Did our founding fathers intend for this country to be a Representative Republic?...

[Iamme]

...as opposed to a true democracy? If so...who SAID they could do that?! Doesn't everyone want a democracy? Who of us does not want to be able to have referendums on anything that requires a true voice of the people, such as... taxation...or...take the smoking ban issue: *I* don't want a handfull of city council members telling bars basically 'too bad, that you are going to go out of business because we just passed the law 7-4 that bars are no longer exempt from the smoking ban.'

Let the people decide! Let the marketplace decide!

Why don't we all get together and demand the Constitution be changed to a democracy?!And while we are at it, have a vote from all people where WE decide what WE are going to pay our representatives rather than them paying themselves the amount THEY feel like it. Or, putting the kabosh on having our representives create more gov't to the tune of millions of people employed by the gov't who may make good money, have secure jobs, get all kinds of benefits and retirement packages many other poeople do not get.

[Hokulele]

Bread and circuses! Whee!

[Yalius]

...as opposed to a true democracy?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, the entirety of Article 1 of the US Constitution? It was kind of written by the founding fathers, and, well, explicitly defines the US government as a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. Heck, the founding fathers didn't even intend for the direct election of Senators; that was installed by the 17th Amendment.

[fuelair]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, the entirety of Article 1 of the US Constitution? It was kind of written by the founding fathers, and, well, explicitly defines the US government as a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. Heck, the founding fathers didn't even intend for the direct election of Senators; that was installed by the 17th Amendment.
Not a bad limb I think!!:)

[shadron]

Personally, I'm lucky to hear a ten minute NPR-style piece on the importnat things happening in my state, and to read national news in Yahoo and (*blush*) here. There are more important things to do; I want to do them, and turn those other things in which I have but a fleeting interest over to the experts, such as they are. A real democracy sounds too much like mob rule to me; a true democracy would have us doing all sorts of church-of-the-day things for our own good, and spending my tax money on people like Browne and Popoff, who have manipulative skill.

We haven't got the best of governments - no, but we have a better one than a lot of others. Change it at your peril.

[Zep]

Our founding fathers intended our country to be a convenient rubbish-bin for all the political prisoners rotting in ships on the Thames. Government? The lash.

[Spindrift]

I certainly don't want true democracy. Having the masses vote on everything? First it is completely unworkable and second "the people" are stupid!

I live in a small town in CT and we have town meeting style government which is about as close to true democracy we have in the US. The town meeting is the legislative body and a small number of people (30, I think) can send most anything to a town meeting for a vote. That means that any small group that gets organized can ram anything through because few people actually show up for most of the town meetings. Luckily it's only occasionally abused, but it would be very easy for a small well organized clique to get whatever they wanted done. Education budgets are always slashed and then every 20 years or so people are astounded that they have to spend X million to fix the school building because there wasn't any money for proper maintenance for 20 years.

Benevolent dictatorship is the perfect form of government, unfortunately truly benevolent dictators don't exist.

[Gazpacho]

Doesn't everyone want a democracy?
Nope.

It would be nice if most political decisions could be solved by having every citizen walk into a poll and punch a ballot, but they can't because the decisions are hard. They're not yes/no questions. They require thought, compromise, and commitment.

You're not banned from smoking. You just can't do it in a bar, where people are working to support themselves and ought to have some protection from known health hazards. Your interests are not the only ones involved.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy, which is the proper description of our overall system of enfranchisement, political speech and political process.
I'm glad I live in a representative democracy, so, while my vote counts in the election of officials, I'm not bogged down in the day to day governance of the various polities I'm a part of.
I'm glad I live in a Constitutional republic, which holds the rule of law above the power of elected or appointed officials, and even the laws passed by Congress or executive orders of the President if found to be un-Constitutional by the courts.

[Architect]

I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy, which is the proper description of our overall system of enfranchisement, political speech and political process.

Me too.

I'm glad I live in a representative democracy, so, while my vote counts in the election of officials, I'm not bogged down in the day to day governance of the various polities I'm a part of.

Yup, same here.

I'm glad I live in a Constitutional Democracy, which holds the rule of law above the power of elected or appointed officials, and even the laws passed by Parliament or executive orders of the Government if found to be illegal or otherwise ultra-vires by the courts.

Corrected for constitutional issues, but otherwise me too.

[Spindrift]

The Founding Fathers were petrified at the thought of direct democracy. Senators were not directly elected. The president was not directly elected. The House was directly elected but with elections held ever two years swings one way or the other can be corrected in a relatively short amount of time.

This was another check and balance in the system created by the founders. The check against the vagaries of public sentiment which can change on a dime.

If we had national referenda on everything, I fear we would have given up most of our rights long ago.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Some of the Framers thought the rabble public was too stupid and uneducated to participate in the democratic process (John Adams anyone?). Some of the Framers thought black men, women and non-property holders didn't deserve a voice in the government which "ruled" over them... something ostensibly anathema to the Founders. Thankfully our society and systems of politics and governance have moved beyond what the Framers envisioned to what I think is a near perfect system - a liberal democracy, with democracy as our system of politics and a republic as our system of governance.

Ooops, need to add a caveat because of things like some legal limitations on 501(c)3 orgs*, superdelegates in the Democratic Party nomination process, gerrymandering like was done in Texas in 2005, and the control of national party committees over what I think should be the perview of the FEC, that our system is "near perfect" but has some flaws that could be considered problematic or part of checks and balances depending on whose ox is gored.

*That I do agree with. Though I do think it stiffles the free speech aspect of our liberal democratic society, if charities have tax free status, they defer the right to function as a political body since it could constitute a conflict of interest.

[Loss Leader]

Brilliant plan. Let's force a referrendum among 150,000,000 people to do even the simplest things. That should speed everything up.

IAmMe: Even the act of writing the referrendum would be essentially legislative. The very words used would convey some sort of bias. So, the "representative" nature of representative democracy is already inherent in the system.

The only society that your plan works for is one with about twenty or fewer people.

[Iamme]

Bread and circuses! Whee!

What?! I don't get it. Explain.

[Iamme]

A real democracy sounds too much like mob rule to me;

You are right. I actually thought of that when I started this post. I think I was secretly hoping nobody would call me on it. But you people are too smart for that. So I figured in advance, yestersday, that there would have to be provisions where certain things the expert voted-in representatives would take care of on our behalf, while allowing OUR aggregate voices to be heard on certain issues.

I think issues like smoking bans should not be placed in the hands of just 11 people.

And I think that wars the gov't creates, that are not because of a direct defense of our own homeland, maybe should be voted on by the people also, rather than allowing perhaps vested interests, such as corporations perhaps?, who may have some stake in some foreign invasion?

But I could be wrong on all this; and that is why we have forums like this... and I am willing to listen.

[Iamme]

Our founding fathers intended our country to be a convenient rubbish-bin for all the political prisoners rotting in ships on the Thames. Government? The lash.

Could you translate this please? :)

[Iamme]

Rather than quote several others here, it sounds like many of you are quite satisfied with the status quo. Interesting.

May I ask what you think of our officials creating a bigger gov't and deciding how much to pay themselves?

[KingMerv00]

To answer the title question (again): There is a reason they called it the House of Representatives.

Rather than quote several others here, it sounds like many of you are quite satisfied with the status quo. Interesting.

May I ask what you think of our officials creating a bigger gov't and deciding how much to pay themselves?

There are problems with the current system. There are problems with all systems.

On the pay issue, I think that any pay raise they vote on should be delayed for 4 years or so. This means that they have to be relected to get their money.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Rather than quote several others here, it sounds like many of you are quite satisfied with the status quo. Interesting.

I, for one, am not at all satisfied with the status quo. I want things to get BETTER.

I do believe, though, that the way things will get better is through the exercise of my franchise as citizens of a representative democracy.
May I ask what you think of our officials creating a bigger gov't and deciding how much to pay themselves?

I think that that they're doing a difficult and dangerous job and that we shouldn't, as the bible says, "bind up the mouth of the ox as it treads out the grain."

On the other hand, if your ox just eats too damn much, you get a new ox.

As such, I think that if the Senators and Representatives spend too much money or vote themselves too much pay, their constituents will exercise their franchises and invite them to find another job. This in itself acts as a sufficient limit on spending.

Oh - and - that, "bread and circuses," bit is form a Roman poet named Juvinil (sp? Correction?) criticizing the Roman people for giving up their rights and freedoms and only caring about voting for whoever would provide bread and circuses.

It's sort of being willing to give up those messy, difficult, hard to deal with (especially when they're someone else's) but essential rights and freedoms for simple comfort, where the comfort you gain is at best temporary (bread) and often only momentary (circuses).

Hmmm... or even illusory! (circuses)

Ah, Wikipedia, blessed art thou among webapps, and blessed art thy fruit of the looms!
Juvenal and, "bread and circuses." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)

[Stone Island]

Please, read The Federalist Papers by Publius (i.e., Hamilton, Madison, and a little Jay). While surely not representative of the thoughts of every signer of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, it's a pretty good place to start and has answers to many of your questions. They cover much of this ground and generally give good arguments (cogent if not persuasive) as to why something was one way as opposed to another. You may disagree, but at least you'll have a better understanding of what was going on at the time.

And, no, not everyone obviously wants a straight democracy. As Publius (probably Hamilton) wrote, If every Athenian had been a Socrates, every Assembly would have still been a mob.

By the way, I've always thought that Publius/Hamilton's explanation of the Electoral College is the funniest thing in the whole of the founding literature.

[Yalius]

On the pay issue, I think that any pay raise they vote on should be delayed for 4 years or so. This means that they have to be relected to get their money.


Like the way the 27th amendment phrases it?

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[Hokulele]

What?! I don't get it. Explain.

Oh - and - that, "bread and circuses," bit is form a Roman poet named Juvinil (sp? Correction?) criticizing the Roman people for giving up their rights and freedoms and only caring about voting for whoever would provide bread and circuses.

It's sort of being willing to give up those messy, difficult, hard to deal with (especially when they're someone else's) but essential rights and freedoms for simple comfort, where the comfort you gain is at best temporary (bread) and often only momentary (circuses).

Hmmm... or even illusory! (circuses)

Ah, Wikipedia, blessed art thou among webapps, and blessed art thy fruit of the looms!
Juvenal and, "bread and circuses." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)


Gagglegnash pretty much nailed it. I first encountered the term reading Robert Heinlein a very long time ago. Although I do not agree with all of Heinlein's writings on public policy, I definitely agree with the thoughts of one of his characters on a true democracy.



A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.


More on this can be found here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A650369

[Marquis de Carabas]

You are right. I actually thought of that when I started this post. I think I was secretly hoping nobody would call me on it. But you people are too smart for that. So I figured in advance, yestersday, that there would have to be provisions where certain things the expert voted-in representatives would take care of on our behalf, while allowing OUR aggregate voices to be heard on certain issues.
How should we decide which things get voted upon and which get handed over to the elected officials?

We could all vote on it, I guess.

[Gagglegnash]

... clip ...

More on this can be found here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A650369

Maureen Johnson, Long's mother, makes a list of warning signs in To Sail. They include, "too many lawyers, family decay, high taxes, decline in rational thinking, entertainers and high-paid athletes mistaken for important leaders of public opinion, strikes by public officials, peer-group promotion in public schools, declining literacy, and, last but not least, dirty public restrooms."


Holy smokes. Didn't I just read about them in the Indianapolis Star?!?!

[Mark A. Siefert]

Because the worst tyrants in human history aren't individual thugs like Hitler or Stalin, but the fickle, greedy, and largely moronic mob.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Because the worst tyrant in human history aren't individual thugs like Hitler or Stalin, but the fickle, greedy, and largely moronic mob.


Hey, Mark: Did you ever live in Holden, Massachusetts?

[Mark A. Siefert]

What?! I don't get it. Explain.

It's so nice to know that your ignorance of human history is equal to your ignorance of political science and biology.

[KingMerv00]

Like the way the 27th amendment phrases it?

Kinda. I know of the 27th amendment but it doesn't go as far as I would like. Congress still grants itself cost of living increases basically every year inspite of the Constitution. The SCOTUS is silent on the subject.

An "intervening election" isn't good enough since US elections are staggered.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Hi
Hey, Mark: Did you ever live in Holden, Massachusetts?

I can't say that I have.

[Stone Island]

An "intervening election" isn't good enough since US elections are staggered.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but elections for the House of Representatives aren't staggered.

[Spindrift]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but elections for the House of Representatives aren't staggered.

They are for the Senate.

[Iamme]

On the pay issue, I think that any pay raise they vote on should be delayed for 4 years or so. This means that they have to be relected to get their money.

Hey...that is a good idea. Write them and see if they decide to vote on it, and implement it.

[Iamme]

It's so nice to know that your ignorance of human history is equal to your ignorance of political science and biology.

Too bad you are an ass. Do I go around telling people they are ignorant, who ask questions in the building and maintenance field(my line of work), who may be off in left field? No! I answer their questions, politely...jerk!

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Stone Island]

They are for the Senate.

Yes. So if there was a taxpayer revolt and the "Throw the Bums Out" message actually penetrated, about 1/3 would have to pay for the sins of the majority.

[Spindrift]

Yes. So if there was a taxpayer revolt and the "Throw the Bums Out" message actually penetrated, about 1/3 would have to pay for the sins of the majority.

Not sure where that came from but anyhow. The problem with the "Throw the Bums Out" message is that it gets lost in translation as "Throw the OTHER Bums Out, but I'm keeping my bum because he got us a bridge." Most voters are very self-serving, they do not look at the big picture very often.

[KingMerv00]

Stone is right. The House elections are not staggered but that alone does not fix all of the problems.

I'm not suggesting that the 27th amendment should not be followed, just that it could have been formulated better.

[KingMerv00]

Hey...that is a good idea. Write them and see if they decide to vote on it, and implement it.

The 27th amendment was ratified. While not perfect...it is at least a sign that change is possible.

[Stone Island]

Most voters are very self-serving, they do not look at the big picture very often.

Why would you expect them to? The big picture is very, very big. Most people have enough trouble keeping body and soul together, asking them to evaluate the airy reaches of policy (whose full implications to even the smartest of experts is fuzzy) is patently unfair.

Better to hire professionals and hope that the people pay attention every few years than ask them to do what is hopelessly beyond their capabilities.

[Darth Rotor]

Too bad you are an ass. Do I go around telling people they are ignorant, who ask questions in the building and maintenance field(my line of work), who may be off in left field? No! I answer their questions, politely...jerk!

Mark can be an ass, and you can be ignorant at the same time, without anything disrupting the space-time continuum.
Zep's reference to prisoners on the Thames is related to the fact that he is Australian. Australia was, like parts of Georgia in the US, at one point in its history a penal colony. Transportation was a sentence, not just a word describing the generic means of getting people and things from one place to another.

Please look up Australia's history, and the institution of transportation, as topics on Google. You'll probably find it very interesting.

DR

[Spindrift]

Why would you expect them to? The big picture is very, very big. Most people have enough trouble keeping body and soul together, asking them to evaluate the airy reaches of policy (whose full implications to even the smartest of experts is fuzzy) is patently unfair.

Better to hire professionals and hope that the people pay attention every few years than ask them to do what is hopelessly beyond their capabilities.

Have you read this thread?

[Stone Island]

Have you read this thread?

Are your questions always rhetorical? ;)

[dudalb]

Mark can be an ass, and you can be ignorant at the same time, without anything disrupting the space-time continuum.

I 100% agree. Mark tends to treat anybody who disagrees with him as an idiot,but sometimes people who disagree with Mark ARE idiots.

The OP's belief in some kind of absolute direct democracy does indicate a ignorance of history. It just is not practical.
As Robert Heinlein pointed out the problem with an absolute democracy is that people soon find out they can vote themselves Bread and Circuses, chaos ensues, and the man on horseback comes along to restore order, and we are right back to dictatorship.

[Spindrift]

Are your questions always rhetorical? ;)

Rarely.

So that would be a no?

[Stone Island]

So that would be a no?

Would it?

[KingMerv00]

Would it?

I think Socrates would strangle you.

Edit: In case anyone thinks I am being harsh, check out the thread in my sig.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Too bad you are an ass. Do I go around telling people they are ignorant, who ask questions in the building and maintenance field(my line of work), who may be off in left field? No! I answer their questions, politely...jerk!

Don't shoot the messenger, Iamme.

I can't speak to your level of education, but I learned about the Roman Empire and what the phrase "bread and circuses" meant back in 7th grade. How, in a country with mandatory education, you could missed that common fact is beyond me. Maybe you were out sick that afternoon, or you had the misfortune of going to lousy school; it happens.

However, you could have very well Googled the phrase "bread and circuses" to find it's meaning before replying. We live in a day and age where information is freely available damn near everywhere. Instead of finding out, you post the Internet equivalent of "Duuuuuuuuuuh" thus making your ignorance self-evident.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of politics can see why direct democracy is a very, very bad idea. Also, your Creationist ramblings in R&P tell me that you not only fail to understand modern biology, but have no interest in understanding either in order to prop up your credulous view of the cosmos. I'm sorry if you think I'm an "ass" or a "jerk," but if there is one thing we can no longer tolerate in this increasingly complex world, it's ignorance.

In conclusion: if you stop making stupid comments, I'll stop pointing them out.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Mark tends to treat anybody who disagrees with him as an idiot...

As should anyone who gives a rat's ass about their civilization.

[KingMerv00]

Don't shoot the messenger, Iamme.

I can't speak to your level of education, but I learned about the Roman Empire and what the phrase "bread and circuses" meant back in 7th grade. How, in a country with mandatory education, you could missed that common fact is beyond me. Maybe you were out sick that afternoon, or you had the misfortune of going to lousy school; it happens.

However, you could have very well Googled the phrase "bread and circuses" to find it's meaning before replying. We live in a day and age where information is freely available damn near everywhere. Instead of finding out, you post the Internet equivalent of "Duuuuuuuuuuh" thus making your ignorance self-evident.

Lord help me...sticking up for Iamme.

I had never heard the specific phrase "bread and circuses" before. Yes, I figured it out from the context, but I think it is a bit much to flog someone over a single phrase.

[dudalb]

As should anyone who gives a rat's ass about their civilization.

Do you have any idea of how arrogant that is?
For someone who ridicules the idea of faith a lot,you seem to have a lot of faith in the infallibillity of your own opinions.

[dudalb]

Lord help me...sticking up for Iamme.

I had never heard the specific phrase "bread and circuses" before. Yes, I figured it out from the context, but I think it is a bit much to flog someone over a single phrase.

I think Mark has a little problem with a intellectual superiority complex.
The irony is that Mark's attitude of insult really makes him a ineffective teacher.

[KingMerv00]

I think Mark has a little problem with an intellectual superiority complex.
The irony is that Mark's attitude of insult really makes him a ineffective teacher.

SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE, STUPID! :p

[Mark A. Siefert]

Lord help me...sticking up for Iamme.

I had never heard the specific phrase "bread and circuses" before. Yes, I figured it out from the context, but I think it is a bit much to flog someone over a single phrase.

No, it's not. In order for civilization to function we should expect--no, demand--a certain level of general knowledge from each and every mentally competent individual. I don't expect everyone to be able to get a Ph D, but I do expect them to try to look up a term or concept before they open their cake whole to demonstrate their ignorance to the whole universe.

Time and time again, Iamme has been shining example of the willful ignorance and common stupidity that saturates our society and threatens to drag us back into another Dark Age. I don't see what defending him is going to accomplish.

I tell you truthfully, I don't know if it's even moral to defend him.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Do you have any idea of how arrogant that is?
For someone who ridicules the idea of faith a lot,you seem to have a lot of faith in the infallibillity of your own opinions.

UGH! This is the aspect of the "skeptical movement" that annoys me the most: utter gutlessness in the face of all they claim to oppose and the incomprehensible desire to "understand" the fools who are screwing up our world rather than fight them tooth-and-nail.

[Gazpacho]

Too bad you are an ass. Do I go around telling people they are ignorant, who ask questions in the building and maintenance field(my line of work), who may be off in left field? No! I answer their questions, politely...jerk!

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bread+and+circuses%22

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't expect everyone to be able to get a Ph D, but I do expect them to try to look up a term or concept before they open their cake whole to demonstrate their ignorance to the whole universe.

It's cake "hole". Or are you making a double entendre about having and eating too?

[Mark A. Siefert]

It's cake "hole". Or are you making a double entendre about having and eating too?

No, I'm just so ticked off that my grammar got away from me.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Sigh... All right, I've had sufficient time to cool down and think about this.

First of all, I apologize to Iamme. I have no excuse for my outburst.

I also apologize to the forum for having to put up with one of my temper tantrums. I'll endeavor not to make an ass out of myself in the future.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

(I, for one, try to make sure that my own words are tender and sweet because, so often, it's found that I need to EAT them....)

[fuelair]

Did our founding fathers intend for this country to be a Representative Republic?...





Why yes, yes they did!! :)

[Hokulele]

Sigh... All right, I've had sufficient time to cool down and think about this.

First of all, I apologize to Iamme. I have no excuse for my outburst.

I also apologize to the forum for having to put up with one of my temper tantrums. I'll endeavor not to make an ass out of myself in the future.


As long as you are man enough to apologize (and you always have been), making an ass out of yourself isn't all that big a deal. :)

[fuelair]

With no negativity on anyone, some years back a book, Cultural Literacy, was written that had an effect of American education and certain related others. The author (Hirsch) made the point that there were certain people, bits of media, historical, myths, legends, scientific "things", literature, etc. that it was useful to know if you wished to be thought of as a reasonably intelligent person, competant to function well in modern society. Part of this was knowledge of many phrases that are commonly used as shorthand for the situation/event, etc. they originated from/referred to. One result of this (which can and has been badly misused BUT...) was this: http://www.amazon.com/New-Dictionary-Cultural-Literacy-American/dp/0965766438/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206641806&sr=1-6

One of the things he pointed out was that for all their rhetoric/political thingies, the Black Panthers were a wonderful example of an organization that recognized the need to talk in the language of the local culture (white, educated, European background ) and their newspaper and other writings did exactly that - and very well.

[shadron]

Did our founding fathers intend for this country to be a Representative Republic?...

Why yes, yes they did!! :)

And a darned good thing, too. Dr. Buzz0 gives us some swell illustrated reasons as to why people in groups cannot be trusted to use their heads: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=492

BY the way, has it been noted that this is the same thread that Iamme started in January of 2005? Has the basis of the argument changed since then?

[fuelair]

He probably just forgot -or got interested again!!

[Spindrift]

Did our founding fathers intend for this country to be a Representative Republic?...





Why yes, yes they did!! :)

If they didn't intend for this country to be Representative Republic then they royally screwed up writing the Constitution.

[Cincinnatus]

I certainly don't want true democracy. Having the masses vote on everything? First it is completely unworkable and second "the people" are stupid!

I live in a small town in CT and we have town meeting style government which is about as close to true democracy we have in the US. The town meeting is the legislative body and a small number of people (30, I think) can send most anything to a town meeting for a vote. That means that any small group that gets organized can ram anything through because few people actually show up for most of the town meetings. Luckily it's only occasionally abused, but it would be very easy for a small well organized clique to get whatever they wanted done. Education budgets are always slashed and then every 20 years or so people are astounded that they have to spend X million to fix the school building because there wasn't any money for proper maintenance for 20 years.

Benevolent dictatorship is the perfect form of government, unfortunately truly benevolent dictators don't exist.

You wish I direct the marbles?