2329 replies to this topic

[DJ Vu]

BigDMcGee, on 14 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

This woman should not have the vote. IN a perfect world, this woman should be sterilized. ( she has no kids, thank god). It horrifies me that a huge part of who runs this country is determined by voters like that.

What percentage of people do you think actually understand the important issues and what their vote means relative to that? I mean, I think I'm a pretty smart guy, but I doubt I'm really qualified to be voting on most things. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think we need to go that far to the edges to find unqualified voters.

[David_Sklansky]

BigDMcGee, on 14 June 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

sounds like every democracy everywhere, dutch.

I think this is a false comparison, to some extent. There are systematic problems with any democracy, but it's pretty intellectually dishonest and selectively cynical to take the reality of our dated, sloppy, intentionally unfixible constitution -- put together with about 30% emphasis on fear of people, 15% on fear of people's reaction to gov't, and 55% tethered to centuries-old logistical and social issues that cannot exist anymore, all of it compromised and watered down to the point where half of it literally doesn't make sense because compromising on wording is easier than compromising on substance -- and just say, "meh, Sweden probably sucks too. Same thing"Even if modern constitutions had every single problem ours does, most of them are like 20 years old and changeable, so it will be decades before the hilarious loopholes and jokes appear, and when they do, they will be allowed to fix them.People wonder why Americans hate their government so much more than other democratic people, why we are so cynical, don't vote, etc. People like to claim it's just our American spirit or some shit. Or maybe it's just that our system is so shitty and dysfunctional that we stopped giving a shit. Same goes for why we hate gov't action so much more than countries with real, modern governments. It's like having a shitty, 200y/o car that never starts, and talking shit about how crappy cars are and how we should get them off the road to make way for foot traffic.Our gov't runs on a system of loopholes that developed as a result of the nature of its constitution -- compromises and vague language that eroded into comical absurdities with age, "balances" that make us powerless to address problems, barriers to amendment, prejudices and ignorance and little issues of the...the senate. Etc. Other democracies may have their share of problems. You could make all sorts of arguments about the greatness of America that I wouldn't really have a reply to, from personal choice to relationship with Jesus Christ. But the premise that every democracy has a hideous ruse of a constitution is just patently false. Most advanced, democratic societies have incredibly specific, thoughtful constitutions, written in response to modern perceptions and practicalities, and changable to keep up with them. These systems don't need an entire branch of gov't dedicated to bullshitting special insight about what it means means, or ridiculous lawyer-per-capita numbers to fight over what it means, because it says what it means, and it means something vaguely relevant and appropriate to modern reality.Those countries have problems, but not those problems. The founding fathers and the constitution are probably the worst things about our country, and they are fairly unique compared to the rest of the world.

[The Ocho]

DJ Vu, on 15 June 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

What percentage of people do you think actually understand the important issues and what their vote means relative to that? I mean, I think I'm a pretty smart guy, but I doubt I'm really qualified to be voting on most things.I don't disagree with you, but I don't think we need to go that far to the edges to find unqualified voters.

I have a couple ways that I vote1.) I never vote for something I don't understand. If I have read the bill, and don't get it, I'll just leave it blank.2.) If for whatever reason I have not had time to research something and don't understand it, I will also leave it blank. Similar to above.3.) I will almost always vote for the republican candidate for things like POTUS, Congress, Senate, etc.4.) Local voting is difficult. I think there is less distinction between cons and liberal at smaller government, because they are all trying to get local money for local things. It's also hard because sometimes you can have 20 people on a ballot, multiple from different parties. Again, if I don't know who they are, I'll just leave it blank.

[brvheart]

I always leave judge retention blank, unless I've heard about something they've done that I disagree with. I usually try to read up on them before the election, so that I can kick them out if needed. The internet is great.

[Balloon guy]

If I don't know them, like judges, then I just vote for the challenger.Screw the incumbentI always vote no on any proposition that is confusing, and I vote no on all bonds except for water ones.If I'm on the fence, I check to see who is for the prop and who is agin it. I can usually tell if its garbage when I see the people backing it.And I vote R across the board while I hold my nose.

[hblask]

BigDMcGee, on 14 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

This woman should not have the vote. IN a perfect world, this woman should be sterilized. ( she has no kids, thank god). It horrifies me that a huge part of who runs this country is determined by voters like that.

I've thought about this problem and have come to the conclusion that the crazy people cancel each other out, and the vote is determined by the small educated group anyway. I think this is true not only because of the 'cancelling each other out' thing, but because the smaller educated group tends to be the opinion leaders among their peers, the early adopters. These opinion leaders then influence people in direct proportion to the passion and intelligence behind their ideas.This is just a theory that I cannot defend (except to the extent it works in related realms), so it may just be wishful thinking.

[hblask]

David_Sklansky, on 15 June 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

People wonder why Americans hate their government so much more than other democratic people, why we are so cynical, don't vote, etc. People like to claim it's just our American spirit or some shit. Or maybe it's just that our system is so shitty and dysfunctional that we stopped giving a shit. Same goes for why we hate gov't action so much more than countries with real, modern governments. It's like having a shitty, 200y/o car that never starts, and talking shit about how crappy cars are and how we should get them off the road to make way for foot traffic.

My local government works just fine. And that is the point you are missing about the founding of this country, the genius of this country. The founders goal was to push decisions to the lowest level possible. Local governments tend to be effective and reasonably well-liked. The federal government was intentionally handicapped because the more people a legislator represents, the less effective they become, and the less responsive to voters they become. By making the federal government slow-moving and ineffective, they tried to ensure that problems were solved at the local and personal levels, where solutions are efficient and sensible.The only reason they even agreed to give the federal govt as much power as they did was out of fear that certain states or cities would institute rules against free speech or freedom of religion or whatever. What you complain about as a bug is the primary feature of our federal system. It's why our country went from a backwoods nothing to a world leader while other countries stood still.

[hblask]

LongLiveYorke, on 15 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

To be fair, in terms of freedom:Limiting Size of Soft Drinks + Decriminalizing Marijuana > Status quo

You may be right about that....And I actually do like NY quite a bit, so I was kidding about the brain damage, but there's just something wrong with politics there, no matter which party is running the show.

[BigDMcGee]

hblask, on 15 June 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

so it may just be wishful thinking.

You B-Rabbited me on that one.

[BigDMcGee]

hblask, on 15 June 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

It's why our country went from a backwoods nothing to a world leader while other countries stood still.

Yeah, either that, or our vast natural resources and a massive industrial capacity.

[BigDMcGee]

Also other countries didn't really stand still. Take Russia and China, for example. Russia went from Europe's backward inbred cousin to super power, and china went from Europe's colonial bitch to super power, and neither did it because of the inherent superiority of their Jeffersonian Republics.

[JubilantLankyLad]

And all the other world powers beating the crap out of themselves in war.

[brvheart]

BigDMcGee, on 15 June 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

You B-Rabbited me on that one.

haha

[hblask]

BigDMcGee, on 15 June 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Yeah, either that, or our vast natural resources and a massive industrial capacity.

There are many other countries (e.g., USSR) that had vast natural resources that did not succeed, and many that have basically no natural resources that did succeed (e.g., Hong Kong). The thing the successful countries have in common has little to do with what is in the ground; it is institutions that matter.

[hblask]

BigDMcGee, on 15 June 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Also other countries didn't really stand still. Take Russia and China, for example. Russia went from Europe's backward inbred cousin to super power, and china went from Europe's colonial bitch to super power, and neither did it because of the inherent superiority of their Jeffersonian Republics.

China and Russia are basically third world countries with weapons. I don't really consider them great successes. China has allowed a little bit of free enterprise in, but for the most part remains mired in poverty. Look at per capita income -- or any other measure of well-being -- in those countries.The only reason they are in the news at all is because of their *percentage* growth, but that is misleading when one country is starting from a very low baseline. For example, 20 years ago, China could have 20% growth by getting electricity. Once the low-hanging fruit is gone, they will need to adopt modern institutions or continue to fall further behind.

[BigDMcGee]

hblask, on 16 June 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

There are many other countries (e.g., USSR) that had vast natural resources that did not succeed, and many that have basically no natural resources that did succeed (e.g., Hong Kong). The thing the successful countries have in common has little to do with what is in the ground; it is institutions that matter.

It depends what you mean by succeed. Ask Germany if the USSR was a successful world power or not. The were able to have that Power ( which is what world leadership is... power..) because of their resources and their manufacturing capacity. Hong Kong succeeded because they had one of the most important natural resources.. cheap labor. Their manufacturing capacity, for their size, is why they succeeded, not because of their democratic institutions. But they weren't a world power.

hblask, on 16 June 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

China and Russia are basically third world countries with weapons. I don't really consider them great successes. China has allowed a little bit of free enterprise in, but for the most part remains mired in poverty. Look at per capita income -- or any other measure of well-being -- in those countries.The only reason they are in the news at all is because of their *percentage* growth, but that is misleading when one country is starting from a very low baseline. For example, 20 years ago, China could have 20% growth by getting electricity. Once the low-hanging fruit is gone, they will need to adopt modern institutions or continue to fall further behind.

Are we talking about per capitia income, standard of living, or are we talking about world leadership (aka power)? China is a world power, in spite of the fact that they had some of the worst leadership in history in the 50's and 60's. They have succeeded, with huge handicaps, because they have a huge manufacturing capacity, and vast natural resources. And I don't know what planet you're on that you think China is falling further behind . They have a virtual monopoly on rare earth metals, with out which the modern world wouldn't exist. Their manufacting base is massive. Their population is not just an advantage for manufacturing, but also for brain power. More people equals more geniuses, and for their limitations as a country, they are quite efficient at spotting and exploiting genius. Yes, the average chinaman's quality of life is lower than the average americans. That has nothing to do with the power china has, and that power is growing. Also, you're using "modern" incorrectly. Modern doesn't necessarily mean good or desirable. Our institutions aren't modern. China's are.

[hblask]

BigDMcGee, on 18 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

It depends what you mean by succeed. Ask Germany if the USSR was a successful world power or not. The were able to have that Power ( which is what world leadership is... power..) because of their resources and their manufacturing capacity.

I based my view of the USSR on several co-workers who lived there as recently as the 90s. Vast natural resources and they can't get food to feed their family. Their political structure has changed through the years, but post WWII they had none of the institutions that promote growth, and once the wall fell it was obvious what that did to them.

Quote

Hong Kong succeeded because they had one of the most important natural resources.. cheap labor. Their manufacturing capacity, for their size, is why they succeeded, not because of their democratic institutions. But they weren't a world power.

And yet, dozens of other countries with *more* natural resources and *more* cheap labor failed. Why?

Quote

Are we talking about per capitia income, standard of living, or are we talking about world leadership (aka power)? China is a world power, in spite of the fact that they had some of the worst leadership in history in the 50's and 60's. They have succeeded, with huge handicaps, because they have a huge manufacturing capacity, and vast natural resources. And I don't know what planet you're on that you think China is falling further behind . They have a virtual monopoly on rare earth metals, with out which the modern world wouldn't exist. Their manufacting base is massive. Their population is not just an advantage for manufacturing, but also for brain power. More people equals more geniuses, and for their limitations as a country, they are quite efficient at spotting and exploiting genius. Yes, the average chinaman's quality of life is lower than the average americans. That has nothing to do with the power china has, and that power is growing.Also, you're using "modern" incorrectly. Modern doesn't necessarily mean good or desirable. Our institutions aren't modern. China's are.

I'm basing it on per capita wealth or any other standard of living you'd like to choose. China is still at least a half a century behind us. A vast percentage of their population still lives in poverty -- that's poverty by world standards, not the inflated USA standards where "only one car" is considered poor. As with the USSR, they've shown that if you have a big enough natural resource base to waste on the instruments of war, you can threaten other countries. By that measure, North Korea is a success, but all you have to do is look at the nighttime satellite pictures of those countries to see that "able to build big bombs" is a poor indicator of success. China's "economic miracle" will be revealed in the next 15 years for what it is -- the harvesting of the low-hanging fruit of a poor country. They are moving toward the institutions of wealth, but not nearly quickly enough to keep up with the industrialized world.

[hblask]

BigDMcGee, on 18 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Also, you're using "modern" incorrectly. Modern doesn't necessarily mean good or desirable. Our institutions aren't modern. China's are.

I'm not sure what you are referring to; by modern institutions of wealth, I was referring to the institutions of property rights and rule of law. China is severely lacking in those, and until it gets them has no hope of keeping up with the rest of the world. Their *total* wealth will definitely pass our, just because their population is so large, but their personal wealth -- per capita or whatever measure of well-being you like -- has no chance of catching up to ours any time soon.

[FCP Bob]

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003Joe The Plumber who is running for Congress claims in a video that the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide were caused by gun control. Sigh

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on 20 June 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003Joe The Plumber who is running for Congress claims in a video that the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide were caused by gun control. Sigh

I think he was saying that gun control *allowed* it to happen, not caused it. The headline is stupid. An armed populace is far less likely to allow things like the Holocaust to happen. Would private gun ownership have prevented the Holocaust? Probably not, but it certainly made it easier.