[quote=@HeySeuss]Speaking as a Jew, which is to say as part of a minority, a culture that definitely prizes discourse (argument) and as a person with ancestors pushed around because of their faith, I'm rather fine with the idea of a country that has to argue before it arrives at a decision, where no decision is necessarily final. (Alexis de Tocqueville even commented on this phenomenon -- [i][sub]'This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into the political world, influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy; and I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes to be done.'[/sub][/i][url=http://www.history1700s.com/index.php/articles/21-politics/762-activities-which-pervades-all-branches.html]*[/url]) 

Why do I like that? Because I don't have any faith whatsoever in the infallible judgment of one person to make the right call, especially given the aforementioned diversity. While untidy and often unsatisfying, I much prefer the rule of law that gives people a recourse, as well as a society that allows people to argue, and I can live with the fallible elements of the system. 

So the trains don't run on time, boo-hoo, but at least those trains aren't carting people off to showers in Poland. It takes time to get anything done and it never gets done completely, but attempts to expedite the process by throwing more power at one guy seem to have backfired thus far. Standoffs between branches of the government, long-running legal disputes, filibustering in legislatures? All part of the package deal, I suppose.[/quote]
This homie knows what's up

[quote=@The Patriarch]I think you have confused authoritarian with a dictatorship. My ideal government would be run by several people of varying ethnicity but all have to be moderate and philosophical minded. So it's not one person running the country it's several. As for crime, in a philosophical controlled government the leaders would try to find solutions to crimes and why criminals create them.[/quote]
Right but what IS "moderate and philosophical minded?" That's such a vague and subjective standard to choose a council that runs everything-- you could have a group of hedonists who bankrupt the country and bathe in golden ambrosia and just as easily a group of moderate nihilists who either do literally nothing or just decide that the continuing of life is useless and try to kill everyone. 

[quote=@The Patriarch]My view on the war on drugs is that we need to hit the real distributors and we also need to fix Mexico. If we spent more time focusing on Mexico's problems than with our wars in the middle east then we would be able to solve the emigration problems in our country.[/quote]
The government doesn't want to 'hit the real distributors,' starting in the 80's, the government profits off the sale of drugs, be it through direct profit made from confiscated drugs and money, and all the free labor earned from imprisoning the offenders.

[quote=@The Patriarch]In my government people have rights which include freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, but ruling the country is not one of them, they would still be allowed to make petitions and bring issues to the leaders. Also I think it would be good for the leaders to meet regularly and discuss policies and solutions to problems.[/quote]
We won't agree on this, I think.

I think I, as a person, have a right to decide how I should live, directly, not through suggestions made to a group of supreme leaders.

[quote=@The Patriarch]If the government goes bad then people have their guns to fight back.[/quote]
Damn str8, m8.

[quote=@The Patriarch]I forgot to say this, but I don't believe duel citizenship and find it unfair that people with it are at more of an advantage than people with only one form of citizenship[/quote]
We agree on this, but for different reasons-- I don't think citizenship should even be a thing.