Human nature
Pages
| Author | Topic: Human nature |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 5368
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 16:16
Profile
Let it be put on the record that, if states are to once again become sovereign bodies unto themselves, I will be pressing for Nebraska to invade the Dakotas. The other states will look the other way as long as they want to be fed. Posts: 43 | Registered: Friday, January 7 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 16:20
Profile
What is disturbing is that people are beginning to think that we should be serving the political and economic system. It doesn't matter if it is capitalism, socialism, etc. Kind of like we should be serving the machinery that makes the system work. This is basically wrong. The machinery was created to serve us. Never the other way around. First and foremost government and economic systems exist to serve people. Corporations and governments exist to serve peoples needs not the other way around. Raising the corporation or government above the needs of the people creates the kind of environment we are in right now-- rampant pollution and corruption. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 16:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:Freaking heck. Here, we vote for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that's it. State elections are seperate, so there's another two votes there. And you can be fined if you don't vote. [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 16:23: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 16:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:In practice, it'd probably be more accurate to say that government exists to make the people serve the people. A government in itself is only as good as the people who work in, with and under it. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 16:53
Profile
Homepage
A government exists so there can be a nation instead of a pack of quarreling landusers, pretty much. But even so, I'd say our government is getting more and more awry as time progresses. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 878
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 20:33
Profile
One thing to remember is that when you talk about what the government is trying to do or wants to do, that the government itself does not have any goals of its own as it is not a single individual with a single agenda. The government has no priorities other than the personal priorities of whatever individuals are running it, which are not always the same as each other, and this can lead to very inneffective government actions as different measures with conflicting goals can be enacted which interfere with each other and important things can fail to be addressed as no person took it as thier personal priority and expected others to deal with it. -------------------- Warning: Posts may contain misspellinks and typo.s Posts: 409 | Registered: Sunday, March 31 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 20:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:In theory. In practice, unfortunately, a lot of democracies are actually oligarchies. This is amplified by the degree of power that bribes and other secret deals offer. Currently, in America, there are around 5, perhaps 10, people who can make the "government" do pretty much what they want if they work together - forget about checks and balances. Even not taking into account that one party controls all three branches, a little money can take care of a lot of things, and this power group has a lot of money. [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 20:54: Message edited by: Arancaytar. You Owe it to the Door. ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 22:13
Profile
Homepage
Never underestimate the willingness of ordinary people to fail to enforce bad laws. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 23:26
Profile
Homepage
["If there is no god then all is in vein, oblivion awaits us all, and there is no point to doing anything that is contrary to ones desires." I can't begin to argue this point, since I've never experienced such despair. Nevertheless, believing in god is superfluous.] That is because you are not an average human being. [If there is no god, then belief is superfluous.] I agree, except as a crutch for a weaker mind to tell themselves they do have something to live for. [If there is a god, then its nature is still unknown- is it benign, compassionate, or irate? How can its nature be perceived? It's a shot in the dark to the extreme, and the idea of hedging one's bets on one deity so vehemently under such odds seems utterly absurd.] I've made an informed decision and increase my knowledge whenever I have the chance. Seeking to know the truth about God, imho is even more important then thinking you've found Him. [On the other hand, if you're merely arguing for the belief as an opiate of the masses, well... Clearly, you can have beliefs that cover the gamut. I can't well vouch for all faith being bad, and the abrahamic belief systems alone could be much worse. (I'm not much of a scholar on any eastern religions, but they also appear to be "good" in many ways.) My problem is that modern belief has been conflated with platanistic nonsense that tosses scientific observation out of the window.] I have already expressed my own 'scientific observation' of the nature of God. I have proven it to myself, though I cannot prove it to others. [ Divine power does not power automobiles. (The fact that it alone also does not empower factories and firearms results in the "godless" world you so describe, but that's neither here nor there.)] What made gasoline? What made crude oil? In my sight, nothing could have been acomplished without the forethought that God took. The probability that everything was created by mere random chance seems much more absurd to me then trying to find the real God. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Friday, July 15 2005 14:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:To highlight ridiculousness of direct democracy even further, here are some of the things I had to vote on (I also live in California, but in a different town from Kel): - 3 measures dealing with a complicated labor dispute between county government and several unions. The issue dealt with fine points in definition of public and private sector wages for the purpose of establishing equivalent wage scale, and procedures for arbitration of future disputes. To make matters even more confuzing, the same trade unions were endorsing the "yes" vote and the "no" vote. (It seems different branches of these unions had different positions on arbitration proposals.) By the way, if I remember correctly, this dispute was a result of a slight ambiguity in wording of a previously passed proposal. - Several conflicting proposals dealing with fund allocation between local and state budgets. If I understood them correctly (which might not be the case due to all spin and legaleze these are wrapped in), one of those proposals, if enacted, would retroactively rewrite the budget for current fiscal year. (I wonder how they were going to implement that, since several months were gone and a lot of money already spent.) - A couple proposals dealt with competing plans for expansion of gambling. Both of them would have complicated impact on projected budget revenues, effect on other deals made by the governor, possibility of litigation, etc. - A proposal to modify a part of criminal penalty code that was modified by a previously passed proposal. These are just some of the examples that I remember off the top of my head. It took me a whole weekend to figure out how to vote, and I still had to abstain on some issues and some election. By the way, I had to vote for people for close to a dozen offices, including a judge, half a dozen local offices (school board, some other boards, etc.) and half a dozen state and national offices. Considering that most voters probably aren't going to waste a whole weekend trying to cut through the spin in competing ads and understand the legaleze of proposals, you can see how this "direct democracy" can be easily hijacked by people with a lot of money to spend on spin. -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 15 2005 14:33
Profile
So, if they were to adopt the Australian method of encouraging voter turnout, you might find a heck of a lot of people deciding that it costs less to pay a fine rather than waste 10-20 hours sifting through a pamphlet written by people that couldn't care less if it was understandable by anyone without a jurisprudence degree. *this message sponsored by the fund for excellence in run-on sentences* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Friday, July 15 2005 16:32
Profile
Well, you can't just force people to vote to increase voter turnout, since I think that's sort of messing around with our constitutional rights. (well, those of us that live in the US) A lot of Americans take what individual rights and freedoms we have for granted that they do not appreciate what they have going for them, 'tis a shame. It's a sad fact to think that we are pretty much the "laughingstock" of democratic politics and we're supposed to be the most powerful modern industrialized nation in the world. Pretty much, I think, that a big majority (not all) just do not care for US politics or anything that involves the economy (unless it directly affects your job status or income) I mean, do you really think the majority of young people (meaning like teenagers or anyone young that doesn't care for the world) are going to remember such recent political events, oh say, Sandra Day O' Conner stepping down from the Supreme Court or knowing SC Justice Reinquist is suffering from Thyroid cancer? I'm guessing not too many, but I could be wrong as they have happened recently in the news. [ Friday, July 15, 2005 16:37: Message edited by: Jeros ] -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, July 15 2005 19:43
Profile
Homepage
If voting were required, I think most Americans would show up, vote arbitrarily, and leave. It would make very little difference statistically, but it would hardly help. —Alorael, who is even more afraid that most Americans would be swayed, perhaps unconciously, by advertisements telling them what to think. Advertarchy is not a legitimate form of government. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5368
|
written Sunday, July 17 2005 01:44
Profile
quote:As long as America can still end modern civilization at a whim, and even bring it down with even our own destruction, I will be happy. Posts: 43 | Registered: Friday, January 7 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Sunday, July 17 2005 02:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:Funny, because I won't. Modern civilization isn't ideal, but I'd hate to see it go. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Sunday, July 17 2005 08:19
Profile
quote:Telling somebody to think something using a convincing basis is not a crime. Adverts only become a problem if they're actively spreading disinformation and nobody counters them effectively. Since in general campaign advertisements from each side are roughly equally retarded, I don't think that'd be an insufferable problem. For the record, when I voted I had two things to vote on. I had to vote for a candidate for the county council and another for the Houses of Commons. The British system means we don't have to elect a president or similar. These state propositions and whatever would never find their way on to a British ballot paper. If we're electing our representatives they ought to be able to make the decisions themselves. We do occasionally have referenda but those are on really big national issues, the next one of which will probably be the one on whether or not to adopt the Euro as our currency. -------------------- Voice of Reasonable Morality Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Sunday, July 17 2005 16:51
Profile
Since Great Britian uses the Parliament government system, Prime Minister Tony Blair would be the main person in charge of most government decisions and the hierarchy or royal family that is still there, they pretty much act more of representatives for the country rather than any political roles. I mean, I'm guessing that keeping the royal family is simply keeping old tradition, but nothing else? It's almost as if Queen Elizabeth II is England's mascot and that Prince Charles is a royal playboy. -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, July 17 2005 17:28
Profile
Homepage
The royal family is a waste of the UK's money that seems to serve only one purpose: keeping tabloid "reporters" employed. —Alorael, who is afraid that ad campaigns are never equal. One side would control all the power by being able to pitch its views better. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |