|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Occupy Wall Street | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
In big sweeping terms, should we heed the will of the people on every issue? It is a long way from being physically possible but is it a good idea at all? No. People in the aggregate can be both lazy and greedy. They will vote themselves "bread and circuses" if they can, and that is the end of the democracy as that kind of spending can never be sustained. A quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher goes along the lines of The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money... Just look to Greece, Spain, and the US for examples of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Just look to Greece, Spain, and the US for examples of this. And Germany, amirite? Wait...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Direct government is great for picking the color of the flowers on the White House lawn, or whether some street in VA ought to be named after Jefferson Davis. But for complicated issues where the outcome makes a difference, I think we are better served by paying the right people to make informed decisions if we aren't going to inform ourselves. That is just fucking depressing . You may be right I don’t know. It just seems to me that people are better than that as individuals. Ignorant perhaps but with good hearts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Or Switzerland?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
In big sweeping terms, should we heed the will of the people on every issue?
Rightfully we should, realistically we should not peapole are just not grown up enough and we would soon be voting on the bibble in school issues, and should the goverment buy everyone a car issues.
[/qs]
It is a long way from being physically possible but is it a good idea at all?
It is because it ties the hands of governments that have bought and sold the people many times over issues like do you want clean renewable power or do you want my very close and personal friend who bought me this presidency to keep earning money on coal power. Issues like this would usually swing the right way with the people, but will usually swing the wrong way with the government.
I am not going to go out and gather 40k signatures to bring some issue to a vote but I will vote. Well we got loads of organizations and its easily done to easily in some cases, it was a good thing it could be done when our former president was negotiating the solution for the border dispute with Croatia his negotiating skills where poor, or he got bribed lol but thankfully the referendum forced him to listen to the people and add a few things to the negotiating table. Its a bad thing when the pensions reform was proposed even though it was a rubbish reform it was still better for the country as a whole to be passed then not to be but it dint pass the referendum so now we cant have a pensions reform for a year. I am not going to go out and gather 40k signatures to bring some issue to a vote but I will vote. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Or Switzerland? I am conflicted on the idea of direct democracy. In principle, I agree that it makes sense, but then when you hear the popular clamour in the UK for things like the abolition of the Human Rights Act it makes you deeply depressed about what the general populace actually would implement. But then, what is my essential argument against it - "My views are better than other peoples"? Maybe the system could work with some kind of strict protection of civil rights needing an overwhelming majority to amend, but then the experience of California raises questions about the populace's fiscal management abilities. Either way, for our edification, here's the initiatives that were successfully passed through Switzerland's direct democracy in the past two years, so we can see the sort of things at least one populace votes for. These are only the successful ones, it's less than half the total number of initiatives that went to referendum: 28.11.2010 - Deport foreign criminals.26.9.2010 - Slightly increase the contribution to unemployment insurance and cut the length of time you can claim unemployment benefit for. 7.3.2010 - Something to do with research on human subjects, but I'm unclear exactly what. 29.11.2010 - Ban the construction of minarets 29.11.2010 - Two-thirds of government income from airfuel tax must be spent on aviation safety and environmental concerns. Failed referendums included an ban on the export of military equipment, prohibiting people from having guns at home and higher property taxes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Coyote writes: A quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher goes along the lines of The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money... Just look to Greece, Spain, and the US for examples of this. The problem with socialism in the U.S. is that we've socialized corporate losses while privatizing their gains. Somehow, while conservatives critique taxpayer-funded retirement and old age medical care (hardly bread and circuses) because of federal deficits, corporate profits and the incomes of the wealthy have soared--while taxes on both are at their lowest levels in many decades. A little more direct democracy might help. I think the odds are good that we would pour less money down the rat-holes of war and appeasement of the wealthy. At present, for example, more than two-thirds of the American people support raising tax rates on millionaires and up, and oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Yet even Democrats--both Congress and the White House--entertain those cuts in a "Grand Bargain" with Republicans. Of course, the vast majority of our representatives are themselves millionaires and their campaign funds come from other millionaires, so their natural interests are not aligned with ours. Representative democracy is intended to be a bulwark against the ills of popular passions, but in practice here it merely identifies the few who need to be bought. We already have a Constitution designed to protest us from a tyrannical majority, so I'm not too concerned about national referendums that might erode, for example, civil liberties. Besides, our representative democracy is doing a pretty good job of eroding those already. Perhaps with a bit more direct democracy, the oligarchs would feel that they have to buy us off rather than our politicians. If the only difference was that instead of millions flowing into politicians' coffers, every kid in the U.S. could have enough bread to eat and could go to the circus every year, I'd call that an improvement."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Omnivorous, hope you are well.
My time in the last several weeks has been taken up with participating in Occupy Providence and helping dad cope with the deteriorating health of my mother. I am taking a small reprieve today.
A little more direct democracy might help. I found it quite curious that the market and european governments reacted so negatively to the idea that the greek people would vote on whether or not to accept a package that would affect their lives for years to come. I wish the "tarp" bailout had been put to a public vote and that the Iraq invasion had been put to a public vote ... that the jobs bill would be put to a public vote ... and on and on.
The problem with socialism in the U.S. is that we've socialized corporate losses while privatizing their gains. The socialism in this country is approached from a capitalistic view, cost\benefit, and devoid of empathy for fellow humans (which are unimportant to people that define corporations as entities with first amendment rights - choosing machines over people). There needs to be a balance between the needs of the people in general (the promise of socialism) and the ability of some people to attain great things (the promise of capitalism).
Perhaps with a bit more direct democracy, the oligarchs would feel that they have to buy us off rather than our politicians. If the only difference was that instead of millions flowing into politicians' coffers, every kid in the U.S. could have enough bread to eat and could go to the circus every year, I'd call that an improvement. Or watch the circus on C-Span?
We already have a Constitution designed to protest us from a tyrannical majority, so I'm not too concerned about national referendums that might erode, for example, civil liberties. Besides, our representative democracy is doing a pretty good job of eroding those already There are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution: U.S. Constitution - Article 5 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
quote: and two ways to approve them:
quote: It would be interesting to call for conventions in the states to discuss possible amendments. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
I agree, If all that TARP and Stimulus went to pay the US citizens we would all have plenty of money to go to the circus, and retire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
That is just fucking depressing . You may be right I don’t know. It just seems to me that people are better than that as individuals. Ignorant perhaps but with good hearts.
The intelligence of a group tends to be inversely proportional to its size. To quote Tommy Lee Jones in Men In Black:
quote: People are intelligent enough to make good decisions when they've been given sufficient information upon which to base a decision. Unfortunately, estimation of confidence is also inversely proportional to actual topical knowledge - the less you know about a subject, the more confident you tend to be in your competence. This means that people who are capable of making intelligent decisions based on ample information will be perfectly willing to make decisions when they have little or no actual knowledge...virtually guaranteeing that the opinion of the average Joe on a specific topic is worth less than the oxygen used to verbalize it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
So in other words, we don’t, as a whole, know what is good for us. To use an analogy, a child may understand that vegetables are good for them but they would still not eat the vegetables if given the vote.
If our governments actions were a direct and theoretically perfect reflection of our citizens opinions would the world not be a better place? Which citizen's reflection should we look at? Those for or against gun control? Those for or against socialized health care? Those for or against abortion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
First, my sympathies to your father and you--of all the horrors and sorrows life throws at us, the process of losing a loved one is worst. My mother spent many months in Intensive Care before she passed, and I would have given anything to let her pass peacefully in her sleep instead.
I'm doing reasonably well. My spine surgery in April went well, and I had a wonderful summer and early fall of hiking and camping. But now the cleared nerve channels are again closing due to the pressure from my generally collapsing spinal column. Some days I can barely walk. My neurosurgeon has offered me titanium rod scaffolding which involves scooping out my guts, placing the scaffolds and then lugging the guts back, Hamlet-like . I'm still considering that, and so far refusing narcotics out of sheer bloody-mindedness (my surgeon's words). But I cleaned out my gutters today and replaced a high pressure power steering line on my project car, so life is good. I answered your query about my health in considerable detail for two reasons: first, I know you appreciate how powerfully our health determines all, and I know you genuinely care about mine. Thank you. I hope your silence concerning your own means naught but good. The other reason for the detail is this: I've worked hard all my life. I served my country militarily; I also served my country by protesting its social and military mistakes. I've been thrifty, I've invested well and shrewdly, and I'm doing okay. Five years ago, three days before a major surgery, my employer of many years "terminated" me: they had first looked at hiring a temporary replacement, then discovered they could replace me with a younger person permanently at a substantial discount from my salary. I had received glowing recommendations, substantial salary increases and bonuses for 15 years. They were doctors. Yet they were sincere in saying to me, "Nothing personal--it's just business." As an employee-at-will, that monstrous American category, I had little recourse: every employer in America now knows how to fire someone for being old (and expensive) without having to answer to laws forbidding firing someone for being old. Still, I was okay. I did some freelance work, some considerable antique dealing, and did better than when on salary--until the economy went down the toilet in 2008 just as my health issues intensified. Still, as I said, I've been thrifty and invested well. I look at my resources and see that with the back-up of Social Security Disability Income (which I have not applied for as yet, still hoping to again earn my own income), and with regular Social Security available to me in a few years, and Medicare a few years after that, I should have a decent old age. But now I hear from the right that none of that is secure. Social Security income should be lowered; the eligibility age for Medicare should be increased. If I can't get by with those changes, I'm a leech, a loser, a welfarian drain on society. I'm not alone. Many of the tens of millions of Americans currently unemployed are, like me, people aged 50 or higher. They were selected for lay-offs primarily because of their age: again, corporations well understand how to do such age-biased winnowing without making themselves vulnerable to the law. I will be okay. I've been poor before, as a child and, electively, as a young hippie, factory worker and foot soldier before deciding that qualifying for lighter work via the tedium of acedemics was preferable to a back bent by labor (a little late, perhaps ). I know how to live with extremely low expenditures; most of my pleasures (reading, hiking, chess, EvC) are cheap. Yet I observe my increasing reliance on high-tech medical care, and I watch the cost of private health insurance approach the average social security income, and I wonder:
What are they thinking, those millionaire Republican maggots in Congress planning to replace Medicare with coupons and to reduce the already minimal Social Security payments? Tens of millions of Americans are in my boat--the conservatives want to sink our boat, and they don't care. They don't care that they advocate raising the age for Medicare eligibility just as tens of millions of unemployed Americans need it most; they don't care that tens of millions of Americans may have to contemplate eating cat food because Social Security will be privatized into the same penury to which they consigned working class homeowners. They don't care about me, about you, about your parents or your children: they care about their ideological vision that conveniently tells them that there can't be winners without losers, and they have no doubt that they are the winners. They don't care that they have offered the aged in America the most odious of deals: don't worry, you'll get yours, just go along with bankrupting your children and grandchildren. Speaker of the House Boehner says, "Promises were made that can't be kept." I'd like to punch the bastard right in the nose. Direct democracy? Sure, that might help. But we have enough democracy now to empower Americans to wake up and realize that someone has stolen our birthright, and they won't give it back without a fight. We agreed to care for each other in a quintessentially American fashion, paying taxes to construct an insurance safety net to guarantee a decent life for the elderly, and another to help children escape the cycle of poverty,and the oligarchs want to shred those nets so they won't have to pay more taxes on their millions. I'm so mad I could spit. AbE: Don't forget to vote. Edited by Omnivorous, : The point."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher goes along the lines of The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money... Another quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher is: "Sacrifice your newborn children unto me that my daemonic blood-thirst may be slaked with their innocent gore". Really, Margaret Thatcher? Why don't you quote General Pinochet while you're at it, I bet he had some cutting things to say about socialism.
Just look to Greece, Spain, and the US for examples of this. If by "socialism" you mean "cutting taxes for the rich and invading countries at random", then yes, that does explain why the government is short a few bucks. Otherwise, not so much. Let's play ... spot the socialism!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
1.61803 writes: If all that TARP and Stimulus went to pay the US citizens we would all have plenty of money to go to the circus... There is something dreadfully wrong when the richest country on earth contains millions of children who can't afford to go to the circus."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
caffeine writes: But then, what is my essential argument against it - "My views are better than other peoples"? That is right and there is no way to support that idea without necessarily disenfranchising all those who we think that we are smarter than. This view is not compatible with a belief in equal human rights or a belief in democracy. I thought that it was democracy that has improved the standard of living throughout history. Is it coincidental that the top 40 or so countries in the Human Development Index are nearly all democracies? Those that are not are oil rich.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024