righteous rebellion

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=483249 time=1607129028 user_id=11228]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483234 time=1607122959 user_id=15238]
You assume people can freely choose where to live in the first place, which is rarely the case. It makes more sense to count it as where they do Not want to live. They don't always have a great choice but they almost always have bad ones.
[/quote]
What? Are you saying the tally of all person's votes should or should not depend on where they live?
[/quote]

I'm only saying that where people "choose" to live isn't real information at all.

[henry quirk]

That every person's vote counts toward the environment they want to live in. If more people live in certain areas, it's because that's what appeals to MORE PEOPLE. Areas with less people should not be able to force their uniquely specific attitudes onto the larger population and more populated areas.

I'm not a fan of the current iteration of the electoral college either...but we can't simply revert to a national popular vote...that guts state sovereignty...we need a revision, not an elimination: as I say elsewhere, each state ought to have one electoral vote with a simple majority of the popular vote in a state determining the winner of that state's one vote...this would balance things among states...candidates would no longer confine campaigns to certain states cuz all states would matter...the winner of a simple majority (26) wins the big chair...in a tie (25/25), the senate & house members would vote as one body (congress, as a whole, would have one tie-breakin' electoral vote)

now, as a minarchist, I'd like to eliminate the whole of the federal with all power bein' local & close, but that ain't happenin' any time soon (and neither is an elimination or revision of the EC)


Maybe instead of two warring political parties and one skewed president, we need a board of representatives for multiple interests... and the means by which to cooperate for (and deliver regional results to) a more diverse population.

well, we already have that board of reps (the house for the people, the senate for the states) and it ain't farein' well either

as for parties: they skew and distort...too many folks with good ideas get locked out cuz they can't be shoehorned into a party, and too many mediocre or shady people get support cuz they they work the party system well...parties have become a kind of inaccurate gauge (he's a repub so he's for A & against Z; he's a dem, so he's against A & for Z) for voters

the exec has been inflated well past the point of good sense: a president leads the branch, executes law, wars with the other two branches, and has the bully pulpit...past few decades, the job has taken on a king aspect, an air of indispensability, we'd do well to put away

money too is a problem...a man ought not have to be a billionaire (or be bought by billionaires) to publicly serve...I got no solution for that problem that doesn't amount to exchangin' one bad for another bad

[Lacewing]

That every person's vote counts toward the environment they want to live in. If more people live in certain areas, it's because that's what appeals to MORE PEOPLE. Areas with less people should not be able to force their uniquely specific attitudes onto the larger population and more populated areas.

I'm not a fan of the current iteration of the electoral college either...but we can't simply revert to a national popular vote...that guts state sovereignty...we need a revision, not an elimination: as I say elsewhere, each state ought to have one electoral vote with a simple majority of the popular vote in a state determining the winner of that state's one vote...this would balance things among states...candidates would no longer confine campaigns to certain states cuz all states would matter...the winner of a simple majority (26) wins the big chair...in a tie (25/25), the senate & house members would vote as one body (congress, as a whole, would have one tie-breakin' electoral vote)

now, as a minarchist, I'd like to eliminate the whole of the federal with all power bein' local & close, but that ain't happenin' any time soon (and neither is an elimination or revision of the EC)


Maybe instead of two warring political parties and one skewed president, we need a board of representatives for multiple interests... and the means by which to cooperate for (and deliver regional results to) a more diverse population.

well, we already have that board of reps (the house for the people, the senate for the states) and it ain't farein' well either

as for parties: they skew and distort...too many folks with good ideas get locked out cuz they can't be shoehorned into a party, and too many mediocre or shady people get support cuz they they work the party system well...parties have become a kind of inaccurate gauge (he's a repub so he's for A & against Z; he's a dem, so he's against A & for Z) for voters

the exec has been inflated well past the point of good sense: a president leads the branch, executes law, wars with the other two branches, and has the bully pulpit...past few decades, the job has taken on a king aspect, an air of indispensability, we'd do well to put away

money too is a problem...a man ought not have to be a billionaire (or be bought by billionaires) to publicly serve...I got no solution for that problem that doesn't amount to exchangin' one bad for another bad

I agree with much of what you say, Henry. I do not, however, think that states/locations should have more say than individuals across the entire landscape. For example, if the majority of the entire population is more progressive and wants to move forward in certain areas, they should not be held back by a minority who are not. Are we to live according to the lowest/slowest rate of change? Are we to cling to old ways/beliefs because ancients believed in it and said we should? I'm encouraged that it is a minority who might say "yes" to these questions, but I am baffled how they can play such dishonest games to disrupt progress for the majority. Pretty tricky, but seems foolish overall.

[henry quirk]

I do not, however, think that states/locations should have more say than individuals across the entire landscape.

well, then you need to dissolve states, abolish state govs, make the nation seamless

ain't gonna happen, you know that

[Belinda]

If the ruling regime is bad you have a responsibility to resist however it is hard to resist if the regime includes secret police.

[Belinda]

If the ruling regime is bad you have a responsibility to resist however it is hard to resist if the regime includes secret police.

[Lacewing]

I do not, however, think that states/locations should have more say than individuals across the entire landscape.

well, then you need to dissolve states, abolish state govs, make the nation seamless

Is that the only option? Why not just get rid of the E.C.? Allow votes to count for every person in the country, and then the States can cater to their own populations as they normally do.

[henry quirk]

I do not, however, think that states/locations should have more say than individuals across the entire landscape.

well, then you need to dissolve states, abolish state govs, make the nation seamless

Is that the only option? Why not just get rid of the E.C.? Allow votes to count for every person in the country, and then the States can cater to their own populations as they normally do.

you understand the hoops we'd have to jump through, the somersaults we'd have to execute, to amend the constitution, yeah?

abolishin' the EC will only happen if we just unceremoniously dump the constitution as a whole, an event just about as unlikely as amendin' it

we're stuck with what we got, L

me, I'd like to dump the federal completely, adopt a simple three article charter based on natural rights, and then encourage folks to organize themselves as they like locally...ain't gonna happen (any time soon)

more realistically: I'd like to term-limit everyone from the federal clear down to the municipal; have a binding none of the above option on every ballot, of every election, from the federal clear down to the municipal; eliminate all campaign financin'; have elections on election days only (with absentee ballots available for good cause); have ID required universally to vote; and on and on and on...

none of that is gonna happen

parties ought to go; the threshold for recalls ought to be lower; no law maker/enforcer/arbiter ought to be able to exempt himself from laws he makes/enforces/arbitrates, and so forth and so on...

not gonna happen

you don't have to agree with me, L, but now, mebbe, do you see why I hired ORANGE MAN to wreck shit?

we live in the innards of an administrative, bureaucratic, leviathan that is itself but a part of a global mish-mash of mixed economies and shifty cultures...'murica (you, me, him, her) is cocoon'd in the U.S.A. (the leviathan)...we're smotherin', they're makin' hay, and it appears we've hired a houseplant to oversee and expand on the status quo

whatever ORANGE MAN is, he most certainly, for 4 years, was a status quo wrecker

[Lacewing]

you understand the hoops we'd have to jump through, the somersaults we'd have to execute, to amend the constitution, yeah?

Yes... but stranger things have happened, and if you can dream, so can I.

abolishin' the EC will only happen if we just unceremoniously dump the constitution as a whole, an event just about as unlikely as amendin' it

I don't see why unceremoniously dumping it as a whole has to be the outcome.

we're stuck with what we got, L

Then why do we talk about anything?

I'd like to term-limit everyone from the federal clear down to the municipal; have a binding none of the above option on every ballot, of every election, from the federal clear down to the municipal; eliminate all campaign financin'

Sounds good to me.

you don't have to agree with me, L, but now, mebbe, do you see why I hired ORANGE MAN to wreck shit?

I'd like to see many of the corrupt systems come "undone" too... but I don't think hiring/choosing an insane and childish dangerous narcissist to turn people against each other is the best way to do it. That's like setting fire to your house because you want to move. There are other strained breaking points that can naturally shift our reality when we see that we can't continue as we are.

we live in the innards of an administrative, bureaucratic, leviathan that is itself but a part of a global mish-mash of mixed economies and shifty cultures...'murica (you, me, him, her) is cocoon'd in the U.S.A. (the leviathan)...we're smotherin', they're makin' hay, and it appears we've hired a houseplant to oversee and expand on the status quo

You would likely find fault with any choice that didn't fit your preferred insane disrupter profile for a leader. Perhaps such volatility entertains you... maybe it appears to give focus to your aggravations... and/or maybe you like seeing things go boom?

whatever ORANGE MAN is, he most certainly, for 4 years, was a status quo wrecker

There is much more to consider and care about. This was not the only way to affect change. Putting a huge liar in charge means EVERYONE is being lied to. Perpetuating those lies means there is no truth or broader awareness. Such narrow thinking hurts all of us... and then the government can take further advantage of our chaos and distrust and hatred amongst ourselves!

Trump was a disaster for our well-being on many levels.

[henry quirk]

That's like setting fire to your house because you want to move.

I see it more like: the foundation is sound but the house atop is for shit...wreck the house, preserve the foundation, try again


Trump was a disaster for our well-being on many levels.

as I see it: ORANGE MAN was only a disaster for slavers and wannabe slavers