3 ms·

> That's condescendent Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why? > and openly anti-democratic No, it's realistic. Lawma

> That's condescendent Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why? > and openly anti-democratic No, it's realistic. Lawmakers needs to make decisions on a _huge_ variety of issues and people with full time jobs simply _cannot_ become familiar enough with all these issues to make an educated decision about which option is in their best interests. Unless you're suggesting people stop working, I don't think there's anything we can do. > to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier How? The only way I can see is to make the language required to write them less precise, which opens them for more interpretation by the judicial branch. Are you okay with putting more of the country in the hands of the courts? > No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law. Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution. I don't think "Less freedom for the People" is viable anyhow as laws inherently reduce freedom. > if representative democracies were working on those issues There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others. Representative democracy isn't the problem. Things like electoral systems and corruption are the bigger problems. > America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged. Not coincidentally, the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy.

weddpros 9y ago
"Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?": I'd have chosen a plan, maybe not "save the banks who caused all of this", but that's only me. In democracy, you learn to accept the choice of your fellow citizens (rather than the choice of an out-of-this-world elite). I don't suggest we should remove all law-makers, but most decision-makers. That's a huge difference. "more interpretation by the judicial branch": how is it a bad thing? A judge who doesn't judge but applies an algorithm instead isn't a judge to me. Funny enough, a jury is still chosen among the people, but they have to judge respect of the law, not facts, and the law is so tight (over-constrained) there's no room for judgement. "No prejudice? no law"... "Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution" The original purpose of the constitution? probably. Is it working? No, in a great extent. A "no prejudice no law" would forbid surveillance of the whole people. "Less freedom for the People? no law": read it in the context of prejudice. Prejudice is what makes law necessary because it must be repaired, punished, and the people protected... from an individual who has caused prejudice. We could abolish most laws and there wouldn't be more prejudice, because many laws don't protect from prejudice. Lots of laws try to avoid potential prejudice (eg. drug laws to protect order) and cause more pain than gain (war on drugs! a war doesn't protect order, it causes chaos). As long as you pay people to write new laws, guess what: they write new laws, more is better for them. Then law become complex, people dodge it, then you write new laws and people dodge them... Then a guy gets out of prison because a fax-machine ran out of paper which compromised the procedure. This is caused by too many laws, and judges who don't judge but are tasked to merely apply the law. "There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others": the Swiss are a striking example of more direct democracy... but yet, the internet would allow us to go much further. See how people are passionate about change.org, even if there's no guarantee of any effect? Imagine if their opinion did count!!! "the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy". I'm a non-american living abroad, but I keep in mind what America once was (my phrasing wasn't clear about the "once was" point). It's still a great country, but it's less and less free and less an less great. Hence a bit of nostalgia. If the USA falls to more government control, more enslavement of the people, less freedom, then a star goes dark... and the USA is no more.

weddpros 9y ago

"Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?": I'd have chosen a plan, maybe not "save the banks who caused all of this", but that's only me. In democracy, you learn to accept the choice of your fellow citizens (rather than the choice of an out-of-this-world elite). I don't suggest we should remove all law-makers, but most decision-makers. That's a huge difference. "more interpretation by the judicial branch": how is it a bad thing? A judge who doesn't judge but applies an algorithm instead isn't a judge to me. Funny enough, a jury is still chosen among the people, but they have to judge respect of the law, not facts, and the law is so tight (over-constrained) there's no room for judgement. "No prejudice? no law"... "Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution" The original purpose of the constitution? probably. Is it working? No, in a great extent. A "no prejudice no law" would forbid surveillance of the whole people. "Less freedom for the People? no law": read it in the context of prejudice. Prejudice is what makes law necessary because it must be repaired, punished, and the people protected... from an individual who has caused prejudice. We could abolish most laws and there wouldn't be more prejudice, because many laws don't protect from prejudice. Lots of laws try to avoid potential prejudice (eg. drug laws to protect order) and cause more pain than gain (war on drugs! a war doesn't protect order, it causes chaos). As long as you pay people to write new laws, guess what: they write new laws, more is better for them. Then law become complex, people dodge it, then you write new laws and people dodge them... Then a guy gets out of prison because a fax-machine ran out of paper which compromised the procedure. This is caused by too many laws, and judges who don't judge but are tasked to merely apply the law. "There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others": the Swiss are a striking example of more direct democracy... but yet, the internet would allow us to go much further. See how people are passionate about change.org, even if there's no guarantee of any effect? Imagine if their opinion did count!!! "the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy". I'm a non-american living abroad, but I keep in mind what America once was (my phrasing wasn't clear about the "once was" point). It's still a great country, but it's less and less free and less an less great. Hence a bit of nostalgia. If the USA falls to more government control, more enslavement of the people, less freedom, then a star goes dark... and the USA is no more.