Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Bay12 Presidential Focus Polling 2016

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


Pages: 1 ... 513 514 [515] 516 517 ... 667

Author Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party  (Read 832780 times)

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7710 on: July 09, 2014, 11:27:04 am »

I don't really care much for democracy in the first place, but I've gotta say you guys aren't giving the American system much credit. Yeah, it's really corrupt, inefficient and unrepresentative, but at least the last two parts were basically designed into the system by the Framers. You had Federalists who wanted a fairly modest (by today's standards) government in charge with a very significant number of Anti-Federalists that basically wanted the government to be incapable of much of anything. Most of both wanted to make a system that prevented the government from being able to oppress anyone the way they believed the British did them, and they realized that bad things could come from the majority simply straight up having the power to pass laws screwing over a minority. So they designed a very inefficient system in which passing a law takes quite a lot of effort, with the idea being that only relatively straightforward legislation with broad support from all of society would pass - keep in mind, originally the Senate was appointed (as it still is in other countries eg Canada), so the separation of powers was even more acute back then. Now obviously they didn't succeed in preventing legislation they otherwise would have strongly disagreed with from making it through, but they did succeed in making a very inefficient, messy system in which government programs tend to be far less efficient than their counterparts elsewhere due to various compromises that need to be included to get them created at all.

Anyhow, so far as corruption goes, massive campaign donations and gerrymandering certainly don't help, but it's not as though removing them would somehow make politicians any more honest to their constituents or less corrupt. There is plenty of corruption and support for gigantic banking firms at the expense of the people across Europe, and politicians there actually have the campaign donation restrictions and relatively representative elections. Corruption of politicians can come from a lot more than straight up campaign donations.

Anyway, even assuming politicians were honest, unless they're all unusually knowledgeable they'll be reliant on "experts" when it comes to specific issues like the economy, and those "experts" will probably be from a government agency. What tends to happen, and this is VERY evident in agencies relating to the economy like the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the FEC, and so on, in such agencies is that people from the private sector enter them for relatively safe, cushy jobs and people from the agency leave for the private sector to make the big bucks. Naturally, both are looking out for each other, so the banks will tend to not do anything that particularly agonizes the government (barring some financial regulation skirting on occasion, which isn't a big enough deal for most to care), and the agency will regulate where possible in ways that favour their friends back in the private sector. Sometimes these regulators don't have absolute control for making things pleasant for their friends though, and they have to get the politicians to bend to their will, yet this isn't hard if the politician isn't an expert in their field (and 99 times out of 100 he won't be), since they can simply flash their "Expert" credentials and convince non-ideological, relatively honest politicians to basically give money straight to their friends. Now of course they don't usually need to do this because the banks are rich and influential enough to basically buy politicians wholesale, but that's what would happen assuming that wasn't possible. Now you could say they could get an unbiased representative of the field, but in some fields that's basically impossible. Just look at economics; if you put a hundred economists in the same room, they'd manage to come up with a hundred completely different ideas for how to improve the economy. The fundamental ideas of economics can radically change in a very short period of time; the basic ideas of 200 years ago would be radically different from those 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or those held today. Yet they don't necessarily move "forward" in the sense that they become any more reliable, since the more mainstream ideas in macro would be closer to the views of the classicists of 200 years ago than those of the more laissez faire economists 100 years ago. If I want to push any agenda, I could find a fair number of economists that would just so happen to support my views. So it isn't really an easy to find an unbiased person in such fields to rely on.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7711 on: July 09, 2014, 11:38:53 am »

I call bullshit--business counts?
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7712 on: July 09, 2014, 12:11:45 pm »

Quote
Economics is a mathematically intensive science which the NCES considers a STEM field.  Nursing is heavily grounded in life sciences which NCES considers a STEM field.
Agreed with the guy above. These seem like fairly silly justifications that would lead to including anything and everything ever, except like... comparative lit.

But I acknowledge that it doesn't really matter for the real argument. Just irksome.
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7713 on: July 09, 2014, 12:14:03 pm »

Quote
Economics is a mathematically intensive science which the NCES considers a STEM field.  Nursing is heavily grounded in life sciences which NCES considers a STEM field.
Agreed with the guy above. These seem like fairly silly justifications that would lead to including anything and everything ever, except like... comparative lit.

But I acknowledge that it doesn't really matter for the real argument. Just irksome.

I agree with Econ and Nursing, but I don't see business--ah, wait. I forgot that all of the accountants/finance people come out of business, and they do plenty of numbers over there, too.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7714 on: July 09, 2014, 12:25:24 pm »

I call bullshit--business counts?

No?  I linked to the table of all fields, not just STEM ones.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7715 on: July 09, 2014, 12:37:14 pm »

GavJ, you realize people at first weren't talking about politicians voting in ways their constituents might not(leaving aside the fact that their decision-making process can change due to recent events or simply changes in demographics), they were talking about politicians who would rather no get re-elected, and instead let someone else represent the constituency, than endorse the types of bills their former constituents want?

Not that it matters anyway since most politicians seem to think of businesses as their constituencies, which makes sense considering one of the largest factors in who wins a given election is money available to spend on the campaign.

Edit: and, of course, the remaking of districts and changing the borders so that there's no actual contest between parties or viewpoints in a given place.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7716 on: July 09, 2014, 01:18:29 pm »

Quote
politicians who would rather no get re-elected, and instead let someone else represent the constituency, than endorse the types of bills their former constituents want?
Those politicians if they feel that way should then step down and allow an emergency election (or whatever method the state has in place for replacements) so that they don't tie up however many years of time with the people not being represented.

Just sitting around anyway, collecting your paycheck, taking up a slot, and not representing people because you changed your mind is ridiculous and corrupt. Especially since the next guy in office can't go back in time and vote on the bills coming up on the docket right now that you are ignoring...
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7717 on: July 09, 2014, 01:28:31 pm »

Quote
politicians who would rather no get re-elected, and instead let someone else represent the constituency, than endorse the types of bills their former constituents want?
Those politicians if they feel that way should then step down and allow an emergency election (or whatever method the state has in place for replacements) so that they don't tie up however many years of time with the people not being represented.

Just sitting around anyway, collecting your paycheck, taking up a slot, and not representing people because you changed your mind is ridiculous and corrupt. Especially since the next guy in office can't go back in time and vote on the bills coming up on the docket right now that you are ignoring...

There can be situations where not representing your constituents for a time could be considered to be the right thing anyway. For example, I doubt you would decry someone that supported civil rights legislation in the 1950s in an area where it was unpopular, yet that would qualify as "not representing the people".
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7718 on: July 09, 2014, 02:01:57 pm »

I'm going to have to come down and support politicians being given some leeway. I can understand the objections, but I also cite many, many circumstances throughout history where a politician doing what he or she thought was right, rather than what his or her electorate thought was right, turned out to be the best option.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7719 on: July 09, 2014, 02:55:27 pm »

To quote one of the great liberal politicians of Germany, Thomas Dehler:
"If I may express a heretical opinion: I believe one does not recognize the essence of democracy if one believes the parliament was the executer of the people's will. I believe the essence of representative democracy is a different one, it is that of the parliamentary aristocracy*. The members of parliament have the duty and the ability to act from higher insight, from higher knowledge than is possible for a single person."
(Translated on the fly; the original quote.)

There is a fundamental question every democrat has to answer: Is the will of the people absolute, or are there other, higher principles? It is pointless to debate the answer, but one should at least be clear about one's own position.

*I believe aristocracy here refers to the original meaning: 'rule of the best', not the usual meaning of 'rule of nobles'.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7720 on: July 09, 2014, 02:59:09 pm »

parliamentary aristocracy is the essence of... parliamentary aristocracy.

I don't see the argument in the above quote for how he is justifying foisting that onto representative democracy. Seems to just be describing his favorite government and then randomly saying that some other government is that all along with no explanation?

I argue that we ARE "being clear about our own position" by labeling the government as a representative democracy, not as a parliamentary aristocracy.

Quote
For example, I doubt you would decry someone that supported civil rights legislation in the 1950s in an area where it was unpopular, yet that would qualify as "not representing the people".
Is it the right thing to do for reconciling their own souls and conscience? Sure maybe.
But it's not their job, and they should have been fired anyway afterward or even beforehand if they were found out prior to voting.

Sometimes people will choose to do things even though it will get them fired, or even face criminal sanctions, and they may be correct to do so. But the system still should have an obligation to fire them / punish them / attempt to prevent them / etc. for not fulfilling their stated duties.

Also, even if their choice was overall moral, I would argue that it was overall moral IN SPITE OF being locally immoral in breaking their implicit promise to their constituency. That is still wrong. Lying is wrong. If there's a greater good that adds up to a net profit of morality, then so be it. Doesn't make the lying not wrong itself.



Sorry to use a really lame/cheesy example, but the character of Davos in Game of Thrones: he smuggled onions into a castle that was under siege. The lord made him a knight for his help, but also cut off his fingers still for the crime of being a smuggler. You can do both / good acts do not necessarily obliterate bad ones.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 03:06:29 pm by GavJ »
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7721 on: July 09, 2014, 03:32:23 pm »

Sometimes people will choose to do things even though it will get them fired, or even face criminal sanctions, and they may be correct to do so. But the system still should have an obligation to fire them / punish them / attempt to prevent them / etc. for not fulfilling their stated duties.

Also, even if their choice was overall moral, I would argue that it was overall moral IN SPITE OF being locally immoral in breaking their implicit promise to their constituency. That is still wrong. Lying is wrong. If there's a greater good that adds up to a net profit of morality, then so be it. Doesn't make the lying not wrong itself.
This is again amazing. Just a little bit ago, you were saying it's desirable for the elected officials to lie -- either by omission (not disclosing how they do their job), or directly (by saying they're going to do one thing -- "election persona" -- and then doing something else in order to achieve desired outcomes) -- and now you're saying it's wrong and they should be fired.

So... it's okay to lie, cheat, and deceive so long as the constituency isn't aware of it and the end results is still in their favor? I'm becoming vaguely confused at this point.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7722 on: July 09, 2014, 03:34:49 pm »

I said no such thing -- that's not lying. That's being upfront about having a closed-door meeting. "I'm not going to tell you what was said in this negotiation" is not a lie if you then proceed to not tell people what was said in that negotiation. It's not even misleading at all.

Also, I already agreed that if illegal stuff is going on during said negotiation, like bribes, that there could and should be at least internal checks (like IRS audits) in place to watch for and punish them for that - that shouldn't be allowed.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 03:37:32 pm by GavJ »
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7723 on: July 09, 2014, 04:03:54 pm »

I said no such thing -- that's not lying. That's being upfront about having a closed-door meeting. "I'm not going to tell you what was said in this negotiation" is not a lie if you then proceed to not tell people what was said in that negotiation. It's not even misleading at all.
Except you've pretty directly stated you don't believe they're representing the people behind those closed doors. And that they shouldn't have the burden of doing so, because apparently they can't get anything done if they're actually unerringly representing the will of their constituency. Except now you're saying that any variation from the people's will should get them kicked out. You do see the inconsistence here, right? A closed door meeting -- anything related to their elected position -- where things are done in a way their "election persona" (Read: This is what their constituency desires.) wouldn't allow is, in your words, breaking the implicit promise to the constituency, which is wrong, a lie, and should not be allowed.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: John Galt's Freedom Appreciation Megathread
« Reply #7724 on: July 09, 2014, 04:28:32 pm »

Quote
Except you've pretty directly stated you don't believe they're representing the people behind those closed doors.
No no, as long as they argue in such a way that they get the best deal closest to what their constituents want, I think they're representing their constituents just fine. The actual person doesn't have to believe all those things, or say them with every breath... just advocate for them, which this would be doing.

The other things are different issues:
1) If people perceive that you don't actually believe in those things, they might get pissed off at you. I think this is unreasonable to expect of a representative, but that doesn't mean it won't happen, and thus might still affect their behavior in negotiations if they were public. (this does not have to necessarily relate to lying. It might or might not, depending on how you campaigned. "I will fight for XYZ" has different implications than "As a Christian, I believe from my very soul that XYZ") OR even if you do believe in them, you can still make other offers in negotiations, as standard lowballing/highballing type of tactics, etc. Which is even less ambiguously not lying and not failing to advocate, but still might be frowned upon by voters.
2) As a completely separate issue, you also shouldn't bribe or engage in prostitution etc., simply because those things are illegal.

But yeah, any non-illegal, non-dishonest means to the end of advocating for your constituents behind closed doors seem fine to me.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 04:33:23 pm by GavJ »
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.
Pages: 1 ... 513 514 [515] 516 517 ... 667