Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Angle]

Indeed. I suppose the line would be whether or not you're spending money on the project.

Or better yet, have a general cultural prohibition on this kind of thing. That's how it used to be, ain't it?

[GavJ]

That's how it used to be, ain't it?

Ehhhh... I think there just wasn't as much media. If you only have like 5 tv channels, and only 2 of them have news, the stations can't really afford to risk specializing as super partisan networks / consumers wouldn't demand that, unlike now where you can have 17 different shades of purple (or green, etc.) in your choice of media, and they all have sustaining markets. And/or people just hadn't really "invented" highly manipulative cash intensive misleading advertisements yet.

[SalmonGod]

really?! Did you even read the thread?

Yes, I read those things, but I don't read them the same way you do.  The responses to those quotes seemed to me like they were taking them out of context.  Maybe I'm wrong to do so, but I didn't read any of them literally.

No policy secrets. No institutional secrets. No methodological secrets.

Those two exceptions might be acceptable. If it's a question of "we get everything we have now or no secrets at all", though, I'm gonna come down on the side of "no secrets at all".

...I find myself in agreement. Really, I don't think governments should be allowed to have secrets.

All they're saying is that there shouldn't be secret laws.  It is wrong for a person to live as subject to a law without even knowing that the law exists, or what its boundaries and rammifications are.  Supposedly, the NSA exists within a framework of law that justifies its existence and governs its operations, but we're not supposed to know about them?  That's the stuff that shouldn't be secret.  In (obvious to me) context, nowhere is anybody saying that DATA should be open, only the legal and procedural framework that data is gathered under, but that's what they were accused of saying.  Taking it in the direction that everybody did was completely ignoring context and taking the statements to their most extreme literal interpretation possible.

1) Should the NSA (or a similar body) be legally allowed to conduct secret surveillance against individuals? If so what conditions are the minimum requirement for doing so?

Nope. NSA shouldn't exist for that matter.

I did read this post, but I didn't notice that it was made by GreatJustice.  Removing the character from the statement, I read it as "Agencies like the NSA shouldn't exist" or "Mass dragnet collection and storage of data under the pretense of making it easier to obtain some interesting bits."  And I don't think this is an extreme.  The whole NSA methodology is to find the needle in a haystack by taking the whole haystack, filtering out the needle, and then holding on to the hay and the needle forever.  I think that is extreme, and I don't think that it's an extreme stance to object to an extreme measure.

But it's GreatJustice, who I'm pretty sure is an anarcho-capitalist, so my reading of his words was probably wrong.  So here's me admitting that the reaction was likely not hyperbole specifically as relates specifically to GreatJustice and only GreatJustice.

Yeah, it's totally the "pro-surveillance" side (nice framing there, by the way) making the crazy statements and being completely unreasonable, while the "anti-surveillance" side is totally reasonable and only wants to tweak the current system a little bit. That's EXACTLY how this thread is going 

Actually, yeah, that's how I see it.  Not going to assign names, but this is what I've seen in the last couple pages and pretty much every time the topic has come up on this forums (or most places)

I think there's a camp here that thinks any surveillance program should be transparent about its methods, scale and purpose, should be as limited in scale as possible, and held under very strict oversight and accountability.  Hence describing that an organization like the NSA, defined by secret mass data-gathering, shouldn't exist.  And if that isn't attainable then it would be better for there to be no surveillance programs at all.  This is why I termed it anti-surveillance, with surveillance as defined by the nature and scale of operations by the NSA.

And there's a camp that doesn't think things are really so bad.  I recognize that even this camp admits that it's a little out of control, and there needs to be some scaling back and oversight.  But the difference is they believe a program like the NSA is necessary and justified, as defined by mass data-gathering and secrecy.  This is why I termed it pro-surveillance.  Further, they trust that the problems that exist with it right now will be addressed in a manner that they will eventually be satisfied with by existing government processes, and it's not something to really get so worked up about.

[mainiac]

Well, if the policies in question are bad ones (Or if you just think they are), then losing one job in attempting to stop them might well be the responsible thing to do. I'd say the responsibility to support good policies outweighs the responsibility to get re-elected.

If it's a policy that would be obviously bad to anybody, then you shouldn't have to lose your job, because you can explain to your constituents how it is so obviously bad. If you even have to -- they might just recognize it themselves.

Gee it must be nice living in the country you live in.  What's it called?  I might just want to move there.

But this is beside the point which is that people assume that politicians never put principle above politics and that's empirically false.  Sometimes they tell politics to go hang and follow their principles.

I suppose you could pass an amendment. Not entirely sure how you draw the line between tv ads versus just talking about a candidate with your friends or facebook posts, or whatever (what if you have a facebook page with 400,000 followers who share to 5,000,000?). But anything's POSSIBLE. Just quite unlikely.

Maybe after direct campaign finance reform happens, things like that will become more reachable.

The amendment wouldn't need to draw such fine distinctions, it would simply need to specify that Congress can regulate financial donations to political campaigns, a power the Supreme Court has reduced.  Laws would take care of the particular form of that regulation.  The point of the amendment would be to define the limits of Congresses power in this regard.

[GreatJustice]

Nope. NSA shouldn't exist for that matter.

No individuals ever? For any reason? In any context?

Is there a warrant, and attained from actual legal process (as opposed to telling a secret judge "He's a terrorist!" and getting it rubber stamped)? Would the person have been considered worth following pre-2001 without all the nonsense of the PATRIOT Act? If those are passed, possibly there would be reason to follow them, though it wouldn't be in the hands of the NSA.

I'm going to assume you are only talking about the collection, foreign intelligence and counterintelligence side of the NSA and don't mean to say that the US government should not be allowed to have an agency "charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare."

Anything the NSA does that is basically concerned with the literal security of the US government is more or less legitimate (inasmuch as anything the US Federal Government does is legitimate, at any rate) would be okay, but then such things are so few that they could be handled by other agencies, with the DoD coming to mind in particular.

Sorry on the late reply btw

[GavJ]

But this is beside the point which is that people assume that politicians never put principle above politics and that's empirically false.  Sometimes they tell politics to go hang and follow their principles.

Which in my opinion they should basically be able to be criminally prosecuted for doing.

Although admittedly I have no suggested metric for how to conclusively fairly determine whether they actually did vote against their constituent's opinions, so I have no way to suggest practical implementation of criminal charges. But in PhilosophyLand, yes.

Or just as a moral, not a legal, issue, if it is obvious that somebody voted against their constituents, I would just personally think they were an utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt person, even if there's nothing I can actually do about it.

Again, who the hell are you as a politician to just decide that your ONE set of principles are better than TENS OF THOUSANDS of people's principles? That's supremely arrogant, twisted, and wrong.

You are (or at least SHOULD be) a servant of your constituents, period.

The amendment wouldn't need to draw such fine distinctions, it would simply need to specify that Congress can regulate financial donations to political campaigns, a power the Supreme Court has reduced.

Vague amendments open the door to judicial and/or legislative "gerrymandering" of the rules. For example, a Democratic congress passing legislation to restrict types of ads to make it more difficult to advertise in rural communities than in urban ones. Such as "No advertisements broadcast beyond an 5 mile radius" Or vice versa.

And then whichever side is in power can lock in their own power by doing that, and you screw up the democratic process.

[mainiac]

Vague amendments open the door to judicial and/or legislative "gerrymandering" of the rules. For example, a Democratic congress passing legislation to restrict types of ads to make it more difficult to advertise in rural communities than in urban ones. Such as "No advertisements broadcast beyond an 5 mile radius" Or vice versa.

And then whichever side is in power can lock in their own power by doing that, and you screw up the democratic process.

Sure that would be possible with an amendment.  It's already possible now without an amendment so it would continue to be possible with an amendment that wouldn't change anything in that regard.

Of course it wont happen because the US is a country with a strong tradition of democracy and the courts would strike down such a law in about two seconds flat if any party were stupid enough to try it and create a huge backlash.

A constitutional amendment regulating campaign finances would also do very little to protect us from asteroid strikes, shark attacks and David Hasselhoff.

[GavJ]

It's already possible now without an amendment

...no it's not, because any restriction on free speech of advertisements would likely get struck down by the SCOTUS. As you seem to mention.

But that can't help us if there's an amendment and the courts have no grounds.

A constitutional amendment regulating campaign finances would also do very little to protect us from asteroid strikes, shark attacks and David Hasselhoff.

Are you suggestion that gerrymandering does not exist or rarely ever happens? Reality begs to differ.

[BurnedToast]

really?! Did you even read the thread?

Yes, I read those things, but I don't read them the same way you do.  The responses to those quotes seemed to me like they were taking them out of context.  Maybe I'm wrong to do so, but I didn't read any of them literally.

Well, I guess as long as you get to decide what people "actually" mean when they said something, then it should be no surprise that every discussion always ends up the same way.

But this is beside the point which is that people assume that politicians never put principle above politics and that's empirically false.  Sometimes they tell politics to go hang and follow their principles.

Which in my opinion they should basically be able to be criminally prosecuted for doing.

Although admittedly I have no suggested metric for how to conclusively fairly determine whether they actually did vote against their constituent's opinions, so I have no way to suggest practical implementation of criminal charges. But in PhilosophyLand, yes.

Or just as a moral, not a legal, issue, if it is obvious that somebody voted against their constituents, I would just personally think they were an utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt person, even if there's nothing I can actually do about it.

Again, who the hell are you as a politician to just decide that your ONE set of principles are better than TENS OF THOUSANDS of people's principles? That's supremely arrogant, twisted, and wrong.

You are (or at least SHOULD be) a servant of your constituents, period.

In theory (and, I realize, we often fall *far* short of this) your representative is better educated on the issues, and better at making important decisions then your average person. Sometimes the right choice is difficult and unpopular, but somebody needs to make it. Despite voting against popular opinion, they ARE serving their constituents - just like a parent who won't let their child eat chocolate cake for dinner every night is ultimately doing what is right, even if the kid might not see it that way.

It's just unfortunate that these days more and more representatives seem to act like children themselves.

[mainiac]

It's already possible now without an amendment

...no it's not, because any restriction on free speech of advertisements would likely get struck down by the SCOTUS. As you seem to mention.

But that can't help us if there's an amendment and the courts have no grounds.

How does congress having the ability to regulate financial donations to political activities mean the court has no grounds to protect free speech?

The only way that the courts stop protecting free speech is if the courts stop protecting free speech.  A political finance reform amendment doesn't change that a whit.  The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not a legal doctrine.

Are you suggestion that gerrymandering does not exist or rarely ever happens? Reality begs to differ.

No I'm not suggesting that and I'm frankly mystified how you came to the conclusion I was.

[GavJ]

How does congress having the ability to regulate financial donations to political activities mean the court has no grounds to protect free speech?

The amendment we were talking about earlier in the thread was one about banning political advertisements outright. Not campaign finance reform.

That I believe explains our confusion with each other.

In theory (and, I realize, we often fall *far* short of this) your representative is better educated on the issues

Why is that even true in theory? in the 19th century, sure. In the 21st century? Doesn't make much sense anymore.
The internet is ubiquitous. And people have more free time. And tons more people go to college. I don't see how this logic really applies at all today.
In fact, plenty of politicians are quite probably less informed on the issues and on the science behind them than even their average constituents, judging from most interviews I ever see with congresspeople.

It's just unfortunate that these days more and more representatives seem to act like children themselves.

It's not "these days." They haven't changed at all -- what you're touching on here is the flaw in the above logic, which is that politicians are and always were just regular people, and are not inherently any more logical or saintly or illogical or evil or whatever else than their constituents. And like everybody else, that means occasionally acting poorly.

But the extension of this is that their opinions also shouldn't really hold any more sway than anybody else's do, which is why they should not go cowboy/rogue on their constituency.

[BurnedToast]

In theory (and, I realize, we often fall *far* short of this) your representative is better educated on the issues

Why is that even true in theory? in the 19th century, sure. In the 21st century? Doesn't make much sense anymore.
The internet is ubiquitous. And people have more free time. And tons more people go to college. I don't see how this logic really applies at all today.
In fact, plenty of politicians are quite probably less informed on the issues and on the science behind them than even their average constituents, judging from most interviews I ever see with congresspeople.

14% of adults in the US are functionally illiterate and 21% read below a 5th grade level. Do you really think someone who's illiterate can educate themselves properly on an issue?  I think you're overestimating the average person - I hate saying it, because it sounds horribly elitist, but it's a statistical fact that ~50% of people are below average.

I say it's true "in theory" because ideally, if the system worked right, our representatives would usually end up coming from the top 50%. Because ideally, they'd spend their time reading up on the issues and thinking about them carefully - something your average person can't (or won't) take the time to do. Again - I realize, it does not always end up working out that way in reality and that's very unfortunate.

It's just unfortunate that these days more and more representatives seem to act like children themselves.

It's not "these days." They haven't changed at all -- what you're touching on here is the flaw in the above logic, which is that politicians are and always were just regular people, and are not inherently any more logical or saintly or illogical or evil or whatever else than their constituents. And like everybody else, that means occasionally acting poorly.

But the extension of this is that their opinions also shouldn't really hold any more sway than anybody else's do, which is why they should not go cowboy/rogue on their constituency.

Perhaps it hasn't changed, however politicians sure seem a lot more petty and incompetent then they did 20, or even 10 years ago. maybe it's just greater exposure, or me paying more attention rather then any actual change though.

But I don't think that hurts my point. The masses are often irrational, make choices based on emotion and what friends think rather then any sort of reason, and don't (on the whole) tend to think of the long term implications of things. It's the same reason we have a justice system with a jury, instead of just letting vigilante mobs run free.

Could a jury find an innocent person guilty for bad reasons? Yes, it's happened before and will happen again - our justice system is imperfect. Could a representative make a poor decision against the wishes of his constituents? yes, of course, our legislative system is imperfect as well. but in both cases, I feel it's better then the alternative of just leaving things up to the crowds.

[SalmonGod]

I think the larger issue is that no one can be informed about everything, no matter how educated.  Yet most will weigh their vote in on an issue, even when they're poorly informed.  It may be stupid for them to think that they deserve to do so, but being uninformed doesn't make them stupid.  It just means that issue has never been their focus of attention.  You can have a bunch of intelligent people make bad decisions, just because only a minority of that group is informed enough to make good decisions.  Now factor in that the uninformed portion of any vote will be mostly influenced by what they passively absorb through culture and media (glimpses of headlines, a few seconds of a talk show while channel browsing, some snippet that makes it into a chat among friends), and you can understand why propaganda is powerful.  A less condescending explanation for why politics often looks so stupid and tends towards corruption, yeah?

[GavJ]

I'm happy to entertain the concept of other forms of government, and they may very well be more ideal than what we have.

But currently, we have representatives -- i.e., the represent us. It's right in the name that you're not supposed to do things that your constituents wouldn't do as a whole. That's what we voted for, so that's what you should do.

IF a bunch of people, like you, burnedtoast or salmongod, or even myself, wish to have a different system, then that's fine. Go out and elect representatives who represent those wishes to have a non-representative system, and have them vote away the current system in favor of whatever you're proposing that's better! But right up until that moment, they should reflect their constituency.

[Descan]

Now I'm not taking a side here, I'm just supplying fuel~

But the problem with the idea that representatives must do what their constituents would do, [regardless of whether it's a good idea?], is that you might as well just have a direct democracy in that case, and cut out the middle-man.