Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Democracy in the 21st Century.

Democracy in the 21st Century.
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2015, 09:56 PM
 
So this is something I find myself contemplating a lot. A massive problem with politics today in the UK is the plague of vagueness and noncomittalism.
What I mean is that our politicians won't tell you their own names if they think anyone anywhere might take offence, change their vote or say something mean. or remind them about it later. I don't really know the truth about what they are afraid of, but they just hate answering questions. Any questions. They avoid, they deflect, they refuse to pick sides, they sit on every fence they possibly can at every opportunity.

So what to do? I propose its time we add some technology to our democracy. We have never been satisfied enough to allow electronic voting yet, but thats not what I have in mind. I think it can be done in a less formal manner, simply to inform an MP what his constituents think about a given subject, idea, situation etc etc. These would be as simple as electronic polls of some kind and in my mind should look to avoid getting bogged down in details too much. There will always be situations where the public can't be given all the relevant facts, and many more where they can't be trusted to know them. Perhaps these polls might also represent an opportunity to inform people before they vote. You don't get to vote until you read through a few salient facts about the vote beforehand.

These polls would not be in any way binding, but would give MPs a much better idea about what their constituents actually think or want. I would hope that when they choose to go against a large consensus, they might be encouraged to provide their reasoning. If they vote with their constituents they have a convenient excuse to fall back on if it proves to be a bad idea down the line.

I eventually arrived at another conclusion that would make some of these polls even more valuable. I have come to realise that there is a big, big, fundamental problem with this people-pleasing approach to politics. What it ultimately means is that the people in power who are supposed to be working to do things for us, do not have adequate goals. Or rather they don't have goals that they can afford to have any faith in. They can spend years and millions trying to hit a target only for plenty of people to just say "Well you should have known that was a stupid idea before you even started. Why did you even want to do that in the first place?"

So instead of running a poll asking the public to choose from a set of highly specific options, just get them to vote on philosophies and guidelines. I'll give some examples:

The penal system is a great one. Everyone has a slightly different idea of how harsh sentences should be, how sentences should be balanced to account for crowding and staffing and costs and ultimately people will have very different ideas about what the penal system is for. This sounds mad but its right. We all know how it works, but there are a number of different ideas about what it is actually trying to achieve.
Is it a disincentive for crime? Is it a punishment for crime? Is it a rehab system for criminals? Is it some kind of blend of all of the above?

Politicians are all just guessing about what answer or what ratio of those answers will either make voters happy, or not make them upset. So why not ask them?
Once you know what the system should be trying to achieve, you can set respectable goals and you can then start trying to achieve those goals.
Same goes for welfare. Is it a basic safety net to stop being dying of starvation or exposure in the winter if they have nowhere to live? Should it enable people to choose a life without work and just spit out kids non-stop, living off the state?
Politicians have no idea. I think most voters would be interested to know the consensus on some of these issues too.

This approach would do well in the US I think even though noncommittal politics is less of a problem for you. You have a situation where each party spends half their time trying to undo what the others guys did. If there was a greater expectation on them to pay attention to certain public opinions, they might actually be forced to stop undoing systems that work just because the other guys put them into effect.

Thoughts?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2015, 10:22 PM
 
Liberalism is great, but to get it you have to go along with the Progressive, social justice-driven agenda. The Left isn't on the left anymore, it's now Orwellian groupthink that borders on the fanatically religious. This led to the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, the selection of that turd Miliband in Labour, and the Tories backing into an outright majority in Parliament (I'm not a fan of Cameron, at all). The only thing that could have been worse is if you ended up with Miliband as PM.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2015, 10:22 PM
 
4chan would love it.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2015, 05:15 AM
 
The Lib Dems only collapsed because they sold out their ideals and their voters by getting into bed with Cameron and then not delivering on any of their promises. There as an entire generation in this country who it seems will never forgive the Tories for Thatcher taking away their free school milk back in the 80s.

I don't know why you are equating my scheme with liberalism, the point is to let elected representatives know what the people they represent want them to do. I don't think they have a clue at them moment. If anything this could lead to less liberalism as most of the racists and extremists have been neatly marginalised and sidestepped here.

As for 4chan, at the very least I would expect a geo restriction to be in place. I'm sure other steps could be taken to mitigate trolls as well.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2015, 01:44 PM
 
I do believe the proper response here is "challenge accepted".
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2015, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The Lib Dems only collapsed because they sold out their ideals and their voters by getting into bed with Cameron and then not delivering on any of their promises. There as an entire generation in this country who it seems will never forgive the Tories for Thatcher taking away their free school milk back in the 80s.
That's what I was alluding to. They gave up on liberalism and embraced the Tories while listening too intently to the increasingly oppressive progressive narrative. The religious Right (worshipping God) and the "religious" Left (worshipping their professed perfect ideology) have one thing in common, and it's not hard to see what that is. They both claim superiority due to having some connection to a higher authority, and all that leads to is oppression of those who disagree, which is the polar opposite of liberalism and inclusion.

I don't know why you are equating my scheme with liberalism, the point is to let elected representatives know what the people they represent want them to do. I don't think they have a clue at them moment. If anything this could lead to less liberalism as most of the racists and extremists have been neatly marginalised and sidestepped here.
Indeed, the ideologues that reasonable people are at odds with aren't inclusive, they will do what they want in the guise that it's for your own good and ignore you entirely once they have what they want, namely control.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2015, 02:55 PM
 
Practicalities regarding trolls and the demise of traditional ideologies aside, does anyone have an opinion on the idea itself?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2015, 02:56 PM
 
Dammit! That'll take work.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2015, 01:15 PM
 
I think it would just be a gimmick to let people think their opinion matters. The politicians know what people want to hear. If they're playing the 'fence' angle it's because thats what garners the most support; the voting majority wants the guy who's least offensive... who's least political perhaps. We have famous actors and wrestlers who've been elected to power; demonstrating people dont always like to think "politics" when they hear their names, instead they think about how fun they are, which plays a roll in their electability.

In the US it's blatantly obvious politicians don't just say what people want to hear; they 1st tell people what to believe, they tell people what issues to focus on by starting fires. They have a sophisticated way of doing this to hide it for the brainwashing indocrination it really is. Then each side panders to the very issues they made out of thin-air... making it seem like they're telling us what we want to hear.

Democracy is a paradox for a few reasons. At least in the manner we've been conditioned, it implies you can control a nation by occasionally checking a box on paper - very little effort and the occasional peaceful protest.
It implies you have the ultimate freedom to set policy, but with this you also have the freedom to support ceding your freedom to another authority. Thats whats happening. A government who charismatically convinces us to give up on issues of large scale importance & having us focus on frivolous issues while giving up rights in the name of safe stability at the same time. And finally it implies that the opinion of 150 million idiots (the whole voting population per se) is somehow more valid than opinions of just a few. Even in a case where 'the few' were idiots as well, the opposite is more likely to be true than the mob rule of 150m. People have already demonstrated they dont know what they want, they just go with whats trendy in their 2 opinion system.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2015, 04:50 PM
 
Its a situation of opposites. American politicians say things they think their supporters will agree with. British politicians seem to be relying on not saying things that anyone could disagree with. I guess this is a more sensible strategy when you have more than two options, but at least US voters can vote knowing they are voting for someone who agrees with some of what they think. I think most of us are voting for people we don't know anything about. You end up voting for the colour of a ribbon or the best looking head shot.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2015, 04:52 PM
 
If any kind of democracy is a largely pointless illusory exercise in population pacification then there is clearly no point making these kinds of changes.
Part of me admires your skepticism and cynicism, another part laments your view of any kind of government as futile and corrupt.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2015, 03:34 PM
 
By the end of the century 98% of people will be voluntarily plugged into a Matrix-like MMO where they can be and experience anything they want, until they eventually die. While they do that, the few people who are awake will clean up the planet (along with the robots) and restart the human race. Before that? I guess we'll become more and more progressive socialist until that happens.

At least that was the dream I had a few nights ago.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2015, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
By the end of the century 98% of people will be voluntarily plugged into a Matrix-like MMO where they can be and experience anything they want, until they eventually die. While they do that, the few people who are awake will clean up the planet (along with the robots) and restart the human race. Before that? I guess we'll become more and more progressive socialist until that happens.

At least that was the dream I had a few nights ago.

I think socialism needs a rebrand.

It might very well be true that government healthcare, public colleges, strong workers unions, and similar programs ultimately come out of the direction the US is going now with these massive income disparity issues, and that these prove to simply be flat out smart economic policies.

Socialism has the poor brand of people being dependent on a corrupt nanny state, and for people to be unwilling to wish for themselves better things because it is easier to simply live off of the government teat. While there are European socialist countries that don't seem to be mired in this sort of corruption, there are countries like Brazil that are. I don't know how you encourage the good behaviors while discouraging the bad ones, but for right now it seems like when you bring up the word socialism you bring up immediate associations with this bad stuff.

I also think it will be many, many, many years before we see this sort of radical change if even in my lifetime, but clearly the direction the US is going in now is not sustainable and will lead to massive revolt, and clearly Americans have no great reason to trust their government to be behind the potential positives of some of these programs (not to mention extended maternity leave, increased minimum wage, etc.).

As far as the original ideas of empowering people with technology, maybe a similar set of challenges is on the horizon in separating powers between the technology companies and government. This sounds like the script to some sort of sci-fi movie.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2015, 10:42 PM
 
Removing the wealth from the wealthiest of Americans (humans in general, really), isn't feasible at this point, that money is already too diversified, that ship has sailed. Also, given the horrendous job done with civil liberties in the last 14 years, how could any sane person trust the US federal gov't to capably handle social engineering on that scale? It's absurd to even consider.

Socialism has the poor brand of people being dependent on a corrupt nanny state, and for people to be unwilling to wish for themselves better things because it is easier to simply live off of the government teat.
Because in the USA, that's exactly what it is. There are millions of families that are 4+ generations deep into welfare and it's the only life those people know.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2015, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because in the USA, that's exactly what it is. There are millions of families that are 4+ generations deep into welfare and it's the only life those people know.

I don't know what the number is, but why do you think this is? Do you think that people largely want to be on welfare, or are resigned to be on it?

There will always be a certain percentage of those people with mental health issues, physical issues, disabilities of various sorts, chronic health problems, or just something not right with these people that will always pose significant challenges to them digging themselves out of welfare.

What about all of the people that could pull themselves out of welfare? There are enormous challenges to doing so, it seems like once you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of it, at least without great difficulty. For one, any one health incident can lead to bankruptcy pretty quickly. Beyond this, it's pretty hard to upgrade skills when one has to pay their bills on minimum wage, and it's pretty hard for people to see the wisdom in doing so when this will lead to massive student loans.

I think that a number of these people just don't see a way out, and while you'll surely assure me that there are ways out based on my recollection of your beliefs, would you agree that there are many challenges in doing so? Would you agree that public college options and government health care would be welcomed by these people looking to pull themselves out of welfare?

I suspect that you'll suggest that these options somehow remove incentive, but I think that those people that would be taking advantage of these systems would be doing so anyway, no matter what.
( Last edited by besson3c; Jun 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2015, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I think it would just be a gimmick to let people think their opinion matters. The politicians know what people want to hear. If they're playing the 'fence' angle it's because thats what garners the most support; the voting majority wants the guy who's least offensive... who's least political perhaps. We have famous actors and wrestlers who've been elected to power; demonstrating people dont always like to think "politics" when they hear their names, instead they think about how fun they are, which plays a roll in their electability.

In the US it's blatantly obvious politicians don't just say what people want to hear; they 1st tell people what to believe, they tell people what issues to focus on by starting fires. They have a sophisticated way of doing this to hide it for the brainwashing indocrination it really is. Then each side panders to the very issues they made out of thin-air... making it seem like they're telling us what we want to hear.

Democracy is a paradox for a few reasons. At least in the manner we've been conditioned, it implies you can control a nation by occasionally checking a box on paper - very little effort and the occasional peaceful protest.
It implies you have the ultimate freedom to set policy, but with this you also have the freedom to support ceding your freedom to another authority. Thats whats happening. A government who charismatically convinces us to give up on issues of large scale importance & having us focus on frivolous issues while giving up rights in the name of safe stability at the same time. And finally it implies that the opinion of 150 million idiots (the whole voting population per se) is somehow more valid than opinions of just a few. Even in a case where 'the few' were idiots as well, the opposite is more likely to be true than the mob rule of 150m. People have already demonstrated they dont know what they want, they just go with whats trendy in their 2 opinion system.
Exactly. Very well put.

I would add that the way around these issues is via rule of law that not even the democracy can override (e.g. The Constitution). This is why its so important that we defend the constitution as written and quit allowing "the democracy" to gut it one baby step at a time. The less influence the constitution has over our daily functions, the more we lose our constitutional republic to the anarchy, corruption and rot that accompanies a direct democracy and those who pull it's strings.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 08:40 AM
 
Citizens United included?
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Exactly. Very well put.

I would add that the way around these issues is via rule of law that not even the democracy can override (e.g. The Constitution). This is why its so important that we defend the constitution as written and quit allowing "the democracy" to gut it one baby step at a time. The less influence the constitution has over our daily functions, the more we lose our constitutional republic to the anarchy, corruption and rot that accompanies a direct democracy and those who pull it's strings.
Surely a constitution must evolve with the needs and beliefs of the people it governs though? There is a quote from Jefferson floating around that says as much.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 10:28 AM
 
Another idea I had for democracy 2.0:

New laws should be introduced with three parts:

Firstly, the law itself in its legal language for lawyers to draft and debate with in courts in years to come.
Second, a 'Spirit of the law' section which describes in very plane english any circumstances that led to the introduction of the law, why it is being implemented and what effect(s) it hopes to have.
Lastly, a metric section. Clearly defined criteria that can be used to assess the law a pre-determined amount of time later, to see if it has had the desired effect or not. Targets to continue with the law in place, to review it for modification, or to repeal it altogether if it isn't working as planned. These review periods could be custom for any law when it is first proposed depending on how long it is expected to require to take effect, then perhaps a statutory review period of every 50 years thereafter for all laws.
Perhaps there could even be criteria for incorporating a law into a country's constitution.

I guess you might consider a big part of this idea as garbage collection. A system that removes silly old laws about shooting unarmed Welshmen in the grounds of Chester Cathedral on a Tuesday if you use a longbow before they become centuries old. And silly.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Surely a constitution must evolve with the needs and beliefs of the people it governs though? There is a quote from Jefferson floating around that says as much.

Exactly. These debates becomes so circular when politicians drag their heels about constitutional amendments because of the amount of work necessary to do so and the possibility that the amendment is not the best path, but then when they try to do something they claim is constructive for the country (whether true or not), their opponents will claim that what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Basically, politicians will put themselves in political danger by trying to amend and circumvent the constitution, so maybe they find it easiest to just do nothing.

Of course, it is supposed to be hard to amend the constitution, but right now it seems immutable, or at least at the whim of corporate interests (see Citizens United).
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Removing the wealth from the wealthiest of Americans (humans in general, really), isn't feasible at this point, that money is already too diversified, that ship has sailed. Also, given the horrendous job done with civil liberties in the last 14 years, how could any sane person trust the US federal gov't to capably handle social engineering on that scale? It's absurd to even consider.
Given that those with the wealth get to write or at least approve or veto any laws that would strip them of wealth, it will never happen. It would require a coup.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because in the USA, that's exactly what it is. There are millions of families that are 4+ generations deep into welfare and it's the only life those people know.
Its the same here though I don't know the numbers either and I suspect that the Daily Fail here and Fox etc over there have overplayed the numbers in the minds of many. Even those who don't pay regular attention to those news outlets.

But the first step in fixing the welfare system is surely for someone to codify the philosophy behind it. Because there is no explicit rules about not giving people free money to buy lottery tickets, scratch cards, booze and fags (cigarettes to you lot though I suspect Cap knew what I meant) then thats exactly what people who are poor and unhappy will buy.

Should the system be a support network to feed, clothe and home anyone who doesn't want to work? Or should it be like a rehab system for people who aren't criminals, just poor and uneducated?
The problems when it gets debated at the moment is more than likely that Democrats think Republicans want to do away with it altogether and let every one starve according to the rules of the free market, and the Republicans think that Dems just want to give everyone too lazy to work free money. The truth is much more likely to have a considerable overlap, but there is no explicit philosophy that tells everyone be they voter or politician what the system is for, where its limits should be and therefore what goals it should set and how it should be run to achieve them.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jun 15, 2015 at 07:50 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Surely a constitution must evolve with the needs and beliefs of the people it governs though? There is a quote from Jefferson floating around that says as much.
There's a process for that already laid out, and that's not how the Constitution is "breathing" today. If anything, the constitution is being suffocated via the encroachment I am referring to.

In this case, the ends do not justify the means and the only way to undo the means will be a bloody revolution. Simply pretending the constitution means something different is a dumb ass way to go about "evolving" the constitution since you are ceding control to the very oligarchy the constitution keeps in check. Democracy dies with mob rule.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Exactly. These debates becomes so circular when politicians drag their heels about constitutional amendments because of the amount of work necessary to do so and the possibility that the amendment is not the best path, but then when they try to do something they claim is constructive for the country (whether true or not), their opponents will claim that what they are doing is unconstitutional.
Yes, Besson. This is exactly what the politicians want so that you'll go along with their gutting of the constitution because its "too hard" for their agenda. Meanwhile idiots everywhere champion that politician who time and again screws us over, while those idiots bitch about how messed up the government has become. Really it comes down to a fundamental lack of understanding of how the system is designed to work and which parameters are necessary to keep it working.

If you want a more effective congress, we ought to go back to what made congress a successful legislative entity in the first place. It ain't more government.

Basically, politicians will put themselves in political danger by trying to amend and circumvent the constitution, so maybe they find it easiest to just do nothing.
No, in other words politicians want you to believe it's the only path forward which grants them additional funding, power, influence and control. These aren't stupid people.

Of course, it is supposed to be hard to amend the constitution, but right now it seems immutable, or at least at the whim of corporate interests (see Citizens United).
It's only immutable because A) there's no issue that has garnered enough support to amend the constitution and B) the government has a vested interest in de-toothing the laws that restrict their ability to carry out their agendas.

Amendments are supposed to be hard. The system is designed that way. Throwing out or or eroding the system is a damn stupid way to get around that. Watching it happen and watching people clamor for it is like watching lemmings walk right off the cliff. Part of the price for democracy is the price we pay to keep the system intact. We've been very complacent about this recently and think somehow that we can "government" our way to better government by giving the government more power (Edited to add: This applies to both parties on different issues). The idea is laughable as literally the entirety of the history of man & society will show you.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 15, 2015 at 04:19 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There's a process for that already laid out, and that's not how the Constitution is "breathing" today. If anything, the constitution is being suffocated via the encroachment I am referring to.

In this case, the ends do not justify the means and the only way to undo the means will be a bloody revolution. Simply pretending the constitution means something different is a dumb ass way to go about "evolving" the constitution since you are ceding control to the very oligarchy the constitution keeps in check. Democracy dies with mob rule.

The problem is, the sort of people that cry about the constitution being encroached upon are often selective about the stuff they don't like, and they are often the same people that don't offer amendments for public debate.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 04:21 PM
 
Given that those with the wealth get to write or at least approve or veto any laws that would strip them of wealth, it will never happen. It would require a coup.
You'd be surprised what we could accomplish together if we could get rid of the complacency associated with being ruled by the ruling class.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The problem is, the sort of people that cry about the constitution being encroached upon are often selective about the stuff they don't like, and they are often the same people that don't offer amendments for public debate.
People are people besson. Ideas are ideas and the two are not in lock step correlation.

If you would like to get into a discussion of practical application of the idea, I'd be happy to engage in that discussion but for now you've not "answered" my critical point.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2015, 11:09 AM
 
… .
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Jan 5, 2024 at 02:20 AM. )
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2015, 01:08 PM
 
Also people have no control over their 'democracy' if they arent at the very least willing to withhold their consumer dollars from business practices they dont support. We cant as masses tell the government "we dont like low wages", while supporting such business with our consumerism. We need to stop being hypocrites.
And we need to realize the value of taking personal responsibility for things rather than thinking the government and corporation is going to do it just because we voted for them to.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,