EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 500
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On October 03 2013 05:41 sam!zdat wrote: you know what's a poor plan? allowing the inmates to run the asylum So who should actually write the laws? The politicians whom generally do not have the level of expertise and time in the writing of bills to write them? Keep in mind that government legalese is to regular legalese what regular legalese is to lay language. It's an entirely difficult morass of precise definitions that require a deep understanding of the laws and bills in question, to prevent major ambiguities, ensure no conflict with alternative regulations and laws, etc. I recall what happened when a group of well-meaning laypersons tried to write a bill addressing internet freedom, the response from the professionals, well, it was hilarious... Keep in mind that lobbying groups involve everything from the Sierra Club to whistleblower protection groups, whom are consulted, forward drafts of bills, and point out irregularities. Lobbying is an integral part of the policy-making process, no matter the source of the lobbying. Now, campaign finance reform is another analogy entirely. I mean, the same analogy applies when talking about the people of the US. At least lobbyists are generally informed about the issues at hand, and I prefer it if the ACLU has a hand in pointing out and advocating potential civil rights abuses, and lobbying for acceptable changes with concrete legal proposals. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 03 2013 05:58 Lord Tolkien wrote: The politicians whom generally do not have the level of expertise and time in the writing of bills to write them?. sure. that's why our political system is broken. what it takes to get elected and what it takes to govern are totally different things. we need to design some political system with an educated, competent civil service that is not identical with the people who are supposed to be controlled by the civil service. how to do that is an open question, but mass elections is not the way to do it | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:04 GTPGlitch wrote: Civil service exams gogo yes, this is the sort of thing that has spurred my interest in confucianism our system would have to work very differently than the rote learning of the song dynasty exams obviously. but i think some sort of integration of the academy into government is necessary. the tripartite division in liberal theory is inadequate, we need a new political philosophy with a quadripartite division between legislative, executive, judicial, and academic edit: basically the american system is designed to disincentive talented people from entering civil service (because we want them in the private sector). this is something that was noted as early as de tocqueville. this is a terrible idea (and times have changed). we need to make some way for talented people to rise up in the civil service and be economically insulated from the private sector and not have to clown for the election cameras. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:08 sam!zdat wrote: yes, this is the sort of thing that has spurred my interest in confucianism our system would have to work very differently than the rote learning of the song dynasty exams obviously. but i think some sort of integration of the academy into government is necessary. the tripartite division in liberal theory is inadequate, we need a new political philosophy with a quadripartite division between legislative, executive, judicial, and academic Mandatory civil service is a good idea. One of the biggest problems with the system right now is that too many people aren't vested into it, hence there's a lack of "republican virtue." Forcing people to do some kind of public service for a couple years will go a long ways towards fixing that, whether it be military service or some kind of public works service. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
(unless this sounds a bit too maoist for our delicate sensibilities  ) | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:01 sam!zdat wrote: sure. that's why our political system is broken. what it takes to get elected and what it takes to govern are totally different things. we need to design some political system with an educated, competent civil service that is not identical with the people who are supposed to be controlled by the civil service. how to do that is an open question, but mass elections is not the way to do it Well there's a problem here. Because of the breadth of the issues a politician will deal with on a day to day basis, there is absolutely no absolutely fucking way a single person will be an expert in every issue that they come across and likely draft bills for. It's why Congress regularly summons experts of all sorts to testify at committees as they work to acquaint themselves within a single subfield of possible policy options. And you're also asking them to be able to draft hundred/thousand page drafts of government legalese on a regular basis. Considering all the other duties a politician has, you want them to personally write these bills? That's asking abit much of them. Bills require careful precision with every sentence, and require hundreds/thousands+ man hours of work to put together, outside the most basic ones or non-binding resolutions. It's, quite frankly, something that requires years upon years of law school to fully put together of expertise. And again, politicians shouldn't be concerned with drafting public policy. Their purpose is to direct the public policy priorities and set the agenda. Experts from a variety of sources (US Departments, Academics, Lobbying Groups, Labor Business Interests, etc.) all have a hand in formulating public policy, and evaluate the options available. As for civil service examinations, there are plenty already, depending on the department you enter, for instance the requirements to become a US Foreign Officer. There are of course issues with (some) Federal Departments. As one of my former professors told me over lunch, she ended up declining a position to work in the Justice Department after her friend told her about the actual duty of the department (aka, protect and preserve the department's budget). @sam!zdat: You can replace Academic with Bureaucratic and you have the current system as is, with roughly the same conception that you have. There's plenty of academic literature that's maybe a bit more recent then De Tocqueville, and relevant for analysis of the modern state. You're looking at Tilly's "War Making and State Making as Organized Crime" for the primary paradigm of sociological analysis of state development, and Peter Evans' "Embedded Autonomy" for a focus on late developmental states (Asian Tigers). Mandatory civil service would tickle me pink. In a slightly bad way. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:14 sam!zdat wrote: yes, that's a little different from what I have in mind here, but I agree wholeheartedly. also you can force mixing from across social strata. make the rich kids go dig ditches with kids from watts (unless this sounds a bit too maoist for our delicate sensibilities )No that's awesome, a 1-2 year mandatory military/ public works/ civil service for HS graduates would do wonders for our society. People would be more disciplined, young people would have jobs and move out, people would be forced to get jobs and then LESS people would go to college just because it's the next step in education after HS (which is a good thing in many ways). We'd probably have more healthy young people who would hopefully become healthy old people too. It would make wars less likely because everybody would have a relative serving in the military, and they wouldn't want to see them hurt. It would expose people to peers of all different backgrounds. The only problem is the price. | ||
|
Xialos
Canada508 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:01 sam!zdat wrote: sure. that's why our political system is broken. what it takes to get elected and what it takes to govern are totally different things. we need to design some political system with an educated, competent civil service that is not identical with the people who are supposed to be controlled by the civil service. how to do that is an open question, but mass elections is not the way to do it edit: nvm | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 03 2013 05:41 Souma wrote: It's okay, Tea Party doesn't need Wall Street when they have the Koch brothers. What makes you think even the mighty Kochs can do anything to stop the tea party at this point? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I'm questioning our entire definition of what a "politician" should be. you're right that they don't and cannot understand what they are doing. so why do we pretend that they do? i'm saying that our whole paradigm of representative democracy with mass elections is worse than useless and that we should find some other way to choose our leaders. you can say this stuff about "various experts" but let's not fool ourselves, the government is run by industry lobbyists | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:13 xDaunt wrote: Mandatory civil service is a good idea. One of the biggest problems with the system right now is that too many people aren't vested into it, hence there's a lack of "republican virtue." Forcing people to do some kind of public service for a couple years will go a long ways towards fixing that, whether it be military service or some kind of public works service. Let's take it a step further and go all starship troopers on this. Citizenship must be earned, not given! | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On October 03 2013 06:35 sam!zdat wrote: tolkien buddy i feel like we are not communicating I'm questioning our entire definition of what a "politician" should be. you're right that they don't and cannot understand what they are doing. so why do we pretend that they do? i'm saying that our whole paradigm of representative democracy with mass elections is worse than useless and that we should find some other way to choose our leaders. you can say this stuff about "various experts" but let's not fool ourselves, the government is run by industry lobbyists 1) And what I'm saying is that the current role of the politician is not the problem. The real problem are a series of perverse incentives borne out of the current US political system that allows politicians to forgo the interests of state and society out of political ambition by relying upon a local constituency, the necessity of fundraising for campaigns and what is effectively a 24/7 fundraising campaign with the short election cycles, a series of Congressional perks (unrelated to pay), and ultimately a woefully uninformed or apathetic public. Addressing this requires adjustments to the electoral system, among other changes necessary. 2) Arguing that the government is run by industry lobbyists is quite the scare tactic, and an unmitigated falsehood. Beyond treating "industry" as a monolithic entity and neglecting the many, many conflicts of interests therein, there are plenty of lobbies (powerful ones) that do not represent a single industry. When talking about SOPA/PIPA for instance, there were divergent interests and lobbying from technology corporations, against the music and entertainment industry. When talking about the Israel lobby for instance (as Walt/Mearsheimer most controversially did), we're talking about several demographics. The AARP remains for instance one of the largest and strongest lobbies in the US. While it's a common trope to claim Washington is run by lobbyists, it really isn't. They certainly have a large impact on policy formulation due to other failings in the US political system, but this is at best a proximate cause, and one that counterbalanced by divergent policy interests by the myriad competing interests. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Pelosi and Reid and hammering the GOP right now. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On October 03 2013 08:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: John Boehner will be crucified. I will be stunned if he manages to survive this as speaker or even politically. Pelosi and Reid and hammering the GOP right now. Politically, he's fucked. It's nothing but a lose-lose situation for him at this stage of this farce. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
2) i'm aware of factions within capital this changes nothing. it's not necessary to treat industry as a monolithic entity for my claim to be the case, this is just one of those gotcha arguments you've picked up from too much internet. My claim is really that industry interests are hegemonic, not that they are in direct control of all governmental functions. the existence of "myriad competing interests" is compatible with the hegemony of one of them. and corporate lobby is hegemonic, despite the fact that there are factions within it. all this is irrelevant edit: you want to claim that corporate lobby is not hegemonic, but i just think you're wrong. difficult to prove one way or another i suppose edit: AARP is basically the medical-industrial complex | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
