Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


And it's called judicial activism and frowned upon. Most of the reinterpretations get thrown out by higher courts.

The last thing we want is a group of unelected, appointed for life, people to have the ability to enact laws, even indirectly. Might as well have a monarchy then.
Constitutionalism is judicial activism as well; it's just in the opposite direction.
Not in the slightest. It is upholding the law of the land. As I said, the Constitution is most certainly a living document that can be changed at any time. If you want universal health care write an amendment that expands the scope of government to allow such a thing.
Our particular system is too rigid and slow to change.  This makes it hard for our system to adapt to modern needs.

We also have one of the oldest governments in terms of structure.  Most other countries have revised their systems considerably in the last 200 years.  Maybe it's time we did.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Constitutionalism is judicial activism as well; it's just in the opposite direction.
Not in the slightest. It is upholding the law of the land. As I said, the Constitution is most certainly a living document that can be changed at any time. If you want universal health care write an amendment that expands the scope of government to allow such a thing.
Our particular system is too rigid and slow to change.  This makes it hard for our system to adapt to modern needs.

We also have one of the oldest governments in terms of structure.  Most other countries have revised their systems considerably in the last 200 years.  Maybe it's time we did.
It is supposed to be rigid and slow to change. It forces actions to be thought out and planned instead of ideas being tossed out on a whim without any forethought. No, our system of government does not need to be changed. I'm quite happy that it prevents your type from enacting wholesale changes. Your frustration delights me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
Ohnoes, I need consensus in order to push forward my ideas. How awful. The country should instead be run by the 20% or so who call themselves progressives. Minority rule! Fuck yeah!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not in the slightest. It is upholding the law of the land. As I said, the Constitution is most certainly a living document that can be changed at any time. If you want universal health care write an amendment that expands the scope of government to allow such a thing.
Our particular system is too rigid and slow to change.  This makes it hard for our system to adapt to modern needs.

We also have one of the oldest governments in terms of structure.  Most other countries have revised their systems considerably in the last 200 years.  Maybe it's time we did.
It is supposed to be rigid and slow to change. It forces actions to be thought out and planned instead of ideas being tossed out on a whim without any forethought. No, our system of government does not need to be changed. I'm quite happy that it prevents your type from enacting wholesale changes. Your frustration delights me.
It's not really frustration....  it's more like just a feeling of being perplexed.  I really don't understand the reverence for the Constitution that Americans have in general.  Yes, it's historically significant, but I just don't place the same value on a specific doctrine of government that many choose to.   I prefer ideas over traditions.   I prefer pragmatism over structure.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-01 07:20:48)

Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5970|Vortex Ring State
Basically, John is saying that we should wait for progressive ideas to become mainstream. That way, the worse progressive ideas die off before they make it to the mainstream.

I asked a candidate for state representative if he knew what instant-runoff voting was, he didn't even have an idea.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ohnoes, I need consensus in order to push forward my ideas. How awful. The country should instead be run by the 20% or so who call themselves progressives. Minority rule! Fuck yeah!
We're already ruled by special interests -- but then again, everyone is.

The few will always rule the many no matter how much you may believe otherwise.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Trotskygrad wrote:

Basically, John is saying that we should wait for progressive ideas to become mainstream. That way, the worse progressive ideas die off before they make it to the mainstream.

I asked a candidate for state representative if he knew what instant-runoff voting was, he didn't even have an idea.
Yes! Precisely. I'm all for change when it makes sense. It just needs to be thought out and thoroughly planned in advance. It also needs to be paid for with more than gimmicky accounting methods.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Basically, John is saying that we should wait for progressive ideas to become mainstream. That way, the worse progressive ideas die off before they make it to the mainstream.

I asked a candidate for state representative if he knew what instant-runoff voting was, he didn't even have an idea.
Yes! Precisely. I'm all for change when it makes sense. It just needs to be thought out and thoroughly planned in advance. It also needs to be paid for with more than gimmicky accounting methods.
Well, I thought you didn't like majority rule.  In the other threads where I supported it, you denounced it as mob rule.
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5970|Vortex Ring State

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Basically, John is saying that we should wait for progressive ideas to become mainstream. That way, the worse progressive ideas die off before they make it to the mainstream.

I asked a candidate for state representative if he knew what instant-runoff voting was, he didn't even have an idea.
Yes! Precisely. I'm all for change when it makes sense. It just needs to be thought out and thoroughly planned in advance. It also needs to be paid for with more than gimmicky accounting methods.
that usually takes a good 5-15 years though... after the first public exposure of the idea.

compare that to a 1-2 for action in an totalitarian government, and we can see why turq wants it. But totalitarian gov'ts have problems that I don't need to mention.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Basically, John is saying that we should wait for progressive ideas to become mainstream. That way, the worse progressive ideas die off before they make it to the mainstream.

I asked a candidate for state representative if he knew what instant-runoff voting was, he didn't even have an idea.
Yes! Precisely. I'm all for change when it makes sense. It just needs to be thought out and thoroughly planned in advance. It also needs to be paid for with more than gimmicky accounting methods.
Well, I thought you didn't like majority rule.  In the other threads where I supported it, you denounced it as mob rule.
No, I denounce direct democracy. Asking for consensus among elected officials isn't asking for too much now is it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yes! Precisely. I'm all for change when it makes sense. It just needs to be thought out and thoroughly planned in advance. It also needs to be paid for with more than gimmicky accounting methods.
Well, I thought you didn't like majority rule.  In the other threads where I supported it, you denounced it as mob rule.
No, I denounce direct democracy. Asking for consensus among elected officials isn't asking for too much now is it?
Sure, but it shouldn't require 2/3.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Trotskygrad wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Basically, John is saying that we should wait for progressive ideas to become mainstream. That way, the worse progressive ideas die off before they make it to the mainstream.

I asked a candidate for state representative if he knew what instant-runoff voting was, he didn't even have an idea.
Yes! Precisely. I'm all for change when it makes sense. It just needs to be thought out and thoroughly planned in advance. It also needs to be paid for with more than gimmicky accounting methods.
that usually takes a good 5-15 years though... after the first public exposure of the idea.

compare that to a 1-2 for action in an totalitarian government, and we can see why turq wants it. But totalitarian gov'ts have problems that I don't need to mention.
Sure, like most of them fail and have failure economies.

The problem with what I said should happen is that it can't exist for most cases. Take UHC for instance. It is impossible to plan for every situation, it's impossible to thoroughly police corruption and graft, and it's impossible to price it correctly without fucking up a vast portion of the economy. This isn't even including the pharma industry which we depend on for new drugs and treatments etc. For something so complex, centralizing the planning does far more harm than good. The purview of government needs to be kept small and focussed so they are able to do their job effectively. The more broad you make their job description, the worse job they are destined to do.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I thought you didn't like majority rule.  In the other threads where I supported it, you denounced it as mob rule.
No, I denounce direct democracy. Asking for consensus among elected officials isn't asking for too much now is it?
Sure, but it shouldn't require 2/3.
Why not? If an idea can't stand up to a vote that requires 60% for a consensus it's not a very good idea now is it? Or it hasn't been sold properly. In either case it's not the fault of the system.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 07:29:15)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, I denounce direct democracy. Asking for consensus among elected officials isn't asking for too much now is it?
Sure, but it shouldn't require 2/3.
Why not? If an idea can't stand up to a vote that requires 60% for a consensus it's not a very good idea now is it? Or it hasn't been sold properly. In either case it's not the fault of the system.
The problem is that 2/3 of our society literally can't seem to agree on much of anything, no matter how good the policy might be.

It's the curse of diversity (ideologically speaking).  There are good things about our diversity, but the main downside is a lack of unity.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Sure, but it shouldn't require 2/3.
Why not? If an idea can't stand up to a vote that requires 60% for a consensus it's not a very good idea now is it? Or it hasn't been sold properly. In either case it's not the fault of the system.
The problem is that 2/3 of our society literally can't seem to agree on much of anything, no matter how good the policy might be.

It's the curse of diversity (ideologically speaking).  There are good things about our diversity, but the main downside is a lack of unity.
That's fine. Most stuff shouldn't be pushed up to Washington anyway. If you want UHC, start at the state level and make it work.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Why not? If an idea can't stand up to a vote that requires 60% for a consensus it's not a very good idea now is it? Or it hasn't been sold properly. In either case it's not the fault of the system.
The problem is that 2/3 of our society literally can't seem to agree on much of anything, no matter how good the policy might be.

It's the curse of diversity (ideologically speaking).  There are good things about our diversity, but the main downside is a lack of unity.
That's fine. Most stuff shouldn't be pushed up to Washington anyway. If you want UHC, start at the state level and make it work.
I'm not even talking about UHC though.  I'm more inclined to support that on a state level rather than a federal one.  Also, I realize it has some caveats as well.

It's just any change in general seems so difficult to make.  The few times we actually do seem to get something done it's either too late, or it's just some policy that managed to garner support from the right combination of special interests (rather than truly getting mainstream approval).
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The problem is that 2/3 of our society literally can't seem to agree on much of anything, no matter how good the policy might be.

It's the curse of diversity (ideologically speaking).  There are good things about our diversity, but the main downside is a lack of unity.
That's fine. Most stuff shouldn't be pushed up to Washington anyway. If you want UHC, start at the state level and make it work.
I'm not even talking about UHC though.  I'm more inclined to support that on a state level rather than a federal one.  Also, I realize it has some caveats as well.

It's just any change in general seems so difficult to make.  The few times we actually do seem to get something done it's either too late, or it's just some policy that managed to garner support from the right combination of special interests (rather than truly getting mainstream approval).
That is by design. Our government is supposed to move at a glacial pace. Since our government fucks up everything it touches, I view it as a positive.

If I had my way our government would only sit in session for two weeks a year. It was never meant to be a full time job/career.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 07:36:43)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


That's fine. Most stuff shouldn't be pushed up to Washington anyway. If you want UHC, start at the state level and make it work.
I'm not even talking about UHC though.  I'm more inclined to support that on a state level rather than a federal one.  Also, I realize it has some caveats as well.

It's just any change in general seems so difficult to make.  The few times we actually do seem to get something done it's either too late, or it's just some policy that managed to garner support from the right combination of special interests (rather than truly getting mainstream approval).
That is by design. Our government is supposed to move at a glacial pace. Since our government fucks up everything it touches, I view it as a positive.

If I had my way our government would only sit in session for two weeks a year. It was never meant to be a full time job/career.
I would argue the private sector fucks things up equally as much.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,736|6708|Oxferd Ohire
2 weeks a year is too short for the amount of things theyre expected to do
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

RTHKI wrote:

2 weeks a year is too short for the amount of things theyre expected to do
They're expected to do too much. That's my point.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not even talking about UHC though.  I'm more inclined to support that on a state level rather than a federal one.  Also, I realize it has some caveats as well.

It's just any change in general seems so difficult to make.  The few times we actually do seem to get something done it's either too late, or it's just some policy that managed to garner support from the right combination of special interests (rather than truly getting mainstream approval).
That is by design. Our government is supposed to move at a glacial pace. Since our government fucks up everything it touches, I view it as a positive.

If I had my way our government would only sit in session for two weeks a year. It was never meant to be a full time job/career.
I would argue the private sector fucks things up equally as much.
The private sector is why we have the #1 economy in the world. This, despite having a totally clueless and fucked up national government.

Why we expect pampered lawyers to have the first clue how to actually govern a populace like ours is beyond me. Most of them are uzique clones who have never even held a real job.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 07:44:44)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


That is by design. Our government is supposed to move at a glacial pace. Since our government fucks up everything it touches, I view it as a positive.

If I had my way our government would only sit in session for two weeks a year. It was never meant to be a full time job/career.
I would argue the private sector fucks things up equally as much.
The private sector is why we have the #1 economy in the world. This, despite having a totally clueless and fucked up national government.

Why we expect pampered lawyers to have the first clue how to actually govern a populace like ours is beyond me.
We're not exactly #1 in how we've weathered this recession.  We're also not #1 in economic growth.

It's very unlikely we'll maintain our high standard of living for much longer either.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I would argue the private sector fucks things up equally as much.
The private sector is why we have the #1 economy in the world. This, despite having a totally clueless and fucked up national government.

Why we expect pampered lawyers to have the first clue how to actually govern a populace like ours is beyond me.
We're not exactly #1 in how we've weathered this recession.  We're also not #1 in economic growth.

It's very unlikely we'll maintain our high standard of living for much longer either.
Sure we will. China rising doesn't make us poorer, only proportionally poorer. Not a bad thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
In 1969, we were 28.38% of the worlds economy. In 2010, we were 26.41%. So as a proportion of the worlds economy we've declined by a little less than 2% in the past 40 years. Our standard of living during that time has risen by quite a wide margin. Almost every home has multiple cars, multiple televisions and a home computer. Most people have cable, the internet and a full belly. Our country and our standard of living are doing quite well, even with the recession.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

In 1969, we were 28.38% of the worlds economy. In 2010, we were 26.41%. So as a proportion of the worlds economy we've declined by a little less than 2% in the past 40 years. Our standard of living during that time has risen by quite a wide margin. Almost every home has multiple cars, multiple televisions and a home computer. Most people have cable, the internet and a full belly. Our country and our standard of living are doing quite well, even with the recession.
The question is how long that can last.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard