Do you agree that Americas political Party system is flawed and needs change?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I can't see any country with better political parties....they all serve self interest of people that elect them. LJS9502_basic

china has some very good ideas.

doesn't matter.

i am here for conversation and argument, not to be taken seriously by everyone.

so you think everything china is doing politically is bad?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

china has some very good ideas.

frannkzappa

doesn't matter.

i am here for conversation and argument, not to be taken seriously by everyone.

so you think everything china is doing politically is bad?

I can't see any country with better political parties....they all serve self interest of people that elect them. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I can't see any country with better political parties....they all serve self interest of people that elect them. The4thVIII

wow it must really benefit the 6 people that live there.:P

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Uh huh. You know I never take you seriously?:PLJS9502_basic

doesn't matter.

i am here for conversation and argument, not to be taken seriously by everyone.

so you think everything china is doing politically is bad?

either way it seems to be working for them.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

doesn't matter.

i am here for conversation and argument, not to be taken seriously by everyone.

so you think everything china is doing politically is bad?

frannkzappa

either way it seems to be working for them.

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I can't see any country with better political parties....they all serve self interest of people that elect them. frannkzappa

wow it must really benefit the 6 people that live there.:P

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you do realize that the experts operate democratically problems have to be resolved (though i much prefer polemics). right?

 

technocracy has certain democratic features, but it is not a republic or democracy.

frannkzappa

Well, the problem is that a very large constituency loses its ability to exert influence on the behalf of its own well-being, which is one of my major problems with it. The others have been previously discussed at considerable length.

that large constituency does not know what is best for itself.

Not always, but often, even when others know it, they don't care to act in its benefit. Moreover, as the populous becomes more educated, which is undeniably the long-term trend, the more it knows what its own good it. Finally, when said constituency is aware of what is good for itself, it is the only constituency that will, without failure, always advocate for its behalf.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"] Greenland.The4thVIII

wow it must really benefit the 6 people that live there.:P

greenland has less than a 100,000 people.

Abolition is the answer. Change is a naive pipedream. famicommander

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Well, the problem is that a very large constituency loses its ability to exert influence on the behalf of its own well-being, which is one of my major problems with it. The others have been previously discussed at considerable length.

coolbeans90

that large constituency does not know what is best for itself.

Not always, but often, even when others know it, they don't care to act in its benefit. Moreover, as the populous becomes more educated, which is undeniably the long-term trend, the more it knows what its own good it. Finally, when said constituency is aware of what is good for itself, it is the only constituency that will, without failure, always advocate for its behalf.

it would be idiotic for a state to ignore the happiness of it's citizens., to do so creates instability and than rebellions, not to mention unproductively.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that large constituency does not know what is best for itself.

frannkzappa

Not always, but often, even when others know it, they don't care to act in its benefit. Moreover, as the populous becomes more educated, which is undeniably the long-term trend, the more it knows what its own good it. Finally, when said constituency is aware of what is good for itself, it is the only constituency that will, without failure, always advocate for its behalf.

it would be idiotic for a state to ignore the happiness of it's citizens., to do so creates instability and than rebellions, not to mention unproductively.

It hasn't stopped the powers that be from very frequently attempting to just keep the population in line though brute force to varying degrees of success, ranging from successful uprisings to generations of tyranny . . . that sometimes ended up being relatively productive.

Term limits?

Other than Head Judge, congressional terms aren't that long. If you meant that they could not get re-elected, that won't work, because what if there was a guy who got things done but could not get elected again?

The4thVIII

So, just on the off chance that we get 'one' good member, we should allow these idiots to be re-elected indefinitely?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not always, but often, even when others know it, they don't care to act in its benefit. Moreover, as the populous becomes more educated, which is undeniably the long-term trend, the more it knows what its own good it. Finally, when said constituency is aware of what is good for itself, it is the only constituency that will, without failure, always advocate for its behalf.

coolbeans90

it would be idiotic for a state to ignore the happiness of it's citizens., to do so creates instability and than rebellions, not to mention unproductively.

It hasn't stopped the powers that be from very frequently attempting to just keep the population in line though brute force to varying degrees of success, ranging from successful uprisings to generations of tyranny . . . that sometimes ended up being relatively productive.

technocracy is not the powers that be. it is a self aware and focused government that would not tolerate rebellion or unproductivity.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

it would be idiotic for a state to ignore the happiness of it's citizens., to do so creates instability and than rebellions, not to mention unproductively.

frannkzappa

It hasn't stopped the powers that be from very frequently attempting to just keep the population in line though brute force to varying degrees of success, ranging from successful uprisings to generations of tyranny . . . that sometimes ended up being relatively productive.

technocracy is not the powers that be. it is a self aware and focused government that would not tolerate rebellion or unproductivity.

Balancing productivity and well-being is one initial issue that I see (I mean, see construction workers by the thousands, were buried in the wall of China). Additionally, in confluence with the other issue I take with technocracy, corruption due to a lack of inherent external incentives, I see a pretty considerable amount of room for the concern for the well-being being disregarded. It'd take one hell of a fvcking systematic social design to prevent itself from falling into decay within a matter of decades. At the present time, we are completely incapable of developing such a system. It'd take a pretty ungodly amount of social engineering that is pretty unfathomable.

Big corporate money needs to be removed from the process. Far too many politicians are beholden to investors, not the citizens they represent.

I think that something needs to be done about the filibuster, perhaps not get rid of it entirely, but maybe limit the amount of time is can be used per congress. It's being abused to sh!t just for the fvck of it.

I think Americans need to calm down about electing politicians who will "bring the fight to washington." I think we need to elect moderates. For all the republican argument about letting the market decide and wanting politicians who will stay out of the market, they have certainly elected politicians who are going about their careers in a manner that greatly affects the market. Instead we need moderates who are actually willing work together enough to not affect the market in a  negative way. We have to understand that negotiation is necessary unless of course we all want to end up with nothing.

Furthermore americans need to start agreeing to disagree with people who have differing political views. I don't know of any other subject where we let ourselves act like d!cks towards each other just because they don't agree with one another. That being said, what good comes from being assh0lish towards each other?

\

Furthermore americans need to start agreeing to disagree with people who have differing political views. I don't know of any other subject where we let ourselves act like d!cks towards each other just because they don't agree with one another. That being said, what good comes from being assh0lish towards each other?

Serraph105

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It hasn't stopped the powers that be from very frequently attempting to just keep the population in line though brute force to varying degrees of success, ranging from successful uprisings to generations of tyranny . . . that sometimes ended up being relatively productive.

coolbeans90

technocracy is not the powers that be. it is a self aware and focused government that would not tolerate rebellion or unproductivity.

Balancing productivity and well-being is one initial issue that I see (I mean, see construction workers by the thousands, were buried in the wall of China). Additionally, in confluence with the other issue I take with technocracy, corruption due to a lack of inherent external incentives, I see a pretty considerable amount of room for the concern for the well-being being disregarded. It'd take one hell of a fvcking systematic social design to prevent itself from falling into decay within a matter of decades. At the present time, we are completely incapable of developing such a system. It'd take a pretty ungodly amount of social engineering that is pretty unfathomable.

that is a myth, if it was true the wall would have completely collapsed by now.

not ungodly, but yes. and it would be for humanities betterment.social engineering is possible and bigger social changes have happened.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]\

Furthermore americans need to start agreeing to disagree with people who have differing political views. I don't know of any other subject where we let ourselves act like d!cks towards each other just because they don't agree with one another. That being said, what good comes from being assh0lish towards each other?

Saturos3091

Saw it happening happening today at work with an older gentlemen posting on facebook, and I have seen it multiple times with my girlfriends mother. Not to mention nearly non-stop on my own facebook among a various range of ages.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

technocracy is not the powers that be. it is a self aware and focused government that would not tolerate rebellion or unproductivity.

frannkzappa

Balancing productivity and well-being is one initial issue that I see (I mean, see construction workers by the thousands, were buried in the wall of China). Additionally, in confluence with the other issue I take with technocracy, corruption due to a lack of inherent external incentives, I see a pretty considerable amount of room for the concern for the well-being being disregarded. It'd take one hell of a fvcking systematic social design to prevent itself from falling into decay within a matter of decades. At the present time, we are completely incapable of developing such a system. It'd take a pretty ungodly amount of social engineering that is pretty unfathomable.

that is a myth, if it was true the wall would have completely collapsed by now.

not ungodly, but yes. and it would be for humanities betterment.social engineering is possible and bigger social changes have happened.

Eh, was under the impression that since they wouldn't have been by any means a considerable portion of the wall's composition that it wouldn't have been too problematic. Nonetheless, you are correct, but the crux of the argument still stands WRT the number of people dying building it.

I am hard-pressed to think of a single social change that outreaches the notion of a government which always acts in the benefit of its people or one that is incorruptible - let alone one that does so better on either front without direct influence by its people.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Balancing productivity and well-being is one initial issue that I see (I mean, see construction workers by the thousands, were buried in the wall of China). Additionally, in confluence with the other issue I take with technocracy, corruption due to a lack of inherent external incentives, I see a pretty considerable amount of room for the concern for the well-being being disregarded. It'd take one hell of a fvcking systematic social design to prevent itself from falling into decay within a matter of decades. At the present time, we are completely incapable of developing such a system. It'd take a pretty ungodly amount of social engineering that is pretty unfathomable.

coolbeans90

that is a myth, if it was true the wall would have completely collapsed by now.

not ungodly, but yes. and it would be for humanities betterment.social engineering is possible and bigger social changes have happened.

Eh, was under the impression that since they wouldn't have been by any means a considerable portion of the wall's composition that it wouldn't have been too problematic. Nonetheless, you are correct, but the crux of the argument still stands WRT the number of people dying building it.

I am hard-pressed to think of a single social change that outreaches the notion of a government which always acts in the benefit of its people or one that is incorruptible - let alone one that does so better on either front without direct influence by its people.

it is not incorruptible... just much much less corruptible than republics, democracies and needless to say tyranny's.

And the government would act in it's own self interest (in a way), but it would be in said governments self interest to keep people happy.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that is a myth, if it was true the wall would have completely collapsed by now.

 

not ungodly, but yes. and it would be for humanities betterment.social engineering is possible and bigger social changes have happened.

 

 

frannkzappa

Eh, was under the impression that since they wouldn't have been by any means a considerable portion of the wall's composition that it wouldn't have been too problematic. Nonetheless, you are correct, but the crux of the argument still stands WRT the number of people dying building it.

I am hard-pressed to think of a single social change that outreaches the notion of a government which always acts in the benefit of its people or one that is incorruptible - let alone one that does so better on either front without direct influence by its people.

it is not incorruptible... just much much less corruptible than republics, democracies and needless to say tyranny's.

And the government would act in it's own self interest (in a way), but it would be in said governments self interest to keep people happy.

If it is corruptible, due to the amount of power centralization, it could relatively easily spiral out of control.

One could say that about many governments, but interests collide, and when that happens the power-holders take the cake.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, was under the impression that since they wouldn't have been by any means a considerable portion of the wall's composition that it wouldn't have been too problematic. Nonetheless, you are correct, but the crux of the argument still stands WRT the number of people dying building it.

I am hard-pressed to think of a single social change that outreaches the notion of a government which always acts in the benefit of its people or one that is incorruptible - let alone one that does so better on either front without direct influence by its people.

coolbeans90

it is not incorruptible... just much much less corruptible than republics, democracies and needless to say tyranny's.

And the government would act in it's own self interest (in a way), but it would be in said governments self interest to keep people happy.

If it is corruptible, due to the amount of power centralization, it could relatively easily spiral out of control.

One could say that about many governments, but interests collide, and when that happens the power-holders take the cake.

power in technocracy is very spread out... i keep telling you this, technocracy is not pyramid structured like modern governments, but web structured.

that is because those governments are incompetent and not run by experts.

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

wow it must really benefit the 6 people that live there.:P

frannkzappa

greenland has less than a 100,000 people.

Saw it happening happening today at work with an older gentlemen posting on facebook, and I have seen it multiple times with my girlfriends mother. Not to mention nearly non-stop on my own facebook among a various range of ages.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"] There are over 1 million people in Greenland. More than most countries.The4thVIII

greenland has less than a 100,000 people.

unless you gained 950,000 people since 2011 that is not true in the least.

there isn't a single source that lists the population as over 57,000...

People are flawed. Not the parties themselves.

airshocker

I'm going to be honest and just say that I hate the party system, or more specifically, how people adopt the "Vote the Party Line" belief. I live in Florida, a Closed Primary State, and I am registered Democrat. What if there is one day a Republican candidate that I actually do feel strongly about, too bad I can't vote for him during the Primary Elections.

That's not even touching the fact that any candidate not involved in the Big 2 parties are going to end up being ignored.

I'm going to be honest and just say that I hate the party system, or more specifically, how people adopt the "Vote the Party Line" belief. I live in Florida, a Closed Primary State, and I am registered Democrat. What if there is one day a Republican candidate that I actually do feel strongly about, too bad I can't vote for him during the Primary Elections.

That's not even touching the fact that any candidate not involved in the Big 2 parties are going to end up being ignored.

Lionheart08

Americans have that?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

it is not incorruptible... just much much less corruptible than republics, democracies and needless to say tyranny's.

 

And the government would act in it's own self interest (in a way), but it would be in said governments self interest to keep people happy.

frannkzappa

If it is corruptible, due to the amount of power centralization, it could relatively easily spiral out of control.

One could say that about many governments, but interests collide, and when that happens the power-holders take the cake.

power in technocracy is very spread out... i keep telling you this, technocracy is not pyramid structured like modern governments, but web structured.

that is because those governments are incompetent and not run by experts.

You keep saying that, but within any given niche of expertise, there are relatively few people that are truly experts - and people who control them can coordinate with other similarly corrupt groups in conglomeration.

There have been governments that have been quite malevolent towards their own kind that have been ruthlessly efficient in many regards.

I'm going to be honest and just say that I hate the party system, or more specifically, how people adopt the "Vote the Party Line" belief. I live in Florida, a Closed Primary State, and I am registered Democrat. What if there is one day a Republican candidate that I actually do feel strongly about, too bad I can't vote for him during the Primary Elections.

That's not even touching the fact that any candidate not involved in the Big 2 parties are going to end up being ignored.

Lionheart08

umm you can just regester for a new party.

i live in Florida and i change parties all the time to vote in the opposite primary for those least likely to win the national election, thus helping my side.

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

greenland has less than a 100,000 people.

frannkzappa

unless you gained 950,000 people since 2011 that is not true in the least.

there isn't a single source that lists the population as over 57,000...

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If it is corruptible, due to the amount of power centralization, it could relatively easily spiral out of control.

One could say that about many governments, but interests collide, and when that happens the power-holders take the cake.

coolbeans90

power in technocracy is very spread out... i keep telling you this, technocracy is not pyramid structured like modern governments, but web structured.

that is because those governments are incompetent and not run by experts.

You keep saying that, but within any given niche of expertise, there are relatively few people that are truly experts - and people who control them can coordinate with other similarly corrupt groups in conglomeration.

There have been governments that have been quite malevolent towards their own kind that have been ruthlessly efficient in many regards.

you fail to take into account the massive educational system restructuring and platonic social engineering.

how long has that or they generally lasted?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"] It's not 2005 anymore. Over a million as of now.The4thVIII

unless you gained 950,000 people since 2011 that is not true in the least.

there isn't a single source that lists the population as over 57,000...

link me a single source that lists their population as over 57,000. because i can't find a single one.

...they all serve self interest of people that elect them. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

unless you gained 950,000 people since 2011 that is not true in the least.

there isn't a single source that lists the population as over 57,000...

frannkzappa

link me a single source that lists their population as over 57,000. because i can't find a single one.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]...they all serve self interest of people that elect them. BossPerson

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="The4thVIII"] Immigrants, refugees. Look up the latest stats. Over a million registered residents. But it doe snot matter, point is that even at only 1 million, they still have thier government under control. LJS9502_basic

link me a single source that lists their population as over 57,000. because i can't find a single one.

oh,you.

i have no idea how that guy thinks Greenland has 1,000,000 inhabitants.

[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]

I'm going to be honest and just say that I hate the party system, or more specifically, how people adopt the "Vote the Party Line" belief. I live in Florida, a Closed Primary State, and I am registered Democrat. What if there is one day a Republican candidate that I actually do feel strongly about, too bad I can't vote for him during the Primary Elections.

That's not even touching the fact that any candidate not involved in the Big 2 parties are going to end up being ignored.

frannkzappa

umm you can just regester for a new party.

i live in Florida and i change parties all the time to vote in the opposite primary for those least likely to win the national election, thus helping my side.

That's my point though. I find it asinine that you'd have to keep re-registering everytime you want to vote for someone new.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

People are flawed. Not the parties themselves.

chessmaster1989

:lol: aren't you clever

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]...they all serve self interest of people that elect them. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]

I'm going to be honest and just say that I hate the party system, or more specifically, how people adopt the "Vote the Party Line" belief. I live in Florida, a Closed Primary State, and I am registered Democrat. What if there is one day a Republican candidate that I actually do feel strongly about, too bad I can't vote for him during the Primary Elections.

That's not even touching the fact that any candidate not involved in the Big 2 parties are going to end up being ignored.

Aljosa23

Americans have that?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]?? Are you saying politicians serve themselves, or the interests of people that elected them? BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

power in technocracy is very spread out... i keep telling you this, technocracy is not pyramid structured like modern governments, but web structured.

 

that is because those governments are incompetent and not run by experts.

 

 

frannkzappa

You keep saying that, but within any given niche of expertise, there are relatively few people that are truly experts - and people who control them can coordinate with other similarly corrupt groups in conglomeration.

There have been governments that have been quite malevolent towards their own kind that have been ruthlessly efficient in many regards.

you fail to take into account the massive educational system restructuring and platonic social engineering.

iirc, that was the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem that i raised earlier

that sort of stuff would require a considerably deep understanding of human beings in general, both on an individual and macroscopic level, that we haven't begun to scratch the surfaceof in order to not be susceptible to a rapid spiral towards a highly capable tyranny

short of a technological singularity prior to implementation, it is pretty much outright impossible to effectively design

lol banks would be chopped up, not bankers...

lol banks would be chopped up, not bankers...

BossPerson

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You keep saying that, but within any given niche of expertise, there are relatively few people that are truly experts - and people who control them can coordinate with other similarly corrupt groups in conglomeration.

There have been governments that have been quite malevolent towards their own kind that have been ruthlessly efficient in many regards.

coolbeans90

you fail to take into account the massive educational system restructuring and platonic social engineering.

iirc, that was the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem that i raised earlier

that sort of stuff would require a considerably deep understanding of human beings in general, both on an individual and macroscopic level, that we haven't begun to scratch the surfaceof in order to not be susceptible to a rapid spiral towards a highly capable tyranny

short of a technological singularity prior to implementation, it is pretty much outright impossible to effectively design

i have never said technocracy was immediately possible (the North American Technocratic Parties system is, but i don't support them).

technocracy is something we should be working towards, not immediately implementing in full form.