NationStates Jolt Archive

Only if the point of democracy can be exercised solely through voting. However, the point of democracy (in my opinion, the accountability of government to the governed) can be exercised through many other ways beyond simple voting in elections.

By suggesting that people can only exercise these other options if they have completed one of them (voting) seems somewhat arbitrary and more likely to 'defeat the point of democracy'.

I agree. Similarly, "I didn't vote for this President" isn't an excuse for not holding your government accountable. A lot of people act like the vote for President is all that matters. Obviously, if we want to hold the President accountable more than every four years, we have to hold all others in office accountable as well.

When the President is selected without reference to what the voters wanted, it undermines the notion that it is even possible to hold officials accountable in that way.

And some of us have been raising families on 30k.

Some of us dream of 'living comfortably'.
Amazing thing is, we probably have the wealth--as a nation--to ensure that for everyone.

It'd just mean the superrich wouldn't be able to live too much of a high life above ours. (And it would entail a level of control over the economy by the government with which I would be entirely uncomfortable with.)

He's right, though.

The American political system contains mechanisms that allow the people to remove a bad president.

The fact that those mechanisms weren't effectively employed, despite the bulk of the nation mumbling about the terrible presidency, means it really is EVERY voting American's fault.
I know this now. I was being dumb last night, once again.

I should really learn not to try and tackle him. He creams me without even trying.

Amazing thing is, we probably have the wealth--as a nation--to ensure that for everyone.


We have the wealth as a nation to make sure that no one has to worry about the essentials, no doubt about it.


It'd just mean the superrich wouldn't be able to live too much of a high life above ours. (And it would entail a level of control over the economy by the government with which I would be entirely uncomfortable with.)


I'm the other way - if I knew that no child was going to sleep hungry, homeless or hopeless, I'd be more than happy to put up with a far more draconian economic policy.

I realise I'm ina minority, but I prefer 'safe' to 'free'. Free to starve isn't freedom, in my head.


I should really learn not to try and tackle him. He creams me without even trying.

Where's the iconoclast? Rip the system, baby. Jocabia needs you to take him on, from time to time, so he doesn't become part of the evil empire. As do we all.

We have the wealth as a nation to make sure that no one has to worry about the essentials, no doubt about it.

Indeed.


I'm the other way - if I knew that no child was going to sleep hungry, homeless or hopeless, I'd be more than happy to put up with a far more draconian economic policy.

I realise I'm ina minority, but I prefer 'safe' to 'free'. Free to starve isn't freedom, in my head.

Oh, that's not it, really.

My issue with it is that so far, the level of control needed has been shown to be so ineffective that it causes the economy to collapse and lowers the standard of living for everyone to beyond poverty level. I point, of course, to the former Soviet Union and other countries that attempted that sort of economy.

I realize there were other factors involved, and that there is still definite potential, but right now I'm thinking we're better off trying to improve the system we've got in as many ways as we can--establishing safety nets for sudden job losses, expanded welfare, etc etc--rather than going that route.


Where's the iconoclast? Rip the system, baby. Jocabia needs you to take him on, from time to time, so he doesn't become part of the evil empire. As do we all.
True enough. I'm just saying that I need to stop doing it in such a way that it gets me smashed. That is, I need to actually argue effectively and have decent points.

Where's the iconoclast? Rip the system, baby. Jocabia needs you to take him on, from time to time, so he doesn't become part of the evil empire. As do we all.

Or start talking smack about the size (or lack thereof) of his manhood.

And I really did sig that.

My issue with it is that so far, the level of control needed has been shown to be so ineffective that it causes the economy to collapse and lowers the standard of living for everyone to beyond poverty level. I point, of course, to the former Soviet Union and other countries that attempted that sort of economy.

I realize there were other factors involved, and that there is still definite potential, but right now I'm thinking we're better off trying to improve the system we've got in as many ways as we can--establishing safety nets for sudden job losses, expanded welfare, etc etc--rather than going that route.


The problems with the former Soviet Union weren't about trying to control trade, really. The problems were corruption on a massive scale (which the administration did nothing about, because they benefitted from it - why does THAT sound so familiar?), massive mismanagement (which was prevalent throught the whole model because of a wealth of nepotism and a lack of internal regulation or transparency - again, sounding hauntingly familiar) and an attempt to centrally run everything, even when it would be better handled locally (mainly because of a powerhungry central administration that treated 'outsiders' as enemies... again, sounding familiar).

There is no reason why a country shouldn't have efficient government that operated in tiers, that was massively transparent, lacking in croneyism and corruption, regulated, and minimal. There is no reason why government couldn't regulate relatively non-invasively, appropriately, and locally.

All of this is more than possible, especially with our 21st century technology.


True enough. I'm just saying that I need to stop doing it in such a way that it gets me smashed. That is, I need to actually argue effectively and have decent points.

Decent points are always preferred. :) But I think you judge yourself too harshly by measuring yourself against arguments you know you COULD have made, rather than against 'the competition'...

Or start talking smack about the size (or lack thereof) of his manhood.


Harsh. Saying Jocabia has a "lack of... manhood"... thats cold, man.


And I really did sig that.

Yeah, I saw that. Sigged in red, no less... ;)

Harsh. Saying Jocabia has a "lack of... manhood"... thats cold, man.



Yeah, I saw that. Sigged in red, no less... ;)

He referred to me as "half-cocked" on AD. I'm pretty sure all bets are off :p

Yup. I like to let the important bits stand out. Sadly you can't have multicolored links, or it'd be a lot more colorful.

He referred to me as "half-cocked" on AD. I'm pretty sure all bets are off :p


Maybe, by 'halfcocked', he just meant you take it in the bum, rather than 'fully cocked', which I assume would mean you did some kind of fingercuffs thing.

See? I can make anything better,


Yup. I like to let the important bits stand out. Sadly you can't have multicolored links, or it'd be a lot more colorful.

Well, you can have multicoloured links... but you have to do the colour codes for each character separately...

I know this now. I was being dumb last night, once again.

I should really learn not to try and tackle him. He creams me without even trying.

I'm not making the analogy to what actually happened, but to your description of it.

Sometimes we need people to tilt at the windmills just to remind us that we should never take anything for granted. Every once in a while, the windmills lose and those that fell them are heroes.

But I think you judge yourself too harshly by measuring yourself against arguments you know you COULD have made, rather than against 'the competition'...

I agree with this, mostly. Kyronea's approach is a benefit and a curse. Like some of the best of us, he is introspective and expects a level of performance from himself that will always be difficult to achieve. Unfortunately, he's very sensitive to when he doesn't reach that level.

Kyr, it's not about reaching the bar all the time, but about reaching for it. I'll never be as decent a person as I wish I was, but I certainly shouldn't discount my efforts toward it.

Make your efforts, take your lumps, learn your lessons and say thank you.

(To avoid confusion, don't say thank you to me. Just be thankful. Ah, it's fun taking passing shots at CTOAN, especially when they land on his glorious chest.)

The problems with the former Soviet Union weren't about trying to control trade, really. The problems were corruption on a massive scale (which the administration did nothing about, because they benefitted from it - why does THAT sound so familiar?), massive mismanagement (which was prevalent throught the whole model because of a wealth of nepotism and a lack of internal regulation or transparency - again, sounding hauntingly familiar) and an attempt to centrally run everything, even when it would be better handled locally (mainly because of a powerhungry central administration that treated 'outsiders' as enemies... again, sounding familiar).


I'm failing to see why it would be any different here in the United States. Given your opinion of the inability of our government to do anything efficient, why should we somehow be able to pull off the level of control you desire?

Added to that, what makes you think we could keep the economy going that way? Unless you're suggesting state capitalism a la China where market forces still decide what is produced, etc.

There is no reason why a country shouldn't have efficient government that operated in tiers, that was massively transparent, lacking in croneyism and corruption, regulated, and minimal. There is no reason why government couldn't regulate relatively non-invasively, appropriately, and locally.

All of this is more than possible, especially with our 21st century technology.


Oh, I agree, on a principle level.

I just don't see it happening in that way as you claim. Remember, more advanced technology or no, we're still human. If every single person in government could perform the way you suggest and could be counted on to perform that way day in and day out, and that newly elected leaders could take their place and do it the same way, then yeah, we'd have a wonderful government.

But I don't see that happening. I see quite the opposite. There are a food good ones here and there, but everyone in government working that efficiently? Nuh uh.


Decent points are always preferred. :) But I think you judge yourself too harshly by measuring yourself against arguments you know you COULD have made, rather than against 'the competition'...

I'm not making the analogy to what actually happened, but to your description of it.

Sometimes we need people to tilt at the windmills just to remind us that we should never take anything for granted. Every once in a while, the windmills lose and those that fell them are heroes.

I agree with this, mostly. Kyronea's approach is a benefit and a curse. Like some of the best of us, he is introspective and expects a level of performance from himself that will always be difficult to achieve. Unfortunately, he's very sensitive to when he doesn't reach that level.

Kyr, it's not about reaching the bar all the time, but about reaching for it. I'll never be as decent a person as I wish I was, but I certainly shouldn't discount my efforts toward it.

Make your efforts, take your lumps, learn your lessons and say thank you.

(To avoid confusion, don't say thank you to me. Just be thankful. Ah, it's fun taking passing shots at CTOAN, especially when they land on his glorious chest.)

Righto, righto, I know.

It's just, you know, emotional knowledge, intellectual knowledge, yadda yadda yadda...

Ah, it's fun taking passing shots at CTOAN, especially when they land on his glorious chest.

Didnt know you were into that kind of thing. Kinky.