I didn't write it but it's a legitimate question.
After Sandyhook, we need to ask ourselves if Conservatism is even a philosophy that can be maintained in civilization, and the continued willingness of moderates to play with it as if they were somehow acting rationally means we should probably rethink how we interact with them.
The questions are asked here, and I think the thing I like the most are the questions he asks about the ruthless government crushing of Occupy as compared to the whining we're seeing about the IRS actually daring to question if the Billionaire Front Groups were somehow actually unfairly targeted.
ACORN? Yeah. Conservatives don't care about that. To them it was all real, just like Benghazi.
And many many moderates agree.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
[Cons] Article 1 - Section 5
The biggest problem with this article is that it allows a legislature to determine its own membership, answer disputes in its election of its own members and set their own rules. It also states that the two houses can't disband without the permission of the other houses.
What this does is create the worst of all possible worlds, where you have the senate which can create its own arcane and highly stupid rules, while at the same time, can't disband to allow recess appointments when those same rules are used to stymie executive appointments.
But the alternatives can be abused as well.
There are no good solutions here, but at least with rules, you should require approval by the other legislature to prevent abuses like the filibuster.
If you do need both houses to pass legislation then I guess you also need to chain them together in approval of disbanding.
That's about it for this section really.
What this does is create the worst of all possible worlds, where you have the senate which can create its own arcane and highly stupid rules, while at the same time, can't disband to allow recess appointments when those same rules are used to stymie executive appointments.
But the alternatives can be abused as well.
There are no good solutions here, but at least with rules, you should require approval by the other legislature to prevent abuses like the filibuster.
If you do need both houses to pass legislation then I guess you also need to chain them together in approval of disbanding.
That's about it for this section really.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
[Cons] Article 1, Section 4 - Foxes and the HenHouse
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."
So our holy holy holy constitution is supposed to be so awesome because it allows for a system of checks and balances, right? So...how example is CONGRESS setting the law for elections and states for itself a check? I mean, think on this....if Congress passed a law that said, "and behold every election shall be held for one second in my house" how would that fly? Now, a law that did this is in theory reviewable by the courts and the executive, but the constitution doesn't actually give law interpretation to the court, just the implication, and if you had 2/3rds of the Reagan Reality in charge and they wanted to ensure that Democrats could never get control of the legislature again, why wouldn't they do this?
Also, the argument that someone would not do this is ludicrous. Look at Reagan Party members who are seeking to rig the presidential election by splitting states with gerrymandered districts? As if people in Red States were more entitlted to federal voting power than the majority.
And if we must choose a minority to rule us, why would we want it to be red states? People in red states think NOTHING is an acceptable medical alternative to help the poor. I'm sorry 'emergency rooms'....because that's a great health care system. This is the kind of country these people want.
Replacements:
1) Let the Executive Decide: The President sets the election by fiat.
Strengths: Like any system, it works great. So did the trains under Mousilini.
Weaknesses: The President gains tremendous power over the legislative branch. He can make it effectively non existent, and even in other cases, he can leave a legislature he likes in power for nigh forever or tilt it in favor of his party.
2) Let the Judicial Decide: The judiciary either appoints someone, or simply makes rulings.
Strengths: In a flexible system the judiciary could be anything but by and large in a non dictatorship or Reagan Reality society, the judiciary tends to be the most fair of the three branches. Fair means elections get set up to work for the people, rather than private interests.
Weaknesses: Less than letting the legislature or executive decide this. However, in an electronic democracy, this would simply be another opportunity for corruption. So in an old school Constitutional Republic, the judiciary is the best overseer for this, but it would be a nightmare for more advanced societies.
3) Independent - A totally independent branch of government does just elections with appointments done much like the federal reserve.
Strengths: Stability in the system. It will be VERY stable. While it works it will work VERY well with all of the strengths of both the Judicial and Executive options.
Weaknesses: However, when it turns rancid it will be VERY rancid...a Bush or Palin style appointee in this system could reak much havok.
4) Verdict - I think the Judicial branch is the best place to put this most important of constitutional safegaurds. Then in order of preference it is Independent, Executive and finally legislative. The only thing that would be better than all of this would be a legislative with a 10 year timelock to change things.
Monday, March 18, 2013
[News] Rising Powers and the end...or beginning of International Law
So this article about how the Falklands is the unhealthy obsession with slightly more than half of Argentianians and how the president of Argentina is willing to bring it up with the Pope, shows that international law as a norm might be under threat. But let us be honest here, international law is really an agreed to hegemony between major world powers, which largely consisted of the United States and Europe, and most of the rising powers do not share that same geographical heritage.
It does not speak well for the peace of nations...because the old guard all has nukes...and the new guard is getting them. This has lead to some acceptable norms. Granted, those norms blatantly favored the old regimes, but they more or less worked on a diplomatic front. Imperialism was a thing of the past...but Argentina wants its own imperialism. So does China. Rising powers need military vindication to prove their status, they need a war victory.
This is as old as human history. The 20th century and institutions such as the United Nations and the League of Nations were supposed to change this pattern. To some degree they did, but the United Nations was made largely unfunctional by design and certainly by execution through the veto power of the security council and its permanent members. There is no provision in international law for rising powers....well, there is, but it seems to be not adding permanent security council members. India is now far more a power than France, but it isn't on the board, nor is Brazil.
This lack of respect by the international community is part of the reason all of South America is lining up behind the Argentinian Imperialism, and how many anti americans around the world are able to use the same kind of Pretzle Logic that American conservatives use to justify how Argentianian Imperialism now is any different than British Imperialism two centuries ago.
However this article gives me some hope. First, that nations that have up to now been stomped by the old guard are fighting back, and are willing to challenge the status quo to do so, but they are also trying to use international institutions first, or at least international protocols. India, at the least, seems to say it cares about international law. Of course, so does China and so does Imperial Argentina, but they only care about international laws so far as they apply to them.
Then again, so does the old guard. How will these protocols stand up to this conflict? Will we survive? The next few decades...hell...the next decade, will prove rather interesting.
But if they are strengthened to allow diplomacy, rather than force of arms, a chance to succeed, does that mean that the Republican War Criminals of the United States...and perhaps even their Democratic Enablers will be held to an international tribunal? And if they are...will they be capable of discerning between covert strikes against a hostile power that harbors terrorists within its borders and someone who orders troops to instigate tortures against third party nationals?
We shall see.
It does not speak well for the peace of nations...because the old guard all has nukes...and the new guard is getting them. This has lead to some acceptable norms. Granted, those norms blatantly favored the old regimes, but they more or less worked on a diplomatic front. Imperialism was a thing of the past...but Argentina wants its own imperialism. So does China. Rising powers need military vindication to prove their status, they need a war victory.
This is as old as human history. The 20th century and institutions such as the United Nations and the League of Nations were supposed to change this pattern. To some degree they did, but the United Nations was made largely unfunctional by design and certainly by execution through the veto power of the security council and its permanent members. There is no provision in international law for rising powers....well, there is, but it seems to be not adding permanent security council members. India is now far more a power than France, but it isn't on the board, nor is Brazil.
This lack of respect by the international community is part of the reason all of South America is lining up behind the Argentinian Imperialism, and how many anti americans around the world are able to use the same kind of Pretzle Logic that American conservatives use to justify how Argentianian Imperialism now is any different than British Imperialism two centuries ago.
However this article gives me some hope. First, that nations that have up to now been stomped by the old guard are fighting back, and are willing to challenge the status quo to do so, but they are also trying to use international institutions first, or at least international protocols. India, at the least, seems to say it cares about international law. Of course, so does China and so does Imperial Argentina, but they only care about international laws so far as they apply to them.
Then again, so does the old guard. How will these protocols stand up to this conflict? Will we survive? The next few decades...hell...the next decade, will prove rather interesting.
But if they are strengthened to allow diplomacy, rather than force of arms, a chance to succeed, does that mean that the Republican War Criminals of the United States...and perhaps even their Democratic Enablers will be held to an international tribunal? And if they are...will they be capable of discerning between covert strikes against a hostile power that harbors terrorists within its borders and someone who orders troops to instigate tortures against third party nationals?
We shall see.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
[Cons] Article 1 - Section 3 - The Floater House
So the concept of the 'upper' house is found in almost all democracies that actually are. The concept originally hailed from the UK, with the lords and the commons, where the lords once held the true power, slowly divested to the commons as wealth and power were distributed to the rest of the population. Since then, as part of the Connecticut Compromise, the US constitution has provisioned for an upper chamber and the Gutter house. The upper chamber was somewhat modeled after the lords, but as a Republic, it meant that the senators had no provision of nobility whatsoever. Instead, the 'comity' of the senate through its culture, its arcane rules, and the fact that its members were directly selected by state legislatures meant that there would be some degree of decorum.
To the senate were given the ratifications of treaties and the true checks on the power of the executive through ratification of treaties and confirmation of nomination to cabinet posts. Of course, since by and large politicians, at least in American society, seem to be turds, the turds selected to the senate were concentrated corruption and disease, such that many progressive attempts at legislation (you know...like letting women and black people vote) were killed by the south through the filibuster. Eventually, people decided that their state legislatures were so inept that they could do a better job themselves. (They were, since legislatures, sometimes deadlocked, would leave a vacancy for months or even years). Since then, this concentration of turds has risen to the top of the toilet bowl with lofty often endless debate where good ideas go to die. Most recently, with vacuous rural states and the throwback section of the country, the conservative section of society has a disproportionally large degree of power compared to the majority where it loftily accomplishes almost nothing whatsoever. Moreover, these self professed peacocks of comity are so inebriated with their own power that they accomplish almost nothing; nor can they pass even the slimmest of meaningful reforms to their rules to allow the majority to have its way, since their own corruption is shielded by the 40/60 rule required by the filibuster. As a result, even supposedly 'progressive' senators are able to take bribes and kick backs and point to 'the filibuster' sadly as the reason they could not get meaningful legislation to the house floor.
So again, with the US Senate as an example, why have a legislature at all? But if you must have turds, what can we do to improve on the truly disgusting lot we already have?
Well, here are a few ideas.
1) Actual Lords. Yes, we're a republic, but they had noble titles in the Roman empire....moreover, if we had an actual aristocracy of knights and ladies that had been elected, at least the Floater house would have some kind of justification for its existence. These supposedly superior human beings, by nature of their accomplishments appointed by the executive (knighted etc), then they could develop skills at legislating, deal making, long term view etc.
Strengths: Properly done, this could be quite excellent. Knighthoods in Britain are sometimes stupid and political, but master artists and scientists and the like, people who actually KNOW things, could make an upper chamber worth having instead of the pasty faced ghouls we currently have. Indeed, beyond bringing some much needed color to the sheer blank wall the current senate has, one could imagine a situation where "Lord Bladiblah" gets into an extended conversation with "Lady Windbag".
Weakness: Well lots really, too many to count, but at least we might improve the lot of Floaters we currently have. Maybe. The main problem with this is...the original model? Yeah, they're kind of weakening the House of Lords...you know...the one that still gives seats to the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The reason for this is the same reason the Queen only has one theoretical one use only super nuke veto....because every time the House of Lords actually functions, the commons, who has the real power, asks, "Why are these people still there again?" And reduces the power of the Lords. If the power in a democracy is with a people, and you can use timelocks instead of greater majorities to prevent insanity...then why in the name of all that is holy, would you go BACK to a legislature in the first place? The United States Senate DOES NOT serve the people of the united states...it serves the elite...and even then, if you look at poll numbers, it does a pretty crappy job thereof.
Verdict: Pass. As did the founding fathers so long ago, noble titles are a thing that worked when Feudalism was the most efficient way of stopping rampaging barbarian hoards from killing you. We've moved on. So should democracy.
2) The Corporate Chamber. So...business pretty much owns government, even though business is ultimately at the mercy of and beholden to armies, which governments are good at raising. But in many countries, especially in the United States, government is pretty much owned by the largest companies or conglomerations of companies. In that case, why not skip the middle man and just give our corporate overlords their due?
Strengths: This is not as insane an idea as it sounds. If you set up a bidding system, you ensure that those entities who are willing to bid the most for power (NGO's, political parties, PACS, super PACs, businesses, trade groups etc), you're representing not only a lot of people at the table, but you're also giving them a DIRECT stake in the game, where they have to deal with the nasty sausage making that is governing instead of standing on their high horse ivory throne towers (yes, I did mix a lot of metaphors there but given the insane way some of these idiots act, why not?)..after all, if instead of quietly bribing Senator Snacks, you could have your own guy on public record, then suddenly it might be harder to justify why you're giving yourself a tax break worth a gamillion dollars. Of course, some would argue, "because I paid for this seat, that's why!" Of course, all 99 other seats that paid for it will ask the same thing, and the gutter house or People's Collective Assembly or whatever will also be able to say, "Excuse me?!" Current corporate bribe money and money used to blind or confuse the public could instead be put into the public coffers.
Weaknesses: Honestly? Very few. But they're big ones. First, it would deligitimize the illusion of civilization and government itself by exposing how these cadres of interests were hoarding all of the pie. Indeed, it is entirely possible that without safeguards, 100 rich people could simply BUY the government and establish defacto political dynasties. As a unicameral system it would be a disaster, as a bi-legislature/direct democracy...meh. The final problem is that even with the tax revenue collected with their money to buy a seat, any system worth having will have a counter balance in a Gutter House or a direct democracy...and as such, the Floater House is still going to spend gobtons of money to mindwash the public.
Verdict: A Floater by any other name still belongs in the toilet.
3) Governors. A strong argument by regionalists (largely from the South which is why I am inclined to ignore them) is that you need to represent the regional interests of different areas of the nation. Some of this makes sense, since in Parliaments, for example, the capital tends to crush the other areas of the country. On the other hand, since the baSeline population tends to elect idiots who only care about their own power rather than that of their states (well, their own power and that of their party), then the argument that the current abomination that is the US senate represents 'regions' is laughable. Within states, there are regions that agree with the majority and those that do not, but in our rigid fixed constitution are stuck in perpetuity with the boundaries affixed to them on admission to the union. If we accept the idea that legitimacy comes from the governed, rather than some sovereign status accorded to arbitrary collections of dirt that really doesn't think or care about us at all (IE regions of Earth called States) then any flux that allows the bubble of a region to perpetually impose its will upon another must be counted as an inefficiency. If we are all equally valuable at a base franchise level, then the question of regions determining policy is laughable. However, if we must do this, then the only way to ensure that the interests of the REGION as compared to the interests of professional turds, is to ensure that the person who actually has to deal with the messy part of GOVERNING is the one that has a stake at the policy making level.
Strengths: Chris Christie went from typical conservative to RINO/traitor/commiepigdog overnight when he took a look at how much money it was gonna take to actually rebuild his state. In Georgia, Nathan Deal is all about most of the crazy stupid ideas of the Reagan Reality, but suddenly he's a big believer in having a port in Savannah (which happens to be critical to maintaining the current regime of Reagan Reality Inhabitants in coalition)....I argue that if you TRULY want dirt cubes represented, then you need to make it the current ACTUAL ruler of the dirt cubes that makes the decisions. You could probably still make a proxy, so long as the Floater actually served at ALL TIMES at the whim and will of the governor of the dirtcube. This will ensure regional interests are represented.
Weaknesses: Well, if you are looking for some kind of balance between dirtcubes and the nation as a whole, then really you've got a problem, because the regional governor is only going to care about the national interest, so long as it in some way benefits his dirt cube. He is certainly going to have a more difficult time justifying a war in some other country while money that could go to benefit his dirtcube is being siphoned off for drones etc. Also, by and large, governors are also turds just like almost all other politicians, with the nature of their role and desire to hold onto power over their dirtcube that gives them motive to stay somewhat sane.
Verdict: Still floaters. Still turds. But you get your regional interests in there. If your nation must include a region that has no business belonging with the rest of the regions, like say...the South, then this works as a 'compromise.'
4) Technocratic Appointment - So, some people have proposed that we make the senate full of really smart people, who know stuff. This sounds like a great idea...but has flaws.
Strengths: So long as the bodies that choose the smart people (American Bar Association, American Medical Association, Nobel Prize Committee etc) are true and functional to their purpose, then you will end up with senators who actually rise up out of the toilet bowl and can walk in the sun as actual servants of the people. Hell, they could get a LOT done. They would be able to present their ideas to the people at large and maybe even have a government run intelligently.
Weaknesses: First, smart people are not necessarily any better at making policy. There is more than one kind of intelligence, and administrative ability and emotional intelligence don't necessarily match that of someone who is able to deduce something like the double helix. Moreover, people being stupid, and rich people being greedy, are going to begin to tilt the institutions that select these 'experts' to suit their needs. In the end, you just have corruption and greed but in slow motion. You could, in theory do with such a body the same thing I propose for the constitution which is reset bodies full of doctors, lawyers, scientists and non stupid people..but it still has problems. At that point, the metasystem of institutions gets gamed. Which group of doctors gets to represent doctors? 100 years ago, doctors consisted of in some cases vets, dentists, psychologists and doctors. So how granular do you get? You can have a list made up by the assembly making the constitution, but every time there is a reset, the elite will prepare ahead of time and try to game the system for their own interests.
Verdict - There are flaws, but of all the floater houses, this one actually brings value in helping to use smart people to keep stupid people from doing stupid things. But I argue that people correct themselves much quicker than smart people do per se. It could be a house of leadership, but even heroes slowly devolve into morons. The first congress was OK. The fifth congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts.
5) Popularly elected senators at large - There is no difference at all between this and my proposals for the Gutter House. (See previous post)
6) All of the Above - So in a final attempt to throw a bone to the legislature happy people, let us consider the idea that we use a little bit of all of the above.
Strengths: So...multiple working parts means dilution of power, which is good because it does make government inefficient which can reduce problems. Inefficiency is fine so long as it DELAYS the madness of the majority and gives them time to come to their senses, but does not forever stem the will of the majority. If something is the will of the majority for a hundred years, then it is not the purview of the minority to stop that, lest you simply bypass the concept of law altogether and fight a war in which the majority enforces its will by Rule of Mob rather than Rule of Law. The advantages of a Floater House are to provide inspiration and elevation, and all of these can be corrupted in one form or another. Still, it is also the natural inclination of men to place others above them, and through a combination of all of the systems above...say....50 seats, 10 to direct election, 10 to regional governors, 10 by bid of various non government institution, 10 by professional associations and 10 by executive life time appointment....you might have something that works OK.
Weaknesses: Oh wait, this is humanity we're talking about....you're going to end up with half of that number controlled by corporations or the 'rich' (no matter your economic system, there will be rich and poor, even if it is only influence), and the other half that doesn't know how to vote from a hole in the ground or elected because they have good hair.
Verdict: It kind of works as a throw the spaghetti against the wall approach, and it would be a good system in case somehow people couldn't abide time locks on things or the distinctions between timelocks became meaningless. Still a Floater House.
Meta Verdict: ANYTHING, including 10 mules pushing random buttons with hay would be better than the United States Senate. The mixed approach works Ok. After that the technocrats and the bidding processes bring something worthwhile to the table. At large and noble houses are just dumb.
To the senate were given the ratifications of treaties and the true checks on the power of the executive through ratification of treaties and confirmation of nomination to cabinet posts. Of course, since by and large politicians, at least in American society, seem to be turds, the turds selected to the senate were concentrated corruption and disease, such that many progressive attempts at legislation (you know...like letting women and black people vote) were killed by the south through the filibuster. Eventually, people decided that their state legislatures were so inept that they could do a better job themselves. (They were, since legislatures, sometimes deadlocked, would leave a vacancy for months or even years). Since then, this concentration of turds has risen to the top of the toilet bowl with lofty often endless debate where good ideas go to die. Most recently, with vacuous rural states and the throwback section of the country, the conservative section of society has a disproportionally large degree of power compared to the majority where it loftily accomplishes almost nothing whatsoever. Moreover, these self professed peacocks of comity are so inebriated with their own power that they accomplish almost nothing; nor can they pass even the slimmest of meaningful reforms to their rules to allow the majority to have its way, since their own corruption is shielded by the 40/60 rule required by the filibuster. As a result, even supposedly 'progressive' senators are able to take bribes and kick backs and point to 'the filibuster' sadly as the reason they could not get meaningful legislation to the house floor.
So again, with the US Senate as an example, why have a legislature at all? But if you must have turds, what can we do to improve on the truly disgusting lot we already have?
Well, here are a few ideas.
1) Actual Lords. Yes, we're a republic, but they had noble titles in the Roman empire....moreover, if we had an actual aristocracy of knights and ladies that had been elected, at least the Floater house would have some kind of justification for its existence. These supposedly superior human beings, by nature of their accomplishments appointed by the executive (knighted etc), then they could develop skills at legislating, deal making, long term view etc.
Strengths: Properly done, this could be quite excellent. Knighthoods in Britain are sometimes stupid and political, but master artists and scientists and the like, people who actually KNOW things, could make an upper chamber worth having instead of the pasty faced ghouls we currently have. Indeed, beyond bringing some much needed color to the sheer blank wall the current senate has, one could imagine a situation where "Lord Bladiblah" gets into an extended conversation with "Lady Windbag".
Weakness: Well lots really, too many to count, but at least we might improve the lot of Floaters we currently have. Maybe. The main problem with this is...the original model? Yeah, they're kind of weakening the House of Lords...you know...the one that still gives seats to the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The reason for this is the same reason the Queen only has one theoretical one use only super nuke veto....because every time the House of Lords actually functions, the commons, who has the real power, asks, "Why are these people still there again?" And reduces the power of the Lords. If the power in a democracy is with a people, and you can use timelocks instead of greater majorities to prevent insanity...then why in the name of all that is holy, would you go BACK to a legislature in the first place? The United States Senate DOES NOT serve the people of the united states...it serves the elite...and even then, if you look at poll numbers, it does a pretty crappy job thereof.
Verdict: Pass. As did the founding fathers so long ago, noble titles are a thing that worked when Feudalism was the most efficient way of stopping rampaging barbarian hoards from killing you. We've moved on. So should democracy.
2) The Corporate Chamber. So...business pretty much owns government, even though business is ultimately at the mercy of and beholden to armies, which governments are good at raising. But in many countries, especially in the United States, government is pretty much owned by the largest companies or conglomerations of companies. In that case, why not skip the middle man and just give our corporate overlords their due?
Strengths: This is not as insane an idea as it sounds. If you set up a bidding system, you ensure that those entities who are willing to bid the most for power (NGO's, political parties, PACS, super PACs, businesses, trade groups etc), you're representing not only a lot of people at the table, but you're also giving them a DIRECT stake in the game, where they have to deal with the nasty sausage making that is governing instead of standing on their high horse ivory throne towers (yes, I did mix a lot of metaphors there but given the insane way some of these idiots act, why not?)..after all, if instead of quietly bribing Senator Snacks, you could have your own guy on public record, then suddenly it might be harder to justify why you're giving yourself a tax break worth a gamillion dollars. Of course, some would argue, "because I paid for this seat, that's why!" Of course, all 99 other seats that paid for it will ask the same thing, and the gutter house or People's Collective Assembly or whatever will also be able to say, "Excuse me?!" Current corporate bribe money and money used to blind or confuse the public could instead be put into the public coffers.
Weaknesses: Honestly? Very few. But they're big ones. First, it would deligitimize the illusion of civilization and government itself by exposing how these cadres of interests were hoarding all of the pie. Indeed, it is entirely possible that without safeguards, 100 rich people could simply BUY the government and establish defacto political dynasties. As a unicameral system it would be a disaster, as a bi-legislature/direct democracy...meh. The final problem is that even with the tax revenue collected with their money to buy a seat, any system worth having will have a counter balance in a Gutter House or a direct democracy...and as such, the Floater House is still going to spend gobtons of money to mindwash the public.
Verdict: A Floater by any other name still belongs in the toilet.
3) Governors. A strong argument by regionalists (largely from the South which is why I am inclined to ignore them) is that you need to represent the regional interests of different areas of the nation. Some of this makes sense, since in Parliaments, for example, the capital tends to crush the other areas of the country. On the other hand, since the baSeline population tends to elect idiots who only care about their own power rather than that of their states (well, their own power and that of their party), then the argument that the current abomination that is the US senate represents 'regions' is laughable. Within states, there are regions that agree with the majority and those that do not, but in our rigid fixed constitution are stuck in perpetuity with the boundaries affixed to them on admission to the union. If we accept the idea that legitimacy comes from the governed, rather than some sovereign status accorded to arbitrary collections of dirt that really doesn't think or care about us at all (IE regions of Earth called States) then any flux that allows the bubble of a region to perpetually impose its will upon another must be counted as an inefficiency. If we are all equally valuable at a base franchise level, then the question of regions determining policy is laughable. However, if we must do this, then the only way to ensure that the interests of the REGION as compared to the interests of professional turds, is to ensure that the person who actually has to deal with the messy part of GOVERNING is the one that has a stake at the policy making level.
Strengths: Chris Christie went from typical conservative to RINO/traitor/commiepigdog overnight when he took a look at how much money it was gonna take to actually rebuild his state. In Georgia, Nathan Deal is all about most of the crazy stupid ideas of the Reagan Reality, but suddenly he's a big believer in having a port in Savannah (which happens to be critical to maintaining the current regime of Reagan Reality Inhabitants in coalition)....I argue that if you TRULY want dirt cubes represented, then you need to make it the current ACTUAL ruler of the dirt cubes that makes the decisions. You could probably still make a proxy, so long as the Floater actually served at ALL TIMES at the whim and will of the governor of the dirtcube. This will ensure regional interests are represented.
Weaknesses: Well, if you are looking for some kind of balance between dirtcubes and the nation as a whole, then really you've got a problem, because the regional governor is only going to care about the national interest, so long as it in some way benefits his dirt cube. He is certainly going to have a more difficult time justifying a war in some other country while money that could go to benefit his dirtcube is being siphoned off for drones etc. Also, by and large, governors are also turds just like almost all other politicians, with the nature of their role and desire to hold onto power over their dirtcube that gives them motive to stay somewhat sane.
Verdict: Still floaters. Still turds. But you get your regional interests in there. If your nation must include a region that has no business belonging with the rest of the regions, like say...the South, then this works as a 'compromise.'
4) Technocratic Appointment - So, some people have proposed that we make the senate full of really smart people, who know stuff. This sounds like a great idea...but has flaws.
Strengths: So long as the bodies that choose the smart people (American Bar Association, American Medical Association, Nobel Prize Committee etc) are true and functional to their purpose, then you will end up with senators who actually rise up out of the toilet bowl and can walk in the sun as actual servants of the people. Hell, they could get a LOT done. They would be able to present their ideas to the people at large and maybe even have a government run intelligently.
Weaknesses: First, smart people are not necessarily any better at making policy. There is more than one kind of intelligence, and administrative ability and emotional intelligence don't necessarily match that of someone who is able to deduce something like the double helix. Moreover, people being stupid, and rich people being greedy, are going to begin to tilt the institutions that select these 'experts' to suit their needs. In the end, you just have corruption and greed but in slow motion. You could, in theory do with such a body the same thing I propose for the constitution which is reset bodies full of doctors, lawyers, scientists and non stupid people..but it still has problems. At that point, the metasystem of institutions gets gamed. Which group of doctors gets to represent doctors? 100 years ago, doctors consisted of in some cases vets, dentists, psychologists and doctors. So how granular do you get? You can have a list made up by the assembly making the constitution, but every time there is a reset, the elite will prepare ahead of time and try to game the system for their own interests.
Verdict - There are flaws, but of all the floater houses, this one actually brings value in helping to use smart people to keep stupid people from doing stupid things. But I argue that people correct themselves much quicker than smart people do per se. It could be a house of leadership, but even heroes slowly devolve into morons. The first congress was OK. The fifth congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts.
5) Popularly elected senators at large - There is no difference at all between this and my proposals for the Gutter House. (See previous post)
6) All of the Above - So in a final attempt to throw a bone to the legislature happy people, let us consider the idea that we use a little bit of all of the above.
Strengths: So...multiple working parts means dilution of power, which is good because it does make government inefficient which can reduce problems. Inefficiency is fine so long as it DELAYS the madness of the majority and gives them time to come to their senses, but does not forever stem the will of the majority. If something is the will of the majority for a hundred years, then it is not the purview of the minority to stop that, lest you simply bypass the concept of law altogether and fight a war in which the majority enforces its will by Rule of Mob rather than Rule of Law. The advantages of a Floater House are to provide inspiration and elevation, and all of these can be corrupted in one form or another. Still, it is also the natural inclination of men to place others above them, and through a combination of all of the systems above...say....50 seats, 10 to direct election, 10 to regional governors, 10 by bid of various non government institution, 10 by professional associations and 10 by executive life time appointment....you might have something that works OK.
Weaknesses: Oh wait, this is humanity we're talking about....you're going to end up with half of that number controlled by corporations or the 'rich' (no matter your economic system, there will be rich and poor, even if it is only influence), and the other half that doesn't know how to vote from a hole in the ground or elected because they have good hair.
Verdict: It kind of works as a throw the spaghetti against the wall approach, and it would be a good system in case somehow people couldn't abide time locks on things or the distinctions between timelocks became meaningless. Still a Floater House.
Meta Verdict: ANYTHING, including 10 mules pushing random buttons with hay would be better than the United States Senate. The mixed approach works Ok. After that the technocrats and the bidding processes bring something worthwhile to the table. At large and noble houses are just dumb.
Monday, February 25, 2013
[Cons] Article 1 - Section 2 - The Gutter House
Alright, let us say that anything but a legislature is impossible, either because people like having corrupt and inept politicians run their lives, or are simply too lazy to think of anything else. What reforms can we make to these functionally useless bodies that might make them slightly less worthy of the rubbish bin?
Section 2 talks about the 'people's' house (since really the Senate is the lower, more baser and disgusting, so we can hardly call it an 'upper house') but the idea of a legislative body more closely connected to the people seems like a reasonable idea. What are some of the problems with this disgusting congregation of baboons (my apologies to the baboons).
Gerrymandering - The so called 'sanctity' of states allows psychopathic conservatives to tilt the machinery of democracy in an unnatural direction. Yes, it is true that their whines to the contrary about both sides doing it historically are accurate, but in this hour, in this day in age, at the federal level, it's conservatives. That's one problem. Another problem, as I've mentioned before is the fact that because they are such a small number, they are easy to bribe and hard to replace. People are lazy...they like the guy who is currently supporting them, but because of radicalization of the primaries (mostly among conservatives but occasionally among progressives) these people don't actually represent their districts so much as the most crazy frothing members of their own district who will loyally supplement the billionares that have bought their representatives.
Another problem of course, with territorial representation is the fact the minority party in these conservative infested districts (er...or of course the frothing conservatives kept well cage in Reality Reality majority districts....they have rights, after all, even if they seek to take everyone else's but their own, howling protestations to the contrary). If one person is supposed to get one vote and an equal say in a representative in the House of Corruption, why should they get silenced just because they live in the wrong zip code?
Here are three possible models.
1) All representatives are elected nationally at the party level. To say that parties will not happen is to not understand human nature. Check out a local high school. No one makes them form gangs of jocks, nerds, cheerleaders etc,....they just do it on their own. Same with parties. Now sometimes one gang gets a sufficient power block to crush all other gangs, but people are going to form gangs. So on a national level, you have a proportional representation. Everyone can form their own gang...and a gang that tries to stop other gangs from forming or sets up artificial barriers to forming a gang is declared illegal. This includes 'voter security' arrangements that are secretly designed to keep the gang in power, like unreasonable or irrational requirements on voting etc.
Strengths: Well, tiny parties would finally have a national voice where they could speak and be counted. Of course, in any system that isn't a parliament, the gangs would not have a requirement to form coalitions which is the mechanisms that allow small parties to have real power. You could, of course, pass some arbitary rule which says no one gang can have more than 10% of the vote, but then you'd just end up with Conservatives-South and Conservatives-West etc. Still, gangs would get their say, and we could finally dispense with all this nonsense about the Gutter house representing people and in fact representing their gangs.
Weaknesses: It is actually a good idea to represent a region. I mean, in theory, the south could become sane again. Imagine a future where most conservatives join some crazy cult or get beamed up by aliens or something, then you'd have the non conservatives in the south wanting to participate in reality again, except that the rest of the country hates them so much they refuse to spend any federal money on them. They could, of course, conceivably create a specifically regional party but would still be in the minority. Also, from a moral stand point, regional parties don't do well because they look like utterly selfish bastards....saying, 'we deserve our region to benefit over other regions.' It is one thing for the representative of a region to do that; pork might be dire, but it is apparently a lesser form of corruption for deal making than holistically amoral ideology that 'purifies against pork' but will kill the entire nation as a result.
Verdict: Meh.
2) We take the entire stupid system we have now but just make two minor reforms; eliminate party barriers and increase the size a whole lot of the legislature. Basically, we have 1 rep for every 10000 instead of 1 rep for every half million.
Strengths: You know who your rep is if you're not a lazy fool. If they want to, 10000 can educate themselves a lot more. Moreover, by keeping out the crazier conservatives because you know that your rep needs to get power in Washington and that will take time, you can begin to get actual statesmen instead of maniacs that want to kill us all. So the gutter house would actually be closer to the people, and with any party ACTUALLY able to play in the game, you could have tiny parties either succeed or get with the program and join coalition parties once they finally ran out of excuses as to why people had no interest in voting for them.
Weaknesses: This model does nothing to fix gerrymandering. Also, who are we kidding? The Somalia Party that wants no government at all, will never gain any actual power unless they lie to people...oh wait...they have. Nevertheless, the lesser Somalia party has in fact gained zero seats in congress except for that many of their worst ideas have been stolen. Crazy small parties will always keep going....forever...because they believe.
Verdict: At least you'd have more stability.
3) What if we had parties themselves do the gerrymandering? So you could basically vote at large nationally for a party but it was by district? That is to say, you get one vote....you choose a party...but the party has already chosen who represents you in that district based on a national level. This is not restricted to national lines, so that regional parties like the Greater Somalia party can put the bulk of its representatives in the south and rural west, whereas the Cowardly Party could put most of its representatives in districts. These districts would tend to flow based on the population of who was voting for them. As long as you had essentially no barriers to any kind of party existing or being formed or getting on the ballot, you could have both regionalism and partyism.
Strength: It will more reflect what people are actually going to do. People will have regional interests and they will have party interests. It also means no one EVER has their vote totally gerrymandered because they are voting for the party of their choice...if they want to vote for a party that has put half of the country under one representative, that is up to them.
Weaknesses: It...kind of makes sense. I mean, I think it solves a lot of the problems with the craptastic legislative system....and since people are stupid, I think they are unlikely to do something that might actually work. Plus, it might be rather easy for them to confuse themselves about understanding that if they vote for the Greater Somalia party, their vote is being thrown in with Cleveland, whereas if they vote for the Cowardly Party, they're in the same district as New York, whereas the Lesser Somalia Party knows no one will vote for them so they just put all in one district for the entire country at large. You would have to make people put at least 435 (or whatever number of losers that are in the gutter house) and make them divide things out geographically.
Verdict: I like it. Therefore it is unlikely to ever go anywhere.
Section 2 talks about the 'people's' house (since really the Senate is the lower, more baser and disgusting, so we can hardly call it an 'upper house') but the idea of a legislative body more closely connected to the people seems like a reasonable idea. What are some of the problems with this disgusting congregation of baboons (my apologies to the baboons).
Gerrymandering - The so called 'sanctity' of states allows psychopathic conservatives to tilt the machinery of democracy in an unnatural direction. Yes, it is true that their whines to the contrary about both sides doing it historically are accurate, but in this hour, in this day in age, at the federal level, it's conservatives. That's one problem. Another problem, as I've mentioned before is the fact that because they are such a small number, they are easy to bribe and hard to replace. People are lazy...they like the guy who is currently supporting them, but because of radicalization of the primaries (mostly among conservatives but occasionally among progressives) these people don't actually represent their districts so much as the most crazy frothing members of their own district who will loyally supplement the billionares that have bought their representatives.
Another problem of course, with territorial representation is the fact the minority party in these conservative infested districts (er...or of course the frothing conservatives kept well cage in Reality Reality majority districts....they have rights, after all, even if they seek to take everyone else's but their own, howling protestations to the contrary). If one person is supposed to get one vote and an equal say in a representative in the House of Corruption, why should they get silenced just because they live in the wrong zip code?
Here are three possible models.
1) All representatives are elected nationally at the party level. To say that parties will not happen is to not understand human nature. Check out a local high school. No one makes them form gangs of jocks, nerds, cheerleaders etc,....they just do it on their own. Same with parties. Now sometimes one gang gets a sufficient power block to crush all other gangs, but people are going to form gangs. So on a national level, you have a proportional representation. Everyone can form their own gang...and a gang that tries to stop other gangs from forming or sets up artificial barriers to forming a gang is declared illegal. This includes 'voter security' arrangements that are secretly designed to keep the gang in power, like unreasonable or irrational requirements on voting etc.
Strengths: Well, tiny parties would finally have a national voice where they could speak and be counted. Of course, in any system that isn't a parliament, the gangs would not have a requirement to form coalitions which is the mechanisms that allow small parties to have real power. You could, of course, pass some arbitary rule which says no one gang can have more than 10% of the vote, but then you'd just end up with Conservatives-South and Conservatives-West etc. Still, gangs would get their say, and we could finally dispense with all this nonsense about the Gutter house representing people and in fact representing their gangs.
Weaknesses: It is actually a good idea to represent a region. I mean, in theory, the south could become sane again. Imagine a future where most conservatives join some crazy cult or get beamed up by aliens or something, then you'd have the non conservatives in the south wanting to participate in reality again, except that the rest of the country hates them so much they refuse to spend any federal money on them. They could, of course, conceivably create a specifically regional party but would still be in the minority. Also, from a moral stand point, regional parties don't do well because they look like utterly selfish bastards....saying, 'we deserve our region to benefit over other regions.' It is one thing for the representative of a region to do that; pork might be dire, but it is apparently a lesser form of corruption for deal making than holistically amoral ideology that 'purifies against pork' but will kill the entire nation as a result.
Verdict: Meh.
2) We take the entire stupid system we have now but just make two minor reforms; eliminate party barriers and increase the size a whole lot of the legislature. Basically, we have 1 rep for every 10000 instead of 1 rep for every half million.
Strengths: You know who your rep is if you're not a lazy fool. If they want to, 10000 can educate themselves a lot more. Moreover, by keeping out the crazier conservatives because you know that your rep needs to get power in Washington and that will take time, you can begin to get actual statesmen instead of maniacs that want to kill us all. So the gutter house would actually be closer to the people, and with any party ACTUALLY able to play in the game, you could have tiny parties either succeed or get with the program and join coalition parties once they finally ran out of excuses as to why people had no interest in voting for them.
Weaknesses: This model does nothing to fix gerrymandering. Also, who are we kidding? The Somalia Party that wants no government at all, will never gain any actual power unless they lie to people...oh wait...they have. Nevertheless, the lesser Somalia party has in fact gained zero seats in congress except for that many of their worst ideas have been stolen. Crazy small parties will always keep going....forever...because they believe.
Verdict: At least you'd have more stability.
3) What if we had parties themselves do the gerrymandering? So you could basically vote at large nationally for a party but it was by district? That is to say, you get one vote....you choose a party...but the party has already chosen who represents you in that district based on a national level. This is not restricted to national lines, so that regional parties like the Greater Somalia party can put the bulk of its representatives in the south and rural west, whereas the Cowardly Party could put most of its representatives in districts. These districts would tend to flow based on the population of who was voting for them. As long as you had essentially no barriers to any kind of party existing or being formed or getting on the ballot, you could have both regionalism and partyism.
Strength: It will more reflect what people are actually going to do. People will have regional interests and they will have party interests. It also means no one EVER has their vote totally gerrymandered because they are voting for the party of their choice...if they want to vote for a party that has put half of the country under one representative, that is up to them.
Weaknesses: It...kind of makes sense. I mean, I think it solves a lot of the problems with the craptastic legislative system....and since people are stupid, I think they are unlikely to do something that might actually work. Plus, it might be rather easy for them to confuse themselves about understanding that if they vote for the Greater Somalia party, their vote is being thrown in with Cleveland, whereas if they vote for the Cowardly Party, they're in the same district as New York, whereas the Lesser Somalia Party knows no one will vote for them so they just put all in one district for the entire country at large. You would have to make people put at least 435 (or whatever number of losers that are in the gutter house) and make them divide things out geographically.
Verdict: I like it. Therefore it is unlikely to ever go anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)