Hmmm.... I'll be long-winded as usual.
In no particular order:
1. Khross
In spite of his protestations, I really don't know any single person possessed of as much raw knowledge about, well...just about
any topic, really, but in particular: law, history, and politics. Whether we'd agree on every single issue becomes largely irrelevant because I think we both have similar ideas about the
structure of government.
In my ideal form of government, there is plenty of room for disagreement.
Real heterogeneity is a thing not only to be allowed, but perhaps even cultivated. If the laws and executive policies are substantially different in Oregon than Ohio...great! The voice of the people won out. There is no real need for conformity or uniformity across the entire United States. That is the siren-song of "ein reich, ein volk, ...", and it's sadly alive and well in the U.S. today, albeit without the jackboots. I don't think people realize how horribly destructive "universal"
anything is.
In fact, I'd break the granularity down even further. The power structure of the United States has gotten too lofty and disconnected, to be certain. We mere mortals are too far removed to exact any real control over it. But much more importantly, it has become too
wide. "A few bureaucrats in New York can't make good decisions for New Jersey, let alone Paris or a village in China."
Real national cohesion is not brought about by federally mandated conformity; quite the opposite, actually. The simple truth is this: people just want to be left alone.
A long time ago on Glade 1.0, I had a lengthy...
discussion with Khross about the
"emic" and "etic". Ok, so it actually started out as a
debate. But before all was said and done, I came to realize several things. One, I had quite thoroughly misunderstood what Khross was "about", politically speaking. Two, underneath all its ...
academic dressings, what he was saying was actually very down-to-earth. We, as
homo sapiens are fundamentally limited in our ability to really understand one another. Etic observations and explanations may be useful for anthropologists, but they have little place in the governance of people's
lives. What's more, our emic understandings stem directly from our personal experience -- and must therefore diminish with distance. Simply put, you understand your family better than you understand your neighbors; your neighbors better than your city; your city better than your state; .... The entire structure of power in the U.S. needs to be inverted to reflect that relationship. The federal level should be the thinnest level of all, and with the least amount of practical consequences to day-to-day life -- because these people don't understand you. It's not their fault; they simply
can't. They don't know what's good for you because
they don't know what good is to you.
That, in so many words, is why I would name Khross as one of my "delegates". I believe he understands these things.
2. Talya
When I first started posting on the Glade, I never would have imagined that this selection would ever cross my mind. My own politics have changed rather significantly since then, though I'm not sure how many of you know that. I think Talya's have changed quite a bit, too. There's still probably a fair amount that we wouldn't agree on, but I would choose her for two simple reasons:
One, she believes quite adamantly that the government should fear its citizens. I'd like to think that if she were in charge of creating checks and balances, she'd
give them reason to fear us.
Two, she has her own personal reasons for making sure that the federal government butts out of its citizens' lives.
3. ???
I'm having a really hard time on this one. I think I'm leaning towards Rynar at this point just on general agreement of political philosophy, and because he reads a ton of American history.
If I could name one person to just sort of oversee the whole thing without directly participating in the process, it would probably be Suineko. I can't explain exactly why, but I think he has this weird knack for challenging what you think without ever being challenging. He doesn't say much, but when he does, he always makes me think -- especially when it's a rebuttal to something I've said. I think he would make an interesting sounding board for the group.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
