Oh, I forgot. Since the quotes look so weird right now I am not going to use them. I will try to summerize, briefly, your points instead. If I get something wrong, I apologise. Let me know, OK?
peace
Disregard last post. I am a Dope. You will see what I mean.
The statements in italics were made by pepperlandgirl.
…They do not count as citizens because they don’t have a vote while in prison.
I disagree.
What about controlling the behavior of citizens during the trial process itself? Should the Son of Sam have been allowed to run around free until his citizenship was revoked?
You are going to have to concede this point. If not, you could make quite a name for yourself in sociology.
The current theory is that all complex societies require an authoritative person or body to resolve disputes. This requires a degree of control over the people within the society. The only societies that do not need this are the 1s small enough so that everyone knows everyone else. In these groups problems can be resolved by mutual acquaintances.
- I am familiar with the electoral college system…
…they have not traditionally abused that power.*
This was not my point. I was pointing out that just because you get to go into a booth and pull some levers doesn’t mean that you have a voice in government. Knowing how your vote effects the system is crucial. If you do not understand this then you can have no effective voice in the government.
BTW- Your electoral college understanding is flawed. The candidate with the most popular votes did not win the election in 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the latter 2 cases the losing candidate won the popular vote outright. All of these are in the 19th century. But this does not mean that it can’t still happen in the 20th.
Can you name a particular problem with the Constitution that needs to be changed?
1 of my larger disagreements is with article 5, the ammendment clause. I believe that this clause makes the government too resistant to reform. If the people wish to change the govenment they should be allowed to. This is what it says in the Preamble.
The only things that could possibly be called holes, or “unjust” in anyway are the provisions to protect the innocent as far as I can tell.
How can clauses protecting the innocent be considered holes?
Protesting CANNOT lead to a federal prison…
OK. What was the Communist leader Eugene Debbs imprisoned for?
Also, Debbs ran for President from prison, so he must have been a citizen. But I understand your point.
THere’s a little amendment in the constitution you might be familiar with that states that people have the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to freedom of speech.
You are refering to the 1st amendment. It states clearly that Congress shall not abridge my right to peacefully assemble. Not that I have the inherent right to do so.
The problem with GB is that they DO NOT HAVE A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. You know what that means? THere is really nothing stopping anybody from passing whatever law they wanted.
And yet GB is not an uncontrolled totalitarianist state, as our governmental theory suggests that it should have become. I see this as good evidence that our theory is flawed.
Look at the centuries of corruption in GB, caused by a monarchy. True, NOW it’s more for show then anything, but it hasn’t always been, and a monarchy is definately not something we would want.
Unrestrained corruption is not inherent in monarchism. The corruption that I have refered to was taking place in the Parliment.
There needs to be something governing the government and in a monarchy, there is nothing like that.
Again, if this were true, why is GB not a totalitarianist state?
Thanks for the reply. I hope you will address my concerns. Sorry it took me so long to reply.
Trial law. OK, I was afraid you were planning on becoming a constitutional lawyer.
Good Luck.
Peace
1 hour and 11 minutes, I spent composing that last post. Do you see why my replies come so slowly?
A clarification:
I would not support a move toward a monarchal system. My original point was that if Adams’ sugestion had been voted in then, we might have evolved to a better democratic system today.
But we can never know.
peace
I looked over your list. Wow. Tough 1s.
I’m not sure if I can answer this challenge. Lets look at how more flexible governments do handle these problems. Lets use GB as our example. Once again, I am not an expert on the British government.
Gun Control - They have it. But the Swiss do not.
Abortion- I have no idea.
Capital punishment- I believe that the US is the only western nation that still does this.
Social Security- They have much more than us.
Having ducked your counter-challenge I would not be offended if you ducked mine.
I believe that the yo-yo effect is caused by the system itself. Politicians have to lie to be elected. They are forced to promise the moon and aren’t trusted with the power to cut cheese. Also our system does not encourage rational thinking about politics. I could probably come up with more arguments for this if pressed.
Ha! As has been pointed out to me numorous times in this thread, people decide for themselves what is right and wrong. The govenment decides what works.
PAX
-
Absolutely.
-
We need to come to an solution on the State vs Federal government. I am talking about both. As you know, I disagree with the “checks and balances” philosophy. Seperating the power between the Central and State governments is a part of this philosophy. I think that this should not be done. I do believe there needs to be implementation of policy on the regional level, but I think this is best done on a chain of command basis. So when the central government says “jump” the regional government asks “how high?”. Seperation of power to the states leads to divisions of Americans into groups. As exemplified by the southerner bashing that goes on. Also, it leads to governmental irresponsibility. (Welfare is not our problem. It is a problem for the States) I have a Dennis Miller joke here.
“The States can’t pave FUCKING roads!”
So, we need to resolve this issue.
- My statement that there must be an accepted set of principles…
I agree with this statement. My dispute is with who makes the determination of whether or not something is in line with these principles.
The sole purpose of government is to protect fundamental rights…
I do not see it this way. The way I see it is that the government sets up the rules of a society. I think that these rules should protect what you consider the fundamental rights (Life, Liberty, Property). But, its main purpose is to maintain a workable society. Sometimes these rights will be abridged.
OK. I am going to wait on the New Business until I hear from you on these points. I think these can be resolved. If, in light of this you wish to restate your New Business, let me know. If not, lets just deal with this and then we can move on.
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the reply.
-curtis
2sense: I have to admit that for various reasons I didn’t spend a whole lot of time in researching examples like I said I would. But I did come up with one; tell me what you think. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the S.C. found “separate but equal” to be unconstitutional. I think most people today consider that to be the right decision, and the earlier Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decision that was to be the wrong one. But the earlier ruling didn’t require segregation, it merely permitted it. Since the majority continued for years to elect legislators that did nothing to stop segregation, I would say that the majority did in fact want segregation. It took the later decision to prevent the majority from committing a wrong against the minority. You might think that the long wait between the two decisions is a fault of the slowness of government change, but if the majority had changed its mind earlier and believed that segregation was wrong, they would have enacted (or elected legislators to enact) laws forbidding it. On the other hand, if it were not for the later decision, segregation would have continued, and might still continue today in some areas. What the Court did was declare that segregation laws (which represented the current will of the people) were not in accordance with the nation’s principles (as set forth in the constitution.)
Thanks for the example. I think it is a good 1. I agree that segregation is a bad idea. Since I do not believe that the current system does follow the will of The People accurately, I do not buy your “legislatures did not legislate” argument. But I think that there is merit to the argument that most people did not favor integration at the time. Bigotry was not then, nor now, confined to the south.
I will not argue against this example. I am not sure whether it is true or not. But I am willing to accept it until proven wrong.
If I were going to argue against it I would argue that the decision came 75 years too late.
The perception that racism has been steadily declining ever since the Civil War is false. An arguement could be made that the US is more racist now than it was 125 years ago. Had the laws been changed in the aftermath of the Civil War, there would have been no need for this decision.
But, they were not.
So your example still stands.
I will ponder this further.
Thank you again,
-curtis
2sense:
As I originally suspected, I think we’re getting to a place where we just plain disagree on principle.
You say that separation of State and Federal power leads to dividing the US into groups, with the implication that this is a bad thing. Whereas, I see it as allowing people to live in a country where their fundamental rights are protected, while the more low-level governmental tasks are tailored more to a region or the feelings of its inhabitants. In other words, you can (theoretically) pick the country based on the big issues, and then pick a state based on implementation details. That way, if you are more willing to pay taxes for more government services, you can move to that kind of state. You know, diversity and shit.
wrt the Dennis Miller joke: The states do pave the roads–they just use a certain amount of federal money in the process, which, of course, comes from you and me. The difference, in this case, being that it passes through more hands in the process. Today’s study question: Do you reckon these “packets” of money get larger or smaller as they pass through the Federal government on their way to the individual states?
It is interesting to me that you feel we need more centralized control (strong federal government) implementing the wishes of the popular majority (the voice of The People). To me these are both shaky positions.
Centralized Control: If you haven’t already, I recommend you have a look at dhanson’s posts in the “So, what’s wrong with Communism” thread, as I think they are relevant to this issue. Also, you might be interested in checking out current scholarship in the business world. In general, corporations and economists are concluding that centralized control just doesn’t work all that well. American auto makers are starting to eliminate management layers and give more control to people lower in the chain. The purpose is to increase flexibility and responsiveness. You want more flexibility and responsiveness, but you want to achieve it by giving more power to central authority. I would contend that these are mutually incompatible goals.
Also, you point out in some other posts that legislators are not always motivated by the common good or by the will of their constituents, but by “baser” desires. Yet, you want to strengthen the central governing power. How will you cause these leaders to be more “upright” and “correct” in their behavior. I submit that you cannot remove these imperfections from the system. The better solution, from my standpoint, is to give the governing body as little power as possible, thus minimizing the harm they can cause. This was also the belief of the Founding Fathers, which has resulted in the government that so annoys you.
Voice of The People: I read the post by Gilligan, and your reply. I think you are failing to consider the key implication of the post: The majority may be wrong. I would carry it a little further: What is right and what is wrong? You may feel that bigamy is wrong. There are a number of people in Utah who would disagree with you. You may feel that homosexuality is wrong. Once again, there are those who disagree with you. Given that, without establishing a state religion, we have no authoritative reference as to what is right or wrong, so we must fall back on agreed principles (yep; fundamental rights again). By giving more power to the voice of The People, you are recommending that the majority have more ability to dictate to the minority how they should live their lives. For a Libertarian, this is a bit of an evil stance.
I don’t think you realize the significance of the adjectives you toss around in the discussion:
Once again, what is “workable”? What are the chances that you define it the same as I do? You want to map out the correct plan for the future and use the government to implement it. I want to let individuals map out their own plans for the future and keep government out of their business as much as possible. Even if we were to agree on how this “workable” society would look, who’s to say that you and I haven’t just agreed to screw over 25% of the population?
So, I’m back where I started. The founding fathers decided that the best solution was to, as much as possible, let individuals decide for themselves how to live and how to pursue happiness, theorizing that this would achieve the “greatest good”. I agree with them on this principle, and am thus very proud of the Constitution that was produced. What I am not so proud of is the way the legislature and the courts flout this document with impunity.
wrt your thoughts on the Supreme Court: You seem to disapprove of the Supreme Court being the final arbiters of what is right and wrong. If this were their purpose, I would agree with you. However, the correct purpose of the Court is to determine whether or not the Constitution is being adhered to. Needless to say, they’ve decided to “interpret” this mission liberally.
I think that these issues that I have discussed are what we need to be debating, as I expect you to disagree with a lot that I have just said.
Hello again,
It doesn’t look like we have made any progress in the last few posts. If you are ready to stop, then that is OK with me. It looks like it is just Smartass, Gilligan, and I left. I think pepperlandgirl might be gone.
I feel that this was a valuable thread. I have learned some lessons. I thank you for participating. I hope that you have learned something as well.
If anyone is interested in continuing, I am willing. Just let me know.
Thank you all so much.
peace
Just putting in my 2sense
You tell me…is there something we need to really debate? I haven’t come to agree with the OP; have you come to agree with any of my points?
I have agreed with some of your points.
See my response to your Proclamations near the top of page 2.
peace
Well, I’d say the ball’s in your court. If you want to proceed from my last post, I’m okay with that. If you want to let it drop, I’m okay with that, too.
OK, lets continue.
We need to complete the Old Business.
-
I would like to consider government as all government. Do you agree?
-
I agree that there must be an accepted set of principles. I think we are disagreeing on how best to decide on what is in accordance with these principles and what is not.
-
I believe that it is the purpose of government to maintain a society. I think that we can find plenty to disagree on here.
I think that these disagreements are where we should concentrate our discussion. What do you think?
Just putting in my 2sense
2sense:
-
I agree provisionally, for the purposes of this discussion. That is, if the debate leans my way, then it may become something worth reviving. However, if it leans your way, I can see that it is a largely immaterial issue. Fair enough?
-
Yes, but I think our disagreement may be more fundamental. My position is that, since people differ in their assessment of right and wrong and fair and unfair, that there must be a set of principles that are held inviolate and undebatable (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”). That way, any disagreement is resolved by reflecting back on these principles.
-
Yes, we definitely disagree here. For me, government provides the minimum framework to enable society to maintain itself. This may be a circular argument. I say government is to centralized and inflexible to perform this function well. You say you want more flexible government. I say more flexible government pillages people’s rights. You say some rights will have to be abridged, and I’m back to the beginning with my fundamental rights.
We can try to examine these disagreements separately, or try an argument-refutation approach. Or, we can go back to some of my former proclamations (government should not solve problems, etc.).
One thing that is making it hard for me is that you have, so far, only expressed agreement or disagreement with my statements without laying down any principles of government to compare with. It may be that you have not formulated this, but if you have, it might help me to know exactly where the disagreements are.
- I am glad that we have agreed here. If I am talking about regional rather than central government, I will make this clear.
- I believe that the principles can and do change. But, for the sake of this discussion, I will accept your definition.
The point of disagreement that I see here is in who decides what is and is not in agreement with the principles.
- I am willing to accept the minimum framework definition as long as you will not argue against my positions solely on the basis that they are unnecessarily complex. I ask that you refute them on another basis.
I think we are ready to debate.
I propose that I go back to your statement from yesterday at 1:20 pm and address your 3 points.
What do you think?
On my position:
I am a democrat. Not as in the political party, although I am a member ( see my registered jackass comment ). But as in; I believe in democracy. I believe in people. I think that people are wise enough to make rational decisions about the world around them. I think that if empowered to do so , then The People could make a better government and a better society than we have today. Obviously everyone has misconceptions about the world we live in, but by allowing people to see what is happening because of the decisions that they make, many of these misconceptions would fall by the wayside.
2sense:
Perfectly acceptable.
This helps to clarify, but I would be hard pressed to comment on it unless you described an example government implementing these ideas.
Sorry for the delay. I will post my response tomorrow evening.
- Centralized Control:
A.- I don’t believe that economic models for corporations are applicable to government. The systems are different. From what I understand of your point, economists are realizing that the people who do the work, have a good understanding of how best to do the work. And that their viewpoint should be listened to .
Supposedly in a democracy this is taken for granted. Not in the USA. Here many assume that the common man is incapable of understanding government.
B.- There is good reason for this opinion. Our government is overly complex. In ancient Athens the urban citizens learned to effectivly disenfranchise the farmers by calling frequent votes. The rural citizens could not go to the city every day. They had work to do. In America today, there is a similar disenfranchised population. By cutting government up into small pieces, the citizen loses their voice. A person does not have time to moniter the actions of all of the decisionmaking bodies that influence their life.
C.- Seperation of government makes the government irresposible. Rather than deal with problems, the various bodies pass the buck ( or the politicial hot potato ) to some other body. If the central government were responsible for governing, then the voters would know who to blame when things went wrong.
D.- Legislators are people. There will allways be abuses. But a better way to moniter them is to keep their actions out in the open where everyone can see them. Legislators should be trying to hold on to their position by finding solutions to governmental problems. Our system does not encourage this. If a politican fails to uphold a campaign promise now, they blame someone else for blocking their noble efforts.
Give them the authority to solve the problems. If they do not act upright and correct, get rid of them.
- Voice of The People:
A.- Sometimes the majority is incorrect ( we are not in the new millenium yet ) The benefit of a flexible government is that when ( not if ) mistakes are made it is easier to correct them.
B.- I believe that given the opportunity, people can make rational decisions. It is not in the best interests of the majority to dictate to the minority. After all, sometimes the individuals will be in the minority.
C.- The agreed-upon principles are agreed upon by people. People believe in rights. My position is that people are disrespectful of others rights because they can be. Since our system of government insulates people from consequences of actions. When people get frustrated, it is easy to listen to windbags rail against percieved enemies. If these incompetent windbags took over and were expected to do something about it, then people would see that the simple solutions that are proposed are not effective.
D.- ** A workable society.**
Definition: any society that works ( endures ).
I think that our government promotes a workable society. The USA has been around for 200 years, after all. My concern is that it will not be able to change fast enough to remain workable.
E.- What you see as present leaders flouting the Constitution, I see as leaders striving to shoehorn a 20th century problem into an 18th century hole.
- The Supreme Court
A.- I disapprove of the Supreme Court being the final determiners of whether or not the Constitution is being adhered to. In a democracy, The People should allways be the final arbitrators.
B.- Needless to say, I am not an admirer of the Marbury v Madison decision.
OK, there it is , at last. Let me know what you think.
-curtis
2sense:
Read your post. Will take some time to reply. My daughter’s birthday is tomorrow and I am travelling overseas again this weekend, so it may be Monday or Tuesday before I can respond.
Don’t want you to think I am abandoning the topic.