Distributed Democracy

A preferred form of government to democracy would be to have a type of anarchical/miniarchy in which "government" is replaced by multiple competing agencies, each with their own means of enforcement and own limiting documents (constitution). People can dissolve any one of the agencies as they see fit. None of the agencies should be allowed to alter their charter, that is up to the electorate. All the agencies will constantly seek power over others, but this will be limited by competing agencies. In no case will an agency be allowed to exercise authority beyond its charter. Nor will any agency be allowed to violate fundamental property rights. Enforcement will come from other competing agencies.

For example, right now we have one entrenched hierarchic power structure (government). Whether regulating pollution, crime, maintaining streets, parks, etc. There is a geographic monopoly on who provides the service. But why do the different monopolistic services have to be affiliated within the same power/control structure? Why can't people vote independently for every established entity, i.e., one votes for a park manager, a police chief, a fire chief, a street maintenance chief, an electrical service provider, etc. There is no reason that a single individual should choose all of these groups. They should be independently responsible to the people that they are supposed to serve! A headless organization! Furthermore, each organization would have its own budget or bill for its own services. People would just throw out the CEO/board/or entire corporate structure of a monopoly as necessary. Individuals could also decide on what should be privatized. Business would have to argue for the benefits to the consumer of monopolizing certain markets .

Vox Clara

The family unit is the cornerstone of our society...Yes, we must support families as they exist today, but to pretend that a single mother household is equally desirable to a traditional (husband and wife) household is lunacy.

Suppose that the father is a hardened wife abuser. Is it still preferrable?

Certainly, there are extreme cases where divorce is the best option, but they are in the small minority.

Who should decide what is best?

By supporting the traditional family unit, I am not suggesting that, as a society, we cling to some traditional family model that harkens back to a fantasy of how things used to be, but that we simply recognize a sociological fact: the common good is furthered by a strong family unit headed by a married male and female.

Really? The world's population does not seem to need any encouragement.What is the "common good"? This sounds very communistic.

Marriage is ontologically between a man and a woman, ordered toward the union of the two distinct sexes, always open to procreation, and forming the foundation of the family.

This is pedantic. The meanings of words can change. The whole gay marriage issue arose because conservatives want to give people in heterosexual relationships a tax break. If tax law did not discriminate against unmarried individuals, it is doubtful that anyone would care. Homosexuals would gladly acquire the name "civil union". They just want legal recognition of their fidelity to each other. Surely you can see that caring and fidelity are the more important aspects of "marriage" than sex and should be allowed tax benediction as civil unions. (That is if you believe that government should be promoting certain lifestyles.)

Married men and women ensure the succession of human generations and of human society in that they can create new human life in the act proper to them, the conjugal act. In this act, they literally become "one flesh,” with the husband giving himself to his wife, and she receiving him.

Again, does procreation need any encouragement. The survey says "no".

By so ensuring the survival of society, married men and women provide an indispensable service to the common good. The sex acts of homosexual couples simply cannot do this.

It may easily be argued that married couples hurt the common good in as much as they increase the population and deplete finite resources. Individuals should only be concerned about public policy to the extent that it impacts them. Seeing individuals who care for each other be together is clearly a "good" in my book.

Praise God for G.W. Bush!

Only fools are certain. Scientists and sages only ascribe probabilities to various potential realities based upon theory and evidence.

Obviously some Christians pray to a different god: What Christian sect teaches that God blesses liars (falsely claimed he had hard evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them, encouraged others to exaggerate the threat, was planning to attack far before 09-11), war mongers (100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians as a result of the war resulting from a lie), or big-spending thieves. There seems to be a strong correlation between naivete and biblical literalism, but it is a naivete that is definitely inspired by wishful thinking. These simpletons believe in a loving God (who they cannot define) because they want to believe in a loving, nurturing God, not because they have any statistically-significant evidence for his existence. (How many of these individuals actually even understand statistical significance?) They believe that their government is uniquely good and holy and that it has a duty to conquer and oppress other peoples, so as to enlighten them with their truth. Yes, Al Qaida and the religious right in this country have an enormous amount in common. They simply use different tactics in spreading their absolute truth. Of course, their religious truth is not really about Truth, it is about getting on board with their feel-good message.

Cow political economics.