Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is America too big?

thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:30:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

You trollin' m8?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Though, if you are serious, just make each state break from the Union. From there, we form an EU conglomerate with open borders, the same currency, etc. The states unite for wars or whatever, rek the noobs, and then come back home. :P

But I mean this is totally feasible, but I dunno if it is the right idea. I mean, Texas would be so superior that everyone would feel inadequate. :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:33:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:30:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

You trollin' m8?

No. I could be convinced that it's good policy to keep the union together but I'll never be convinced that what we have is a "democracy" in any meaningful sense, and it certainly isn't representative
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:34:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:32:44 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Though, if you are serious, just make each state break from the Union. From there, we form an EU conglomerate with open borders, the same currency, etc. The states unite for wars or whatever, rek the noobs, and then come back home. :P

So federalism, basically. I'm pretty okay with the system we had in the beginning although really some states are even too big. There's no way the government of Texas is considering the interests of all its citizens, that's just impossible.

But I mean this is totally feasible, but I dunno if it is the right idea. I mean, Texas would be so superior that everyone would feel inadequate. :D
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:35:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:33:03 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:30:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

You trollin' m8?

No. I could be convinced that it's good policy to keep the union together but I'll never be convinced that what we have is a "democracy" in any meaningful sense, and it certainly isn't representative

We've never had a democracy. :P

It isn't representative? Local governments matter a lot more than the federal ones, and those are on the local level that this video calls for. So, yes, the part of government that passes the most legislation is representative. Plus, the founders never thought the Federal government would be this powerful. They thought that the majority of decisions would be done through the constitution which requires a 2/3rds majority--and that would be representative. Don't be pessimistic m8. A glass is 100% full because air fills up the rest :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:37:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:34:22 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:32:44 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Though, if you are serious, just make each state break from the Union. From there, we form an EU conglomerate with open borders, the same currency, etc. The states unite for wars or whatever, rek the noobs, and then come back home. :P

So federalism, basically. I'm pretty okay with the system we had in the beginning although really some states are even too big. There's no way the government of Texas is considering the interests of all its citizens, that's just impossible.

Yes it does. Everyone in Texas wants to be the best. They are the best. Therefore, they consider their interests :D

But in all seriousness, that is impossible. Don't be a Utopian commie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There will always be winners and losers. The goal of any politician is to try to maximize the winners and minimize the losers. Even on a small scale, some people will have to lose (at least temporarily)--you can't get a group of 10 people to agree on everything!

But I mean this is totally feasible, but I dunno if it is the right idea. I mean, Texas would be so superior that everyone would feel inadequate. :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:38:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:35:38 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:33:03 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:30:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

You trollin' m8?

No. I could be convinced that it's good policy to keep the union together but I'll never be convinced that what we have is a "democracy" in any meaningful sense, and it certainly isn't representative

We've never had a democracy. :P

It isn't representative? Local governments matter a lot more than the federal ones, and those are on the local level that this video calls for. So, yes, the part of government that passes the most legislation is representative.

The impact of the federal government on the life of the average citizen grows by the day if not by the hour. Local governments still have some power just by necessity (the federal government isn't interested in deciding how to maintain your municipal parks) but the power of state governments have been almost completely whittled away

Plus, the founders never thought the Federal government would be this powerful. They thought that the majority of decisions would be done through the constitution which requires a 2/3rds majority--and that would be representative. Don't be pessimistic m8. A glass is 100% full because air fills up the rest :D
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:43:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:38:28 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:35:38 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:33:03 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:30:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

You trollin' m8?

No. I could be convinced that it's good policy to keep the union together but I'll never be convinced that what we have is a "democracy" in any meaningful sense, and it certainly isn't representative

We've never had a democracy. :P

It isn't representative? Local governments matter a lot more than the federal ones, and those are on the local level that this video calls for. So, yes, the part of government that passes the most legislation is representative.

The impact of the federal government on the life of the average citizen grows by the day if not by the hour. Local governments still have some power just by necessity (the federal government isn't interested in deciding how to maintain your municipal parks) but the power of state governments have been almost completely whittled away

This is true, but local lawmaking is waaaaaaay more important. Plus, local election turnout can have a huge impact on elections, but if 100% of the Asians came out to vote in the presidential election the effect would be smaller (in Hawaii, if all Asians voted, the impact would be huge http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

Plus, this can be remedied by having representatives that support states rights. Adams 2036 :P

Plus, the founders never thought the Federal government would be this powerful. They thought that the majority of decisions would be done through the constitution which requires a 2/3rds majority--and that would be representative. Don't be pessimistic m8. A glass is 100% full because air fills up the rest :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 4:49:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Stability has always been more important to me than whether or not a government is actually representative. To be perfectly honest, I think that it's a fantastic thing that our government isn't very representative, since most people are entitled idiots with little to no sense of civic duty. But I'm a piece of elitist scum, so take it for what it's worth.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Romanii
Posts: 4,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 5:41:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:35:38 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:33:03 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:30:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

You trollin' m8?

No. I could be convinced that it's good policy to keep the union together but I'll never be convinced that what we have is a "democracy" in any meaningful sense, and it certainly isn't representative

We've never had a democracy. :P

It isn't representative? Local governments matter a lot more than the federal ones, and those are on the local level that this video calls for. So, yes, the part of government that passes the most legislation is representative. Plus, the founders never thought the Federal government would be this powerful. They thought that the majority of decisions would be done through the constitution which requires a 2/3rds majority--and that would be representative. Don't be pessimistic m8. A glass is 100% full because air fills up the rest :D

Lol thett is literally the most pessimistic cynic in existence. Don't engage with him for too long or you'll become like him and start answering the half full/half empty question by shattering the glass.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 1:09:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Why not just skip straight to direct democracy. Personally, i favor centralized direct democracy rather than devolved representative democracy that you favor.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:51:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:08:38 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
My ideal society is a one-world government, so clearly we have no common ground here.

*Looks at poster's profile/avatar pic*
*sees what looks to be an anime character*
*Knowing anime, thinks of One Piece*
*Poster must know of OP!*
*OP has world-government*

!!!!!
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 6:27:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:51:02 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:08:38 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
My ideal society is a one-world government, so clearly we have no common ground here.

*Looks at poster's profile/avatar pic*
*sees what looks to be an anime character*
*Knowing anime, thinks of One Piece*
*Poster must know of OP!*
*OP has world-government*

!!!!!

Illuminati confirmed.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 6:56:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:09:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Why not just skip straight to direct democracy. Personally, i favor centralized direct democracy rather than devolved representative democracy that you favor.

Oh God no. I'm not really making this argument because I value representation/democracy over all things. I just agree very strongly with the viewpoint that to claim our state is a representative democracy is just completely farcical--I can't think of very many forms of government other than corporatism (our true form of government) that could work at such a scale. The video is correct in the point that everything has a proper size, after which it begins to become dysfunctional. The country is simply too big for effective governance
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 6:56:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:08:38 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
My ideal society is a one-world government, so clearly we have no common ground here.

...why?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 7:13:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 6:56:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:09:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Why not just skip straight to direct democracy. Personally, i favor centralized direct democracy rather than devolved representative democracy that you favor.

Oh God no. I'm not really making this argument because I value representation/democracy over all things. I just agree very strongly with the viewpoint that to claim our state is a representative democracy is just completely farcical--I can't think of very many forms of government other than corporatism (our true form of government) that could work at such a scale. The video is correct in the point that everything has a proper size, after which it begins to become dysfunctional. The country is simply too big for effective governance

Look to switzerland. Almost all major issues in the country are decided on referendums and so if more than 50% of the swiss want something, it happens. That is true democracy. It solves the problem in the video, because you no longer need representatives making all the decisions, it is left to the people to decide and so there is no problem of size. There would only be two levels of representatives. One in each local area to deal with local issues that may arise but again mainly dealt with through votes on each issue. The other would be national that would deal with foreign policy, defense and others that would require quick decision making but again preferably through votes if possible.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 7:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 7:13:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 6:56:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:09:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Why not just skip straight to direct democracy. Personally, i favor centralized direct democracy rather than devolved representative democracy that you favor.

Oh God no. I'm not really making this argument because I value representation/democracy over all things. I just agree very strongly with the viewpoint that to claim our state is a representative democracy is just completely farcical--I can't think of very many forms of government other than corporatism (our true form of government) that could work at such a scale. The video is correct in the point that everything has a proper size, after which it begins to become dysfunctional. The country is simply too big for effective governance

Look to switzerland. Almost all major issues in the country are decided on referendums and so if more than 50% of the swiss want something, it happens. That is true democracy. It solves the problem in the video, because you no longer need representatives making all the decisions, it is left to the people to decide and so there is no problem of size. There would only be two levels of representatives. One in each local area to deal with local issues that may arise but again mainly dealt with through votes on each issue. The other would be national that would deal with foreign policy, defense and others that would require quick decision making but again preferably through votes if possible.

I don't care about democracy. I care about good governance, and while Switzerland with its population of 8 million can handle a limited amount of direct democracy (not nearly the extent you make it out to be) if we tried it here it would be a complete disaster.

I don't think you're getting the point--I don't care about democracy or republicanism but I'm just pointing out that it's absurd to claim that that's our form of government. Good governance is much easier to achieve at a smaller scale, I'm very much a fan of localism
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 7:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 7:20:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 7:13:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 6:56:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:09:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Why not just skip straight to direct democracy. Personally, i favor centralized direct democracy rather than devolved representative democracy that you favor.

Oh God no. I'm not really making this argument because I value representation/democracy over all things. I just agree very strongly with the viewpoint that to claim our state is a representative democracy is just completely farcical--I can't think of very many forms of government other than corporatism (our true form of government) that could work at such a scale. The video is correct in the point that everything has a proper size, after which it begins to become dysfunctional. The country is simply too big for effective governance

Look to switzerland. Almost all major issues in the country are decided on referendums and so if more than 50% of the swiss want something, it happens. That is true democracy. It solves the problem in the video, because you no longer need representatives making all the decisions, it is left to the people to decide and so there is no problem of size. There would only be two levels of representatives. One in each local area to deal with local issues that may arise but again mainly dealt with through votes on each issue. The other would be national that would deal with foreign policy, defense and others that would require quick decision making but again preferably through votes if possible.

I don't care about democracy. I care about good governance, and while Switzerland with its population of 8 million can handle a limited amount of direct democracy (not nearly the extent you make it out to be) if we tried it here it would be a complete disaster.

I don't think you're getting the point--I don't care about democracy or republicanism but I'm just pointing out that it's absurd to claim that that's our form of government. Good governance is much easier to achieve at a smaller scale, I'm very much a fan of localism

"I don't care about democracy. I care about good governance". That sounds worrying out of context.

I do understand what you are saying. The larger the number of people, the worse governance will be. There is no real solution. You propose devolution and more local government but the problem is that there will always be things like defense, foreign policy, possibly law enforcement (ie FBI, CIA ) and the judiciary that will need to be federalized. For me at least, it also raises an ethical question. Can it be right that someone can be executed for one crime in one state but only imprisoned in another? If all decisions would be made locally, then policies would vary widely across the country. Now I live in the UK and the idea of laws and policies varying so widely as it does in the US states seems odd, worrying and deeply unfair. therefore I am hesitant to advocate too much devolution. Instead I believe direct democracy solves many of the problems you want fixed and is fair as it affects everyone across the country equally.

Do I understand your point? ...
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 7:42:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 7:33:46 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 7:20:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 7:13:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 6:56:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:09:34 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

Why not just skip straight to direct democracy. Personally, i favor centralized direct democracy rather than devolved representative democracy that you favor.

Oh God no. I'm not really making this argument because I value representation/democracy over all things. I just agree very strongly with the viewpoint that to claim our state is a representative democracy is just completely farcical--I can't think of very many forms of government other than corporatism (our true form of government) that could work at such a scale. The video is correct in the point that everything has a proper size, after which it begins to become dysfunctional. The country is simply too big for effective governance

Look to switzerland. Almost all major issues in the country are decided on referendums and so if more than 50% of the swiss want something, it happens. That is true democracy. It solves the problem in the video, because you no longer need representatives making all the decisions, it is left to the people to decide and so there is no problem of size. There would only be two levels of representatives. One in each local area to deal with local issues that may arise but again mainly dealt with through votes on each issue. The other would be national that would deal with foreign policy, defense and others that would require quick decision making but again preferably through votes if possible.

I don't care about democracy. I care about good governance, and while Switzerland with its population of 8 million can handle a limited amount of direct democracy (not nearly the extent you make it out to be) if we tried it here it would be a complete disaster.

I don't think you're getting the point--I don't care about democracy or republicanism but I'm just pointing out that it's absurd to claim that that's our form of government. Good governance is much easier to achieve at a smaller scale, I'm very much a fan of localism

"I don't care about democracy. I care about good governance". That sounds worrying out of context.

Why does it sound worrying? I don't concede that democracy is always the best form of government. I would much rather be ruled by a just king than by a cruel president...contrary to the argument that democracy is all about us having a say in our rulers I have no say. The probability of my vote mattering is zero, which is the same value as my opinion.


I do understand what you are saying. The larger the number of people, the worse governance will be. There is no real solution. You propose devolution and more local government but the problem is that there will always be things like defense, foreign policy, possibly law enforcement (ie FBI, CIA ) and the judiciary that will need to be federalized.

We used to have federalism. We couldn't be a superpower but it used to work--I seriously doubt these massive states can survive the test of time. I'm not sure what the ideal unit size for government is but it's certainly lower than 300,000,000+ people

For me at least, it also raises an ethical question. Can it be right that someone can be executed for one crime in one state but only imprisoned in another?

The death penalty is already decided at a state level in the US.

If all decisions would be made locally, then policies would vary widely across the country. Now I live in the UK and the idea of laws and policies varying so widely as it does in the US states seems odd, worrying and deeply unfair. therefore I am hesitant to advocate too much devolution. Instead I believe direct democracy solves many of the problems you want fixed and is fair as it affects everyone across the country equally.

I don't see why laws across the country should be totally equal if the populaces aren't. What do you have in common with a rural, Welsh speaking farmer? What do I have in common with someone in New York City? Obviously in any political community you'll have differences of opinion and one side will win out but it's a lot less arbitrary to govern at a local level than to share laws with people I have virtually nothing in common with, will never meet, and live thousands of miles from me.


Do I understand your point? ...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 7:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically you say that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws. I totally disagree. What's unfair is to allow the norms and mores of some distant super-majority dictate the laws that people they've never met and don't understand at all have to live under
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 8:24:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 7:47:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
Basically you say that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws. I totally disagree. What's unfair is to allow the norms and mores of some distant super-majority dictate the laws that people they've never met and don't understand at all have to live under

I am deeply worried that you do not think democracy is the best, if only, form of government. The majority of the people should decided how society is run and the laws that govern it, no-one else.

My argument , as you put it so well, " that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws." is I think a just one. It seems wrong to me that only my geographical location determines the morals and laws that i abide to. It shouldn't matter where I am, morality is the same throughout the country and the best way to get to what that morality is, is by having as many people as possible debate,argue and agree on laws. The more people involved, the closer we get to what society thinks on the whole is right.

You are, it seems, frustrated that in a national government, your voice and vote is worth so little. I share this, but not everything can be decided locally in your local town (like law - If devotion went further enough, what is to stop a small village of 10 deciding your life in their own court) . You must admit that at least. And I admit that there are many local issues that no-one else has any right to interfere.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:04:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
BULL**** !
America should get bigger. Now that we are the worlds only Superpower, we should annex Antarctica and make it our colony!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:33:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 8:24:17 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 7:47:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
Basically you say that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws. I totally disagree. What's unfair is to allow the norms and mores of some distant super-majority dictate the laws that people they've never met and don't understand at all have to live under

I am deeply worried that you do not think democracy is the best, if only, form of government. The majority of the people should decided how society is run and the laws that govern it, no-one else.

No they shouldn't, unless you want the government to implode in short order. Most people are ignorant of political science, law, and history at best, and stupid at worst. 'The people' should be given just enough power to make them feel as if they have a say, and to allow them to counter any absolute consolidation of power in the upper strata of society. This leads to stability and a check against the more aristocratic social castes without handing over the reigns of government to idiots and hysterics.

My argument , as you put it so well, " that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws." is I think a just one. It seems wrong to me that only my geographical location determines the morals and laws that i abide to. It shouldn't matter where I am, morality is the same throughout the country and the best way to get to what that morality is, is by having as many people as possible debate,argue and agree on laws. The more people involved, the closer we get to what society thinks on the whole is right.

Morality, objectively, does not exist. It's good that most people think it does; that's a necessary delusion in any functioning society. But the people who actually control a polity have to understand that the only relevant code of action is that which leads to the stability and the survival of said polity.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:25:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:33:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/31/2015 8:24:17 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/31/2015 7:47:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
Basically you say that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws. I totally disagree. What's unfair is to allow the norms and mores of some distant super-majority dictate the laws that people they've never met and don't understand at all have to live under

I am deeply worried that you do not think democracy is the best, if only, form of government. The majority of the people should decided how society is run and the laws that govern it, no-one else.

No they shouldn't, unless you want the government to implode in short order. Most people are ignorant of political science, law, and history at best, and stupid at worst. 'The people' should be given just enough power to make them feel as if they have a say, and to allow them to counter any absolute consolidation of power in the upper strata of society. This leads to stability and a check against the more aristocratic social castes without handing over the reigns of government to idiots and hysterics.

My argument , as you put it so well, " that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws." is I think a just one. It seems wrong to me that only my geographical location determines the morals and laws that i abide to. It shouldn't matter where I am, morality is the same throughout the country and the best way to get to what that morality is, is by having as many people as possible debate,argue and agree on laws. The more people involved, the closer we get to what society thinks on the whole is right.

Morality, objectively, does not exist. It's good that most people think it does; that's a necessary delusion in any functioning society. But the people who actually control a polity have to understand that the only relevant code of action is that which leads to the stability and the survival of said polity.

I think there's room to argue for objective morality for the human condition. It's just pragmatically impossible to prove which makes it hard to defend. You'd have to perform a cause-effect analysis for every scenario, and everything that happens would cascade into more cause-effect. You would eventually determine that certain actions would lead to a "dead end" of sorts.
Death23
Posts: 784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:16:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 1:42:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this video. My ideal society is a multitude of city-states, although I have no idea how to get to or sustain that. I believe that claiming living in districts of 700,000 people all represented by one person is representative democracy is a complete joke...thoughts?

The primary argument in the video is that 700,000 is just too many people to be represented by one person. I don't find the argument convincing at all. I'm sure Madison had a lot of ideas about a lot of different topics, but it's not like he's God. I don't see how one person representing 30,000 is substantially different from one person representing 700,000. Both numbers are well beyond the point of human experience. People can be categorized and represented based on their political positions, financial interests, demographics, etc. This is true no matter how many people are in a particular group.

Additionally, the arguments coming from the Abbeville Institute should be treated with incredulity. The institute strikes me as a neo-confederate organization, and an enclave of cowardly/shrouded racism. First, the Institute is named for the South Carolina hometown of US Senator John Calhoun, which was a pre-Civil War hotbed of secession. Calhoun himself was best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as a positive good, his distrust of majoritarianism, and for pointing the South toward secession from the Union. Additionally, the Abbeville Institute was founded by Donald Livingston. In 2004, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) characterized Livingston as a neo-Confederate ideologue, in part for his former association with the League of the South, labelled "the premier state sovereignty and secessionist organization;" the League has been classified as a "hate group" by the SPLC.

I believe that the video is most likely neo-confederate secessionist propaganda. It should be discarded.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:20:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am deeply worried that you do not think democracy is the best, if only, form of government. The majority of the people should decided how society is run and the laws that govern it, no-one else.

No they shouldn't, unless you want the government to implode in short order. Most people are ignorant of political science, law, and history at best, and stupid at worst. 'The people' should be given just enough power to make them feel as if they have a say, and to allow them to counter any absolute consolidation of power in the upper strata of society. This leads to stability and a check against the more aristocratic social castes without handing over the reigns of government to idiots and hysterics.

My argument , as you put it so well, " that it's unfair for different populations to be governed under different laws." is I think a just one. It seems wrong to me that only my geographical location determines the morals and laws that i abide to. It shouldn't matter where I am, morality is the same throughout the country and the best way to get to what that morality is, is by having as many people as possible debate,argue and agree on laws. The more people involved, the closer we get to what society thinks on the whole is right.

Morality, objectively, does not exist. It's good that most people think it does; that's a necessary delusion in any functioning society. But the people who actually control a polity have to understand that the only relevant code of action is that which leads to the stability and the survival of said polity.

I believe that morality is subjective (I voted that way on here) but that doesn't mean there is no morality at all! And oh my fuc*ing God! You're against democracy! Its like the only thing everyone agrees on! I don't see any point in debating someone that thinks totalitarianism and dictatorship is better than democracy.