4 ms·

It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In demo

It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean. Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.

lemming 10y ago
What they haven't had recently is the option to vote in anyone who'll take climate change very seriously.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Many (actually millions of) people take it very seriously, particularly those who thanks to de-industrialisation, will likely lose their jobs, sink back into poverty or give up hope of rising out of it and of course those in northern hemisphere who suffer massively or die from not being able to warm themselves. Doubtless you think the alternative is armageddon. I get that. But when people read that the <official> estimates of global temperature reduction are of an order too little to detect in return for massive global pain by those least able to avoid it (with consequent enrichment by some of the rest of us), one wonders why the case made for that scenario is not more persuasive to people like Judith Curry for instance (and many other well informed authorities). As a specific recent example: to suggest she'd risk the future of mankind on Earth for the chance of preferment in Trump's administration, as has been suggested is beyond satire.
amelius 10y ago
> Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. So not much incentive for long-term policies.
privong 10y ago
> it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two? One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.
- couchand 10y ago
  I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates. congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives. Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it. If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
  - privong 10y ago
    > The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives. This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate. > If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it. This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the economy, etc., and to vote on those instead. > If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts. That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)
    - couchand 10y ago
      "only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous" If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous. "if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues" ... but can't the same thing be said of any particular policy? if this policy isn't as important as other policies, that's the public deciding that we're fine with it. you and I as individuals may disagree, but this is the reality we face. it's simply not going to get fixed through legislative action, until and unless we are able to reframe the national conversation sufficiently.
DennisP 10y ago
The court system is part of the government, and an important part of the checks and balances which make modern democracy work.
sharemywin 10y ago
Children don't have a vote. And we continue to make decisions that benefit today at the expensive of tomorrow.
rayiner 10y ago
Everyone who voted for these policies will be dead and buried before the chickens come home to roost.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lemming 10y ago

What they haven't had recently is the option to vote in anyone who'll take climate change very seriously.

vixen99 10y ago
Many (actually millions of) people take it very seriously, particularly those who thanks to de-industrialisation, will likely lose their jobs, sink back into poverty or give up hope of rising out of it and of course those in northern hemisphere who suffer massively or die from not being able to warm themselves. Doubtless you think the alternative is armageddon. I get that. But when people read that the <official> estimates of global temperature reduction are of an order too little to detect in return for massive global pain by those least able to avoid it (with consequent enrichment by some of the rest of us), one wonders why the case made for that scenario is not more persuasive to people like Judith Curry for instance (and many other well informed authorities). As a specific recent example: to suggest she'd risk the future of mankind on Earth for the chance of preferment in Trump's administration, as has been suggested is beyond satire.

amelius 10y ago

> Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. So not much incentive for long-term policies.

privong 10y ago

> it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two? One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.

couchand 10y ago
I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates. congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives. Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it. If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
- privong 10y ago
  > The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives. This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate. > If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it. This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the economy, etc., and to vote on those instead. > If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts. That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)
  - couchand 10y ago
    "only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous" If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous. "if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues" ... but can't the same thing be said of any particular policy? if this policy isn't as important as other policies, that's the public deciding that we're fine with it. you and I as individuals may disagree, but this is the reality we face. it's simply not going to get fixed through legislative action, until and unless we are able to reframe the national conversation sufficiently.

DennisP 10y ago

The court system is part of the government, and an important part of the checks and balances which make modern democracy work.

sharemywin 10y ago

Children don't have a vote. And we continue to make decisions that benefit today at the expensive of tomorrow.

rayiner 10y ago

Everyone who voted for these policies will be dead and buried before the chickens come home to roost.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]