But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making. — Vera Mont
And my questions are:
1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy. — ssu
1) By plebiscite would be my choice.
2) Amendment to the constitution; at least 2/3 majority.
3) I doubt regions and genders will become obsolete anytime soon. I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten.
How would any one or two representatives have more or less say in a democratic decision? Why would any particular stakeholder group be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont
What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves. — ssu
And in the end, you have things like this: — ssu
You keep offering evidence of how broken party political systems are but also, you keep rejecting new proposals. Why do you insist in trying to defibrillate an already dead but still deadly system?You know, what comes to mind are the Soviet Politbyro members of the Brezhnev time, waiving from the Kremlin (or above Lenin's tomb) during some parade: — ssu
Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say. — ssu
As far as I can see, the inter-regional legal body should be represented in the second house, to make sure any new legislation doesn't conflict with standing agreements. The individual troops and police personnel would, of course, still have their votes, one to each rookie, one to each general. — Vera Mont
You seem utterly hung up on "important", as you were earlier on famines as the sole indicator of poverty.
Nobody "rules"!!! No group is more important or less important or has more say or less say. Is that really so hard to understand? — Vera Mont
No, I do not advocate the separation of state into these often competing insular branches, who are supposed to cooperate but rarely do. I would advocate for bringing these sub-systems much closer together so that they work in tandem and compliment and reinforce each other. At the moment they are open to individual isolation and corruption. It is unacceptable that some sitting f***wit president can affect the balance of the supreme court in the USA. Checks and balances should never allow such. It is also unacceptable that a criminal such as Trump should ever have been able to achieve election as president of America, via the collusion of the powerful elites controlling the now completely toxic GOP.Is there an executive branch?
— Vera Mont
Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him. — ssu
No, No, No, No, No! I am not suggesting we give such power to the military, they would have representation in the second chamber but two reps for the military and two reps for the police does not give them a majority in the second chamber! Stop exaggerating my suggestions ssu!Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.
When the military has a bigger role in politics, just look at the consequences in Egypt, or Sudan, or Myanmar.
There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. Civilian control of the military is important. But now, when you constitutionally give the military the power legislative power, it does matter. It's one matter for the military to ask for those tax dollars to invest, it's another thing when the are taking part of deciding just who or what gets tax dollars in general. — ssu
no other country could fight a war like in Afghanistan without having it's border next to it. — ssu
Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.'
— universeness
I'm happy with that one. Maybe for solving some problem related to climate change or mitigating its effects - a big service to all the world, that a half-decent god would have performed but failed to. — Vera Mont
Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators. — ssu
Oh, I don't know... Putin's is quite idiotic enough. Great Britain has been known to indulge in some spectacular wastage of human life. Japan was no slouch at having at the Chinese population, and China's gearing up to the next idiotic superpower. It's really past time they were all abolished.And if you are referring to the US, then the reason is that as the sole Superpower, it simply has the capability to go off in idiotic wars where other countries are simply uncapable of doing: — ssu
You haven't heard a word univerness and I said, have you?There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. — ssu
You do understand that this is the way that the two parties hold on to power: the other side is so bad, so evil, that you have to vote for us, because otherwise they will win. And Americans do take play along: they back their side whatever it takes. Never they will be critical about the party that they vote, because then they seem to be giving their finger to devil, or just more ammo to the assholes on the other side. The present political polarization is a way to uphold the present system.Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, — universeness
The biggest concern I have with the abandonment of the current party political systems, is the structure, function and power wielded by a still essential civil service. I still think a lot about how to establish the vital checks and balances, that would be vital to establish, for any permanent worker in the civil service.
These people would be soooooooo important to the daily work of the first and second chambers and they would have a lot of influence. My main thought at the moment is that I would automate as much of their role as possible. What do you think about this area Vera Mont? — universeness
Simply make the civil service politics-proof by giving each agency autonomy to run itself. — Vera Mont
Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, when they are needed most and not go off to support some other 'little tribe,' who have no ability to win the fight alone, but can give victory to the enemy, as they took too many of your warriors away from the main fight. — universeness
Have you watched shows such as 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' 'the West Wing,' and 'the thick of it?' — universeness
Not really. They are quite good illustrations that, in the present system of rewards, those at the very top of an agency can fulfill their ambition by undermining an elected party hack's policy decision - and in some cases, pulling said hack's chestnuts out of the fire. A good deal of the machinations, too, are about funding and expansion, which are moot points in a resource-based economy. None of them depict the body of the civil service; all the people beavering away in cubicles, behind counters listening to complaints and stamping forms, driving snowploughs at 5am, or trying to wean welfare moms off crack.but their satirical approach and the parody they depicted was considered by many, to quite accurately and horrifically depict the power wielded by those in the civil service. — universeness
I think this sums up our exchange with ssu pretty well!You haven't heard a word univerness and I said, have you? — Vera Mont
It's you that does not seem to fully grasp the total failure of party politics, in every country that employs it.You do understand that this is the way that the two parties hold on to power: the other side is so bad, so evil, that you have to vote for us, because otherwise they will win. And Americans do take play along: they back their side whatever it takes. Never they will be critical about the party that they vote, because then they seem to be giving their finger to devil, or just more ammo to the assholes on the other side. The present political polarization is a way to uphold the present system. — ssu
How will you protect us from 1 and 2 above ssu? — universeness
BBC news: 'Rise in children forced into sexual exploitation'
It is a very harrowing report about people in Mombasa, Kenya asking/compelling their own children to sell themselves sexually so that the family can buy food. Some kids depicted are 14 or younger. — universeness
According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, India is home to over 11 million slaves, the highest number in any country. Slavery in India manifests in various forms, including forced labor, human trafficking, and child exploitation.
Haiti's poverty is difficult to understand, especially for those living in a country as rich as the United States. There are some obvious conditions: the long history of political oppression, soil erosion, lack of knowledge and literacy, a large populace in a small country.
Brazil saw a new record number of people living in poverty and extreme poverty in 2021. In all, almost one in three people in the country—29.4 percent of the population—lived in poverty until at least last year, and almost one in ten people—8.4 percent—struggled under extreme poverty.
In Nepal’s ‘Kidney Valley,’ poverty drives an illegal market for human organs
The first two yes; the last, I've not heard of, but will look for — Vera Mont
Not quite so. Last I heard, there were 54 registered political parties in the disUnited States. What happens in presidential elections is that the minority parties drop out early, since they're regional and/or not rich enough to compete, so they throw their support to one of the giants. What choice do the voters have, but to go along with what they perceive as the lesser of two available evils. Of late, hate propaganda - predominantly and sometimes unilaterally from the right (What some fairandbalanced commentators tell you about "both sides" is not what I've witnessed.) has played a disproportionate role in American politics. There has always been some vulgar sloganeering, flag-flapping and hoopla, but hasn't traditionally been rife with death-threats. — Vera Mont
That's a longish stride from moral and immoral speech. I was there when it was considered highly immoral to mention homosexuality and perfectly acceptable to feature blackface in a performance. Morality is as suspect in my book as brotherly love. But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making. — Vera Mont
They made an American version of 'the office' with Steve Carell. I assume you have watched some of that: — universeness
I remain 'uncomfortable,' with the current checks and balances placed on top civil servants in particular and on all civil servants in general, — universeness
Sounds like a broken system to me. — universeness
When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral. What does this have to do with democracy? — Athena
Because not all party political systems are braindead or not working. But I guess you will not hear anything about it in your hate of political parties.You keep offering evidence of how broken party political systems are but also, you keep rejecting new proposals. Why do you insist in trying to defibrillate an already dead but still deadly system? — universeness
Yes, really.Really???
From wiki:
Afghanistan is a mountainous landlocked country at the crossroads of Central and South (Southern) Asia. Some of the invaders in the history of Afghanistan include the Maurya Empire, the ancient Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongol Empire led by Genghis Khan, the Timurid Empire of Timur, the Mughal Empire, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and most recently the United States. — universeness
What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves. — ssu
The Australian electoral system comprises the laws and processes used for the election of members of the Australian Parliament and is governed primarily by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The system presently has a number of distinctive features including compulsory enrolment; compulsory voting; majority-preferential instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the House of Representatives; and the use of the single transferable vote proportional representation system to elect the upper house, the Senate.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district — Wikipedia
Ranked-choice voting in the United States
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ranked-choice_votin...
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) can refer to one of several ranked voting methods used in some cities and states in the United States. The term is not strictly ...
Use at state and federal levels · Use at local levels · California · Massachusetts — wikipedia
So do I. But Americans simply have to understand that the present system can totally change, and actually quite quickly. The naive thing is to think that it's the Presidential election where you could have someone not being either a Democrat or a Republican that can change things. Nope, change starts from the communities and the states and also the federal level. And it's possible.I disagree that is impossible to put an end to the two party system. — Athena
Still politicians will group, form coalitions and groups. — ssu
I think humans need to utterly reject that stupid term from theism. Sin does not exist!!!!!!!
If a person does not accept the existence of god(s) then it is not possible to go against it morally.
If humans break any aspect of secular moral code or human law then they have broken our laws or went against our moral codes, not non-existent gods. Godless humans cannot sin!
In my exchange with Vera Mont regarding the love label, it becomes clear that it's an over-burdened label. I think you have acted often, in support of the well-being of strangers and that shows that you have a great capacity for compassion towards your fellow human beings. You should be awarded the NCA (if it existed,) in my opinion. — universeness
Great way to say that: I agree, a moneyless society is genuinely and literally wealth free. Poverty is abundant and people can often experience a famine. :up:In a moneyless, wealth-free society, what does anyone have to gain by being 'a politician' in the first place? — Vera Mont
We are destroying our planet and sooner or later we will have to deal with the truth. I think most of the world is having to deal with the truth, but they are in denial, while they flee floods, hurricanes, and fires. — Athena
Meteorologists face hostility and threats from viewers as they tie climate change to extreme temperatures and weather
A new law in North Carolina will ban the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise,
Great way to say that: I agree, a moneyless society is typically genuinely and literally wealth free. Poverty is abundant and people can often experience a famine. — ssu
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
~ Albert Einstein
Yes, I agree that we see some things quite differently. I think you assign some value to that which may be labelled mysticism, the transcendent, the numinous, the esoteric, the 'spiritual' or perhaps even the the theosophistic. I assign zero value to such notions. If I used a word like 'spiritual,' I would use it to mean, human functional movement which results in breathing and therefore living, the 'animated/dynamic/moving human.' Nothing more woo woo than that, but that description is exciting enough, so no woo woo notions are needed, for a human to enjoy and celebrate the fact that they are alive and are animated. I don't see why any woo woo notion would make a person more excited about being alive than I am, imo.I see things differently. — Athena
I am sorry Athena but I could not disagree with you more, on this important point.Ignorant people can and do sin. — Athena
I try not to anthropomorphise nature in such ways, although I do fall into these old traps often.Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. A better understanding of God than what mythology gives us. Mother Nature will do things her way and we better figure out how she does things and learn to live with her. Truth is very important and so is living in harmony with nature very important. — Athena
What is going on here? In other forums arguments are terrible but here the arguments are so mentally stimulating and fun! — Athena
totally get the change in morality and that is why we must make these arguments without attacking each other. The progressive mind expects change, whereas the conservative mind may resist change and can not explore why yesterday this __________ was okay and today it is not. — Athena
Remember that in your new world order, without having to administer, allocate and fight over money, the entire civil service will be pared down to fewer departments, each with far fewer offices and white collar workers. — Vera Mont
That's the direction of travel I would prefer, but as I suggested earlier, I think automation could help greatly reduce the opportunity for personal abuse of the civil service system by long term, experienced participants. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.