Abolish the Senate


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 192 of 192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
That group is called a State. Your idea of one is at the communuity level, but there's no mechanism then other than mutual hostility to keep it from expanding

There's cultural hostility to initiated violence. In other words, once you stop giving the State a free pass, but only allow violence against the violent, you have an anarchist society.


AvalonXQ wrote:

There's cultural hostility to initiated violence.

Wow, and people claim that liberals are unrealistic...

Much of human history is a record of initiated violence, given various rationalizations. Humans self-group into mutually antagonistic factions, and there is then great cultural approval within a faction for violence against an opposing faction. Historically, those factions were at the tribal level. Currently, they're at the state level. Abolish the states in favor of tribes and we're right back where we started.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:

There's cultural hostility to initiated violence.

Wow, and people claim that liberals are unrealistic...

Much of human history is a record of initiated violence, given various rationalizations. Humans self-group into mutually antagonistic factions, and there is then great cultural approval within a faction for violence against an opposing faction. Historically, those factions were at the tribal level. Currently, they're at the state level. Abolish the states in favor of tribes and we're right back where we started.

Um, we are discussing Africa, right? Many of the problems, violence-wise, can be lain directly at the feet of the French, English and Belgian colonizers who decided to ignore the way the map was laid out before they got there and just decided to make their colonies countries whether it made sense or not.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Keep the Senate and abolish the Presidency.


houstonderek wrote:
Um, we are discussing Africa, right? Many of the problems, violence-wise, can be lain directly at the feet of the French, English and Belgian colonizers who decided to ignore the way the map was laid out before they got there and just decided to make their colonies countries whether it made sense or not.

We'd moved on to world history. Even looking at Africa, if you think the various tribes were all singing "Kumbaya" together in perfect bliss before the Europeans arrived, I think you'd be sadly mistaken -- it was just semi-stable at the tribe vs. tribe level. The departure of the colonial powers created a power vacuum that led to more indiscriminate violence. Wait long enough, and eventually the mutually antagonistic groups get larger, minimizing the violence internally but letting it remain externally.


Dragnmoon wrote:
But... Upstate New York pretty much does start at that point.

Tell someone from Buffalo that he is from "upstate" and you will see that they don't consider themselves to be upstate any more than I do (My best friend and his wife are from there). There is a region called "western New York" where you can find Buffalo, and even a region called "central New York" where you find places that most everyone calls upstate. I can forgive this mentality in people from outside the state, but from my own elected officials it is unforgivable. Yes, if a guy running for governor calls Poughkeepsie upstate he will, never, ever, get my vote. Because he has just demonstrated that he is too stupid to be a statewide elected official.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Um, we are discussing Africa, right? Many of the problems, violence-wise, can be lain directly at the feet of the French, English and Belgian colonizers who decided to ignore the way the map was laid out before they got there and just decided to make their colonies countries whether it made sense or not.
We'd moved on to world history. Even looking at Africa, if you think the various tribes were all singing "Kumbaya" together in perfect bliss before the Europeans arrived, I think you'd be sadly mistaken -- it was just semi-stable at the tribe vs. tribe level. The departure of the colonial powers created a power vacuum that led to more indiscriminate violence. Wait long enough, and eventually the mutually antagonistic groups get larger, minimizing the violence internally but letting it remain externally.

Mostly it was placing antagonistic tribes that had already worked out their territorial disputes into artificial nations that forced them together.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Even looking at Africa, if you think the various tribes were all singing "Kumbaya" together in perfect bliss before the Europeans arrived, I think you'd be sadly mistaken -- it was just semi-stable at the tribe vs. tribe level. The departure of the colonial powers created a power vacuum that led to more indiscriminate violence.

Remember, many of the people involved in the slave trade never had to seize any slaves themselves, the natives were doing that all for them. The chance to get superior weapons, do away with hated rivals, and then get more stuff for doing what they already wanted to do was too good to pass up. These tactics would never have worked without pre-existing hatreds to take advantage of.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
But... Upstate New York pretty much does start at that point.
Tell someone from Buffalo that he is from "upstate" and you will see that they don't consider themselves to be upstate any more than I do (My best friend and his wife are from there). There is a region called "western New York" where you can find Buffalo, and even a region called "central New York" where you find places that most everyone calls upstate. I can forgive this mentality in people from outside the state, but from my own elected officials it is unforgivable. Yes, if a guy running for governor calls Poughkeepsie upstate he will, never, ever, get my vote. Because he has just demonstrated that he is too stupid to be a statewide elected official.

The Term Upstate NY, is just that.. It is nothing more.. It Means Anything North of NYC and it northern suburbs, It is not meant as anything more.. It is meant as it says...Up as in the direction of Up. It is neither a term of Political division or meant to be an insulting term.

People in Up State NY may say Hey I live in Western NY, does not change the fact the live in the Overall Upstate NY.


I proudly wear the upstate label being from the troy/albany/saratoga region. I consider any town you can reasonably commute to NYC from on a daily basis or where people have that NYC air of self-importance to be "downstate". That includes Poughkeepsie. Anything west of the greater Finger Lakes region is Western NY.

See, its that "You either live in NYC or you don't" attitude that kind of pisses people off.


Loopy wrote:
I proudly wear the upstate label being from the troy/albany/saratoga region.

I wonder if I know you -- did you hang out with any crew-cut, short gamers before 1994 or so?

Liberty's Edge

People in NYC live on a different planet. They really should just take everything from Westchester county to Montauk and make it a separate state. Upstate people and downstate people aren't even the same species.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:


Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...

D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.

You're really not helping with that attitude. Regardless of what the builders may have INTENDED for D.C. (and not expecting a large residential support population to grow outside of a national capital seems naive in the extreme) It has that population of half million+ NOW. Not only are they not represented in Congress, the local government is frequently interfered with by Congressional hijinks.


houstonderek wrote:
People in NYC live on a different planet. They really should just take everything from Westchester county to Montauk and make it a separate state. Upstate people and downstate people aren't even the same species.

We considered NYC and Long Island to be a part of New Jersey. Westchester is part of Connecticut, for all intents and purposes.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...

D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.

You're really not helping with that attitude. Regardless of what the builders may have INTENDED for D.C. (and not expecting a large residential support population to grow outside of a national capital seems naive in the extreme) It has that population of half million+ NOW. Not only are they not represented in Congress, the local government is frequently interfered with by Congressional hijinks.

The District is actually run by congress. The local government was just something nice congress let them have. And, as Washington is supposed to be (Constitutionally) "neutral territory", they need to hand the populated areas over to Maryland and let them deal with it. Seriously, the city government of D.C. didn't exist in its present form until 1975. Before then, it went through five different permutations.

The only other option is a constitutional amendment that will never pass, as the forty states that aren't "automatic" for the donkey party will never pass anything that puts two Senate seats permanently in the camp of one party.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
People in NYC live on a different planet. They really should just take everything from Westchester county to Montauk and make it a separate state. Upstate people and downstate people aren't even the same species.
We considered NYC and Long Island to be a part of New Jersey. Westchester is part of Connecticut, for all intents and purposes.

True, but they are, in effect, Connecticut and New Jersey setting NY policy.


houstonderek wrote:
True, but they are, in effect, Connecticut and New Jersey setting NY policy.

Preaching to the choir, amigo!


So, who wants to try direct democracy for legislation?
A simple majority of U.S. citizens above 18 to pass any legislation.

Liberty's Edge

AvalonXQ wrote:

So, who wants to try direct democracy for legislation?

A simple majority of U.S. citizens above 18 to pass any legislation.

Short answer: Hell. No.

If you think deficits are bad now, wait until the unwashed masses have unfettered access to the purse strings.


AvalonXQ wrote:
So, who wants to try direct democracy for legislation? A simple majority of U.S. citizens above 18 to pass any legislation.

I would immediately emigrate. The Constitution was set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority, not to facilitate it.


Direct democracy = mob rule. That's why we have a republic rather than a democracy.

Even under the best of circumstances, the average American doesn't have the time, the interest, the (specialized) education, or the perspective to pass legislation, nor any way to effectively debate it. Under the worst of circumstances, the result is lynchings, witch hunts, and even genocide.

In a tribe or a small insular community, direct democracy might work just fine. In a diverse nation of 300 million people in a world that is extremely complicated politically, culturally and economically, it is completely unworkable.

I'm all for a constitutional republic... but I think improvements need to be made.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
People in NYC live on a different planet. They really should just take everything from Westchester county to Montauk and make it a separate state. Upstate people and downstate people aren't even the same species.

Upstate New York is subsidized by the net outgoing tax flow from New York City. They'll never let that go.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:

So, who wants to try direct democracy for legislation?

A simple majority of U.S. citizens above 18 to pass any legislation.

They tried that in France once... It's called Rule By The Mob.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Westchester is part of Connecticut, for all intents and purposes.

Is it really true that people in Connecticut live in huge mansions because they can't afford the rent on an apartment in Manhattan?


Shinmizu wrote:
Is it really true that people in Connecticut live in huge mansions because they can't afford the rent on an apartment in Manhattan?

Actually, in some cases it is (and it's a prestige thing, too, trying to look like family-oriented suburbanites instead of yuppies). Connecticut is really weird because it has some of the richest towns in America (Darien, New Canaan) next door to some of the poorest, nastiest cities in America (Norwalk, Bridgeport), in a state the size of a postage stamp.

If you want a picture-perfect view of the CT suburbs of NYC, check out Ang Lee's "The Ice Storm," which was filmed in New Canaan. He nailed it dead-on.

Spoiler:
I can vouch for that -- I went to high school there.


Loopy wrote:

Quote:

People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.

Agreement? Disagreement?

Point A) If you put too many animals into too small of a space, they go clinically insane. This applies to humans, too.

Point B) Cities have disproportionately higher population densities and per capita crime rates than rural areas. This can be treated as prima facie evidence of point A.

Point C) Cities create disproportionate amounts of environmental impact per unit of population.

Therefore:

People who are from cities should not be allowed to vote at all.

*whistles innocently as he wanders off*

(Note: Before posting a heated reply, please adjust the gain on your sarcasm detector.)


Samnell wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.

James Madison wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I would far rather live in a functional Federal Republic than what we have now; I'd rather live in what we have now than what you propose.

If I wanted to live the way New York City residents live, I'd move there...


AdAstraGames wrote:


James Madison wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The founders wrote a lot of breathtakingly idiotic and/or staggeringly immoral things. Do we need to review the lot?


Samnell wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:


James Madison wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The founders wrote a lot of breathtakingly idiotic and/or staggeringly immoral things. Do we need to review the lot?

I don't hold the Founders up as plaster saints; it's estimated that 1/8th of all Americans and Europeans of French descent can trace their way back to Benjamin Franklin, for instance. On the political landscape, the Constitution is a document of compromises based on the interests of colonies and the experience with the Articles of Confederation.

What would you do better? Do any of your suggestions have a 70 year track record for stability and 'hidden consequences'? This is something I'm honestly curious about.

From what I've seen, skimming through this thread, you'd abolish the States and the Senate. Likely you'd abolish the Electoral College as well?


I wouldn't abolish the Senate. A bicameral legislature is a good idea, particularly given the differences in their constituency structure. But I'd get rid of the Electoral College in a heartbeat if given the power. It's far more dysfunctional than functional these days, skewing campaign behavior by focusing it around so-called battleground states. Far better for the campaign message to go out nationally and let the votes come in and be counted from anywhere.


AdAstraGames wrote:


On the political landscape, the Constitution is a document of compromises based on the interests of colonies and the experience with the Articles of Confederation.

That's not particularly controversial, I would think. Some of those compromises are truly horrific. The 3/5th compromise, the Great Compromise, preserving the slave trade, I could go on.

AdAstraGames wrote:


What would you do better? Do any of your suggestions have a 70 year track record for stability and 'hidden consequences'? This is something I'm honestly curious about.

From what I've seen, skimming through this thread, you'd abolish the States and the Senate. Likely you'd abolish the Electoral College as well?

I think two centuries later almost anybody could do better unless they were actively trying to do worse, which to be fair isn't uncommon.

But Samnell's constitutional reform wishlist would, just hitting the main points, go something like this:

1) A unicameral legislature (I think somewhere around a thousand members would be best for a nation this size.) which appoints the executive from among its members, banishing the election-nullifying effects of divided government. The legislature would have the power to depose that executive at more or less any time, with perhaps a six month waiting period between votes to do so.

2) No levels of government save the national, period. No states, no counties, no municipalities. Administration of local utilities and various necessities can be handled by career bureaucrats who implement national policy.

3) Of course abolishing the Electoral College. No one should lose an election and then get the job anyway. It mocks the very idea of having elections.

4) No territorial representation whatsoever. All legislators are elected at large, taking office in order based on the number of votes for them in a given election, proportionality, with a minimum necessary vote share in the 3-5% area. The most efficient way to do this would probably be through party lists, with every party that can get some significant number of signatures making it on the ballot.

5) A robust independent judiciary with the power of judicial review, appointed by the legislature for fixed terms of something on the order of twenty years with no option for a second term, these terms being staggered so a new justice is appointed every two to four years.

6) A generous and robust charter of essential rights and freedoms for use by the judiciary above and explicit among them equality regardless of race, class, sex, sexuality, ethnicity, national origin, religion or irreligion, and so forth. Listing all the things I think should be included would take quite a while. Generally the list would be on the continental European model of positive rights. The usual suspects, minus guns, would be present.

Various of these proposals are already at work in many countries in Europe, which have yet to collapse into police states or anarchy. On the first count, that's a hell of a lot better than our system is doing right now.


Bill Dunn wrote:
I wouldn't abolish the Senate. A bicameral legislature is a good idea, particularly given the differences in their constituency structure. But I'd get rid of the Electoral College in a heartbeat if given the power. It's far more dysfunctional than functional these days, skewing campaign behavior by focusing it around so-called battleground states. Far better for the campaign message to go out nationally and let the votes come in and be counted from anywhere.

Here's what would happen without the Electoral College:

All political campaigning would be done in the 10 largest metropolitan areas of the United States, because between them, they have about 60% of the US population. Expand it to the 15 largest metro areas, and you get about 70% of the US population.

I can tell you that as someone who has lived in predominantly rural areas, I would not be in favor of this choice. Rural political issues are VERY different from city ones, and as the discussion about "Upstate NY" versus "NYC" in this thread demonstrates, telling people "Move to the city or suck my schlong" isn't exactly endearing.

It is very appealing to me that the President of the United States actually has to pretend to listen to what us rural folks want to get the job - he represents us, too.


Samnell wrote:


I think two centuries later almost anybody could do better unless they were actively trying to do worse, which to be fair isn't uncommon.

Yes and no. The premise of elections is that the people who lose them will go on with their lives rather than take up arms.

Quote:

But Samnell's constitutional reform wishlist would, just hitting the main points, go something like this:

1) A unicameral legislature (I think somewhere around a thousand members would be best for a nation this size.) which appoints the executive from among its members, banishing the election-nullifying effects of divided government. The legislature would have the power to depose that executive at more or less any time, with perhaps a six month waiting period between votes to do so.

I prefer a bicameral legislature and reconciliation between bills. It's a brake on 'logrolling'.

While 'executive chosen by the legislature' is appealing, watch the current government in the UK and the general state of government in Italy to see its downsides. For that matter, look at how Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. There are times when the right thing for an executive to do is to tell the Legislature 'no'.

Quote:
2) No levels of government save the national, period. No states, no counties, no municipalities. Administration of local utilities and various necessities can be handled by career bureaucrats who implement national policy.

Yuck. Just...Yuck. So, every school in the country is now run like the DC School District? Or, hey, like Kansas, if the representative of the "We don't teach no EVIL-Lution!" party manages to logroll this in the legislature?

If Congress could run the DC school district as anything but a cesspit, I'd be more willing to accept their proscriptions for how we do things in rural Wisconsin.

Quote:
3) Of course abolishing the Electoral College. No one should lose an election and then get the job anyway. It mocks the very idea of having elections.

So, Nixon should've won in 1960, then? Kennedy won the second closest election in US history, and lost the popular vote; he only carried Texas because four counties worth of ballots got 'misplaced' until after his death.

With unicameral legislature selecting a Prime Minister as Executive, the EC isn't needed - agreed. However, if you are allowing an election for the position, something that dilutes 'mob votes' is a necessity.

Quote:
4) No territorial representation whatsoever. All legislators are elected at large, taking office in order based on the number of votes for them in a given election, proportionality, with a minimum necessary vote share in the 3-5% area. The most efficient way to do this would probably be through party lists, with every party that can get some significant number of signatures making it on the ballot.

So, each voter has to vote for 1,000 representatives each election cycle. And make informed decisions on this, with all elections being effectively national.

It's like the Presidential Election Cycle, only scaled up by 1000!

You can expect every election to represent city dwellers completely and utterly. There's more money in cities to spend on national campaign ads, and it's more efficient to advertise in campaigns in cities - more voters in a smaller area.

So, congratulations. You've just told everyone who wants to farm for a living that they're not going to have any say in the national elections.

Quote:
5) A robust independent judiciary with the power of judicial review, appointed by the legislature for fixed terms of something on the order of twenty years with no option for a second term, these terms being staggered so a new justice is appointed every two to four years.

I would love to see this change now, though to be honest, the difference between a 20 year term and a lifetime term, given the age at which people get nominated to the Supreme Court,

One thing you'll get rid of by eliminating the states is the idea of "Let's see how state X solved this problem...and see if we agree with the results."

Quote:
6) A generous and robust charter of essential rights and freedoms for use by the judiciary above and explicit among them equality regardless of race, class, sex, sexuality, ethnicity, national origin, religion or irreligion, and so forth. Listing all the things I think should be included would take quite a while. Generally the list would be on the continental European model of positive rights. The usual suspects, minus guns, would be present.

I would much rather prefer a proscriptive rights method. "Any rights not hereby designated belong to the people."

Quote:
Various of these proposals are already at work in many countries in Europe, which have yet to collapse into police states or anarchy. On the first count, that's a hell of a lot better than our system is doing right now.

The UK government has the explicit right to prohibit any publication they deem 'offensive to the Crown or Parliament'.

The German government can outlaw political parties, and can outlaw specific religious practices.

Both countries have incredible amounts of government surveillance on citizens; neither requires a warrant to do wiretapping of telephone conversations...and they're the reasonably liberal ones.

Most of these governments are due to hit a demographic wall in the next 10-20 years; as bad as the US Social Security program is, it's better funded than ANY OTHER G8 program. Greece is the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason why I asked for a 70 year window; most of the problems you'll get with a government stem from aging voters holding it hostage. None of those governments, aside from the UK, have existed in their current form for more than 50ish years.


AdAstraGames wrote:


Here's what would happen without the Electoral College:

All political campaigning would be done in the 10 largest metropolitan areas of the United States, because between them, they have about 60% of the US population. Expand it to the 15 largest metro areas, and you get about 70% of the US population.

I can tell you that as someone who has lived in predominantly rural areas, I would not be in favor of this choice. Rural political issues are VERY different from city ones, and as the discussion about "Upstate NY" versus "NYC" in this thread demonstrates, telling people "Move to the city or suck my schlong" isn't exactly endearing.

It is very appealing to me that the President of the United States actually has to pretend to listen to what us rural folks want to get the job - he represents us, too.

I don't think that's likely to be the case. Urban politics and rural politics do tend to be different, true, but there'd be no difference in the value of their votes. Right now, there can be a substantial difference in the value of individual votes, even between rural states.

What I think you'd see is the candidates branching out substantially from the top 15 metro areas. You'd see them branching out anywhere their strategies think they can connect with voters rather than just Ohio and Florida and a few select close polling states. Republicans might actually benefit from campaigning in California or Washington while Democrats benefit from campaigning in Texas or Alabama. Right now, there's little point in either doing much campaigning in those states since the electoral votes are pretty much already predictable.


Samnell wrote:


2) No levels of government save the national, period. No states, no counties, no municipalities. Administration of local utilities and various necessities can be handled by career bureaucrats who implement national policy.

Frankly, given the regional diversity in the US, that's a terrible idea. Not even the UK was able to sustain that sort of thing.


AdAstraGames wrote:


Yes and no. The premise of elections is that the people who lose them will go on with their lives rather than take up arms.

If one wishes to leave the political process and take up insurrection instead, one has become a matter for law enforcement to deal with.

AdAstraGames wrote:


I prefer a bicameral legislature and reconciliation between bills. It's a brake on 'logrolling'.

As long as a legislature has more than one member, there will always be horse trading. A bicameral legislature doesn't minimize that, but rather increases its frequency, not just doubling it but actually tripling it because the bill has to make it through conference too.

AdAstraGames wrote:


While 'executive chosen by the legislature' is appealing, watch the current government in the UK and the general state of government in Italy to see its downsides. For that matter, look at how Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. There are times when the right thing for an executive to do is to tell the Legislature 'no'.

There will always be times the state doesn't do what we would want, and the US is no more immune to that with our crappy Rube Goldberg Slave Power constitution than any other state is. The fact that Italy has a poor government or the other political parties in Weimar Germany were unwilling to oppose Hitler doesn't render a presidential system preferable. After all, we established a torturing police state.

AdAstraGames wrote:


Yuck. Just...Yuck. So, every school in the country is now run like the DC School District? Or, hey, like Kansas, if the representative of the "We don't teach no EVIL-Lution!" party manages to logroll this in the legislature?

No actually I'm hoping they get run like Nazi Germany's school system. Or maybe the Taliban's. Obviously. I had assumed you were operating in good faith when you asked what I'd prefer, but apparently not.

There will be bad policy and bad government whatever the system is. People are not perfect. That does not mean that our current system is faultless. In fact, it suggests the exact opposite.

AdAstraGames wrote:


If Congress could run the DC school district as anything but a cesspit, I'd be more willing to accept their proscriptions for how we do things in rural Wisconsin.

Inner-city school districts have a lot of problems which have little to nothing to do with how they are governed and which are, in fact, quite similar to those of poor rural school districts. Namely not enough cash.

AdAstraGames wrote:


So, Nixon should've won in 1960, then? Kennedy won the second closest election in US history, and lost the popular vote; he only carried Texas because four counties worth of ballots got 'misplaced' until after his death.

Whoever wins the popular vote should win election 100% of the time. That's the entire point of having elections. I don't care if that's JFK, Kennedy, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or Hitler himself. If you believe legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed and one person deserves one vote, there is no other possible preference. Now if you think some people are more equal than others, of course you want the electoral college deciding things. Can't let the people make that choice, since they might not pick the guy you want.

AdAstraGames wrote:


You can expect every election to represent city dwellers completely and utterly. There's more money in cities to spend on national campaign ads, and it's more efficient to advertise in campaigns in cities - more voters in a smaller area.

So, congratulations. You've just told everyone who wants to farm for a living that they're not going to have any say in the national elections.

Every single person farming would have the exact same power in my system as every single person who doesn't farm: one vote per person. All have equal say. What you prefer, quite obviously, is that farmers get dozens, even hundreds of votes, to every one vote by a city-dweller. Tell me why people who choose to live in the country are more human than those who do not if you want to convince me this is anything but another version of the 3/5s Compromise.

AdAstraGames wrote:


The UK government has the explicit right to prohibit any publication they deem 'offensive to the Crown or Parliament'.

The German government can outlaw political parties, and can outlaw specific religious practices.

Both countries have incredible amounts of government surveillance on citizens; neither requires a warrant to do wiretapping of telephone conversations...and they're the reasonably liberal ones.

My preference for a continental, positive rights style bill of rights does not mean that I prefer to import every single terrible thing that has ever been conceived by any human being ever to live within continental Europe, now and forever, so that I can sit in my mountaintop castle in my black cape and laugh as I roast babies over the fire. I will ask you to entertain that possibility for just a second. Also I am reasonably sure I couldn't pull off a cape.

I don't actually think the American Bill of Rights is all that bad. It's only got one that I want to remove. It's just quite incomplete and could use considerable expansion.

On the subject of outlawing particular religious practices, though, I'm more or less with Germany in the sense that I think it's entirely fine for the state to outlaw certain practices. Everybody agrees on that. Being an adherent to a particular religion should in no way grant one an exemption from that law. Otherwise the religious get more rights than others, and this is clearly unacceptable under any reasonable definition of equal rights. Either everybody can legally use peyote, or nobody can in my book.

AdAstraGames wrote:


Most of these governments are due to hit a demographic wall in the next 10-20 years; as bad as the US Social Security program is, it's better funded than ANY OTHER G8 program. Greece is the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason why I asked for a 70 year window; most of the problems you'll get with a government stem from aging voters holding it hostage. None of those governments, aside from the UK, have existed in their current form for more than 50ish years.

The demographic pyramid widening at the top is a fact of advances in medicine and technology. It's got nothing to do with the kind of government one has. Having a US-style government wouldn't prevent people from living longer very well, we'd have noticed, any more than a Sweden-style government will. The old-timers will eventually die and the young will inherit the Earth once more. Nobody lives forever. It's either that or we start executing them on their seventieth birthday or whatever, which that strikes me as pretty monstrous.

And by the way, Sweden's been a modern parliamentary republic for roughly as long as the UK has. So have many countries in Western Europe. Some have had constitutional overhauls, but then so have we and so have the British. Not that a constitutional overhaul is necessarily a cause for concern. Constitutions can age very poorly. Some can be salvaged, others not so much.


The concept of one single national government and no other strikes me as inane. Such a large body will have trouble doing small things quickly, since it will have trouble getting out of it's own way. I can imagine what the local roads will look like, and it isn't pretty. The only way to alleviate this is with a large bureaucracy, which would be even worse than what you think you see now. I'm not keen on taking power out of the hands of people I vote for and putting it into the hands of people for whom I can't. A mayor and councilmen is a far, far superior system than unelected bureaucrats.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
The concept of one single national government and no other strikes me as inane.

Agreed, but with different reasoning. Multiple layers of bureaucracy diffuse power a bit and can also provide a useful "buffer" between the people and the breathtakingly idiotic decisions passed from on high. For example: federal government passes a law that D&D is obviously "gang-related activity" and passes minimum sentencing laws for possession of D&D paraphernalia. State government is run by Vin Diesel and allocates approximately zero budget to D&D enforcement. County cops, seeing which side their bread is buttered on, choose not to work unpaid overtime busting D&D players. Crisis averted through diffusion of authority.


Kirth Gerson wrote:
Agreed, but with different reasoning. Multiple layers of bureaucracy diffuse power a bit and can also provide a useful "buffer" between the people and the breathtakingly idiotic decisions passed from on high. For example: federal government passes a law that D&D is obviously "gang-related activity" and passes minimum sentencing laws for possession of D&D paraphernalia. State government is run by Vin Diesel and allocates approximately zero budget to D&D enforcement. County cops, seeing which side their bread is buttered on, choose not to work unpaid overtime busting D&D players. Crisis averted through diffusion of authority.

Good point. However, what you mentioned is a function of multiple layers of elected officials as well as multiple layers of bureaucracy. My point is that I would have to be a complete idiot to think that pulling power away from people I vote for (state and local elections) and handing to over to people for whom I can never affect by a vote (unelected bureaucrats) is in any way a good idea.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
My point is that I would have to be a complete idiot to think that pulling power away from people I vote for (state and local elections) and handing to over to people for whom I can never affect by a vote (unelected bureaucrats) is in any way a good idea.

Unless you had the ability to fire said officials (a stick instead of a carrot, as it were), yes, I agree.


this is TOTALLY off topic, but i see American well-off suburbs on TV occasionally, and they really do look like my idea of HELL

row after row of soulless identical houses full of conformist people with identical children, identical dogs and with a carbon footprint through the roof


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:


Good point. However, what you mentioned is a function of multiple layers of elected officials as well as multiple layers of bureaucracy. My point is that I would have to be a complete idiot to think that pulling power away from people I vote for (state and local elections) and handing to over to people for whom I can never affect by a vote (unelected bureaucrats) is in any way a good idea.

I'm not proposing any power be taken away from you. You will have just as much ability to remove bad policy makers as you have now, and none of the breathtaking inanity of parochial boosterism. The purpose of the bureaucracy is the implement and administer policy. By looking to it to diffuse and obstruct policy, good or bad, you are putting power in just the hands of the faceless, unelected apparatchiks you are so worried about me empowering.

We will have good and bad bureaucracy either way. In my system they have much less power to nullify the results of elections. The average person is thus more empowered than they are otherwise.

151 to 192 of 192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Abolish the Senate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.