Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Government vs. government

resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2009 8:31:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've seen many recent discussions as to the perfect form of government structure. I want to take it to the next level and flesh this out in an all out argument. Each person is encouraged to put forth their support and reasoning for one and only one form of government. At the same time they are also encouraged to provide evidence and logic as an attack against any one government structure of their choosing. Before any one starts commenting on others let us wait till several people have started the discussion with their inputs. I will abstain from this seeing as I am the instigator. I might join later but I will sit and watch for now.

peace out :P
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2009 11:42:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are we talking multi-party democracy vs. authoritarian state, or what? You have to be a little more specific, resolution.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 2:57:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This has some validity. I have always thought that voters should be obliged to give their reasons for their decision to vote for a particular party.

As Britain gears up for a general election I am currently canvassing support for the Labour Party. However, when I ask female members of the electorate which way they intend to vote most reply "Conservative" and when I ask them why, all too often the response is "because my husband has told me to."

Personally, I don't those people's votes should count.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 3:12:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 2:57:55 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Personally, I don't those people's votes should count.

But they have the right to that vote, ignorant or not. That's what makes it a democracy for the people, as different from a democracy for the elites.

All you can do is give them the information that is available, and ask them to look it over before they make any final decisions. Some may, some won't - but what else can you do? Deprive them of rights?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 4:22:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 3:12:07 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/24/2009 2:57:55 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Personally, I don't those people's votes should count.

But they have the right to that vote, ignorant or not. That's what makes it a democracy for the people, as different from a democracy for the elites.

All you can do is give them the information that is available, and ask them to look it over before they make any final decisions. Some may, some won't - but what else can you do? Deprive them of rights?

No, you water down their votes through having the elected elect the important people, the senators : )

though then you have to worry about the intelligence of the House of Reps. which is kind of questionable.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 4:38:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 4:22:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
No, you water down their votes through having the elected elect the important people, the senators : )

though then you have to worry about the intelligence of the House of Reps. which is kind of questionable.

No. Simply, no. There are so many more issues I could nitpick with this, including how susceptible to patronage it is, but lets focus on one: what gives the government, elected and empowered by the citizens, to take away their right to hold accountable those that will represent their interests in the chamber of sober second thought?

Want to set standards? Fine. Give them a political or economic marker to meet before they can put their name up for Senate elections. We deserve the best. But they don't deserve to be unaccountable to voters.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 5:02:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 4:38:09 AM, Volkov wrote:

what gives the government, elected and empowered by the citizens, to take away their right to hold accountable those that will represent their interests in the chamber of sober second thought?
No comprehendo. ??

plus, I think such layers away from the flux of popular opinion, as well as layers away from popular ignorance, are important and already exist in governance, like with judges, and think it would heighten the quality of governance.

Though I would worry that such a system might further drown out minority voices, and perhaps heighten partisanship.

I don't necessarily support enacting such a method in our legislature, but I do think it's a method which would, in part, work to wring the stupid out of our electorate. (though really the Senate as it stands isn't that bad).
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 5:13:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 5:02:01 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I don't necessarily support enacting such a method in our legislature, but I do think it's a method which would, in part, work to wring the stupid out of our electorate. (though really the Senate as it stands isn't that bad).

The stupid of the electorate will exist regardless - its just something that is there. Having Senators appointed isn't going to drop it, because as I said, patronage is a heavy worry with such a system. We have it here in Canada, and Jesus Christ, you could butter a prairie-sized piece of bread with the patronage we have.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 6:00:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not talking about political parties here people, but instead the conflicts between say, democracy and communism, or monarchy and anarchy.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 9:29:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 2:57:55 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
As Britain gears up for a general election I am currently canvassing support for the Labour Party.

If you hate this country that much you could always emigrate to Canada or Australia or something?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 9:36:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:04:42 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Here come the Libertarians

Nah, libertarianism is agnostic on structure, except to say that the structures we've tried so far haven't really worked out :).

I'm not talking about political parties here people, but instead the conflicts between say, democracy and communism, or monarchy and anarchy.

Only 2 out of those four are "Structures" of government. Anarchy means no government, but tells us nothing about the structure of that nothing :). Communism can technically exist with any structure, including democracy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 1:00:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 9:36:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:04:42 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Here come the Libertarians

Nah, libertarianism is agnostic on structure, except to say that the structures we've tried so far haven't really worked out :).

I'm not talking about political parties here people, but instead the conflicts between say, democracy and communism, or monarchy and anarchy.

Only 2 out of those four are "Structures" of government. Anarchy means no government, but tells us nothing about the structure of that nothing :). Communism can technically exist with any structure, including democracy.

Pardon me. (sarcasm) I meant socialism instead of communism and oligarchy instead of anarchy. NOW DO IT!!!
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 1:00:52 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 12/24/2009 9:36:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:04:42 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Here come the Libertarians

Nah, libertarianism is agnostic on structure, except to say that the structures we've tried so far haven't really worked out :).

I'm not talking about political parties here people, but instead the conflicts between say, democracy and communism, or monarchy and anarchy.

Only 2 out of those four are "Structures" of government. Anarchy means no government, but tells us nothing about the structure of that nothing :). Communism can technically exist with any structure, including democracy.

Pardon me. (sarcasm) I meant socialism instead of communism and oligarchy instead of anarchy. NOW DO IT!!!

Socialism isn't a structure either.

Oligarchy is vague.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 1:19:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What was the USSR then Mr. Ragnar.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 1:44:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 1:19:56 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
What was the USSR then Mr. Ragnar.

In terms of structure? It was ruled by the appointees of the elected representatives of the elected representatives of a Party, the membership of which was eventually decided by those appointees through very complex set of informal machinations. It was, in other words, one of the infinite possible forms an oligarchy could take.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.