This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Not quite sure what to make of this. Quantity exists apart from our knowing it. Nor do we need a framework to know it...A child can distinguish 1 toy from 2 toys without any mathematical framework imposed on him.
Not really. The mathematical framework is created by the limitation of our perception. A child will distinguish 1 toy from 2 toys, but will do so within a framework that as adults, we can identify. They don't reach out in metaphysical space and identify that there is intrinsically 1 or 2 objects there, they do so in realspace as a result of their perception.
Nope, you'll have the same order, it would just be described differently.
This was addressed later. I was referring to a different order with respect to the physical attribution of the rights, not the rights themselves.
See, I don't think that is something "agreed upon." 1 + 1 = 2. It's more of a given.
Yes, the first bit, I know you think it's given. That was more the point of me trying to split it up, because I'm arguing about the second bit mainly, not the first bit. I'm accepting your reasoning about the dependency of rights for now.
I've already told you, I won't argue terms. You tell me what terms to use and I'll show you how they fit in the hierarchy.
I know, you keep saying that, then you keep disagreeing with how I've defined something, such as what 'shelter' is.
The thing is, for any given action, there can be a number of ways to define it. Based on different definitions, they'll fit into different points in the hierarchy.
Summary
So going right back to the government issue, you've said you don't want to give Government the power to define, that it should be in the hands of people/observers. That's fair enough, but in practicality, the government (or opposition) posits the definition through laws it enacts, and society will agree or disagree by voting politicians in or out.
At the end of the day, by what you're saying, the Government isn't restricting freedom of speech, it's drawing a line in the sand and defining certain actions as protecting rights higher up in the hierarchy (though perhaps not in so ideal words). If that means that certain actions related to freedom of speech are restricted, then by your hierarchy, it's still 'right'.
The Government shouldn't be the one to set and subsequently enforce a definition, this should be done by the people. However, the people do so through the
mechanism
of the Government, since the alternative would be to have a referendum on every piece of legislation that goes through Government to ensure that each action being legislated is being defined correctly and enforced in accordance with the hierarchy of rights. This is unwieldy, so we essentially delegate our powers of definition to the publically elected Government.
Is that fair enough? I'd like to come to an agreement moreorless sometime soon so that I can go back to focusing on my thesis due in a couple of weeks :) Full time work and part time thesis is a recipe for disaster, being distracted by Randomness just makes it worse ;)
Edit: Oh, and in case you didn't see, Caosblighter is back on the Pally forums!
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So going right back to the government issue, you've said you don't want to give Government the power to define, that it should be in the hands of people/observers. That's fair enough, but in practicality, the government (or opposition) posits the definition through laws it enacts, and society will agree or disagree by voting politicians in or out. That's whats wrong with our government. Guess who declared abortion legal...the Supreme Court, who are not voted in. The only way of getting that repealed is hit and miss, hoping the pro-abortionists retire when an anti-abortionist is in office.
Practicality or not, the government has power it should not have.
I don't know your stance on abortion, and I honestly don't care, I'm just using it as an example.
At the end of the day, by what you're saying, the Government isn't restricting freedom of speech, it's drawing a line in the sand and defining certain actions as protecting rights higher up in the hierarchy (though perhaps not in so ideal words). If that means that certain actions related to freedom of speech are restricted, then by your hierarchy, it's still 'right'.
That's what it should be doing...unfortunately, it's not.
The Government shouldn't be the one to set and subsequently enforce a definition, this should be done by the people. However, the people do so through the
mechanism
of the Government, since the alternative would be to have a referendum on every piece of legislation that goes through Government to ensure that each action being legislated is being defined correctly and enforced in accordance with the hierarchy of rights. This is unwieldy, so we essentially delegate our powers of definition to the publicly elected Government.
Well that's the democratic system. Debating whether that is an effective system is a completely different debate.
In short:
The American Government as it is at the moment does not and can not protect the rights of its citizens. I believe the cause is that they think they have the power to override rights that are above them. The Government should serve the rights of its people, not the other way around.
Edit:
Caosblighter
/giggle
Post by
Squishalot
Guess who declared abortion legal...the Supreme Court, who are not voted in. The only way of getting that repealed is hit and miss, hoping the pro-abortionists retire when an anti-abortionist is in office.
Not sure how your system works, but in Australia, laws are put in place by Parliament (Congress), and interpreted by the court system. In the event that a law has been interpreted in a way in which Parliament didn't intend, they can go back and repeal the law and institute a new one that is better worded and more explicit in matching their intent. At the end of the day, the High Court (in Australia, Supreme is one step down) is there to interpret the legislation and to ensure that legislation is in line with the Constitution. The voted Government still retains the power to change laws.
Well that's the democratic system. Debating whether that is an effective system is a completely different debate.
In short:
The American Government as it is at the moment does not and can not protect the rights of its citizens. I believe the cause is that they think they have the power to override rights that are above them. The Government should serve the rights of its people, not the other way around.
Whether it does protect the rights of its citizens is a debate about whether you think Government is actually acting on behalf of citizens, or whether you think they're just flying on their own strategy. Like I suggested before, the alternative to the Democratic system is to have a referendum to ensure that each and every decision made is subjected to the scrutiny and input of the population. The political system's effective and the Government's effectiveness are essentially the same debate, since the Government only has as much power as the political system will give it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The Supreme Court has a lot of power in the US. I think one of the biggest signs that there is something wrong is the amount of flip flopping it does--either there is something wrong with the Constitution they claim to be following, or there is something wrong with the amount of power they have in interpreting it. I think it's the latter.
You want to know what the first thing I'd do to the American political system? Get rid of the party system...it puts way too much power in the hands of a few. Secondly, I would make sure there are a lot more checks and balances among the different branches of government. Thirdly, I would decentralize the government, going back to a pre-civil war set-up with the states holding most of the power, while the federal government is there just to hold the states together as one nation.
Post by
Squishalot
The Supreme Court has a lot of power in the US. I think one of the biggest signs that there is something wrong is the amount of flip flopping it does--either there is something wrong with the Constitution they claim to be following, or there is something wrong with the amount of power they have in interpreting it. I think it's the latter.
That shouldn't stop the Government from essentially preventing the Supreme Court from exercising too much power, by rewording laws to prevent mis-interpretation. "Shouldn't", being the operative word.
You want to know what the first thing I'd do to the American political system? Get rid of the party system...it puts way too much power in the hands of a few.
Not sure how it works in the US, but in Australia, the party system essentially is a mini-replica of society. A bunch of people who make decisions, band together on the basis of similar morals. They compromise with each other to determine a final consolidated list of morals and views that they wish to push, since the voice of many works better than the voice of one.
However, in the US, I believe the President has a lot more political power than any single Senator or other parliamentarian, is that right? In Aus, the Prime Minister is simply another Minister of Parliament, with a single vote, and no greater ability to veto or to force events than any other Minister. Would that be sufficient to address that point, or would you want to tackle the party system itself? That's more difficult, because it involves changing the mindset of politicians, rather than the structure of the system.
Secondly, I would make sure there are a lot more checks and balances among the different branches of government.
Accountability and transparency is all you're really going to get. Under the Westminster system of law, the judiciary (i.e. the court system, including your Supreme Court) is supposed to be the check and balance against the Government. But if you don't trust the Supreme Court, then it defeats the purpose of that check and balance.
The problem with any check and balance is that the authority needs the ability to intervene and enforce action to maintain the balance if necessary. But by giving any institution or individual that power, you're creating another position that can be abused, just like your view of the Supreme Court. Put it in the hands of the people to be entitled to raise a vote of no-confidence in the Government and force a vote (for example), and you'll end up with numerous and frivolous requests every time the Government does anything.
The best you'll get is transparency and accountability. Then, the check and balance is your ability to kick out the people who've stuffed things up at the next election.
Thirdly, I would decentralize the government, going back to a pre-civil war set-up with the states holding most of the power, while the federal government is there just to hold the states together as one nation.
Wouldn't that just push any potential abuse of power back to the States? Not to mention the issues of cross-border trading, movement, anything really, when you have separate laws covering *everything* between states?
If you're going to do that... then why bother banding together as a nation anyway? Why not chuck an EU and band together as a collective group for the purposes of negotiating with the world, without taking away from a state's identity?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
You want to know what the first thing I'd do to the American political system? Get rid of the party system...it puts way too much power in the hands of a few.
You should read up on the party system. It is both a good and bad force in the United States; in particular, it has the focusing affect that Squish points out. Would you rather have millions dictating their thoughts to those in the House and the Senate? Utter chaos.
The thing that makes the party system work is that there are other factions outside the party system. Various sections of industry, the NRA, so on and so forth. PACs are not completely and totally bad.
Secondly, I would make sure there are a lot more checks and balances among the different branches of government.
There are more than you think. The oft considered fourth branch is the media, which is a check of its own. Of course, you can throw this out if you're a conspiracy theorist (NWO...)... but if you're one of those, then this discussion was useless to begin with.
Thirdly, I would decentralize the government, going back to a pre-civil war set-up with the states holding most of the power, while the federal government is there just to hold the states together as one nation.
Wouldn't that just push any potential abuse of power back to the States? Not to mention the issues of cross-border trading, movement, anything really, when you have separate laws covering *everything* between states?
If you're going to do that... then why bother banding together as a nation anyway? Why not chuck an EU and band together as a collective group for the purposes of negotiating with the world, without taking away from a state's identity?
This is an essential point. The Articles of Confederation didn't work... twice. Once, between our Independence, and a second time, when the South attempted to split from the North. The Constitution is a powerful document, and it is likely the only reason this country exists today. Would you have wanted Nazi Germany facing the Confederated States of America? Aside from that point, your history is slightly off. It was when the Constitution was created that the States were bound together... not the Civil War that bound them.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You want to know what the first thing I'd do to the American political system? Get rid of the party system...it puts way too much power in the hands of a few.
You should read up on the party system. It is both a good and bad force in the United States; in particular, it has the focusing affect that Squish points out. Would you rather have millions dictating their thoughts to those in the House and the Senate? Utter chaos.
The thing that makes the party system work is that there are other factions outside the party system. Various sections of industry, the NRA, so on and so forth. PACs are not completely and totally bad.
I have nothing against anything you say.
The problem that I have is the fact that it's a hard fact that the Democrat and Republican parties are the only parties that have a chance at the Presidency and 99% of Congress. I could have voted independent last election, but I knew it would be a waste of a vote...so I voted for the lesser of two evils. Is that democracy? Getting the guy who will mess up the least in office? Democracy should not be synonymous with compromise, because we'll get absolutely nowhere on compromise.
Secondly, I would make sure there are a lot more checks and balances among the different branches of government.
There are more than you think. The oft considered fourth branch is the media, which is a check of its own. Of course, you can throw this out if you're a conspiracy theorist (NWO...)... but if you're one of those, then this discussion was useless to begin with.
I am in bed with quite a few conspiracy theories, not NWO in particular. I think money is the driving force behind the media, not some grand political conspiracy. But that's not the point. I think there need to be some direct checks between the people and the rest of the government, and as I stated before the Supreme Court in particular needs more checks.
Thirdly, I would decentralize the government, going back to a pre-civil war set-up with the states holding most of the power, while the federal government is there just to hold the states together as one nation.
Wouldn't that just push any potential abuse of power back to the States? Not to mention the issues of cross-border trading, movement, anything really, when you have separate laws covering *everything* between states?
If you're going to do that... then why bother banding together as a nation anyway? Why not chuck an EU and band together as a collective group for the purposes of negotiating with the world, without taking away from a state's identity?
This is an essential point. The Articles of Confederation didn't work... twice. Once, between our Independence, and a second time, when the South attempted to split from the North. The Constitution is a powerful document, and it is likely the only reason this country exists today. Would you have wanted Nazi Germany facing the Confederated States of America? Aside from that point, your history is slightly off. It was when the Constitution was created that the States were bound together... not the Civil War that bound them.
Who said we should use the Articles of Confederation? We did quite well from 1787 to 1865 with a fairly decentralized government based of the same Constitution we have today.
I'm not sure what you mean by my history being off. The civil war was less about slavery and more about state rights. Guess what happened when the state rights advocates got the $%^& beaten out of them....the Republican party took advantage of that to greatly centralize the government.
The Civil War was the beginning of the end of small government, culminating with FDR's takeover.
Post by
Skyfire
Getting the guy who will mess up the least in office?
Are you perfect?
Democracy should not be synonymous with compromise, because we'll get absolutely nowhere on compromise.
This nation is not a democracy, and I wouldn't forgive you for thinking that it was.
And compromise is exactly what this nation is built on. You know the reason why Congress
apparently
goes nowhere? Compromise. But do you also know why this nation changes? Compromise. Consistently, the country is changing. It is compromise that holds this nation together. And due to compromise, the change is small. Ever so small. Incremental. You think it would be prosperous for a nation not to move (forward, or backward) incrementally?
I wonder... what would happen if compromise were removed. You think it's bad that compromise exists?
"A little revolution is good, now and then."... perhaps a true statement, but is it time for revolution? Do you want to risk that, here, now? Drastic change, people are afraid of. Little change... we can handle that. Compromise is safe, and is best the indicator of the people. If people do not like a change, compromise does not happen.
Does not.
Healthcare now.... A big change. And with little compromise. Can you say for certain that it is the right? What happens if it is not? Granted, it is our fault for not having sought the gradual change which makes this country run twenty years ago.... Would you rather we were moving around in half steps, or in fear that we are running in leaps and bounds?
Who said we should use the Articles of Confederation? We did quite well from 1787 to 1865 with a fairly decentralized government based of the same Constitution we have today.
I'm not sure what you mean by my history being off. The civil war was less about slavery and more about state rights. Guess what happened when the state rights advocates got the $%^& beaten out of them....the Republican party took advantage of that to greatly centralize the government.
The Civil War was the beginning of the end of small government, culminating with FDR's takeover.
I said nothing of slavery, nor did I not have the knowledge that the Civil War began as a war between the Southern "States" and the Northern "Federacy".
The fairly decentralized government was one not because of any Constitutional reason as you seem to think it was, but because the people themselves were decentralized.
That won't happen today.... The Internet and other media, for one. The states themselves, for another. International government, as a third. Industrialization, as a forth. The days of decentralization are long gone, and there is no turning back.
What you suggest should occur is basically the equivalent of the Articles of Confederation, and that cannot be afforded by the nation as a whole. The strife that would occur...
and as I stated before the Supreme Court in particular needs more checks.
This is a discussion I've had here before. The question I pose to you, is: How do you check the Supreme Court without crippling it?
But that's not the point. I think there need to be some direct checks between the people and the rest of the government
But it is my point. Any direct checks are long gone. That's a scary thought to you, isn't it?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Getting the guy who will mess up the least in office?
Are you perfect?
Nope and neither are my politicians. However I when I'm forced to vote based on what's bad in the other candidate instead of what's good in mine, there is something wrong.
Democracy should not be synonymous with compromise, because we'll get absolutely nowhere on compromise.
This nation is not a democracy, and I wouldn't forgive you for thinking that it was.
Um..what? We're a representative democracy.
And compromise is exactly what this nation is built on. You know the reason why Congress
apparently
goes nowhere? Compromise. But do you also know why this nation changes? Compromise. Consistently, the country is changing. It is compromise that holds this nation together. And due to compromise, the change is small. Ever so small. Incremental. You think it would be prosperous for a nation not to move (forward, or backward) incrementally?
You're arguing against my statement by stating the exact opposite. I said we'll get no where on compromise, you say we will. When we move forward it's because someone gave in. When we move forward just a little bit, it's because someone gave in a little bit. True compromise cannot move us forward because doing so would tread on people's feet.
I wonder... what would happen if compromise were removed. You think it's bad that compromise exists?
I think it's bad that our country is run on that principle alone.
"A little revolution is good, now and then."... perhaps a true statement, but is it time for revolution? Do you want to risk that, here, now? Drastic change, people are afraid of. Little change... we can handle that. Compromise is safe, and is best the indicator of the people. If people do not like a change, compromise does not happen.
Does not.
The problem is it's not the people compromising, it's the government.
Healthcare now.... A big change. And with little compromise. Can you say for certain that it is the right? What happens if it is not? Granted, it is our fault for not having sought the gradual change which makes this country run twenty years ago.... Would you rather we were moving around in half steps, or in fear that we are running in leaps and bounds? I have nothing against big change. It's the content of the change I'm against. I think we
need
big changes. Now.
The fairly decentralized government was one not because of any Constitutional reason as you seem to think it was, but because the people themselves were decentralized.
Who do you think is in a better position to see and deal with Florida's problems: the Governor of Florida or the President of the US? The Governor obviously. Now who is in a better position to see and deal with the problems between Florida and Georgia? The President obviously.
That won't happen today.... The Internet and other media, for one. The states themselves, for another. International government, as a third. Industrialization, as a forth. The days of decentralization are long gone, and there is no turning back.
I think there is one and only one reason we aren't going back. Because we've already let the central government go to far...they've tasted blood and they're not letting go.
What you suggest should occur is basically the equivalent of the Articles of Confederation, and that cannot be afforded by the nation as a whole. The strife that would occur...
Nope, I'm suggesting the Constitution be interpreted the way it's writers interpreted it.
How do you check the Supreme Court without crippling it?
Allow them to be impeached by referendum. Let them be elected by the people directly. I could go on; there are many ways it can be done.
Make them accountable
.
But it is my point. Any direct checks are long gone. That's a scary thought to you, isn't it?
Yes, and it should scare you $%^&less, too.
Post by
Skyfire
Nope and neither are my politicians. However I when I'm forced to vote based on what's bad in the other candidate instead of what's good in mine, there is something wrong.
Um..what? We're a representative democracy.
The problem is it's not the people compromising, it's the government.
Allow them to be impeached by referendum. Let them be elected by the people directly. I could go on; there are many ways it can be done.
Make them accountable
.
A republic. What goes on in a democracy is not what goes on in a republic, and I trust you know that. Spouting "oh, democracy must be pure!" is bullcrap and you know it.
The price you pay for a republic is that you don't always get what is in your best interests. But, you get somewhere, because 300 million is too many to govern via democracy.
As an aside regarding the judges, the check
against the people
is that they are selected by the President and raised to power through Congress. Try again.
You're arguing against my statement by stating the exact opposite. I said we'll get no where on compromise, you say we will. When we move forward it's because someone gave in. When we move forward just a little bit, it's because someone gave in a little bit. True compromise cannot move us forward because doing so would tread on people's feet.
I think it's bad that our country is run on that principle alone.
There's a saying about when you're in Congress, or you're the President... you're going to make at least 50% of the population mad. Treading on people's feet is what happens in government, or at least to your eye and mine. The goal is still not to tread on people's feet.
And the irony of my statement? You and I won't compromise. And we won't get anywhere. I guarantee you that without compromise, nothing will happen. Nothing.
The only place where you don't get to compromise is when you're the boss/father/whatever and you have under you people who don't get to argue with you. A dictatorship sounds great for the US!
How ridiculous is that hypothetical? Mightily, it is.
No, compromise is the key.
I have nothing against big change. It's the content of the change I'm against. I think we
need
big changes. Now.
You have nothing against big change, or even the content.
You are educated.
The masses are not.
Who do you think is in a better position to see and deal with Florida's problems: the Governor of Florida or the President of the US? The Governor obviously. Now who is in a better position to see and deal with the problems between Florida and Georgia? The President obviously.
Point out places where the President (any of them!) has stepped in to "deal" with Florida's problems. Or Georgia's problems.
Have care in choosing your instances...
That won't happen today.... The Internet and other media, for one. The states themselves, for another. International government, as a third. Industrialization, as a forth. The days of decentralization are long gone, and there is no turning back.
I think there is one and
only
one reason we aren't going back. Because we've already let the central government go to far...they've tasted blood and they're not letting go.
Perhaps a fifth reason, but not inclusive of all reasons by any stretch of the imagination.
Nope, I'm suggesting the Constitution be interpreted the way it's writers interpreted it.
Who's to say?
200 years later, do you think the Constitution would have been written the way it is if it were written today? I don't. Would that be a good thing, to write a different one? Most assuredly so.
Circumstances change. If we don't change our interpretation of the Constitution with them, we are left in the dust of the proverbial rat race.
But it is my point. Any direct checks are long gone. That's a scary thought to you, isn't it?
Yes, and it should scare you $%^&less, too.
The way of the Stoics was to worry about what, and when, you could, while dealing best with what you couldn't. Should I be worrisome? Now?
Right
now?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
...the check against the people...
I lol'd. The people don't need checks in relation to the branches of government. The government is there to serve the people. You try again -_-
But, you get somewhere, because 300 million is too many to govern via democracy.
Hence the need to go to a more state-centric system. Did you miss that whole point? :P
Smaller populations = less need for compromise = getting things done
A dictatorship sounds great for the US!
I'm a libertarian. A dictator is the last thing I want.
Point out places where the President (any of them!) has stepped in to "deal" with Florida's problems. Or Georgia's problems.
"
The Indian Removal Act
was signed into law by Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands
within existing state borders
." It was primarily aimed at Georgia and the Indian tribes therein.
Nope, I'm suggesting the Constitution be interpreted the way it's writers interpreted it.
Who's to say?
Thomas Jefferson
and
James Madison.
Would that be a good thing, to write a different one? Most assuredly so.
So...let's get another one written already. That doesn't justify taking the original one out of context.
Should I be worrisome? Now?
Right
now?
Yup.
Post by
Squishalot
Circumstances change. If we don't change our interpretation of the Constitution with them, we are left in the dust of the proverbial rat race.
Heh, if people can change their interpretation of the Bible to update their views for modern times, it's pretty fair to say that the interpretation of the Constitution can probably change too.
The problem is it's not the people compromising, it's the government.
I'm a libertarian. A dictator is the last thing I want.
Yes, but by arguing against compromise, that's the first thing you're going to get.
Firstly, the people are compromising by putting a particular government in place, with some policies they approve of and others they disapprove of (unless you're a diehard Democrat or Republican). Secondly, the Government is compromising to act in order with their responsibility as a representative of the people who elected them.
If you're not going to give and take, it means that one person is going to get their way entirely, and the other's going to lose out. Who's the one person going to be?
Give us a description of what you think the ideal political system would be. Saying "the party system should be abolished" doesn't tell us what you actually think is good, we need to try to guess what you're actually thinking. There's no sense in abolishing a bad system just to move to a worse one.
Hence the need to go to a more state-centric system. Did you miss that whole point? :P
Smaller populations = less need for compromise = getting things done
You still end up with all the problems that you're criticising the US Government/political system for. Except that you have 50 State Governments without the checks and balances that you're looking for, rather than a single Federal Government.
Allow them to be impeached by referendum. Let them be elected by the people directly. I could go on; there are many ways it can be done. Make them accountable.
The Supreme Court can already be impeached by referendum. You can do anything by referendum. The problem is that if you try to make decisions by referendum, you end up not getting anywhere because decision making by the masses, despite Wiki's best attempts to prove otherwise, is fundamentally flawed, and ends up walking over minority groups.
Side note on electoral parties:
I've often considered why less politicians run as independents not aligned to a party system (not sure if this is allowed in the US, but it is in Aus - we've got a few independent MPs in Parliament, and quite a few independent Senators in our upper house).
I concluded that there is a very good reason why they don't - because they won't get voted in. A person in an electorate is unlikely to get enough exposure on their own to be able to get enough votes to be a force at the polling booths. In any given electorate, there might be as many as 12 people running to be a member of Parliament - the top three parties will get probably 98% of the vote anyway.
The independents do provide a check and balance of sorts to the major parties, since they're often on the cusp that the major party needs to get a majority to get a vote through. However, any criticisms on the checks and balances of Government can be equally applied to the minority parties also. In Australia, for example, one Government (State, I think) is having issues, because the last independent Senator it needs to get a majority and pass through any legislation has basically put his foot down and said that he won't pass any bills unless the Government approves a bill to allow people to get licenses to shoot animals in national parks (as opposed to in the wild / on their own properties).
And we have another independent Senator who regularly does some sort of strange antic - he's dragged a jerry can into the Senate before to protest about fuel prices, and he's come
dressed up in a bottle costume
so that he could be a 'message in a bottle' for recycling.
It works, sometimes, but it can also simply create a problem where you end up with someone holding the balance of power, and having no checks or balances on him/her.
(Sorry if someone posts in between me posting this - I've been in and out)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The problem is it's not the people compromising, it's the government.
I'm a libertarian. A dictator is the last thing I want.
Yes, but by arguing against compromise, that's the first thing you're going to get.
Or you get a pure democracy (as Skyfire said).
Firstly, the people are compromising by putting a particular government in place, with some policies they approve of and others they disapprove of (unless you're a diehard Democrat or Republican).
Which is what makes the party system wrong. I'm anti-war and anti-abortion. Oh no, who do I vote for? I shouldn't have to give up a belief in order to support another belief.
Secondly, the Government is compromising to act in order with their responsibility as a representative of the people who elected them.
A government should act according the the precepts they were elected on. There is no compromise involve. If the President ran on the platform of ending the Iraqi War, he sure as hell better do that.
If you're not going to give and take, it means that one person is going to get their way entirely, and the other's going to lose out. Who's the one person going to be?
Whoever's in the majority.
Give us a description of what you think the ideal political system would be. Saying "the party system should be abolished" doesn't tell us what you actually think is good, we need to try to guess what you're actually thinking. There's no sense in abolishing a bad system just to move to a worse one.
That was a step I was giving to help fix the American political system--a system I said I was willing to work with. If you want a real-world example of more-or-less what I have in mind--look at Estonia. A few more steps and they'll be there.
You still end up with all the problems that you're criticising the US Government/political system for. Except that you have 50 State Governments without the checks and balances that you're looking for, rather than a single Federal Government.
Yes the problems are still there, but they're easier to deal with and fix. And we'll still have a single Federal government to take care of inter-state issues, just not intra-state issues.
The Supreme Court can already be impeached by referendum.
In the US referendum is only used in overturning legislative decisions, not judicial decisions, nor impeachments.
I concluded that there is a very good reason why they don't - because they won't get voted in.
That's exactly my point. People don't vote independent because they know it wont do much...that's the power of the dual-party system. If everyone was able to vote for the person they wanted instead of forcing themselves to choose between 2 candidates they don't want, then you'd see a huge rise in non-Republicans/non-Democrats being elected.
Another reason I dislike the dual party system is that it's winner take all, in the sense that if you get 51% of Congressional seats and the the other party gets 49%, you've got Congress more or less in the bag (barring decenters in your party). So then you've got people who voted Republican for issue X--not Y--getting Y forced on them too. Now take a multi-party system where everyone voted for the person they fully supported. Now people's interests are completely mirrored in Congress. Voila, now it's the people running the Country, not Congressmen.
Post by
Skyfire
I lol'd. The people don't need checks in relation to the branches of government. The government is there to serve the people. You try again -_-
I'm not sure it's fair of you to generalize from judges to government...
Hence the need to go to a more state-centric system. Did you miss that whole point? :P
Smaller populations = less need for compromise = getting things done
See Squishie.
"
The Indian Removal Act
was signed into law by Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands
within existing state borders
." It was primarily aimed at Georgia and the Indian tribes therein.
History context fail. The Native Americans weren't considered to be citizens of the US, much less of the States. This means that the only people who could deal with them, by the Constitution (see Article 1), was Congress, and subsequently the President.
Thomas Jefferson
and
James Madison.
Aw, you're pulling my quote out of context there.
So...let's get another one written already. That doesn't justify taking the original one out of context.
By the Constitution itself, 2/3 of Federal Congress
and
3/4 of the State Congresses must agree to any Amendments... you know how many Amendments are proposed to Congress each
year
? How many make it past Congress? And finally, how many Amendments we've successfully added to the Constitution in the past 200 years? And you would have us get rid of it?
Yup.
Another out of context.
Heh, if people can change their interpretation of the Bible to update their views for modern times, it's pretty fair to say that the interpretation of the Constitution can probably change too.
Agreed.
Or you get a pure democracy (as Skyfire said).
Lolwut? I haven't said anything of the sort.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Or you get a pure democracy (as Skyfire said).
Lolwut? I haven't said anything of the sort.
I thought you implied it in your whole response to what I said about compromise. I guess not.
But whether you said it or not, it's true. In a pure democracy, it's majority wins all. No compromise, no dictator.
Post by
Skyfire
I thought you implied it in your whole response to what I said about compromise. I guess not.
But whether you said it or not, it's true. In a pure democracy, it's majority wins all. No compromise, no dictator.
And you think the majority would be less of a dictator...?
There's a reason why we have the Electoral College, a two House legislature... the list goes on and on. The majority will be no less tyrannical than any true dictator.
That is a consequence unthinkable.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And you think the majority would be less of a dictator...?
Not at all
Let's apply this to an ideal multi-partied system.
Let's say 5 seats need to be filled in the House:
Canditate A got 25% of the votes:
Supports X
Supports Y
Supports Z
Candidate B got 20% of the votes:
Supports X
Doesn't support Y
Doesn't support Z
Candidate C got 20% of the votes:
Supports X
Doesn't support Y
Doesn't support Z (same as candidate B)
Candidate D got 15% of the votes:
Doesn't support X
Supports Y
Doesn't support Z
Candidate E got 10% of the votes:
Doesn't support X
Supports Y
Supports Z
The final 10% was divided up among candidates who did not have enough votes to win.
If we're tally up votes the majority:
Supports X
Supports Y
Doesn't support Z
But, notice, that doesn't match up with a single one of the Candidates who won. None of them are dictators. The American people as a majority stated that they want X and Y, but not Z...they should get it.
Are you seriously calling that dictatorship?
There's a reason why we have the Electoral College, a two House legislature... the list goes on and on. The majority will be no less tyrannical than any true dictator.
No...that's the reason we have the Constitution + Bill of Rights...so intrinsic rights cannot be abridged upon.
The Electoral College is a joke.
Post by
Squishalot
Or you get a pure democracy (as Skyfire said).
Lolwut? I haven't said anything of the sort.
I thought you implied it in your whole response to what I said about compromise. I guess not.
But whether you said it or not, it's true. In a pure democracy, it's majority wins all. No compromise, no dictator.
The problem is that if you try to make decisions by referendum, you end up not getting anywhere because decision making by the masses, despite Wiki's best attempts to prove otherwise, is fundamentally flawed, and ends up walking over minority groups.
You end up with the majority dictating over the minority, irrespective of any hierarchy of rights, since the majority will (I presume) in it for self interest, rather than country interest. "Our rights are more important than your rights" will be the catchphrase of the day.
Then you consider, people are sick of politics so much that voting's not even compulsory in the US. What makes you think that people are all going to educate themselves and vote for a single person who represents what they believe in?
You can split the parties up all you like, but common beliefs and voter apathy suggest that they'll just form up again.
Yes the problems are still there, but they're easier to deal with and fix. And we'll still have a single Federal government to take care of inter-state issues, just not intra-state issues.
Taken out of context. The problems I'm referring to aren't the healthcare or state issues, it's the overall distrust you have of Government and the courts and the overall political process.
Secondly, the Government is compromising to act in order with their responsibility as a representative of the people who elected them.
A government should act according the the precepts they were elected on. There is no compromise involve. If the President ran on the platform of ending the Iraqi War, he sure as hell better do that.
You're implicitly saying that a government is delegated no power to act on any matters that weren't raised in the election campaign. If a new war comes up, they can't vote on it, because they didn't explicitly say during the election campaign that they would or wouldn't support such a war? Rubbish. They're required to make judgement calls on what they believe they've been elected for. If that's about promises made, then so be it. If nothing's been said, then they need to work it out for themselves.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Or you get a pure democracy (as Skyfire said).
Lolwut? I haven't said anything of the sort.
I thought you implied it in your whole response to what I said about compromise. I guess not.
But whether you said it or not, it's true. In a pure democracy, it's majority wins all. No compromise, no dictator.
The problem is that if you try to make decisions by referendum, you end up not getting anywhere because decision making by the masses, despite Wiki's best attempts to prove otherwise, is fundamentally flawed, and ends up walking over minority groups.
You end up with the majority dictating over the minority, irrespective of any hierarchy of rights, since the majority will (I presume) in it for self interest, rather than country interest. "Our rights are more important than your rights" will be the catchphrase of the day.
Then you consider, people are sick of politics so much that voting's not even compulsory in the US. What makes you think that people are all going to educate themselves and vote for a single person who represents what they believe in?
You can split the parties up all you like, but common beliefs and voter apathy suggest that they'll just form up again.
There would be no walking over minorities' rights. Rights don't get voted out. Their views will, obviously...they're in the minority.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.