That's been the labor party's platform since it was formed hasn't it? Isn't that what social security etc, the whole kit and kaboodle of socialism is about? Why are you surprised?
That's an interesting point. However you cannot have (a good) society without some social security - you need something to catch people when there is a downturn in the economy or if they are between jobs for a while.
It is incompatible with liberty. As long as you have a majority of people who see themselves as needing the governments help, it is entirely compatible with democracy. That, IMO, is the purpose of family assistance payments, to condition as many people as possible to see themselves as needing a handout. And yes, I am aware that our "conservative" government promotes this as well, I'm not an apologist for them either.
I think you are being somewhat paranoid there - the point of family assistance is to encourage people to have more children - that a side effect occurs or not is something I think government is ignorant of.
The first time a black person wins the presidency of course it will be a big deal - and assassination attempts (despite everyone talking about it) have been a no show. Next time a black person runs for president there will be much less talk about him being black. If MLK was alive what do you think he would say?
Not that I like Rudd but in his defence many people have said the same thing - its sort of the token sound bite you would come to expect, and is not exactly untrue - a half black man has taken the highest office in US government. While it doesn't mean that there is no more racism, its a very important milestone.
I don't like Rudd because, with this censorship stunt, and that phoney outrage over the art exhibition featuring children - he has shown himself to be a person who believes that the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government. I think that is a antithesis to the direction western society has been going for the last two centuries, and a view incompatible with democracy.
It is a joke (or at least meant to be) - I assume the insightful mod comes from mods who mod funny insightful to ensure that you get karma (you don't get any for funny).
As for the definition of communism - I would define any community based action to improve their lot to be communist (or socialist) - the key is that workers control the means of production (in the 21th century this would include the service economy) rather than the wealthy or otherwise detached from that community - but then I don't have any negative reaction to the label communist as some might have.
Its most likely linked to legal liability - apologising implies an admission of fault which then makes it easier to sue them. I remember we had this policy at the local supermarket where I worked. If something fell on a customer or they were otherwise injured we had to help them but under no circumstance were we allowed to apologise or in any other way admit fault.
While it may seem fine and dandy to say that - if enough of the ecosystem is wiped out then it will make life much more difficult for us. Remember that when one species dies out its not just it that is effected, other species in the ecosystem that rely on it for their niches are also destroyed, and when enough go it creates a chain reaction that takes out quite a lot. If we are not careful we can make life very bad for us, and could even render earth uninhabitable.
Re:This week it is YOUR turn to vote "no".
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 1
Why no incentive for bribery? It would be much easier now that they are not held accountable for how they vote to take money from however is willing to give it and vote all kids of outrageous bills as their constituents would never find out.
The biggest issue I see is that she's a woman who's attained a relatively high office and isn't beholden to the Feminist movement. They -can't- allow her to succeed. She's not cut from the right mold.
WTF? Are you telling me you seriously believe this??
I just don't know what to say to such delusions...
Its just one option - all I'm arguing for is to have a fresh think of the possible problems and solutions. The reason I like the notion of some votes being worth more then others is to drive home the notion that being educated is vital to a democracy - and those that take the time to learn about the world are rewarded (which is turn hopefully pushes others to get educated - either that or it ends up completely demoralising and disenfranchising them:[). How such a thing might be measured? I don't know - its an interesting problem, IQ tests and all are fairly woeful but we don't need a perfect presentation - it just has to be approximately right. Perhaps professional organisations might rate domain knowledge as well as certify people (ie architects, bar associations etc). Perhaps its somehow measured by your contribution to society (do you participate in the community, contribute to topical online discussions, active voter, feedback from your friends/relatives (aka 360 evaluation) etc). The answer might be a mix of a number of different metrics that evens out the disadvantages in individual metrics.
Perhaps my main point is that these are all problems that could possibly solved if we think about it - after all representative democracy was thought of as untenable at one point, and many valid arguments were put against it - however solutions where found for all these problems (most of which were aren't 100% solved) that were good enough to make the system work. There is no reason for the system to be static either - a council that gets together annual can identify problems and make recommendations for possible solutions - the system can evolve along with society.
Do you even read the news? - Obama's associations were prominently discussed in the nytimes (considered by the right to be part of the left liberal elite media, whatever the fuck that is supposed to even mean). Problem is that people aren't reacting to it like you are, so instead of correctly summising that perhaps you are reading too much into them, you instead postulate that there is a vast conspiracy to keep a lid on this.
In short, people are aware of his associations with a variety of colourful people - they just don't give a shit, as there are far more important things to worry about.
You did notice the subject of the post you are responding to?;)
Indeed, however direct democracy would not be the perfect government, it *could* be better than what we have now - that is all I am suggesting.
Wikipedia allows people who know something about something to write what they know, to have it corrected by other someones and ultimately to be subject intervention from on high. Direct democracy would involve getting people who know nothing about anything to decide everything.
Why do you assume that (last sentence)? Why not try adopting things from the way wikipedia is run? Direct democracy doesn't preclude things like votes being valued differently based on subject matter expertise for instance.
We (you, I and every voter) are singularly unqualified to asses the strength of prospective governments. Firstly we can't believe what the candidates or the press or the smear campaigns etc etc tell us.
We may be individually - but the result may be surprising when aggregated. We are just as vulnerable now to press and smear campaigns as we would be under direct democracy.
The courts would be the very first thing to go. And what is this constitution that you speak of? Not the one you've thrown out the door to bring this about?
Why would the courts be the first to go? Why would the constitution disappear? (make it require a higher majority + majority in all states to change, etc - problem has been encountered and solved before).
While it may be common sense that such a system will not work - it has worked in a number of places, although at smaller scales (usually direct participation in local legislation, or directing local council spending). Wikipedia was slated by many to fail, and it did not. I personally would like to see such a thing trailed - so that even if it doesn't work overall we might find positive aspects to implement.
The courts will still be there to overrule unconstitutional legislation and protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (as they do now) so there will not be that kind of danger.
I disagree - while this may seem "common sense" - most if not all communist revolutions (and most revolutions in general) are done very much in the open - with public support (not neccessarly majority, but critical mass - ie not all segments of the population are equally important to win over). After all popular support is the life blood of any revolution... its where the resources and recruits come from. Revolutions that are contrived by a small cabal without the public support are, and will remain safely in the conspiracy theory bucket.
Your media infiltration scenario is also a bit bizarre given the availability of right wing news outlets in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
That's been the labor party's platform since it was formed hasn't it? Isn't that what social security etc, the whole kit and kaboodle of socialism is about? Why are you surprised?
That's an interesting point. However you cannot have (a good) society without some social security - you need something to catch people when there is a downturn in the economy or if they are between jobs for a while.
It is incompatible with liberty. As long as you have a majority of people who see themselves as needing the governments help, it is entirely compatible with democracy. That, IMO, is the purpose of family assistance payments, to condition as many people as possible to see themselves as needing a handout. And yes, I am aware that our "conservative" government promotes this as well, I'm not an apologist for them either.
I think you are being somewhat paranoid there - the point of family assistance is to encourage people to have more children - that a side effect occurs or not is something I think government is ignorant of.
The first time a black person wins the presidency of course it will be a big deal - and assassination attempts (despite everyone talking about it) have been a no show. Next time a black person runs for president there will be much less talk about him being black. If MLK was alive what do you think he would say?
Not that I like Rudd but in his defence many people have said the same thing - its sort of the token sound bite you would come to expect, and is not exactly untrue - a half black man has taken the highest office in US government. While it doesn't mean that there is no more racism, its a very important milestone.
I don't like Rudd because, with this censorship stunt, and that phoney outrage over the art exhibition featuring children - he has shown himself to be a person who believes that the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government. I think that is a antithesis to the direction western society has been going for the last two centuries, and a view incompatible with democracy.
Unless its quantum voting!
It is a joke (or at least meant to be) - I assume the insightful mod comes from mods who mod funny insightful to ensure that you get karma (you don't get any for funny).
As for the definition of communism - I would define any community based action to improve their lot to be communist (or socialist) - the key is that workers control the means of production (in the 21th century this would include the service economy) rather than the wealthy or otherwise detached from that community - but then I don't have any negative reaction to the label communist as some might have.
Yeah but that's communism and evil and prevents competition.
This is an outrage! I demand hard to open packaging! If you can open it with your bare hands / normal scissors its just not good enough.
Its most likely linked to legal liability - apologising implies an admission of fault which then makes it easier to sue them. I remember we had this policy at the local supermarket where I worked. If something fell on a customer or they were otherwise injured we had to help them but under no circumstance were we allowed to apologise or in any other way admit fault.
While it may seem fine and dandy to say that - if enough of the ecosystem is wiped out then it will make life much more difficult for us. Remember that when one species dies out its not just it that is effected, other species in the ecosystem that rely on it for their niches are also destroyed, and when enough go it creates a chain reaction that takes out quite a lot. If we are not careful we can make life very bad for us, and could even render earth uninhabitable.
Why no incentive for bribery? It would be much easier now that they are not held accountable for how they vote to take money from however is willing to give it and vote all kids of outrageous bills as their constituents would never find out.
Why is it always a trinket that gives you powers - why is it never a pair of pants or a left shoe.
Well in that case you would have loved Argentina. That is of course until their entire economy collapsed.
Congratulations on your heroism!
Your comments serve a shining reference to yourself and your beliefs.
Maybe just a hunch, but I think the scenario I proposed is just a bit more likely.
Oh I don't know, those aliens can be very tricky.
The biggest issue I see is that she's a woman who's attained a relatively high office and isn't beholden to the Feminist movement. They -can't- allow her to succeed. She's not cut from the right mold.
WTF? Are you telling me you seriously believe this??
I just don't know what to say to such delusions...
I was more thinking that Australians can now use this add-on to get more open internet access.
Oh god... I dont know who to love and who to hate any more!
Its just one option - all I'm arguing for is to have a fresh think of the possible problems and solutions. The reason I like the notion of some votes being worth more then others is to drive home the notion that being educated is vital to a democracy - and those that take the time to learn about the world are rewarded (which is turn hopefully pushes others to get educated - either that or it ends up completely demoralising and disenfranchising them :[). How such a thing might be measured? I don't know - its an interesting problem, IQ tests and all are fairly woeful but we don't need a perfect presentation - it just has to be approximately right. Perhaps professional organisations might rate domain knowledge as well as certify people (ie architects, bar associations etc). Perhaps its somehow measured by your contribution to society (do you participate in the community, contribute to topical online discussions, active voter, feedback from your friends/relatives (aka 360 evaluation) etc). The answer might be a mix of a number of different metrics that evens out the disadvantages in individual metrics.
Perhaps my main point is that these are all problems that could possibly solved if we think about it - after all representative democracy was thought of as untenable at one point, and many valid arguments were put against it - however solutions where found for all these problems (most of which were aren't 100% solved) that were good enough to make the system work. There is no reason for the system to be static either - a council that gets together annual can identify problems and make recommendations for possible solutions - the system can evolve along with society.
Do you even read the news? - Obama's associations were prominently discussed in the nytimes (considered by the right to be part of the left liberal elite media, whatever the fuck that is supposed to even mean). Problem is that people aren't reacting to it like you are, so instead of correctly summising that perhaps you are reading too much into them, you instead postulate that there is a vast conspiracy to keep a lid on this.
In short, people are aware of his associations with a variety of colourful people - they just don't give a shit, as there are far more important things to worry about.
Read my response to this point on my reply to the previous reply.
Perhaps you were replying to someone who claimed it is?
You did notice the subject of the post you are responding to? ;)
Indeed, however direct democracy would not be the perfect government, it *could* be better than what we have now - that is all I am suggesting.
Wikipedia allows people who know something about something to write what they know, to have it corrected by other someones and ultimately to be subject intervention from on high. Direct democracy would involve getting people who know nothing about anything to decide everything.
Why do you assume that (last sentence)? Why not try adopting things from the way wikipedia is run? Direct democracy doesn't preclude things like votes being valued differently based on subject matter expertise for instance.
We (you, I and every voter) are singularly unqualified to asses the strength of prospective governments. Firstly we can't believe what the candidates or the press or the smear campaigns etc etc tell us.
We may be individually - but the result may be surprising when aggregated. We are just as vulnerable now to press and smear campaigns as we would be under direct democracy.
The courts would be the very first thing to go. And what is this constitution that you speak of? Not the one you've thrown out the door to bring this about?
Why would the courts be the first to go? Why would the constitution disappear? (make it require a higher majority + majority in all states to change, etc - problem has been encountered and solved before).
While it may be common sense that such a system will not work - it has worked in a number of places, although at smaller scales (usually direct participation in local legislation, or directing local council spending). Wikipedia was slated by many to fail, and it did not. I personally would like to see such a thing trailed - so that even if it doesn't work overall we might find positive aspects to implement.
The courts will still be there to overrule unconstitutional legislation and protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (as they do now) so there will not be that kind of danger.
I disagree - while this may seem "common sense" - most if not all communist revolutions (and most revolutions in general) are done very much in the open - with public support (not neccessarly majority, but critical mass - ie not all segments of the population are equally important to win over). After all popular support is the life blood of any revolution... its where the resources and recruits come from. Revolutions that are contrived by a small cabal without the public support are, and will remain safely in the conspiracy theory bucket.
Your media infiltration scenario is also a bit bizarre given the availability of right wing news outlets in the US.
I think it could be solved by having a webcam (with sound of course) attached to each representative that is with them for the duration of their term.