You could, at least, start with levying insurrection for a start, further than that is well out of my abilities to work with, however.
You mean like what was tried with Trump (and failed), and all the people they've arrested and continue to arrest in connection to the Capital Hill 'Riot' are facing?
loomer wrote: ↑2021-03-04 11:20pm the adoption of preferential voting with as much direct consultation as possible,
I'm not sure that would help much. The big problem with the US election system is that voters, at best, only get two viable options. The candidates in first and second place in the pre-election polling. Anyone else on the ballot doesn't have a chance. All I can see ranked voting doing is reduce the risk of one of those other candidates splitting the vote.
Could you explain how ranked choice voting means there are at least 3 viable candidates in a district ?
Not examples where one of the two viable candidates isn't from one of the two major parties of their country.
Oh and those voters who get to choose between two viable candidates are the lucky ones. People in heavily gerrymandered districts, districts with popular candidates or those who aren't allowed to vote because they live in the wrong place.
What I'd do is make Congress proportional representation*, open to anyone living in the US. That should make third parties viable, hopefully viable enough to cause the Republican and Democrat parties to split. Plus going with MMP in New Zealand has done more for getting Maori MPs than the Maori electorates did, so it should have a similar effect in the US.
*I'm not sure if I'd go with pure proportional representation or MMP.
Honestly, a proportional system would probably work fine too - I'm just more used to preferential. The central goal is to move away from a system where a vote can be 'wasted', which not only reinforces but effectively mandates a two-party system.
That goes what happens in genuine democracies in general, where two or three parties hold most of the political power and everyone else is spoilers.
You can always phrase it in a way that it sounds acceptable. Like take back our wealth that we created from the parasites who leech on us and are destroying americas greatness, or something to that effect. It'd probably have to be a narrative one has to create for years though, requiring organization and planning.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
His Divine Shadow wrote: ↑2021-03-11 06:10am
Redistribute the wealth would be my answer.
To most people, that sounds like 'take what belongs to one person, and give it to someone that didn't earn it', and is always meet with resistance.
...and? No political project is without violence at its foundation, and very few without violence as a tool for its defence or maintenance.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
I can't see it working in the united states, at all, because of the mentality of 'rugged individualism' that appears to be a cultural foundation there.
However, widespread adjustments to the tax code that favors lower incomes, while preventing over-seas transfers of funds and assets (thereby leaving them taxable) would probably be seen as acceptable to the average citizen, and in the mid-term, accomplish a 'redistriubtion of wealth' without violence.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
GrosseAdmiralFox wrote: ↑2021-03-11 05:02am
That goes what happens in genuine democracies in general, where two or three parties hold most of the political power and everyone else is spoilers.
From where I sit, the minor parties hold a disproportionate amount of power. Because when their support is required for one of the major parties to lead the government, let alone get policy done, they have a lot of bargaining power.
Also, I'd like to hear how you define "genuine democracies". Because I can't think of a definition that includes a country where large chunks of the countries citizens have less/no ability to vote because they live in the wrong place within the lands controlled by that government. Especially when the wrong place includes the nations capital.
Solauren wrote: ↑2021-03-11 09:21am
I can't see it working in the united states, at all, because of the mentality of 'rugged individualism' that appears to be a cultural foundation there.
However, widespread adjustments to the tax code that favors lower incomes, while preventing over-seas transfers of funds and assets (thereby leaving them taxable) would probably be seen as acceptable to the average citizen, and in the mid-term, accomplish a 'redistriubtion of wealth' without violence.
It might not be possible or plausible, but IMO the problem is wealth inequality and the solution is redistribution, if that's not possible to achieve, perhaps in some cloaked roundabout manner, then the problems will just keep getting worse.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
Solauren wrote: ↑2021-03-11 09:21am
I can't see it working in the united states, at all, because of the mentality of 'rugged individualism' that appears to be a cultural foundation there.
However, widespread adjustments to the tax code that favors lower incomes, while preventing over-seas transfers of funds and assets (thereby leaving them taxable) would probably be seen as acceptable to the average citizen, and in the mid-term, accomplish a 'redistriubtion of wealth' without violence.
It might not be possible or plausible, but IMO the problem is wealth inequality and the solution is redistribution, if that's not possible to achieve, perhaps in some cloaked roundabout manner, then the problems will just keep getting worse.
Erm, the USA was largely founded by rich white aristocrats not wanting to pay taxes. Southern rich white aristocrats even had a Civil War over the possibility that one day their rights to own slaves might be curtailed. "We the People" has always meant "We the Rich White Propertied People" (the difference being that the Founding Fathers were at least open about it!). Inequality is part of America's DNA, just as much as baseball and apple pie. It's a feature, not a bug.
Barring another Civil War where the left / centrists win, or maybe a resurgent threat to capitalism big enough that the business stakeholders decide to throw some bones to the masses like during the WW2 / Cold War era, I don't see any redistribution of wealth happening anytime soon. Unless of course its yet more wealth going to the top 1%.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Solauren wrote: ↑2021-03-11 09:21am
I can't see it working in the united states, at all, because of the mentality of 'rugged individualism' that appears to be a cultural foundation there.
However, widespread adjustments to the tax code that favors lower incomes, while preventing over-seas transfers of funds and assets (thereby leaving them taxable) would probably be seen as acceptable to the average citizen, and in the mid-term, accomplish a 'redistriubtion of wealth' without violence.
FDR inauguration speech
Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
The problem is more the current cultural zeitgeist but it's surprisingly fluid. Herbert Hoover chicken in every pot was a celebration of Big Business just a few years before.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
His Divine Shadow wrote: ↑2021-03-13 12:22pm
Then it's quite unlikely the US can recover from the downard spiral, assuming that is true.
Which brings up the question - is it a Downworld Spiral, or the long-term goal?
You talk like the "downward spiral" is something new. Don't worry, the american people are too much a pack of slothful, weak, greedy, stupid, gutless sheep to do anything more than ineffectively protest. Any attempt to effect actual change, violent or otherwise, will be immediately demonized and buried, and the precious status quo will continue.
So don't worry or care. It's not like the people have the power to do anything about it anyway.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
