The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Dystopia]

@Blackout

Rather than go point by point I think the real difference between us (you and me; the U.S.A. and most of Europe) is that we fundamentally distrust placing too much power in the hands of one man or group including the voters. Our Constitution is set up to check unbridled power. It is the ability to accumulate power that leads to dictatorships and totalitarian regimes of any kind including military dictatorships and fascist governments. This is why not only is power divided between the three branches of government but the legislative branch is further divided. In addition elections of House and Senate representatives are staggered so that a sudden change of public opinion can only change them so much at once. These restrictions in power do not restrict personal liberties, but do impede totalitarianism and dictatorship (the problem our founding fathers were really worried about).

With these restrictions in place, free speech no matter how ugly the opinions expressed serves as a check on government, not a threat to democracy.

I see any constitution or system of government that places power in the hands of the few and dangerous regardless of the restrictions in place because with enough power, all restrictions can be overcome.

I do respect it, but I'll stick to the european view. And regarding separation of powers, we have it divided too, usually by parliament, government and president, the only difference with the US is that we have a unicameral parliament. And considering the dimension of the US and the form of government (federation) I believe your solution to be effective. I guess even if a fascist party won the elections, they couldn't go against the federal constitution. The problem here is that a single fascist party winning (not too hard in times of crisis) would lead to abolishing the constitution and implementing a new regime, our territory is too small and far more centralized than the US, freedom of expression is widely spread nationally and it's easy to have access to the mainstream ideas, while in the US I'm betting it's impossible to keep noticing all events from all States and you'll just focus on your own federation. I can agree that maybe allowing promotion trough expression could be an option in the future, once we are sure fascism's popularity is lower, but I'll stick to my view that fascist parties shouldn't be allowed to exist, after all, why let a party in the parliament that is against our constitution? It makes no sense. As for europeans giving more power to the state, indeed we could argue our states are more interventive, have a more social characteristic and interact with citizens more, but almost all european constitutions had in mind the problem of too much power (as you mentioned) being placed in a single person/institution, and so they made an effective complexity and connection between articles that protect fundamental rights to ensure that even if restrictions exist, they must not affect what's considered essential for humans beings. Hence why we can restrict fascism or it's promotion, but our constitutions won't allow the government to affect our fundamental liberties, we have rights in our constitutions that are not able to be changed even with revision (It's prohibited) that protect what's considered essential about human dignity. For instance, our government can and has restricted our right to work strikes by demanding workers to make a schedule 2 months before, to avoid compromising the economy and affecting third parties (but it isn't very strong, job strikes have been very frequent and people are free to do it), but they can't change our article regarding the right to live, the right to physical integrity, the prohibition of torture, democracy, legality, separation of powers, those kind of things can't be compromised.

Your system is actually very well made, your founding fathers were indeed perceptive and smart, but our system is also made in a way that the only restrictions made are for the benefit of the higher good, and the higher good isn't measured subjectively, it's measured according to what the constitutions says objectively and that can't be violated by our governments, the constitutions after WWII were very specifically aimed at restricting the government's power, the Germany case being the most noticeable

Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed the conversation with you guys and it was intellectually stimulating