American Senate enjoys recidivism, no food stamps for felons

If this was true, then you would be willing to buy food for American violent criminals rather than just complaining about the US taxpayers not covering it. I hope I am here the day you realize you are a hypocrite. Frank Zappa, I will go back and look for your answer.Laihendi

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So you are evading the question. Obviously you would never consider freely buying food for violent criminals in the United States (or else you would, since there is nothing stopping you). Your non-answer indicates that you would also oppose being forced to fund a foreign-aid program (via taxes) to do that same thing, and that you do not want to admit it because such an admission would undermine your entire political philosophy. If people should be forced to tend to the welfare of others at their own expense, why should you be an exception? If I should be forced to buy dinner for a murderer, why should you not have to contribute as well? Why do I owe the murderer any more than you do? If the proper concern is others at the expense of the self, why should the Canadian government not contribute to American criminals in need of food? Of course no Canadian would benefit from such a program, but the entire point of your political philosophy is to help others regardless of whether you benefit from it. If you are unwilling to give to those whom you owe nothing, then you have no right to criticize others for doing the same thing.Laihendi

Secondly, for better or for worse, citizenship implies that citizens help their fellow citizens. Why should a Canadian pay money to do something America should and has the capacity to take care of. 

Now if America was Chad, than perhaps a Canadian would support giving them food aid since they are on the verge of starvation without the resources to prevent it. 

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Not exactly complaining. I just think it's dumb. *shrugs*

frannkzappa

A logical government would simply intercept those funds and use them for their own purposes.

I imagine war would not be out of the question either.

Tough on crime.

Vuurk doesn't seem to get the collective action problem.  You can't solve it individually, and I, for one, will not really attempt to.  I will support the government in to deal with certain things that I can't be able to/won't even try on my own, however, and with my tax dollars.  Not with Laihendi's tax dollars, though, because he doesn't have/earn anything to be taxed because he is a leech and not a worker/producer/creator/innovator of any sort.

F*cking idiots. So when they get out of prison, they can't get a job (convicted felon) and now can't obtain food stamps. And what will they do? Turn to crime and go right back to prison.

 

A vicious cycle.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If this was true, then you would be willing to buy food for American violent criminals rather than just complaining about the US taxpayers not covering it. I hope I am here the day you realize you are a hypocrite. Frank Zappa, I will go back and look for your answer.Aljosa23

Vuurk doesn't seem to get the collective action problem.  You can't solve it individually, and I, for one, will not really attempt to.  I will support the government in to deal with certain things that I can't be able to/won't even try on my own, however, and with my tax dollars.  Not with Laihendi's tax dollars, though, because he doesn't have/earn anything to be taxed because he is a leech and not a worker/producer/creator/innovator of any sort.

dude_brahmski

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am curious what you think about this idea: What if the Canadian government started a (taxpayer-funded) foreign aid program to provide violent criminals in the United States with food stamps? Would you support/oppose such a program? Please share your thoughts on this.Laihendi

A logical government would simply intercept those funds and use them for their own purposes.

I imagine war would not be out of the question either.

here is where the war part is coming from.

The US government does not want felons to receive this aid,the Canadian government then openly defies the US government and then subverts it's edict.\

Open defiance (by a foreign state) and subversion are grounds for war (albeit a bit shaky)

You already know my views on welfare (I.E citezenship package).

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Vuurk doesn't seem to get the collective action problem.  You can't solve it individually, and I, for one, will not really attempt to.  I will support the government in to deal with certain things that I can't be able to/won't even try on my own, however, and with my tax dollars.  Not with Laihendi's tax dollars, though, because he doesn't have/earn anything to be taxed because he is a leech and not a worker/producer/creator/innovator of any sort.

Laihendi

You are incorrect.  I do realize what I am doing with the tax dollars of tax-paying Americans, of whom you are not one of, so I do not see why you are concerned.  The fact that criminals can't, in all cases, return to society without support has implications beyond that of said individuals and is a problem that cannot be solved individually.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Vuurk doesn't seem to get the collective action problem.  You can't solve it individually, and I, for one, will not really attempt to.  I will support the government in to deal with certain things that I can't be able to/won't even try on my own, however, and with my tax dollars.  Not with Laihendi's tax dollars, though, because he doesn't have/earn anything to be taxed because he is a leech and not a worker/producer/creator/innovator of any sort.

Laihendi

Yes, that is how taxes work.

It is insomuch as it affects recidivism (and, thus, crime rates).

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

A logical government would simply intercept those funds and use them for their own purposes.

I imagine war would not be out of the question either.

frannkzappa

here is where the war part is coming from.

The US government does not want felons to receive this aid,the Canadian government then openly defies the US government and then subverts it's edict.\

Open defiance (by a foreign state) and subversion are grounds for war (albeit a bit shaky)

You already know my views on welfare (I.E citezenship package).

Lai, can you respond to my last response to your post?

This:

The one who lives in the same city as non-starving poor people who have a propensity for violence (as most people in impovrished areas) benefits from programs aimed to give poor people (or newly released criminals [most of which are probably poor]) food.

Secondly, for better or for worse, citizenship implies that citizens help their fellow citizens. Why should a Canadian pay money to do something America should and has the capacity to take care of.

Now if America was Chad, than perhaps a Canadian would support giving them food aid since they are on the verge of starvation without the resources to prevent it.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Frank, can you define treason?

frannkzappa

"treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation" from wikipedia.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I do not understand what you are saying. How would a Canadian foreign-aid program for the benefit of US citizens result in a war? Even in the most extreme scenario the only logical war that could lead to would be revolt against the Canadian government by its citizens. Just to clarify, my position is that all welfare spending (including foreign aid) is irrational and therefore a logical government would never demand the funds to provide for such programs.Laihendi

here is where the war part is coming from.

The US government does not want felons to receive this aid,the Canadian government then openly defies the US government and then subverts it's edict.\

Open defiance (by a foreign state) and subversion are grounds for war (albeit a bit shaky)

You already know my views on welfare (I.E citezenship package).

Well are the Canadians doing this without the permission of the US government?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Frank, can you define treason?

Inconsistancy

"treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation" from wikipedia.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.

If you want to get into specifics then, yes.

However that doesn't contradict my statement or my point.

Lai, can you respond to my last response to your post?

This:

The one who lives in the same city as non-starving poor people who have a propensity for violence (as most people in impovrished areas) benefits from programs aimed to give poor people (or newly released criminals [most of which are probably poor]) food.

Secondly, for better or for worse, citizenship implies that citizens help their fellow citizens. Why should a Canadian pay money to do something America should and has the capacity to take care of.

Now if America was Chad, than perhaps a Canadian would support giving them food aid since they are on the verge of starvation without the resources to prevent it.

BossPerson

1. You are saying that a man buys his safety by paying for the criminal's expenses so that he will not be motivated to turn to violent crime. That is effectively bribery, with the government acting as a middle-man.

2. Please explain why one citizen should be forced to help another, and how one person can be morally obligated to help another. You cannot say that it is in an honest man's best interest to pay a criminal not to rob him, because either way the honest man loses what is his. The honest man is better off with the criminal dead or in prison, and both are appropriate methods of dealing with violent criminals. Why does a robber, rapist, or murderer deserve free food, free housing, and free whatever else, when his inability to pay for these things himself is a consequence of his robbing, raping, murdering, etc.? (no one wants to hire such a person). Why should an honest man be punished for a criminal's violent actions against him?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

here is where the war part is coming from.

The US government does not want felons to receive this aid,the Canadian government then openly defies the US government and then subverts it's edict.\

Open defiance (by a foreign state) and subversion are grounds for war (albeit a bit shaky)

You already know my views on welfare (I.E citezenship package).

frannkzappa

Well are the Canadians doing this without the permission of the US government?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Lai, can you respond to my last response to your post?

This:

The one who lives in the same city as non-starving poor people who have a propensity for violence (as most people in impovrished areas) benefits from programs aimed to give poor people (or newly released criminals [most of which are probably poor]) food.

Secondly, for better or for worse, citizenship implies that citizens help their fellow citizens. Why should a Canadian pay money to do something America should and has the capacity to take care of.

Now if America was Chad, than perhaps a Canadian would support giving them food aid since they are on the verge of starvation without the resources to prevent it.

Laihendi

1. You are saying that a man buys his safety by paying for the criminal's expenses so that he will not be motivated to turn to violent crime. That is effectively bribery, with the government acting as a middle-man.

2. Please explain why one citizen should be forced to help another, and how one person can be morally obligated to help another. You cannot say that it is in an honest man's best interest to pay a criminal not to rob him, because either way the honest man loses what is his. The honest man is better off with the criminal dead or in prison, and both are appropriate methods of dealing with violent criminals. Why does a robber, rapist, or murderer deserve free food, free housing, and free whatever else, when his inability to pay for these things himself is a consequence of his robbing, raping, murdering, etc.? (no one wants to hire such a person). Why should an honest man be punished for a criminal's violent actions against him?

Contrary to popular belief, a felon doesn't have to be a person who murdered another or molested a young kid. In fact, it could be someone who brought in a joint on school property or sometimes major white collar crimes. 

With that said, if I'm not mistaken, the article stated that felons convicted of murder and sex offenses are subjected to a lifetime ban. Too be honest, I don't see much of an issue here: There weren't any complaints on felons using food stamps and all the sudden this bill happens? :? It's pointless imo.

:? It's pointless imo.

leviathan91

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

:? It's pointless imo.

Bane_09

I.E why democracy is a failed form of government.

geez, wtf are they thinking by doing this?Aljosa23

Because they simply aren't thinking this through.

We attach "felony" to the record of certain folks, which even absent a violent crime makes it EXTREMELY difficult to find employment that would be sufficient to take care of yourself, let alone a family. Food stamps might be the only thing keeping some of these people out of a poverty level that might motivate fiture crimes.

I am assuming that violent criminals are being cut off from receiving food stamps because they are (rightfully) seen as not being worth the cost of feeding.Laihendi

Again, if that's the case, then they are just not thinking this through. If an individual who is convicted of a violent felonious crime is deemed ready to come back into society, either by completing his sentence or parole or some other means, then there has to be some understanding and desire that he is able to exit a life of crime and move into respectable and responsible living. The value here then is in the prevention of dropping him smack-dab into a poverty level that will only act as a motivation to return to criminal ways for mere survival.

Even someone who disagrees with the food stamp program or welfare in general has to see why this is a very stupid move that can't help the situation. It can only make the entire situation much much worse.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am assuming that violent criminals are being cut off from receiving food stamps because they are (rightfully) seen as not being worth the cost of feeding.m0zart

Again, if that's the case, then they are just not thinking this through. If an individual who is convicted of a violent felonious crime is deemed ready to come back into society, either by completing his sentence or parole or some other means, then there has to be some understanding and desire that he is able to exit a life of crime and move into respectable and responsible living. The value here then is in the prevention of dropping him smack-dab into a poverty level that will only act as a motivation to return to criminal ways for mere survival.

Even someone who disagrees with the food stamp program or welfare in general has to see why this is a very stupid move that can't help the situation. It can only make the entire situation much much worse.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am assuming that violent criminals are being cut off from receiving food stamps because they are (rightfully) seen as not being worth the cost of feeding.lamprey263

Again, if that's the case, then they are just not thinking this through. If an individual who is convicted of a violent felonious crime is deemed ready to come back into society, either by completing his sentence or parole or some other means, then there has to be some understanding and desire that he is able to exit a life of crime and move into respectable and responsible living. The value here then is in the prevention of dropping him smack-dab into a poverty level that will only act as a motivation to return to criminal ways for mere survival.

Even someone who disagrees with the food stamp program or welfare in general has to see why this is a very stupid move that can't help the situation. It can only make the entire situation much much worse.

[QUOTE="lamprey263"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Again, if that's the case, then they are just not thinking this through. If an individual who is convicted of a violent felonious crime is deemed ready to come back into society, either by completing his sentence or parole or some other means, then there has to be some understanding and desire that he is able to exit a life of crime and move into respectable and responsible living. The value here then is in the prevention of dropping him smack-dab into a poverty level that will only act as a motivation to return to criminal ways for mere survival.

Even someone who disagrees with the food stamp program or welfare in general has to see why this is a very stupid move that can't help the situation. It can only make the entire situation much much worse.

frannkzappa

That still wouldn't be cheaper than having some of the released felons (not all of whom are violent, mind you) on food stamps, so no. 

Please, insert coin(s) to continue.

Protip: If you're shooting for the ideal, pie in the sky society, don't pick the worst option.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lamprey263"] the average cost per year per inmate costs states like $20K+, whereas an individual might get $2K most in a year in food stamp benefits, from a financial standpoint this is money well invested to protect the taxpayer who might otherwise be a victim when the ex-felon goes back to a life of crime to feed themselvesdude_brahmski

That still wouldn't be cheaper than having some of the released felons (not all of whom are violent, mind you) on food stamps, so no.

Please, insert coin(s) to continue.

Protip: If you're shooting for the ideal, pie in the sky society, don't pick the worst option.

Yes, but this amendment pertains to violent felons and sexual offenders. These two groups are in the minority(when it comes to felons), i imagine we can afford to keep them in prison.

Technocracy has nothing to do with this, as it wouldn't even operate on a monetary system.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]Or we could reduce the amount we spend on inmate upkeep.

frannkzappa

That still wouldn't be cheaper than having some of the released felons (not all of whom are violent, mind you) on food stamps, so no.

Please, insert coin(s) to continue.

Protip: If you're shooting for the ideal, pie in the sky society, don't pick the worst option.

Yes, but this amendment pertains to violent felons and sexual offenders. These two groups are in the minority(when it comes to felons), i imagine we can afford to keep them in prison.

Technocracy has nothing to do with this, as it wouldn't even operate on a monetary system.

We could, hypothetically, afford to keep tens of millions of people in prison, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Right, you would choose the worst option right of the bat WRT econ, too. I suppose that you've decided to roll with "technocracy" for the sake of irony: a complete failure of a state run by experts. I like it.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

That still wouldn't be cheaper than having some of the released felons (not all of whom are violent, mind you) on food stamps, so no.

Please, insert coin(s) to continue.

Protip: If you're shooting for the ideal, pie in the sky society, don't pick the worst option.

dude_brahmski

Yes, but this amendment pertains to violent felons and sexual offenders. These two groups are in the minority(when it comes to felons), i imagine we can afford to keep them in prison.

Technocracy has nothing to do with this, as it wouldn't even operate on a monetary system.

We could, hypothetically, afford to keep tens of millions of people in prison, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Right, you would choose the worst option right of the bat WRT econ, too. I suppose that you've decided to roll with "technocracy" for the sake of irony: a complete failure of a state run by experts. I like it.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If this was true, then you would be willing to buy food for American violent criminals rather than just complaining about the US taxpayers not covering it. I hope I am here the day you realize you are a hypocrite. Frank Zappa, I will go back and look for your answer.Laihendi

Can't stand selfish people at all.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Yes, but this amendment pertains to violent felons and sexual offenders. These two groups are in the minority(when it comes to felons), i imagine we can afford to keep them in prison.

Technocracy has nothing to do with this, as it wouldn't even operate on a monetary system.

frannkzappa

We could, hypothetically, afford to keep tens of millions of people in prison, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Right, you would choose the worst option right of the bat WRT econ, too. I suppose that you've decided to roll with "technocracy" for the sake of irony: a complete failure of a state run by experts. I like it.

The idea has its pros and cons, but ultimately is simply an idea. Democracy as is tends to delegate to experts, though, and tends to ensure (to an imperfect extent) the gov't doesn't fvck the people over too much and is a tried-and-true method for progress.

edit: a moneyless system, however, is pretty laughable

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

We could, hypothetically, afford to keep tens of millions of people in prison, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Right, you would choose the worst option right of the bat WRT econ, too. I suppose that you've decided to roll with "technocracy" for the sake of irony: a complete failure of a state run by experts. I like it.

dude_brahmski

The idea has its pros and cons, but ultimately is simply an idea. Democracy as is tends to delegate to experts, though, and tends to ensure (to an imperfect extent) the gov't doesn't fvck the people over too much and is a tried-and-true method for progress.

edit: a moneyless system, however, is pretty laughable

You don't seem to understand i find democracy quite livable, as did plato. The problem is that they are prone to corruption and degrading into tyranies (as they have many times before).

And yes a moneyless system is laughable. It is only possible if a true technocracy filled with practitioners of the platonic ideal is acheived.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]Do you have any specific qualms with technocracy?frannkzappa

The idea has its pros and cons, but ultimately is simply an idea. Democracy as is tends to delegate to experts, though, and tends to ensure (to an imperfect extent) the gov't doesn't fvck the people over too much and is a tried-and-true method for progress.

edit: a moneyless system, however, is pretty laughable

You don't seem to understand i find democracy quite livable, as did plato. The problem is that they are prone to corruption and degrading into tyranies (as they have many times before).

And yes a moneyless system is laughable. It is only possible if a true technocracy filled with practitioners of the platonic ideal is acheived.

Historically, they've proven to be comparably, by far, the system of governance most averse to degrading into tyrannies.  Corruption has, if anything, become harder to accomplish, but that has more to do with how readily available information is than anything else. Nonetheless, democracy has inherent incentives to fight corruption. Technocracy could pretty easily change overnight.

If, by "a true technocracy" you mean "God," sure. The best is the enemy of the good. Reality has constraints, and ignoring such is fatal.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

The idea has its pros and cons, but ultimately is simply an idea. Democracy as is tends to delegate to experts, though, and tends to ensure (to an imperfect extent) the gov't doesn't fvck the people over too much and is a tried-and-true method for progress.

edit: a moneyless system, however, is pretty laughable

dude_brahmski

You don't seem to understand i find democracy quite livable, as did plato. The problem is that they are prone to corruption and degrading into tyranies (as they have many times before).

And yes a moneyless system is laughable. It is only possible if a true technocracy filled with practitioners of the platonic ideal is acheived.

Historically, they've proven to be comparably, by far, the system of governance most averse to degrading into tyrannies. Corruption has, if anything, become harder to accomplish, but that has more to do with how readily available information is than anything else. Nonetheless, democracy has inherent incentives to fight corruption.Technocracy could pretty easily change overnight.

If, by "a true technocracy" you mean "God," sure. The best is the enemy of the good. Reality has constraints, and ignoring such is fatal.

why is that?

In a purely philosophical context why is it wrong to try and achieve "god"?

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Historically, they've proven to be comparably, by far, the system of governance most averse to degrading into tyrannies. Corruption has, if anything, become harder to accomplish, but that has more to do with how readily available information is than anything else. Nonetheless, democracy has inherent incentives to fight corruption.Technocracy could pretty easily change overnight.

If, by "a true technocracy" you mean "God," sure. The best is the enemy of the good. Reality has constraints, and ignoring such is fatal.

frannkzappa

why is that?

In a purely philosophical context why is it wrong to try and achieve "god"?

Votes, voters not liking corruption, and its various implications for politicians publicly exposed for corruption in addition to measures to fight it b/c that's what the public likes.

Because a relatively small number of people can make things happen pretty quickly.

Because it can result in being further away from it.

Maximization within constraints is what you should attempt to achieve, and disregarding constraints in pursuit of something greater can result in falling short.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Historically, they've proven to be comparably, by far, the system of governance most averse to degrading into tyrannies. Corruption has, if anything, become harder to accomplish, but that has more to do with how readily available information is than anything else. Nonetheless, democracy has inherent incentives to fight corruption.Technocracy could pretty easily change overnight.

If, by "a true technocracy" you mean "God," sure. The best is the enemy of the good. Reality has constraints, and ignoring such is fatal.

dude_brahmski

why is that?

In a purely philosophical context why is it wrong to try and achieve "god"?

Votes, voters not liking corruption, and its various implications for politicians publicly exposed for corruption in addition to measures to fight it b/c that's what the public likes.

Because a relatively small number of people can make things happen pretty quickly.

Because it can result in being further away from it.

This assumes that voters can notice corruption where it counts, not be corrupted themselves and care enough to vote against it. Rome, Athens, Mesoptamia, India, Sparta, as well as most of modern middle east, Africa and South America all show that the voters are not enough to stop corruption or tyranny.Instead they are inevitably manipulated into bringing it upon themselves.

This is not true,technocracy sports a MASSIVE bureaucracy, where each individual portion has very little power. The major change is that these bureaucrats are experts and not constrained by democratically elected officials or tyrants.

That's not a very convincing argument.

F*cking idiots. So when they get out of prison, they can't get a job (convicted felon) and now can't obtain food stamps. And what will they do? Turn to crime and go right back to prison.

 

A vicious cycle.

DroidPhysX

Once you go bad you never go back to being good.

Gaming-Planet

Are they bad though?

particularly when majority of convicts are so because they smoked a harmless plant in the privacy of their home. 

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

Once you go bad you never go back to being good.

Blue-Sky

Are they bad though?

particularly when majority of convicts are so because they smoked a harmless plant in the privacy of their home. 

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]such as?

 

why is that?

 

In a purely philosophical context why is it wrong to try and achieve "god"?frannkzappa

Votes, voters not liking corruption, and its various implications for politicians publicly exposed for corruption in addition to measures to fight it b/c that's what the public likes.

Because a relatively small number of people can make things happen pretty quickly.

Because it can result in being further away from it.

This assumes that voters can notice corruption where it counts, not be corrupted themselves and care enough to vote against it. Rome, Athens, Mesoptamia, India, Sparta, as well as most of modern middle east, Africa and South America all show that the voters are not enough to stop corruption or tyranny.Instead they are inevitably manipulated into bringing it upon themselves.

This is not true,technocracy sports a MASSIVE bureaucracy, where each individual portion has very little power. The major change is that these bureaucrats are experts and not constrained by democratically elected officials or tyrants.

That's not a very convincing argument.

Information is harder to manipulate than it once was, and not all of your examples demonstrate your point, as I'm sure you are already aware (war and typhoid in Athens, military takeover in Rome). Additionally, democracies in their infancy have issues, as demonstrated by others (and even the U.S. initially). North America and Europe are examples of modern, mature democracies that have improved over the course of time. And, it is pretty apparent that educated voters care a bit, given the condition of modern western civilization.

One word: Collusion.

A futile attempt to achieve something without giving due regard to constraints will invariably result in falling short of maximizing within the context of constraints.

There's a serious problem when a hypothetical government is worse than one that has had all of its faults played out in reality. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

Once you go bad you never go back to being good.

gamerguru100

Are they bad though?

particularly when majority of convicts are so because they smoked a harmless plant in the privacy of their home.

This amendment only applies to violent and sexual offenders.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Votes, voters not liking corruption, and its various implications for politicians publicly exposed for corruption in addition to measures to fight it b/c that's what the public likes.

Because a relatively small number of people can make things happen pretty quickly.

Because it can result in being further away from it.

dude_brahmski

This assumes that voters can notice corruption where it counts, not be corrupted themselves and care enough to vote against it. Rome, Athens, Mesoptamia, India, Sparta, as well as most of modern middle east, Africa and South America all show that the voters are not enough to stop corruption or tyranny.Instead they are inevitably manipulated into bringing it upon themselves.

This is not true,technocracy sports a MASSIVE bureaucracy, where each individual portion has very little power. The major change is that these bureaucrats are experts and not constrained by democratically elected officials or tyrants.

That's not a very convincing argument.

Information is harder to manipulate than it once was, and not all of your examples demonstrate your point, as I'm sure you are already aware (war and typhoid in Athens, military takeover in Rome). Additionally, democracies in their infancy have issues, as demonstrated by others (and even the U.S. initially). North America and Europe are examples of modern, mature democracies that have improved over the course of time. And, it is pretty apparent that educated voters care a bit, given the condition of modern western civilization.

One word: Collusion.

A futile attempt to achieve something without giving due regard to constraints will invariably result in falling short of maximizing within the context of constraints.

There's a serious problem when a hypothetical government is worse than one that has had all of its faults played out in reality. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

Most failed democracies seemed healthy at one point. There are far far more examples of failed democracies then successful ones. Even the successful ones have only been around for 100 years (excluding usa) they have plenty of time to fail. And the democracies of Europe are hardly as sturdy as you may think, just look at how they are handling themselves.

that doesn't apply to technocracy any more than democracy, in fact probably less so. You have yet to name a problem that isn't already happening in democracy. you also assume that a technocracy will do nothing to stop corruption.

iIsee, so you are a defeatist. thankfully your attitude was not shared by the innovators of history.

I don't see how you could possibly say that given your attempt at argument. The best you have done so far is to attempt to project democracies problems onto technocracy assuming that a technocratic government would be unaware of and unable to deal with those problems, which is ludicrous.

I feel more confident in technocracy then ever, as you like everyone else has failed to argue against it.

Just gonna throw out some common sense into this thread.

If people who get out of jail are unable to get back ontheir feet after they are relese from jail because they have no help, they're going to be more likely to commit more crimes.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

This assumes that voters can notice corruption where it counts, not be corrupted themselves and care enough to vote against it. Rome, Athens, Mesoptamia, India, Sparta, as well as most of modern middle east, Africa and South America all show that the voters are not enough to stop corruption or tyranny.Instead they are inevitably manipulated into bringing it upon themselves.

This is not true,technocracy sports a MASSIVE bureaucracy, where each individual portion has very little power. The major change is that these bureaucrats are experts and not constrained by democratically elected officials or tyrants.

That's not a very convincing argument.

frannkzappa

Information is harder to manipulate than it once was, and not all of your examples demonstrate your point, as I'm sure you are already aware (war and typhoid in Athens, military takeover in Rome). Additionally, democracies in their infancy have issues, as demonstrated by others (and even the U.S. initially). North America and Europe are examples of modern, mature democracies that have improved over the course of time. And, it is pretty apparent that educated voters care a bit, given the condition of modern western civilization.

One word: Collusion.

A futile attempt to achieve something without giving due regard to constraints will invariably result in falling short of maximizing within the context of constraints.

There's a serious problem when a hypothetical government is worse than one that has had all of its faults played out in reality. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

Most failed democracies seemed healthy at one point. There are far far more examples of failed democracies then successful ones. Even the successful ones have only been around for 100 years (excluding usa) they have plenty of time to fail. And the democracies of Europe are hardly as sturdy as you may think, just look at how they are handling themselves.

that doesn't apply to technocracy any more than democracy, in fact probably less so. You have yet to name a problem that isn't already happening in democracy. you also assume that a technocracy will do nothing to stop corruption.

iIsee, so you are a defeatist. thankfully your attitude was not shared by the innovators of history.

I don't see how you could possibly say that given your attempt at argument. The best you have done so far is to attempt to project democracies problems onto technocracy assuming that a technocratic government would be unaware of and unable to deal with those problems, which is ludicrous.

I feel more confident in technocracy then ever, as you like everyone else has failed to argue against it.

There is more success in democracy than all other forms combined, and the reasons for failures of numerous democracies you've posed were not due to the nature of democracy itself. Moreover, they continue to improve. The problems in Europe lie namely in its attempted semi-unification, and certainly at this time doesn't pose a threat to the developed nations there, though there may be difficulties for the developing ones (a recurring theme with developing nations, apparently).

Perhaps technocracy will magically be the first bureaucracy that manages to avoid corruption when left independent of external influences, but at this point you've really idealism on your side, because you've proposed brings nothing new with it in practice. Either propose something substantial, systematic and addresses problems in a realistic fashion taking into account considerable problems you've to this point ignored, or expect to (rightly) be disregarded for what your posts are:  a joke.

The innovators of history dealt with constraints, while those that didn't simply dreamed.

You haven't defended technocracy as a viable system of governance. You have brought absolutely nothing new to the table WRT functionality, and are somehow confused as to how problems that plague other governments would consequently recur here? In all frankness, I'm pretty sure you picked up Plato last week and are going through that high-school-kid-that-just-discovered-philosophy phase. You'll get past it.