you made some very good points to back up your statement. Although I believe that your analogy about the government, taking money from citizens "at gunpoint" is a little overexaggerated, it made me change my perspective of taxes because it is true. The IRS does force people to pay taxes. I feel as though your historical examples helped to add structure to what you were saying. I also believe that comparing and contrasting between "constitutional republicanism" and democracy and how, given time, they can lead into each other. The only point that I do not agree with is the atatement about how all three-branch governments are the same. While they may have been based on the same ideas, each one had its differences, even if they are not great. Overall, though, the article was very eye-opening and informative.
Thank you,
RF
Mr. Bevin Chu
I read your article and it was very interesting to get a different point of view on government. I didn't agree with you that paying taxes is like being robbed, some of that money comes back to you in your community and schools. I do agree that the executive branch has more power than was intended for them to have under the separation of powers. Your example with government and Microsoft helped me see how much power it really has. I liked your comparison with the separation of powers and a firewall, but I didn't see how a democracy is a form of dictatorship.
The way you wrote your article made it easy for me to understand your view of government, even if I don't agree on everything. It was good to hear an opinion of government that I don't hear very often in school.
Thank you,
S.E.
Dear Mr. Chu
I have also read your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances" The point you made about Microsoft was eye opening to me. If Microsoft did own all software they could corrupt the business and sell everything overpriced and at a low quality. I don't view our government that way. I don't see any level of the government corrupting us. Also, i think it is important for us to pay taxes because that is how the government is able to fund for things. Yes, taxes are forced upon but they are necessary. Maybe, the three branches are working together and the checks aren't really being used fully. From where i am it looks the government is doing its job to protect our natural rights. Thank you for your opinion. I have just started to see that there could be something wrong with this system of government and maybe there are some ways to improve this.
-MO
Mr. Chu,
Although I may not wholeheartedly agree with the particular view you take throughout “The Myth of Checks and Balances”; I will say that your article is very well written with an influential undertone that could sway many open minds. Your use of different negative examples to point out the flaws in government really helped backup your point. The Microsoft analogy definitely made me think about the government in a new light. Reading about the critical view you take may not have necessarily given me an opinion about the government, but it certainly made me consider the negatives as well as the positives.
-J.S.
Dear Mr. Bevin Chu,
After reading your article, "The Myth of Checks and Balances" I had a new point of view of the United States' "limited" government. I can see what you mean when you say that "most of us were indoctrinated with this myth in junior/high school in social studies class" and I believe that I would fall under this as well. One point in the article that I especially liked was your analogy between the United States government and Microsoft. I never thought of the government as having a monopoly over the country. You also make an interesting point when you refer to the fact that three different branches doesn't make them separate from each other as a whole. The only question I had for this was how would you create more than one government or a division between two or more parties in government to effectively govern the United States so that there wasn't a "monopoly"? If this were acomplished, then maybe there wouldn't be an "electative dictatorship". I believe what we need is a "real" separation of powers so that the branches of government don't percieve themselves as part of the same government (as they do now).
Another thing I liked about your article was how you referred to US citizens as the "battered wives" of the mafia. While it seemed kind of funny to me, I realized that it was somewhat true. I agree that many people believe that the current government in the United States is the best one and that it is irreplaceable. However, I think that this goes back to high school social studies when the idea was instilled in their minds. It's similar to back during the United States Revolution when colonists were fighting for independence while some of them still believed that a king was the best way to go. Just because some people believe that a certain government is the best doesn't mean that they victimize "fellow citizens who know better".
Thank you,
VN
Mr. Chu
I read your article “The Myths of Checks and Balances” and I thought it was very well written. This aticle in particular opened my eyes about the points you made, because you do not see that many Americans writing and picking out the negative aspects of America and/or its government too often. Even though you made solid arguments and wrote this article very persuasively, I disagree with some of the points you made. “This government perpetuates its existence by robbing individuals at gunpoint. It refers to these acts of armed robbery as "taxation," as if calling its crime by some other name absolved it of guilt.” This was your statement in regards to taxation, comparing it as a robbery of the citizens by the government. Even though the government enforces the tax on the citizens, this shouldn’t make them the bad people. They are citizens too and they have to pay their taxes as well. This money actually befits our country in the end by going into our schools and communities. I also agree with D.S. and N.D. that our government had lasted for over 200 years and that is proof in itself that our government is not corrupt. It is proof that this system works because it has been just because of how long its been around. However, ill have to agree your point about how the executive does hold more power than the other two branches, as M.P. stated.
Thank you for writing this and for allowing me to look at our own government in a new light and perspective.
-O.P.
Dear Mr. Chu,
After reading your article it is clear to me that you have picked up on the fact that if the United States is not run by people with good morals it the separations will not work. You're right the government is a lot like a Mafia but more in the way of who runs it rather than stealing money. First off if the government is run by the right person without the wrong motives it will work perfectly as it has for over two hundred years. Second the U.S. government doesn't "rob individuals at gunpoint" because by being part of this nation that is a duty you must pay to keep your country free and able to survive. Now when it comes to the people being chosen for the U.S. political positions yes we do need a new system because it seems that this one is becoming somewhat outdated(the 2000 election issue). Again i go back to morals of the nominates and morals of the people. One to have a want to keep this country alive and two to be a part of it's stability. Your article was a very good read and i urge you to continue writing and will gladly read on.
Thank you everyone who posted their thoughts on this article, and a special thanks to Mr. Bevin Chu for taking the time to re-post this article and for giving feedback to some of these posts.
- Mr. DiFranco
Dear Students of Mr. DiFranco's Social Studies Class,
It has been a privilege to exchange ideas with such a bright group of young people.
I remember clearly what my writing was like back in high school. In all honesty it was not up to your remarkably high level.
It is surely a testament to both your intellect and to Mr. Christopher DiFranco's teaching ability.
I wish you all the best in your academic endeavors. And please come back any time!
Yours in Liberty,
Bevin Chu
Bevin,
All governments (that exist now) are by definition monopolistic; you can't (realistically) pick which one you join, and you can't opt out of joining any one at all.
I get the feeling that you're more of a left-libertarian than anything else, which I think is great.
But it seems necessary to denounce the (coercive) state as a concept more than any particular form of government or particular state. Yes?
Dear 阿牛,
All existing governments ARE monopolistic. That's why none of them are "good." Some are merely worse than others. Based on the amount of taxpayer money embezzled, the DPP government has been worse than the KMT. But as I said, no government is "good."
I don't care about what we have now. I want what's right. I want a system that respects individual rights and individual liberty.
No system today, left or right, does that. All systems today force you to belong to them, at gunpoint.
To see what I advocate for China, including both the mainland and Taiwan regions, see my article:
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/03/market-anarchism-solution-to-dilemma-of.html
These are radical, leading edge concepts. Most conformist mainstream intellectuals can't wrap their minds around them. I'm not surprised that they can't even allow themselves to contemplate them. These concepts are way outside their intellectual comfort zone.
Nevertheless I put them out there, for those who have genuinely open minds.
Bevin
Post a Comment