The 2008 Elections

[Uniform Two Six]

The Chinese economy will essentially collapse on itself just like the U.S.S.R. did as soon as the lower class turns emo and stops working.

...Unless the workers organize and force changes upon the corporations. That's what happened here a hundred years ago. No, China still scares me. They have the entreprenurial spirit we had a century ago, with none of the isolationist politics. That's a potentially bad combination.

[Wselfwulf]

I think you're stretching Obama's main points a little bit too far. Sure, politicians change their minds depending on the circumstances, but one man is not going to change the system of checks and balances that hold our country in place. We have 3 branches of government strictly so that not one person decides every single aspect of society, economy, laws, etc.

Just suggesting a point, an eventuality that is possible. I didn't mean to confuse when I say 'he' that I refer to the one man alone, but what often happens when some party representative on television or some media makes promises is that they by no means always follow through. I have to question the effectiveness of the appeal system, however, my first step is pointing the laws that have slipped through it that shouldn't have, of which we all can find examples.

Frankly, there have times when certain people have implemented detrimental and often disastrous policies to the economy, diplomacy, and social concerns of our country (i.e. Bush/Cheney administration). That is why one of the first regulations mentioned in the Constitution is to hold an election every four years (in fact, it is Clause 1, Article Two). The Founding Fathers (forgive me for using the term) recognized from the European powers the danger of having one person or family in power for too long, so they divided the power to four-year terms and allowing any natural-born citizen over 35 to run. This isn't as limiting as you might think, even considering the two-party system that has emerged today. Later Amendments to the Constitution...

Changing leader every four years should be no substitute for never giving parties the chance to screw you over in the first place. The danger of having one person in power too long? To me, this seems strange. What about the dangers of having radically different people in power? Or the dangers of having anyone in power? I understand that might be empty rhetoric at the moment but as I said, I find it odd that you allude to 'the dangers of one person in power too long' as if it is the only question to be asked. And that vaguely traditionalist notion of over 35's being the allowed to run isn't the main thing that limits leaders. It is really the voters who either misunderstand or have bias. The fact that a set of laws is something you can change makes them far less 'law'-like, and more progressive. It is a good thing, but the next step takes out the middle man in making those laws. The leaders.

So you're saying I shouldn't vote for him because he could be lying?

No. Not a bit. Nor did I imply contingent truth value of statements to be the basis for non-voting. Neither still, was this an attack solely on Obama, and 'him' was used to mean 'any candidate'.

What I actually meant, and I thought this clear, is that if ultimately you are calling the shots, acting only if a maker-of-policy fouls up in your eyes, why not make the policy yourself the entire time, not only part of the time when you disagree with it. Why elect the leader in the first place if you will only accept what you find agreeable? One reason not to, for example, is that plenty of systems in place will prevent you from overturning the decision of a leader. If these power structures are not there, you are free to discuss and create policy relevant to whatever group requires, understands and accepts it. So, not saying you shouldn't vote for him. Again, I say you shouldn't vote for anyone. And not because they could be lying. Because, if the people decide, they are not just unecessary but very often impedimentary. I hope I have explained what I meant clearly.

You once again jumped straight to the conclusion that all politicians are liars by default, the very pigheaded outlook I was venting about pages earlier. Just because someone's lips are moving does not mean he is lying. That was an absolutely selfish and egotistical assessment on your part and you know it.

Did you not suggest yourself that the entirety of the human race is implicitly untrustworthy and that it is foolish of me, should I so take the road of the syndicalist, to rely on voluntaryism, communality and so forth?

as the lower class turns emo and stops working.

Sorry, didn't quote that to criticize it. Just remarking at how novel a metaphor it is.

[Gevaudan]

Just suggesting a point, an eventuality that is possible. I didn't mean to confuse when I say 'he' that I refer to the one man alone, but what often happens when some party representative on television or some media makes promises is that they by no means always follow through. I have to question the effectiveness of the appeal system, however, my first step is pointing the laws that have slipped through it that shouldn't have, of which we all can find examples.

All right, I see your point there. I just don't like the use of rhetoric without explanation.

Changing leader every four years should be no substitute for never giving parties the chance to screw you over in the first place. The danger of having one person in power too long? To me, this seems strange. What about the dangers of having radically different people in power? Or the dangers of having anyone in power? I understand that might be empty rhetoric at the moment but as I said, I find it odd that you allude to 'the dangers of one person in power too long' as if it is the only question to be asked.

Yes, it is empty rhetoric. Considering that our system has worked for 200 years with the exception of the last 8 years (which Obama almost certainly will fix, and McCain will do something about), I don't see why you're complaining. Yes, anarchy in the sense that you're thinking of would probably work sometime in the future, but can't you appreciate something that's already working well for us?

Also, I don't understand what the other questions being asked are. All I see is rhetoric coupled with basic theoretical structure, no questions. Are you saying that the question here is something besides who is in power? Isn't that the point of this argument?

And that vaguely traditionalist notion of over 35's being the allowed to run isn't the main thing that limits leaders. It is really the voters who either misunderstand or have bias.

That is exactly why government exists: to make decisions for the people. That is a broad definition, which is why I enjoy the U.S. government: more freedoms, more say in the government, better representation. The only thing that really matters is who we choose; if we choose well, better for us, if we choose poorly, that's our fault. In anarchy (the widely accepted definition of the term), no one gets any say in anything. No morals, no good or bad, just chaos. No one can do anything except try to establish some semblance of power, in which case it would cease to be anarchy. Even nature has "laws", hierarchies, food chains, etc. (I realize that in reality, nature is indifferent to everything, so these are merely terms applied to consistent phenomena comparable to what we call "ethics" and "morals" and "laws" and "governing").

The fact that a set of laws is something you can change makes them far less 'law'-like, and more progressive. It is a good thing, but the next step takes out the middle man in making those laws. The leaders.

That next step is not going to happen in the present state of conditions. It is good that laws are always changing to suit the people, but the next step is NOT to remove the person enforcing those laws. Without enforcement, laws would turn into guidelines, which might be good to follow, but ultimately don't have to be followed. Leaders can only be removed if the general public would know enough to understand how the laws apply to them and to look at every possible alternative before even considering breaking the law. As you said, the people are biased and misunderstand things easily. Personally, I think the next step would probably be to educate people to at the very least empathize with other people's opinions, and that isn't going to come easy. I doubt it will happen with my lifetime. People will disagree over things, which is why I think our government works so well at handling that.



On a side note, this thread should get back on topic. We should move this discussion somewhere else.

[Terastas]

The Chinese economy will essentially collapse on itself just like the U.S.S.R. did as soon as the lower class turns emo and stops working.

...Unless the workers organize and force changes upon the corporations. That's what happened here a hundred years ago. No, China still scares me. They have the entreprenurial spirit we had a century ago, with none of the isolationist politics. That's a potentially bad combination.

They could, but the Chinese government is totalitarian and tends to be trigger-happy about cracking down on dissenters. Paying them wages akin to Western nations would also remove the only incentive for companies to manufacture in China at all -- the cheap labor. And frankly, the Chinese have expanded their government and economies so fast and so high that any changes at all could topple it over. China also has a habit of pissing money away on projects that serve no purpose other than to show off to the rest of the world (the forty billion dollar opening ceremony for the Olympics, for example). Like I said, they want all the benefits without the expense.

I know "turn emo" isn't the most accurate way to put it, but that's essentially what happens: people that are stuck and know it tend to stop trying so hard and accept it. It happened in the U.S.S.R., and it happened in the post civil-war plantations as well ("free" black farmers payed a percentage of their output to their white land-owners, and if they had a bad harvest one year, the land owners charged an additional percentage the next year; ultimately they started owing 100% on their harvests and just gave up and let the land go). Dissenters get arrested or worse in China, but slackers can only be let go with the hope that the next person will do a better job. It wouldn't be a malicious act against the government, just a passive acceptance on their own part which will result in it.

What I actually meant, and I thought this clear, is that if ultimately you are calling the shots, acting only if a maker-of-policy fouls up in your eyes, why not make the policy yourself the entire time, not only part of the time when you disagree with it. Why elect the leader in the first place if you will only accept what you find agreeable?

Because nobody died and left me in charge, that's why.

[Midnight]

And, well, no offense Midnight, but are you sure that's not just wishful thinking on your part?

I'm fairly bloody sure it isn't. Just like, if at 5pm I said it looked like the sun was going down it wouldn't be because I wanted it to go down; it's just because the last few times it was that low in that half of the sky then that was what happened. Don't think that because someone does a rough-as-guts analysis on what's going on and plots it against what happened in the past, they want it to happen that way.

To further mangle the metaphor: yous have got a storm on the horizon. Either get under cover or get wet.

pretty much half the countries in Western Europe had greater assets than the U.S. Assets which they absolutely squandered by bombing the living crap out of each other in two separate world wars

Just like America's been doing to itself in Iraq. Although I've just seem some figures just before which show that something like the entire sum squandered in Iraq over the last five years has been wiped off the value of a bunch of big American companies just in the last year.

That left the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as the only world powers left, the latter of which tried to stack itself up on a big load of nothing much the same way China is doing now and collapsed on itself.

You severely underestimate China. Hardly anything you could get during the `seventies was "made in Russia" (about the only Eastern Bloc stuff that ever made its way here were a handful of Russian cars, and that was due to a complicated barter deal involving local farm produce. The cars were fairly crap as well). Nowadays, just try finding something that isn't "made in China".

And I'm not saying it's necessarily "the end" for America. Britain's still around... it's just had to adjust to being one of a bunch of former great powers that have banded together and called themselves the EU, which is fairly much a retirement village for pensioned off empires pining for the Good Old Days. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands... all the "usual suspects". In a hundred or two hundred years' time, you might be seeing the same in North America... and while it might not sound like much fun if you're used to being Top Nation, it's still a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

[Wselfwulf]

Because nobody died and left me in charge, that's why.

that certainly speaks for itself

but can't you appreciate something that's already working well for us?

Sure. I appreciate it to the extent of it's goodness. I never said I prefered outright fascism.

In anarchy (the widely accepted definition of the term), no one gets any say in anything

I would suggest the opposite. Self-autonomy, at the very least.

No morals, no good or bad, just chaos.

You would be hard pressed to suggest the metaphysical basis of morality is government. The chaos is again a conclusion that is the point of contention.

but the next step is NOT to remove the person enforcing those laws

Those are police and security, not the leaders. It is the leaders I am adamant on removing. The police force is a matter contentious even with the circles of anarchists.

the next step would probably be to educate people

agree wholeheartedly. This should be a prime focal point

On a side note, this thread should get back on topic. We should move this discussion somewhere else.

Fair enough. No more from me.

[Terastas]

On the previous page of this thread, I asked:

Do you even have a point, or are you just trying to get the last word in?

While not a direct answer, I believe this will suffice:

Because nobody died and left me in charge, that's why.

that certainly speaks for itself

Game over.

[Wselfwulf]

At the risk of being accused of some childish argumentativeness, an ad hominem will never suffice for an actual argument. Particularly those of mine you choose to ignore, my friend.

[MattSullivan]

and while it might not sound like much fun if you're used to being Top Nation, it's still a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

I keep hearing guff from people lamenting the big bad U.S., and how they wish China would become the new dominant power. Oh yeah! That's WAAAAAAY! better! Say goodbye to free speech, dissent, and the internet as you know it.

And by the way, Americans have only themselves to blame for this financial mess. by hiring ( and continuing to hire ) boatloads of illegal cheap labor, constantly looking for the "easy" way to do things, and NOT LOOKING AT THE LABEL OF THE PRODUCTS THEY'RE BUYING! Yeesh! if yu're so damn worried about buying products made in China, look for products that are made right here in the U.S.

Oh...wait. I forgot. THERE ARE NONE BECAUSE WE SHIPPED ALL OUR MANUFACTURING JOBS OVERSEAS! ALL...of..them! We can't make our own clothes, or furniture, or even now FOOD! Are you serious? Are you absolutely f'n serious? Who's the jackass who LET corporate America do this to us?

Oh yeah...i forgot again. WE DID.