civics
lord acton, a british historian, was famous for saying, "all power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely." he believed that any individual or group having too much power was a bad thing.

with which statement regarding systems of government would lord acton most likely agree?

a. a unitary system of government would be best because most power is at the federal level.
b. an autocracy would be best because it allows one person to make all of the decisions.
c. a federation would be best because it balances power between the state and federal governments.
d. an oligarchy would be best because power is shared by a small group of people.

my answer is: c
yes, c.
democracy is more effective than its other alternatives:1. promotes equality: one of democracy’s underlying principles is equality among citizens. it tries to stop discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, region or sex.2. enhances dignity of the individual: democracy does not allow the dignity or the basic rights of a person to be violated.3. improves the quality of decision-making: since decision-making power is not concentrated in one hand, democracy ensures an unbiased system of checks and balances.explanation: democracy largely derives its power from the citizen itself. unlike other forms of government, it prioritizes the welfare of citizens through the citizens themselves. allow private companies to compete with all govenrment services. its that simple.

when a govenrment monopoly is in place, there is no reason or mechanism for the corruption to go away.

in a free market, corruption leads to losses, so it provides incentive for the business to fire and prosecute those who are corrupt.

take the government monopoly on police protection for example. what happens to police who do not respond to a robbery? what happens to reports of police beatings and theft? often nothing. there is no incentive for anything to be done. on the other hand, in a free market, every instance would be investigated and reparations paid for mistakes, else competition will have a chance of providing the service instead.

also consider this. government programs benefit from losses. it allows them to request budget increases, or power increases. inefficiency is rewarded in government, the opposite of what is rewarded in a free market. saying that, corruption assists government as it helps to drive up costs of operation.

*corruption in society is a problem? society, or the people do not have the power to imprison you, or tax you. you are not forced to fund private citizens who are 'corrupt'. in order to have the election process more democratic there are few pre-requisites like:a. one vote, one value: to choose/elect the representative everyone must have one note with equal value. this is to avoid any type of conflicting situation.b. regular election: there should be regular elections in every democratic country so that people have their choice at regular intervals.c. free and fair election: in order to ensure a fair chance to the people there should be a free and fair election in every democratic country.d. political competition: in order to have democratic election parties, candidates should be free to contest elections and should offer some real choice to the voters. the “rule of law” states that everyone, regardless of any discrimination, is equal before the law. in an independent and democratic india, all citizens from a rickshaw puller to the prime minister are to be judged equally before the law if they violate it by committing a crime. every violation of a law or commitment of a criminal offense has a specific process to establish guilt and cite its punishment. the “rule of law” ensures that equality is maintained by passing the same judgment on a criminal regardless of his/her status or background.
violations of the “rule of law” are, sadly enough, aplenty in india. in our country, if one has power or “contacts” with influential people, then it is easy to get away with even gross violations of laws and rules. for example, most politicians today own property and wealth worth crores but they do not even file tax returns on the same. the assets they declare are probably not even half of what they originally own. however, an ordinary income tax official cannot dare to question them for fear of losing his job, because the former have “power” that this official does not possess. absolutely not. the proposal to abolish the electoral college is the horrid, but depressingly predictable, symptom of a populist age.populism is not a schematic philosophy but is rather an attitude toward culture and politics characterized by the veritable worship of "the common man," a distrust of elites, a wariness toward complexity and - significantly - a deep dislike of established institutions. (called these days, "the establishment" or "the swamp.") in this, then, the movement to abolish the electoral college is part of a larger current running through the society.indeed, at the same time that there have been calls to abolish the electoral college, there have also been calls to abolish the u. s. senate, or abolish the filibuster, to pack the supreme court (or limit the terms of justices or make other changes), to raise the voting age to 16 and in some cases to allow illegal immigrants to vote. what all of these have in common is that they take a torch to established institutions, particularly those institutions that put a break on the pure expression of the popular will.indeed, this is not just a phenomenon on the democratic side of the aisle at the moment. the republicans have been vocal in their attacks on the "media" - as if that were a single entity - and on silicon valley - which in the popular mode of the hour has discriminated and oppressed conservatives, it is alleged.most of all, republican who are feigning outrage over senator warren's call to abolish the electoral college are forgetting that one donald j. trump has advocated its abolition as well - at least until it helped him win. mr. trump - like all good populists - is no slave to consistency, after all.at any rate, abolition of the electoral college would be a horrid idea. it would effectively disenfranchise huge swaths of the country as both parties would camp out in california, new york, texas, florida and maybe ohio, leaving the rest of the country to itself. this would also very likely set the stage for the rise of regional parties, with all that would entail for the balkanization of the nation's politics.moreover, if the nation enjoyed the spectacle of the 2000 election, it should be prepared. in that year, the fight was over florida's electoral votes which confined the battle - as a legal and political matter - to the vote in one or two counties in that state. turn the battle into a nationwide popular vote and instantly the fight would move to the count in every close vote in every closely fought district across the country.there is irony in this. 2000 was effectively resolved by a ruling in the supreme court - that bastion of elitist judges and lawyers. abolish the electoral college and close votes across the country will invariably end up in the courts as a routine matter.the electoral college has served the nation well for over 200 years and such long established institutions deserve deference. their endurance certainly suggesting that they have worked as well as anything works in an imperfect world.wise societies realize that. which certainly suggests something about the state of american society. they're about the only state that could actually pull it off (oil revenue). the decleration of independence says govt exists on those powers granted by the people & with their removable consent. it specifically says that consent should be excercised in votes or by force if that is not good enough. the civil war was about many things, but one of the greatly bad results was that federalism was imposed on unsubmitting people by force. only southern states (minus tennessee) were required to rewrite their state constitutions to preculde future secession, all other states are free to do so, and southern states can change their consititutions now if they wish. the us constitution doesn't comment on the legality of leaving the union, and the decleration seems to indicate it must be a central check/balance against oppressive central govt. so, yes i think alaska should be able to leave if the voters see fit, but no i don't think any such thing will happen, and no it is not a significant movement, just a few whackos just like we have in texas & a few other states. if i may be permitted. i have worked in politics for over 30 years, including time as a legislative director and/or press secretary for four members of the house and - via the u. s. commission on security and cooperation in europe - two senators. my credentials and my sins thereby confessed i offer the following - 1) senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. though not an ideas guy, he is a shrewd and effective parliamentary operator who knows the senate rules perhaps as well or better than any senate majority leader in recent memory. temperate and highly effective, he is a superb coalition builder with an exquisite sense of timing. 2) senator john neely kennedy. also not necessarily an ideas guy, though solidly grounded in his principles, kennedy has a rapier wit that he is not afraid to deploy against both sides. an acid tongue, he calls 'em as he sees 'em, and yet somehow manages to maintain - maybe it is the southern accent - an air of civility and reasonableness. 3) senator ben sasse. a former college president, sasse is one of the most intellectual and thoughtful senators. a man who takes ideas seriously and who understands the consequences of ideas. he is the soft-spoken - and frankly much underestimated - intellectual giant of the senate. 4) senator joe manchin. from west virginia, manchin is a temperate thinker and coalition builder. not given to inflammatory language, he seeks balance and compromise. 5) senator dianne feinstein - although lately i must admit her conduct has disappointed, generally feinstein sticks to her principles - which i, more often than not, do not share - but does so in modulated tones and thoughftully. no fire breather, she makes her case soberly and intellectually. (though to add, of late, some of her actions - particularly in recent kavanaugh supreme court confirmation - have not been at her historically high standard.) 6) former representative trey gowdy - actually, not an active politician any longer and is now a fox commentator, gowdy is a former criminal prosecutor and house member. he knows the law better then most know there own name and brings to his thinking a piercing intellect and consistency of principle like few others. he is sorely missed by me in the house. suffice to say, i could go on, but those figures stand out as my, "if you wake me in the middle of the night and ask me out of the blue, these pop to mind" answers. however, my experience in politics is that, contrary to also the populist contempt, most of those who go into politics are intelligent and civic minded, hard working and eager to make the country better and the people they serve happier. like any large group of human beings, they have their foibles, none are perfect and some are downright awful. however, overall, the american public gets better than it appreciates. the quickie answer is that, if the two armies are equal in resources, abilities and training, then the one with the largest number will win.

however, that's for a single battle. 

in real life, it's a matter of which force can bring to bear the greater force (position, resources, power) at specific points. then, in that local area, the greater force will always win. this is why the spartans at thermopylae could hold back an army of tens of thousands with only 300 men -- the persians could not bring their superior force (more men and other resources) to bear on what should have been a skirmish. yes, the persians eventually won, but at the price of being able to beat the athenian forces later, and even then, it was a matter of someone betraying the spartans.

in wwii, the germans should have won the battle of britain, which would have kept the russians and americans out of the war. but britain could use its resources better in the actual field (i know --it was mostly an aerial battle) and hence beat the germans back, preventing the superior forces from invading the islands and getting control of enough resources to conquer at least half the world.

in the american civil war, the confederacy should have won, because they had the better army and resources, but eventually, the union could bring more into play than they could, and turned the tide.

also look at israel's "six day war" -- out numbered and our resourced, they beat the arab coalition easily -- same basic principles...

so, not so much luck as being better able to use the resources available.

btw, read sun tzu's art of war -- being able to use your resources better than your opponent can mean that a smaller force beats the larger one in the case of a crisis, like our economy, the president can declare martial law.anyone (not just minority) who dont cooperate ect. with the new world order agenda, or that cant contribute to the government will be gathered by federal agents and taken to concentration camps.god forbid we cant pay our taxes! at least thats the way i understand it. the executive branch of our government is not chief legislator. laws are legislated by congress. the president's duty is to see to it that the laws are carried out. as commander in chief, the president acts as the non-military person in charge of all military operations and is the civilian head. our forefathers wanted a civilian to head the services because they feared that a military headed by a military person would wield too much power and would threaten the stability of the country if they ever tried to thwart the will of congress and the president.

chow!!