There are different systems of government in place around the world.

We believe that discussion of their relative merits is constructive and educational.

It is very important, however, to understand that any discussion of the relative merits of systems of government would be incomplete without corollary discussion of the underlying values and principles that they espouse, and the evolving commitment to those values and principles as that commitment shifts in the mindset of the governed.

(It remains our view, that the American system of government, however crippled it might now be, due to corruption, is still the best hope and best alternative there is, if we continue to struggle to fix what is broken.)

A system of government that originally valued liberty and justice for all, as one of its core principles, actually requires a collective commitment from its citizens to be willing to sacrifice, when necessary, the convenience of social comfort derived from the avoidance of controversy, when it becomes necessary to oppose injustice.

Einstein has been credited with the saying, "The world won't be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything about it."

Imagine a nation of people, originally organized around their commitment to liberty and justice, as evidenced by their willingness to shed blood in its defense, that gradually devolves into a nation whose wealthiest beneficiaries buy up controlling business and media interests and use those interests to promote the cultural notion that it is impolite to confront injustice or to have and dare to express an opinion that is out of line with the agenda of an elite class who fancy themselves entitled to lord over the rest, and those who step or speak out of line should be avoided, ostracized, and economically ruined (cancel culture).

Now let us imagine that the same controlling wealth interests incrementally acquire dominating controlling interests in every significant industry and use those interests to insure that legitimate critics are marginalized and silenced and subjected to quiet economic discrimination.

In such a world, political apathy (the unwillingness to speak out about injustice) not only follows from increasing elements of social cowardice, but is now additionally complicated by legitimate concerns over financial ruin for speaking out about injustice. The citizens of such communities find themselves increasingly struggling with the agonizing choice between feeding their families, or clinging to the self respect of standing up for meaningful principles when it is no longer fashionable to do so.

Absent outspoken social pressure in favor of liberty and justice, politician's motivation to address injustices and encroachments on liberties wanes. Their personal economic interests are assured by re-election, not by risking their alliances with the amoral corporate interests who fund their campaigns.

Can it be argued that the original system of government envisioned by our forefathers was inherently flawed? Or, would the truth of such a scenario actually be that the American people abandoned their original values and are found unwilling to accept responsibility for their end of the social contract that their system of government depended upon, which is that they delegate their authority responsibly and hold their public officials to strict accountability for meaningful standards of fairness, liberty, and justice for all?

continue

---