The Glade 4.0

Except I'm not playing that card, I'm telling you that they will.

Btw, you and DE need to talk. He seems to think this'll happen via constitutional amendment.

Fair enough, but it is their actions and beliefs, not mine, that would cause racial strife. What is right is not always what is popular, Ber.

As for DE's belief, if that is his belief, he is wrong, such an amendment could never be passed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't think that such an ammendment will be passed. I also don't think that there's ever going to be any kind of armed revolution putting anything like this into place.

I'm pointing out how it would work if it did get put in place. If there's an armed revolution, we're going to end up with some giant mess.. but it's definitely not going to result in any sort of especially enlightened new system.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't think there will be an armed revolution, I do however, believe that our current system will fall into collapse, and that something will have to replace it. There will be no unanimous decision, and various states and regions will fall away. The central government as we know it will be dissolved, but that it will likely happen in a fairly organized way in most instances, such that many treaties and the like will still be honored until they can be replaced, amended, or mutually dissolved.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yeah, it might work if it was ever implemented- for the franchised.

Ever notice how people like the tyranny of the majority, so long as they are in the majority?

I think it is important to remember that if you can take something from someone and make them a second-class citizen based on behavior, someone else can come along and make you a second-class citizen because they don't like your choices.

It's known by several names. karma, what goes around comes around, and the like, but I prefer that people reap what they sow. If you want to judge someone a second-class citizen because you want them to behave a certain way, don't be surprised if it comes back to bite ya in the butt....

The only things they wouldn't have a say in was tax rates, or what social services those taxes collected were spent on, and national defense. Things they have no stake in. Their absolute liberty under all aspects of federal the law would be enshrined in the high law of the land, and any legislation that might be intended to infringe on it would be at the state or municipal level, which federal law would have no impact on, and in which the citizens of that state would have full say over.

Your concerns are unwarranted.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm really not concerned at all, I'm really just expressing my opinion of the system proposed. I'm not concerned because it's never gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime. I'm never gonna be appointed king of Ireland, so I'm not concerned about that, either.

/sigh

Your concerns related to your opinion of the system proposed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

/sigh

Whatever.

Holy crap, Ber... this kind of stuff matters when you are trying to have a conversation.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Are you certain you are not the head of OCP?

I am an Oracle Certified Professional and an Ordained Clergy Person, however I am not a member of the Oregon Catholic Press nor an advocate of China's One Child Policy. I think being in a One-hundred Car Pileup would be scary. I enjoy Little Debbie's Oatmeal Cream Puffs. Khross might lecture us on Obligatory Contour Principle, but I don't know enough about it to do it myself, also it's just not my bag, baby.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Omni Consumer Products?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Beryllin:

Congress just proved your position on Universal Suffrage wrong.

_________________

Sorry, Khross. As much as I dislike the way things are at present, I still say the same thing: IMO, if you can vote for people to write laws and tell people who cannot vote that they have to obey the laws you had representation in forming, the only difference between you and the politboro is degree. So keep dancing if you must, but it's ineffective.

Beryllin:

I'm not dancing. The Health Care Reform Act is exactly what happens when you let people who have nothing on the line vote for Federal officials. And you don't know what a politburo is, so stop using words improperly and trying to draw a moral equivalence that doesn't exist.

_________________

Is that the tango or the cotton-eyed joe you're trying to do there, Khross? Kinda hard to tell.

Beryllin:

What's a politburo? Do you know what the word means? You're obviously trying to anger me by accusing me of something, but since you've demonstrated no understanding of the word politburo or how the Politburos worked in the Soviet and other Communist states, I'm not exactly sure what that is.

The U.S. Congress certainly just acted like one. The President is acting like Stalin's General Secretary. These things I know. But do you honestly want to accuse me of dancing when you can't even be bothered to know or understand the words you're trying to insult me with?

_________________

I can spell dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane without looking it up; just because I don't bother defining everything I say does not mean I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a waltz?

Beryllin:

Except, you're attempt an analogy and nothing I've said, or anyone else, who suggested that there should be restrictions on suffrage, is analogous to a politburo. Perhaps, you should look up the word and figure out that your analogy is flawed. Or, perhaps, instead of telling me what the consequences of my system are in your opinion, you can look at the reality around you.

You can vote, directly, for 2 of 545 elected Officials in our Federal government. The other 543 just told your two to go **** themselves. They just told everyone else in the nation to go **** themselves, too. They decided that know better than the constituents of this nation what is best for them. And you defend that action because everyone in this nation affected by its laws should be able to vote? Because you think people affected by a laws have as much stake in how a government behaves as the people who fund that government?

So, tell me, what is a politburo? How, on god's green earth, would limited suffrage create one? And, indeed, how does limited suffrage equate to dictatorial appointment of technocrats and bureaucrats in the government? In fact, since we've all humored your bare assertion, demonstrate that these things are morally and functionally equivalent.

In a system, such as the United States, where the electorate is the only check on federal power, guess who ALWAYS loses? Guess what history shows as the failing of EVERY republic in history?

_________________

Beryllin:

Instinctively, I understand your opposition to the idea. I actually share some of those same instincts. However, you're looking at the issue in a void, and I think that's part of the problem. The issue at hand is specifically suffrage with respect to the federal legislative body. State and local representation is something completely separate from this. Here's why that matters:

To the best of my knowledge, both Rynar and Khross support a far more limited form of federal government than our present system. It would have very strict limits to its power. In most respects, it should have less power than the state and local governments. The difference between its current power and its proposed power should be divested (as was originally intended) as powers of the states or the people.

So, yes; some people will lose interest (in the financial sense) in the federal legislature, the refund of power by the federal government to the states/people (in which they are still interested) will still result in a net gain in representation and real political power in absolute terms.

As for abuses by the interested against the non-interested, this is a real concern. However, I think this is best settled by checks and balances against the federal government. They can only commit such abuses as they have the power to commit. Solution: don't give them much power. Have tight, specific controls on the powers of the federal government, and make those controls subject to the people. I.e., require ratification by the states for constitutional amendments. Our current system requires 3/4 ratification; I'd contemplate the idea of increasing this to unanimous ratification.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Stathol:

Beryllin's dissonance is caused by the fact he cannot separate the status quo from any hypothetical. The only thing he sees as changing is who can vote for whoever in a Federal election. Quite honestly, I'm ok with an electoral college. I'm also OK, read that as VERY OK, with States appointing their Senators as they see fit. And, yes, I am very much concerned that the Federal government needs to be dramatically and decisively limited.

A state is on its own to figure out who votes and why they vote and how they vote. And if you don't like how one stand handles it, you have the freedom to move to another state. Federal elections, however, are an entirely different matter. And, as you well know, universal suffrage has one inevitable consequence.

_________________

Believe it or not, I really do understand this. I really do. But I still stand on the principle: People who can enact laws and tell people who have no say in the enactment of that law that they must obey that law, are by definition dictators. I don't care if we have 275 million dictators and 25 million people being dictated to, or 299 million dictators and 1 million people being dictated to. I don't care how benevolent the dictators think they'd be, or what limits they'd want to place on the exercise of power. The fact will remain, always, that some will have power over others, and power corrupts.

My principle will always be, messy though it is: Everyone votes, or your (general "you" here and following, not specific you) law should have no power over those denied the ability to vote; don't dictate to me that I have to obey your law, you can stuff your law so far up your anus that it'll twinkle at you when you brush your teeth. *shrug*

My last word. No argument is ever going to cause me to deviate from that principle.

Beryllin:

Then why haven't you left the U.S. yet? 216 Congresspeople, 59 Senators, and 1 President just told you that you have no say in the Health Care Bill.

_________________

Because everyone still has a say in how our system doesn't work.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20