Political discussion thread

It would be easier to get a third party in the white house if we went to a system in which the people elect the president directly.

Epignosis wrote: Chris S wrote: Any vilification of the current president are mere opportunists seeking excuses. I'm so relieved to know we elected a perfect president.

^ Just vote MR, we will forgive you

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote:   I'm with you Teo.  What makes Democracy inherently wondrous? That it most acknowledges the equality of people in representation, at least in theory. In practice there are many flaws, but can we not say that about any system of government?

In theory.

Instead, it allows politicians to manipulate their "base."  Slavery was OK by most people in 1800 in the US.

We have a Bill of Rights and several amendments thereafter.  What we lack is a government that will protect it and abide by it.

thellama73 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote:   I'm with you Teo.  What makes Democracy inherently wondrous? That it most acknowledges the equality of people in representation, at least in theory. No it doesn't. It allows 51% percent of the people to enslave the other 49%. I've been toying with the idea of an unchangeable constitution and no voting as a superior system, but I'm not sure if it would work.

I don't think it would.  A constitution has to be at least somewhat amendable in order to avoid the hassle of writing a new one every time a minor change has to be made (and one will, eventually, no matter how well thought out the document is), and I can't think of any better way than voting to elect government officials.

And America isn't even a democracy, per se.  It has elements of democracy but is much closer to a republic.

All government systems will necessarily collapse inward on themselves at some point along the road; you can't have a government system without humans, and the presence of humans necessitates human error, which will eventually wreck the system.  The key is to find the system that will minimize human error enough to sustain itself as long as possible, and that will provide the greatest prosperity for its people.

Chris S wrote: ^ Wise words, perhaps that is what make a maximum double term a good thing politically. The problem is you only have a liberal and a far right representation. Not enough choice or as some forum members have stated no substantiial independants. Cultural habitualism. Another good example but less alienated is the UK. Keep democrasy simple and the flock will follow.

Actually, I've learned in American history class at college (although I haven't done any background research myself) that the parliamentary system reduces the tendency toward a two-party system.  Perhaps if the parliamentary legislative system was combined with direct election of the president, you could bring more third parties in while reducing the tendencies towards a coalition government.

HackettFan wrote: Chris S wrote: ^ Wise words, perhaps that is what make a maximum double term a good thing politically. The problem is you only have a liberal and a far right representation. Not enough choice or as some forum members have stated no substantiial independants. Cultural habitualism. Another good example but less alienated is the UK. Keep democrasy simple and the flock will follow. The Democratic party is not comprised of all liberals. It has a huge contingent of centrist corporate democrats. Obama is one of them. The liberals are kept docile because they are scared as can be of the far right. I want Teddy Roosevelt and I want him now.

Although she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, vote for Jill Stein.  She's the closest thing to a Roosevelt I've seen running. 

And yes, I agree with everything you just said about the Dems and Obama. 


Edited by The Doctor - October 28 2012 at 22:34

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: HackettFan wrote: Chris S wrote: ^ Wise words, perhaps that is what make a maximum double term a good thing politically. The problem is you only have a liberal and a far right representation. Not enough choice or as some forum members have stated no substantiial independants. Cultural habitualism. Another good example but less alienated is the UK. Keep democrasy simple and the flock will follow. The Democratic party is not comprised of all liberals. It has a huge contingent of centrist corporate democrats. Obama is one of them. The liberals are kept docile because they are scared as can be of the far right. I want Teddy Roosevelt and I want him now. Although she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, vote for Jill Stein.  She's the closest thing to a Roosevelt I've seen running.  And yes, I agree with everything you just said about the Dems and Obama.  FREE FREE FREE!!!! Woman doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Now you know how I feel by all the conservatives and libertarians talking about "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"  They don't know what freedom means, or at least have a very skewed view of the word. 

First, no one is ever going to be 100% free.  Unless he/she chooses to live out in the wild and have zero contact with any other person.  Even then, you're not free from nature.  The freedom of one is always going to go up against the power of another.  The best we can hope for is to minimize the amount of power anyone can exert over another, and thereby maximize the amount of freedom each person has.  Of course government is one institution that exerts power over individuals, but so do corporations, employers, banks, landlords, etc., etc., etc.  Those who exert power must have their power reduced in order that those without power have at least some measure of real freedom.  Freedom is not just freedom from government intervention in the lives of those who have.  Freedom is also the protection of those who have not.  There must be a balance between public power and private power.  For, without such balance, we will merely be trading in one government for a private government (one run solely for the profit of the private entity). 

[QUOTE=The Doctor]First, no one is ever going to be 100% free.  Unless he/she chooses to live out in the wild and have zero contact with any other person.  Even then, you're not free from nature.  The freedom of one is always going to go up against the power of another.  The best we can hope for is to minimize the amount of power anyone can exert over another, and thereby maximize the amount of freedom each person has.  Of course government is one institution that exerts power over individuals, but so do corporations, employers, banks, landlords, etc., etc., etc.  Those who exert power must have their power reduced in order that those without power have at least some measure of real freedom.  Freedom is not just freedom from government intervention in the lives of those who have.  Freedom is also the protection of those who have not.  There must be a balance between public power and private power.  For, without such balance, we will merely be trading in one government for a private government (one run solely for the profit of the private entity). 
[/QUOTE