Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

why do so many americans ...

Page 6 of 10 [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

27 Jan 2013, 3:24 pm

Real democracy is participatory democracy. Don't like the rules in your community? You can influence them or leave and find other people with similar beliefs. You can also live by yourself without pointing guns at "trespassers" of your made up boundaries. Liberty does not grant you the rights to control the lives of others.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Jan 2013, 5:42 pm

RushKing wrote:
Real democracy is participatory democracy. Don't like the rules in your community? You can influence them or leave and find other people with similar beliefs. You can also live by yourself without pointing guns at "trespassers" of your made up boundaries. Liberty does not grant you the rights to control the lives of others.


Amen!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

27 Jan 2013, 6:06 pm

Raptor wrote:
/\
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

only the warped mind of a conservative could take the words 'democracy' and 'liberty' then make them antonyms.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2013, 6:22 pm

RushKing wrote:
Real democracy is participatory democracy. Don't like the rules in your community? You can influence them or leave and find other people with similar beliefs. You can also live by yourself without pointing guns at "trespassers" of your made up boundaries. Liberty does not grant you the rights to control the lives of others.

You CAN'T do that at a national level, especially with 300 million plus people spread out over thousands of miles. Local and county - yes, federal - unless your Luxembourg or Monte Carlo - no.



lotuspuppy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 995
Location: On a journey to the center of the mind

27 Jan 2013, 7:34 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
@ OP:

I'd agree with a lot of what lotuspuppy said and would also raise you these:

1) We're a country of 300 million spread out over a couple thousand miles and when you look at cultural and regional needs we're closer to several countries rather than one. Having all pegs jammed into the same round hole organizationally and budgetarily is excruciating. When you have a central government ruling over something the size of one of our larger states the cultural and geological/economic variances become more of a moot point.

2) Aggrevating those regional differences is a central government that's taken the teeth out of the check and balance that the states have against it (ie. 17th Amendment, 1913). Because of this we feel like we presently have a juggernaut on its hands, something like a golem with its own mind and will (a bit like what John Ralston Saul likes to say happens when the courtier/courtesan class gets so big that government's decisions start revolving around them more than anyone else). No one knows how to get it back under control.


This is very true.

I personally feel the states should have more decision making power, not less. I am not a states rights advocate for the most part, but I feel it is pragmatic for government services to be provided mostly at the state level. Take infrastructure. The East and West coasts have vastly different infrastructure needs than the interior does. Same goes for social services, or city development.

The U.S. is just too big and too diverse for the federal government to do much for us. Unless it involves securing our borders, defense, or commercial regulations, I just don't see a role for them.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

27 Jan 2013, 7:47 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Real democracy is participatory democracy. Don't like the rules in your community? You can influence them or leave and find other people with similar beliefs. You can also live by yourself without pointing guns at "trespassers" of your made up boundaries. Liberty does not grant you the rights to control the lives of others.

You CAN'T do that at a national level, especially with 300 million plus people spread out over thousands of miles. Local and county - yes, federal - unless your Luxembourg or Monte Carlo - no.
Yes we can, we are talking about a network of democratic communes laws can differ in each community. They don't have to all be the same. If the majority of people reject centralized authority the government would dwindle. The Elites would no longer have control over the cops and military and then the bosses can't prevent their workforce from self managing. Anarchy can happen without a single trigger getting pulled.



Last edited by RushKing on 27 Jan 2013, 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

27 Jan 2013, 7:55 pm

RushKing wrote:
Yes you can, we are talking about a network of democratic communes laws can differ in each community. They don't have to all be the same.


How would federal laws for 300 Million people be different accross the land? With the exception of some spending rules (which are hidously complex), I can't see how you can maintain different laws for different places. It would fly in the face of the 14th amendment at the very least, let alone more than 200 years of court rulings on the surpremecy clause.


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

27 Jan 2013, 8:10 pm

thomas81 wrote:
i can deduce from that you arent a democrat then, because of your fear of the majority.


Northern Ireland, 1922-1972.

Any questions?

I am a democrat, yes, but democracy is not a panacea. It's a terrible system, but all the others are worse.

What I'm trying to say is that 'the majority' (51%-55%) could vote for something absolutely abhorrent to a very large minority or even something that is just against all sense of justice and human rights. Like, I don't know, burning people at the stake or something equally barbaric.

How would you feel if most people in the UK favoured kicking out all people of ethnic Polish ancestry, for instance? You and I can both see that it would be barbaric, but that's the majority.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

27 Jan 2013, 8:11 pm

AgentPalpatine wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Yes you can, we are talking about a network of democratic communes laws can differ in each community. They don't have to all be the same.


How would federal laws for 300 Million people be different accross the land? With the exception of some spending rules (which are hidously complex), I can't see how you can maintain different laws for different places. It would fly in the face of the 14th amendment at the very least, let alone more than 200 years of court rulings on the surpremecy clause.

Isn't there different laws for different places already? I don't understand your argument.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2013, 8:12 pm

AgentPalpatine wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Yes you can, we are talking about a network of democratic communes laws can differ in each community. They don't have to all be the same.


How would federal laws for 300 Million people be different accross the land? With the exception of some spending rules (which are hidously complex), I can't see how you can maintain different laws for different places. It would fly in the face of the 14th amendment at the very least, let alone more than 200 years of court rulings on the surpremecy clause.

I think he's talking about overturning it all with that. The problem, while its good to have strong state and local gov't its a considerable problem to have no uniform commercial code, no gathering of funds for defense, and no appeal to a national court. We essentially I think did about as much right as possible accept for one thing - slavery - that we fixed later.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

27 Jan 2013, 8:22 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I think he's talking about overturning it all with that. The problem, while its good to have strong state and local gov't its a considerable problem to have no uniform commercial code, no gathering of funds for defense, and no appeal to a national court.


What about the Swiss representative direct democracy system? It appears to work well, and there are still federal and cantonal elections there with a wide variety of parties.

There are parties that are:
  • Right-wing populist, anti-immigration and conservative;
  • Moderate conservative;
  • Communist;
  • Socialist;
  • Classical liberal;
  • Ecology;
  • Centrist liberal ecology (yup, separate party);
  • Social democratic;
  • Christian democratic;
  • Christian right;
  • Christian left
And so on.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2013, 8:35 pm

Tequila wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I think he's talking about overturning it all with that. The problem, while its good to have strong state and local gov't its a considerable problem to have no uniform commercial code, no gathering of funds for defense, and no appeal to a national court.


What about the Swiss representative direct democracy system? It appears to work well, and there are still federal and cantonal elections there with a wide variety of parties.

There are parties that are:
  • Right-wing populist, anti-immigration and conservative;
  • Moderate conservative;
  • Communist;
  • Socialist;
  • Classical liberal;
  • Ecology;
  • Centrist liberal ecology (yup, separate party);
  • Social democratic;
  • Christian democratic;
  • Christian right;
  • Christian left
And so on.

What is 'representative direct democracy'? It sounds like the holes in language on display, much like the case of the square circle.



AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

27 Jan 2013, 8:39 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
AgentPalpatine wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Yes you can, we are talking about a network of democratic communes laws can differ in each community. They don't have to all be the same.


How would federal laws for 300 Million people be different accross the land? With the exception of some spending rules (which are hidously complex), I can't see how you can maintain different laws for different places. It would fly in the face of the 14th amendment at the very least, let alone more than 200 years of court rulings on the surpremecy clause.

I think he's talking about overturning it all with that. The problem, while its good to have strong state and local gov't its a considerable problem to have no uniform commercial code, no gathering of funds for defense, and no appeal to a national court. <snip>


The UCC was writen by a number of study groups, and enacted by the states, it's uniform since the source model law is the same. A commerical transactions lawyer could explain the differences.

Under the US legal tradition, it is almost impossible to have different federal laws for different places. There are some exceptions, spending rules come to mind. You run into due process issues very quickly otherwise. The arguement that you can have multiple different communities with seperate laws works, but don't except the federal laws to accept differences, unless you're prepared to invalidate the Supremacy clause, which I doubt most people, left or right, would be willing to do.


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

27 Jan 2013, 8:43 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
What is 'representative direct democracy'?


It means a system that is a representative democracy mixed with elements of direct democracy. So it's a parliamentary democracy that has a considerable direct influence on it by the public through referendums and initiatives on a federal and local level (the direct democracy part).



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2013, 8:47 pm

AgentPalpatine wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
AgentPalpatine wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Yes you can, we are talking about a network of democratic communes laws can differ in each community. They don't have to all be the same.


How would federal laws for 300 Million people be different accross the land? With the exception of some spending rules (which are hidously complex), I can't see how you can maintain different laws for different places. It would fly in the face of the 14th amendment at the very least, let alone more than 200 years of court rulings on the surpremecy clause.

I think he's talking about overturning it all with that. The problem, while its good to have strong state and local gov't its a considerable problem to have no uniform commercial code, no gathering of funds for defense, and no appeal to a national court. <snip>


The UCC was writen by a number of study groups, and enacted by the states, it's uniform since the source model law is the same. A commerical transactions lawyer could explain the differences.

Under the US legal tradition, it is almost impossible to have different federal laws for different places. There are some exceptions, spending rules come to mind. You run into due process issues very quickly otherwise. The arguement that you can have multiple different communities with seperate laws works, but don't except the federal laws to accept differences, unless you're prepared to invalidate the Supremacy clause, which I doubt most people, left or right, would be willing to do.
I'd agree, but that's part of why I think we need to be more judicious in how much federal law we have per se. Having people who are in Washington 24/7 to whom its charged that even when something isn't broke keep fixing it till it is - that's a problem. In fact when we're not in crisis we should be telling congress the opposite, ie. the less they do the better. I understand keeping a burger flipper at McDonalds busy or having busy work for the restaurant server, busy work for a retail store worker, but busy work for congress proves incredibly dangerous.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2013, 8:50 pm

Tequila wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
What is 'representative direct democracy'?


It means a system that is a representative democracy mixed with elements of direct democracy. So it's a parliamentary democracy that has a considerable direct influence on it by the public through referendums and initiatives on a federal and local level (the direct democracy part).

I suppose I can't comment because I have to admit I don't know anything about the Swiss system, nor in what ways its representative and what ways its direct democratic.