3 ms·

> Do you care to back up that assertion with some reasoning? I already did. > Narrowly focusing on one specific issue is naive. the US doesn't exist in a sing

> Do you care to back up that assertion with some reasoning? I already did. > Narrowly focusing on one specific issue is naive. the US doesn't exist in a single-issue bubble, it exists in a complex web of political and practical (not to mention entirely unpredictable) needs which all have to be balanced simultaneously. If you want to pretend legislators can snap their fingers and make any individual issue "just happen" that's fine, but it's not reflective of reality on any level. You will continue to be confused and disappointed if you decide to live that way. What's more interesting is why you'd claim I hadn't, when I very clearly did. It's almost like you're not even reading what I'm writing...

mindslight 5y ago
I was focused on responding to what I perceived to be the core of your argument, and that got lost by the wayside. To me, the core of the argument continues with my Condorcet point. Specifically about this point, I disagree. You're greatly exaggerating the intrinsic difficulty of change - witness any "emergency" bill that gets passed after a few months with very little debate. I agree there are bureaucratic difficulties in general, but when discussing how well representatives represent the will of the voters, the inefficiency due to those difficulties are still quite relevant! The argument you're making basically lets you write off any outside metrics that aren't the ballot box - deferring to the opaque paternalism of "that's just how the system works" and shutting down any criticism of the representative bureaucracy itself. Furthermore on the topic of marijuana deillegalization, most of those bureaucratic difficulties simply do not exist. No legal regime needs to be pondered and crafted, rather the laws that criminalized it in the first place simply need to be repealed - strike them by number and name. That we're likely to end up with more complex legislation rather than a straightforward repeal is entirely due to the corruption of the system where all of these incumbent moneyed interests get their says before the will of the voters can become law. That corruption is exactly what you're defending by rejecting basic objective critiques of the system's effectiveness.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  “Why don't you just” has plagued the software industry for decades, and now you try to use it on legislation. It’s funny, how misdeeds can transcend profession. If you can’t accept that passing national legislation is an incredibly complex, subtle, and nuanced activity that requires delicacy and care, then I simply cannot help you.

mindslight 5y ago

I was focused on responding to what I perceived to be the core of your argument, and that got lost by the wayside. To me, the core of the argument continues with my Condorcet point. Specifically about this point, I disagree. You're greatly exaggerating the intrinsic difficulty of change - witness any "emergency" bill that gets passed after a few months with very little debate. I agree there are bureaucratic difficulties in general, but when discussing how well representatives represent the will of the voters, the inefficiency due to those difficulties are still quite relevant! The argument you're making basically lets you write off any outside metrics that aren't the ballot box - deferring to the opaque paternalism of "that's just how the system works" and shutting down any criticism of the representative bureaucracy itself. Furthermore on the topic of marijuana deillegalization, most of those bureaucratic difficulties simply do not exist. No legal regime needs to be pondered and crafted, rather the laws that criminalized it in the first place simply need to be repealed - strike them by number and name. That we're likely to end up with more complex legislation rather than a straightforward repeal is entirely due to the corruption of the system where all of these incumbent moneyed interests get their says before the will of the voters can become law. That corruption is exactly what you're defending by rejecting basic objective critiques of the system's effectiveness.

TameAntelope 5y ago
“Why don't you just” has plagued the software industry for decades, and now you try to use it on legislation. It’s funny, how misdeeds can transcend profession. If you can’t accept that passing national legislation is an incredibly complex, subtle, and nuanced activity that requires delicacy and care, then I simply cannot help you.