NationStates

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:35 pm**

The Black Forrest wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:The whole idea of a Republic is bad. Yes, we should break up the government. We should discard the Constitution, but not all of it's ideals. What we need is a pure, direct democracy.

Bad idea. Tyranny by the majority.

Republics are a tyranny of the minority usually. Notice how Bush Jr. was president even though he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote and was only put in place by the Supreme Court using powers it didn't have.

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:38 pm**

Ensiferum wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Bad idea. Tyranny by the majority.

Republics are a tyranny of the minority usually. Notice how Bush Jr. was president even though he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote and was only put in place by the Supreme Court using powers it didn't have.

And if the majority declares our laws will be by Christian truths?

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:42 pm**

The Black Forrest wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:
Republics are a tyranny of the minority usually. Notice how Bush Jr. was president even though he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote and was only put in place by the Supreme Court using powers it didn't have.

And if the majority declares our laws will be by Christian truths?

Then the majority are right. The minority already does this anyways. That's just the way things are. If you don't agree with the way things are that doesn't mean they are right but that doesn't mean you can just shrug off your responsibility and refuse to go along with something you voted on. That's like saying that Romney is the President to those who voted for him and Obama is the President to those who voted for him because since you don't agree you don't have to go along with something.

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:46 pm**

Obamacult wrote:Hence, the states and society managed fine from 1865 to 1933 without the federal government sticking its inefficient, wasteful and corrupt nose into economic issues best managed at the state level or by the citizen.

Congratulations. You've offically lost any and all possible credibility. I, for one, fail to see how the robber barons, the racial bigotry, segregation, and other forms of inequality that practically defined that period are 'managing fine'.

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:48 pm**

Obamacult wrote:In contrast, if you want to live in a state that outlaws gun ownership among everyone except outlaws

Oh god this bullshit again.

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:20 pm**

Ensiferum wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
And if the majority declares our laws will be by Christian truths?

Then the majority are right. The minority already does this anyways. That's just the way things are. If you don't agree with the way things are that doesn't mean they are right but that doesn't mean you can just shrug off your responsibility and refuse to go along with something you voted on. That's like saying that Romney is the President to those who voted for him and Obama is the President to those who voted for him because since you don't agree you don't have to go along with something.

I think your plan will only encourage a "United States of Canada v. Jesusland" debacle instead of prevent/mitigate it. If even a narrow majority is all that matters and a very large - even 49.99...% - minority is completely ignored, social and political conflict is pretty much inevitable.

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:24 pm**

YellowApple wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:
Then the majority are right. The minority already does this anyways. That's just the way things are. If you don't agree with the way things are that doesn't mean they are right but that doesn't mean you can just shrug off your responsibility and refuse to go along with something you voted on. That's like saying that Romney is the President to those who voted for him and Obama is the President to those who voted for him because since you don't agree you don't have to go along with something.

I think your plan will only encourage a "United States of Canada v. Jesusland" debacle instead of prevent/mitigate it. If even a narrow majority is all that matters and a very large - even 49.99...% - minority is completely ignored, social and political conflict is pretty much inevitable.

That's a good thing. The country of Jesusland would fall apart pretty quicky(again) which would help wipe out quite a few hateful beliefs that have no place in a modern democracy. Of course Quebec would have to be lumped into Jesusland for this to work...

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:27 pm**

Ensiferum wrote:
YellowApple wrote:
I think your plan will only encourage a "United States of Canada v. Jesusland" debacle instead of prevent/mitigate it. If even a narrow majority is all that matters and a very large - even 49.99...% - minority is completely ignored, social and political conflict is pretty much inevitable.

That's a good thing. The country of Jesusland would fall apart pretty quicky(again) which would help wipe out quite a few hateful beliefs that have no place in a modern democracy. Of course Quebec would have to be lumped into Jesusland for this to work...

Just like how all of the Sharia countries fell apart already, right? Oh...

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:31 pm**

You are effectively creating a country government similar to feudal systems and the First united States Government. That system, while it had potential, has a lot of disadvantages in its organization.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:57 am**

Obamacult wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Knock yourself out.

But the housing bubble was just one manifestation of the well-documented debt-culture of the US.

Again, a debt culture that was incentivised by government policies.

Nope.

A debt culture that was incentivised by the need to acquire things that is practically inherent in this culture. Americans are crass consumers, and they are programmed to be that way, and encouraged to be so, even when it's beyond their means.

Nothing to do with the government 'incentivising' anything - it's not the government's fault that you're a sucker for advertising, or that your friend buys a new car every two years. Jello Biafra calls it our 'Viagra culture' - and to be honest, you should probably yourube that track, because it would teach you a lot.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:39 am**

Ensiferum wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Bad idea. Tyranny by the majority.

Republics are a tyranny of the minority usually. Notice how Bush Jr. was president even though he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote and was only put in place by the Supreme Court using powers it didn't have.

He lost the popular vote. He won the electoral vote.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:17 am**

Xsyne wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:
Republics are a tyranny of the minority usually. Notice how Bush Jr. was president even though he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote and was only put in place by the Supreme Court using powers it didn't have.

He lost the popular vote. He won the electoral vote.

Besides, there is no constitutional provision for what to do in the event that it can't be decided to whom a state's electoral votes go.

I'd honestly like to know how he/she/they thinks it should've been decided.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:20 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Xsyne wrote:He lost the popular vote. He won the electoral vote.

Besides, there is no constitutional provision for what to do in the event that it can't be decided to whom a state's electoral votes go.

I'd honestly like to know how he/she/they thinks it should've been decided.

Dance battle.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:23 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Xsyne wrote:He lost the popular vote. He won the electoral vote.

Besides, there is no constitutional provision for what to do in the event that it can't be decided to whom a state's electoral votes go.

I'd honestly like to know how he/she/they thinks it should've been decided.

Technically speaking, the Constitution doesn't even guarantee that the popular vote matters, so the electoral college will probably vote their own damn way. Or split the electorate and leave the odd remainder to the third party.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:25 am**

Death Metal wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
Besides, there is no constitutional provision for what to do in the event that it can't be decided to whom a state's electoral votes go.

I'd honestly like to know how he/she/they thinks it should've been decided.

Technically speaking, the Constitution doesn't even guarantee that the popular vote matters, so the electoral college will probably vote their own damn way. Or split the electorate and leave the odd remainder to the third party.

Faithless electors are very, very rare. The majority didn't vote for the person to whom they were pledged because that person died before they could do so. You can look this stuff up.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:29 am**

Farnhamia wrote:
Death Metal wrote:
Technically speaking, the Constitution doesn't even guarantee that the popular vote matters, so the electoral college will probably vote their own damn way. Or split the electorate and leave the odd remainder to the third party.

Faithless electors are very, very rare. The majority didn't vote for the person to whom they were pledged because that person died before they could do so. You can look this stuff up.

I know it doesn't happen often. That's not the point. The point is there's no Constitutional guarantee that there is even a popular vote, much less how it's followed.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:33 am**

Death Metal wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Faithless electors are very, very rare. The majority didn't vote for the person to whom they were pledged because that person died before they could do so. You can look this stuff up.

I know it doesn't happen often. That's not the point. The point is there's no Constitutional guarantee that there is even a popular vote, much less how it's followed.

True enough, though historically only South Carolina has chosen its electors through the legislature and not a popular vote for any length of time.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:39 pm**

Ainin wrote:
Obamacult wrote:
note that this divisive issue has emerged despite a strong central government.

In contrast, if you want to live in a state that outlaws gun ownership among everyone except outlaws (who don't follow the law anyway) -- then you are free to do so.

Unfortunately a one size fits all solution from Washington may not be the best policy considering the diversity of such locales as a rural town in Montana and an urban cityscape in Washington DC. Within the framework of the 2nd amendment, each state must be able to tweak gun control laws to suit their specific circumstances.

Yes, because a murder in Washington, DC is different from a murder in Springfield, Montana?

Your argument, or lack thereof, is a ridiculous strawman,

the circumstances, the geography, the population density, the crime rate, the culture, the climate, the economy, etc.... are vastly different in Montana compared to DC. Hence, government needs to be local to account for these differences -- not a one-size fits all solution emanating from the federal government.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:41 pm**

Ensiferum wrote:The whole idea of a Republic is bad. Yes, we should break up the government. We should discard the Constitution, but not all of it's ideals. What we need is a pure, direct democracy.

Tyranny of the majority. The 51% vote to plunder the 10% or the 25% or the 49% -- doesn't matter -- it always ends bad. That is why there is virtually no pure democracy on the planet.

I don't know is there any society stupid enough to be governed by mob rule?

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:43 pm**

Ensiferum wrote: Then the majority are right.

Indeed, this fallacious, conceited and despotic sentiment is what drives liberalism/progressives today.

Thugocracy or intimidation, violence and criminal destruction of individual rights by mob rule.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:48 pm**

Grenartia wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Hence, the states and society managed fine from 1865 to 1933 without the federal government sticking its inefficient, wasteful and corrupt nose into economic issues best managed at the state level or by the citizen.

Congratulations. You've offically lost any and all possible credibility. I, for one, fail to see how the robber barons, the racial bigotry, segregation, and other forms of inequality that practically defined that period are 'managing fine'.

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:51 pm**

Obamacult wrote:
Ensiferum wrote: Then the majority are right.

Indeed, this fallacious, conceited and despotic sentiment is what drives liberalism/progressives today.

Ahahaaha... Oh, you're serious? Let me laugh harder. AHAHAHAHAH

No, seriously. You're just begging to have people tell you you're stupid. Liberalism isn't about majority rule.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:54 pm**

Obamacult wrote:At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

Obamacult wrote:Indeed, this fallacious, conceited and despotic sentiment is what drives liberalism/progressives today.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:57 pm**

Obamacult wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:The whole idea of a Republic is bad. Yes, we should break up the government. We should discard the Constitution, but not all of it's ideals. What we need is a pure, direct democracy.

Tyranny of the majority. The 51% vote to plunder the 10% or the 25% or the 49% -- doesn't matter -- it always ends bad. That is why there is virtually no pure democracy on the planet.

I don't know is there any society stupid enough to be governed by mob rule?

Nobody said republican democracy was perfect, but what alternatives are there? Unless you can think of a better system, it is pointless to criticize democracy.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:18 pm**

Obamacult wrote:
Shnercropolis wrote:Splitting up the union would do nothing good. The states would just ally together anyway(because individually the states are absolutely helpless), and form another union, this time shakier and less powerful.

Also, your complaint about "one-size-fits-all" deals from Washington: Most of the laws you are living under right now are state's laws. The federal government may have the final say, but most of the lawmaking comes from the states.

We wouldn't be 'splitting up' the union -- indeed, the Constitution wouldn't change one bit.

The only difference is that the federal government would no longer mismanage and bankrupt education, health care, retirement, transportation, railways, etc. that represent over $100 trillion in unfunded debt that will soon bankrupt the nation.

Hence, the states and society managed fine from 1865 to 1933 without the federal government sticking its inefficient, wasteful and corrupt nose into economic issues best managed at the state level or by the citizen.

Tell me how you think California would work without federal aid?
Or right, it would be a completely bankrupt ruin of a state. No doubt other states would suffer similarly.

Also, the constitution guarantees that the federal government exists. That is un-amendable without voiding the entire constitution.

(on a side note, railways are privately owned)

NationStates

Is it time to break-up the Federal government?