Will of the People

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sokolov, Jun 26, 2021.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    In the US, most states have rules allowing ordinary citizens to place measures on the ballot as a form of direct democracy. As much as some people like to shout how the US is "not a democracy" dozens of propositions are actually passed each year via direct democracy.

    In many GOP controlled states, they have been and continue to attempt to limit this power:

    1996 - Arizona voters pass medical marijuana proposition with 65% of the vote, Arizona legislators repeal the measure
    1998 - Arizonans approve measure to limit legislature and governor powers to amend/repeal voter approved measures
    2000 - Prop 102, prompted by conservative groups in the state, attempted to limit ballot propositions with regards to wildlife and conservation. It was defeated with over 60% voting against the measure.
    2009 - Arizona legislature attempts to divert millions of dollars from a fund set up by a voter proposition for Early Childhood Education to use in the state's general fund, the Board for the Fund sues and wins to prevent the diversion
    2018 - AZ GOP attempted to pass a bill to repeal the 1998 measure, passing along party lines 35-25 in the House. However, this type of change requires an amendment to the State Constitution and the change was ultimately never put on the ballot as it had little chance of passing.
    2020 - Voters approve Prop 208 to raise taxes for education
    2021 - Arizona legislators vote to allow businesses to circumvent Prop 208, and threaten to "audit" the Prop 208 vote

    Arizona legislators are also pushing legislation to give themselves more power to amend future voter propositions.

    Other GOP controlled states, like Idaho, are also implementing similar measures to limit voter powers, requiring that Propositions gather signatures from all 35 districts, instead of the previous 18.

    In total there have been over 100 bills introduced in 2021 to limit ballot initiatives across more than 30 states.
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2021
  2. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Sad that GOP are lied to

    but majority or not naïve they are blatantly immoral and there nothing you can do about it , dems need to try to find that tiny white light in the black black racist hearts
  3. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    Most ppl don't support marijuana use because it is considered degenerate. I agree with this sentiment, but I also support legalizing it, as Netflix is worse for you.

    At the end of the day though, laws are really just suggestions. Firk them, and Firk the government, that's how a true American operates in minecraft.
  4. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    If the people of those states are/were against it, they'd vote for different legislators, no? Of course, that assumes that election systems are working properly (on both ends). Indeed, I think a measure in CA defining marriage as man and woman (2008) had been later overrulled by Democratically appointed judges. This is not at all the same thing of course, as it's the judicial tamping down on legislative (which is part of seperation of powers)... but legislation can tamp down on legislation as well if it wants to. Repealling, Amending, etc. previous laws (provided it doesn't violate the constitution, but even that can be amended with enough political influence).

    For me the main problem with such measures has always been that it's outside of scope. It's easy to gatekeep, or to give small groups of large counties a greater degree of influence (on top of representation in State Legislatures) of smaller counties. The Idaho bill makes sense to me... if a state-wide measure is going to be listed it should have state-wide support, not just from select counties (which might be controlled by a minority party at any given time).

    The other part of the problem is that... Direct Democracy is generally not a good idea; it went poorly in previous governments and was avoided by the founders of this nation for a reason. Particularly when there is already a representative legislative body. If a measure is passed, but the legislature is against it... than you have two election results in conflict with each other... which should take priority? What about the next time the legislature changes? Or the voting demographic? Should a voted on measure be required to be continuously voted on as the politics and situation of a given state evolve over time?

    I take it you haven't seen fit to set aside your hatred yet (or did but didn't like it for some reason but I find the latter difficult to believe, peace and love are quite enjoyable). This is a shame. That said, you're description of "racism" as "black" and and the need to find that "white" light inside seems pretty racist... at least according to the propaga put out there that has been telling you that a majority of Republicans (and/or America in general) are racist in the first place.

    Well, there's still time. When you want to give up your hatred, I'll be happy to welcome you with open arms; and show you that there is more to this world than darkness, anger, pain, and fear.

    I hope that those around you that you would be inclined to listen to will encourage you on this.

    Well, either way you'll see that there is more to life... but it's better for you to discover it yourself, and to be open to it. Take care.
  5. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Direct democracy in the US actually predates the founding of the country by a significant margin, and at the state and sub-state level is prevalent despite claims that the US has never been a direct democracy with focus on the federal government.

    Regardless, state constitutions make it quite clear what is, and isn't allowed to be voted on in this way, and how legislators can interact with such measures, and the US Supreme Court and federal case law protects this right.

    One of the other mechanisms that this enables is the recall election, and once it gets on the ballot, the majority of these have succeeded.

    Of course, it's not without its problems, but they are largely similar problems that's also endemic other forms of legislation, namely: people.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2021
  6. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    Government seems to be holding back the will of the people. I'd argue that corporations already hold the chips, in cartel esque control. They could likely fund a military of their own several times over. They'd probably kick off more wars than we have now, meaning the war engine would gain in strength theoretically. The government prevents corporations and people from prosperity and personal freedom. I think that some ideas of government, like currency, can be solved in a decentralized way now anyways.

    Could give some examples if anyone's interested on ways "Mob" rule would probably work out better in the long run than our current system. Privitized FDA standards using cryptocurrency could measure real market value against prevention of cancer and harmful diseases by volume, since you could use blockchain analytics to trace payments back to inspection fees.

    Environmental concerns wont be met until there is one global economy truthfully; so there's not much point in trying to solve that issue.

    I dont see much harm in abolishing government outright as blockchain tech becomes more developed.

    there's plenty of AI research behind the scenes that proves current the global economy is currently a giant ponzi scheme, and that healthcare has little to do with curing people, and more to do with making money.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2021
  7. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    Your research is well done. If I were you I would read between the lines of bureacratic bullsht. The legislators are most likely controlled by corporate asshles who are linked to pharmaceutical companies that want control over the marijuana industry. The conservatives who are voting against the legalization of marijuana are either unknowingly supporting the pieces of sht who run the pain killer companies or they are uninformed ditto heads.

    On a side note Sokolov do you know who Rick Simpson is?

    If any of you are interested in the real reason why there is so much opposition and control over marijuana I would recommend listening to this podcast episode.

    L33Ch likes this.
  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I mean, you don't really need a podcast to tell you that corporations are heavily involved politically and part of the legislative process in ways that go far beyond getting industry input.

    They literally have a non-profit that drafts legislation for politicians. It's openly part of the process.

    Conservatives love talking about "regulations" strangling businesses, but the truth is the vast majority of such legislation is drafted by the very lobbyists and corporations that they take vast sums of money from. These "regulations" are then often used by these same corporations to limit competition (e.g. patent/copyright laws that keep extending their lengths beyond what seems reasonable) or for some inexplicable reason monitored by the corporations themselves (e.g. recent Boeing fiasco).
  9. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    Yes, but conservatives also don't argue that complete anarchy is the best way forward, to which I actually think is a viable solution. Because you either come together or you don't, but you don't have GI joe supercop trying to conserve an already broken system.

    It's sort of like the balance situation in PoxNora. Yes it is possible to balance games using only numbers and no changes to the underlying rules, but in all reality we can't trust the politicians to get the numbers right; in many cases they are incentivized to push things in their favor. To the point where no rules at all might be better. I for one welcome the PD leg + harbs meta, because I bought the runes. Feel my power normies, live free or die!
  10. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    If you listen to the podcast you will discover that it is the Canadian Government that terrorized this man and attempted to imprison him for life. It became so hyperbolic he moved to Croatia.
  11. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    So... regulation is being used to strangle business... the conservatives are correct.

    "Regulatory Capture" is a major issue, and one which many conservatives put their voice against.

    That said, you're still thinking in a left/right paradigm, rather than considering that there is a broader political spectrum even in these united States.

    That is literally besides the point? Bowing to the monarchy predates the founding of the country too but I don't see you arguing for that...

    Whether something is "prevalent" or not is immaterial to whether something is legal/correct/good. In Terms of usage... At the state level... it's generally limited to: Measures, Gubernatorial Elections, etc. In other words, things that effect all districts evenly. It's used more in local elections because that's the point of having a Republic. The local's can choose their own fate (to a point) with less interference from other districts, let alone other states.

    Of course, in terms of suppressing the will of the people... I'd say that those suppressing freedom of speech, the freedom to gather, the freedom to conduct business in accordance to the actual law for unlawful "mandates" issued not by the legislative but by the executive branches of government and/or unelected beaurocratic health nonsense is a bit of a bigger deal than what you're on about.

    Using the same incorrect left/right paradigm to answer...

    Neither do the "liberals". They openly advocate authoritarian fascism. Even the "defund the police" narrative is primarily just a preamble to transfer control of pollice away from local governments and sheriffs and centralize it within the Fedneral government, much the same way dictators and tyrants did in the past.
  12. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Liberals and conservatives are the same the only difference is that liberals arent as outspokenly racist and facist, which is bad and highly dangerous.

    This just whataboutism that's not What it's about

    If you have seen so many shootings and still support extra funding to police than you are clearly high on drugs.

    Perhaps you should I don't know watch some stuff which isn't mainstream media like independent papers like vox etc which actually give good info on these stuff.

    As bad as liberals are they actually do somewhat have good views like defunding police unlike conservatives which are devoid of thought. Are some people just jumping on bandwagon , sure but atleast they are showing some support for a good cause.
  13. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    If you're talking about "Democrats" and "Republicans" I'm somewhat more inclined to agree, though there are exceptions in each group as well.

    However, I would point out that it is currently the Biden administration which is saying that if someone is "removed" from one social platform they should be removed from them all. That they are the ones pushing for silencing voices and support government cooperation and coordination with big media companies. The combination of "Business" and "Government" to support the ruling class is the quintessential aspect of what Fascism is.

    Bush of course did much of the same, using media outlets as feeding points for propaganda to justify his invasion of Iraq, among other things. Yet the program is excellerated and much more blatent now.

    I'm not talking about "whataboutism" here. I'm pointing out that both parties have been problematic in terms of regulations. This is important because many of you are trapped in an "us against them" mentality, where you view yourself as being at odds with half the nation give or take. Yet this is an illusion. The Republicans and the Democrats have (at least until Trump took over) largely worked together. Both parties (as a whole, despite the efforts of some individuals) expand governmental overreach, both are corrupt, both always increase military conflict and never bother to look at the FED System or the CDC outside of perhaps Clinton's tepid and far-too-late apologies for Tuskegee Studies and MK Ultra.

    They cover for each other by blaming one another. "It's this other groups fault things are so bad, give us more power and we'll fix it!" But the problems almost never actually get fixed.

    And yet "somehow" they remain in power. Aside from the rigging of the general elections against third-party candidates, you can see what tends to happen even against outsiders by looking at Sanders (who's not exactly a pure politician but that's besides the point). Or some of the other recent Primary candidates (many would have been better than Biden, but he still got rammed in by everyone, except Sanders' direct competition, dropping out right before a big election night and endorsing Biden).

    The corruption in government continues because the same people keep getting elected. Pelosi, McConnel, etc.

    Term Limits would help with this, but the real problem is that the election system is questionable at best, and if the general election system is questionable, than no matter what happens with regards to Public Memorandums or Measures and the like, they will get controlled by someone other than The People.

    Without a fair, transparent election system, you will never have the Will of the People manifest.

    THAT is the point.
    L33Ch likes this.
  14. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    You are misinterpreting stuff and you are even considering like the fact that majority of younger voters 18-35 are more progressive

    I can guarantee that in 60 years neo Liberiesm will be on a decline while conservative will continue to grow more and more viscous and horrid.
  15. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Explain what I'm "misinterpreting." Are you quite certain it's not because you're own assumptions are getting in the way of seeing reality as it is?

    The majority of younger voters (aka, my age group, based on your interpretation) are going through the same BS as everyone else. I certainly believe that Neo Liberalism, or Progressivism, are on the decline. Socialism, which is even worse, is rising, but I think only temporarily.

    Conservatism... I have no grasp of what you consider to be "conservative" since you assume idiocy and racism, which are not, and have not been, traits of conservatism in the US. Indeed, it's the "conservative" party that has most often pushed for racial equality and the like (and idiocy is not limited to any political standing, despite what people accross the spectrum may claim).

    I skipped over it last time, but I'm going to "briefly" respond to a section from you previous post:

    I don't do drugs (I don't even drink or smoke, and avoid advil and the like as much as I can). Nor am I addled, nor demented. Nor racist.

    However, if the media (including the main stream media, which I generally do NOT watch or read, and I find it hilarious you think I do) spent as much time and effort on covering ALL violent crimes and not just the shootings done by police against Black people, you would have a much better idea of precisely how bad the homicide rates are compared to unjustified police violence. And a much better idea of how much non-police related violence increased once the police where held back (by threats of prosecution, political riots, etc.) and/or defunded. And probably have no time for any other news coverage.

    There are thousands of homicides (manslaughter/murder/etc.) every year. In 2019 there were over 16,000 reported homicides nation-wide. By contrast, there were less than 30 police shootings of unarmed people. Each of those police shootings resulted in tragedy, make no mistake. And where appropriate, those individual police/sherriff officers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    However, defunding of police, even in select cities, resulted in a huge increase in violent crime including homicides in 2020, such that the additional deaths (to say nothing of robberies and property destruction) from homicide well eclipsed the dozens that died from bad police (or good police in bad situations making a mistake or whatever). Over 20,000 homicides were reported in 2020.

    That's over 3,000 additional homicides at a minimum. There are other factors (mental instability from lockdowns and the like), but by far the highest increases occured in places that reduced police presence and/or funding (esp. in places like NYC which also had bail reforms making it easier for the accused to get out of jail without bail). Even just NYC increased homicides alone resulted in well over the dozens (give or take) officer-caused deaths of unarmed suspects in 2019, with direct correlation to defunding and restraining of police enforcement.

    Further, this primarily effected poor, minority communities. If you think those communities wanted less police (rather than "better" policing) than you're not listening to them, but rather the political actors trying to exploit tragedy for their own gain.

    The media, whether it's "mainstream" or Vox (which is not any better than Mainstream most of the time) or whoever... is a lense that can help focus an issue and make it clearer... if it's used properly. On the other hand, when it's used for propaganda (which it almost always is these days), it can pull focus away from what should be examined, or provide an angle which actually distorts what you're seeing. The highly edited footage they've been showing on the Jan 6th "commission" is a very good example of that, even if you support that commission that footage is doing no one any favors except to propagandize those that are ignorant or naive enough to believe that most politicians want what's best for the people rather just what's best for themselves.
  16. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Firstly crime fluctuate it can go down or up depending on the times like now it higher than usual because of pandemic.

    Ye because billions of dollars to police and equipment are what REALLY keeping crime down.

    Maybe if they spend their budget you know training better cadets and police officers to handle situation crime would reduce.

    Police awnser to crime is even using more brute force instead of analysing human behaviour and crime and that's why defunding isn't a stupid idea
  17. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Those cities which did not reduce police budget had no/relatively little increase in violent crime (unless they were targets of Riots by Anti-Fa factions and more violent BLM).

    Prior to riots after George Floyd, violent crime was actually greatly reduced during the first months of the pandemic. Psychology is a factor here, sure, but saying: "it's the pandemics fault" is not backed up by statistics. The correlation of increased crime remains with decreased police enforcement.

    Also, violent crime per capita had been on an overall decline in the last 5-7 years or so, until 2020 and 2021, which has resulted in a large increase in violent crime following riots demanding reduced police presence/funding (though those mayors and such that enacted that also happened to up private security for themselves). The locus point for the shift was following the hamstringing of police.

    While correlation is not causation, it can be a strong indicator... and you have no contrary indicator to say my position is wrong. Only your feelings from what you've seen on Vox or whatever distorted lense you're looking through that's not been showing you the full picture.

    Equipment means access to less-lethal weaponry, and to better training so... yes? I'm sure there are some parts of the police budget which are bloated, to be sure, but yes, in general, an increased police budget and pro-active police measures have resulted in an overall reduction in violent crime... including violent crimes by police officers themselves. Police violence against unarmed suspects had, like violent crime in general, also been being reduced.

    Reducing their budget is not going to enable them to be better at analysing human behavior/crime, nor is it going to allow for more sophisicated training to prevent police brutality. If anything, it's going to contribute to brutality for a number of reasons, including the fact that you'll probably be cutting into their already generally low pay, making them disgruntled and disatisfied, and making the job overall less appealing to those that want to serve and protect, rather than those that are attracted to the job for the sake of having some sense of power over others.

    More than anthing though, you're throwing a generalization at an entire occupation. You're putting your assumptions out there to justify an action when those assumptions have no basis in reality, but rather on the orchetrated lense of propaganda put forward by media (or perhaps your personal experience, which is still not reflective of the general populace).

    The simple fact is that the majority are not in favor of defunding the police, even in allegedly "targeted" neighborhoods of police brutality like low-income housing and minority communities, the overwhelming response is that they do not want police funding reduced (maybe reallocated from vehicles/equipment to training/hiring more/better police, again, there's room to discuss bloat/waste within police programs). If police were all as bad as you presume them to be, this sentiment would not exist.

    Regarding analysing human behavior...

    This position I have is a result of precisely that, based on data and facts to back it up, rather than general media propaganda.

    When you reduce law enforcement, those that are already agreeable to commit crimes will be emboldened, and be more capable of avoiding enforcement even as they commit more and more crimes. This is a fact.

    Likewise, when crime runs rampant and there is no apparent means to stop or curtail it, those that are on the fence, feeling political, financial, or other stress factors that might make them turn to crime as a means of resolving that tension, it becomes easier for them to make that decision. Reduced enforcement increases the stress on law-abiding citizens, and decreases stress on criminals... so more and more people will choose to be the later rather than the former. Especially for those that do not have the means to go to a different location with more/better law enforcement.
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I feel like you are no longer replying to me as a person, but just using my posts to spout stuff.

    If you've ever actually read what I say, you will know that I find the left/right thing pretty inadequate.

    My point, however, is that in the US, the conservative party (i.e. the GOP) and its supporters like to talk about "supporting businesses" and deregulation and other such things - but what they don't often tell you is that their donors are often the ones writing the legislations and regulators which lead to the regulatory capture in the first place.

    Anyway, I am not saying the Democrats do everything right, far from it - but I have way more problems with the GOP than I do the Democrats.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2021
  19. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    You said that it was "avoided" but that's not actually true is my point. Yes, some founding fathers thought that electing the President of the United States without some level of state-level control might be problematic, but the fact is that it's been in use for a very long time in this country. If this country had really avoided it because it's so bad, then they didn't do a very good job, did they?

    Agreed, which is why "the Founding Fathers did X" argument never really flies with me, since it's just another form of this kind of argument.

    My point isn't that Direct Democracy must be good, but that there's precedent, and this great country has survived for a long time with MOST elections being some form of direct democracy, and many states have been run very successfully (globally speaking) for many decades with many laws passed in this manner. In other words, if it's so bad that it must be eradicated through legislator override, hopefully there's some evidence other than "I think it's bad."

    Because countermanding voter approved things, particularly if the approval method is enshrined in the state constitution, should be done ONLY if you have very good evidence that it should be done.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2021
  20. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    The one weakness they have is also their strength, which is that they emphatic , much more than republicans. They are more likely to compromised to lower themselves to meet the requirements of the republicans.

    Compared to the stiffness of republicans they will very rarely compromised unless they pushed back a lot.

Share This Page