Print

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

[i2amroy]

This is why we need to create an immortal hyper intelligent perfectly moral AI to be our absolute leader. What could possibly go wrong?

The Computer is your friend!

>>FRIENDSHIP.EXE
>>FILE NOT FOUND!

>>DOWNLOADING REPLACEMENT .EXE
>>KILL_ALL_HUMANS.EXE HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED

[mainiac]

It would (to some degree) make sure that fundies had no chance of gaining influence.

No, it would insure that within 15 years they would have an enormous deal of influence.  Look at the Senate right now where fundies are more important then climate change advocates.  In any political system you will see factions and an alliance between social conservatives and oligarchs has sprung up in every society that has such people and has politics.  In pre green revolution Egypt the political system was driven underground but it took a matter of weeks for this political faction to spring up once the military forced the president out.  We see it in diverse political systems, the US, China, Russia. The existence of such a political faction is inevitable.  By concentrating power into the hands of an elite you just make it so the alliance of social conservatives and oligarchs becomes more entrenched in power once they win the sympathies of people in power.  And that would happen very, very quickly given our current body public.  15 years might be a conservative estimate.

[RedKing]

Worth noting that Alexander Hamilton argued at length in favor of an elective monarchy (calling the position "Governor") in 1787. State power was to be eroded, the lower house would be popularly elected and serve 3-year terms, the upper house would be elected by the same electors who chose the Governor (who were in turn popularly elected...sort of an Electoral College system) and serve for life.

And the Federal government had the power to veto any state legislation.


People agreed it was a good plan, but a bit too close to the way Britain was organized and after the Articles of Confederation, the states weren't likely to agree to such a sweeping cession of power to the Federal.

[Owlbread]

Once autonomy is given out it is virtually impossible to take away without great difficulty.

[MonkeyHead]

Worth noting that Alexander Hamilton argued at length in favor of an elective monarchy (calling the position "Governor") in 1787. State power was to be eroded, the lower house would be popularly elected and serve 3-year terms, the upper house would be elected by the same electors who chose the Governor (who were in turn popularly elected...sort of an Electoral College system) and serve for life.

And the Federal government had the power to veto any state legislation.


People agreed it was a good plan, but a bit too close to the way Britain was organized and after the Articles of Confederation, the states weren't likely to agree to such a sweeping cession of power to the Federal.

IIRC George Washington was offered the title of King or Emperor following the War of Independance and turned it down. Not unlike the Roman legend of Cincinatus.

[Mephansteras]

Personally, I think one of the big problems in American politics is the fact that the majority of politicians are lawyers. Lawyers, to a large degree, go into that line of work because of the money and not for any ideals about helping the world. It is also a profession built around selling your version of the truth in order to get a favorable verdict from the system. They also tend to be a very competitive lot.

Hence to main problem, which is that our politicians are predominantly wealthy scum bags who care more about appearance and winning than they do actually helping the country out in any meaningful way.

I wonder how much of the problem is the people going into the system instead of the system itself?

Would it be possible to get some educational system in place that specifically trains political leaders? They'd still need to understand law, of course, but from the standpoint of writing it rather than abusing it. You could then have the system set up to help them get jobs in government. Starting at the local level, but then they can of course move on up as normal.

[mainiac]

A law degree is a perquisite to practice law.  Believe it or not most law isn't about selling your soul to the highest bidder.  Mostly it's about mundanely making sure things are done according to the arcane rules laid out.

But more fundementally, someone who is interested in politics would naturally be inclined to get a law degree.  They both require driven people with an interest in law.  It's not surprising there are a lot of lawyers in congress.

Barrack Obama I might remind you is a lawyer, a Harvard one at that.  Mitt Romney is another Harvard law graduate.  Do you honestly think that they disagreed on so many issues because they were paid to do so?  No, they got into politics because they cared about stuff and they got law degrees because it helped them do what they cared about.

[RedKing]

Problem being those people you're talking about training wouldn't be politicians, they'd be bureaucrats. There are programs like that (my wife has a Master's in Public Administration, which covers a lot of what you're aiming at), but in the end those people would still have to run for office and be voted in by a majority to become politicians.

You put them up (armed with honesty and graphs and an idea of how government works) against a firebreathing demagogue who just pulls "facts" out of their ass and promises the impossible....I think you can see who's likely to win.

[Darvi]

Soooo... Truean2016?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Worth noting that Alexander Hamilton argued at length in favor of an elective monarchy (calling the position "Governor") in 1787. State power was to be eroded, the lower house would be popularly elected and serve 3-year terms, the upper house would be elected by the same electors who chose the Governor (who were in turn popularly elected...sort of an Electoral College system) and serve for life.

And the Federal government had the power to veto any state legislation.


People agreed it was a good plan, but a bit too close to the way Britain was organized and after the Articles of Confederation, the states weren't likely to agree to such a sweeping cession of power to the Federal.

IIRC George Washington was offered the title of King or Emperor following the War of Independance and turned it down. Not unlike the Roman legend of Cincinatus.

That would be the Newburgh Conspiracy, in which Washington delivered the Newburgh Address:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Gentlemen:

By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety, how unmilitary, and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the army decide...

Thus much, gentlemen, I have thought it incumbent on me to observe to you, to show upon what principles I opposed the irregular and hasty meeting which was proposed to have been held on Tuesday last - and not because I wanted a disposition to give you every opportunity consistent with your own honor, and the dignity of the army, to make known your grievances. If my conduct heretofore has not evinced to you that I have been a faithful friend to the army, my declaration of it at this time would be equally unavailing and improper. But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country. As I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you on public duty. As I have been the constant companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel and acknowledge your merits. As I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the army. As my heart has ever expanded with joy, when I have heard its praises, and my indignation has arisen, when the mouth of detraction has been opened against it, it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests.

But how are they to be promoted? The way is plain, says the anonymous addresser. If war continues, remove into the unsettled country, there establish yourselves, and leave an ungrateful country to defend itself. But who are they to defend? Our wives, our children, our farms, and other property which we leave behind us. Or, in this state of hostile separation, are we to take the two first (the latter cannot be removed) to perish in a wilderness, with hunger, cold, and nakedness? If peace takes place, never sheathe your swords, says he, until you have obtained full and ample justice; this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our country in the extremest hour of her distress or turning our arms against it (which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into instant compliance), has something so shocking in it that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! What can this writer have in view, by recommending such measures? Can he be a friend to the army? Can he be a friend to this country? Rather, is he not an insidious foe? Some emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent? And what a compliment does he pay to our understandings when he recommends measures in either alternative, impracticable in their nature?

I cannot, in justice to my own belief, and what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this address, without giving it as my decided opinion, that that honorable body entertain exalted sentiments of the services of the army; and, from a full conviction of its merits and sufferings, will do it complete justice. That their endeavors to discover and establish funds for this purpose have been unwearied, and will not cease till they have succeeded, I have not a doubt. But, like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why, then, should we distrust them? And, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures which may cast a shade over that glory which has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an army which is celebrated through all Europe, for its fortitude and patriotism? And for what is this done? To bring the object we seek nearer? No! most certainly, in my opinion, it will cast it at a greater distance.

For myself (and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity, and justice), a grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me, a recollection of the cheerful assistance and prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicissitude of fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an army I have so long had the honor to command will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of complete justice for all your toils and dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my country and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my services to the utmost of my abilities.

While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner to exert whatever ability I am possessed of in your favor, let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an army, they will cause all your accounts to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions, which were published to you two days ago, and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power to render ample justice to you, for your faithful and meritorious services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood.

By thus determining and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes. You will defeat the insidious designs of our enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings. And you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, "Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining."

Soooo... Truean2016?

I don't think she's old enough. You have to be 35 to be President. Besides, Truean would be far better off as Chief Justice.

[Dutchling]

Soooo... Truean2016?

I don't think she's old enough. You have to be 35 to be President. Besides, Truean would be far better off as Chief Justice Hammerer.

[PTTG??]

Let us consider a few different kinds of minds as legislators- that is, those who make the laws.

Lawyer: The technician of law. They first of all are most highly skilled in the current practice of law, the vocabulary of law, and, by thier very nature the most skilled in circumventing its intention. Much like how a computer programmer is probably better at hacking than anyone else in the room.

Author: Skilled in words, yes. Perhaps this means they will write clear laws, with meaning that is well-understood by all. However, a skilled lawyer will no doubt have the power to reinterpret this creatively. And a writer will most likely not be skilled in the existing practice of law, which eventually lead to contradictions with previous laws.

Engineer: Anyone who is skilled in the design of systems; for the purposes of law, I would consider a software engineer the same as an electrical one, or archetectual. If you found such a mind and taught it law, then you might get something pretty useful for legislation. You would, most likely, end up with a lawyer.

I feel that Lawyers make superior lawmakers, because they are the ones most skilled at defeating lawyers. A flaw with a lawyer-dominated government is that it creates a system of laws not open to negotiation or interpretation, especially once precident has been established. This is not a bad thing, so long as the laws are just; but if the lawmaking process is corrupted, which frankly is easier when naive lawmakers are in office, then iron-clad and evil laws will be made, a most negative turn of events.

I think that what we dislike of Lawyers as legislators is not their inherent lawyerness, but instead the inherent Legislationess.

[RedKing]

If I might borrow DF as an analogy for a minute...

I think the problem is that once a framework of law is created, no matter how noble the purpose, there will exist people who study that framework for the sheer purpose of exploiting it for profit (and occasionaly for lulz). Law hackers, if you will.

Toady created mermaids just because they're a mythical creature and he was trying to spruce up the sea life a bit. Because they were so rare, he set the material value for them quite high. Before long....well, you know the story.

Lawmakers will make a law that seems to serve a good purpose, and then a lawyer comes along and finds a way to follow the letter of the law but utterly pervert the intention of it. That's why people don't like lawyers. And yes, the vast majority of lawyers don't do this, and many even attempt to find a legal remedy to thwart the perversion. But that's not what's going to stick out in the public mind, the same way that a few high-profile upper forum threads have helped to create a reputation for all DF players that is somewhat...disturbing.

[Moghjubar]

Soooo... Truean2016?

I don't think she's old enough. You have to be 35 to be President. Besides, Truean would be far better off as Chief Justice Hammerer.

So... why have we not made a Dwarf party yet and started 'improving' politics?

[mainiac]

If I might borrow DF as an analogy for a minute...

I think the problem is that once a framework of law is created, no matter how noble the purpose, there will exist people who study that framework for the sheer purpose of exploiting it for profit (and occasionaly for lulz). Law hackers, if you will.

Toady created mermaids just because they're a mythical creature and he was trying to spruce up the sea life a bit. Because they were so rare, he set the material value for them quite high. Before long....well, you know the story.

Lawmakers will make a law that seems to serve a good purpose, and then a lawyer comes along and finds a way to follow the letter of the law but utterly pervert the intention of it. That's why people don't like lawyers. And yes, the vast majority of lawyers don't do this, and many even attempt to find a legal remedy to thwart the perversion. But that's not what's going to stick out in the public mind, the same way that a few high-profile upper forum threads have helped to create a reputation for all DF players that is somewhat...disturbing.

My uncle is a lawyer over in China.  He has decades of experience with the American legal system and nearly a decade doing large commercial real estate deals in China.  He told me that his job in China is very easy.  His job is to come up with a legal pretext that sounds vaguely plausible.  It doesn't matter about precedent or other trivia because the case wont be decided on its merits.  The party officials intentionally write the laws to be vague so they can decide whichever way they want.  Other people are in charge of making sure the judges rule the right way.

I feel that a system that allows for loopholes is vastly preferable to a vague one.  Loopholes can be corrected through judicial discretion, appeals and amendments to the code.  But when a law is vague the entire thing is one big loophole.