What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Meta777, Mar 30, 2018.

?

Interested in Participating in PF 'Demonstration' Votes?

  1. Yes

    12 vote(s)
    70.6%
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  3. Maybe (Please Explain)

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  1. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They're basing their decision based on whether the plaintiff violated the person or property of the defendant.

    Edit: oops. Got plaintiff and defendant reversed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2018
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's Circular Reasoning.

    -Meta
     
  3. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Circular? The judge should determine whether the defendant has violated the person or property of the plaintiff. Not sure how that's circular. That's why we need judges.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2018
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, Circular. You mean you really couldn't tell? :/

    I'm asking you what a judge should base their judgement off of when determining whether or not a person's property has been violated.

    Your answer is basically the following:
    -A person violated someone's property if a judge determines it.
    -The judge's determination should be based on whether or not the person violated someone's property.
    -Whether or not the person violated someone's property, should be determined by a judge.
    -The judge's determination should be based on whether or not the person violated someone's property.
    -A person violated someone's property if a judge determines it.
    -The judge's determination should be based on whether or not the person violated someone's property.
    -Whether or not the person violated someone's property, should be determined by a judge.
    -The judge's determination should be based on whether or not the person violated someone's property.
    -A person violated someone's property if a judge determines it.

    And so on, and so forth.
    You really don't see how that's circular?

    -Meta
     
  5. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've short circuited.
    Blown a fuse.

    You have defined what a judge is required for.
    That is it. Stop. No need to keep repeating it

    A judge decides.
    That is all.

    You discern that you have been violated and refer it to a judge, and a judges decides if you are correct.


    People who seek election.

    Those of us who would rule over others.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  6. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no cycle. You're just restating the same thing over and over.

    It's the job a the judge to settle the case of whether the plaintiff's person or property has been violated. The judge does this by hearing the evidence to understand the facts of the case and then determining if the plaintiff has indeed been violated.

    As I mentioned before, this is how common law came about.
     
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that's what a cycle does. It repeats. Which is why I said your argument was circular.
    You're basing one thing off another, and then basing that second thing off the first.

    Common law or case law, is simply saying that the judge's decision should be based off of how past judges ruled.
    Before common law regarding any particular subject area exists, judges tend to base their decisions off of their personal feelings towards what the written law means.
    It sounds to me, as if you'd prefer a system in which written law didn't exist. In which case a judge's pre-common law decision wouldn't be based on anything other than their personal feelings towards the specific case they were reviewing at the time.

    So, if you're saying that your idea is to have all judges base their decisions off of judicial precedent alone, without regards to any written law...
    Then, if I, as a judge, have to make a decision on a case which has no precedent, no common law, then what should I base that decision off of?
    My personal feelings towards the case, right?

    So for instance, if a plaintiff comes to me and accuses a defendant of trespassing on their property by flying a drone through what the plaintiff claims to be "their airspace", assuming that there is no judicial precedent for such a case, I would have the authority to base my decision off of whatever I wanted. Right? I could for instance, define personal/private airspace to be so limited, such as to allow for drone operators to fly their drones wherever they like. As close to anyone's house as they wanted. Take pictures, video, whatever. Or, suppose I didn't really like the idea of drones. I could decide instead, to expand the meaning of personal/private airspace far into the stratosphere and then use a line of sight justification to effectively unilaterally outlaw the flying of drones.

    And then, however I decided, all judges thereafter would then have to use my decision as a basis for their own decisions regarding similar cases, as my decision would have then become common law.

    That might sound ridiculous to you,
    but its exactly the sort of thing that can happen when we vest too much power into the hands of a single individual.
    Its also the reason for why we (in the U.S.) have congress and an executive branch, and not just a judicial branch.

    -Meta
     
  8. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a plaintiff comes to you and says he thinks someone flying a drone across his land is violating him but you should decide.

    There is no need for congress, not need for a jury, an executive branch or even a judicial branch.

    He trusts your judgement. Give it to him. End of.


    No congress, no laws, no lawyers, no justice system.
    Oh the power in your hands.

    The power to tell a man to take his drone and buzz off or not.
    Woot.


    Consider it the other way, you deciding for everyone. The power you have as a lawmaker deciding where everyone can fly their drones. Even those that had caused no issue. Even those that never asked your opinion. Even those that do not respect your opinion. Even those you don't know exist and don't know you exist.
    And this power telling every judge and respected figure what to think say and do.
    That is power. I see no reason for anyone to have it.


    So we often have devolved power. Devolved legal systems.Voluntary arbitrators.
    We don't bother with an army of lawyers and lawmakers.
    We just find a guy both parties can trust. A parent,.a teacher. An elder.
    And let them decide.

    And if both sides agree to arbitration then this is considered legally binding too.
    National laws can be used to enforce such systems if you wish.
    Beth Guin courts and Sharia courts. Judge Judy. Corporate arbitration.


    In normative situations we don't defer to the law for dispute resolution.
    My wife decides. I decide. My boss decides. The audience decides.
    We draw lots or flip coins. Take a vote with a show of hands.

    Your desire to make petty laws, is unwelcome.
    It is not needed.
    Your wish to rule over us, is rejected.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  9. thinkitout

    thinkitout Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,897
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that those who are power-hungry or seek office for personal gain do not meet the desired criteria to be "public servants". . . . Perhaps if we would not continue to reward such individuals, a more desirable class of candidates might be coaxed out of obscurity???
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no circle, because there is no dependency.

    A plaintiff takes a defendant to court, claiming that the defendant has violated his person or property. The judge hears all the evidence and renders a verdict on whether or not the defendant is guilty of doing so or not. There's nothing else that is depended on, so there is no cycle.

    They wouldn't have to use your decision. They might, because it is a precedent, but they don't have to.
     
  11. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Personal gain or altruism. Do gooders are just as bad.
    When a man comes of age, he becomes an adult.
    To not treat him as such is one of life's greatest insults.

    The trials of rights of passage are unpleasant and the responsibilities placed on us as adults are costly to our lifestyles.
    When after all this you then say I am not adult enough to decide what's best for me for myself, that you know what is best for me and I still don't....I am not going to like it.
    Or you.

    So really what I am looking for in a candidate is either one who will do as he is told. Allow me to make all the decisions and he just pass them on.
    Or two: one who does nothing. Who recognises it's not his place to make decisions for other people because he respects them as equals.

    And I sort of feel that in todays technological age. There is no need for number one. I can pass on my own wishes directly through a great many electronic mediums.
    No one is physically required to vote or speak on my behalf. It does not help democracy for anyone to attempt to do so.

    So the roles of representative democrats needs to be greatly reduced since it is now just an anachronism. A concentration of power instead of a transference of it.

    I would suggest that one chamber of parliament is no longer required.
    Law makers and not needed here any more. Reformers, fine.
    But those who decide and pass the laws don't need to be representatives any more. They can be ourselves directly as equals.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  12. thinkitout

    thinkitout Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,897
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Laws are not made solely for YOUR benefit, and many adults STILL have not learned to play nice. . . . Anarchy is NOT a viable alternative to bad government.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  13. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am the alternative to bad government.
    Either you act altruistcally, or I will.

    You won't like being on the receiving end of it any more than I do.

    Anarchy = me in charge.
    And it's a very viable alternative. Best avoided in my opinion.


    Laws are a tool. They are there for my benefit or I don't abide by them.
    You aren't the only person who can make and enforce them.

    So don't. Because it is a two way street.
    Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Live as neighbours in peace.

    So take your laws and apply them only to yourself. Because I may have very different ideas to you of what playing nice involves.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,574
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could be, but regardless of what the root of the issue is, the question posed by this thread is what should we, the American people, do to fix it.

    It's a bit hard to tell, but it seems to me that the solution that Baff, Longshot, and slackercruster want...
    ...is for us to break things up. To split the system apart. As in either:

    a) Divide ourselves into 2 separate countries, or
    b) Dissolve the federal government and split ourselves into 50 sovereign states, or
    c) Disassociate ourselves from legislation entirely, and live in a society of judges, without presidents, legislators, or written laws
    Also, I think he might have just been joking,
    but for a moment it almost seemed like Baff was saying the solution was to let Baff rule over us as a dictator...
    Might have to go back and read that post again though,...'cause that sort of seems to conflict with the other options. (then again, maybe not)
    Either way, I don't really feel like any of those options are good ways to deal with the issue...imho.

    -Meta
     
    Thought Criminal likes this.
  15. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, something like C is my response. We should eliminate the issuance of decrees that force people to behave in a particular way under pain of punishment (i.e. legislation). Rather we should have disputes between parties adjudicated by judges whose goal would be to determine whether the defendant had violated the person or property of the plaintiff.
     
  16. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    9,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    So this is what you are suggesting? That we apply law models based on comic books?
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  17. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    9,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apathy is indeed a rampant problem in our country. In fact, the whole concept of civic duty is sorely lacking.
     
    Meta777 and thinkitout like this.
  18. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    9,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are only two moments in a politician's career where you could get them to champion legislation that is counter-intuitive; at the beginning of their career when they are desperate to garner recognition, and at the end of their career where they care more about their legacy.

    Just look how little progress has come from campaign finance reform. This one area could break the stranglehold special interests have on our legislators, but few of them have the balls to vote it through.
     
  19. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's not what I'm suggesting.
     
  20. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    9,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure sounds like it.
     
  21. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Elected judges adjudicating cases between plaintiffs and defendants sounds like what, exactly?
     
  22. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    9,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Based on what I have read of your posts, you seem to be promoting the premise of the Judges BEING the Law, which is the premise of the entire Judge Dredd universe.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  23. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,135
    Likes Received:
    13,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wonder if...

    I am an older guy. I don't really know what goes on in our schools. I only know what is revealed in the right-leaning media. My personal experience from high-school in the early 1970s leads me to not doubt the reality of what I see reported. We were heading down the road of socialistic indoctrination even then.

    So, education is now all about social justice, and the path to socal justice is the creation of some Global Socialist Utopia. What if teachers could be convinced of the greatness of the US Constitution? What if, instead of viewing it as an obsolete piece of paper, written by dead, white, slave-owners, they instead taught is as a document guaranteeing social justice for all people?

    Just think of the possibilities. If people already believed that Johnny had full rights as an American, even if he wore a dress, no one would have to work to turn him into a confused person. He could grow up as he would. There would be no need to make him think that he was a girl because there would no longer be the need to create numbers for a safety-in-numbers defense. The safety would already exist. Guaranteed by a strongly supported belief in the US Constitution.

    Needless to say, the instruction of the relevance of our Constitution to our daily lives would be best prefaced with study of the Declaration of Independence.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - Thomas Jefferson et al

    I suggest a full period class, say 10th grade, teaching these two documents; stressing their relevance to today's society.
     
  24. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    9,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What a strange part of America you must have grown up in.
     
  25. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,135
    Likes Received:
    13,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was a long time ago. Well before the left totally took over our education establishment.
     

Share This Page