Fight with us!

[FlyingDebris]

Yep.

On the bright side, third party politicians will probably become increasingly common, as both major parties are total crap compared to 40-80 years ago.

 

[Leanson]

*hoping to not stray too offtopic with this*
As far as I have noticed, most problems caused by the US-government arise from 2 "faults".(Warning, this may get opinion-heavy)

1. The strange arrangement of voting districts(AFAIK it originated from the politician, who gained the majority of the votes, to be able to redraw the map of voting districts[srsly, never do this, people will go crazy with it])
2. The lack of smaller parties with a chance to get a seat in congress.
   • Republicans and Democrats are too similar IMO, and as such more parties would do good.

True, if lets say a smaller party would be introduced, they would be mocked, made fun of, and targeted as conservatives are constantly. We do need more parties. And the redrawing of the voter maps, is wrong, but that is what they do. Its broken, it would take a lot of fix it, mainly the right people elected.

 

[Keptick]

True, if lets say a smaller party would be introduced, they would be mocked, made fun of, and targeted as conservatives are constantly. We do need more parties. And the redrawing of the voter maps, is wrong, but that is what they do. Its broken, it would take a lot of fix it, mainly the right people elected.

Thing is, you'd need almost every single good person to be voted in at the same time (which is almost impossible afaik)

Even if the president were to take good decisions, some very biased (lobby funded) senators sitting at the congress would fire the nope cruisers for the only principle of contradicting a higher authority, that's human nature unfortunately... And honestly, I really doubt that all the people sitting in those big positions have everything needed in the head. I mean, they DID finish their annual budget 3 ENTIRE WEEKS LATE!!! That's just an aberration as it's pretty much the #1 priority....

To be honest, the US government is almost too democratic. The inability of both sides to take decisions has lead to this congested mess.

This is, of course, just my opinion. I may not be right on every point since I'm not American and don't closely follow the news related to the issue. However, I'm fairly confident that I got the big picture right.

 

[WaffulMann]

I'm starting to think the recent leak was done by the US government and the US ISPs just so they could get rid of the "free net".

 

[starhaiden]

free internet is like free TV they both have ads that pay for you

 

[Megacrafter127]

free internet is like free TV they both have ads that pay for you

Or are paid for by the government.

 

[Deleted member 301635]

(Fans of capitalism may want to avert their eyes before they read my rant and pop a blood vessel or two)


What nobody seems to realise is that this is kind of thing a by-product of capitalism, because capitalism only benefits greedy and lucky people, and not the people who want to make the world a better place. If the US was anti-capitalist, then this wouldn't be happening, because:
A. The cable companies would be government-run, and thus be tax-funded, and so not need to make heaps of money, and so wouldn't be pressuring the government to do this, and
B. Even if they were privately run, the government wouldn't listen to them.

Unfortunately, thanks to Colonial Europe, we now have one of the most stupid and messed-up systems of government in history, surpassed only by societies where the ruler is the person with the biggest gun.

 

[starhaiden]

Or are paid for by the government.

but still you are paying for it and won't it be easier having the government pay for it

 

[FlyingDebris]

You know, the Soviets tried a system similar to what you propose, only with food.


Lovely how that worked out.

 

[Megacrafter127]

What nobody seems to realise is that this is kind of thing a by-product of capitalism, because capitalism only benefits greedy and lucky people, and not the people who want to make the world a better place. If the US was anti-capitalist, then this wouldn't be happening, because:
A. The cable companies would be government-run, and thus be tax-funded, and so not need to make heaps of money, and so wouldn't be pressuring the government to do this, and
B. Even if they were privately run, the government wouldn't listen to them.

Unfortunately, thanks to Colonial Europe, we now have one of the most stupid and messed-up systems of government in history, surpassed only by societies where the ruler is the person with the biggest gun.

It is definetly true, that capitalism, as practiced in the US, has such sideeffects. However, an anticapitalistic system won't do the trick too.
A solution would be mixing both. If done right, the negative sideeffects of both capitalism and anticapitalism are canceled out.

 

[BeefBacon]

Mixing capitalistic and communistic ideas works. To think that there are only "God lovin' 'Muricans" and "God damn Commies" is a false dichotomy. I, personally, don't support any major political party, either here or in the US. Your political process is a circus, and when you vote you think you're making a difference. You're not. Republicans and Democrats are virtually identical. The only difference is that Republicans are just slightly more out of touch with reality, and tend to subscribe to the caps and commies false dichotomy that I described earlier. Besides that minor difference, they're both as inept and as corrupt as each other. Don't make Obama your scapegoat.

Also fix your gun laws, America. And your religious laws. And your corporate laws. Fix your fucking laws.

 

[NeonSturm]

A street worker or trash man is paid very poorly, but does he not do the a hard job too?
Who decides who get how many money =?= Who decides who can pay how many information?

• Making access to information based on money makes making the average of people poor have an additional advantage.
• How much more evil can it be?

Single sites can be allowed to be paid if they provide a single very narrow service without hurting anybody.

• If they ask for too much, nobody would pay for this site.
• If their service is too narrow and freely available at the same time, nobody would make the effort of paying it either.

But if a site provides a wide combination of services and work together with a lot of others - all hidden under a cloak of payments -, who is even able to compete with them as a new, unknown service provider/site?

• Commercial stuff only works where is competition.
• Without competition and mostly independent offers, it is almost impossible that it not hurts the customer sooner or later.

Lets say person A gets 1000€ or $ monthly, but person B gets 1300. Sounds like not more than 30% of a difference right?

• Now subtract rent for your living area, food, a broken cooling box, new, car ... monthly 700 (at least)
  • it's 300 and 600 - a 100% difference.
• Now if you sum up all services and get 100 € or $ for access to information
  • the poor pays 50% of what's left
  • the less poor pays 25% of what left
  • the rich may pay even 1 or 2% of his money only
  • While the rich could buy a house and reduce his monthly payments, the poor never get the chance to and stick with high monthly payments!

That can't be fair!
This is the greatest fail of capitalism.


It is very apparent with information because

• you pay a fixed prize to create the value - independent if you sell to 1 or to 2'000'000'000 customers
• Small companies (the heart of competition and fair economy) will never have a chance!

The only true solution

What the majority of peoples would pay should be paid by all dependent on % of income as taxes.

That what is not important to own, that what is dependent on the individual should have to be paid by the individual.

 

[Deleted member 301635]

You know, the Soviets tried a system similar to what you propose, only with food.


Lovely how that worked out.

And Soviet Russia was one of the most incompetent governments of all time.

 

[FlyingDebris]

@Mega

That, or you'll get all the bad without any of the good.

And really, this is more corporatism than capitalism now. That, and a corrupted head of the FCC, imagine if that person was running everything.

HVBW, is our government not incompetent as well?

As to you all thinking communism is the way to go with this, consider the following-

Person A makes more money than Person B.

Government only allows them to have the government service.

Government botches service, like everything else they touch.

Person A wants a faster plan, but cannot get one.

Person C does not use the internet, but just got a 30% spike in taxes to pay for Person A and Person B to have a slow connection.

The issue is not Capitalism. It's Corporatism.

 

[BeefBacon]

The issue is not Capitalism. It's Corporatism.

Corporatism stems directly from capitalism. It's like saying "guns aren't the problem, it's the bullets that are killing people".

 

[Megacrafter127]

@Mega

That, or you'll get all the bad without any of the good.

If done right, the negative sideeffects of both capitalism and anticapitalism are canceled out.

The issue is not Capitalism. It's Corporatism.

True, but sadly the human nature turns very pure capitalism into corporatism eventually.
Systems, that aren't purely capitalistic could be wiped from corporatism, but it would still build up. However, the rate at which corporatism generates can be lowedered extremely by diluting the capitalism in the system a bit.
Using @BeefBacon 's example:

By removing certain parts of a gun, the gun still exists, but it can be rendered to be unable to kill.​

 

[NeonSturm]

Corporatism is something that defines us humans. One alone can not keep the high technological level.

Competition is something that defines the evolution that made us humans. Without competition, things which oppose our very origin start to prevail.



We are born to accept each other and to remove (vote down, .start a war against, ..) stuff which opposes what we are when we need to. That is the natural source of corporatism and competition.

We want to greed at the costs of others. That is what made our evolution possible rather than intelligent live based on other species of our planet before us.

But in our modern society we choose to have only our thoughts - somewhat (immaterial life forms) - compete each other.

If we let take material value (money) decide how immaterial competition (sharing thoughts) is possible, we broke the system that enabled our evolution.
Then we broke the natural filter that sorts out bad and refreshes the healthy balance between good and bad in every new generation.​

 

[Keptick]

And this, people, is why I want to live on Mars when I get older.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Room for two?[DOUBLEPOST=1410627105,1410625858][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, if the government controls your internet, they can control what you see and don't see.

That right there is one hell of a slippery slope. Next thing you know, the Republicans are all evil baby killers and the Democrats are wonderful perfect beings, or vice versa. After that, the government is doing everything perfectly and third party groups are terrorists killing thousands a day while petition websites are deemed unconstitutional due to their evil racist ideals or something.

It just won't work.

 

[NeonSturm]

And this, people, is why I want to live on Mars when I get older.

The capitalist part of me prefers earth-like planets with a well-chosen bunch of peoples.
But then the realistic part of me intercepts the evil thoughts with : if you choose everybody with "being most like you", you made your own hell. It would be a place missing the interesting things.