Shame on you! I am an American and you are bordering on calling me unAmerican. I’m sure you’ve read “A People’s History of the United States” and “ The Untold History of the United States.” I suppose you’re an historian , too. I’ve only read six US history books and taken two history classes in college, so I suppose as an historian you’re better qualified than me.

NO system of government is perfect. Ours is improvable, but it isn't a total disaster, either. — "Bitter

Of course. The state governments are redundant because there are already county and municipal governments. Some states are better than others, and this all boils down to tastes ultimately, but if we got rid of them, then maybe we would have more influence over the federal government, and getting rid of or reforming the Senate would go a long way to making the government more accountable to the people. This is, of course, my preference, and it’s not up to me.

Don’t pick on someone who is constrained by regulation to maximize his personal profits.

I am pretty sure that you were first to call someone sex into question because they disagree with you. — Constrained Maximizer

It was a joke between friends. I apologize.

I think that you might be confusing "reading someone" and "psychoanalyzing someone". — Constrained Maximizer

One cannot critically read political philosophy without also taking into account motivations. Political philosophy deals with “ought” conclusions.

Do you have an argument?

Do you know what gerrymandering is and who’s the best at it? Republicans. The fact that red states are usually the smaller, less educated states with low voter turnout helps the Republicans have their power.

Your accusations are both rude and intellectually vapid, but the delicious irony is arguably the best part of it all. — Constrained Maximizer

Just giving it back!

People from the Congo? — Constrained Maximizer

Interesting. I will just let that stand as an insight into your sensibilities.

Ah, yes, the ghetto, where they usually develop theories about "regulated capitalism" or "laissez faire capitalism". I think that that's where John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin are originally from. As for "white men", just who do you think is coming up with communitarian/egalitarian/socialist thought? People from the Congo? — Constrained Maximizer

I’ve read arguments for laissez faire capitalism and for socialism. BOTH come from the ivory tower. I do not. BOTH are wrong-headed, except laissez faire capitalism philosophy is driven by selfishness of the capitalists, while socialist philosophy is driven by altruistic impulses. Like I said, both are wrong.

To go back to the legislatures electing them? Is that your question? Because they have to go to extreme lengths to hold onto the power they have. They only work so well when the vast majority of the populace are against their policies. If they could gerrymander and suppress the vote to get 38 state legislatures and 67 seats in the Senate, you’d bet your ass that’s just what they’d do.

Capitalism is such an obviously desirable thing that, barring having been woefully misled by a plethora of bad arguments popular within academic circles, it's quite difficult to see just why anyone would oppose it, let alone vehemently oppose it. Those who devise unreasonable conceptions of 'justice' and bark orders at their fellows from their academic ivory tower would do well to at least not have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being far removed from the "common man" or of supporting the cause of "the few". — Constrained Maximizer

Conflating laissez faire capitalism with regulated capitalism is the problem, and, no, I don’t live in an ivory tower. I’m from the ghetto. Go back to your white men cigar and Scotch parlor.

If the Republicans could gerrymander and suppress the vote enough to get the needed ratification, they would. As it stands now, their methods only work so well.

Secondly, you say changing the senate structure would be nearly impossible since it would hurt the republicans. I’m sorry, but demographics nationally refute your proposition.

The original process for senate elections was via state legislatures. The GOP currently controls 30 of them; maybe 31. Around there. Those numbers will little change in short course.

Thus, there is an exceedingly valid reason for the GOP to change the current structure-i.e., to return to state elections as a more secure means of being elected. — Reshuffle

I don’t understand your argument to refute my claim. I’m talking about the current state of politics in this country.

Pretty unbelievable that anyone can defend free market Capitalism in the year two thousand nineteen — Maw

I wonder if Virgo isn’t actually an older white male billionaire? She’s certainly a cheerleader for their cause.

The father of the constitution, Madison, would disagree. He offers multiple valid justifications for the senate in The Federalist Papers 62 and 63.

Personally, I think he struck gold when espousing the notion of its deliberative mode, by virtue of six year terms, as a tool to counterbalance the frenzy and passions of the hour. — Reshuffle

Madison was trying to ensure the rights of the gentry, the small minority of people of which he was one.

I believe six year terms is okay, but one representative body with four year terms would be better.

If you want to quote someone, just highlight the text and click the “quote” link. Then they get a notification that you responded to them. :smile:

Absolute jabberwocky. — Maw

My thoughts exactly, but I prefer the Wisconsinite term “hogwash.”

1) an amendment to be ratified requires three-fourths of the states’ approval; it’s two-thirds in ( of) Congress.
2) “impossible” seems an odd adjective since the current method of direct election was, in fact, eagerly changed and welcomed by the senate, following the antecedent and original process of state ( legislature) elections. — Reshuffle

You’re right. It is 38 states that have to ratify it. Misspoke.

It would be nearly impossible to change the structure of the Senate. This is so because it would hurt Republicans, the same reason why Republicans make it harder for people to vote. So, yes, it is NEARLY impossible.

if you knew the history a little better. — tim wood

I know the history quite well. It appears that you don’t. I don’t think you’re an asshole. I think you’re just ignorant.

State governments are redundant and only serve to further divide the nation.

Forgive my empassioned OP, but I have very strong views on government.

@tim wood@Bitter Crank

America is not a religion. America is a nation of people. Invoking Ancient Athens is a straw man against what I was calling for. The electoral college was meant to protect property owners and slave owners. The Senate was meant to protect the elites of the states instead of the general citizenry. Your religious attitudes toward the Constitution clouds your judgment.

@Bitter Crank, yes my belly is full, thank goodness. Forgive me for wanting a government that functions for more people instead of the elites.

@tim wood, you’re either ignorant or an asshole.

Just think of how easily the gun problem in this country could be solved if we actually lived in a democracy.

agreed

I edited my reply to you because it wasn’t formatted correctly. I should really use my laptop instead of my iPhone. I agree with you.

I don't think the House is much better or better than the Senate, despite be more numerically correct. — Coben

This goes back to my point about politicians picking their voters instead of the other way around. Also because of money in politics.

. The two party system is also very damaging, especially — Coben

Agreed. Winner take all elections are also a flaw of the Constitution.

I think worse undermining of democracy comes from campaign finance, lobbying, consolidation of the media, and revolving doors between industy and government, for example in oversight of industry. — Coben

This goes way back to the 1870s when right wing judges declared corporations as having the rights of persons, and then made much worse by the Citizens United case this century.

But a specific discussion is beyond this thread. — StreetlightX

Right. I suppose someone might be interested in starting a new thread on the subject, but not me. I am trying my hardest to be a good American. You could only guess what I’ve been through.

And the reason why original intent is bullshit is exactly because the world is ever-changing.

You all ought to burn that constitution too. It's an awful document. — StreetlightX

It would be okay if it would be interpreted by the judiciary to account for a changing world. “Original intent” is bullshit. The problem is the right wing judiciary. What exactly about the Constitution do you find fault with? I think the interpretation is the problem. Conservatives are always crying foul over “activist judges,” but conservative judges are the most activist of all.

And the 2nd amendment was written for the formation of a militia to defend our country before there was ever an organized military. It was never meant to apply to the citizenry taking up arms against their own government. Thank the right wing justices for completely bastardizing the intent of that amendment. And thank the Neo-Nazis for spreading the upcoming race war propaganda.

I happen to be agnostic about hard determinism and have been for some time. I was asking legitimate questions.

Look out for this guy. He sounds dangerous.

Our unconscious is as much us as our consciousness is. Actually, more. Just because it's not conscious doesn't mean we're not aware, that we're not responsible for what we do. Most of what we are is not conscious. This is the fundamental insight of psychology. It's what Freud gave us. — T Clark

That seems like dodging the question.

I’m trying to figure out how you justify your belief that reality is directly apprehended.

There's more to life than private property. I have a lot of possessions, and they mean a lot to me. Some I bought, some given to me, some I found, and there's probably a few that I borrowed and forgot to return. Each one is in my possession and is mine. But if I said I have the right to claim any of these things as my private property I'd be referring to the legal status given by the State. — Metaphysician Undercover

I value my property, too. To call it a right that isn’t given by a State set up through a social contract would require some kind of ad hoc argument, I think.

So, how does one know that insects perceive UV light? From what reference point is that given? How do we know the structure of atoms? Has anyone ever seen a single atom?

I want to continue this discussion but Crystal says I have to put down TPF for the day.

That’s true. I don’t think anyone would deny that. What does that have to do with my examples, though? One cannot perceive atoms or perceive the way insects perceive. That takes mental constructs. That is my only point.

And then I wondered if the chair was your example. — Terrapin Station

Yes, that was one example. Your example of certain insects seeing ultraviolet light is also an example. We are not insects.

Was that your example? So a chair doesn't really look like a chair from a frame of reference that's however many inches or feet away from it and that includes the whole of the chair or a big section of it? — Terrapin Station

I don’t see your point. Sorry.

He’s more spicy than astringent. In fact, if memory serves, S is short for sriracha, a chili sauce that thinks it can burn but ends up being merely mildly amusing. — praxis

:lol:

Do you see atoms when you look at a chair? The idea of atoms is a theory.

Sorry. I don’t believe that I was thinking about the right thread. You’re right about being precise about language.

It gives you the things in themselves at particular reference points and everything is always relative to some reference point or other, with there being no preferred reference point. — Terrapin Station

Then what is the point of theorizing or the scientific method? Theory and science are needed exactly because perceiving doesn’t give us the things in themselves.