(US) The anti Union legislation and the consequences for the future of the US.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Do remember that most of those could be provided by the State governments rather than the Federal government. Some are even provided by even lesser governments effectively. About the only one that must be provided by the Federal government is military protection due to the removal of state militias as the main form of protection.

That would still be taxes at work, just it would be paid for at a different level.

Though I think some of those are technically corperate run utilities rather than governement agencies.

I don't think breaking things up is better than consolidation here. That's part of what led to the Civil War, remember? I'd rather not see another one of those.

And really, do you want to know what will happen to all the LGBT people in Bible Belt states if the states were allowed to operate the way they wanted to? They'll be heavily persecuted, some will leave for bluer states, sure, but not everyone has the money or ability.

I wouldn't allow a state in the union to follow hardline Tea Party or religious conservative ideals. I'd rather see the state reduced to radioactive ash than see that atrocity happen. I've been on the wrong side of a redneck state as a gay person, and it's not fucking pretty.

[Ithekro]

Mind you you are thinking pure politics (and from one being hit directly by discrimination, which will color your responce...understandibly I might add...nothing wrong with that responce). I'm thinking just the who funds what effectively. Most fire and police departments are state funded for example. Schools are also state funded...or at least state run if the state is broke.

Infrustructure are both state and federal funded depending on what that infrustructure is. An Interstate Highway is federal...the main street in a city is city or state funded.

Corporations run other things. Electricity comes to mind (Pacific Gas and Electric for example) Water I think might be another, but I'm not clear if those are funding by customers services or taxes (East Bay Municipal Utility District for example) - checking, 5% of their revenue is from property taxes....so state supplimented.

Farming is federal funding to not plant crops. Though I do wonder if that is actually needed now, or if it is just kept in place because that is just how things are done. Their markets could be worldwide, and there seems to be a need for food in places.

Almost all are suplimented by federal funds because the amount of taxes is shifted more towards the federal governement than the state governments. But taxes are still taxes and one government program is still a government program, regardless of what government is running or funding it.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I don't think breaking things up is better than consolidation here. That's part of what led to the Civil War, remember? I'd rather not see another one of those.

And really, do you want to know what will happen to all the LGBT people in Bible Belt states if the states were allowed to operate the way they wanted to? They'll be heavily persecuted, some will leave for bluer states, sure, but not everyone has the money or ability.

I wouldn't allow a state in the union to follow hardline Tea Party or religious conservative ideals. I'd rather see the state reduced to radioactive ash than see that atrocity happen. I've been on the wrong side of a redneck state as a gay person, and it's not fucking pretty.

Key thing is to avoid tyranny of the majority. So individual rights and safety should be guaranteed everywhere. But if the people in 2 different states strongly feel certain ways about an issue, then I think it's better to devolve it as far down as possible so everyone can get what they like.

Also decentralized services can be more responsive to YOUR needs. You can go straight the branch in question and get changes done right there. In a centralized structure you have to go to the central body who has to deal with so much that they couldn't care less about you.

No sized government is innately superior to another, but smaller ones are more responsive. A smaller number of people are more likely to agree on things, so they're more likely to get a government they are pleased with.

Ireland or Singapore probably gets a more responsive government then, say, England or Malaysia.

In any good organisation there has to be delegation of authority.

[synaesthetic]

Of course, and such a system could potentially work well--if it was designed that way from the ground up. Flipping the federalist switch on America will not work, unless the government wants to pay to relocate all of the gay people, Jews and Muslims from the redneck Christian whitey states.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Of course, and such a system could potentially work well--if it was designed that way from the ground up. Flipping the federalist switch on America will not work, unless the government wants to pay to relocate all of the gay people, Jews and Muslims from the redneck Christian whitey states.

Bigots are always going to exist. But there isn't much difference between campaigning for civil right at the federal level, and doing so at the state level. Both are sucseptible to the same pressures. The main thing is that state governments should be able to be sued for violating the rights of individual citizens, at federal courts. This already can happen.

All the mechanisms are there already, it's up to you guys to use it.

[synaesthetic]

If you believe that will happen in this country, I have some waterfront property in the Sahara to sell you...

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Key thing is to avoid tyranny of the majority. So individual rights and safety should be guaranteed everywhere. But if the people in 2 different states strongly feel certain ways about an issue, then I think it's better to devolve it as far down as possible so everyone can get what they like.

Also decentralized services can be more responsive to YOUR needs. You can go straight the branch in question and get changes done right there. In a centralized structure you have to go to the central body who has to deal with so much that they couldn't care less about you.

No sized government is innately superior to another, but smaller ones are more responsive. A smaller number of people are more likely to agree on things, so they're more likely to get a government they are pleased with.

Ireland or Singapore probably gets a more responsive government then, say, England or Malaysia.

In any good organisation there has to be delegation of authority.

I'd say an equally key thing avoiding tyranny of the minority. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "tyranny." As an example, I wouldn't call raising taxes on those making $1mil and above, "tyranny." I certainly wouldn't call the repeal of DOMA "tyranny" either.

But that aside, I don't see why anyone would worry greatly about tyranny of the majority when that is not the way the country is moving. It's looking more and more like an oligarchy every day, if it's not already. From the newly forming super committee in Congress, to the abuse of the filibuster by an extreme minority used in recent years to create a chilling effect around legislative topics they don't like, to the governor of Wisconsin taking personal calls from the Kochs (even if it wasn't them) like he answers to them, to the ridiculous anti-tax pledge most Republicans make to the unelected, unaccountable Grover Norquist.

Seriously, who elected this kingmaker to any office, and in what America is it ok for him to dictate a party's policy?

Tyranny of the majority is always the hypothetical fear people use when talking about individual freedom and the like. But in this day and age of supposed "democracies," everyone takes for granted that abusive minority rule is now the less relevant, something archaic in a "civilized" and "free" western society. I think people should rethink that, and fast.

[Kyuu]

How many of you have paid some attention to the Wisconsin recall elections just a couple days ago? In addition, there are a couple more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_922826.html

About two days ago, 6 Republican seats were challenged in a recall election. Democrats needed 3, but they ended up with 2. Furthermore, within a couple of days, 2 more Democratic seats are up for a recall election.

What few people know. This organization called ALEC poured a record $30 million into this.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/...ills-wisconsin

Using big money, they're influencing the elections. And unfortunately in America, big money is taking over politics.

In that video, Romney got heckled in Iowa. After he mentioned "raise taxes", the crowd chanted "Wall Street greed". Then he mentioned the idea of "raising taxes on people". Someone replied "corporations"; then he followed that up with "corporations are people". And yes, where's that idea coming from? Just look up the Supreme Court ruling: Citizen's United.

[Vexx]

What is telling is how Romney doesn't grasp just how *poorly* that concept (corp=person) is playing with the general public... even with fiscal conservatives.

I have a corporation.... it *isn't* a person, its a legal instrument to isolate my business activities from my personal assets. It doesn't vote, it doesn't contribute, and if its a person, my android phone qualifies more thoroughly than it does.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

What is telling is how Romney doesn't grasp just how *poorly* that concept (corp=person) is playing with the general public... even with fiscal conservatives.

I have a corporation.... it *isn't* a person, its a legal instrument to isolate my business activities from my personal assets. It doesn't vote, it doesn't contribute, and if its a person, my android phone qualifies more thoroughly than it does.

Campaign finance reform was struck down via the Citizen's United ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

In short, corporations gained greater power to use money to influence elections. Through money, corporations are able to "vote"; and they have no limit towards spending in campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html

President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Big money is trumping the power of the voting public. It's happening now. And it will happen for 2012.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

What is telling is how Romney doesn't grasp just how *poorly* that concept (corp=person) is playing with the general public... even with fiscal conservatives.

I have a corporation.... it *isn't* a person, its a legal instrument to isolate my business activities from my personal assets. It doesn't vote, it doesn't contribute, and if its a person, my android phone qualifies more thoroughly than it does.

That is political correctness......twisting words in another way to sound nicer, though technically it is still wrong.

[Tri-ring]

Why doesn't the US simply cap usage the amount of money one can use for a campaign like in various EU countries?
Place all funds into a single pot provide each individual with the same predetermined amount and use the remaining amount to fund public debates where all parties participate.
The US political campaign from Kennedy on had always been about looks with sound bite not about actual reforms or public ideals to benefit the society as a whole.
Sometime I believe that some US citizens has the misconception that voting is about routing for their favorite ball team forgetting that peoples lives may depend on it.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Why doesn't the US simply cap usage the amount of money one can use for a campaign like in various EU countries?

I have every reason to believe that... America did. I remember campaign finance reform was pushed hard 10 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...e_Court_ruling

But like I mentioned a couple of posts above. All of that got nullified with the Citizen's United case, as "corporations and unions are no longer barred from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate." This decision was made justifiable using the First Amendment as support; and apparently, the use of money for the purpose of "promotion" is free speech. Therefore, it cannot be limited.

And if you ask me, the US should really go deeper with campaign financing by making it publicly funded... i.e. using tax dollars to fund campaigns. Thus, that'd make it all outright immune to the power of money... as far as elections are concerned anyways.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I have every reason to believe that... America did. I remember campaign finance reform was pushed hard 10 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...e_Court_ruling

But like I mentioned a couple of posts above. All of that got nullified with the Citizen's United case, as "corporations and unions are no longer barred from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate." This decision was made justifiable using the First Amendment as support; and apparently, the use of money for the purpose of "promotion" is free speech. Therefore, it cannot be limited.

And if you ask me, the US should really go deeper with campaign financing by making it publicly funded... i.e. using tax dollars to fund campaigns. Thus, that'd make it all outright immune to the power of money... as far as elections are concerned anyways.

They do have public financing, at least for president. The problem is, if a candidate accepts it, they agree to a limit on their spending. I forget exactly what that is.

And another problem is, as Obama showed this last election, such public financing really isn't the most useful way to raise funds. He turned down public funds because he thought he could raise more than he would be given. And boy was he right. Just look at how much came in from small donors. I think he might've broken some records there.

So he's now shown candidates that public financing is less effective, and I wouldn't be surprised if more and more start to turn it down in favor of using his methods.

Oh and yes, ALEC is disgusting (like I said, oligarchy), and in my opinion Citizens United is a crime. At least Stephen Colbert is making an intentional mockery of the results with his new Super PAC. Maybe someone will take notice.

[Dralha]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Where is all this leading to?

The American Corporate Oligarchy, a monstrous corporate totalitarian regime in which the rich enjoy a monopoly on economic and political power.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I'd say an equally key thing avoiding tyranny of the minority. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "tyranny." As an example, I wouldn't call raising taxes on those making $1mil and above, "tyranny." I certainly wouldn't call the repeal of DOMA "tyranny" either.

But that aside, I don't see why anyone would worry greatly about tyranny of the majority when that is not the way the country is moving. It's looking more and more like an oligarchy every day, if it's not already. From the newly forming super committee in Congress, to the abuse of the filibuster by an extreme minority used in recent years to create a chilling effect around legislative topics they don't like, to the governor of Wisconsin taking personal calls from the Kochs (even if it wasn't them) like he answers to them, to the ridiculous anti-tax pledge most Republicans make to the unelected, unaccountable Grover Norquist.

Seriously, who elected this kingmaker to any office, and in what America is it ok for him to dictate a party's policy?

Tyranny of the majority is always the hypothetical fear people use when talking about individual freedom and the like. But in this day and age of supposed "democracies," everyone takes for granted that abusive minority rule is now the less relevant, something archaic in a "civilized" and "free" western society. I think people should rethink that, and fast.

The situation for blacks in the south before the civil rights movement is an example of "tyranny of the majority". The whites were the majority, and used that status to undermine the rights of blacks. Another example is Northern Ireland before power sharing, where protestants held complete power, and catholics none, despite catholics being a 1/3 of the population.

Tyranny of the majority is where the majority has rule at the expense of the rights of the individual. Alternatively, where a policy is passed that only has marginally higher support then 50%. The 49% who were against would be right to feel "tyranny of the majority".

I actually think it's a significant problem at the moment, in the USA, less so in other countries.

[Vexx]

There are several rulings that have led to the disaster for the US politicial system but the "Citizens United" case was the blunt force trauma that sealed the deal. At this point, the plutocratic "cabal" isn't even pretending to be nice anymore.

As for the "tyranny of the majority" problem, currently in the US it is expressed as an incoming party claiming they have "a mandate from the voters" when they get 51% of the vote and ram through policies from their extreme end. Frankly, the GOP is much worse about this as the DEM are both spineless and wouldn't know how to lockstep if their lives depended on it

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The situation for blacks in the south before the civil rights movement is an example of "tyranny of the majority". The whites were the majority, and used that status to undermine the rights of blacks. Another example is Northern Ireland before power sharing, where protestants held complete power, and catholics none, despite catholics being a 1/3 of the population.

Tyranny of the majority is where the majority has rule at the expense of the rights of the individual. Alternatively, where a policy is passed that only has marginally higher support then 50%. The 49% who were against would be right to feel "tyranny of the majority".

I actually think it's a significant problem at the moment, in the USA, less so in other countries.

I know what it is and I didn't mean it wasn't important, but that doesn't suddenly exclude its opposite from being a real and present danger also. Maybe I should've worded it differently.

[DonQuigleone]

I'll only add, that any sized government is as likely as any other to be corrupt and/or have problems, but when it's smaller it's easier for citizens to do something about it, and the corruption is also usually correspondingly "smaller". Damage is also relatively limited. So Ireland had severe problems, but those problems did not directly spill into neighbouring England (though some of the economic effects did), and almost nothing seeped into France or Germany.

While in the USA, the banking crisis afflicted the entire country as all the institutions involved were nationwide. The problems were not localized to one or two "problem states" like in Europe with the PIIGS. Of course Europe is still not out of the woods, and we've yet to see how well either the US or EU will come out of all this...

I also think smaller government do a better job of guaranteeing citizens rights, somewhat at the cost of becoming overly beholden of the electorate.