[OneLoneClone]

We have a structural problem in America. We have serious long term problems, and institutionaly short-sighted leadership. Our problems require mitigation strategies that could take decades, yet our leaders only think 4-6 years ahead to the next election.

Do you think longer terms in office would help us mitigate these long term problems?

Would the payoff be worth the risks to our democracy?

ie, could we tell a Churchill or an FDR from a Hitler before it was too late?

[Micki]

Shorter terms does not mean you can avoid dictators and despots.
i.e. Hitler was democratically elected but during his rule change the country to a one party state.
This could technically speaking happen independently of the term.

Generally I think longer terms in office would be preferable, but there still needs to be an escape clause. For example there could be a mid-term election but this would only have effect if for example 70% or more of the votes requested a change in office.

[gego]

The fundamental premise is really the clusterfuck.

What kind of a screwed up mind thinks that rulers are the solution to anything, or that the way rulers are selected will change the amount of oil in the ground.

I am sorry to be so condeming, but it is more kind to point out insanity than to pander to it and the thoughts of the originator of this thread qualify as needing to be institutionalized.

Your mama and dadda may have taken care of you, but your elected officials only want to fuck you, so why do you love them so much?

[Micki]

Don't get ridicelous gego.
Discussing alternative systems to todays' does not mean that we love the rulers. I however think we are short of practical alternatives.

I for one do not believe an anarchistic society would work in todays society. Neither do I think we can vote on every single issue.
So someone needs to make decisions.

A longer term in office would however allow (an enlightend) ruler to implement changes that may be unpopular but nevertheless needed.
Todays system seems to only favour populistic decision making and short sightedness.

And like you pointed out, rulers do not change the fact that there is impending PO, but they sure can mitigate the effects.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'D')on't get ridicelous gego.
Discussing alternative systems to todays' does not mean that we love the rulers. I however think we are short of practical alternatives.

I for one do not believe an anarchistic society would work in todays society. Neither do I think we can vote on every single issue.
So someone needs to make decisions.

A longer term in office would however allow (an enlightend) ruler to implement changes that may be unpopular but nevertheless needed.
Todays system seems to only favour populistic decision making and short sightedness.

And like you pointed out, rulers do not change the fact that there is impending PO, but they sure can mitigate the effects.

[Micki]

Talk about problems.
Your hostile attitude is one of the reasons I think anarchy would be an even bigger screw up.
Can you please now instead be a bit constructive and describe what your realitic ideal society looks like.


EDITED:
Aha, went through some of your old posts gego and looks like you are a socialist. Well China, Cuba, Sovjet, Poland etc. were some fine examples of people rule where no individual rulers too advantage or screwed their citizens.
Well you might not be old enough to realise there is a difference in ideology on the paper and in practice. On the paper, I actually think anarchy is the best model. I just don't think it can work in practice, for the same reason as socialism doesn't work. Someone will always try to take the rule!

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'T')alk about problems.
Your hostile attitude is one of the reasons I think anarchy would be an even bigger screw up.
Can you please now instead be a bit constructive and describe what your realitic ideal society looks like.

[elocs]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'S')horter terms does not mean you can avoid dictators and despots.
i.e. Hitler was democratically elected but during his rule change the country to a one party state.

[Micki]

Gego, stop the slur and quit smoking that crap , you only come out looking pathetic yourself.
As for your idealistic society I can only say, IN YOUR DREAMS.
As you seem to be unable to keep the discussion in a civilized tone and tolerate other peoples opinions, I will end my thread here.

[rs]

I don't think length of term will change anything.

The only way out of this mess would be to scrap the current form of government entirely along with the economic system.

Unless we can come up with a system where the priority of government and business is to maintain quality of life for its citizens and protect the environment above all else, then we are doomed basically.

Personally I can't see this happening. Those who rise to power do not generally give a shit about other people or the environment.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OneLoneClone', 'W')e have a structural problem in America. We have serious long term problems, and institutionaly short-sighted leadership. Our problems require mitigation strategies that could take decades, yet our leaders only think 4-6 years ahead to the next election.

Do you think longer terms in office would help us mitigate these long term problems?

Would the payoff be worth the risks to our democracy?

ie, could we tell a Churchill or an FDR from a Hitler before it was too late?

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OneLoneClone', '
')Do you think longer terms in office would help us mitigate these long term problems?

[Heineken]

True campaign-finance reform is the only real hope for the US political system, which otherwise will continue to serve primarily corporations and the richest Americans.

[Grifter]

Isn't party politics the problem? Loyalty to the right or left, liberal or conservative which is damaging to long term planning.

Wouldn't an elected house of independents serve the interests of the electorate better? Ban the media from controlling the coverage of election campaigns perhaps. Publish a small background history of each candidate next to their name on the ballet paper. Publish all information regarding the funding of any particular individual outside polling stations.

Its either that or appoint leaders who do not want to lead, but I cannot imagine how that would work.

I've recently given up hope on any political process keeping us free, in fact I'm annoyed and embarrased that I fell for the right / left BS for so long.

I don't believe Anarchy will keep us free, my opinion of other people is too low for that.

[BO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'O')f course I am hostile. You suck up to your rulers, and even worse, insure that they stay in a ruling position. Then you piss and moan about their failures and how to better enable them to rule your and everyone elses lives.

You don't have a clue about how they engineer your continued butt fucking and then you and whoever originated this post lament about how the failure of the master/slave system your both support can be fine tuned to make everything better.

As for my idealistic view of society, each man would compete equally for survival without the use of force to exploit another man. Cooperation would be the grease that relpaced exploitation. Even a dumb fuck like yourself, step and fetch it, would be responsible for your own success or failure, and would not be exploited by your adored rulers.

Clearly, you do not understand the nature of your subjugation.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'T')alk about problems.
Your hostile attitude is one of the reasons I think anarchy would be an even bigger screw up.
Can you please now instead be a bit constructive and describe what your realitic ideal society looks like.

[max_power29]

The way to solving the worlds problems start with getting at the root of the problems which are to:

1. Not have faith in rulers to make pareto optimal decisions instead of ruler optimal decisions.

2. Reject all forms of fractional reserve banking and fiat money

3. Reject the forming of corporations. corporations were invented to dodge liability. Sole proprieterships and partnerships would be more than adequete for a healthy economy and to let everybody be free to make personal wealth. You can always raise more capital by seeking more partners.

4. Reject all lobyists and tort lawyers

5. Reject the formation of professional monopolies like the Bar and the AMA and simplify the legal system to be fair and in plain english (or whatever language the local population speaks).

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('max_power29', '
')1. Not have faith in rulers to make pareto optimal decisions instead of ruler optimal decisions.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('max_power29', '
')1. Not have faith in rulers to make pareto optimal decisions instead of ruler optimal decisions.

[OneLoneClone]

Where to start? I'm not here to discuss the merits of anarchy vs democratic government with overzealous, unhinged simpletons who see the world in black and white... start your own thread.

I think that longer office terms combined with meaningful campaign finance reform (heineken, you are right, you would need both) would really help america deal with long term problems. I think that the election cycle is part of the problem. Election years are fucked, and increasingly TWO years before any given election are fucked, because the campaigning keeps beginining earlier. Election years tend to yield pandering 'solutions' to problems that end up creating more problems.

I haven't given up on national solutions to the peak oil crisis. I've read the Hirsch Report. I realize that we are late getting starting, perhaps too late. I can understand why some of you think its a waste of time, that now there is only time to build 'local lifeboats'. Fine, go build them. Just because you have given up on national solutions doesn't mean we all have.

Sometimes big problems require big solutions. Like a national program to massively expand our rail system, as a part of the 'electrificaion of transportation'. Like rebuilding the electric grid and nationalizing the Dakotas for wind/coal and ethanol production. Or by massively increasing tax credits for home PV installations.

I think good leadership could help, yes. And I think longer office terms would help, especially if leaders could be more easily recalled.

peace out, mofos

[max_power29]

Your reforms wouldn't matter. The rulers would just end up "legislating" around them in order to "engineer your continued butt fucking ". The short term limits thing is just an excuse for the rulers' behavior. They think way more long term than most people realize, making sure their families stay in power and wealth forever. The richest financiers in the world choose the governments and the governments are and have been carefully calculated and crafted for at least hundreds of years.

With optimal terms and campaign finance reforms they might actually have to do the will of the people; which=diminshed power and wealth for themselves. Why would they suddenly allow that to happen?