Print

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

[LoSboccacc]

Seems like you want to stack the money and power in favour of the city and ensure their dominance forever, ensuring the middle class forever have control over the USA

I don't see why that's supposed to be bad. Cities are where our civilization comes from. Most good things are already produced in cities, and in cities only. Technology, economy, culture... rural areas are really only good for food, and that's also something that's being worked upon. Why would anyone want to give them dominance?

sure who cares about them, about their life, their goals and their aspiration. let them live in poverty, ignorance and labor forever, while we live the good city life. We gonna eat plastic plants when the last of them moves to enjoy the cityes. /s

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Bourgeoisie set the culture, set the ideology for the rest of society. Guess where they all live? The city. Where is all the money made? The city. Thus they are all wealthier and far more capable of exerting influence as an individual upon the world. Trailer trash who've got fuck all, they can't donate shit to Bernie or whatever the hell these rich SWPLs can do, all they can do is vote. Seems like you want to stack the money and power in favour of the city and ensure their dominance forever, ensuring the middle class forever have control over the USA

Oh FFS, the EC has two effects on the vote:
1. Gives somewhat more power to smaller states, and vastly more power to swing states, to decide the election
2. Winner-takes-all for each state, less two small states

If you want to protect rural votes, make it so rural areas get 1/25th more votes or some shit like that. The EC doesn't even do what you want - it consolidates ALL THE POWER into the hands of the swing states. OH NOES WHEN WILL THE EMPIRE FALL

[Loud Whispers]

So what you're saying, is that for democracy to work, we need to return to feudalism and collectively all become peasants, since that's the last time people really were self-sufficient to any real extent.

This is some basic bitch shit right here
Ayy lmao self sufficiency is feudalism

That's impossible, by the way. We won't have "productive and moral self-sufficient" citizens comprising your society any longer. Really, we haven't had them since way before the birth of modern proto-democracies (USA, Britain, France, 17th-18th centuries), and they worked just fine, resulting in highly powerful, vibrant and world-dominant societies.

Resulting in decaying, dying societies being replaced by people who aren't entirely consisting of people who can't stand on their own feet, relying on a state that can't pay for them because there aren't enough productive taxpayers. Oh wait nah lmao, being productive is a myth, the billions of people who aren't useless don't exist

And really, what's so bad about people depending on each other? Do you seriously think that Sweden is the only possible result of that?

Domesticated animals die without their masters

Oh FFS, the EC has two effects on the vote:
1. Gives somewhat more power to smaller states, and vastly more power to swing states, to decide the election
2. Winner-takes-all for each state, less two small states
If you want to protect rural votes, make it so rural areas get 1/25th more votes or some shit like that. The EC doesn't even do what you want - it consolidates ALL THE POWER into the hands of the swing states. OH NOES WHEN WILL THE EMPIRE FALL

Point to the bit where I defended the EC as good. Do it, you can't because I didn't. Must be American thing where it is only possible to think in two terms. Those who don't want useless citizenry want fucking feudalism, those who are arguing against popular vote are arguing in favour of EC. This is why you have two party system and deserve it

[Sergarr]

So what you're saying, is that for democracy to work, we need to return to feudalism and collectively all become peasants, since that's the last time people really were self-sufficient to any real extent.

This is some basic bitch shit right here
Ayy lmao self sufficiency is feudalism

Then what do you mean by "self sufficiency"? Because if it means "producing themselves anything they consume or use", then it's feudalism time, ho!

That's impossible, by the way. We won't have "productive and moral self-sufficient" citizens comprising your society any longer. Really, we haven't had them since way before the birth of modern proto-democracies (USA, Britain, France, 17th-18th centuries), and they worked just fine, resulting in highly powerful, vibrant and world-dominant societies.

Resulting in decaying, dying societies being replaced by people who aren't entirely consisting of people who can't stand on their own feet, relying on a state that can't pay for them because there aren't enough productive taxpayers. Oh wait nah lmao, being productive is a myth, the billions of people who aren't useless don't exist

Aha, you've made a logical error! I've said "productive AND moral self-sufficient", and you interpreted that as "productive OR moral self-sufficient" citizens!

Citizens can be perfectly productive in our society. They won't be able to produce everything they need by themselves, but that's why they're organized in a society! That's why large-scale societies even exist!

And really, what's so bad about people depending on each other? Do you seriously think that Sweden is the only possible result of that?

Domesticated animals die without their masters

But in this case, the master are also the animals, so we won't ever have such a "masterless" situation. Also, people can self-organize, too. You may have heard of things like that, they're called "collectives".

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't see why that's supposed to be bad. Cities are where our civilization comes from.

They're also where most cancer is from

That's a very asinine line of reasoning.  It's also in cities where most medical advances are discovered (and performed). It's not like rural areas are fountains of health, either. We can thank English cattle farming practices for BSE, after all.

[Loud Whispers]

That's a very asinine line of reasoning.  It's also in cities where most medical advances are discovered (and performed). It's not like rural areas are fountains of health, either. We can thank English cattle farming practices for BSE, after all.

I wasn't talking about disease

Then what do you mean by "self sufficiency"? Because if it means "producing themselves anything they consume or use", then it's feudalism time, ho!

In what world is "self-sufficiency" equivalent to "subsistence farming"
Don't be a dolt, there is such a thing called money m9

Aha, you've made a logical error! I've said "productive AND moral self-sufficient", and you interpreted that as "productive OR moral self-sufficient" citizens!
Citizens can be perfectly productive in our society. They won't be able to produce everything they need by themselves, but that's why they're organized in a society! That's why large-scale societies even exist!

No logical error was made, try again

But in this case, the master are also the animals, so we won't ever have such a "masterless" situation. Also, people can self-organize, too. You may have heard of things like that, they're called "collectives".

You can never be free if you are dependent upon a patriarch, said the feminist. You can never be free if you are dependent upon others, said the capitalist. You can never be free if you are dependent upon the bourgeoisie, said the Marxist. You can never be free if you are dependent upon debt, said the activist.

Dependency is good, said Sergarr. It keeps the animals dependent on their master

Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

You can't ruse me, it's an obvious truth that someone who does not have the capital or power to do what they want, is not in control of their own life. This is a transparent attempt at power consolidation

[ChairmanPoo]

That's a very asinine line of reasoning.  It's also in cities where most medical advances are discovered (and performed). It's not like rural areas are fountains of health, either. We can thank English cattle farming practices for BSE, after all.

I wasn't talking about disease

cancer [kan-ser] noun
1.
Pathology.
-a malignant and invasive growth or tumor, especially one originating in epithelium, tending to recur after excision and to metastasize to other sites.
-any disease characterized by such growths.

[Loud Whispers]

cancer [kan-ser] noun
1.
Pathology.
-a malignant and invasive growth or tumor, especially one originating in epithelium, tending to recur after excision and to metastasize to other sites.
-any disease characterized by such growths.

>pathology
1[mass noun] The science of the causes and effects of diseases

[Rolan7]

Then what do you mean by "self sufficiency"? Because if it means "producing themselves anything they consume or use", then it's feudalism time, ho!

In what world is "self-sufficiency" equivalent to "subsistence farming"
Don't be a dolt, there is such a thing called money m9

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by self-sufficient.  Being "off-the-grid" self-sufficient requires a commune of specialized humans, a wastefully large amount of land, or literally poaching resources.
But you're mentioning money, which is how people trade with each other...

Also I don't see how this ties into giving rural voters literally more say than urban ones.

[smjjames]

Domesticated animals die without their masters

Domestic animals gone feral around the world prove you wrong. The more pampered and highly domesticated ones certainly won't, or would have a hard time.

Also, cats are the least domesticated of our 'domestic' animals, largely because we traditionally use them for the function that they naturally do, which is hunt and eat small animals, preferrably (for us) rodents.

[Sergarr]

Then what do you mean by "self sufficiency"? Because if it means "producing themselves anything they consume or use", then it's feudalism time, ho!

In what world is "self-sufficiency" equivalent to "subsistence farming"
Don't be a dolt, there is such a thing called money m9

Self-sufficiency (also called self-containment) is the state of not requiring any aid, support, or interaction for survival; it is a type of personal or collective autonomy.[1] On a national scale, a totally self-sufficient economy that does not trade with the outside world is called an autarky.

The term self-sufficiency is usually applied to varieties of sustainable living in which nothing is consumed other than what is produced by the self-sufficient individuals. Examples of attempts at self-sufficiency in North America include simple living, homesteading, off-the-grid, survivalism, DIY ethic and the back-to-the-land movement.

Words have meanings yo. If you're using money to trade for things, you're not self-sufficient by fucking definition!

Aha, you've made a logical error! I've said "productive AND moral self-sufficient", and you interpreted that as "productive OR moral self-sufficient" citizens!
Citizens can be perfectly productive in our society. They won't be able to produce everything they need by themselves, but that's why they're organized in a society! That's why large-scale societies even exist!

No logical error was made, try again

Given that you've just demonstrated a critical lack of linguistic knowledge on a subject you've been prattling about since forever, I'm inclined to believe that the word "logical" must mean something very different to you than it does to normal people.

But in this case, the master are also the animals, so we won't ever have such a "masterless" situation. Also, people can self-organize, too. You may have heard of things like that, they're called "collectives".

You can never be free if you are dependent upon a patriarch, said the feminist. You can never be free if you are dependent upon others, said the capitalist. You can never be free if you are dependent upon the bourgeoisie, said the Marxist. You can never be free if you are dependent upon debt, said the activist.

Dependency is good, said Sergarr. It keeps the animals dependent on their master

Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

You can't ruse me, it's an obvious truth that someone who does not have the capital or power to do what they want, is not in control of their own life. This is a transparent attempt at power consolidation

Masters are dependent on their slaves, too, you know? No one is fully free from being dependent on others. Some people are more dependent than the others, but in the end, they're all just a part of the whole society, cogs in the social machine that creates the second nature in which we all currently live in. You can say that it'd be better if it was distributed more equally, but full self-sufficiency is not really possible, not without abandoning our current technology-based life style.

Then again, you might have troubles understanding my words, given that you apparently understood "self-sufficiency" as "not being in debt" or something.

[smjjames]

Also, even tribes trade with each other on occasion, despite hunter-gatherer societies being the very definition of self-sufficient and living off the land.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Point to the bit where I defended the EC as good. Do it, you can't because I didn't. Must be American thing where it is only possible to think in two terms. Those who don't want useless citizenry want fucking feudalism, those who are arguing against popular vote are arguing in favour of EC. This is why you have two party system and deserve it

GHRHGHRHHGHRNGHRN

If you want the rural/small states to have more power, we can do that with the popular vote! You don't get the fucking point, LW! We're arguing popvote because the EC has two main problems:
1. It gives swing states excessive deciding power in the presidential election.
2. It makes the vote of a Democrat in Texas, or a Republican in California, meaningless and actually functions as a vote for the opposing party (by increasing the electoral representation of that state).

The EC is very fucked up, and unless you have a better idea, popvote is the best solution.

[smjjames]

Point to the bit where I defended the EC as good. Do it, you can't because I didn't. Must be American thing where it is only possible to think in two terms. Those who don't want useless citizenry want fucking feudalism, those who are arguing against popular vote are arguing in favour of EC. This is why you have two party system and deserve it

GHRHGHRHHGHRNGHRN

If you want the rural/small states to have more power, we can do that with the popular vote! You don't get the fucking point, LW! We're arguing popvote because the EC has two main problems:
1. It gives swing states excessive deciding power in the presidential election.
2. It makes the vote of a Democrat in Texas, or a Republican in California, meaningless and actually functions as a vote for the opposing party (by increasing the electoral representation of that state).

The EC is very fucked up, and unless you have a better idea, popvote is the best solution.

Or perhaps not have it winner-take-all and have the EC be poportional?

While it doesn't actually deal with the smaller and more rural states having dispoportionate power (actually, it might make it worse), it does help with the flyover territory because you'd have to work to earn each one. And the best thing is, the poportional would mirror the popular vote.

I wonder what the EC vote would look like if it had gone poportional.

[origamiscienceguy]

I'm not sure who would've won... I can see it going either way.