|
|
|
|
#1
12-30-2005, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference? [/ QUOTE ] No. Neither does Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law What's the difference? [ QUOTE ] The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal. [/ QUOTE ] So is a terrorist buying a privately owned nuclear bomb from an insane dictator. Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley. "What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal." It's not like they're hurting anybody. [ QUOTE ] Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps if our representatives were selected by more competent individuals, we could take a big step towards improving our system of representative democracy. Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc... 
|
|
#2
12-30-2005, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc... [/ QUOTE ] We don't have a two party system because stupid people vote. We have a two party system because of the winner-take-all mechanism by which we elect our officials. EDIT: This idea is known as Duverger's law.
|
|
#3
12-30-2005, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections. Proportional representation systems just insure gridlock and instability. A look at the number of times the Italian governing coalition has fallen since WWII illustrates this point nicely. And what happens in those situations is that the effective power of unelected bureaucrats is magnified.
|
|
#4
12-30-2005, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker [/ QUOTE ] Not in (most) tournaments. And in cash games, the next game is only minutes (not years) away, and the "winner" doesn't win "all", he only wins all of the pot. Big difference.
|
|
#5
12-31-2005, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections. [/ QUOTE ] If it's good for poker, it must be good for elections??? Brilliant.
|
|
#6
12-31-2005, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc... [/ QUOTE ] We don't have a two party system because stupid people vote. We have a two party system because of the winner-take-all mechanism by which we elect our officials. EDIT: This idea is known as Duverger's law. [/ QUOTE ] Takes me back to my poli sci classes and the discussion of SMDP (single member district plurality) vs. MMPR (multi-member proportional representations) systems. I am astonished it's not better known, as it's not really all that hard to explain.
|
|
#7
12-30-2005, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference? [/ QUOTE ] No. Neither does Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law What's the difference? [/ QUOTE ] Keep reading your dictionary. Definition number 2: [ QUOTE ] 2 : a grave offense especially against morality [/ QUOTE ] Nothing to do with legality. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal. [/ QUOTE ] So is a terrorist buying a privately owned nuclear bomb from an insane dictator. [/ QUOTE ] Possession of nuclear weapons *is* criminal. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be directed at individual aggressors, and therefore are not legitimate "arms". [ QUOTE ] Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have any problem with this. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps if our representatives were selected by more competent individuals, we could take a big step towards improving our system of representative democracy. [/ QUOTE ] So your definition of "competent" is what, "people that agree with me"?
|
|
#8
12-31-2005, 05:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conditional Suffrage?
[ QUOTE ]
Keep reading your dictionary. Definition number 2: [ QUOTE ] 2 : a grave offense especially against morality [/ QUOTE ] Nothing to do with legality. [/ QUOTE ] We are talking about law and therefore must use the LEGAL definition of crime. A crime is an illegal act. Get over it. Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" [ QUOTE ] Possession of nuclear weapons *is* criminal. [/ QUOTE ] So is possession of drugs. I win. [ QUOTE ] Weapons of mass destruction cannot be directed at individual aggressors, and therefore are not legitimate "arms". [/ QUOTE ] Irrelevant. I only plan to use it for decoration. That actually makes it safer than drugs. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have any problem with this. [/ QUOTE ] i.e., you have no problem with people breaking 4 of 5 laws simultaneously.... well... at least that's out in the open now. [ QUOTE ] So your definition of "competent" is what, "people that agree with me"? [/ QUOTE ] No. My definition of "competent" is "people who have the ability to look at both sides of the major issues and make an informed decision about their candidate" as opposed to "everyone I know says to vote for <X>, so I'm going to vote for <X>" or "<X> says abortion is OK and we need to leave welfare alone, and since I already have 3 kids from 3 different fathers, none of whom I'm still with, and living off welfare, I'm going to selfishly vote for this guy.... even though I have not bothered to find out what the hell else he stands for which might not at all be good for this country." If my candidate is the right candidate and more voters know what's going on, then more people will vote for him. Right now it's just a matter of who can pander to more demographics.... i.e., Republicans pandering to the wealthy and the religious + Democrats pandering to minorities and people looking for free rides (disclaimer: who are not necessarily one in the same, but I'll be awaiting your accusations of racism anyway).
|
|
#9
12-31-2005, 06:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Janus
[ QUOTE ]
[Here's] Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" Get over it. [/ QUOTE ] Both quotes are from the same poster. 1 2
|
|
#10
12-31-2005, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Janus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [Here's] Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" Get over it. [/ QUOTE ] Both quotes are from the same poster. 1 2 [/ QUOTE ] Oh please. He said that "crimes" and "illegal acts" were not the same thing. I looked up the definition of "crime" and the first definition clearly said that a crime was an illegal act. He retorts by saying "oh, look at the OTHER definition - it mentions morality! That means illegal acts are not crimes!" I'm clearly right here. Stop grasping at straws.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
