American Extremist?

Post Reply New Topic

I think we've been talking past each other. What I've been talking about is keeping the electoral college, but having each state's electoral votes determined by IRV. While not ideal, this situation has the advantage of having a chance in hell of actually taking place.



I would expect that those who are incapable of operating the machines can have someone enter the booth with them, like disabled voters can now. Or else they could send in an absentee vote their parents "helped" fill out.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, illiteracy cannot be used to stop someone from voting. In all elections I've participated in, an illiterate person can take a person of their choice into the booth to help them. Same problem.

This may not become a big deal, but I'm still opposed on principle.



Sure, but like I said, if you choose to break the law in protest, you should expect there to be consequences. It's not much of a sacrifice otherwise, and without sacrifice the act is meaningless.



The law should be ignored only as a last resort; people should try to work within the system first. If things have gotten to the point where they feel they must break the law, then it is essentially a vote of no confidence in the government and an admission that the system is unsalvageable. What would be the point of further voting under those circumstances?

In other words, if a protester is denying the legitimacy of the system, why should they desire any further involvement in it? And why should the system seek input from someone who rejects it?



Agreed, but not at the expense of the rule of law, at least not until all other avenues have been exhausted.

I think allowing polygamy would be a legal and logistical nightmare. Inheritance, divorce, child custody battles...it would be a mess. Personally, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business altogether, but I don't think legalizing polygamy is a realistic middle ground.



I didn't want to assume one way or the other.



Here's where I have to disagree. Undermining a law by creating legal loopholes which allow certain groups of people to circumvent it is a bad idea. First, it might alleviate some of the outrage which could be channeled to get the law repealed in the first place, leading to perpetual mediocrity instead of a "crisis and resolution" situation.

Second, it's inherently unfair to those who can't take advantage of the loophole. For example, allowing religious use of peyote would be unfair to atheists and others who don't share those particular religious beliefs, creating a favored class of citizen.

Third, it can create contradictions in the law. Like I said before, allowing peyote only for religious purposes implies that religious activity is inherently better than non-religious activity, which would contradict the First Amendment. That's the last thing our legal system needs.



Oh, I doubt politicians believe any of what they're saying. They support the "war on drugs" because their constituents want it. Their interest in it is entirely self-serving.

Another example of why I want to avoid giving the electorate more power in government.

Jeremy

Yes, but pretty much the entire scenario I put forth is my fantasy scenario.


I did not know that.
While I knew that it couldn't prohibit entry, I was not aware that they had special accomodations.
Joy. If somebody isn't smart enough to figure out the difference between a couple names or motivated enough to learn how, we change the rules.

And yet those who engage in civil disobedience rarely expect to die or be disenfranchised.
When you decide that certain rights that should be inviolate can be sacrificed as a result of civil disobedience, you've created a tremendous disincentive.


Because the unsalvageable part can be part of a larger system.

In the United States women's suffrage and civil rights stand as examples where civil disobedience attacked only a part of the larger picture.


The system has no feelings. I feel like there's another point I should make too, but I'm tired, so eh not sure what.


When all avenues have been exhauseted, messing with the sytem can suddenly reopen some of them.


I agree about getting government out of marriage. Removing all restrictions on it, provided that both parties consent, seems to me a logical first step.


Makes sense I suppose. Having AS means having eccentricities enough that one might fit in with Jainism.
I see all religion as something neat to study, I haven't seen it as something to belong to in well over 4 years.


I'd think that it would lead to more outrage over the situation.

As with consciencious objection, I could see it being slowly expanded. Though I suppose that that's a bad example since it wasn't COs who ended the draft.


Out legal system is already self contradictory. I still say the more holes in laws, the harder it is to determine if something is illegal, the weaker the law.


Didn't they start the war on drugs in the first place though?
Herst and a few others lobbied to ban hemp lest it out-compete them, and then sometime later we began outlawing other drugs. Though I've never been really clear on why we banned the others.


Can't disagree with you here.
Democracy's generally better than dictatorship, but tyranny is tyranny whether by a majority or a minority. Hence the reason I'd like to add some more explicit rights to the Consitution. Somehow when a large portion of the country is convinced that a man who openly called the 9th Amendment an "inkblot" was unjustly denied a seat on the Supreme Court, it seems to me that we need to spell as many of them out as possible.

And also, a sI said one or two to rectify some of those cases where they've read the 10th Amendment, "public use" and other such clauses out of the Constitution.

Well, honestly, those who engage in civil disobedience are rarely committing felonies. But now I'm thinking you make a good point. There are a fair number of felonies I think should be misdemeanors at most, and I do feel wary about the idea of punishing people who break those laws too harshly.



I'm not sure I understand. Why would it create more outrage to grant certain people the things they want?



Because drugs are evil! They make you feel good!

But seriously, I really doubt that many politicians honestly believe that the war on drugs is worthwhile, but they've done such a good job whipping everyone into a frenzy over pot that it's no longer politically possible to suggest backing down on the anti-drug stance at the federal level (although I am glad to see an increasing number of state governments starting to come around). I suspect the original causes of the escalation of the war on drugs were to provide a convenient scapegoat they could blame for rising urban crime rates, and so that they could appear to be taking action to deal with it. Same old bread and circuses.



Bleh, now I'm getting depressed again.

Jeremy

Suppose you have a point too on the civil disobedience.

Because those people would be in an unpopular minority, and the majority would find it unfair.


Although actually, my uncle did die of a heroine overdose. Somehow I feel though that ot was an accident, and that had heroine been legal, he would still be alive. It's irrational, but I want to blame the idiot politicians for his death.


And yet nobody dared to say "Prohibition."



Come to my fantasy world, where I have a colony on Mars free from the assorted morons, idiots, and imbeciles who run the Earth while the Earth sends itself into WWIII.

I'm sorry to hear that. Your belief may be a little irrational, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. A lot of overdoses of heroin (and other drugs) occur because there's no quality control. If you buy heroin on the street, it could be cut any number of ways and with any number of other substances. Potency and purity are all over the map. If it were supervised by the FDA or ATF, accidental deaths would probably decrease quite a bit.



Of course not. Prohibition was about alcohol, and everybody knows alcohol is fine unless you're under 21. Then you're too young to handle it, even though you're old enough to vote, operate heavy machinery, and die for your country.

But drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Jeremy

Yes, and yet I can't be certain how much of the blame I can place on them for that.


Sad thing is, I've talked to people who actually think this.

wtfeoihrgolflai ucwqe vicylwuiefycjbjk\htgdwuyg its mostly a good thing (all a good thing)

The War on Drugs was started by Nixon, against the recommendations of his own drug policy experts, in order to help him win reelection.

I used to favor the Electoral College, it makes sense to me. But the practical result is that Presidential candidates only visit those states that are a toss-up - the others are ignored. That is not good, so I now favor eliminating it, and going to direct election.

Some things that I would like to see:

1. Only individuals could send money to candidates, not groups of people like companies or unions, and the amount would be limited to $100.

2. Only registered voters could donate money, and then only to candidates they can vote for. No donating money to out-of-state candidates (other than President, of course.)

3. NO SOFT MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS! period.

4. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution would be STRICTLY enforced. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ahh Nixon. He and Johnson left us a whole mess of problems. At least Johnson's we've pretty much solved.

While unlike most libertarians I do not view campaign contributions as speech, and support some form of clean elections laws, I think that 1-3 are far too strict to be at all reasonable.

I agree, of course with point four, but you forget, of course, that it is "strictly enforced." It's just that the commerce clause somehow lets the federal government do anything, so there is no power not granted to the federal government. You know, like we used to enforce the 14th through "separate but equal." And how we justify the draft under the 13th because "involuntary servitude" for one's country doesn't count. And how "public use" means "public benefit. And the first doesn't apply to treason. Etc. . .

If we could restrict the entire Constitution to its litteral meaning, things would be a lot better off.

You're right, #1-3 are very strict, and probably unconstitutional. They are unfortunately necessary to save our form of government, and return power to the people, so I would accomplish them with Constitutional Amendments.

#4 is needed because of the gradual power grab by the Federal Government. Case in point: if a state approves medical marijuana, the Feds shouldn't be able to trump their decision.

Its becoming increasingly apparant that legal means to oppose the will of goverments mite not exist much longer. In the meantime, we must use everything we have at our disposal to prevent that from becoming the case - legal or not.

Yes, you should expect there to be consequences to breaking the law, not because its wrong to break the law, but because there's no point in it being a law if it isnt enforced, therefore there will naturally be consequences of some sort, if only your own paranoia that you mite be caught out. I think peeple shoud consider the consequences before breaking a law, not because its wrong to do so JUST because its the law, but because it wood be stupid not to consider what comes aftwerwards.

Yes, it wood create outrage, but not outrage against the law. It wood create prejudice against that group of people, which is NOT a good thing.

I don't see how banning basically all contributions would do the trick.
It would still allow endorsements and favorable articles in the press.
Now banning those would be highly unconstutional and (though I'm aware that you didn't suggest it) would ingfringe well on the freedom of speech and the press. Yay for the slippery slope.

Best to allow some contributions (I'd say $2000{the current limit, no?} is more than reasonable) to balance out the effects that I mentioned above.

Honestly, I think that campaign finance reform is among the smallest parts of a much larger overhaul needed, and that while without CFR you could still fix the system, with only CFR you can not.

As for number 4, was I arguing with you?
If you want to debate that you'll probably have to start a new thread, as I think that everybody still paying attention here agrees with you.

Are people outraged about Indian casinos?
Actually, since people get angry about everything, forget I said that. . .

Once again, I assume that people are rational beings, and of course a lack of a logical basis for human thought is brought home to me.

Campaign contributions are bribes.

I set the $$$ limit low so that wealthy people wouldn't be able to contribute more than anybody else.

I don't allow donations to candidates you can't vote for, to prevent Massachusetts voters from contributing to defeat Jesse Helms or his current counterparts, or southern voters to defeat Ted Kennedy.