tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post912205031718389213..comments2023-10-25T15:52:41.646+08:00Comments on The China Desk: Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and BalancesBevin Chuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03212261042382022326noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-64581280502594220152016-12-01T09:06:11.272+08:002016-12-01T09:06:11.272+08:00Dear Bevin Chu,
The article expresses many topics...Dear Bevin Chu, <br />The article expresses many topics of how the Separation of powers is not really "separating power" equally. I agree with what you say, especially when you say "the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society and the judiciary is a rubber stamp." I think that summed up the branches pretty well. It describes the one-man branch, the bicameral branch that makes the laws, and the Judicial branch that interprets the laws. Although I was very confused why the article used a service provider for military, and then for computer software, I though it helped give a in-depth image of government's power and the separation of the powers. At the end of the article though it says that democracy is a form of dictatorship, but I don't think that way. The people are choosing who they want,w ether or not that executive becomes a dictator (very very unlikely), they were still chosen by the people, so its the people's fault for choosing the dictator then.<br />- HLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-41323574923977433772016-11-30T20:41:33.841+08:002016-11-30T20:41:33.841+08:00Dear Bevin Chu,
I completely disagree with your ...Dear Bevin Chu,<br /> I completely disagree with your idea that the three branches of government are really just elected dictators and that the country would be better off without them. I understand where you're coming from when you say that the government is basically just robbing citizens at gun point when taking taxes but it's not that bad. Obviously taxes stink but they're necessary for the survival of a country so I don't think it's right to say that the government is practically robbing its citizens. Also I disagree when you say that the three branches of government don't balance each other out and they're all just dictators. The government is mostly elected by the people and no one in the government can decide whatever they want, almost any decision or proposal has to be approved by another branch which stops stuff that's unconstitutional being levied on the citizens. Also without separation of powers what government would America have? Maybe it's not perfect but our government is better than a monarchy or even no government at all.<br /><br />-BW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-62104995838690932072016-11-30T20:40:23.679+08:002016-11-30T20:40:23.679+08:00Very good I agree 100%!!!!!!!(:Very good I agree 100%!!!!!!!(:anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149974181958224406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-67267461324918265452016-11-30T19:45:59.014+08:002016-11-30T19:45:59.014+08:00After reading this article I am going to have to s...After reading this article I am going to have to say I disagree with a lot of what was said. For example, when comparing the mafia to the government the article says that taxation is like robbing someone at gunpoint I completely disagree with that. Although taxation is a responsibility of a citizen it is nothing like robbing someone at gunpoint. The taxes that are taken by the government are given back to help with public services, like public education, and maintaining roads/public areas. I also don’t understand how it makes sense to compare Microsoft as a monopoly to military, police, and courts. This just doesn’t make sense to me at all since they are just too different to compare to each other. Also I disagree that military, police, and courts could even be considered close to a monopoly because a monopoly is trying to make money where the military etc. is a system that is set in place to protect us. As to the point of the executive branch having all the power, at least for the U.S’s government this is false. You referred to the executive branch as an elected dictator but I think that a common misconception with the government is that the executive branch has the most power. But when really looking at the three branches the most powerful branch is definitely the legislative branch they have to approve of many of the decisions the executive branch makes. The legislative branch has to almost overlook the decisions made in the executive branch. So I have to disagree with the executive branch having the most power when it comes to the government.However even though I disagreed with these ideas it was still good to see a different perspective on the things we have been learning about in school.<br />-E.M<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-79250349477972591332016-11-30T13:33:34.896+08:002016-11-30T13:33:34.896+08:00Mr Chu
Having read the article now it is more clea...Mr Chu<br />Having read the article now it is more clear to me how checks and balances works. The intentions of the process were indeed genuine and pure at first but then over time drifted from what was expected. The separation of powers in each branch was intended to prevent on branch from becoming stronger than the other. While now instead of different branches that keep each other from becoming power hungry, we have three branches that have molded into thinking, acting and moving as one unit. If this is true than where does the real power lie? The government expects teachers to instill one idea into our heads about how amazing our government is, when in reality the government is just trying to get us citizens on their side. If all the branches work as one unit, as one overall head power, is it any different from exactly the monarchy the founding fathers wanted to move away from? Overall very good read that opened my eyes about the government. <br />~F.PAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437334037740949689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-89948214300670164132016-11-30T12:42:26.537+08:002016-11-30T12:42:26.537+08:00Mr.Chu
After reading your article I've come to...Mr.Chu<br />After reading your article I've come to agree with your thoughts as to why the lines separating the branches were merely just for show. It became clear to me what you were proving when you compared citizens to abused wives and said that even though the citizens are beaten they feel deep down the government still loves them (the government being the abusive husbands). This really opened my eyes to the truth and made myself more inclined to believe you. We citizens always think "the government knows best" "it's been going strong for two and a half centuries why hasn't it failed yet?" "There really must be a good reason for this trust the government" when in reality that's just what we want to believe. We hope our government is doing what's right. We think they "love us" like the abusive husbands. Citizens are trained to think like this with the repeated abuse the government gives us like heavy taxes. "The taxes MUST be going somewhere safe" we all hope as 25% of our hard earned money is being taken out and sent to only God knows where. I also would like you add how much I liked that quote by George w. Bush stating that he decides what's best. This truly shows the truth behind the executive branch being the true power behind the government. In class we learned about executive orders that are "necessary orders" like wars. George W. Bush knowing he is the true decider discovered this loop hole and was able to declare war without actually declaring war. Just like his father did years before. Your article woke me and many other people to the bare truth behind our government. It's also very refreshing to hear these new opinions rather than the ones drilled into our heads. Thank you for your time<br /><br />Other JSAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067636979377120901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-39578136218810726772016-11-30T12:21:39.278+08:002016-11-30T12:21:39.278+08:00Dear Mr. Chu
After reading your article, it beca...Dear Mr. Chu<br /><br /><br />After reading your article, it became apparent that I do not think much about the way our government is run. Your opinions on taxation and separation of powers just being an illusion were interesting, even though I don’t fully agree with them. Calling the president an “elective dictator” is a very bold statement, and is weird to hear because i’ve always known that the Legislative and Judicial branch to be fairly equal to the executive. We need a ⅔ vote from the House and the Senate for our president to amend our constitution, and the Judicial branch can claim him “unconstitutional” at any time. Even though you argue that our checks and balances are non existent, without them our government would collapse. We’ve lasted since the 1700’s, so i would claim our system is rather efficient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-36887749460064752382016-11-30T11:59:49.864+08:002016-11-30T11:59:49.864+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
First of all, I know that you may t...Dear Mr. Chu,<br /> First of all, I know that you may think that the separation of powers is illusory but if it was, than how would the US last nearly two and a half centuries with it? Also, you question how can we expect the officials to not think of each other as fellow predators, competing, and that the common people aren’t thought of as their prey? Who said anything about the three branches competing? By balancing each other out, if one branch denies another from passing a law, or anything, they are doing it in the country and the citizens’ best interest. The common citizens are not thought of as prey, more like the children who the officials are given the job to father or mother and take care of. You also led on the idea that the executive branch overpowers the legislative and judicial. Firstly, the executive branch is really only one person, while the legislative has over 100 and the judicial also has many people. Therefore, one person, in this case the president, cannot make a decision without the majority of the people in the legislative and judicial branches along side them. Also, the legislative and judicial branches have the power to maintain their power and not allow the president to overrun them. If the president is creating his/her own autocracy, the other two branches have the ability to put them on trial for an impeachment. In conclusion, I believe that the separation of powers does prevent a dictatorship or corruption and guarantees that the citizens’ rights are in good hands and the people are the main priority. <br />-COAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-48884291617534225702016-11-30T11:27:34.262+08:002016-11-30T11:27:34.262+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
In my few years of learning about ...Dear Mr. Chu, <br /> In my few years of learning about our government in school, we were always taught the basics of what they do but never have been asked what we think about it. I have never thought of our government negatively, but after reading your article it got me thinking about the subject. Though i do not agree with all your points, I can understand where you are getting your ideas. It is difficult to understand why our checks and balance system focus on vetoing each other rather than staying on task and working together to solve their problems. Comparing the government to a mafia is a little drastic. Our government taxes us to benefit the people in the long run. Saying that “every official of a monopolistic state lives off the same tax revenues extorted at gunpoint from hapless taxpayers unfortunate enough to live within the government's reach” is going too far because it can benefit us and always comes back to us in some way, shape or form. You however explained it as a system where the government swallows our money and never gives it back. Thank you for making me think about the systems i live under today, but i still believe our government has helped plenty along the way and without it we would not be where we are today.<br /> -ND<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-57858555554576858562016-11-30T11:26:03.440+08:002016-11-30T11:26:03.440+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
After reading your article "The...Dear Mr. Chu,<br />After reading your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances", it has become evident to me that at school students learn the basic definition of Check and Balances, but lack an understanding of how it works in government today. At school we learn that each branch of government has equal power, and help ensure that one branch does not abuse their power. After reading this article my viewpoint has changed drastically. I have been shown numerous charts showing how each branch “checks” each other, but it does not explain how it all really works. You said “The reason why "separating the powers" doesn't result in separate and independent bodies checking and balancing each other, is that the separation is not real. The separation is illusory. The separation is nothing more than wishful thinking.” and furthermore “Can we really expect officials who are part of such a criminal enterprise not to perceive each other as fellow predators, and us, the taxpayers, as their common prey?”. Although the government branch’s have intertwined powers, they are still all one large body. They would like us to believe that they really are separate groups, but in the end they are all on the same side and want the same things. By being one large body, it can mask their decisions and not check properly and therefore do not protect the citizens as promised. After reading your article I agree that some things have to change if we truly want it to be a Check and Balance system, but our government has lasted this long so we are obviously doing something right. <br />Thank you for opening my eyes, <br />HZ<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10662590325903419046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-79554902244184463892016-11-30T11:02:25.238+08:002016-11-30T11:02:25.238+08:00Dear Mr. Chu
After reading your article, my percep...Dear Mr. Chu<br />After reading your article, my perception of how our government runs has changed immensely. Throughout my whole life, it's been put into my head that our the way our government was set up was equal and the most efficient way. After reading this, my opinion has changed. One point in which I agree with you is, "The reason why "separating the powers" doesn't result in separate and independent bodies checking and balancing each other, is that the separation is not real. The separation is illusory. The separation is nothing more than wishful thinking." It makes a lot of sense that the separation of powers is all an illusion. The unfair taxes imposed on citizens help the government gain revenue, so why wouldn't they work together to set unfair taxes on us? I agree with you in that the government is all one body of government. They are all working together to rob individuals, just like you said: "As an old joke has it, "The only difference between the Mafia and the government is a flag." The joke is funny because it is true." Thank you for changing my outlook on our government and making me more aware of the type of country I live in today. <br />-LKanonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149974181958224406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-90616766861125627312016-11-30T11:01:13.363+08:002016-11-30T11:01:13.363+08:00Prior to this assignment I had learned of the gove...Prior to this assignment I had learned of the government's checks and balances system throughout the years of middle and high school, but however this article peaked an interest because it is the first source that has shown me the flaws of the system. I had never considered the thought that the separation of power could actually limit the government in a negative way but after consideration it becomes apparent that one branch can prevent a change that could benefit the people and the country. I also have never considered the separation to actually be an illusion which is an interesting concept because in the end there is still only one government. One concept that I have contemplated is the true equality of the three branches and it is apparent they will never truly be equal. For the government to work one branch will always have the most power and there are arguments that is either executive or legislative. You described the judicial branch to just be a "rubber stamp" which I can certainly agree with. The quote you used from George W Bush got my attention as he said "I'm the decider and I decide what's best." which is an incredibly egotistical statement and shows how flawed the government can be. After reading this article I can confidently state that the government is flawed in many aspects especially with the checks and balances system which should be used as it was intended to be. <br />-B.OAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-23227312295490994902016-11-30T10:44:29.686+08:002016-11-30T10:44:29.686+08:00MC MC Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-90972179074585809772016-11-30T10:43:39.928+08:002016-11-30T10:43:39.928+08:00Dear Mr.Chu,
After reading your article "The ...Dear Mr.Chu,<br />After reading your article "The Myths of Checks and Balances", the piece of writing made me see a different view to separation of powers. I now too agree with many of your points however not to the full extent of the article. I do agree that political systems do not function as well in the real world as we are taught in school. There is only the basics of the topic taught in school and we usually don't go into depth of this idea. The idea of separation of powers could be a myth in some ways because in reality these branches do work together and are intertwined to make out government work. Each of the branch's job cannot be done without the other. However that is the role of checks and balances and that is the whole idea so that one branch does not gain power over the other. I also agree with your idea that taxation is acts of armed robbery to an extent. Many taxes are unreasonable and questionable. However these taxes are towards good use to fix roads, pay for military and our education. Even if these taxes are used for the community/country why is it that they have to take money from us? It does seem like the government is robbing us. In the article, something also made me think. If the government was compared to a family why would that family split up to check and balance each other. Wouldn't that family stick together to have more power? I hadn't ever thought about government in that way and it really made me question it. You had also stated that the executive branch is the dictator, the legislative branch is the debating society, and the judicial branch is the rubber stamp. Here is where I disagree. All the branches have their separate jobs and again cannot get those jobs done without each other. I do believe that checks and balances exist and is working in our government today as well as all the hundreds of years before. The executive cannot make a law but can propose one to which legislature will pass it if they want to. The executive branch is not a dictator is any way because they do not have full power. There is a reason to why there are separation of powers: to make sure one does not become a dictator. Overall I do believe that separation is a myth in certain view points however checks and balances are crucial the US government today. In reading this article I was able to see from another's view point of this topic and it was very interesting to read!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-43891481754393737972016-11-30T10:37:56.392+08:002016-11-30T10:37:56.392+08:00Mr. Chu, reading your article I was able to see yo...Mr. Chu, reading your article I was able to see your points in the flaws of government but I do not follow them to your extent. I especially like your comment that in junior high and high school we are only taught to believe the government is perfect. I like this because being a high school student now, I have realized although it was never forced on me to love our government it was just an automatic thought. Reading further into the article it’s interesting that you believe separation of powers is “wishful thinking.” I feel that if the government has worked this long already, even including its flaws, I do believe separation of powers is carried out. Also, you pointed out in a The Godfather quote, “Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed. Michael Corleone: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?” I strongly believe that the government does not have people killed without a very good reason. This is one of the points I believed you took too far. I understand over the years the branches of government have taken it upon themselves to get more power but nothing is out of reason or else the other branches would have definitely shut it down and not allow the power. The article was very interesting, I enjoyed reading an anarchist’s point of view on our government today but I do not feel the same way. <br />-ETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-13282096379752755652016-11-30T09:50:25.460+08:002016-11-30T09:50:25.460+08:00Throughout all of middle school and high school we...Throughout all of middle school and high school we have been taught to believe that our government is so great because it has separation of powers and checks and balances. Reading this article is the first time I have ever encountered negativity towards our government and I find it very intriguing. I agree that a democracy can be a dictatorship. If there were only the executive branch of government, then the president would essentially be an elected dictator. I think that a government and a mafia have many similarities but they are not the same in my opinion. A crime family takes money from people and so does the government, but the uses of this money are very different. The government uses the taxes to provide necessary services for the people while a mafia does not. I don't believe in an anarchy because I think a country would be chaotic with no government, but I see your point about how all governments are monopolistic. Although I do not see eye to eye on certain things, I think that your article was very eye-opening.<br />-SB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-33809537357197702202016-11-30T09:37:03.792+08:002016-11-30T09:37:03.792+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
After reading your article, it was ...Dear Mr. Chu, <br />After reading your article, it was clear to me that government might have some flaws but definitely not to your extents. The point that, “‘separating the powers’ doesn't really separate the powers, and doesn't really result in ‘separate and independent bodies checking and balancing each other’” was extremely eye opening to me. In school, students are taught the roles and responsibilities but not necessarily shown the flaws of the system. The branches of government were first introduced to the United States in the writing of the Constitution. The delegates split the government into three equal branches known as the executive, legislative, and judicial in hopes that it would last forever. According to the article, this system might be controversial. However, this system has been proven to work and sustain the government as a whole for many years. Also, I don’t exactly agree with your point that democracy is a form of dictatorship and that the executive branch acts as a dictator. A democracy is the furthest from a dictatorship being that citizens are free to express and enjoy their fundamental rights. Another point stated was that “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”. The idea of taxation being a crime is somewhat irrelevant. Taxation is necessary to support the commonwealth and without it, the United States would not be supported with social services such as health, education, and national defense. Disagreeing with your article, the idea of separation of powers, checks and balances, and taxation are extremely important to the operations of the United States government. <br />EF<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-17432505007593508502016-11-30T08:49:40.133+08:002016-11-30T08:49:40.133+08:00Dear Bevin Chu,
By reading your article, "The...Dear Bevin Chu,<br />By reading your article, "The Myths of Checks and Balances" It has allowed me to attain a greater understanding on the different perspectives towards Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances. In the section The Separation is Illusory, The Power is Real, you mentioned that you believe taxes are an unfair form of collecting money from the citizens of the United States. You say "The government perpetuates its existence by robbing individuals at gunpoint. It refers to these acts of robbery as taxation" I completely agree with your statement. Why does the government tax? To help towns and cities pave roads or to pay police and firefighters? While all these reason to tax are fair the way the government is doing so is not. They give us money for our jobs and end up taking a majority back. It makes me think out of all the tax money the government is continually collecting where does it all go? It can't possibly all go to helping cities and towns. Therefore I can see where you are coming from when you say that by taxing us the government is "robbing" us of our money. However while I do agree towards some of your statements I don't agree towards others. You say that "The president is an elective dictator, The legislative is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp" I believe that the way you have described each branch is an incorrect characterization of each. First off, the executive branch does consist of a major power but due to the many Checks and Balances the executive branch can't do anything extremely radical without the input and agreement from the other branches. Therefore it is hard to say that the Executive branch is a "dictatorship" If the foremost person has no complete power to themselves. Moreover the Legislative branch isn't just a "debating society" and the Judicial branch is not simply a "rubber stamp". Both branches have equally important roles in our government as well. While I'm not attempting to defend our branches of government, I still believe that your description towards each's importance is an inaccurate way of viewing each system. Your Microsoft example did greatly help me when reading. I understand how if Microsoft were the only form of computer software why would they attempt to produce anything with good quality or great prices. Microsoft would no longer have a reason to be great because they have no competitors. They also wouldn't have to force us to buy their product because of the lack of other competing businesses. This example helps me see that since the government is our only form they have no competition and no threat. Unlike Microsoft the government “Can physically coerce us into subscribing to its products and services-- or else” In conclusion I can respect and agree with many of your points and fully understand people's different views towards the way our government is run.<br /><br />-A.H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-74462692344883261632016-11-30T08:49:11.242+08:002016-11-30T08:49:11.242+08:00Dear Students of Mr. Christopher DiFranco's So...Dear Students of Mr. Christopher DiFranco's Social Studies Class, <br /><br />Thank you all so much for doing the honor of reading my article. <br /><br />Much appreciated! <br /><br />I will reply in more detail a little later on, after I have had a chance to read and take in what you all wrote. <br /><br />In the meantime, I am glad that we have all been able to think about these important issues that affect our rights and liberties as individual human beings. Bevin Chuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03212261042382022326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-61460575741251383812016-11-30T08:24:17.356+08:002016-11-30T08:24:17.356+08:00Dear Bevin Chu,
After reading your article I gathe...Dear Bevin Chu,<br />After reading your article I gathered a new opinion on Checks and Balances. Although I do believe that Checks and Balances are somewhat efficient and have worked well throughout hundreds of years, you did enlighten me on some of the problems that comes with the system. I think you are partially right in saying that "'separate and independent bodies' remain inseparable parts of the same government,". The branches of government do have few similar powers to ensure that the best result will come if there is conflict on something and the branches disagree. And although a branch of govenrment has the power to pass something even though the other branches shut it down or don't agree, it doesn't always ensure exactly what the people want unless it's put in context. Each of the branches do have different roles and powers like vetoing and have certain powers over a certain branch (or branches) if the branch does believe of comparing democracy as a dictatorship. I don't see any resemblance at all because a dictator controls everything in the country because he/she has absolute rule. In a democracy the power is spread evenly throughout all the people who vote because everyone has their own opinions and can express that through voting. Also there isn't a single figure or person in charge of the country in a democracy because the people have the power, not one person. I do agree with your opinion on the government striving on taxes because without taxes there would be no public services at all and some things wouldn'tbe achievable without any money coming from taxes. I didn't disagree entirely with all of your opinions but I did think it was interesting on how you perceived the government and the way Checks and Balances work in your point of view.<br />-TFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-23065524468045424202016-11-30T08:15:54.244+08:002016-11-30T08:15:54.244+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
After reading your article "The...Dear Mr. Chu,<br />After reading your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances", I can agree with some, but not all of your ideas on the topic. Before reading the article, I always thought that each branch of government had a pretty equal amount of power. Now that I have read your article, my thoughts have changed very much. Throughout our lives, many people have seen diagrams of checks and balances that aren’t completely correct. Your article says that, ”Separating the powers" doesn't actually separate the powers, and doesn't have the three individual bodies checking and balancing each other. The article says that separation is not real. I do believe that the government has three separate branches that are able to check and balance what each other does. The three separated branches are all parts of the same government. The reality of separation of powers is that, "the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp." The article also states that "real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature." You say that the executive branch executes everything that needs to be done by the government. I do think that the executive branch has a lot of power, but I think that the other two branches also have a good amount of power. Baron de Montesquieu was on the spot with his idea that there can be no liberty when the legislative and executive branches are united as one. There can also be no liberty if the judicial branch is not separated from the legislative and executive. Each branch should be on its own, but be able to have the system of checks and balances. Your article greatly opened my eyes because, it gave me another point of view about how our system of checks and balances works. Although I do believe that the branches can check and balance each other, I now think that their power isn't as equal as I thought it was. I found that your article was very informative, and I learned a lot from it. Checks and balances definitely is a myth that a lot of people interpret differently. I view the system in a different way than before, and think that the government may be more unstable than I thought was. The article was very interesting, and gave me a different point of view on the topic.<br />~S.LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-47228147546384649122016-11-30T06:33:37.175+08:002016-11-30T06:33:37.175+08:00Dear Bevin Chu,
Prior to reading your article, The...Dear Bevin Chu,<br />Prior to reading your article, The Myth of Checks and Balances, I understood how Separation of Power and Checks and Balances could be beneficial, but didn’t even consider that the government may want to work as one big unit, all trying to perform the same function, instead of intending to override one another's decisions. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all working towards collecting our taxes to pay for what they need to make a living (also to help make our communities better places). The government also has the ability to raise our taxes for more money as needed, if they feel that what they were receiving was inadequate. As the citizens, their is nothing we can do about these decisions, but oblige. I think you perfectly summed it up when you said: “As long as a nation is ruled by a conventional monopolistic state rather than served by Private Defense Agencies, any ostensibly "separate and independent branches" of government will always perceive themselves as inseparable parts of the same government, the one government, the only government.” I did agree with a good majority of what you stated in your article, but was a little surprised when you went as far as saying that a democracy was an example of a dictatorship. I believe that the system of Separation of Power and Checks and Balances does have some flaws. I also believe that the government may be working as one big unit with its only intentions is to collect our tax dollars. However, a dictatorship is always defined as a leader or group of leaders having ABSOLUTE authority. In many aspects I believe that the citizens whose tax money is collected has the ability to make some decisions, through voting, on who is running our country. The government as a whole couldn’t have the right to Separate power without the people voting for the people that are there to collect our tax dollars.<br />Overall, I thought it was a very well made article.<br />-PSAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12966678962911962931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-35133432045672514232016-11-30T06:14:47.723+08:002016-11-30T06:14:47.723+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
After reading your article "Th...Dear Mr. Chu,<br /> After reading your article "The Myth of Checks and Balances" I can see that government is not always what it has always portrayed itself to be but I still believe that government is instituted to serve the people. I really enjoyed your analogy comparing Microsoft to the United States government. If Microsoft as you stated were to have a monopoly and would separate their powers into three sections of the company, the separation of powers would not result in any better of a product. It may actually result in a worse product because there is no competing business to make Microsoft improve their products. "With so called democratic governments, which have been empowered by self-styled "champions of freedom and human rights" to physically coerce us into subscribing to its products and services--or else." According to this quote/ your article, government is like a monopoly, rather then by Private Defense Agencies, the separate and independent branches will always see themselves as the same government or the only government. I agree that we do only have one government and sometimes things can go awry but introducing many Private Defense Agencies would cause so many problems. Imagine two sets of governments controlling the United States; there would be so much conflict. You have also pointed out that government is like a criminal enterprise that it is almost like putting a gun up to someone’s head and asking them for money (taxation). Without taxation our government would not have a stable economy. When America used to rule under the Articles of Confederation, where the states did not have to be taxed by federal government everything went awry and we could see that form of government did not work. After reading your article I can see how sometimes government can be unstable at times but it is there to serve us. Great article I loved all your points!<br />-C.M<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-16097414133884287922016-11-30T05:21:08.218+08:002016-11-30T05:21:08.218+08:00Mr. Chu,
I have always been skeptical of check...Mr. Chu, <br /> I have always been skeptical of checks and balances. After reading this article, I found myself in complete agreement with your claims. I strongly agree with your statement: "Unfortunately the division of the functions of government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches does not prevent arbitrary excesses by government." While the government is split into branches to keep things fair, it does not ensure that there won't be arbitrary rulings or actions. Even though the branches are intended to have equal power, the executive branch seems to have the most power and influence in today's government. Though Congress can veto the president, the president can deem something as an "executive order". The president has the power to usurp the power of the other branches and that was not the desired effect of checks and balances. <br /> I also agree with your understanding of taxation, it is robbery. People work hard to support their families and their lifestyles, not their government. Taxes are a necessary evil yet government workers make more money than anyone else. As stated in your article, taxpayers are prey. Though the branches are supposedly divided, together they are the money hungry predators. These predators live off of the same tax revenue, as you mentioned in the article. Why would they check each other's powers when they are unified in their greed? Thank you for opening my eyes to the way checks and balances is portrayed versus what it really is: an illusion. <br /><br />-C.K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25209260.post-78898919975241500852016-11-30T05:20:06.906+08:002016-11-30T05:20:06.906+08:00Dear Mr. Chu,
I completely understand where you ...Dear Mr. Chu,<br /><br /><br />I completely understand where you are coming from. The way you explain it makes sense however, I feel like I would need to do more research to completely agree. The idea that we are forced into paying taxes without necessarily wanting the services of the government is something that I can understand. It also makes sense that the officials join together to attack the common prey, taxpayers. This causes the government to act more as one than three separate units which balance each other. Your example of Microsoft really explained your thoughts and was a great way for me to understand how checks and balances really are not effective. I like that you are showing us we should question what is enforced by our teachers and media such as Google.<br /><br /><br />What I do disagree with however, is the relationship you suggested between the Mafia and the government. The government does provide us with services such as roads, as well as paying government officials. Even if you do not like the idea of government officials, the money is still going into use for the citizens.<br /><br /><br />I understand your thoughts, however, I do feel that there needs to be some control. We have learned in class that a limited federal government can impact things such as the economy, so I can not see people without any government being more successful.<br /><br /><br />G.B<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com