41–50 of 68 posts
Good. To quote Lao Tzu, "The more restrictions and prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be."
Even if Congress were paying any attention to what constituents want (and they rarely seem to), it’s laughable that such a small number of people are expected to faithfully understand the wishes of so many people. Right now it’s on the order of one million regular people per representative! Moreover, with such a small number of people, buying them becomes “easy”; it just doesn’t take that much money to corrupt a few…
Go down the path even more and you land at direct democracy, where every citizen can vote on any legislative decision. Corporations can not buy half the people. Because it can be a lot of work to dive into the details of a decision every citizen could delegate his vote to someone he trusts - delegate his vote in general, per topic (economical decisions to Betty, foreign affairs to Tom) or just for a single decision.…
Plato rejected Athenian democracy on the basis that such democracies were anarchic societies without internal unity, that they followed citizens' impulses rather than pursuing the common good, that democracies are unable to allow a sufficient number of their citizens to have their voices heard, and that such democracies were typically run by fools. Plato attacked Athenian democracies for mistaking anarchy for freedom. The lack of coherent unity in Athenian democracy made Plato conclude that such democracies were a mere collection of individuals occupying a common space rather than a form of political organization.
Corporations don't need to buy off half the people, they just need to convince a winning minority to go along, which you've made easy because you've divided all of your political issues into things people pick and chose not out of expertise but out of ignorance. There are other issues like control of the agenda which aren't obvious but hugely relevant to controlling democracies.
Was Prop 8 in Cali, with lots of outsiders weighing in on limiting other people's rights a good thing?
This is my macabre favorite story about Athenian democracy:
The news of the victory itself was met with jubilation at Athens. Their joy was tempered, however, by the aftermath of the battle, in which a storm prevented the ships assigned to rescue the survivors of the 25 disabled or sunken Athenian triremes from performing their duties, and a great number of sailors drowned. A fury erupted at Athens when the public learned of this, and after a bitter struggle in the assembly six of the eight generals who had commanded the fleet were tried as a group and executed.
Sucked for those generals. Win the battle, lost men due to storms, then you get executed because the mob is angry and some orators know how to harness that. Modern direct democracy wouldn't be voting on executing people, but you can see where things can get just as twisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arginusae
spoiler: the Athenians lost the war. Turns out getting rid of winning generals cause you're mad is dumb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go down the path even more and you land at direct democracy, where every citizen can vote on any legislative decision. Corporations can not buy half the people. Because it can be a lot of work to dive into the details of a decision every citizen could delegate his vote to someone he trusts - delegate his vote in general, per topic (economical decisions to Betty, foreign affairs to Tom) or just for a single decision.…
The Athenians had real problems with direct democracy. Plato is still relevant: Plato rejected Athenian democracy on the basis that such democracies were anarchic societies without internal unity, that they followed citizens' impulses rather than pursuing the common good, that democracies are unable to allow a sufficient number of their citizens to have their voices heard, and that such democracies were typically run…
Even if Congress were paying any attention to what constituents want (and they rarely seem to), it’s laughable that such a small number of people are expected to faithfully understand the wishes of so many people. Right now it’s on the order of one million regular people per representative! Moreover, with such a small number of people, buying them becomes “easy”; it just doesn’t take that much money to corrupt a few…
I'm not saying I disagree in general but, in this case, I don't think the megacongress would help. The issue here is that the vast majority of citizens do not know or care about net neutrality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We get the Congress for which we vote.
The problem isn’t Congress—most people are happy with their own representatives. The problem is us. If we took 10 random people from New York City and ten from rural Alabama, they wouldn’t be able to get anything done either. Why are we surprised that the people those people elect can’t work together?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Athenians had real problems with direct democracy. Plato is still relevant: Plato rejected Athenian democracy on the basis that such democracies were anarchic societies without internal unity, that they followed citizens' impulses rather than pursuing the common good, that democracies are unable to allow a sufficient number of their citizens to have their voices heard, and that such democracies were typically run…
Plato preferred aristocracy; how many people do you think would like to live under a government that abandoned any pretense and outright called itself an aristocracy?
Congress is becoming a non factor. The amount of pettiness and partisianship over the past few years had made Congress into the de factor weakest branch of government. Most of Obama's legacy was executed via executive order and guidance given to executive departments, a year into the Trump administration and we are seeing the same thing. The other big decisions (gay marriage, citizens United, etc.) are being made by…
We get the Congress for which we vote.
Anyone have thoughts on exams that require a passing grade to serve in Congress? I.e. demonstrate certain levels of knowledge in order to participate in certain conversations with new bills listing requirements at top thereby eliminating the ability to vote if that Congress person has not met the minimum? I realize this may be a bit off topic but my thought is that if more people in Congress (or other agencies/depart…
A more practical approach would be to have an aptitude test for general voting (higher score means heavier weight for the vote). Additional requirements could be added to gate voter eligibility such as having paid more federal taxes than consumed via welfare in a given year. All of these would, however, be unconstitutional, including the original proposal in the thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems with Congress isn't stupidity (not that they aren't stupid), it's corruption. There's no quiz for that. Beyond that, considering the history of tests as a precondition for participation in American politics...funny that it comes up as often as it does. Plus, if there was a test, isn't that something that'd quite possibly be on it?
Is there any evidence that there's corruption in US congress?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is to allow the government to be able to search anyone's entire location history for the past decade at its own whim, without requesting a warrant. Amendment Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a…
> The alternative is to allow the government to be able to search anyone's entire location history for the past decade at its own whim, without requesting a warrant. The ISP/cellphone company can choose not to give the history. > Amendment Four Nowhere does it say that third parties cannot provide information about you. Location data using cell tower usage is not the user's "person, house, paper or effect". It belong…
NSL's have shown us that they can't