UserWiki:Oro

[[File:KKKf.png]] Currently Reading [[File:KKKf.png]]
The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

=Beliefs=

[[File:Oroism.png]] Summary of Beliefs [[File:Oroism.png]]
I believe in a federalist, meritocratic republic. I believe that a strong and centeralized federal government is necessary to preserve a union of states, we have seen the failure of Confederalism through the Articles of Confederation and the following rebellions. I do, however, believe that states should be allowed a limited amount of autonomy, to ensure the citizens of these states are adequately represented and their needs are fulfilled. And to prevent the federal government from being ran by incompetent and uncaring individuals, I believe we should instate of meritocracy, much like that of America’s earlier years. This would mean that only land owners would have the ability to vote and run for office. I believe this is necessary to ensure a government of men of integrity, for it is important to me that an individual should be able to prove his capability of developing and preserving his own land, before developing and conserving the land of others. It would also be, I believe, preferable to have an individual in a national office actually own a stake in the country they’re running.

[[File:Fed.png]] Federalism [[File:Fed.png]]
As mentioned before in my summary, I am a staunch federalist. I believe in federalism because I believe it to be a superior form of government than that of condederalism and unitarianism. I believe it to be superior to confederalism because confederalism promoted a weak federal government which would see to it that our union is decentralized to the point where we become an unorganized and frankly incapable amalgamation of states that are fighting with one another over power within the federal government. On top of this, a confederalist response to national issues would be slow and clunky, as opposed to the swiftness exerted by a federalist government. Now, unitarianism is worse than confederalism. This is because unitarianism would have the local and state governments assimilated into a massive super-state, which would be fast to respond to national issues, but slow to respond to local issues, it would also most likely result in a despotic government in which it’s limitations of power would be consistently exceeded. On top of this, it fails to realize that people eventually become more and more patriotic and sympathetic towards their home state as opposed to the national government, we saw this during the American Civil War. This homeland-patriotism would poison a unitarian state, as eventually regions would seek representation, which in a unitarian government would be unlikely. So, in summary: federalism is more efficient than both confederalism and unitarianism. This is because federalism turns the union into a cake, with local, state, and the national government making up the three layers. This allows for a swift response to local, state, AND national issues. It would also create a strong, centralized federal government that would be capable of regulating, organizing, and promoting cooperation and unity among the states of it’s union.

[[File:Merit.png]] Voting Restrictions [[File:Merit.png]]
Also stated in my summary, I believe in a more traditional form of a republic, that being one in which only those whom own land may receive the ability to vote and run for office. I think this is necessary to ensure that the individuals that are voting or running for office are capable of developing and preserving their own land, before being responsible for developing and preserving the land of his citizens and government. I also believe it to be preferable that a voter or candidate owns a stake of the country that they are helping run, be it voting or running for office. Overall this is superior to a genuine democracy and an aristocracy, as it doesn’t quite put power into the hands of the few, but it also doesn’t put power into the hands of the many. Both systems mentioned are incredibly flawed. Democracy is the rule of the, notably indecisive, mob, where 50% can trample the rights of the other 49%. Democracy also makes the false assumption that all are equal and capable of moral reasoning and decisions, which is incorrect. This mistake leads to a system where the men who lie, steal, and murder are allowed a chance at power, and inevitably if they can persuade, which they tend to be good at, the people, then we end up with a man of immorality in charge. As stated before, the aristocratic rule of the few is no better than the rule of the mob. Because aristocracy’s disaffection with the common man allows and leads good and bad men alike to become cruel and uncaring, as well as disconnecting them from the reality of this world. That reality being that even the richest man relies on the poorest farmer to produce his food, just as farmers rely on their state officials to keep the country and it’s economy running smoothly. And essentially, the failure of one leads to the failure of the other, and thus they system would inevitably collapse. So, in summary: voting restrictions are necessary to ensure capable men get in charge, but the system also does not go as far as to restrict the right to vote and run for office to the very select, elite few. It also makes for a less indecisive government, in which the mob radically sways with whatever is popular, sometimes negatively affecting society.

[[File:Consti.png]] Constitutionalism [[File:Consti.png]]
I tend to take a relatively loose interpretation of the United States Constitution, but I do in fact believe that a constitution is necessary to preserve the rights of it's people, that being the people of the nation that it serves. A constitution will not only preserve the rights of it's people, but will also set in stone a firm line over which federal and state governments are unable to cross. This is beneficial as it would prevent the inevitable rise of unitarianism in a federal government without a constitution. A constitution is also important to prevent the destruction of the rights of the minority, which is a probability within a republic. While being able to protect the rights of a minority, a constitutional republic would also be able to protect the rights of the majority, another probability within a republic. So, in summary: a constitution, a strong one or not, would act as a safeguard for a republic, keeping it stable and balanced. It does this through protecting the rights of both the minority and the majority, ensuring that a federal government does not overreach it's power, and forming a coherent supreme law that would benefit all.

Which Political Figure Do I Remind You Of?

 * [[File:MLL.png]] CynicalLibra - [[File:Hamiltonianism.png]] Alexander Hamilton + [[File:TuckerCarlson.png]] Tucker Carlson but more moderate