TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Politics needs to stop being about the group

In the US you have republicans and democrats. They all seem to vote one way or the other depending on what the "party" is supposed to do.

What is wrong with them? How can they be that stupid?

Why can't they do what is right and look at each issue alone and put their own vote on it and not what their "group" says they should do? If only every person really voted on what they believed in, the world would be so much better.

It seems to me that the US government turned into a big high school drama club. It wasn't so long ago that the republicans would not pass anything at all until they got their way on a tax cut law.

In my eyes the "groups" no longer work. It only hurts everything. Noone is looking at the issues they are looking at what other people are saying they should do and going with the group, we are be lead by a few groups of cheerleaders. Its a joke and makes me ashamed of my government.

Share:
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: You nailed it except my wording would be groups need to stop being about politics in other words groups need to stop. Groups or herds collectively have great power but they are easily influenced, individuals on the other hand not so much as individuals everyone is different, thus the name.

    The problem is staring at us in the mirror.

    An individual only remains an individual when he is educated and can compare what is said to his OWN viewpoint and value or sort the information as he sees fit.

    The fact that you are embarrassed tells me that YOU are LOOKING that is a good thing as blind people don't see anything.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2012: Indeed, people need to think for themselves, and not be afraid to share their own viewpoints, while accepting others'.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Politics is not about government nor about doing things right. It is about votes. And votes are about telling people what they want to hear. I agree with Krisztian Pinter: Politics needs to stop.
  • Aug 4 2012: Politics needs to get honest. The loopholes in the tax code favoring the top 5% and private businesses (e.g., EXXON) making tons of profits were not elimintated by politicians who are receiving money contributions from people in the top 5% and the private businesses they are favoring with the misuse of their public offices. We need to figure out a way to get honorable people into the Congress, Senate and Judiciary. I would love hearing anyone's ideas on how to do that, since right now, those in control are doing everything they can to keep the power in the hands of those who serve the interests of the minority of the population. I guess they forgot why the USA and DEMOCRACY were invented. It was supposed to be of, by and for the people, not of, by, and for the top 5% of the wealthy and private corporation owners. Let's change things immediately. Patience does not seem to work.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Yeah, you're right, I hate it when they see someone's label and overlook their real beliefs. This needs to change somehow...
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: politics needs to stop
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2012: More specifically, politics needs to "improve"
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: that is your opinion. mine is what i said.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: What we both believe could really just be the same thing
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: To say that politics needs to stop is wrong to me. Without any form of politics, our society will be directionless and "un-unified." If politics is deciding what laws to make or what government's course of action is, then I think politics is completely necessary, to make sure we're making the right/best decisions, not the fastest ones.

          You and I both agree, though, that politics is kinda sucking right now. Like Henk said, there's more focus on getting the votes and support than believing in what you really believe in or finding the best solutions. Some guys are worried about saying the "politically incorrect" term, which can end their careers. I think that's wrong and needs to change.
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: politics is about public issues. in my world view, there are no public issues.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: What about domestic issues? And it also depends on how you define public issues. If you mean by nation-to-nation relationships, then I still think there are public issues. If you're talking about earth to martians, then you're right, there are no public issues in this sense.
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: there are no domestic issues, and no nation-to-nation relationships either
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Then what is your definition for crimes, theft, gangs, organized crime, violence against a specific race, economic recession, starvation, homelessness, famine, brain drain, drug addiction, school dropouts, etc. These are all issues happening in a country called United States. If they are not called Domestic Issues, which I define as issues within a country, then what do you define these things as?

          To me, if there are no nation-to-nation relationships, that would mean there would be no such relationship or communication between one another. Don't you think a country has allies, enemies, or neutrality with other countries? Don't you think we have trade and economic commodities between other countries? What about War on Iraq? If these are not called "nation-to-nation relationships" then how would you define these things?
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: instead of polluting this conversation, you could look up "anarcho-capitalism" to get a sense of what i'm talking about
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: I guess there are, by your definition, "issues" to this conversation, if you think it's "polluted."

          I'm very confused by your definitions of "issues" in general. Unless you have a ridiculously objective view on things, then you're right, there are no "issues." There wouldn't be any issues with this conversation either. It is simply what it is. Nothing good or bad.

          But I'll check out anarcho-capitalism in a second.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Alright, what is your definition of an "issue" first of all?

          And secondly, Anarcho-Capitalism is indeed a nice system, which in the long run, I believe we're moving towards something like this. However, I don't think we as a society are ready for this system.

          The Anarcho-Capitalism system can only exist if everyone believes that everyone has and believes in the some common ground, like "basic rights". If someone was walking downtown carrying a gun, and decided to shoot a guy because the other guy made a funny face, is that right or wrong? How will Anarcho-Capitalism handle scenarios like this?

          What if someone decides to come into my house and kill a family member while I wasn't there. How will the system of Anarcho-Capitalism handle this?
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Looks like Social Darwinism and fit's the picture...
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Politics (ie. arguing for one's own camp/tribe/party.) needs to end, thats what most people here seem to agree with.
          However, democrats, republicans, communists, ecologists etc and anarchists are tribes.
          Anarchy wont necessarily bring an end to politics (as defined above) just because it eliminates central government.
          I suppose u mean there are no public issues because of the anarchists insistance on individual rights and responsability
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: ps: i didn't mean you pollute the conversation, but rather this is going somewhere the OP might not want it to go
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Oh, ok, thx for clarifying!

          But yeah, I know what you mean. You and me both don't really want to fight with each other, but we had a disagreement somewhere, and I'm trying to uncover where that disagreement is. So while it feels like a touchy subject that we're getting to, I think it's really necessary to address, and to find, where our disagreements are. One step closer towards understanding imo.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: So, I'm sorry if I come off as being this pest that never goes away lol, but please understand that I'm not trying to offend anyone. I'm simply on a mission to understand more about different viewpoints.
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: do not imagine a free society exactly like ours, minus the state. we don't want to disband the police, and have nothing in its place. we want private defense agencies, a wide variety of free market provided defense services to take the place of the police.

        the very notion of "public" or "national" somehow suggest that this is a problem of everyone that needs one common solution. but similarly, bread production is a very common issue for most, yet we don't seek for a communized, centralized solution. instead, we have many different service providers including self service and baking machines. everything can be done that way. private conflict resolution, private defense, private healthcare, both are viable approaches. most are actually practiced somewhere or to some scope.

        the state only provides monopoly conditions for certain solutions. we argue that monopoly condition is neither necessary nor optimal.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: So then, there needs to be some organization of centralized regulators who enforce law or some code of conduct. How are the laws/codes decided and enforced?

          The only time I can sort of see us having anarcho-capitalism is when we have no more "national"/"public" feuds, no more wars, warring states, or anything. Earth would simply just become a society of economical and intellectual development, and everything is almost completely decentralized, other than the regulators. Kind of like how Italy was during Renaissance period.

          "we have many different service providers including self service and baking machines. everything can be done that way. private conflict resolution, private defense, private healthcare, both are viable approaches. most are actually practiced somewhere or to some scope."

          The fact that there is some kind of police force, suggests that crime can still exist. So if someone were to walk into Bob's house to assault him, and Bob grabbed a gun to shoot him out of self-defense, would that put Bob in jail? Or what if Bob simply claimed he shot him out of self-defense, when in actuality the other guy was just some harmless friend of his? How can a situation like this be decided?
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2012: why would we need centralized organization? i've just claimed that we don't need. without the institution of the state, it is kind of obvious that there will be no warring states, isn't it? :)

        be mindful of your assumptions. "what put bob in jail". why is it a given fact that we put criminals in jail? that solution is the state solution, inherited from kings. in a free society, much more emphasis would put on prevention. and the last resort would be exclusion. antisocial people probably would be exiled.

        similar questions were asked when the debate was about ending slavery. how would that work, how would you solve this or that particular problem. in retrospect, these arguments seem incredibly shallow. even if ending slavery causes massive trouble, it is still the right thing to do. the moral choice is just to end slavery, and deal with the consequences the best we can. the state is an immoral institution that is based on aggression and coercion. even if i can't tell what will happen or how a problem will be solved, this institution must go.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2012: Ok my bad, so then we would have private defense agencies. Like there could be multiple different police from different agencies patrolling the areas? Ok, but then how about this. What if there was a company that had enough power to the point where they could literally just sabotage newer companies' growth? How will this be handled without a centralized organization? If you don't have centralized organizations, you probably will say it'll be handled with multiple different agencies. What if half the agencies disagreed with the other half? Like what if half of the agencies thinks this company is doing nothing wrong, and the other half is saying this is unfair to competition?

          I'm just saying, today's society simply isn't ready for something like this yet. It may be achievable like 100 years from now perhaps, I dunno.

          Ok, so then it was just one agency out of many agencies who put Bob into jail. But what if one agency has some pretty stark differences to another agency? I mean what if one agency would decide to put him into jail and the other agency would decide not to?

          "even if ending slavery causes massive trouble, it is still the right thing to do. the moral choice is just to end slavery, and deal with the consequences the best we can."

          What makes this the moral thing to do? Apparently a lot of slaveowners didn't think it was wrong, did they? And not many thought it was morally wrong during very very old times. It's the people who decide the morals. Imo, in order for things to work in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, there needs to be a really strong base universal moral agreement with each other. That's the only way I can see this kind of system working.
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2012: in a free market, you don't have power to stop other companies. only the state can put up barriers and quotas.

        you are still thinking in today's institutions. probably a police like thing would not exist at all. defense firms don't have to agree. they stand on private property, and nobody else can even step on it legally. there is no disagreement between defense providers.

        i still don't believe in jails. i believe in exclusion.

        the fact that slave owners thought slavery is morally okay, is enough for you to justify slavery? i don't think slavery is okay, and i'm kind of sure you don't think either. it is not up to opinion. for me, the moral compass is simple: who commits aggression first? that is called the non aggression principle.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2012: I am thinking about today's institutions, because it's really hard for me to conceptualize an anarcho-capitalist society existing atm, which is why I'm thinking, the anarcho-capitalist society is one in the future where everyone is in moral agreement with each other, where there is no war or conflict, only capital economic growth and intellectual growth.

          "probably a police like thing would not exist at all. defense firms don't have to agree. they stand on private property, and nobody else can even step on it legally. there is no disagreement between defense providers."

          So you're saying that there should be some kind of private security agency in a household. And in order for there to be no disagreement between defense providers and the home owner, there would have to be some form of agreement. In this case, most likely money. So then what about the ones who can't afford a private security agency? Or in this society, everyone can afford one?

          Jails and exclusions are the same to me. They both exclude the criminals outside of society. But why would you need exclusions in first place if there is no crime? But there is crime in this society. Why is there crime? Because there's some kind of moral disagreement. If there is moral disagreement, that means there can exist bigger conflicts. For example, is slavery correct? Back in 1800s Confederates thought it was just fine, while Unions thought it was wrong. Thus there is moral disagreement which resulted in Civil War. We don't have slavery like that now because everyone's in moral agreement that slavery is wrong. So, my point is, the only way for Anarcho-Capitalist society to work is if everyone's in moral agreement with each other.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2012: If everyone, I mean every single person in society, even the slaves, thought slave-owning was morally okay, would that still be morally correct? Of course I don't think it's okay, but that's not my point. My point is, what makes something justifiable is whatever the people in society of that time believes is correct. If there was no one who believed slavery was wrong, then who would stop slavery? We don't have slavery now because a massive majority of us don't think it's right.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: If we use exclusion as an alternative to imprisonment, wouldn't the exiled form criminal organisations and raid the society that excluded them?
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: "is one in the future where everyone is in moral agreement with each other"

        not everyone, just most people. i'm kind of sure we have wannabe slave keepers today.

        "Jails and exclusions are the same to me."

        they are very much different. a jail is a place you can't leave. exclusion is a place you can't go.

        "Why is there crime? Because there's some kind of moral disagreement."

        this is not the case. most (and i mean like 90+%) of criminals agree on moral rules, but they are disregarding them for material benefit. it is a choice between morals and money. that's why it is not a psychological issue, as the venus project people or left anarchists claim. crime appears when there is opportunity, not because people become immoral (or differently moral). self defense is a practical issue, and best served on the free market.

        " justifiable is whatever the people in society of that time believes is correct"

        why i'm spending time here discussing things? :) i want to convince people to follow the moral values i praise. since always people are the problem, not leaders. rulers will go away as soon as people understand why we don't need them.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: Jail and Exclusion are the same to me because they achieve the same thing, which is to separate undesirable people out of mainstream society. Which I'm still unsure, how this scattered system would decide what makes someone undesirable or not? If you had multiple judicial agencies, that do things slightly differently, one agency would decide this guy is undesirable, and another agency would say, no he's perfectly fine. In anarcho-capitalism, you're saying that only most people are in moral agreement, not 100%.

          "this is not the case. most (and i mean like 90+%) of criminals agree on moral rules, but they are disregarding them for material benefit. it is a choice between morals and money."

          My definition of morals is this: Morals is something that an individual feels what is right, not what society tells him/her what is right. Society has its strong influences, but individuals can disagree with society. So I don't agree with that statement that most criminals agree on moral rules. They may, however, agree to disagree on the moral standards. Maybe some criminals are just ignorant of their own actions. Maybe they were conscious of them, but they still chose to do it anyways for various reasons other than simple ones. Maybe someone is forced to steal because he/she had no education or skillset to get a job, and they need to feed themselves.

          The other thing we're forgetting to address is. Some criminals can be above the law. And some criminals are wrongly accused. How can this be addressed? Especially when there are moral disagreements in anarcho-capitalism.

          "why i'm spending time here discussing things? :) i want to convince people to follow the moral values i praise."

          You follow what you believe is right, I'll respect that :)
          I have my beliefs that I'll follow too.
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: james. why don't you listen better? this is getting boring. i really need to tell you what is the difference between exclusion and jail? what is your choice, being exiled from your city or country or going in jail?

        we don't need to define morals. i just told you that most criminals agree with us on morals. they know very well that they do immoral things. they just cared, at the moment, more about getting money the easy way. you can dwell on that all day long, but it leads us nowhere. you either believe me or not, but don't muddy the waters. it was a claim, you are free to follow up on it if you so desire.

        i'm not going to answer any "how do we address that" if the thing in question is not address today either. we have false accusations and criminals getting away today as well. we don't need to deliver perfectness. in fact, we need to deliver nothing. following moral code is not dependent on consequences. initiating aggression is immoral, thus the state is immoral. just like slavery was. i don't have to care about the consequences. but luckily, free market solutions always seem to be better than enforced central solutions.

        i didn't say i follow my beliefs. it was not my point. my point was that politics won't change if we remove politicians. politics change if we change the thinking of people. that's why i'm spending my time telling people about these things. so the learn.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: "james. why don't you listen better? this is getting boring. i really need to tell you what is the difference between exclusion and jail? what is your choice, being exiled from your city or country or going in jail?"

          I get what you're saying, they have differences, but my point is they do the same thing. Separate undesirables from mainstream society. Is what I'm saying wrong?

          "we don't need to define morals. i just told you that most criminals agree with us on morals. they know very well that they do immoral things."
          If you and I can't even agree on the definition of morality, how can anarcho-capitalism work? How do you know that 90% of the criminals know that they're doing "wrong" deeds? Because society told them it was wrong? How do you know how a criminal thinks/feels, when you don't even know how I think?

          "Initiating aggression is immoral, thus the state is immoral."

          The state isn't the only ones who initiate aggression. The state is made of people just like you and me.

          "i didn't say i follow my beliefs. it was not my point. my point was that politics won't change if we remove politicians. politics change if we change the thinking of people. that's why i'm spending my time telling people about these things. so the learn."

          I didn't say I disagreed with the statement that "politics change if we change the thinking of people" because I totally agree with that. Where I digress with you is that I don't believe that anarcho-capitalism is achievable any time soon, if at all.
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: "Separate undesirables from mainstream society."

        what about considering the POV of the said criminal?

        "The state isn't the only ones who initiate aggression."

        so? al capone also wasn't the only mob boss. what difference does it make?

        "I don't believe that anarcho-capitalism is achievable any time soon"

        how about this sentence: I don't believe that ending slavery is achievable any time soon.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: "what about considering the POV of the said criminal?"

          Have you considered my POV, much less a criminal's?

          "so? al capone also wasn't the only mob boss. what difference does it make?"

          Are you asking a society with Al Capones? I don't understand what you're getting at.

          "I don't believe that ending slavery is achievable any time soon."

          Do you think everyone wants to do what they believe in or what they feel is best? Is that an achievable common ground?
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: "Have you considered my POV, much less a criminal's?"

        that's what exclusion is for. i don't care what the criminal does, as long as he is not close to people who he can hurt.

        "Are you asking a society with Al Capones?"

        we already have this. you said "the state is not the only initiator of force". i am the one asking where are you getting with this. this does not mean anything.

        "Do you think everyone wants to do what they believe in or what they feel is best?"

        you are deliberately evading my questions?
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: "that's what exclusion is for. i don't care what the criminal does, as long as he is not close to people who he can hurt."

          First of all, how the heck did this answer my question? I asked a yes/no question of whether you understood me or not, and the response was a clarification of the definition exclusion. I have failed to see any relationship between your answer and my question.

          But in regards to that response, I never argued your point, I remarked that it was similar to a jail in this respect, to which you responded to me with disagreement.

          "the state is not the only initiator of force"

          "you are deliberately evading my questions?"
          No, if you think slavery will never end, then fine, it won't end, even in Anarcho-Capitalism, because the logic is, it will always exist. Will Anarcho-Capitalism reduce slavery?

          And if you want to talk about evading questions, what about the ones where you "evaded" mine? Have you considered my POV or a criminal's POV? Is my remark, that a jail and an exclusion both removes undesirables from mainstream society, wrong?

          I am missing your point, just as you are missing mine. If you were so "bored" with this conversation, you could have just dropped it by your own choice, I'm not forcing you to do anything here as I respect your individual thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. But you still continue this conversation just as I am continuing this conversation for who knows why. Whether there's something to prove to one another, I don't know. All I do know is, there's a disconnect between us, that you and I have both missed to make that connection and we're struggling to find that connection.
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: listen, we are talking for like days now, and you still didn't get that slavery is a PARALLEL, not a metaphor for the state. you argue for the necessity of the state just as people argued for the necessity of slavery. this conversation tires me, i need to explain things that are already explained. i sense a whole lot of denial on your part. sit back, and think. it is not enough that "i don't believe". you have to do better.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: "you still didn't get that slavery is a PARALLEL, not a metaphor for the state."
          Alright, then if you're saying that states are the cause for slavery, and therefore we should get rid of states, then in a capitalist society, you don't think people are slaves to monopolies? If monopolies wouldn't exist in anarcho-capitalism, then how can that be?

          " you argue for the necessity of the state just as people argued for the necessity of slavery."
          Look here, I told you already that in our current society, we need some kind of centralized government/regulation system. Notice I said "current." I didn't disagree with your idea itself, I'll say this once again, anarcho-capitalism isn't achievable any time soon.

          "i need to explain things that are already explained. i sense a whole lot of denial on your part. sit back, and think."
          Lolwhut? In denial of what? I am CONFUSED. I don't get your arguments and I don't get your responses. I'm telling you straight up what I'm feeling. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it's like you're not listening to what I'm saying. You elicit responses that don't communicate to me that you are listening to what I'm really saying.

          " it is not enough that "i don't believe". you have to do better."

          Didn't you say you wanted to convince people your moral values? You have failed to do that with me. If you're gonna tell everyone that "you have to do better" then good luck with that approach. You can try to convince me anytime you want. I'm an open guy. I got my whole lifespan for you to try.
      • thumb
        Aug 7 2012: it is not possible to wake up someone that pretends to sleep
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: Isn't your goal supposed to be "How can I wake up someone who pretends to sleep?" You told me that's what you want to do, convince people of your moral values. I'm giving you a lifetime opportunity to try to "wake" me up. You won't get this kind of luxurious opportunity with most others.
      • thumb
        Aug 7 2012: i have other things to do
  • thumb
    Aug 6 2012: All the US needs to free up the "us n them" political discourse is a third party and compulsory voting. All of a sudden there would be 30% middle ground swimg voters for everyone to woo.
  • Aug 6 2012: IMO, Senator Bernie Sander's amendment is half good.

    I agree with the first part, limiting and regulating corporations is essential, but

    "to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures."

    is inadequate and dangerous.

    The party in power could carefully construct laws that would keep them in power forever. The courts could not do anything about it because the constitution gives Congress this specific power. It would take another amendment to kick out the bad guys, and they would stop any attempt.

    I could support a broad statement of the one-man-one-vote principle, something like

    The right to influence an election is reserved to the Electors of the election. Each Elector has an equal right to influence the election as every other Elector. Congress and the States are empowered to enforce this article with appropriate legislation.

    This could be interpreted as empowering congress to regulate campaign spending, but any such law would have to have the effect of equalizing influence. If the party in power tried to gain an advantage the courts could maintain the balance of power.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: Hi William,

    Interesting conversation so far. I completely agree with you. The only solution that I see is at least one amendment to the constitution. Senator Bernie Sanders has an amendment up for consideration that needs our support. " A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures."

    This will be a start for giving the representatives back to the people by removing some of the money from politics, but it isn't enough yet. I think all money needs to be out of politics period, limited, publicly funded campaigns of equal funding levels with no third party campaigning, term limits of one term per government official so they will focus on their job and not their reelection, elimination of all lobbyists and 24/7 wire tap recordings of all conversations, emails, letters, correspondence of any kind by all elected officials (inspected by an independently elected committee of citizens from each state and then archived for future evidence in case of the need to prosecution for betrayal of their oath to the constitution.)

    Of course I don't think this could ever happen.

    As far as the group loyalty goes, the parties stick to sides because of the fear of loosing their funding. If it was publicly funded equally and they were limited to one term in office, that would not be an issue.

    As far as the conversation so far: Anarcho-capitalism is a utopia on the opposite end of the spectrum of statist-communism. It won't happen in the US because, unless there is a civil war, there is no way to get a majority to agree to this extremist position.

    I hope I didn't stray too far from your topic.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: While your at it how do the public unions fit into this scenario? They CONTROL Calif with an iron fist.

      They tried McCain Feingold and as usual had unintended consequences rendering the law useless or worse.

      Nothing drives the herd more than money. When you pay people to be gimp they get real good at gimp, when you pay people to be unemployed they get real good at unemployed, when you pay people to be stupid....

      Using a modicum of logic always points to the same road and that road is to an educated citizenry. Of course that is an amazingly difficult task... making little ones out of big ones is much easier
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: Agreed Pat. It gets pretty hopeless looking.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2012: To raise funds you need a persona, a label. People like labels and demand labels. As a rule you can vote the party line with confidence about the stance of each individual candidate without actually knowning their position. Without a party line many more voters would likely become non-participants. Politics is about the groups. Sorry.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2012: The people who cough up a lot of money contribute to both parties, it is about lobbying.

      Regarding your party line idea, what about the swing vote? What about the electoral college system? The idea of apathy hmm that is the problem in the first place.
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2012: All good points Pat. I must, however, resist the urge to take the conversation in a different direction. Mr. Voll's proposition is that the political system would be better if we abandoned the party/group mentality. Lobbying, swing voters, the electoral system, and citizen apathy are organic parts of the big picture, but the idea being discussed is specifically focused on eliminating partys/groups.
    • Aug 4 2012: I understand your basic point but It's not about getting into office it's what the parties do with their collective power when they are in office.

      For example: The supreme court upheld that Obama care was constitutional. The republican party did not want this law to pass. One of the judges who voted to uphold it happened to be a republican.

      What is that judge's job on the supreme court? To make rulings on the law or to do what the republican party tells him to do?

      According to the republicans in office his job was to do what they wanted to, they castrated him all over the media for going against what his party wanted.


      or like my original example When they basically said give is what we want on this tax law or we will vote down every single law no matter what it is.

      I see this as a huge problem.

      If a person is republican or democrat or a space alien, they should look at a proposed bill and use their own brain and vote yes or no on what they believe is right or wrong.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: Let's clarify, Mr. Voll. Is your point that every elected official should vote for what they personally think is right with absolutely no consideration for the expressed will of their constituents? Is that your point? If not, please correct me. Thank you!
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Politics has become a career, based on the existence of powerful organisations with their own internal hierarchies. The only thing which will offset that is the continuing emergence of large numbers of smaller, conviction-based, groups. They would have to garner enough support to be electable. There would have to be a lot of them to counter the power of existing parties. And there would have to be a continuing supply of new groups as, over time, some of these groups will grow and attempt to exert dominance in the same way as existing large parties.

    To summarise all that, the current situation arises from the political inertia of the voting population. To change anything you need to mobilise large numbers of people and keep them mobilised.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2012: Sounds like you're saying that the best way to stop tribal warfare, is for there to be a lot more, smaller tribes.
      Which would in turn make people feel more concerned - presumably because of increased choice
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: Most 'democratic' countries have an adversarial political system, usually based round two parties constantly struggling for dominance. There are no instances of parties in that situation changing the way they operate, so something new needs to come in to make change happen.

        An equally powerful third party won't spring up overnight to change the balance. It would have to grow and evolve over time, and that needs committed involvement from a lot of people. Typically, when a thrid party emerges, one of the original parties either atrophies or is absorbed by the new party. And eventually the new party becomes as remote from its supporters as the two original parties.

        The model I describe is one of constant skirmishing. Small parties can be created more quickly. Multiple small parties can create coalitions to challenge the dominance of large parties. A continuing supply of new parties stops the existing powers from becoming too complacent. And small parties remain closer to their supporters.

        This is one approach to doing away with the problems of two party dominance. Whether it is good is another question. There are enough examples of countiries with multiple religion-based parties which experience high levels of unrest, sometimes leading to civil war. Clearly the multi-party setup brings its own risks.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: The issue of herd mentality is not unique to politics. It has for decades sat at the center of marketing strategies as well, as the marketer seeks to define and portray an "us" to which people will yearn to belong. (And buy the products/services that promise to confer such membership)

    There is, in fact, no conflict between independent-mindedness and collaboration. Collaboration has its greatest value when people bring their differences to the table. And yet many of us, surely, have experienced environments in which questioning the common or accepted wisdom of "the tribe" is flagged as being uncollaborative or unwelcome.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2012: Good point however Imo the difference between a group or herd and a small group where the individual benefits and prospers needs to be punctuated as the difference is apples and bird cages.
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: I agree that small groups tend to be much more effective in many respects than giant groups but that open-mindedness and independent-mindedness are virtues in both.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: I will agree about small groups where the individual is benefited. I will disagree regarding large groups and they and individual are from a practical view and by definition are the antithesis of each other
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: My boss explained to me the differences between small groups vs big corporations.

          Small Groups have better and faster communication. More people are on the same page, and decisions are much faster to do. However, because of their lack of numbers, actually executing their projects on a larger scale becomes much harder.

          Big corporations have the work-power. They dish out things faster because of sheer manpower. However, communication becomes their bigger problem. You start having bureaucracies because there are simply too many people to work with. Not everyone is on the same page. There could be way more internal conflicts.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: I would agree with your boss except large groups are made up of small groups this is a key point because with small groups you will get the benefit of bottom up thinking which is a huge advantage. The fact that the top down organizations ( think countries) have the scale to do the work does not mean they are the most efficient. The company that does this superbly and perhaps the only company that does this who builds their foundation from the individual and bottom up and inculcating the scientific method.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2012: Not going to ask me who this company is? As usual I'm talking to myself.
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: Toyota also have free healthcare and dental and an excellent retirement fund. If they were a country they'd be labelled socialists.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: No they wouldn't how can a private company be called socialist?
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2012: If it became so big and had so much influence over the lives of its employees that it was indistinguishable from a state. (When they buy an island in the middle of the Pacific and move the whole operation there and call it TOYOTALAND.) I think I just came up with a new plan for world domination! I wonder how much I could get Nauru for?
  • Aug 3 2012: the bottom line is the government has/is collapsing. Arizona went Nazi when they decided to make a law that required all Latin looking people to provide "papers" when asked. That was appalling. Thank god that was over turned. still these things and so many others make me wonder why I stay here.