A. Should any individual or group of individuals be able to control, determine, direct the actions of others?

As long as we allow people to speak for us it will be madness, we the people just rely on the politicians to say what is and what is not and we just grumble humbly to ourselves. We do need a new voice OURS and not in the form of politicians but in the form of letters groups and boot out or weed out the people that we do not want to represent us.A. Should any individual or group of individuals be able to control, determine, direct the actions of others?
I enjoyed viewing the spectrum of responses above.





';And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove:





(1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production.


(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat.


(3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.';





...Karl Marx





In essence, in Marxist Communism, there is one group, the dictatorship of the proletariat that rules on the behalf of the people.





In the US, the three branches of government rules on the behalf of the people.





Thus, in the true Marxist system, as well as the Capitalist systems, one group in society controls, determines and directs the actions of others.





Whether it is a one-party system who rules (i.e. Communist); a single dictator who rules (i.e. Lybia); a royal family who rules (i.e. Saudi Arabia); the military who rules (Martial Law); a sect of a religion who rules (i.e. Iran); or big business who rules the people in their respective countries, there has always been, and always shall be a favored group who controls the people.A. Should any individual or group of individuals be able to control, determine, direct the actions of others?
Yes, we do. The two party system and special interest group's lobbying along with compromise and corruption created by them are ruining this country. But we still do not have a tyranny of the majority because of basic Constitutional protections. I just hope the Supreme Court upholds the true intent of the Constitution in centuries to come and allows all to pursue their happiness equally without repression, etc.


Utopia as proposed by the Greeks and then the French Philosophs, notably Des Cartes, Voltaire and company would be truly anarchist with each individual doing unto others as he would have done unto himself and no one judging anyone because all were enlightened. How do I fond this place? I'm packed!
A rather broad question. The answer would have to be yes. If this didn't happen, at least to some degree, society couldn't function.
I had ulcers. I went to doctor. He told me to stop eating so much before going to sleep. It worked. Thankyou doctor.
yes, absolutely. people are animals and as such they need to be led by the alpha male or group. this is a biological mandate and cannot be overridden...the problem comes from too many alpha males fighting for limited resources and too many subservients...otherwise, you have complete and utter chaos...ever read lord of the flies?...
Wow weird question...I'd have to say no. But there is more to your question that you are leaving out. I can go on about guidance and nurturing but there is a fine line between control and discipline, or preaching and teaching. Thanks for your question.
I think this is being done every day!, or am I mistaken?


Laws are created to control the actions of people.


Courts can determine, control, and direct the actions of others... I dont think we can do without these actions.


Self appointed rulers, do all of the above when taking over a country, through revolution, or appointed by others.


Edit.


I disagree with Bert T. in that you cant have anybody go up


and state their case, or plan, to why they should be elected,.


With what criteria? We would have a thousand fools up there babbling about who knows what. I do agree with some of his other ideas. Who asked me any way?


and participate in a debate, and staye his reasons why he should be elected
it is called Government.
Are you one of those people that think that we are able to create Utopia?
No, not in the way this question implies...





';Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.





This is the means of subordinating ';might'; to ';right.'; This is the American concept of ';a government of laws and not of men.';





The nature of the laws proper to a free society and the source of its government's authority are both to be derived from the nature and purpose of a proper government. The basic principle of both is indicated in The Declaration of Independence: ';to secure these [individual] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...';





Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection. All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.





The source of the government's authority is ';the consent of he governed.'; This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.





There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own.)';





Edit:





Any proposed policy by a prospective president that violated individual rights should automatically disqualify him for the job...
No they shouldnt, and no it is not time to create anothe rpolitical party. That just adds to the foolishness.





You dont scorn society by going off and creating the exact same society again. We need a completely different plan to elect true representatives of the people. Here are some ideas.





There IS no Democratic Party or Republican party. Candidates get exactly the same amount of airtime and printspace to make their cases. No money is spent, no contributions accepted. None are barred from being in a debate. Richer, better connected people would be given no financial advantage in an election. And no more PACs, or political action committees. There are no more ';Special Interest Groups'; in America.





Candidates campaign on THEIR beliefs and opinions, not what a ';poll'; tells them to think. In fact, Opinion Polls are outlawed, the same as Political Partys.





We start treating the candidates as though the election is a beauty contest. If California has 20 candidates for President, CA has debates, etc and their own primary for THEIR candidates only. Whomever is elected there, moves on to the National Election. This could conceivably give us 51 candidates (one from each state), so more whittling has got to happen. A runoff election is held. Whoever doesnt get at least 20% of the nation's votes goes home. anyone who campaigns by declaring what they are AGAINST? Disqualified. Anyone who answers a debate or press question by maligning another candidate? GONE. No more dirty politics, no more ';push polling';, no more disgusting lies in a ';win at any cost'; election bid.





This leaves us with 5 or less candidates after the runoff (pr ';Semi Finals';). A series of debates and position programs, and then a final election. Candidates will be required to relate their campaign promises UNDER OATH, in a court of law. Any who subsequently fail to live up their promises are found in Contempt of Court.





OH YES, last thing: No Congressman, Representative, Supreme Court Judge or Executive Office Holder, no police chief, no one in any public elected office of any kind would be paid an annual salary worth more than that of a US Public Schools' grade school teacher with no tenure. If they campaign, for themselves or others they support, they are off the President Pay Clock. Why do the American keep paying salary to a President who is not doing his Presidential duties? Why is he allowed to use Air Force One to go all over the country to campaign? When was THIS considered acceptable?
No, never ! That's why we killed Saddam ain't it ! To free Citizens of Iraq !???? So what if we kill 1000,000 of them in process?? At the end every body gonna be happy???


What a crock of s*# t ??
yes, this is called democracy. It may not be perfect but it is better than the alternatives.
Ethically, no. Factually, it will happen anyway because people want to be the ones in power.