I dunno what it has to do thejeff. I asserted that im concerned about executive over-reach and somehow it morphed into filibuster procedures. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.
I disagree. I think anything worth passing should require a 60 vote super majority.
I disagree. I think anything worth passing should require a 60 vote super majority.
The gentlemen who constructed our constitution clearly disagree with you.
The gentlemen who constructed our constitution clearly disagree with you.I disagree. I think anything worth passing should require a 60 vote super majority.
They disagree with me on what constitutes a person, too. Among other things. Im fine with that.
There is also a big difference between Minority Rights, which the Constitution should protect and giving the minority party (or a minority party) veto power over everything.
Please explain. I am asserting that if, say, 41% of the country really really doesnt want to do something, the other 59% should not force them to. Why do you think that they should?
Please explain. I am asserting that if, say, 41% of the country really really doesnt want to do something, the other 59% should not force them to. Why do you think that they should?
There is also a big difference between Minority Rights, which the Constitution should protect and giving the minority party (or a minority party) veto power over everything.
So if, say, 41% of the country believe that we should continue the practice of slavery, and that blacks aren't people, then its no one's business to tell them they're wrong?
Important progress is passed through slim majorities.
On the other hand, the Patriot Act was passed with an overwhelming majority. Are you arguing that the Patriot Act is good government, that it is somehow a less onerous law because of the amount of people who voted for it?
BTW, we're not talking about 41% of the people. None of this is up for referendum. We're talking about about 20 men in the senate who are bought and paid for, another 10 who are ideologues, and maybe the rest who just go with the flow to keep their job (numbers pulled from my backside, just now).
Please explain. I am asserting that if, say, 41% of the country really really doesnt want to do something, the other 59% should not force them to. Why do you think that they should?
There is also a big difference between Minority Rights, which the Constitution should protect and giving the minority party (or a minority party) veto power over everything.
Except a supermajority of senators does not equal a supermajority of the country. Aside from the fact that a senator from a large population state represents vastly more people than one from a smaller state, only pluralities are required to win an election. This, combined with segregation of the electorate, causes distrobutions of senators and congressmen that are not in line with the population. Just look at total votes in the congress, where Democrats won the popular vote 49.0% to 48.2%, but lost the seats 46.2% to 53.8% because of how congressional lines are drawn.
So if, say, 41% of the country believe that we should continue the practice of slavery, and that blacks aren't people, then its no one's business to tell them they're wrong?
Important progress is passed through slim majorities.
On the other hand, the Patriot Act was passed with an overwhelming majority. Are you arguing that the Patriot Act is good government, that it is somehow a less onerous law because of the amount of people who voted for it?
Yes obviously thats what Im saying. Slavery and Patriot Act for all.
Wait, no its not. What I am saying is: Wouldnt have been great if those in the minority had managed to block slavery and the Patriot Act before they started? Both were pretty popular with the majority, and highly highly unpopular with the minority. (African Americans and supporters of civil rights.)
Why do you think they should be unable to do so?
Edit-in other words, youve managed to turn it around to be the exact opposite of what Im arguing. I argue that it should be hard to pass any new laws, at all. I think those in a minority of any decent size should be able to block legislation, whether its slavery or Patriot Acts.
I really dont care about filibustering. I agree with you guys. If a filibuster is to be used, it should actually be used. I just want to point out that Im not talking about Senatorial procedural rules.
As to what the magic number is, I dunno. But it should definitely be high as hell, to encompass what the Federal Government is meant to do.
You're also assuming that the legislation in question is forcing them to do something. It could just as well be repealing a law that forced the 59% to do something.
SMH. Its almost like it should be easier to defeat laws like that before they're even enacted. If only someone here would suggest it. If only!! ;)
My point is that getting 100 guys to agree to something doesn't magically make it good legislation. Similarly 1 person blocking passage doesn't make it a bad bill. Or 40 or 20. You seem more interested in reduced federal power than making social or economic progress.
I find that problematic to any real discussion.
SMH. Its almost like it should be easier to defeat laws like that before they're even enacted. If only someone here would suggest it. If only!! ;)
You're also assuming that the legislation in question is forcing them to do something. It could just as well be repealing a law that forced the 59% to do something.
You continue to operate under the illusion that slavery was "enacted". It wasn't. Often injustice is inherent in an unregulated system!
And you seem more interested in making the centralision of social and economic progress priorty one, regardless of who may or may not want it/be hurt by it.
You continue to operate under the illusion that slavery was "enacted". It wasn't. Often injustice is inherent in an unregulated system!SMH. Its almost like it should be easier to defeat laws like that before they're even enacted. If only someone here would suggest it. If only!! ;)
You're also assuming that the legislation in question is forcing them to do something. It could just as well be repealing a law that forced the 59% to do something.
But, slavery was enacted and it was even regulated!!!! there was a big debate about it back in the 1700's! This led to the inclusion of what constitutes a person in the Constitution. A majority of states wanted it. The minority of states didnt. Q: Wouldnt have been great if they had a way to block it, instead of just agreeing to go with "legislative progress"?
A: yes.
Edit: And since we seem to be in quite the mood for strawmen, North Korea is highly highly regulated. Do you agree that injustice is inherent to their system?
And you seem more interested in making the centralision of social and economic progress priorty one, regardless of who may or may not want it/be hurt by it.
I just want such progress to be universal. Libertarianism necessarily makes for unequal equalities with states rights above all else. In the end it is deleterious to liberty and social justice.
possibly. I agree that Libertariansm would require a highly motivated and informed populace. Otherwise it would fail. But I think it would be worth it to try.
Edit- To put it another way, I believe that having "50 different experiments, may the best be copied by the rest" would be great. With the caveat that those in a state screwing it's residents have the knowledge that they're being screwed and have the means to change it.
Double edit: You do know Libertarianism puts individual rights even higher than States rights, right? And you do know that Statism makes for inequality (moreso IMO) by placing Federal rights before all others, right?
So what do you think of the Articles of Confederation?
I think we abandoned them far too early.
If that's what you want, argue for limiting what the government can do, not for paralyzing its attempts to do what it's supposed to do.
I do argue that all the time. I think, in my opinion, it would be best. But we dont have that now, so working within the framework that we have now, I do rather like that we have a system wherein a minority may stop things from happening.
Like Ive said on here for years, there is little I fear more than a future President Santorum (and others of the same vein). Given the craziness of the GOP and America's predilection of switching parties every 8 years at the presidential level, my fear is hardly assuaged. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I will wholeheartedly oppose any executive over-reach as well as why I will wholeheartedly applaud anything that allows those in the minority to derail legislation, no matter how popular (Patriot Act).
Edit-And now I have to go. My daughter wants to play games on the ol laptop. Be back on later.
The Articles of Confederation were abandoned because they did not work. They didn't provide the structure to run a country.
The Patriot Act passed the Senate 98-1. Any rules that would have derailed it, would have derailed anything.
Requiring unanimous consent for any Senate action, which is what would have been needed to stop the Patriot Act, would destroy the country. Probably in short order.
Arguably worse than that, from WhiteKnife's POV, is that gridlock in the legislature doesn't magically mean nothing gets done in the government. It just means that necessarily more is done by the executive and the courts. And that's not just a practical default, since those acts become precedent for further acts and the gridlocked legislature inherently de-legitimizes itself in the eyes of the populace, leading them to accept more executive and judicial power since those branches can still get things done.
If he really cares about the executive being too powerful, he'd want a straight majority vote on everything and no way around it. But that's clearly not the goal.
The Articles of Confederation were abandoned because they did not work. They didn't provide the structure to run a country.
The Patriot Act passed the Senate 98-1. Any rules that would have derailed it, would have derailed anything.
Requiring unanimous consent for any Senate action, which is what would have been needed to stop the Patriot Act, would destroy the country. Probably in short order.
And we abandoned them, instead of amending them so that they could work. IIRC, funding was the key issue that caused its abandonment, due to the states trapping themselves in a sort of prisoner's dilemma.
As for the second part, wouldnt it have been nice if that one guy (or gal, I dunno off the top of my head) got on the microphone and forced everyone else to listen to the reasons why it wasnt such a good idea before they voted on it?
Arguably worse than that, from WhiteKnife's POV, is that gridlock in the legislature doesn't magically mean nothing gets done in the government. It just means that necessarily more is done by the executive and the courts. And that's not just a practical default, since those acts become precedent for further acts and the gridlocked legislature inherently de-legitimizes itself in the eyes of the populace, leading them to accept more executive and judicial power since those branches can still get things done.
If he really cares about the executive being too powerful, he'd want a straight majority vote on everything and no way around it. But that's clearly not the goal.
Or I would, you know, argue for Federal gridlock, not just Legislative.
Which Ive been doing.Edit- Also, Ive noticed that the populace also relies on their state governments to take up the Federal slack. I agree with this. See Colorado and Washington with their marijuana legalisation. See the states that are beginning to allow gay marriage. Hell, even though I disagree, look at Arizona with their immigration laws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or I would, you know, argue for Federal gridlock, not just Legislative.
Which Ive been doing.Edit- Also, Ive noticed that the populace also relies on their state governments to take up the Federal slack. I agree with this. See Colorado and Washington with their marijuana legalisation. See the states that are beginning to allow gay marriage. Hell, even though I disagree, look at Arizona with their immigration laws.
Or look at South Carolina with its slaves. It's not like we've never tried trusting the states. It's that we have and they almost without exception come up with horrors. Why would we expect them to suddenly become angels after spending two centuries doing their damnedest to out-evil one another and prevent goods pioneered elsewhere from getting in the way of their domestic evils? Might as well vote for the Klan. Arizona pretty much is, after all.
Yes, they realized that they needed a stronger federal government to smash popular revolts. Yay The Constiution!
In other news, the government is watching your Paizo account.
RT is also reporting that NATO is deploying Patriot missiles along the Turkey-Syria border and that Iran has claimed to capture a US spy drone in their airspace.
Down with Imperialist Interventions and Occupations! US/NATO, Get Your Bloody Hands Off the Middle East!
Vive le Galt!
|
...
I believe its why the Federal Government was set up to not do very much, because it would be like herding cats to do anything outside its very narrow mandate.
Did you consider that perhaps the government was intended to have only a very narrow mandate and was intended to stay out of everything else?
Hence the preamble stating the governments job.
-------
Frankly you rarely have everyone agree, and the more people you have the more rare it becomes.
The governement should be able to do it's mandate by 2/3rds vote after allowing everyone who desires to do so, can speak of their position and why. And it should be practically impossible to do anything beyond that mandate.
2/3rds because that's clear majority where as 50%+1 is basically split in half thus not a true majority, given the swings in opinions some will have, and the fact that it is a representative system and not a full democracy which reduces accuracy.
The other thing to consider is the difficulty of getting a government that actually cares about the people (which are the reason for the existance of the government) which stems from the fact that corrupt people looking more for their own power and position will do more to get things they want done, where as more decent men would rather not be responsible for anyone beyond their family, and the few decent men who step up because they feel they need to will not partake of all the available courses of action to achieve.
Being a good guy is a disadvantage because it inherently reduces your options, and most bad guys are drawn towards power and very few good guys are drawn to power.
So what is truly needed is a system where the government officials helping themselves, helps the people, which absolutly won't happen in any current economic system.
Frankly you rarely have everyone agree, and the more people you have the more rare it becomes.
Thus, democracy.
The governement should be able to do it's mandate by 2/3rds vote after allowing everyone who desires to do so, can speak of their position and why.
Holding off on action until every one of our 300 million+ citizens who wants to speak on an issue has had their say sounds like a good idea?
And it should be practically impossible to do anything beyond that mandate.
Why?
2/3rds because that's clear majority where as 50%+1 is basically split in half thus not a true majority,
50% + 1 is a true majority. The word you're looking for is "supermajority", and the point at which it is defined is utterly arbitrary. You could set it at 55%, or 60%, or 80%, or 99%. Past 50% it's just a matter of how much agreement you're comfortable with before you have to make the hard decisions.
given the swings in opinions some will have, and the fact that it is a representative system and not a full democracy which reduces accuracy.
Swings in opinion should not be encouraged. Opinions should not be offered until they are well-formed. Accordingly, changes in opinion should be the exception rather than anything resembling the rule.
The other thing to consider is the difficulty of getting a government that actually cares about the people (which are the reason for the existance of the government) which stems from the fact that corrupt people looking more for their own power and position will do more to get things they want done, where as more decent men would rather not be responsible for anyone beyond their family, and the few decent men who step up because they feel they need to will not partake of all the available courses of action to achieve.
This is a cynical way of looking at government, and is not well-supported by evidence. Historically, there have been plenty of examples of corruption, and plenty examples of government helping the people.
Being a good guy is a disadvantage because it inherently reduces your options, and most bad guys are drawn towards power and very few good guys are drawn to power.
Power is not the only draw of political office. The ability to do real good is also a powerful draw.
So what is truly needed is a system where the government officials helping themselves, helps the people, which absolutly won't happen in any current economic system.
A representative democracy all but ensures that a government official who helps his constituents in turn helps himself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- 1, I was stating a near-fact.
- 2, 300 million citizens not a problem as this is a representative democracy not a true democracy.
- 3, The government should stick to it's mandate because that is the purpose of the government, you don't use a hammer to sew your clothes together. The government has no purpose beyond it's mandate, therefore it should not meddle in things outside it's responsibilty, which generally results in conflict which detracts from the governments time and resources for it's actual responsibilities.
- 4, 2/3rds, because as a representative democracy 50%+1 is rather inaccurate and isn't likely to remain a majority for very long, 2/3rds however is a majority enough that it is likely to stay a majority unless new information comes to light.
All those numbers you throw around are different, different by way of how difficult they are to achieve, 60% will allow a lot more bills to pass then 90%, 2/3rds ensures a more stable majority without making it too difficult to pass laws.
- 5, these aspects are true of the general population that the government officials represent and are not going to dissappear, therefore they need to be accounted for.
Not offering an opinion until it is well formed is good policy for the government officials but it won't be used by the general population.
- 6, Better to be cynical then overly trusting of something that can kill you. You don't ever point a gun at someone, no matter how sure you are that it's unloaded, people have indeed shot themselves with a weapon they thought was unloaded, I would rather not be one.
Also, just because someone looks to themselves first doesn't mean they will ignore evryone else, it is a scale and thus many not-so-decent government officials will still do things good for the country, they will just also leave room to help themselves. Taxes is a good example, some officiala will reduce taxes, but they also will leave loopholes to reduce the taxes they themselves pay.
Corperations were created as protection from liability and often as tax evasion. The corp pays taxes on income before the income goes to you, and sometimes everything you use like a house and vehicle are not actually yours but rather belong to the corp, thus you have less money in your name and pay less taxes for it.
- 7, Far fewer good seeking people make it and those that do are usually at a disadvantage, the corrupt will use methods and tactics that bend or even break the rules to achieve what they want while a decent person hesitates to use such and those that don't hesitate often find themselves eventually as corrupt as their fellows.
- 8, Is just plain false, in our current system the favor of the masses is what helps the congressmen, but peripheral persuasion is not only accepted but is the best way to convice people to vote for you, and congressmen are masters at it. Peripheral persuaion is all about getting support by sounding good without any real thought about the consequences. This is why the prussian school system was adopted, it made the masses more suseptable to periphiral persuasion and less likely to do anything about it.
I mean seriously, how can anyone believe in gun control? How can it be safer to face mugger unarmed rather then armed? (In both cases the mugger has a gun, because he is a criminal and doesn't follow the law. In countriies with gun control the majority of household breakins occur when the residents are home, in American the opposite is true, and when the journalist asked a prison inmate why he didn't rob houses with people in them the response was "because that's the best way to get shot")
It's easy to come up with an arguement for anything, but a little thinking will reveal the truth, peripheral persuasion relies on making up your mind before you fully analyze it, because most people automatically think about why they are correct rather then why they might be wrong.
For example if I were to ask you why Micheal Jordon is the best or not, the first thing to come to your mind will be a fact that supports your position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or look at South Carolina with its slaves. It's not like we've never tried trusting the states. It's that we have and they almost without exception come up with horrors. Why would we expect them to suddenly become angels after spending two centuries doing their damnedest to out-evil one another and prevent goods pioneered elsewhere from getting in the way of their domestic evils? Might as well vote for the Klan. Arizona pretty much is, after all.
Or I would, you know, argue for Federal gridlock, not just Legislative.
Which Ive been doing.Edit- Also, Ive noticed that the populace also relies on their state governments to take up the Federal slack. I agree with this. See Colorado and Washington with their marijuana legalisation. See the states that are beginning to allow gay marriage. Hell, even though I disagree, look at Arizona with their immigration laws.
Sure, if you want to ignore the good things that come from the states and only focus on the bad. I think it should be worth pointing out that, many states outlawed slavery far far before the Federal Government. Why do you think they were wrong to do so?
Edit- Also, look at the Federal Government and the American Indians. And Japanese/Italian/German-Americans and Native Alaskans during WWII. And the Slaves. I agree that states sometimes do bad things to the people in their states. But, for some reason, you cannot fathom that sometimes the Federal government does bad things to the WHOLE FRICKIN COUNTRY. Future President Santorum certainly plans to.
Look I'm fine with a good lot of things being left up to the states. But when it comes to big important things that everyone needs you need a universal law of the land. Can you imagine what it would be like now if there were, like, 7 states that allowed slavery?
Again I'll bring up the big 5. These are the things the federal government needs to do because it is either in the best place to do them (i.e. organizationally) or because they're things that are universal. I mean, you can't even pretend "well let's just let the states do whatever, and if the populace there doesn't like it they can move or change it" if you don't start with the assumption that the people EVERYWHERE are equally educated.
1)Defense. No brainer.
2)Roads/infrastructure. They cross state lines necessarily, I think the interstate highway system, the satellite system, TVA electricity, are grand.
3)Environmental protection. People don't seem to understand how connected everything is. If Wisconsin makes it legal to dump toxic waste on the land you own, well, it seeps into the rivers which flow everywhere and to the Mississippi. Then it's everyone's problem.
4)Education.
5)Healthcare.
I think everyone born has a right to get to the age of 18 healthy and with at least access to a quality education.
Sure, if you want to ignore the good things that come from the states and only focus on the bad. I think it should be worth pointing out that, many states outlawed slavery far far before the Federal Government. Why do you think they were wrong to do so?
Not ignore them, weigh them against the bad. The federal system preserved and supported slavery for at least twenty years longer than it would have, had there been no states putting their thumbs on the scale in the Senate. (There, the STATES, not people, were represented.) It preserved segregation for a century.
Either one of those alone would outweigh anything the states were physically or financially capable of doing by a huge margin and be sufficient cause in my mind to disband the lot. (And why not disband the federal government for its sins too? The alternative to government is Somalia. We've got to keep one.) The federal government, by contrast and after much foot-dragging, stomped the states down to end slavery and segregation. It's not perfect by any definition, but it is the great hero of human rights in American history.
And, of course, the states are quite accomplished at screwing over the entire nation. Eleven of them did it in the Civil War. Texas does it with textbook approvals fairly routinely.
1)Defense. No brainer.
2)Roads/infrastructure. They cross state lines necessarily, I think the interstate highway system, the satellite system, TVA electricity, are grand.
3)Environmental protection. People don't seem to understand how connected everything is. If Wisconsin makes it legal to dump toxic waste on the land you own, well, it seeps into the rivers which flow everywhere and to the Mississippi. Then it's everyone's problem.
4)Education.
5)Healthcare.
6) Regulation of business. Otherwise businesses will shop around for the least regulating states and we'll all pay the price for their laxity, just like we do when one state lets a company dump toxic waste in the aquifer. It's not an accident that corporations prefer to register in places like Delaware.
7) Taxation. Same reason.
But really this is redundant as it's best summed up as follows: law. One nation, one law.
Other than when it comes to the above enumerated, I'm not particularly concerned how businesses run themselves. If people are smart, educated, healthy, and there's working roads (or other infrastructure-rail comes to mind) the rest tends to deal with itself. Assuming you have strong unions, which you always should. How employers treat their workers is only an issue for the government when there are weak or no unions (like now *sadface*)
And taxation goes without saying. Everyone needs to be taxed to pay for those things, but not ALL taxes should be under the purview of the federal government. I.e. state and local taxes should be left to states and localities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, if you want to ignore the good things that come from the states and only focus on the bad. I think it should be worth pointing out that, many states outlawed slavery far far before the Federal Government. Why do you think they were wrong to do so?Not ignore them, weigh them against the bad. The federal system preserved and supported slavery for at least twenty years longer than it would have, had there been no states putting their thumbs on the scale in the Senate. (There, the STATES, not people, were represented.) It preserved segregation for a century.
Either one of those alone would outweigh anything the states were physically or financially capable of doing by a huge margin and be sufficient cause in my mind to disband the lot. (And why not disband the federal government for its sins too? The alternative to government is Somalia. We've got to keep one.) The federal government, by contrast and after much foot-dragging, stomped the states down to end slavery and segregation. It's not perfect by any definition, but it is the great hero of human rights in American history.
And, of course, the states are quite accomplished at screwing over the entire nation. Eleven of them did it in the Civil War. Texas does it with textbook approvals fairly routinely.
Right. So some states ended segregation literally a hundred years before the Federal Government, but the Federal Government (you know, the one that codified slavery, the destruction of Native Americans, and interred people during WWII for the crime of having ancestors, denied syphylis treatments to African-American soldiers, etc etc.) is the hero. Weird how that works.
1)Defense. No brainer.
2)Roads/infrastructure. They cross state lines necessarily, I think the interstate highway system, the satellite system, TVA electricity, are grand.
3)Environmental protection. People don't seem to understand how connected everything is. If Wisconsin makes it legal to dump toxic waste on the land you own, well, it seeps into the rivers which flow everywhere and to the Mississippi. Then it's everyone's problem.
4)Education.
5)Healthcare.6) Regulation of business. Otherwise businesses will shop around for the least regulating states and we'll all pay the price for their laxity, just like we do when one state lets a company dump toxic waste in the aquifer. It's not an accident that corporations prefer to register in places like Delaware.
7) Taxation. Same reason.
But really this is redundant as it's best summed up as follows: law. One nation, one law.
To me it is:
1) National DEFENSE.
2) The protection of Civil Liberties (currently failing at this)
3) Enviromental protection (currently failing at this)
4) Laws concerning interaction between the states
5) Laws concerning foreign relations (currently failing at some of this. Some countries just dont appreciate putting up with our puppet dictators or recieving our freedom-missles (tm) like they should!)
Edit- and believe it or not, I can see the Constitutional arguement for nationalised healthcare. Not the ACA, but true nationalised healthcare. So we'll add that as 5.5
Right. So some states ended segregation literally a hundred years before the Federal Government, but the Federal Government is the hero. Weird how that works.
And some did not and never were going to despite the libertarian fantasy land where candy rains from the sky, Ayn Rand's scowling mug stares out from Mr. Rushmore, and once one state does something good the other states leap to copy it. If they had, slavery would have been abolished before 1800. But here in the real world, it took Washington stepping in. The American right will probably never forgive it.
Not that it matters. You're simply ignored that the world is not divided into perfect spotless good and ultimate evil despite my telling you as much all of a post ago. Why would you listen to reason now?
Right. So some states ended segregation literally a hundred years before the Federal Government, but the Federal Government is the hero. Weird how that works.And some did not and never were going to despite the libertarian fantasy land where candy rains from the sky, Ayn Rand's scowling mug stares out from Mr. Rushmore, and once one state does something good the other states leap to copy it. If they had, slavery would have been abolished before 1800. But here in the real world, it took Washington stepping in. The American right will probably never forgive it.
Not that it matters. You're simply ignored that the world is not divided into perfect spotless good and ultimate evil despite my telling you as much all of a post ago. Why would you listen to reason now?
Right. And Im telling you that slavery is evil and the Federal government supported it, whereas several states opposed it. That, sometimes, the Federal Government does bad things, You seem to think it doesnt. But why would you listen to reason now?
Edit- was going to put in some snark about the statist fantasy land where our rulers bestow upon their subjects rainbows and kitten kisses down into our freedomcamps (tm). But I won't ;)
