board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Congress

Post Reply   Page 3 of 5  [ 81 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 12:20 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
The Senate is and never was never meant to be a proportional governing body. The only way to expand the Senate is to induct a territory into statehood. Puerto Rico's really the only contender for that and they turned it down.

Housing a 10000 member Congress wouldn't be as bad as you think. You'd need an arena to hold them, but the offices and stuff probably wouldn't take up much more space than a university campus like mine, where the student body is >20,000. That can be handled. Even in a big city (NYU is also huge). The real issue is running a session efficiently. How do you get anything done when even 10% of 10000 want to sound off?

The other thing politicians love is power. You increase the size of Congress, you dilute that power. And that's why expanding Congress into the thousands is not going to happen. The sitting Congressmen aren't going to like it. That and a massive restructuring of the legislative branch is the last thing we need right now. Let's end at least one of our wars first and do something about that budget.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 12:40 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
If increasing by 10 fold is too much, perhaps a mere doubling at this time. That would certainly bring us closer to actual representation.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 7:21 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
435. That is how many members in the House of Representatives. Everyone jokes about how slow Congress works. Now double the House to 870. We've just gotten slower.

1 representative for every 30k people is ridiculous. A 10,000 person House of Representatives will never accomplish anything regardless of the technology used, and how safe it is. It isn't realistic to think that 10k people could discuss one draft of a bill in less than 6 months. The government would actually come to a screeching halt. Regardless of whether CG thinks that sf's basketball crowd comment is relevant, it actually is relevant to a discussion of increasing the House membership by 22 times.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Onizuka Eikichi
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 3:26 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed 19 Oct , 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Outside of Causality
Contact: ICQ
 
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
435. That is how many members in the House of Representatives. Everyone jokes about how slow Congress works. Now double the House to 870. We've just gotten slower.

1 representative for every 30k people is ridiculous. A 10,000 person House of Representatives will never accomplish anything regardless of the technology used, and how safe it is. It isn't realistic to think that 10k people could discuss one draft of a bill in less than 6 months. The government would actually come to a screeching halt. Regardless of whether CG thinks that sf's basketball crowd comment is relevant, it actually is relevant to a discussion of increasing the House membership by 22 times.
Right. That is kind of what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution. They designed the government specifically so it would be difficult to do anything radical and unreasonable (like going around declaring war all over the globe). BUT, if a logical, reasonable proposal is made, even with a 10,000+ house, it should go through without much resistance.

The more the better. That way (theoretically) only the "best" proposals would go through.

1 rep per 30,000 is not ridiculous. 435 reps for 301,000,000 is.

_________________

冬ながら
空より花の
散り来るは
雲のあなたに
春にやあるらん


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:29 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
How would 10k representatives present bills and then get these bills ready for a vote in a reasonable amount of time? I am not speaking of radical changes, but basic bills... let us take the budget for example. What pipe dream proposals are these reps working on that will glide through like a hockey player? 10k opinions have too many variables.

I am not saying that the current system is good, because it takes 435 people way too long to get some things finished as well, but I doubt that more people equals more efficient.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:31 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
from Onizuka
Quote:
That is kind of what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution. They designed the government specifically so it would be difficult to do anything radical and unreasonable (like going around declaring war all over the globe).
What one person thinks is "radical and unreasonable" is what another may call prudent and necessary.

There are many books written about the writing of the Constitution, the Convention and the men who were there. Perhaps you could provide factual evidence of this statement from some of those sources? I am always very wary of people who 220 years later claim they can speak for the Founding Fathers.

I would further point out to you that the Constitution was written in 1787 for a nation of just 4 million people which occupied a small strip along the Atlantic Coast. Most people worked in an agrarian based economy using the barter system. We were fairly isolated from the rest of the world. To apply a formula designed for that world in 1787 to todays world of 2008 makes little or no sense at all.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:41 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
How would 10k representatives present bills and then get these bills ready for a vote in a reasonable amount of time? I am not speaking of radical changes, but basic bills... let us take the budget for example. What pipe dream proposals are these reps working on that will glide through like a hockey player? 10k opinions have too many variables.

I am not saying that the current system is good, because it takes 435 people way too long to get some things finished as well, but I doubt that more people equals more efficient.
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:45 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
That is kind of what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution. They designed the government specifically so it would be difficult to do anything radical and unreasonable (like going around declaring war all over the globe).
What one person thinks is "radical and unreasonable" is what another may call prudent and necessary.
True enough. Some people think calls to adhere to the constituion are "radical and unreasonable". Others think that ignoring the constitution when it is inconvenient is "radical and unreasonable."
sauronsfinger wrote:
I would further point out to you that the Constitution was written in 1787 for a nation of just 4 million people which occupied a small strip along the Atlantic Coast. Most people worked in an agrarian based economy using the barter system. We were fairly isolated from the rest of the world. To apply a formula designed for that world in 1787 to todays world of 2008 makes little or no sense at all.
That's why we have an amendment process. Ignoring the constitution when it is inconvenient is not just radical and unreasonable, it's dangerous. How will we decide which portions are ignorable? That inconvenient first amendment? That inconvenient fifth amendment?

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:45 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
from Meril36
Quote:
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.
Thank you Meril for saying publicly and in print what I said yesterday was one of the main Libertarian motives behind this scheme.

from my post of Tuesday November 18 found on page 1 of this very thread:
Quote:
There is more than one way to skin a cat says the old adage. And it appears that the Libertarians are now taking a page from other extremist groups whose anti-government mantra has been "bleed the beast". In other words, destroy the government and its power by bleeding it dry of money, support and resources.

So the Libertarians want government out of our lives and to reduce its power in our lives. What better way to do it than this ridiculous idea to expand Congress to 10,000 people and thereby destroying Congress as any sort of functioning body.

If I were a Libertarian, I would say it is a master stroke of Machivallien political evil genius.

As I am not a Libertarian, its just a foolish and blantantly transparent ruse.
I really do appreciate your honesty Meril.

Last edited by sauronsfinger on Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:46 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
Meril36 wrote:
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.
Thank you Meril for saying publicly and in print what I said yesterday was one of the main Libertarin motives behind this scheme.
It's much more fun to attack the poster than the argument itself.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:49 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Meril36 wrote:
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
How would 10k representatives present bills and then get these bills ready for a vote in a reasonable amount of time? I am not speaking of radical changes, but basic bills... let us take the budget for example. What pipe dream proposals are these reps working on that will glide through like a hockey player? 10k opinions have too many variables.

I am not saying that the current system is good, because it takes 435 people way too long to get some things finished as well, but I doubt that more people equals more efficient.
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.

In reality, you know that will not work. Let us take a period of time where people who are in dire straits because of stupid government moves still need the government to act as efficiently as possible--oh I know, right now during the economic crisis. If the government comes to a halt, our financial institutions come to a halt, and the automobile industry comes to a halt... people lose their jobs while libertarians cheer the downfall of the government. People cannot eat. People cannot pay their rent or mortgages. People revolt maybe? And that leads to another system of government. Anarchy is not sustainable.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:49 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
No CG - what is much more fun is to accurately identify some of the true motivations of a hairbrianed scheme and then have one of its proponents come right out and confirm exactly what you said they believed.

That is oh so delicious.

I did not put the words onto the screen for Meril. She typed them herself.
Meril was not attacked by me. She was thanked by me.

Last edited by sauronsfinger on Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:50 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Sometimes doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all, TED.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:52 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
No CG - what is much more fun is to accurately identify some of the true motivations of a hairbrianed scheme and then have one of its proponents come right out and confirm exactly what you said they believed.
And that still has no relation what so ever to the actual validity of the arguments presented. Many think that it is better to attack the argument, not the arguer. That's called "debate" among the many.
sauronsfinger wrote:
Meril was not attacked by me. She was thanked by me.
Thank you for proving you prefer attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 4:57 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Sometimes doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all, TED.
What does that even mean in context here?
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
And that still has no relation what so ever to the actual validity of the arguments presented. Many think that it is better to attack the argument, not the arguer. That's called "debate" among the many.
The argument here doesn't make sense. No one has explained why this 10k rep pipe dream or even double the rep pipe dream is good for the people of the United States. Forget what is good for libertarians or the government. I think that's the problem I have with the libertarian position on things--it is never properly explained, just presented as if it needs no explanation because the explanation should be self-evident.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 5:02 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
TED has hit the nail firmly upon the head. Even if we put aside the nefarious personal motivations of the Libertarians to weaken the government, there has been no valid reason offered for such a scheme nor any seriouos planned out proposal for it.

And I think stated motivations are always relevant to a discussion of proposed policy changes. WHY a person or group wants to do something is very important.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 5:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Sometimes doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all, TED.
What does that even mean in context here?
You wrote that if the government comes to a halt, so does everything else. That's not true, but you wrote it in the context of "we need speedy action to solve a crisis."

Perhaps we need speedy action, perhaps we don't. But the ability to quickly make things worse doesn't bode well for the problem that needs to be fixed. That's what "sometimes doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all" means. The Bailout, for example, quickly made the economic crisis worse, but it was done quickly. I think the "made it worse" part is more important than the "it was done quickly" part is. But that's just me, thinking that degrading a situation is bad, even if it is done quickly.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
And that still has no relation what so ever to the actual validity of the arguments presented. Many think that it is better to attack the argument, not the arguer. That's called "debate" among the many.
The argument here doesn't make sense. No one has explained why this 10k rep pipe dream or even double the rep pipe dream is good for the people of the United States. Forget what is good for libertarians or the government. I think that's the problem I have with the libertarian position on things--it is never properly explained, just presented as if it needs no explanation because the explanation should be self-evident.
It makes the House more representative. Various large regions with little in common other than geographic contiguousness are considered represented by one person, when they would be better suited by being represented by several. It makes the representatives more directly accountable to the voters since the ratio of voters to reps is improved in favor of the voters. It makes it harder for lobbyists to buy off a large enough portion of the representatives to get their special interest bill passed over the wishes of the voters.

All of that was explained, all of that was presented.
sauronsfinger wrote:
TED has hit the nail firmly upon the head. **** ** ** *** ***** *** ********* ******** *********** ** *** ************ ** ****** *** **********, there has been no valid reason offered for such a scheme nor any seriouos planned out proposal for it.
irrelevant point and attack removed

It makes the House more representative. Various large regions with little in common other than geographic contiguousness are considered represented by one person, when they would be better suited by being represented by several. It makes the representatives more directly accountable to the voters since the ratio of voters to reps is improved in favor of the voters. It makes it harder for lobbyists to buy off a large enough portion of the representatives to get their special interest bill passed over the wishes of the voters.

All of that was explained, all of that was presented.
sauronsfinger wrote:
And I think stated motivations are always relevant to a discussion of proposed policy changes. WHY a person or group wants to do something is very important.
And still less relevant than the argument itself, or at least should be among those who care about whether a proposal is good in and of itself.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 5:15 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Quote:
from SF
And I think stated motivations are always relevant to a discussion of proposed policy changes. WHY a person or group wants to do something is very important.
Quote:
reply from CG
And still less relevant than the argument itself, or at least should be among those who care about whether a proposal is good in and of itself.
And there is one of the problems we always have here. You try to define the debate and the issues in it by some arbitrary standards that you attempt to foist on others. Now you are telling us that the motivations and selfish purposes behind some scheme which could cripple the US government and not important and we should know better.

You have the right to consider any part of the argument you want to for yourself and decide it for yourself. That is fine and I respect that. I am not going to order you how you should think and how you should judge an issue. And please do not do that for myself or anyone else here.

As an American citizen who loves this nation and its people, I get very concerned when a group is pushing an idea and they openly admit that
Quote:
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.


That speaks volumes to me. And I guess to others here as well. If it means nothing to you, thats fine and I will not criticize you for considereing it not important. But it is vitally important to me.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 5:19 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Quote:
You wrote that if the government comes to a halt, so does everything else. That's not true, but you wrote it in the context of "we need speedy action to solve a crisis."
No. I did not write it in context of "we need speedy action to solve a crisis", but we can't sit and wait with a crisis looming. We can't fix the House, then say, "okay, we're wired, let's fix something". The problem is that this discussion works only in theory. In the current climate, there are American livelihoods at stake.

I think the Bailout was done hastily and incorrect. Congress failed to attach serious restrictions and oversight to the free money. In that I agree with you that hasty and wrong were executed.
Quote:
It makes the House more representative. Various large regions with little in common other than geographic contiguousness are considered represented by one person, when they would be better suited by being represented by several. It makes the representatives more directly accountable to the voters since the ratio of voters to reps is improved in favor of the voters. It makes it harder for lobbyists to buy off a large enough portion of the representatives to get their special interest bill passed over the wishes of the voters.
[/quote][/quote]

It does make the House more representative, but at the cost of efficiency. 10k reps is ridiculous. It is the exact radical change that the poster with the Japanese name said it would prevent from happening.

Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box here, but how would 10k reps get a bill passed, even a reasonable one? Yes, they would better represent their constituents, and that is better than lobbyists because the average American can't afford lobbyists. I'm wondering how the wishes of the voters gets passed when each rep gets 3 seconds in a day to give his or her opinion. What may take a day in our current system, probably would take a week or so with 10k people trying to speak their minds. Slower government equals what? Forget any crisis situation in the US.

I'm not going to speak for the Founding Fathers, but I wonder if they ever imagined their country could blossom from 4 million to 300 million.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Congress
Posted: Wed 19 Nov , 2008 5:47 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
And there is one of the problems we always have here. You try to define the debate and the issues in it by some arbitrary standards that you attempt to foist on others.
Such as discussing the merits of the proposal instead of assigning nefarious motives to those who make the suggestion.

Yes, that's certainly arbitrary. :roll:
sauronsfinger wrote:
Now you are telling us that the motivations and selfish purposes behind some scheme which could cripple the US government and not important and we should know better.
Try arguing "the proposal is bad because it could cripple the US government" instead of "the proposal is bad because the person proposing it would like to cripple the US government" and you will do a lot better, because that is the way people debate and discuss.
sauronsfinger wrote:
You have the right to consider any part of the argument you want to for yourself and decide it for yourself. That is fine and I respect that. I am not going to order you how you should think and how you should judge an issue. And please do not do that for myself or anyone else here.
That is an interesting attempt to phrase "attack the person not the argument" as the moral high ground, even though it isn't.
sauronsfinger wrote:
As an American citizen who loves this nation and its people, I get very concerned when a group is pushing an idea and they openly admit that
Quote:
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.


That speaks volumes to me. And I guess to others here as well. If it means nothing to you, thats fine and I will not criticize you for considereing it not important. But it is vitally important to me.
We all know that you think it is vitally important that we always be told what to do. Should that be what we argue against your opposition to this idea, or should we argue about the idea? Should I call that desire "evil" and "nefarious" when I argue that point? Or would you consider that to be attacking the person instead of the argument if it is applied to you for a change?
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
No. I did not write it in context of "we need speedy action to solve a crisis", but we can't sit and wait with a crisis looming. We can't fix the House, then say, "okay, we're wired, let's fix something". The problem is that this discussion works only in theory. In the current climate, there are American livelihoods at stake.
There will always be some crisis that needs more government to fix it, so waiting until all the problems are solved before we try to improve government is arguing that we should not improve government.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
It does make the House more representative, but at the cost of efficiency. 10k reps is ridiculous. It is the exact radical change that the poster with the Japanese name said it would prevent from happening.

Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box here, but how would 10k reps get a bill passed, even a reasonable one? Yes, they would better represent their constituents, and that is better than lobbyists because the average American can't afford lobbyists. I'm wondering how the wishes of the voters gets passed when each rep gets 3 seconds in a day to give his or her opinion. What may take a day in our current system, probably would take a week or so with 10k people trying to speak their minds. Slower government equals what? Forget any crisis situation in the US.
It seems then that the solution is obvious - not all congressmen get to speak every day. Perhaps coalitions can internally appoint speakers to speak for a group of congressmen in agreement.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 5  [ 81 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: