So, it’s occurred to me that the collective IQ of this board must be absolutely staggering. Considering that, it’s a damn shame we all spend our time asking and answering questions about minor trivialities. It’s time for something Serious and Important. There’s a lot of problems in this darn world, and very few of them are being matched with adequate solutions. What are everyone’s ideas or plans to improve the world? Preferably I’d like to hear ambitious, comprehensive plans incorporating radical changes, but smaller ideas are also good. I’ll follow this with my idea. You can debate it, if you want, but I’d much rather hear yours.
First, my turn. I think America’s (for that is where I live) attitude towards laws is completely wrongheaded in a way that contributes to general misery and could lead to our downfall. I propose that instead of accepting that laws are the law just because they are, there should be comprehensible reasons for all laws. Laws which either have no reason or do not work should not be. Too often, I get the feeling that politicians have lost sight of the fact that their decisions affect the entire country and even the entire world. Instead, politics becomes a game of getting “your laws” passed more than your opponent gets “their laws” passed. But they aren’t their laws, they’re our laws.
In order to enforce this, I propose that all laws but the most basic should expire after one or two terms. In order to handle this, either a third legislative body would be created or one of the current chambers’ task would be switched. The new purpose would be to review and debate expiring laws to determine whether they have had a positive or negative effect and whether they remain necessary.
Furthermore, word limits would be instituted for all new laws and reading periods for new laws would be drastically lengthened. I would prefer for the first to be no more than around 5,000 and the second to be no less than a month. All laws should be readily comprehensible, and all congressmen should know exactly what they are voting on.
The stories we hear about thousand-plus page laws being passed in a matter of hours (PATRIOT act, anyone?) are absolutely insane and reflect a fundamental disconnect in the minds of our public servants. Hopefully, such changes would be able to reign in the accumulation of pointless and harmful laws and challenge the all-too-common wisdom that laws are inherent goods that must be followed. Laws are the product of men, and men make mistakes - lots of mistakes. It’s when these mistakes build up,calcify, and are removed from questioning that the system hosting these mistakes grows unhealthy and begins to falter.
The problem you’ll run into is that while we are pretty bright on average, we also disagree about almost everything. What one person considers utopia, another considers Hell on Earth.
Very true, but I’m also a big believer in conflict. Also, it’s not as much about solving everything immediately as it is about making people think, generate new ideas, and present them. Surely everyone has one really good idea in them, no?
Just out of curiousity, how much do you actually KNOW about what happens when a law is passed (as opposed to what you think you might know)? Are you a lawyer or politician? Have you studied this subject?
The other problem you will run into on this board is that there are a lot of really well intentioned people who have no idea what they are talking about.
In order to enforce this, I propose that all laws but the most basic should expire after one or two terms. In order to handle this, either a third legislative body would be created or one of the current chambers’ task would be switched. The new purpose would be to review and debate expiring laws to determine whether they have had a positive or negative effect and whether they remain necessary.
Furthermore, word limits would be instituted for all new laws and reading periods for new laws would be drastically lengthened. I would prefer for the first to be no more than around 5,000 and the second to be no less than a month. All laws should be readily comprehensible, and all congressmen should know exactly what they are voting on.
The stories we hear about thousand-plus page laws being passed in a matter of hours (PATRIOT act, anyone?) are absolutely insane and reflect a fundamental disconnect in the minds of our public servants. Hopefully, such changes would be able to reign in the accumulation of pointless and harmful laws and challenge the all-too-common wisdom that laws are inherent goods that must be followed. Laws are the product of men, and men make mistakes - lots of mistakes. It’s when these mistakes build up,calcify, and are removed from questioning that the system hosting these mistakes grows unhealthy and begins to falter.
[/QUOTE]
The other problem you will find in “solving all the worlds problems” is that solving one problem will in fact exacerbate others - ie reducing pollution will also have an adverse effect on industry and energy production and increase poverty. We can decrease poverty but royaly fuck up the planet if the entire world is living at North Amercan living standards.
I doubt that there are many people who feel our leaders are not corrupt.
Our congress is supposed to represent the people…Stop the influence of lobbyists of all kinds.
Election campaigning should be no longer that 3 to 6 months prior to national or state elections.
Make it easier for the people of the US to know the promises made by their local representatives and how they actually voted and demand their explanation for doing the opposite of what they promised.
All viable candidates for office should receive and spend similar dollar amounts…not contributed by themselves, by lobbyists or any other partisan group.
Maybe in this fashion our leaders will finally peform for the people they represent…more honesty will occur in our government. Since our USA is such a powerful influence on the world, these changes I suggested would make a huge difference in the world at large. Thats my opinion…I believe these changes are realistic and can be done.
Just beause that’s what they feel doesn’t mean they are statistically correct.
What if a surprising percentage of the populace is too shortsided to accept the importance of big business?
And Christmas shopping shouldn’t begin before Halloween…
But why do we even need 3-6 months? If I see one or two speaches by the guy, I’ll know whether he feels like he can get people to do stuff. If I get a booklet on his stand on the issues, I know his stand on the issues–possibly improved by his voting record before that. And once I’ve got a full background check from the media and FBI, I know his history. Everything after that is smoke and glitter.
It is perfectly easy. But everyone insists on paying more attention to the quality of the president than their local head of the school board–even though the head of the school board is likely to have more impact. And what the people are interested in, the media delivers.
Why should they spend anything at all? The government should cover all costs to make sure that the people are able to make an informed decision on who their leaders may be.
Cite for dishonesty?
Certainly there have been many illegal, or at least shady dealings in the government throughout history. But 1) That’s true of all human endeavors from government to business to family, 2) 99% of the time, a politician has nothing personal to gain in any decision he makes–so he’s going to go with the one that seems the best to him as an intelligent person.
So not really arguing anything, I’m just saying that you’re making some pretty broad statements there and it probably doesn’t all work out that cleanly.
Shang-ri La Trailer Park. You just know there has to be one somewhere.
It would be nice to use our collective intelligence for good, not evil. But once the money and power started kicking in, well, it would be a slippery slope off that Ivory Tower into the Den of Carnal Lust and Bling Bling.
Then we would have to pit ourselves for our outlandish waste of tax payers monies for building a Death Ray in the Mariana’s Trench for 20 minutes.
We would become what we abhor and frankly, we would have to actually work. Oh…the horror!
[QUOTE=
Cite for dishonesty?
Certainly there have been many illegal, or at least shady dealings in the government throughout history. But 1) That’s true of all human endeavors from government to business to family, 2) 99% of the time, a politician has nothing personal to gain in any decision he makes–so he’s going to go with the one that seems the best to him as an intelligent person.
.[/QUOTE]
Naivity personified… a politician’s campaign contributions at this time are essential. Lobbyists don’t contribute to campaigns without expecting something in return…thusly your statement I quoted is so far from the truth it hurts.
No no, that’s step two. First you have to build the time machine so that we can go back to 1920 to get the original plans off of Tesla before the government confiscates and hides them in a giant warehouse next to the Arc of the Covenant.
And lobbyists concern themselves with 99% of all law? And of the amount they do concern themselves with, all of that is negative and spiteful to the human race?
Start off with the alcohol lobby. Not all lobbyists are against the wishes of the populace…But the great majority of them succeed in influencing in great measure the politician’s vote even though the populace would not gain from a vote for the lobbyist.
That’s one, and you have not shown why humanity does not benefit for voting with the lobbyist.
The populace elected the person. That he is getting money from lobbyists is not secret, nor which lobbyists it was, nor how he ends up voting. If we ignore the information we are given then that’s our issue. AND that still doesn’t mean that the lobbyist was asking for something bad. Unpopular does not necessarily equal bad.
So unless you can prove that 1) politicians usually do base their vote on bribes, 2) that those bribes were payed to cause bad things to happen, and that thus 3) most laws enacted are bad, I think that you’re going to need to revisit your assertions. That I can tell, 99% of all laws coming out of the government are more along the lines of “No stomping pigeons” than destroying the Tucker automobile.
Not necessarily. Lobbyists contribute to the campaign of a politician with whom they agree. It’s not that they are buying a vote; it’s that they are trying to ensure that someone with whom they agree is going to stay in office.
To say that lobbyists buy votes is to be completely ignorant of how Washington, D.C., works. In generaly, you know how someone will vote. So you give money to the campaign of the person who will vote the way you like. Of course you also expect that you’ll have some access with that person when he/she is elected. That is not a bad thing, however. When I worked for a Senator I met with plenty of lobbyists. They gave us vital information about how certain laws would affect our constituents. I also freely ignored those lobbyists with whom my boss disagreed.
Also, I must add that I worked for a Republican office. The most effective lobbyist (the one who was able to influence us to do the most for him and his clients back in the state) was a Democrat who, as far as I know, never gave a penny to my boss.
I wish the political system was as utopic as you say…The more experiences one has in life the more he becomes somewhat cynical. Most political figures require money to win elections…this money comes from his own party…donations from friends, corporations, and lobbyists for whathaveyou…unions, corporations and the like. The average politician may personally be abortion tolerant for example but if paid a large contribution by the right to lifers, he may well abstain or vote against pro-abortion rulings.
Many congressman as you well know will vote as the party wants him to even if he personally believes the people he represents will benefit otherwise. I say this occurs quite commonly.