It is time to stop pretending that judges are impartial. They never were, and now the veneer of civilization has fallen off the court's already crumbling mask. Masks and illusions and symbols are important, and can sometimes make society work better. Despite howls by the Shruggers to claim that only the concrete is best, illusions can do a lot of good, like making a piece of paper exist as money. It's certainly better than gold.
But that illusion is gone now. Rampant politics, not the rule of law is the order of the day. Citizen's United was a big crack. Bush V Gore was another. But this pretty much only allows paint chip eaters to pretend the Supreme Court is anything but a team of who supports which crowd. Oh, I grant you, sometimes there are shocking combinations on the court...but it is almost always for the 1% rather than the 99%. After all, they're almost all wealthy, and they're there for life.
Electing judges has had a 'bad' effect in state politics for a while, but at the same time judges do respond to their constituents. There is a reason people elect district attorneys and the like. In fact, perhaps we should start electing all major office holders...judges, secretaries, generals, admirals, ambassadors....make them all accountable to the public at large.
Money only goes so far, but in every historical case, unelected bodies like the old senate, become corrupt and beholden to the wealthy. Money still does a lot in politics, but corruption runs most rampant when you can buy a few, rather than the masses. Our Less Fortune Friends love to harp on and on about how democrats stay in power by providing 'goodies' to the plebes, but Our Less Fortunate Friends instead just elect folks who keep the 1% in power...
And they're just general idiots.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
[Rant] Tolerance of Intolerance is Not a Virtue
Have you seen this ridiculous comment cycled by your conservative friends?
"The left are only tolerant with people who agree with their agenda. What happened to tolerance of my beliefs?"
Let's turn that around shall we?
What we WANT is liberty for all, not just for caucasian monotheists who think that the steam engine is a really scary idea.
When you say "Your freedom ends at the end of my nose" what you mean is "Your freedom ends where I want it to and my freedom goes where I want it to."
When *WE* preach tolerance what we mean is, "Hey, you wanna worship a scary God who sends hurricanes to punish people because they're acting the way He made them in the first place, that's OK, but don't impose those beliefs on us."
We won't even get into the extremely un Christ Like manner most of these supposed 'followers of Christ' behave.
While it is true that it seems that every single conservative talking point is a lie (and I mean ALL of them) and there are no conservative values (to be eventually covered in another post) THIS one annoys me more personally because it takes an actual liberal virtue and turns it on its head as if somehow tolerance means accepting intolerance of other people.
What kind of a stupid moron believes that? I mean seriously?
Tolerance means accepting others until they start trying to force you to behave according to their lifestyle...and not having state sanction for your narrow and harmful beliefs is *NOT* harmful to you, no matter how many convuluted insane claims you make otherwise.
"The left are only tolerant with people who agree with their agenda. What happened to tolerance of my beliefs?"
Let's turn that around shall we?
What we WANT is liberty for all, not just for caucasian monotheists who think that the steam engine is a really scary idea.
When you say "Your freedom ends at the end of my nose" what you mean is "Your freedom ends where I want it to and my freedom goes where I want it to."
When *WE* preach tolerance what we mean is, "Hey, you wanna worship a scary God who sends hurricanes to punish people because they're acting the way He made them in the first place, that's OK, but don't impose those beliefs on us."
We won't even get into the extremely un Christ Like manner most of these supposed 'followers of Christ' behave.
While it is true that it seems that every single conservative talking point is a lie (and I mean ALL of them) and there are no conservative values (to be eventually covered in another post) THIS one annoys me more personally because it takes an actual liberal virtue and turns it on its head as if somehow tolerance means accepting intolerance of other people.
What kind of a stupid moron believes that? I mean seriously?
Tolerance means accepting others until they start trying to force you to behave according to their lifestyle...and not having state sanction for your narrow and harmful beliefs is *NOT* harmful to you, no matter how many convuluted insane claims you make otherwise.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
[Cons] Article 1, Section 8 - Brundlestaag (2 of 3)
I'll be honest, I have no idea why I choose that name for this, but I like the way it sounds. I want to talk about the actual process of how this would work...the hard nuts and bolts of making a pool of issues, and determining what the government can't do; what local governments do; and what the federal government does.
What a government can't do isn't necessarily a right. After all, if we're using a modern definition of rights instead of the libertarian or classical definition, a right can be something you have a right TO, rather than a right to have the government NOT do. I argue that rights are a separate thing in that; I think every constitution should have a Bill of Rights, but that should be a secondary product of deciding which spheres of authority a government should be able to regulate. I'll be addressing my ideas of a Hierarchy of Rights in Article V or when I deal with the amendments.
Step 1)
So then, how do you determine what the areas you're picking from are? I argue that the easiest way is to allow people to nominate; say allow the signatures of 25,000 people to ensure that an item gets added to a master list. That's it. And you get to add your name to say...5 petitions. That will give you a pretty good list to start.
After that, delegates can group items together in packages as they see fit.
If you don't allow bundling, you're going to have two points like 'Naval Security' and 'Coast Guard'...while not the same thing, delegates might want them to be the same thing. And a better example, 'Environment' and 'Acid Rain' which is very granular...
It can allow putting everything together very difficult. More importantly, if you don't set down some rules somehow, then the delegates might just make up their own list and ignore the suggestions.
I also think allowing delegates to add their own items is a good idea to patch holes. For example, if no one thought to add 'school lunches' but certain delegates think its a good idea, then you can go from there.
Why use such a chaotic process on something so important? Because its very democratic, and it ensures a remix when the constitution is forged. It means you're going to get a constitution to serve the modern needs of society, rather than archaic notions of what dead people want.
In short, its a reset button.
And yes, the process could be subject to abuse. You know what? So is any process, but at least this way the entry is open, transparent and ensures at least the fact that EVERYONE in 'we the people' is involved at the forefront.
And as for how to prevent problems, I think the emphasis should be put on the ratification and the delegate selection.
Step 2) Delegates
If there was ever a moment where you NEED a legislature, then the formation of a constitution is one. I suppose you could have some crazy wiki thing where you freeze it after a set period of time...but trust me, that just wouldn't work well.
So the question is, how do you select the delegates? "Good and Wise Men" won't cut it since last time around we got a bunch of conservatives that thought owning people was OK.
I could do strengths and weaknesses again but in this case I think there is only one way to do it that won't allow for conservative corruption; random draw. You need a large sample; say 500...and then you randomly select from the entire population of the government. Yes, that means you're going to get some stupid people. And yes, that means that you're likely to get at least 25% conservative/libertarian voters, but if you publicly select the delegates via social security number via random lottery style...then at least you're getting somewhere.
You *MUST* pay these delegates enough to live for 6 months to a year while they hammer out constitutions. (I'll get to that.) Rich people shouldn't be the only people who can afford to be delegates. You allow them to elect officers and divide into committees.
How are random people going to do this? Advisers, also randomly selected from both local and federal officials from the previous government. They have no voting power, but their experience can help the delegates understand what it is they're supposed to do.
No system is perfect, but this way you still have institutional knowledge, and by random selection with a sufficiently large sample, you're going to ensure that all sexes, races, creeds, religions and the like are involved in the creation of the document.
But just in case...
Step 3) 3 Competing Constitutions.
You have three different groupings of government areas set up into piles of federal authority, local authority and that government is not supposed to touch.
From a practical stand point, I understand you saying, "Well what if they select something insane like not allowing the local or the federal government to regulate murder?"
There are three checks on that:
1) Everyone gets to vote on the competing constitutions for what they like best. - That will ensure fatally flawed documents are left behind.
2) The Hierarchy of Rights
I'll be addressing this in the future....but this document will become part of the constitution after the first Brundlestaag.
3) Line Item Veto
Everyone will also have the ability to line item veto, by two thirds majority, sections of the constitution that they don't like.
Step 4) Ratification by 2/3rd majority.
Because this is a democracy, not a conservative republic.
Problems:
1) How do you deal with conservative disruption like filibusters and the like?
No system can ever be entirely conservative proof. However, you can have a process whereby people who are not contributing any solutions can be removed by 2/3rds of the delegates.
If that doesn't work, then you simply have the auto default by the OLD constitution gets put into play if people don't get off their asses and do nothing; which gives a slight bias towards conservatives, but can also protect liberals from conservative mischiefs too.
Nothing is perfect, and it is better than what we have now. It puts a process in place to make change and allow people to make change as they will.
2) It's easy to remove sections of government that people don't like but hard to put in sections that a minority wants.
I'm a liberal, but I'm also in favor of small government. If you can't convince at least a majority of randomly selected delegates to put something in the local or federal government section, then you really shouldn't be forcing people to do it. Make your case to the public, not the courts and not a legislature.
Educate.
3) You could still have a monstrous provision that attacks or singles out a minority of some kind and harms them.
You could. But really right now you can do that via amendment if you get enough people. Remember that if you can't you just go back to the status quo. You can have prejudice with no amendment in theory protecting you; such as Defense of Marriage Act invoked by conservative 'christians.'
Addendum: There are solutions to society's problems besides the government. Even though the Libertarian anti government lens is insane, that doesn't mean that small government is a bad thing. In another post I will talk about alternatives to government action that still allow a society to solve issues that are desired to be addressed that fall into the third category but are not given to local or federal governments in this process.
What a government can't do isn't necessarily a right. After all, if we're using a modern definition of rights instead of the libertarian or classical definition, a right can be something you have a right TO, rather than a right to have the government NOT do. I argue that rights are a separate thing in that; I think every constitution should have a Bill of Rights, but that should be a secondary product of deciding which spheres of authority a government should be able to regulate. I'll be addressing my ideas of a Hierarchy of Rights in Article V or when I deal with the amendments.
Step 1)
So then, how do you determine what the areas you're picking from are? I argue that the easiest way is to allow people to nominate; say allow the signatures of 25,000 people to ensure that an item gets added to a master list. That's it. And you get to add your name to say...5 petitions. That will give you a pretty good list to start.
After that, delegates can group items together in packages as they see fit.
If you don't allow bundling, you're going to have two points like 'Naval Security' and 'Coast Guard'...while not the same thing, delegates might want them to be the same thing. And a better example, 'Environment' and 'Acid Rain' which is very granular...
It can allow putting everything together very difficult. More importantly, if you don't set down some rules somehow, then the delegates might just make up their own list and ignore the suggestions.
I also think allowing delegates to add their own items is a good idea to patch holes. For example, if no one thought to add 'school lunches' but certain delegates think its a good idea, then you can go from there.
Why use such a chaotic process on something so important? Because its very democratic, and it ensures a remix when the constitution is forged. It means you're going to get a constitution to serve the modern needs of society, rather than archaic notions of what dead people want.
In short, its a reset button.
And yes, the process could be subject to abuse. You know what? So is any process, but at least this way the entry is open, transparent and ensures at least the fact that EVERYONE in 'we the people' is involved at the forefront.
And as for how to prevent problems, I think the emphasis should be put on the ratification and the delegate selection.
Step 2) Delegates
If there was ever a moment where you NEED a legislature, then the formation of a constitution is one. I suppose you could have some crazy wiki thing where you freeze it after a set period of time...but trust me, that just wouldn't work well.
So the question is, how do you select the delegates? "Good and Wise Men" won't cut it since last time around we got a bunch of conservatives that thought owning people was OK.
I could do strengths and weaknesses again but in this case I think there is only one way to do it that won't allow for conservative corruption; random draw. You need a large sample; say 500...and then you randomly select from the entire population of the government. Yes, that means you're going to get some stupid people. And yes, that means that you're likely to get at least 25% conservative/libertarian voters, but if you publicly select the delegates via social security number via random lottery style...then at least you're getting somewhere.
You *MUST* pay these delegates enough to live for 6 months to a year while they hammer out constitutions. (I'll get to that.) Rich people shouldn't be the only people who can afford to be delegates. You allow them to elect officers and divide into committees.
How are random people going to do this? Advisers, also randomly selected from both local and federal officials from the previous government. They have no voting power, but their experience can help the delegates understand what it is they're supposed to do.
No system is perfect, but this way you still have institutional knowledge, and by random selection with a sufficiently large sample, you're going to ensure that all sexes, races, creeds, religions and the like are involved in the creation of the document.
But just in case...
Step 3) 3 Competing Constitutions.
You have three different groupings of government areas set up into piles of federal authority, local authority and that government is not supposed to touch.
From a practical stand point, I understand you saying, "Well what if they select something insane like not allowing the local or the federal government to regulate murder?"
There are three checks on that:
1) Everyone gets to vote on the competing constitutions for what they like best. - That will ensure fatally flawed documents are left behind.
2) The Hierarchy of Rights
I'll be addressing this in the future....but this document will become part of the constitution after the first Brundlestaag.
3) Line Item Veto
Everyone will also have the ability to line item veto, by two thirds majority, sections of the constitution that they don't like.
Step 4) Ratification by 2/3rd majority.
Because this is a democracy, not a conservative republic.
Problems:
1) How do you deal with conservative disruption like filibusters and the like?
No system can ever be entirely conservative proof. However, you can have a process whereby people who are not contributing any solutions can be removed by 2/3rds of the delegates.
If that doesn't work, then you simply have the auto default by the OLD constitution gets put into play if people don't get off their asses and do nothing; which gives a slight bias towards conservatives, but can also protect liberals from conservative mischiefs too.
Nothing is perfect, and it is better than what we have now. It puts a process in place to make change and allow people to make change as they will.
2) It's easy to remove sections of government that people don't like but hard to put in sections that a minority wants.
I'm a liberal, but I'm also in favor of small government. If you can't convince at least a majority of randomly selected delegates to put something in the local or federal government section, then you really shouldn't be forcing people to do it. Make your case to the public, not the courts and not a legislature.
Educate.
3) You could still have a monstrous provision that attacks or singles out a minority of some kind and harms them.
You could. But really right now you can do that via amendment if you get enough people. Remember that if you can't you just go back to the status quo. You can have prejudice with no amendment in theory protecting you; such as Defense of Marriage Act invoked by conservative 'christians.'
Addendum: There are solutions to society's problems besides the government. Even though the Libertarian anti government lens is insane, that doesn't mean that small government is a bad thing. In another post I will talk about alternatives to government action that still allow a society to solve issues that are desired to be addressed that fall into the third category but are not given to local or federal governments in this process.
Monday, March 3, 2014
[Cons] Article I, Section 8 - Federal vs Local (1 of 3)
There are a lot of things I can put in this section...so I'm going to post a lot of things. Three separate posts with several months of thought, but I think I'll begin on the Federal vs Local control question. Why here? Because I believe that the list of powers assigned to the US Federal Congress in this section might seem specific, but I argue that they're rather arbitrary. Right now the United Kingdom is doing some soul searching as the last vestiges of empire are falling away and Scotland is chomping at the bit to leave, with Wales not soon after. Thus, England is studying ways to restore powers to the local government whilst retaining some powers at the national level. Also, in the Ukraine, the world is brought to a precipice because the Russian speaking Crimean region of the Ukraine wants to separate from the rest of the country. Right now, it is autonomous, but it no longer trusts the nationalist government to let it retain these powers, so Putn Rasputin has seized it by force.
Why do it this way? Why not let regions be autonomous when at all possible, deciding which leagues they'd rather be affiliated with, and also; which powers they grant to their larger regional bodies. If people could simply choose over time what they wanted, then this would be a lot easier. Which makes the federal vs local question very much about a legislature.
I am above all other things, a pragmatist, despite how much of an idealog or a fanatic I might seem. I believe in striving for the best we can do, but working with what we have in the meantime. In as such, it strikes me that as much as a direct democratic democracy with timelocks might be desirable, we're likely to have legislatures for some time to come. After all, even Switzerland has them, right? And they're the most democratic country on Earth.
So if we're going to have a legislature, and if we're going to periodically reboot the constitution to avoid Temporal Tyranny, then we need to reboot the constitution at least once every two or three generations. So if we do, and if we're going to have legislatures, then the question becomes, what powers are going to be ascribed to the league/federation/national level, vs those retained by the locals. I'm sure there are as many opinions on that as there are people reading this, and likely a million more times that. But the question is left for the people determining their constitution, because each generation, nation and culture has their own ideas of what that might be.
So like the other elements of the constitutional posts I've made, I want to explore different options of accomplishing this.
I think the first thing is that in any constitution, there has to be a set of guarantees in the frame work for both sides; ie things that never change. I'd argue that the federal government must always have the power to tax and the power to raise an army. Otherwise, you end up with a confederation, and confederations suck; there is a reason the EU and the CSA had as many problems as they did. The truth is, that generally, the advantage of scale on any policy at the federal national level is going to be pronounced, no matter what it is, but the diversity of experimentation and the ability to actually know your politicians and make greater changes takes place at the local. Since government is force, any government must have some ability to enforce whatever laws it passes. And to have a law enforcement agency, it must be able to tax. The same also applies at a local level. Beyond that, I argue, Education, Health, Science, Law Enforcement, etc should all be decided by constitutional delegates in any cycle but ideally, you could divide up a minimum framework for each. Let's take a look at a few.
Note: I'm not going to look at the 'no local' or 'no federal' options because quite frankly, I think that all those choices are bad ones. There might be situations where they're a good idea, but I'll be damned if I can think of them.
Weak Local/Weak Federal: An anarchist's dream, the federal and the local just have only the bare minimum powers necessary and the government is literally prohibited from legislating ANYTHING not expressly allowed them on either level. This has lots of problems, but I think the big ones are; no social justice, no counter to business running rampant, no flexibility in emergency especially with an insane conservative minority and more importantly, weak government does not equal small government. I'll cover that in another post. Its strengths? Well, corruption would likely be less, taxes would likely be less, so for the 1% it would be heaven, and libertarians would finally be happy I guess.
Weak Local/Medium Federal: In this system the federal government gets 60-70% of governmental duties whilst local governments only get the remaining amount. There are still limits on the federal government and the local government, but the federal government is definitely stronger than the local governments. I think this is a good set up, not the best, but it has advantages. It means that there is never any doubt about who is in charge (ie no civil wars), you get economy of scale on all the things the national government does, and you still get some local control.
Weak Local/Strong Federal: This is the UK, where you have a strong parliament and almost no local controls. As I mentioned, the UK is looking at transferring power back to local governments. You do get all kinds of neat advantages at a strong federal level (as is illustrated in the UK with all their social benefits) but you'll end up with a capital that reserves all the powers to itself and doesn't care about the regional provinces. You think 'inside the beltway thinking' is bad now? Try it under this scenario. Pass.
Medium Local/Weak Federal: So this the goal the founding fathers were aiming for in the constitution (as compared to Strong Local and Weak Federal or Weak Local and Weak Federal espoused by Libertarians.) It has a lot of advantages in that it still gives you enough government to do things, leads to lots of interesting experiments and doing things, whilst still having some of the advantages of united government such as defense and standardization etc. This is a functional government, especially if you reserve say...40% of the powers to the local governments and 20% to the federal, while flat out denying 40% or simply letting them be picked up piece meal as needed in emergencies. This government is not as prone to corruption in the old days but would still fare poorly against a Koch/Alec style take over or corporate/robber baron corruption. It is also a problem waiting to happen because a civil war is likely to result on any major issue dividing the local governments that is of sufficient passion. This would be a bad idea among all reality based inhabitants but with conservatives or divergent realities it would be a disaster. In short, it is probably the best of all possible worlds up until the industrial era, and then it likely isn't going to work at all.
Medium Local/Strong Federal: This is what we have now. It's workable, but it has problems. To begin with, a government that does everything for its citizens will always be expanding. Also a strong federal government, specifically a strong federal legislature, has all of the problems I've mentioned before, primarily that it still focuses power into the hands of a few who can be bribed and corrupted with a little to much ease. More importantly, a strong federal legislature might ignore its citizens entirely. It has LOTS of advantages though as manifest by our powerful GNP. A strong federal government checked by a plurality of states allows a dynamic ebb and flow which creates the most critical path of functionality. It allows for strong federal agencies and strong state agencies whilst still ensuring the dominance of the federal government.
Strong Local/Strong Federal: Just like the last version, but very little restricted. I envision this scenario as one in which there are many specific spheres of influence between the regional government and the federal government, so they they theoretically check each other, but no restrictions on what they can do beyond that. Thus in this scenario, even if you have a bill of rights, it's 'optional in emergency' like the UK. That is to say, the parliament in the UK is paramount and can do what it likes. So a system like this would have local and federal governments with essentially unlimited powers in their respective spheres. The parliament in the UK still allows for a lot of freedoms and the inhabitants of the UK certainly believe those freedoms are inviolate. The trick is, this is the strongest case of the classic libertarian argument about a government only growing larger, never smaller; after all if both local and federal governments are strong, each crisis will lead to the creation of another agency or another law, and there is likely no mechanism to remove it once in place. Civil war isn't as likely because if both are strong, then they can theoretically check each other but might do so at the cost of the citizens. So there are advantages, and its theoretically workable but hardly what I'd call desirable.
Strong Local/Weak Federal: OK, this doesn't HAVE to be a confederation, even though it pretty much sounds like one. Maybe we'll call this a weak federation? IE for example a scenario in which the federal government is still paramount but only has 20% of potential duties whilst the local governments have 60%, still leaving certain areas to them that are forbidden form access. This form of government to me has all of the problems of Medium Local/Strong Federal, but also exacerbated difficulties when you have strong local governments that might try to claw back authority from the federal government. Even assuming they could do this (and it is possible I believe) it lose a lot of the advantages of the economies of scale. Still, I think in a truly flexible system, there are likely some cycles where the locals will choose to do this in their society, even if they are likely to change it in the next. A framework to allow local and federal control must allow this, even if I think they'll find that ultimately they don't like it.
Strong Local/Medium Federal: I can see this happening, but I do admit I'm not sure what it would look like. But again, I picture this happening at times on the cycle of things but having this much government control is probably going to cause government over reach.
Medium Local/Medium Federal: It might seem as if I have contrived things to show this, but I honestly believe this to be the best of all possible worlds. A third of all potential functions controlled by local governments, a third by federal governments and a third that they can't touch. And I think that each set of generations should get to decide for themselves what these things might be. Yes, there will be abuses, but I argue the abuses of not allowing folks to determine these themselves would be worse, much worse.
More to come.
Why do it this way? Why not let regions be autonomous when at all possible, deciding which leagues they'd rather be affiliated with, and also; which powers they grant to their larger regional bodies. If people could simply choose over time what they wanted, then this would be a lot easier. Which makes the federal vs local question very much about a legislature.
I am above all other things, a pragmatist, despite how much of an idealog or a fanatic I might seem. I believe in striving for the best we can do, but working with what we have in the meantime. In as such, it strikes me that as much as a direct democratic democracy with timelocks might be desirable, we're likely to have legislatures for some time to come. After all, even Switzerland has them, right? And they're the most democratic country on Earth.
So if we're going to have a legislature, and if we're going to periodically reboot the constitution to avoid Temporal Tyranny, then we need to reboot the constitution at least once every two or three generations. So if we do, and if we're going to have legislatures, then the question becomes, what powers are going to be ascribed to the league/federation/national level, vs those retained by the locals. I'm sure there are as many opinions on that as there are people reading this, and likely a million more times that. But the question is left for the people determining their constitution, because each generation, nation and culture has their own ideas of what that might be.
So like the other elements of the constitutional posts I've made, I want to explore different options of accomplishing this.
I think the first thing is that in any constitution, there has to be a set of guarantees in the frame work for both sides; ie things that never change. I'd argue that the federal government must always have the power to tax and the power to raise an army. Otherwise, you end up with a confederation, and confederations suck; there is a reason the EU and the CSA had as many problems as they did. The truth is, that generally, the advantage of scale on any policy at the federal national level is going to be pronounced, no matter what it is, but the diversity of experimentation and the ability to actually know your politicians and make greater changes takes place at the local. Since government is force, any government must have some ability to enforce whatever laws it passes. And to have a law enforcement agency, it must be able to tax. The same also applies at a local level. Beyond that, I argue, Education, Health, Science, Law Enforcement, etc should all be decided by constitutional delegates in any cycle but ideally, you could divide up a minimum framework for each. Let's take a look at a few.
Note: I'm not going to look at the 'no local' or 'no federal' options because quite frankly, I think that all those choices are bad ones. There might be situations where they're a good idea, but I'll be damned if I can think of them.
Weak Local/Weak Federal: An anarchist's dream, the federal and the local just have only the bare minimum powers necessary and the government is literally prohibited from legislating ANYTHING not expressly allowed them on either level. This has lots of problems, but I think the big ones are; no social justice, no counter to business running rampant, no flexibility in emergency especially with an insane conservative minority and more importantly, weak government does not equal small government. I'll cover that in another post. Its strengths? Well, corruption would likely be less, taxes would likely be less, so for the 1% it would be heaven, and libertarians would finally be happy I guess.
Weak Local/Medium Federal: In this system the federal government gets 60-70% of governmental duties whilst local governments only get the remaining amount. There are still limits on the federal government and the local government, but the federal government is definitely stronger than the local governments. I think this is a good set up, not the best, but it has advantages. It means that there is never any doubt about who is in charge (ie no civil wars), you get economy of scale on all the things the national government does, and you still get some local control.
Weak Local/Strong Federal: This is the UK, where you have a strong parliament and almost no local controls. As I mentioned, the UK is looking at transferring power back to local governments. You do get all kinds of neat advantages at a strong federal level (as is illustrated in the UK with all their social benefits) but you'll end up with a capital that reserves all the powers to itself and doesn't care about the regional provinces. You think 'inside the beltway thinking' is bad now? Try it under this scenario. Pass.
Medium Local/Weak Federal: So this the goal the founding fathers were aiming for in the constitution (as compared to Strong Local and Weak Federal or Weak Local and Weak Federal espoused by Libertarians.) It has a lot of advantages in that it still gives you enough government to do things, leads to lots of interesting experiments and doing things, whilst still having some of the advantages of united government such as defense and standardization etc. This is a functional government, especially if you reserve say...40% of the powers to the local governments and 20% to the federal, while flat out denying 40% or simply letting them be picked up piece meal as needed in emergencies. This government is not as prone to corruption in the old days but would still fare poorly against a Koch/Alec style take over or corporate/robber baron corruption. It is also a problem waiting to happen because a civil war is likely to result on any major issue dividing the local governments that is of sufficient passion. This would be a bad idea among all reality based inhabitants but with conservatives or divergent realities it would be a disaster. In short, it is probably the best of all possible worlds up until the industrial era, and then it likely isn't going to work at all.
Medium Local/Strong Federal: This is what we have now. It's workable, but it has problems. To begin with, a government that does everything for its citizens will always be expanding. Also a strong federal government, specifically a strong federal legislature, has all of the problems I've mentioned before, primarily that it still focuses power into the hands of a few who can be bribed and corrupted with a little to much ease. More importantly, a strong federal legislature might ignore its citizens entirely. It has LOTS of advantages though as manifest by our powerful GNP. A strong federal government checked by a plurality of states allows a dynamic ebb and flow which creates the most critical path of functionality. It allows for strong federal agencies and strong state agencies whilst still ensuring the dominance of the federal government.
Strong Local/Strong Federal: Just like the last version, but very little restricted. I envision this scenario as one in which there are many specific spheres of influence between the regional government and the federal government, so they they theoretically check each other, but no restrictions on what they can do beyond that. Thus in this scenario, even if you have a bill of rights, it's 'optional in emergency' like the UK. That is to say, the parliament in the UK is paramount and can do what it likes. So a system like this would have local and federal governments with essentially unlimited powers in their respective spheres. The parliament in the UK still allows for a lot of freedoms and the inhabitants of the UK certainly believe those freedoms are inviolate. The trick is, this is the strongest case of the classic libertarian argument about a government only growing larger, never smaller; after all if both local and federal governments are strong, each crisis will lead to the creation of another agency or another law, and there is likely no mechanism to remove it once in place. Civil war isn't as likely because if both are strong, then they can theoretically check each other but might do so at the cost of the citizens. So there are advantages, and its theoretically workable but hardly what I'd call desirable.
Strong Local/Weak Federal: OK, this doesn't HAVE to be a confederation, even though it pretty much sounds like one. Maybe we'll call this a weak federation? IE for example a scenario in which the federal government is still paramount but only has 20% of potential duties whilst the local governments have 60%, still leaving certain areas to them that are forbidden form access. This form of government to me has all of the problems of Medium Local/Strong Federal, but also exacerbated difficulties when you have strong local governments that might try to claw back authority from the federal government. Even assuming they could do this (and it is possible I believe) it lose a lot of the advantages of the economies of scale. Still, I think in a truly flexible system, there are likely some cycles where the locals will choose to do this in their society, even if they are likely to change it in the next. A framework to allow local and federal control must allow this, even if I think they'll find that ultimately they don't like it.
Strong Local/Medium Federal: I can see this happening, but I do admit I'm not sure what it would look like. But again, I picture this happening at times on the cycle of things but having this much government control is probably going to cause government over reach.
Medium Local/Medium Federal: It might seem as if I have contrived things to show this, but I honestly believe this to be the best of all possible worlds. A third of all potential functions controlled by local governments, a third by federal governments and a third that they can't touch. And I think that each set of generations should get to decide for themselves what these things might be. Yes, there will be abuses, but I argue the abuses of not allowing folks to determine these themselves would be worse, much worse.
More to come.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
[Phil] When you're the only game in town
You make the rules. There is no republican party. There are certainly no Republican values, and even the moderates admit they have no party to turn to... Or do they? Remember folks we live in the 2nd Gilded Age. Money talks. Obama is a sitting president, looking to eventually retire. And there is a lot of money to be made as an ex president. Hilary Clinton is pretty much seen as the inevitable 2016 nominee, only this time it really seems inevitable. The country is unlikely to vote for anything the Republicans are shoveling. Oh sure, Reagen Reality inhabitants are all gung ho, but as many flaws as she has, Mrs. Clinton is infinitely better, and staying home got us Bush II twice... BUT, when you've got 6 years, likely 10 years of almost inevitable power in the bag, why not make some cash? Net Neutrality is dead, and the telecom companies are going to fleece you for all you're worth. And President Obama isn't going to do a thing about it. Why should they? You don't pay as much as Comcast does. Does that mean you should give up and die? No, of course not. There are things you can do, and there are people mobilizing to do something about it, just understand that it is going to take time and a lot of hard work. But it will be worth it, so you can watch what you want without paying two or three day's pay for it.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
[Phil] "We Live In A Republic Vs A Democracy"
What They Mean: Absolute rule by the majority is bad, and that it is OK if a minority rules on some issues since the majority wins over time, and federalism is important.
What I Hear: We are just fine by minority rule as long as it serves our purposes.
What They Really Really Mean: Back in the old days, voters were only rich, white men who owned property, and even though most of us aren't racist, so the white part isn't critical (but we're not really shouting down our allies who might be racist unless really really obvious about it) the 'rich' and 'property owning' is key, because poor people are like that because God made them that way and they're lazy scum sucking pigs sucking on the teat of the federal government.
Note: These same people immediately believe in the virtues of a democratic majority when they believe they're in the majority. "That's undemocratic" will drip from their lips at the drop of a hat, its just you rarely hear it from the elites because they're become more and more in the permanent minority and needing to use parliamentary tricks or gerrymandering to get their way and show no signs of changing their view point in the near future.
Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except all of the others." Parliaments are not Republics even though they have Republican elements. Technically speaking, it depends on what you're talking about when you mean "Republic" because we are most certainly a Democratic Republic.
A Republic in its purest form is defined by the dictionary as: : "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen"
The key there is elected and not a king.
So...we don't have a king. So do most countries in the world. Hell, even Switzerland which has direct votes on almost everything has legislators. So really? "Republic not a democracy" is BULLSHIT and is a dog whistle saying what I meant above.
We are a republic alright, but we have determined that our legislators are elected democratically, which means that the basis of sovereignty in our nation says, "WE THE PEOPLE" **NOT** "WE THE STATES"...the ratification of the constitution was conducted at large by the people, by state, but it was a popular election.
Moreover, the idea that there is not a 'right to vote' is ridiculous on my levels:
The 10th Amendment says there are many rights not explicitly spoken here, reserved to the states.
Numerous amendments expand the voting franchise. If you define things the government cannot restrict as a right (and my view of a right is much broader, just going by conservative/libertarian insane definitions) then by DEFINITION if the government cannot pass laws forbidding folks from voting based on parameters in the constitution It's a RIGHT.
Voting is a right. It is certainly a right as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights which has more legitimacy than a document enshrined by Conservatives. The Constitution is a wonder, and was a wonder for its time but the truth is, that now that it is used by frauds, liars, cheats and scoundrels as a shield the most inappropriate behavior, I cannot help but think that the time has come to replace it.
As I have mentioned ad nasuem numerous times.
What I Hear: We are just fine by minority rule as long as it serves our purposes.
What They Really Really Mean: Back in the old days, voters were only rich, white men who owned property, and even though most of us aren't racist, so the white part isn't critical (but we're not really shouting down our allies who might be racist unless really really obvious about it) the 'rich' and 'property owning' is key, because poor people are like that because God made them that way and they're lazy scum sucking pigs sucking on the teat of the federal government.
Note: These same people immediately believe in the virtues of a democratic majority when they believe they're in the majority. "That's undemocratic" will drip from their lips at the drop of a hat, its just you rarely hear it from the elites because they're become more and more in the permanent minority and needing to use parliamentary tricks or gerrymandering to get their way and show no signs of changing their view point in the near future.
Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except all of the others." Parliaments are not Republics even though they have Republican elements. Technically speaking, it depends on what you're talking about when you mean "Republic" because we are most certainly a Democratic Republic.
A Republic in its purest form is defined by the dictionary as: : "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen"
The key there is elected and not a king.
So...we don't have a king. So do most countries in the world. Hell, even Switzerland which has direct votes on almost everything has legislators. So really? "Republic not a democracy" is BULLSHIT and is a dog whistle saying what I meant above.
We are a republic alright, but we have determined that our legislators are elected democratically, which means that the basis of sovereignty in our nation says, "WE THE PEOPLE" **NOT** "WE THE STATES"...the ratification of the constitution was conducted at large by the people, by state, but it was a popular election.
Moreover, the idea that there is not a 'right to vote' is ridiculous on my levels:
The 10th Amendment says there are many rights not explicitly spoken here, reserved to the states.
Numerous amendments expand the voting franchise. If you define things the government cannot restrict as a right (and my view of a right is much broader, just going by conservative/libertarian insane definitions) then by DEFINITION if the government cannot pass laws forbidding folks from voting based on parameters in the constitution It's a RIGHT.
Voting is a right. It is certainly a right as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights which has more legitimacy than a document enshrined by Conservatives. The Constitution is a wonder, and was a wonder for its time but the truth is, that now that it is used by frauds, liars, cheats and scoundrels as a shield the most inappropriate behavior, I cannot help but think that the time has come to replace it.
As I have mentioned ad nasuem numerous times.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
[News] The Time Has Come To Suspend Turkey From NATO
The United Nations, the OAS and the EU are all attempts at regional harmony, and represent geographical interests coming together. All of these bodies pay lip service toward democracy, but all of them routinely behave in undemocratic fashions, though the EU dramatically less so. The UN was little more than a paper tiger during the cold war and has placed all real power in the hands of five nations that were on the right side of WWII. The idea that Russia has a permanent vote but Japan, Germany, Brazil and India do not is laughable. The OAS did nothing to suspend Venezuela during Chavez or dictators before that; only, and quite hypocritically, Cuba. Even the EU has had issues disciplining its own members when Austria started to go the direction of Right Wing Fasicm....something the EU was set up explicitely to protect them against.
NATO is different. NATO was set up as a check against the iron curtain and the soviet block. NATO is an alliance of democracies, any one of which can stop the actions of the others by a simple veto, which seems insane from a policy point but somehow it worked and terrified (and still terrifies) the Kremlin.
And now along comes the tin pot tyrant Edrogan. He started out well enough...a moderate Islamist, who helped the democratic nature of his country by stopping the Deep State and improving the economy. But over time, we have learned the deep skeletons in Edrogan's closet. We have learned of the intimidation of journalists. We have learned of corruption and then a mass purge of judges and the police as a result.
But now we see Edrogan trying to steal the internet. Edrogan is a tyrant. Edrogan proves that there is no such thing as a MODERATE islamist, just as there is no such thing as a moderate nationalist christianist, hinduist or any other religion. ANY other religion. A theocracy is a theocracy, not a democracy.
While Edrogan rules with tyrants powers in Turkey, Turkey has no place in NATO and it should move to expunge him immediately.
That will set a precedent to do the same thing when our own Deep State tries to imprison our journalists as "accomplices" to whistleblowing and exposing the truth; tears away net neutrality in the interests of telecoms, and rigs the election with an 'inevitable' neoliberal vs a tea party psyhcopath as a choice.
When that happens to us, *WE* should be suspended from NATO as well.
NATO is different. NATO was set up as a check against the iron curtain and the soviet block. NATO is an alliance of democracies, any one of which can stop the actions of the others by a simple veto, which seems insane from a policy point but somehow it worked and terrified (and still terrifies) the Kremlin.
And now along comes the tin pot tyrant Edrogan. He started out well enough...a moderate Islamist, who helped the democratic nature of his country by stopping the Deep State and improving the economy. But over time, we have learned the deep skeletons in Edrogan's closet. We have learned of the intimidation of journalists. We have learned of corruption and then a mass purge of judges and the police as a result.
But now we see Edrogan trying to steal the internet. Edrogan is a tyrant. Edrogan proves that there is no such thing as a MODERATE islamist, just as there is no such thing as a moderate nationalist christianist, hinduist or any other religion. ANY other religion. A theocracy is a theocracy, not a democracy.
While Edrogan rules with tyrants powers in Turkey, Turkey has no place in NATO and it should move to expunge him immediately.
That will set a precedent to do the same thing when our own Deep State tries to imprison our journalists as "accomplices" to whistleblowing and exposing the truth; tears away net neutrality in the interests of telecoms, and rigs the election with an 'inevitable' neoliberal vs a tea party psyhcopath as a choice.
When that happens to us, *WE* should be suspended from NATO as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)