This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Super Congress!

dsfdsf
edited August 2011 in Politics
Because lawmakers need to be anonymous in their voting so they can pass unpopular bills!

Comments

  • Not a terrible idea, but it also removes accountability. Unpopular bills that are detrimental or inflammatory would also have more support by the politicians who feel more free to support them, knowing their constituents couldn't trace it back.
  • ideal scenario would be only the constituents could see that politicians voting record, but alas it isn't possible. Although what is possible is getting rid of representative goverment because we no longer lack the capability to communicate quickly across large distances.
  • ideal scenario would be only the constituents could see that politicians voting record, but alas it isn't possible. Although what is possible is getting rid of representative goverment because we no longer lack the capability to communicate quickly across large distances.
    I've always been a strong supporter of pure democracy in an technologically empowered civilization.

    However, I have heard arguments against pure democracy (generally as it turns into an ochlocracy) because of mob rule and manipulation of voters.

    While it is more difficult to argue in politics, in economics, people voting with their money have definitely voted in very stupid ways by way of manipulation. This is can be seen in the success of crap products that manage to sell themselves to consumers and survive against all odds of being entirely useless.
  • Not a terrible idea, but it also removes accountability. Unpopular bills that are detrimental or inflammatory would also have more support by the politicians who feel more free to support them, knowing their constituents couldn't trace it back.
    It is a terrible idea. It's a flagrant side-stepping of the public's right to know how their representatives are... representing them. You might as well not have representation if you can't tell how the person you choose is acting.

    Not only that, but it's an act of cowardice on behalf of those who want to participate in the system. It's a symptom of spinelessness, moral weakness, and a failure to communicate with the constituency.
  • ideal scenario would be only the constituents could see that politicians voting record, but alas it isn't possible. Although what is possible is getting rid of representative goverment because we no longer lack the capability to communicate quickly across large distances.
    I've always been a strong supporter of pure democracy in an technologically empowered civilization.

    However, I have heard arguments against pure democracy (generally as it turns into an ochlocracy) because of mob rule and manipulation of voters.

    While it is more difficult to argue in politics, in economics, people voting with their money have definitely voted in very stupid ways by way of manipulation. This is can be seen in the success of crap products that manage to sell themselves to consumers and survive against all odds of being entirely useless.
    this raises a lot of very interesting questions. The one that I've struggled with within my own opinion of politics and government is what the real relevance of the "majority" is in any system. If a person can be swayed from their opinion by any means is that or is it not a valid strategy for the opposition? While force and threats are not good solutions to problems if someone can use them to make me change my vote then how strongly did I believe in how I was voting? At the same time with your point on large numbers of people buying worthless goods because they don't know any better, is this majority really capable of holding any valid opinion that should shape a society? Can a group who don't know the best way to run their own lives properly participate in the running of a government?

    I personally have no idea, but the first step to finding answers is to have the question. I am reminded of a passage from "letters to a young contrarian" by Christopher Hitchens

    "A man with a correct opinion out weights a majority with a wrong one"
  • This reminds me of the old argument that benevolent dictatorship by an intelligent dictator is the best possible form of government. The problem is that benevolent dictatorships rarely stay benevolent for long -- either because the power goes to the head of the benevolent dictator so he loses his benevolence or he is eventually replaced (due to illness, death by natural causes, retirement, assassination, coup d'etat, etc.) by someone who is less benevolent.
  • Just a Note on Benevolent Dictators, since no one ever comes up with an example.
    "Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix[1] (c. 138 BC – 78 BC), known commonly as Sulla, was a Roman general and statesman. He had the rare distinction of holding the office of consul twice, as well as that of dictator. He was one of the canonical great men of Roman history, included in the biographical collections of leading generals and politicians, originating in the biographical compendium of famous Romans, published by Marcus Terentius Varro. In Plutarch's Sulla, in the famous series - Parallel Lives, Sulla is paired with the Spartan general and strategist Lysander.
    Sulla's dictatorship came during a high point in the struggle between optimates and populares, the former seeking to maintain the power of the oligarchy in the form of the Senate while the latter resorted in many cases to naked populism, culminating in Caesar's dictatorship. Sulla was a highly original, gifted and skillful general, never losing a battle; he remains the only man in history to have attacked and occupied both Athens and Rome. His rival, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, described Sulla as having the cunning of a fox and the courage of a lion - but that it was the former attribute that was by far the most dangerous. This mixture was later referred to by Machiavelli in his description of the ideal characteristics of a ruler.[2]
    Sulla used his armies to march on Rome twice, and after the second he revived the office of dictator, which had not been used since the Second Punic War over a century before. He used his powers to enact a series of reforms to the Roman constitution, meant to restore the balance of power between the Senate and the tribunes; he then stunned the Roman World (and posterity) by resigning the dictatorship, restoring normal constitutional government, and after his second Consulship, retiring to private life."

    Wkipedia
  • This reminds me of the old argument that benevolent dictatorship by an intelligent dictator is the best possible form of government. The problem is that benevolent dictatorships rarely stay benevolent for long -- either because the power goes to the head of the benevolent dictator so he loses his benevolence or he is eventually replaced (due to illness, death by natural causes, retirement, assassination, coup d'etat, etc.) by someone who is less benevolent.
    but even a benevolent dictator must eliminate choice, and what is freedom without choice?
  • Sulla was also the one who conscripted innocent civilians to be put to death with for no reason, then stole their stuff once they were dead. Say what you want about Marius, he didn't randomly kill people.
  • edited August 2011
    Ooooh! Ooooh! Compromise!

    Instead of records showing their name, they show a list of every lobby who ever contributed to their campaign, bought them a nice gift, winked at them in the hallway, kissed them in the stairwell, etc. and then it's up to the voters to guess who it is!!!
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • This reminds me of the old argument that benevolent dictatorship by an intelligent dictator is the best possible form of government. The problem is that benevolent dictatorships rarely stay benevolent for long -- either because the power goes to the head of the benevolent dictator so he loses his benevolence or he is eventually replaced (due to illness, death by natural causes, retirement, assassination, coup d'etat, etc.) by someone who is less benevolent.
    but even a benevolent dictator must eliminate choice, and what is freedom without choice?
    Choice of what? Your rulers?

    You can pretty much have all the freedoms under the Bill of Rights with a benevolent dictator.
  • edited August 2011
    You can pretty much have all the freedoms under the Bill of Rights with a benevolent dictator.
    I: The concept of benevolence is incredibly subjective.
    II: The entire point of our Constitution is to guarantee that power stays within the hands of its people, not an individual person/group.
    III: Are you high or simply incapable of understanding the what the word "dictator" means?
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • I'm actually a big fan of the Roman idea for dictators. Every six months, someone would be elected to be the "dictator." Under most circumstances, the dictator would have no power and do nothing, but if an emergency arose, he would assume his role and save the day. The problems were two fold: 1) Only Patricians voted (the problem with all of Roman Democracy) and 2) the definition for an emergency was poorly designed, so Caesar was able to create a quagmire and assume complete control of everything.
    For this system to work in America, we would have to change some things: 1) Dictator does not take power whenever military action is needed. If that was the case, America would become fascist. Dictator would take power when Congress and the House vote that he does. 2) Dictators are not allowed to associate themselves with parties. This starts to cut down on political bullcarp that will ensue when we make change one.
  • dsfdsf
    edited August 2011
    III: Are you high or simply incapable of understanding the what the word "dictator" means?
    dic·ta·tor  [dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter]
    noun
    1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
    2. (in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
    3. a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
    4. a person who dictates, as to a secretary.
    (the problem with all of Roman Democracy)
    Rome was a Republic not a Democracy. The plebs where represented by the Tribunes.
    Post edited by dsf on
  • (the problem with all of Roman Democracy)
    Rome was a Republic not a Democracy. The plebs where represented by the Tribunes.
    Pardon my typo. I know the plebs were represented by the Tribunes, but the Tribunes didn't have equal power to the Senate. The Tribunes could only veto laws, they couldn't make them.
  • (the problem with all of Roman Democracy)
    Rome was a Republic not a Democracy. The plebs where represented by the Tribunes.
    Pardon my typo. I know the plebs were represented by the Tribunes, but the Tribunes didn't have equal power to the Senate. The Tribunes could only veto laws, they couldn't make them.
    Yeah but they could "Intervene" on their behalf... whatever that means.
  • SPQR FOREVAH BITCHES!
  • You can pretty much have all the freedoms under the Bill of Rights with a benevolent dictator.
    I: The concept of benevolence is incredibly subjective.
    II: The entire point of our Constitution is to guarantee that power stays within the hands of its people, not an individual person/group.
    III: Are you high or simply incapable of understanding the what the word "dictator" means?
    Oh, I know what dictator means, and I know that the concept of benevolence is very subjective. I also know that the point of our Constitution is that power stays within the hands of the people.

    However, my argument is that, subjectivity aside, one may claim that a benevolent (for suitable definitions of "benevolent") dictator may be a better form of government than a democracy/republic like our own if the people have proven to be incapable of handling that power themselves either by making poor decisions as a whole or by consistently electing representatives that make poor decisions. Admittedly, the lack of truly long term benevolent dictatorships throughout human history has shown that this is not a realistic scenario. However, there have been short term benevolent dictatorships that managed to do the job -- a fairly recent example is Churchill during WW2. However, once the crisis of the War was over, he relinquished his dictator powers.

    I'm not advocating that we scrap the Constitution in favor of a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise (unless I'm the dictator j/k), I'm just bringing up the hypothesis that in certain scenarios one may argue that it can be a better form of government than what we have now. Then again, I also agree with Churchill when he said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
  • You can pretty much have all the freedoms under the Bill of Rights with a benevolent dictator.
    I: The concept of benevolence is incredibly subjective.
    II: The entire point of our Constitution is to guarantee that power stays within the hands of its people, not an individual person/group.
    III: Are you high or simply incapable of understanding the what the word "dictator" means?
    Oh, I know what dictator means, and I know that the concept of benevolence is very subjective. I also know that the point of our Constitution is that power stays within the hands of the people.

    However, my argument is that, subjectivity aside, one may claim that a benevolent (for suitable definitions of "benevolent") dictator may be a better form of government than a democracy/republic like our own if the people have proven to be incapable of handling that power themselves either by making poor decisions as a whole or by consistently electing representatives that make poor decisions. Admittedly, the lack of truly long term benevolent dictatorships throughout human history has shown that this is not a realistic scenario. However, there have been short term benevolent dictatorships that managed to do the job -- a fairly recent example is Churchill during WW2. However, once the crisis of the War was over, he relinquished his dictator powers.

    I'm not advocating that we scrap the Constitution in favor of a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise (unless I'm the dictator j/k), I'm just bringing up the hypothesis that in certain scenarios one may argue that it can be a better form of government than what we have now. Then again, I also agree with Churchill when he said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
    Then I must pose my question again.

    "but even a benevolent dictator must eliminate choice, and what is freedom without choice?"

    How would this "benevolent dictator" reconcile the ideologies of two groups of people. At the very least he would have to scrap the 2nd amendment and that alone would make people hate him.
  • Choice of what? I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to better understand you.
  • Choice of what? I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to better understand you.
    Most importantly the choice of who is in charge, and what they are in charge of is the most important, but every detail of out lives bleeds down from those decisions. If you only do one thing because you want to, and then someone comes with a gun and says "you are only allowed to do this one thing" are you still free? You are no longer making the choice to do "X". The dictator might have a world view exactly mimicking your own, but now you don't have a choice in the matter, you can't change your mind.
  • Choice of what? I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to better understand you.
    Most importantly the choice of who is in charge, and what they are in charge of is the most important, but every detail of out lives bleeds down from those decisions. If you only do one thing because you want to, and then someone comes with a gun and says "you are only allowed to do this one thing" are you still free? You are no longer making the choice to do "X". The dictator might have a world view exactly mimicking your own, but now you don't have a choice in the matter, you can't change your mind.
    Government by its nature limits choice -- it all comes down to which choices are limited. For example, I don't have the choice of going out and stealing from people with impunity. Most people are fine with not having this choice as people in general don't like their stuff getting stolen.

    In this case, let's assume the benevolent dictator, despite being in charge of everything, decides to only use his power to control things such as the budget and taxation, military policy, public services, etc., while leaving things such as freedom of speech, assembly, even to run your own business and get rich off of it if successful available to the general population -- in short, the only effective limit on choice he places is the choice in who is in charge. While he may have absolute power, in his benevolence he chooses to only wield it in specific situations for the benefit of his population.

    Again, this obviously isn't particularly realistic, but it is an interesting thought experiment.
  • edited August 2011
    Choice of what? I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to better understand you.
    Most importantly the choice of who is in charge, and what they are in charge of is the most important, but every detail of out lives bleeds down from those decisions. If you only do one thing because you want to, and then someone comes with a gun and says "you are only allowed to do this one thing" are you still free? You are no longer making the choice to do "X". The dictator might have a world view exactly mimicking your own, but now you don't have a choice in the matter, you can't change your mind.
    Government by its nature limits choice -- it all comes down to which choices are limited. For example, I don't have the choice of going out and stealing from people with impunity. Most people are fine with not having this choice as people in general don't like their stuff getting stolen.

    In this case, let's assume the benevolent dictator, despite being in charge of everything, decides to only use his power to control things such as the budget and taxation, military policy, public services, etc., while leaving things such as freedom of speech, assembly, even to run your own business and get rich off of it if successful available to the general population -- in short, the only effective limit on choice he places is the choice in who is in charge. While he may have absolute power, in his benevolence he chooses to only wield it in specific situations for the benefit of his population.

    Again, this obviously isn't particularly realistic, but it is an interesting thought experiment.
    Its one of my favorite type of thought experiments because it brings in alot of questions about very different topics.

    In the situation where the dictator only controls certain aspects that are deemed necessary, then what becomes of the other systems? Would the people rule them, and if so how, and what of the people who prefer that those things be controlled by the government. The largest issue, in my opinion, is that there is no aspect of "the government" that people could possibly agree on, and some group will always hate the dictator for whatever reason.

    Although there is a possibility of multiple dictators dividing a state and the people voting to which regime they will live, but that would undoubtedly cause conflict between them.
    Post edited by highdefinition on
  • In a society with a truly benevolent dictator doesn't need happy people. I have come to the conclusion that people don't know what's best for them. What matters more than the people's approval of the dictator is the prosperity of the country. I'd prefer everyone to be living like kings and the dictator's approval rating to be zero than for everyone to live like bums and have the approval be 100%.

    Also, after consulting the Bill of Rights, all amendments can be guaranteed under the benevolent dictator -- because Amendment the Second gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia" which brings into question a number of things about the existence of states under the dictator I don't think we want to get into.
  • In a society with a truly benevolent dictator doesn't need happy people. I have come to the conclusion that people don't know what's best for them. What matters more than the people's approval of the dictator is the prosperity of the country. I'd prefer everyone to be living like kings and the dictator's approval rating to be zero than for everyone to live like bums and have the approval be 100%.
    Of course, if everyone is living like kings, odds are the dictator will probably have a positive approval rating. Approval ratings tend to be linked to the overall prosperity of the country.
  • Regarding the question of freedom, don't social norms and unwritten laws restrict freedom just as much as government?

    If a government cannot enforce laws, then people can break those laws without punishment. Similarly, if people act in ways that are not socially acceptable, then they might experience stigma. Stigma isn't always enough to stop people from following social norms.

    With complete freedom, you either have chaos and anarchy, or you have unenforced social contracts that people follow out of respect and fear of being ostracized. I have a difficult time believing any one person would ever truly appreciate or utilize complete freedom.
Sign In or Register to comment.