Forum: Story Ideas

The long term result of that mind set is you can't even get a job as a street sweeper without uni degree now, well it seems that way due to the job ads.

Well, unless you're trying to work for Google and some other tech sector employers now. They've discovered the piece of paper is often worthless, so for them experience and results matter more than any extra letters a person can add to their name.

Ultimately, I think basic/early education is going to be largely self-directed under guidance by limited(or full) AI in order to "tailor" to the student, and let them self-pace. A human will be around to supervise and assist but that's about it. Of course, that approach leads to all kinds of screaming about civil rights, privacy concerns and other such things, as the data those systems would gather and record could be used for very nefarious purposes as well.

Can you tell that I don't like socialists or socialism?

I was a bit suspicious at first but then I dropped the thought. You didn't froth at the mouth; by which I mean its literary equivalent, of course. That's what I became used to when reading statements from people who dislike socialists or socialism.

Sure, make IQ tests for every job *rolleyes*

Did you even work in any capacity? Workers in a field have massive discrepancies in IQ and education. A Steel worker with an IQ of 110 and one with an IQ of 80 are not different in their work if they passed the standard set by the industry ministry.

I worked 9 years in a Callcenter. It didn't matter if the worker was previously a fisher, a steel worker, an office drone, had a University degree etc.
I had colleagues who had university degrees who were excelent at the work and ones with the same degree who were bad. same with lower education. Doing a good job has NOTHING to do with IQ or education.

And for higher jobs you just need the degree. The IQ (which is a non-entity in Germany) has nothing to do with it.

A year ago I was searching through old documents and found the only IQ test I ever absolved, as far as I can remember. I was ten at the time and on the back of the sheet of the test I scribbled pictures of sailing boats. Now I wonder if I chose the wrong profession. Maybe I should have become a painter ... or a sailor.

A year ago I was searching through old documents and found the only IQ test I ever absolved

"Dictionary

absolved
ab·solve
əbˈzälv,əbˈsälv
verb
past tense: absolved; past participle: absolved
set or declare (someone) free from blame, guilt, or responsibility.
"the pardon absolved them of any crimes"
synonyms: exonerate, discharge, acquit, vindicate;
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
give absolution for (a sin)."

Go and IQ no more.

Go and IQ no more.

Sounds like a good idea.

The ideal of socialism is a totally useless idea.

As different as the various social theories are, implemented in reality, they also have one major commonality. It's sunny and warm at the top but cold and clammy at the bottom.

The US is not a strict democracy

Ben Franklin was asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention produced. He is alleged to have said "A Republic, Sir, if you can keep it." We still sort of have a republican form of government, if the Republican Party will let us keep it.

We still sort of have a republican form of government, if the Republican Party will let us keep it.

The "Religous Right" is the only part of the Republican Party that worries me, as it pertains to Government threats to my rights. And last I checked, the "Religious Right" is, and has been, a paper tiger for some time now, and it's a soggy mess.

The Democratic Party on the other hand? The threats they pose to individual rights from the governmental side are legion.

That isn't to say there aren't corporate threats out there as well at this point. Google is quickly becoming one of the single biggest threats to individual rights and liberties the world has ever seen. If only because they're becoming a "single point of failure" and what they have fingers in, as well as how much. They're proverbially two mis-steps away from becoming Sauron and unleashing Mordor upon the world. And that isn't a Republican vs Democrat problem. Google being full of "Social Justice" types doesn't help give warm fuzzies either.

Thing is, Google isn't the only one, they're just the biggest. There are several others not far behind.

The ideal of Socialism is very different than what is practiced by Socialists. In the same way, the ideal of Democracy is very different than what is practiced in countries that claim they practice Democracy.

And then there is the United States that can't seem to make up its mind on what it is. At least the paperwork still backs the idea of it being a representative republic, but people keep screaming about it being a democracy instead.

Then again, I guess that can be boiled down to idiotic citizens. They've confused a Republican form of governance using Democratic mechanisms with an outright Democracy.

Of course, then there are all those wonderful "People's Democratic Republics of ___________" out there, which are anything but Republics, or Democracies even if they maintain the pretense of it being so.

I would appreciate it if you would enlighten us about the distinction between a democracy and a republic. I looked up the two words in a dictionary of political words. Under democracy it said "a democracy is a republic" and under republic it said "a republic is a democracy." I've heard the U.S. described as "a democratic republic." If you can set the facts straight about what the difference is, it would help me understand your criticism.

the distinction between a democracy and a republic.

It has been (not that I am a has been) a long time since I had to study and take tests about this kind of thing. However, democracy was a Greek form of government for some of its cities some of the time when each city was a separate political entity. I nearly said state, but that concept has been changed by "The United States" being a single country (see the American Civil War, aka the War Between The States or in the South, the War of Northern Agression.) 1861 to 1865 in North America. (Not Canada or Mexico.)

All the citizens (who were males of a certain age who resided in the territory of the city and not slaves) met in large areas and after speaches by leaders voted (mostly by who yelled the loudest although sometimes there were ballots cast and counted.) Typically power changed when certain leaders were voted into exile. As far as I recall there were no rights to life, liberty or property. If you lost a vote the majority ruled and what they decided happened to you, unless you had forces to wage civil war. Since there were lots of votes sometimes it was difficult to get a majority in favor of a course of action. Rome kinda started out like that and sometimes they suspended their government and appointed Dictators to deal with a crisis. One of the Greek forms of government was a Tyrany. One or a few leaders got the right to do anything they wanted, and votes weren't counted.

Republics, particularly when they got too big to have all the citizens meet in one location and vote for things, had representatives elected to meet and make decisions. Rome had tribes to which each citizen was assigned (not the patricians who were nobles and had the Senate to represent their interests). Each tribe had a vote even though some tribes were much larger than others. Since the representative got together and voted it was a representative democracy. Cracy is like "who rules" and Demo is a prefix that means the people. (Don't count on these defitions, its Greek to me.) Another name for that system was Republic. SPQR. The senate and the people of Rome or the Roman Republic, before Julius Caesar brought about Emperors and the Roman Empire. That may be why sports officials are named Umpires, they are Emperors who decide if a pitch is a ball or a strike.

In summary, Democracies in the Greek City-state format didn't have representatives who made laws. The people voted to accept or reject them. The rich and powerful still had most of the levers of power, but had to pursude a majority to vote as they wanted. We have a House of Representative and a Senate that are now elected by the people, but once upon a time the Senate was selected by state government, often by legislatures, who were other representative of citizens (male, not slaves, over a certain age) of a single state. Typically the state goverment and any municpal or county (parish in Lousiana) were far more important to most people most of the time than the part timers who went to the United States of America Capital (mostly Washington, District of Columbia, but not always in the early days) and passed laws and set tarriffs, and maybe declared war. Since about 1865 (remember the Civil War?) the central (Federal) government has become more and more powerful, and the States and other governments (cities, counties, other governmental entities like Public Utility Districts and School Boards) less important. There are still conflicts between and among them but usually they are settled in court, or the President sends the 82nd Airborne Division in to tell Governors what to do. (Integration in Alabama comes to mind.)

So we are not living in a Democracy. Your vote is for various political leaders who mostly get together and along with other such representatives decide what is going to happen, or at least what the laws and budgets are going to be. "A Republic, Sir, if you can keep it." (Benjamin Franklin)

I would appreciate it if you would enlighten us about the distinction between a democracy and a republic.

A republic is government where the laws are created by a legislature whose members are representatives of the people. Having those representatives elected is not an essential component of a Republic.

Originally US Senators were selected by the state legislatures, they were not elected.

A pure, also called direct, democracy is one where the "legislature" is the entirety of the population of eligible voters. All laws, in fact all actions taken by the government are to use modern terms, decided by referendum. There are a few US municipalities, generally relatively small towns, that are run as direct democracies. Direct democracy doesn't scale well.

Since in Modern times, there are no functional direct democracies at a national level, and no republics left that aren't at least democratic on paper if not in practice, much of the nuance between these two terms tends to get ignored.

A republic is government where the laws are created by a legislature whose members are representatives of the people. Having those representatives elected is not an essential component of a Republic.

Originally US Senators were selected by the state legislatures, they were not elected.

And in most recent times, that whole "We're a (Representative) Republic, not a (direct) Democracy" came into play with regards to the Electoral College outcome vs the popular vote.

The people elected representatives to the Electoral College. Who in turn voted as a majority in favor of Trump.

Thus "The Republic" rendered a result which differed from the Democracy's stated desire. And that is working as intended by design. Which made complaints about "How undemocratic" that process was rather funny.

And in most recent times, that whole "We're a (Representative) Republic, not a (direct) Democracy" came into play with regards to the Electoral College outcome vs the popular vote.

No, it mostly comes up for efforts from large progressive states like California to either eliminate the Senate or Change how Senators are distributed among the states.

How the nominal national executive is chosen has little to nothing to do with republic vs democracy vs democratic republic.

No, it mostly comes up for efforts from large progressive states like California to either eliminate the Senate or Change how Senators are distributed among the states.

How the nominal national executive is chosen has little to nothing to do with republic vs democracy vs democratic republic.

It more stems from the matter that when the system was setup, it was a Federalized Union of States. But by design, when all else failed, it was to default things back to the states, so that those states retained some nominal control.

The House was setup as it was so that Virginia could take advantage of its large population(even with the compromise over the enumeration of slaves).

The Senate was setup how it was so Rhode Island could more effectively backstop Virginia from anything they got up to in the House.

The electoral college was an amalgamation of both issues. Plus the matter of slavery, as slaves couldn't vote for obvious reasons.

So while I disagree that the Electoral College was suggested by Madison to "grant power to the south and protect slavery." (Knowing that Madison opposed slavery, even while owning slaves himself) I do have to acknowledge that direct election of the President would have presented "problems" to say the least when it came to each state feeling "adequately represented" and the South in particular would have been hit the hardest by that.

BUT it also happens that the Electoral College being setup as it was also gave states like Rhode Island(and now, Wyoming) a disproportionate(but not reliably decisive) amount of influence over the election of the President, because every state gets 2 votes c/o the Senate. So a low population state thus enjoys disproportionate power on that basis alone. As well as the matter that initially most states(actually, I think it was all but one at the start), and not just the southern ones, had their electoral college vote decided on by their state legislature, not the general (voting) public.

As to how the selection of the president relates, the Electoral College is a Representative process, rather than a strictly democratic one. The Presidential election process has never been, strictly speaking, "a democratic process" it just happens to be one that follows democratic forms in the process of doing so.

BUT it also happens that the Electoral College being setup as it was also gave states like Rhode Island(and now, Wyoming) a disproportionate(but not reliably decisive) amount of influence over the election of the President

True, but again, an executive administrator (regardless of title), whether elected or not does not make a polity a republic. What makes a republic is a legislature (regardless of name). What makes a republic democratic is electing the legislators.

The office of the President and how the president is selected is irrelevant to the issue of whether the US is a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic.

Thanks to all for the discussion on democracy vs republic. In a nutshell, it sounds to me as if a democracy is a form of government in which citizens make decisions for themselves, and a republic is a form of government in which representatives make decisions for the citizens. Is that close?

Well, there are the Representative Democracies as well, but as they are entirely beholden to "Democratic Outcomes" they tend to not be.... Particularly stable. As the one expression goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

That prompts another question about the way representatives are chosen in UK. In the United States, representatives are chosen by district. That can result (and frequently has) that the party with the most votes nationwide does not end up with a majority of the representatives. That's because the candidate with a plurality in each district wins that seat. Thus (in an extreme case), lets say 218 members of the Mugwump Party each win their district by one vote, and 217 members of the Do-Nothing Party each win their district by 100,000 votes, then the Mugwump Party controls the House though getting a few million votes fewer nationwide. Can the same thing happen in UK?

Thus (in an extreme case), lets say 218 members of the Mugwump Party each win their district by one vote, and 217 members of the Do-Nothing Party each win their district by 100,000 votes, then the Mugwump Party controls the House though getting a few million votes fewer nationwide. Can the same thing happen in UK?

Yes. Notoriously our Liberal Democrats used to get close to 20% of the total country wide votes but actually got up to say ten (out of 650) members of Parliament.
(Crazily, by convention there is one MP's position who is never opposed in elections (or is opposed by someone who has no chance of winning)

Yes. Notoriously our Liberal Democrats used to get close to 20% of the total country wide votes but actually got up to say ten (out of 650) members of Parliament.

UKIP have obtained similar popularity in the polls but have they ever won a seat, rather than gaining it through MPs changing allegiances?

(Crazily, by convention there is one MP's position who is never opposed in elections (or is opposed by someone who has no chance of winning)

What about the deputy speaker? Can they be opposed?

AJ

(Crazily, by convention there is one MP's position who is never opposed in elections (or is opposed by someone who has no chance of winning)

What about the deputy speaker? Can they be opposed?

I don't know. It is simply convention that no worthwhile competition is offered up against the Speaker. He/she can be opposed at elections like any sitting MP. As for the three Deputy Speakers they are also elected MPs and elected to the role by the House of Commons.

I can't get over that Mr Speaker did not have proper opposition in the last election - he seems to have made himself highly unpopular. I wonder about his "expenses" after the major scandal!

Comment: if anyone looks up the deputy speakers they will see that one is a Dame. Although this can denote something very considerable she in fact has a CBE - one of the lower ranks of acknowledgement.

However, changing the Senate to being elected and not state appointed did away with a lot of the protection for the states. The Electoral College was more of protecting the smaller states while giving some weight to the bigger states as well during the Presidential elections.

The Electoral College is laid out in the original (unamended) constitution. It is not a product of switching from appointment to election of Senators.

It should also be noted, the the electors were not originally elected. The constitution leaves it entirely to the states to decide the manner of selecting electors, and for at least the first few presidential cycles, the electors were selected by the state legislatures rather than having the electors elected by the voters.

Who laid out the rules that say election is not essential to a republic? I see you are now adding modifiers - "direct democracy" and "representative democracy." If I understood the answer, are those words needed? And, if the representatives are elected, does that mean it is no longer a republic?

Who laid out the rules that say election is not essential to a republic?

As previously mentioned, history dictates that Republics need not necessarily be particularly "Democratic" Ancient Rome is one example, the "Merchant Republics" of Europe also demonstrate this. They were "democratic" only in respect to the matter that titled nobility and merchants wealthy enough to buy a vote(/title) were able to vote in their "Republican Process."

I see you are now adding modifiers - "direct democracy" and "representative democracy." If I understood the answer, are those words needed? And, if the representatives are elected, does that mean it is no longer a republic?

A direct democracy is just that, direct. The people decide everything. There is no middle man making decisions.

The difference between a Representative Democracy vs a Representative Republic is a bit more tricky and that goes into a lot of shades of grey. The two can look a lot alike, and can even be functionally identical in many respects. In which cases there is no real meaningful difference.

But in that respect, we could also ask for a quantified distinction between "What is a socialist?" and "What is a Communist?" There are differences, but when you start getting into form and function, they start to look a hell of a lot alike.

Basically at it's core, the biggest difference between a "Representative Republic" and a "Representative Democracy" is perhaps the matter that a Representative Republic is able to (At least for a time) ignore "a democratic outcome" and thus cause "undemocratic results" to occur. Such as Trump and Bush(43) winning the EC while losing the popular vote.

The other example at the federal level of this would be the composition of the Senate, where they serve a 6 year term, and only 1/3rd of the Senate is up for election every two years, while the House serves for 2 years, and is up for election every time. Ignoring the matter that up until the start of the 20th Century, virtually all Senate seats were decided upon by their respective state legislatures(which could add in an additional time-lag), that alone prevent "a populist movement" (before the term was even in use, no less) from being able to take control of the entirety of two(out of three) branches of the Federal Government in a single election.

Where once more those pesky Senators are, by design, "the biggest road block to Democratic will" in the Federal Government's structure.

Of course, there also is the Judicial Branch with those lifetime appointment judges, who are capable of causing some degree of chaos as well. But they also need to be mindful that if they piss off both Congress and President badly enough(as happened with FDR) they're playing with fire.

What is your source for this description of the two?

History. Senators from the Roman Republic were appointed, not elected. Rome was not the only non-democratic Republic in History.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

England/Great Brittan/UK started as an absolute Monarchy, Became effectively if not in name, a non-democratic Republic with the creation of the House of Lords by the Magna Carta in the 13th century.

It became a partially, but not fully democratic republic with the creation of the House of commons in the 14th century.

To this day, the UK is not a fully democratic republic as the members of the House of Lords is split between seats that remain hereditary and seats who's occupants are appointed.

The Swiss make referendums relatively easy for the public to initiate, so they're probably the closest to a pure democracy.

To be a pure democracy, everything, not just a few things has to be decided by referendum.

Awnlee wrote

The Swiss make referendums relatively easy for the public to initiate, so they're probably the closest to a pure democracy.

DS replied
To be a pure democracy, everything, not just a few things has to be decided by referendum.

As I recall, every decision involving five million francs or more used to have to go to a referendum (with inflation that would now logically be more but a small figure in any case). In consequence each Sunday there could be several referenda and voting was compulsory.

awnlee jawking wrote:
The Swiss make referendums relatively easy for the public to initiate, so they're probably the closest to a pure democracy.

Dominions Son anwered:
To be a pure democracy, everything, not just a few things has to be decided by referendum.

Hmmm, you don't really believe your own statement, do you?

In a 'pure' democracy the people are the sole sovereign.

As with all political or business entities, the sovereign physically can't decide everything, he has men (and women) to do the daily stuff, however he can rescind any decision made by those men. OTOH, some things has to be brought to him to decide.

This exactly is the situation in Switzerland. The people vote in the elections for politicians to represent the people and to make decisions for them.
But if a minority isn't content with how government and parliament deal with something, they can – and will – demand a referendum. The decision of the people is binding for the actual and all future governments and parliaments.
It would need another referendum to change the decision.

HM.

DS reminded him that the Swiss Government is not in a 'Pure Democracy' for in such a democracy all of the decisions are made by a referendum of all of the country's people

If a country is ruled by a dictator not all the decisions are made by this ruler, he has underlings to do the daily stuff. If he doesn't like any of those decisions he can rescind the decision he dislikes.

He hasn't to make all decisions to be a 'true' dictator.

DS says:

To be a pure democracy, everything, not just a few things has to be decided by referendum

The Swiss can decide everything by referendum. Even if such a decision is a violation of an existing treaty, the Swiss government would be bound by the referendum!
The Swiss have the last word on everything. For the most stuff they have their parliament and their all-party government. But these are their underlings.

IMO in a 'Pure Democracy' the people have the last word on everything. It's however not necessary to actually decide everything by referendum.

HM.

Pure Democracy

Sounds like most governments that exist or ever existed are Impure Democracies. At best.

IMO in a 'Pure Democracy' the people have the last word on everything. It's however not necessary to actually decide everything by referendum

A stupid question, I know. IF, to have a pure democracy it is not necessary to actually decide everything by referendum then who can decide what and not refer it to the populace?

IF, to have a pure democracy it is not necessary to actually decide everything by referendum then who can decide what and not refer it to the populace?

It's called popular initiative. Any citizen can start it. On the federal level he has 18 months to collect 100,000 signatures. Then a votation will be organized. If the government doesn't like your proposal, it can only make a counter proposal and let the citizens decide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_initiative_(Switzerland)#Federal_popular_initiative

HM.

the fact that a 'pure' democracy has a specific definition

Whose definition? Go ask a dozend university professors – political scientists – and you'll come back with at least 12 varying definitions!
(more than 12 because one or two can't make up their mind which definition they prefer this week.)

HM.

The Swiss democracy consists – at the federal level - of two layers. A direct layer and a representative layer. Any decision made at the direct layer supersedes the represetative layer.

The most frequent themes tackled by initiatives are: healthcare, taxes, welfare, drug policy, public transport, immigration, asylum, education...

Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are ongoing in nature, or any change to Swiss law may be subject to referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days.

If the citizens are content with the decisions made by their representatives, no action is carried out at the higher direct layer. However:

The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law.

So who decides finally? In Switzerland it's the citizens.

REP, did you actually read all the articles in Wikipedia about the Swiss system?

You and DS argue like this:

[quote from Wikipedia] Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy in parallel with representative democracy, which is why the Swiss system is known as a semi-direct democracy.

This is IMO misleading, because it's not really parallel when any decision made on the representative side can be overruled by direct democratic votation.
Again, who has the last word?

HM.

In a Pure Democracy, ALL DECISIONS are made by a referendum of the people. If ANY DECISION is made by the peoples' representatives, the government IS NOT a Pure Democracy.

That is the line that separates a 'Pure Democracy' from a 'Democratic Republic'.

And here we see it differently.
If any decision can't be made directly by the people then it's no 'Pure Democracy'.
If the people can make all decisions by referendums but usually let most decisions made by representatives, then to me it's still a 'Pure Democracy', a lazy one, but still 'pure'.

Using your definition "all decisions must be made by referendum" a 'Pure Democracy' for any entity larger than a town is impossible. Even the old Greek city-states – like Athens – didn't have one.

Your definition is usually used by people who fear direct democracy to argue it's not doable.

HM.

The top one percent of all citizens are going to love the new tax plan

The top one percent pay 30% of all income taxes collected by the federal government.

The top one percent pay 30% of all income taxes collected by the federal government.

If they get taxed in the future like a corporation they will pay a 20% rate. How much they pay should be based on how much they make. And graduated income taxes are nearly universal these days. How much the graduation rate is would be up to congress and popular opinion. Once upon a time, when I was alive, top rates were about 90%. That has been cut. But I don't see why based on my social security income and about 2% interest which just barely keeps up with inflation on the money I got for sale of my house I should pay a greater percentage than people with hundreds of thousands and millions of income. People with low incomes votes and their votes in aggregate are lots more than the votes of rich people. I don't see why congress doesn't want our votes. They are a lot more interested in money from rich people and corporations to fund their campaigns. Guess where that money comes from. And these days you have to be rich (like President Trump) to run for office and get elected. Maybe this isn't new, Washington was rich, and both Roosevelts. Maybe Harry Truman was the only "man of the people" to make it to the White House, and he got there as a Vice President whose President died.

If they get taxed in the future like a corporation they will pay a 20% rate.

But I don't see why based on my social security income and about 2% interest which just barely keeps up with inflation on the money I got for sale of my house I should pay a greater percentage than people with hundreds of thousands and millions of income.

I wasn't saying that the tax rate for the top 1% was 30%. If you take the total aggregate of all the income tax revenue collected by the IRS, 30% of that money comes from the top 1%. That says nothing about anyone's real or marginal tax rates.

P.S. Social Security isn't funded from income taxes, it's funded entirely from payroll taxes paid by both employers and employees. And your benefits aren't funded by the payroll taxes you paid long ago, your benefits are paid by the payroll taxes of current workers.

Has anyone explained the concept of a 'balanced' budget to these idiots.

Yes, but they didn't listen.

Tax cuts reduce the Government's income and they are spending billions on useless budgetary items like Trump's Wall.

True, I'm no fan of the GOP tax plan.

However, I've seen historical charts of actual income tax revenue over time as a percentage of GNP. No matter what Congress has done with income tax rates, and the top marginal rates have been as high as 90%, actual income tax revenue has stayed in a narrow band of around 16.5% to 19% of GNP.

The National Debt is going to skyrocket.

Yep, but the national Debt is ultimately a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. No tax increase will ever make a dent in the national debt until Congress gets spending under control, and both parties are equally responsible for the spending mess.

He calls it a Welfare Program, and ignores that most of us who receive benefits paid into the system.

You can quibble about the term "welfare", but it is very much an entitlement program that is outside of the annual budget appropriations process just like the actual welfare program.

Yes, you paid into the system, but the money you paid into the system paid for your parent's benefits, it wasn't invested to pay yours.

What we are supposedly getting is the return on our investment.

Yes, that's how Social Security was sold to the public, but it was a lie from the very beginning when Social Security was created under the FDR administration in the 1930s. Go read the original Social Security Act, it will be a real eye opener.

Social Security has never worked and was never intended to work the way the public was led to believe it works.

Social Security has never worked and was never intended to work the way the public was led to believe it works.

Social Security was designed based on the same principles as either the Ponzi or the pyramid schemes.