Print

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

[Azzuro]

To me, the crux of the problems facing America have to do with free speech. America values freedom and liberty above all else, but this also means allowing the crazies to speak out and affect the vote.

And on yet another tangent, the American military. The American military as it stands now is unsurpassed in technological effectiveness by any other in the world, which makes America thinks it has an obligation to 'keep the peace', by inserting troops into unstable areas.

im not sure i agree with these statements
1st quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11917256 I cant say that the Wiki leaks feasco really promotes this freedom and speech and liberty etc.
2nd quote
With the author of this quote, i would question the technological effectiveness, with emphasis on effectivness. But i would also question the peace keeping part. All peace keeping missions in aware of have been un lead. the only two i can think of with major US involvement were the Horn of Africa, and Bosnia. Both of these were during the 1990s. Im not sure how much world policing the US has done in the past decade. Its invaded countries, not as world police, but as witch hunters and oil seekers. And it doesnt seem to have any intention of invading North Korea, because they might actually use some nukes.

As for multinationals. Im not sure they are as powerful as we sometimes think. BP was nearly sunk by the US government (although admitadly not quite, but if they really wanted is suspect BP could be destroyed by them, just not via legislative means). If google ever upset congress, i suspect they could maim the company (some one might be able to blow me out on this one). The main reason in europe, and i suspect the us, why the government has not dealt with the banking institutions harshly, is that they are convinced they are necessary for the economy.

Part 1: Did you even read my argument? I'm arguing that free speech is bad for America, not the other way around.

Part 2: The US is unmatched in technological effectiveness. Do you see any other countries that regularly carry out remote drone strikes? Also, I wasn't talking about military operations as in the Gulf War, but stationing of soldiers in allied countries, such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, etc. In effect, the US does too much to protect its allies, leading to a military deadlock in the region where if American troops are removed, the region would collapse into war.

Regarding multinational corporations, BP wasn't really punished by the US government. Do you have any idea how much they make in a single day? Besides, most government officials have industry backers and/or stocks and assets in the oil market, etc. Given the interconnected nature of the global economy, bankrupting BP would have seriously damaged and perhaps even lengthened the recession.

The East India Company was not a true multi-national corporation because the company was predominantly English, with just about every official being British. In addition, the company was irrevocably tied to England, and while it primarily operated overseas, at no point did the leadership ever shift their headquarters to another country to try and evade English law. In effect, the East India Company acted as a privatized section of British colonial rule, but they were always under the control of the Crown. The difference is that today, multinational corporations are not tied to any specific country - hence the 'multinational' - and so no country ever has jurisdiction over them.

Hmm... Victorian England as a whole was basically a corporatocracy.  Mainly due to no labour rights of any kind, the huge number of exploitable people left unemployed by the industrial revolution and the MPs being in the pockets of businessmen, but still...

The Industrial Revolution was after the Constitution was written, and by the time the Industrial Revolution had overtaken America, most government officials were too closely tied to industrial backers for them to even think of changing laws to be more worker-friendly.

[Leafsnail]

A bridge to nowhere is not the same as linking the entire national budget to the mega budgets of the largest states and cities, who also tend to run the biggest deficits and spend the most in one sitting. I'm not about to sign up for subsidizing California's run away fucking debt, or to pay for another 30 palm trees to be planted in a goddamn desert.

Do you... have any evidence of them attempting to do this?

When that's how the representation shook out, yes. It's funny you're all about your own rights as they pertain to your state, while ignoring that other states came to their beliefs along the exact same route. Their beliefs are sovereign, even if you don't agree with them. Thus their states overall political identity is sovereign, no matter how backasswards it seems to you.

Uh, I never said they weren't.  They have the right to whatever beliefs they like.

And an appropriate level of representation based on the number of people who hold those beliefs.

Again. You act as though you're politically marginalized now, in a system where YOU may get more voting power than your actually "deserve." Yet you want to politically marginalize someone else to fix that. That's pretty much textbook politics.

Sigh.  No.

Firstly, I don't live in the US.  I'm not losing out due to this.

Secondly, I am not suggesting that anyone is "marginalized".  Just that everyone receives the same amount of representation.

Aaaand Aqizzar expresses it far more succinctly.

[Renault]

I'm not sure where the swipe at California came from, but its worth pointing out California receives significantly less federal aid combined, through direct aid and earmarks, than most states. Even if it were to default, its unlikely the state would go into receivership or the federal government would get financially involved. It'd be more the Feds work, likely. In short, no.
And I'm not sure how anyone can hold the opinion small states aren't disproportionally represented in the Senate. I mean, hell, California has 70 times the population of Wyoming, like was pointed out, but an equal number of votes. If thats not disproportionate, what is?

[nenjin]

It's some states having more power over federal law, y'know effecting all states, than other states, for no better reason than geographical accident.

It's not a "geographical accident." We didn't just plop down on the soil yesterday. Do we really need to go over all the things that result in a state's character? I get your point, but don't be disingenuous.

Do you... have any evidence of them attempting to do this?

It's the flip of what we have now, and the natural result of politics when you start placing voting weight on population. You can spin out all sorts of rationalizations just based on "who makes up a bigger part of this country."

Secondly, I am not suggesting that anyone is "marginalized".  Just that everyone receives the same amount of representation.

They wouldn't. Those who make up a minority would be lost among the majority. That's "equal" under your system. Sure, it seems like a fine system now, especially in the US where we have a really vocal and obnoxious minority with a lot of clout. 100 years ago in this country the minorities were of a different creed though, and they got the shaft REGULARLY. The system we have now, even though it's being manipulated by professionals, is the reason people of a minority can be heard at all.

I really believe this is one of those "if you want the freedom, you have to sacrifice for it" situations. Majority rule might be more efficient, but it's only equitable in the eyes of the majority. A system where the minority and the majority have to hash it out, and the minority can actually effect change, is inefficient. But I think it preserves at least the chance for everyone to be part of the process. Politics is about who shows up to the table. And I think everyone should get a seat right at the edge so they can be seen and heard, and not have to shout over the shoulders of people who "deserve" a closer seat.

I mean, hell, California has 70 times the population of Wyoming, like was pointed out, but an equal number of votes. If thats not disproportionate, what is?

California also has how many more members in the House of Representatives than any other state? Almost 1.5 times more. How many more than Wyoming? 54x times as many. What state houses the majority of the entertainment and technology business, and therefore has the closest ties to lobbyists for those industries?

The system tries to provide for both accounts. It errs in favor of supporting the minority at the Senate level. Since we're talking proportional representation here, California is the place to start when talking about the problems involved.

[Renault]

53. Thats a lot, yes, but its actually still underrepresented. You know, since that makes its voice only 53 times as strong as the state that its 70 times larger than. Nice try, though.

Might as well add that I understand what you're saying, and I agree that its good that big states aren't trampling, or allowed to trample, over the smaller ones. But recognize its still vaguely annoying for Californians when people who have been granted stronger voices in Congress try to brush it off like its not a big deal.
As for the lobbyist thing, again, California doesn't receive a particularly large amount of federal aid. It's 44th in terms of earmarks, for example. So that argument doesn't quite hold up.

[nenjin]

Oh ok. I must have missed the part in civics where you just ignore one whole house of Congress, AND the dominant share of presidential electoral votes. Because that's clearly not enough for the sunny state, is it?

[Aqizzar]

They wouldn't. Those who make up a minority would be lost among the majority. That's "equal" under your system. Sure, it seems like a fine system now, especially in the US where we have a really vocal and obnoxious minority with a lot of clout. 100 years ago in this country the minorities were of a different creed though, and they got the shaft REGULARLY. The system we have now, even though it's being manipulated by professionals, is the reason people of a minority can be heard at all.

I really believe this is one of those "if you want the freedom, you have to sacrifice for it" situations. Majority rule might be more efficient, but it's only equitable in the eyes of the majority. A system where the minority and the majority have to hash it out, and the minority can actually effect change, is inefficient. But I think it preserves at least the chance for everyone to be part of the process. Politics is about who shows up to the table. And I think everyone should get a seat right at the edge so they can be seen and heard, and not have to shout over the shoulders of people who "deserve" a closer seat.

Oh ok. I must have missed the part in civics where you just ignore one whole house of Congress, AND the dominant share of presidential electoral votes. Because that's clearly not enough for the sunny state, is it?

In a very roundabout way, I think you finally reached the real point of the matter.  The American legislature is supposed to be one where the majority initiates power, and the minority has certain limited power to arrest their actions.  The problem is, through a combination of evolving legislative culture and parliamentary rules over the lawmaking process, "the minority" whatever it happens to be can bring the whole government to a halt, in ways that would collapse the national structure like the founders could never have imagined.  So its become a system where a legislative minority can basically dictate terms to everyone else, and that minority power resides mostly in the Senate, due its complete divorce from population numbers.  California's power, for instance, over the House and Presidential votes is largely nullified, if not meaningless, when all it takes is a 40 seat alliance in the Senate to prevent anything at all from passing.

And where that becomes essentially an automatically corrupting process is that it couldn't be easier for well funded interests to have their way in government, because all power ultimately now has to flow through a minority opinion of the Senate, which need only be won through the monetary mindfuck of the election process, in states with very few voters to win over.

[Leafsnail]

It's the flip of what we have now, and the natural result of politics when you start placing voting weight on population. You can spin out all sorts of rationalizations just based on "who makes up a bigger part of this country."

Huh...so you're saying your evidence that corruption would occur is that similar corruption is happening now?

And I'm not spinning out any rationalizations.  Each person's vote should be equal.  That's the basic idea of a democracy.

They wouldn't. Those who make up a minority would be lost among the majority. That's "equal" under your system. Sure, it seems like a fine system now, especially in the US where we have a really vocal and obnoxious minority with a lot of clout. 100 years ago in this country the minorities were of a different creed though, and they got the shaft REGULARLY. The system we have now, even though it's being manipulated by professionals, is the reason people of a minority can be heard at all.

Certain minorities.  The one who the system happens to benefit.

The majority of minorities get shafted.

I really believe this is one of those "if you want the freedom, you have to sacrifice for it" situations. Majority rule might be more efficient, but it's only equitable in the eyes of the majority. A system where the minority and the majority have to hash it out, and the minority can actually effect change, is inefficient. But I think it preserves at least the chance for everyone to be part of the process. Politics is about who shows up to the table. And I think everyone should get a seat right at the edge so they can be seen and heard, and not have to shout over the shoulders of people who "deserve" a closer seat.

Nothing to do with efficiency.  Just fairness and equal representation.

I could actually use the last sentence of that as my conclusion quite happily.

California also has how many more members in the House of Representatives than any other state? Almost 1.5 times more. How many more than Wyoming? 54x times as many. What state houses the majority of the entertainment and technology business, and therefore has the closest ties to lobbyists for those industries?

Members of the house of representatives is irrelevant if you're blocked every time in the senate.  Not sure what the last sentence there is meant to be doing.

[Sowelu]

It's a system where a LOT of different circumstances can each bring traffic to a halt.  Got enough population against you?  Stall.  Got enough states against you?  Stall.  The president doesn't like you?  Veto.  It makes it really annoying to get things done but it's better than the alternative.

Because, in the end, we were not created as a democracy but as a representative democracy, with the very specific goal of avoiding mob rule.

[nenjin]

As for the lobbyist thing, again, California doesn't receive a particularly large amount of federal aid. It's 44th in terms of earmarks, for example. So that argument doesn't quite hold up.

Federal earmarks and federal aid have very little to do with what lobbyists are usually interested in. See: The new Homeland Security Copyright Infringement Taskforce. While not derailing this into a piracy discussion, monetary federal aid isn't what the lobbyists use California politicians to access.

The problem is, through a combination of evolving legislative culture and parliamentary rules over the lawmaking process, "the minority" whatever it happens to be can bring the whole government to a halt, in ways that would collapse the national structure like the founders could never have imagined.

Like I said, right now the process is being hi-jacked by annoying douches of both stripes. That sucks. But come the day when we actually need that kind of ability to stop government in its tracks for a good reason is NOT something I want to let go of. 2000 was not that long ago. The same obstructionist potential in the government prevented a few (but not enough) morally repugnant things from being the norm. The shoe is on a different foot for me politically, today, but I'm glad the possibility is there.

So its become a system where a legislative minority can basically dictate terms to everyone else, and that minority power resides mostly in the Senate, due its complete divorce from population numbers.  California's power, for instance, over the House and Presidential votes is largely nullified, if not meaningless, when all it takes is a 40 seat alliance in the Senate to prevent anything at all from passing.

 

The theory goes that there must be compromise because a government cannot do nothing for long. See: Federal budget negotiations. The problem, again, is that no one wants to compromise. Voters don't want compromises. But they do want action. Politicians don't want compromise. But they do want political victories. The status quo has not sucked enough yet, basically, for anyone to really want to change. I thought our continuing brush with a depression would change that, but apparently it's not.

Because, in the end, we were not created as a democracy but as a representative democracy, with the very specific goal of avoiding mob rule.

It keeps getting said, but everyone keeps wanting to ignore the representative part. I've been in college civics classes where people still thought America was a pure democracy. On election day. When they're supposed to be voting for representatives.

Nothing to do with efficiency.  Just fairness and equal representation.

Right. And our current system is just about "freedom and doing the right thing." That's not much of a refutation. I don't pretend I'm going to convince you. People have been debating this for 60 years and, to date, it hasn't changed.

I could actually use the last sentence of that as my conclusion quite happily.

It cuts both ways....except in our system, you have to talk over ONE person, or their coalition. Not 75 people in a single group under your's.

Members of the house of representatives is irrelevant if you're blocked every time in the senate.

Ah. So you don't just want to be seen and heard, you want to win. And you said this wasn't about efficiency......

[Leafsnail]

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy.

Yeah, you can have that and still have equal constituency sizes.

And it might occasionally cause something against the public will to be blocked... but that'd just be by chance.

Look, imagine you lived in California.  Would you be happy with this system?

[Aqizzar]

Nenjin, would it kill you to form more coherent responses, instead of individual lines to each individual line of posts you want to respond to?  If nothing else, it's really hard to read, and really discredits your viewpoint by making it sound like all you have to respond with is snarky quips.

So its become a system where a legislative minority can basically dictate terms to everyone else, and that minority power resides mostly in the Senate, due its complete divorce from population numbers.  California's power, for instance, over the House and Presidential votes is largely nullified, if not meaningless, when all it takes is a 40 seat alliance in the Senate to prevent anything at all from passing.

 

The theory goes that there must be compromise because a government cannot do nothing for long. See: Federal budget negotiations. The problem, again, is that no one wants to compromise. Voters don't want compromises. But they do want action. Politicians don't want compromise. But they do want political victories. The status quo has not sucked enough yet, basically, for anyone to really want to change. I thought our continuing brush with a depression would change that, but apparently it's not.

I wanted to stay away from naming names as long as possible, but it's fruitless trying to describe the current situation without, well, describing it.  The Republicans did a fantastic job of pretending the federal government was going to crush everyone to a pulp with falling pieces of the sky if they didn't filibuster absolutely everything that they didn't agree with.  The electorates of rural states rewarded them for this, by reelecting the Senators that were there and electing new Republican Senators to compliment them, although still a minority.  Being elected is the one and only check on a Senator's actions, and the Republican Senators believe, mostly rightly, that they should keep on doing what they were doing to win the next election cycle, and keep on going in perpetuity.  In otherwords, they have every incentive to demands 100% compliance with their minority opinions, believe they have full license by their constituencies to drive the nation into the ground in the process, and absolutely no check or structure suggesting otherwise, thanks to a system that puts about one-fifth of the population on par with the entire rest of the country.

[nenjin]

Nenjin, would it kill you to form more coherent responses, instead of individual lines to each individual line of posts you want to respond to?  If nothing else, it's really hard to read, and really discredits your viewpoint by making it sound like all you have to respond with is snarky quips.

I'm getting a little tired, we've been at this a while. Plus, I'm getting fed a lot of one line responses too.

Look, imagine you lived in California.  Would you be happy with this system?

I'd be happy I made enough to live in California somewhere other than a cardboard box In all seriousness, I would count the fact the nation holds its breath for our electoral results, and the sheer prominence of the state in the American consciousness, as enough.

And I'd spend more time worrying about what my state is doing within its own turf than how much play it has on the national stage. I live in a Red state, surrounded by conservatives. So I can't really imagine a reality where they don't have a seat at the table and have to be respected on some level, even if it pisses me off to have to do so.

In otherwords, they have every incentive to demands 100% compliance with their minority opinions, believe they have full license by their constituencies to drive the nation into the ground in the process, and absolutely no check or structure suggesting otherwise, thanks to a system that puts about one-fifth of the population on par with the entire rest of the country.

I don't see the solution as trying to deprive their constituents of the power of their vote. I'm irritated with a large segment of this country for voting how they do despite the evidence. [insert folksy axiom here about horse and water] You create more turmoil when you try to say they can't manage themselves so they need to lose more representation so "people that know better can get on making decisions." They pay taxes, they live here, they're scared just like everyone else. I wouldn't do that to someone whose politics I agree with....to be a politically moral individual, I can't do it people I disagree with, either.

And honestly, while the irritating minority is holding up the whole process of getting the nation back on track...they aren't pushing through the kind of stuff that really made you dread their rule. That took.....a majority.

[smjjames]

Well said Aqizzar.

If you look at the election we just had, you'll see that there were a whole bunch of stupid candidates. It would have been nice if there were democrat senator alternatives to the democrat senators, especially California. At least we stopped those corporate candidates from actually winning.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

As for the lobbyist thing, again, California doesn't receive a particularly large amount of federal aid. It's 44th in terms of earmarks, for example. So that argument doesn't quite hold up.

Federal earmarks and federal aid have very little to do with what lobbyists are usually interested in. See: The new Homeland Security Copyright Infringement Taskforce. While not derailing this into a piracy discussion, monetary federal aid isn't what the lobbyists use California politicians to access.

You're talking as though that's getting shoved through by representative from california, when it passed through committee in the senate unanimously. The fucking slime that makes up the intellectual property industry doesn't restrict their bribes to californian congressmen, they send over whores with piles of coke to everyone they can't sway by screaming about how they're losing money (presumably by cleverly inverting the vertical axis of their earning chart so as to make it look as though it were plummeting to anyone not close enough to read the labels). The idea that giving some hick in wyoming seventy times as much say in things as someone living in california would change that is just ridiculous.