"Progressive" and other political labels

[vison]

Yes, the only thing that would be worse than having political parties, is not having political parties.

Really? Why is that?

Although there is still a greater local government Independent presence (in the UK), the growth of party partisanship has seriously eroded efficacy. Rather than answer to the electorate, elected representatives increasingly answer to their superiors in the party hierarchy. This, naturally translates equivalently into national politics. Individuals hold allegiance to the apparatchiks who engineer their constituency selection and so pay lip service to the electorate that votes them in.

The party system increasingly divorces the people from power. The result is sham democracy.

And this does not even touch upon corporate influence. Parties are owned...

All of this is completely true. I have no beef with any of it. But the fact remains, that no practical model exists for successful governing without some kind of political parties. In theory, I am perfectly in accord with Tolkien when he said (Letter 52): "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy." The kind of Anarchy that he describes works well in the Shire, but I don't think it can be practically applied in the modern world at a level higher than a small village. (And, of course, the kind of '"unconstitutional Monarchy' that he refers to only works if you have a King Elessar to run it.)

IAWT.

[yovargas]

I don't really buy that. Independents have a hard time getting elected to national offices here in the US but I don't think that's an intrinsic part of the US being hug as much as it is the entrenchment of the Reps/Dems making it near-impossible for anyone else to get seen.

[yovargas]

It occurs to me that probably my biggest problem with the US' 2-party system is how everything has to get lumped together into two giant clumps of thought. I seem to remember from my history books that more issue-specific oriented parties once had more prominence in the system (abolitionist parties, prohibitionist parties, ect). If a party a clear, specific, defined issue (or perhaps a small cluster of related issues) then I could see that as useful and meaningful to the system. Then I could support several small parties instead of being asked to join one meaningless mega-party.

[vison]

You know, yovargas, I sympathize with you. But it's unworkable on a national scale.

In a parliamentary system it works okay. Look at Israel. And if you add proportional representation it works better. But your whole system is designed around "winner takes all" and I don't see that changing. What happens now is that someone like Ralph Nader syphons votes from the Democrats and look what happened? G. W. Bush.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It occurs to me that probably my biggest problem with the US' 2-party system is how everything has to get lumped together into two giant clumps of thought. I seem to remember from my history books that more issue-specific oriented parties once had more prominence in the system (abolitionist parties, prohibitionist parties, ect). If a party a clear, specific, defined issue (or perhaps a small cluster of related issues) then I could see that as useful and meaningful to the system. Then I could support several small parties instead of being asked to join one meaningless mega-party.

There is an economics problem that involves a beach and two ice cream vendors; the problem revolves around where would be best for the two vendors to set up shop. The (apparently) common sense answers are either one quarter or one third the distance away from each end of the beach, but the actual answer for maximising reach and profit is for both vendors to set up bang in the centre...

This is the problem with two party politics; the so-called "rush to the centre", except the "centre" is no such thing. It is a euphemism for a kind of status quo and in reality feeds the maintenance of the plutocrats (or even kleptocrats) who run the system. This is one of the reasons why terminology is so mutable; it allows the people to believe they are engaged with "progress" when in reality they are merely exchanging one "centre" for another.

For real change, the system needs to become unstable, but if the choice is between "democracy" or "stability", "stability" trumps most every time, as events of the so-called Arab Spring illustrate... but that is discussed elsewhere.

[anthriel]

And, of course, the kind of '"unconstitutional Monarchy' that he refers to only works if you have a King Elessar to run it.

Well, there's your answer.

[yovargas]

...and a lot of people willing to let that King Elessar tell 'em what to do.

[vison]

But King Elessar probably never told anyone what to do. That's not what a king is supposed to do and that's not what any government is supposed to do.

The government has fixed duties. But NOT one of those duties is to "tell" people what to do.

[Primula Baggins]

King Elessar could have told people what to do, and could have made them do it, but didn't because he was a proper king. The problem is the shortage of people who behave the same when they have that power.

[yovargas]

But King Elessar probably never told anyone what to do. That's not what a king is supposed to do and that's not what any government is supposed to do.

The government has fixed duties. But NOT one of those duties is to "tell" people what to do.

You wouldn't consider writing and enforcing laws telling people what to do?

[vison]

But King Elessar probably never told anyone what to do. That's not what a king is supposed to do and that's not what any government is supposed to do.

The government has fixed duties. But NOT one of those duties is to "tell" people what to do.

You wouldn't consider writing and enforcing laws telling people what to do?

Um - who is the government?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

But King Elessar probably never told anyone what to do. That's not what a king is supposed to do and that's not what any government is supposed to do.

The government has fixed duties. But NOT one of those duties is to "tell" people what to do.

You wouldn't consider writing and enforcing laws telling people what to do?

Um - who is the government?

An excellent question! Do you have an answer?

[yovargas]

But King Elessar probably never told anyone what to do. That's not what a king is supposed to do and that's not what any government is supposed to do.

The government has fixed duties. But NOT one of those duties is to "tell" people what to do.

You wouldn't consider writing and enforcing laws telling people what to do?

Um - who is the government?

In our imaginary monarchy? King Elessar. In our democratic ideal? Well, at least in part, the people elected by the masses.

[vison]

Exactly. So "the people" decide what the laws are going to be. We decide what sort of village/state/province/country we want.

Laws don't tell you what you CAN do, they tell you what will happen if you break the law. At least, that's how I think they should be written.

The American Constitution (the greatest thing ever written, although with flaws) and the Bill of Rights (ditto) are merely expressions of the obvious.

[yovargas]

Umkay, but we were talking about monarchies where what the king tells you to do is law.

[vison]

Umkay, but we were talking about monarchies where what the king tells you to do is law.

Not quite.

[tinwë]

Don't most laws tell you what you can't do, not what you must do? Taxes being the obvious exception, but otherwise: you can't kill people, steal, cheat, lie, etc. Beyond that you are pretty much free to do whatever you want to do.

[yovargas]

Don't most laws tell you what you can't do, not what you must do? Taxes being the obvious exception, but otherwise: you can't kill people, steal, cheat, lie...

...you can't not buy heal insurance...

[tinwë]

...but you have the liberty to die because you can't afford health care.

[vison]

Don't most laws tell you what you can't do, not what you must do? Taxes being the obvious exception, but otherwise: you can't kill people, steal, cheat, lie...

...you can't not buy heal insurance...

If there was a real possibility that a person who had no insurance would NOT be treated, then I think no one would be annoyed at having to buy it. But since you know as well as I do that you WILL be treated, insurance or no, it might annoy you to have to pay for something you're going to get anyway. (I don't mean YOU, yovargas, but YOU in general.)

No one is actually left to die beside the road because he doesn't have health insurance.