6 ms·

This system exists all around the world - Brazil, Switzerland, Finland and other parts of europe, Japan... it doesn’t make a huge difference when the government

by jiofih 6y ago

This system exists all around the world - Brazil, Switzerland, Finland and other parts of europe, Japan... it doesn’t make a huge difference when the government itself defines which five issues will be voted on, and I don’t think it could be any different. Personally, I think the focus should be on education. How can you have vast masses of the world in 2021 electing dumb, retrograde populist leaders? learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now. And on top of that, accountability for politicians. It should not be a life career, and gross mistakes should mean stepping out so new heads can come in.

ddingus 6y ago
You did not discuss money in politics, which present significant challenges. The US sees many struggles, and does so in a way that impacts most of the population. These things go unaddressed despite majority support for solutions. Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle." What unnecessary struggle? I can see how popular ideas are good from the standpoint of the majority of the population liking them. Some of that is being eroded now. For example, wanting to eliminate the 60 votes in the senate related to the filibuster as they already did with some conformation hearings (how can they use a 51 vote to abolish a 60 vote rule anyways, that seems to undermine the point). So now, we are reducing the amount of people necessary to like the law and reducing the likelihood of compromises to make laws less partisan and more acceptable to all. The downside to populist laws is that the people may not be educated in even the basics of how the system works (or is supposed to). Maybe it was a populist idea that things should be segregated by race. That doesn't make it right, and it infringes on the minority faction.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    To sum up: People are not smart enough to participate in policy? Because of that, their economic struggle is necessary?
    - giantg2 6y ago
      No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law? I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others. I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?
      - ddingus 6y ago
        You are saying exactly that, and frankly I reject it across the board. I would continue with your other very debatable observations, but we have no real basis to do that in a way that makes sense, and I am not inclined to attempt to improve it at this time. Should we somehow discuss struggle, necessary can enter again in that context. Nothing personal.
        giantg2 6y ago
        "You are saying exactly that" I said what I said, not what you are saying. There is a lot of context and nuance that you simply want to misrepresent my statements and label people as stupid. You still didnt define what you mean by struggle. How can we communicate, if you're not communicating? You have to at least define the problem and explain what you are talking about rather than assuming I'm a mind reader. Nothing personal, but I'm starting to think you are a troll.
giantg2 6y ago
"learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now." I don't think it's "too leftist". I think it's that both sides want their own views "taught" in school. The way some issues are taught or graded border on indoctrination. I would love to see independent/critical thinking taught in schools. This next part might be controversial, I also think that every citizen should have to pass the citizenship test (provisional citizenship as a child of a citizen up until 18, or if disabled, etc). How can we have a effective government if the people don't understand tha basics of it or how to hold it accountable when it fails?

by jiofih 6y ago

ddingus 6y ago

You did not discuss money in politics, which present significant challenges. The US sees many struggles, and does so in a way that impacts most of the population. These things go unaddressed despite majority support for solutions. Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle.

giantg2 6y ago
"Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle." What unnecessary struggle? I can see how popular ideas are good from the standpoint of the majority of the population liking them. Some of that is being eroded now. For example, wanting to eliminate the 60 votes in the senate related to the filibuster as they already did with some conformation hearings (how can they use a 51 vote to abolish a 60 vote rule anyways, that seems to undermine the point). So now, we are reducing the amount of people necessary to like the law and reducing the likelihood of compromises to make laws less partisan and more acceptable to all. The downside to populist laws is that the people may not be educated in even the basics of how the system works (or is supposed to). Maybe it was a populist idea that things should be segregated by race. That doesn't make it right, and it infringes on the minority faction.
- ddingus 6y ago
  To sum up: People are not smart enough to participate in policy? Because of that, their economic struggle is necessary?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law? I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others. I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?
    - ddingus 6y ago
      You are saying exactly that, and frankly I reject it across the board. I would continue with your other very debatable observations, but we have no real basis to do that in a way that makes sense, and I am not inclined to attempt to improve it at this time. Should we somehow discuss struggle, necessary can enter again in that context. Nothing personal.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        "You are saying exactly that" I said what I said, not what you are saying. There is a lot of context and nuance that you simply want to misrepresent my statements and label people as stupid. You still didnt define what you mean by struggle. How can we communicate, if you're not communicating? You have to at least define the problem and explain what you are talking about rather than assuming I'm a mind reader. Nothing personal, but I'm starting to think you are a troll.

giantg2 6y ago

"learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now." I don't think it's "too leftist". I think it's that both sides want their own views "taught" in school. The way some issues are taught or graded border on indoctrination. I would love to see independent/critical thinking taught in schools. This next part might be controversial, I also think that every citizen should have to pass the citizenship test (provisional citizenship as a child of a citizen up until 18, or if disabled, etc). How can we have a effective government if the people don't understand tha basics of it or how to hold it accountable when it fails?