Should the U.S have a multi-party system?

I think that there's a laziness in people that claim "go with your views" and all of that jazz. It's that they don't want to run for something themselves.

 

Ah dear...another hippie.

If you knew the nature of the American people, who are very dependent on who they elect, you'd know that'd never work.[/QUOTE]

I am not a hippie, I just believe in freedom. Not a certain kind of freedom or a limited amount of freedom, just freedom, because that's the whole of sentient law as I said. As sentient beings, we have the free will to think for ourselves, do what we want, we don't or shouldn't be forced to conform to someone else's way of life or opinion.

 

Hate to be the nitpicker, but you described what democracy isn't. We have a representative republic, which is voting for people to make decisions for us. Direct democracy is what Princess Danica was saying.

It works marvelously for small states, sort of like how Greece was back when the system was invented. But for America? Have you seen the amount of crap that people call legislation? Even the ones whose sole job it is (and an extremely overpaid and cushy job at that) to know and form opinions on proposals don't read it half the time. That sucks, but we are far too bloated and enormous a country to do things the old fashioned way. I don't hate politicians enough to abolish the whole establishment.

 

What do you mean?

---------- Post added 11th Aug 2014 at 12:13 AM ----------

Thennn just do it in counties...?

 

Heh, that would be pretty cool, but it would still mean remaking the US into a confederacy or just hundreds of micronations. If it could ever happen though, I'd want to see it

 

I don't want to directly quote what you've said so I'll come up with a similar example. Let's say Jimmie wants change in the government and Jimmie also bitches and hisses about how everyone is a slave to government blah blah blah. If Jimmie would get off of his ass and try to make change, do some activism in your community. But, I guarantee you Jimmie will remain on his fat, pompous ass.

 

The whole world would need it not just the US, and I'd want to see it to. I think the world would be a much better place.

 

My apologies.

 

Not only would there be an insane amount of small details people would need to vote on in a direct democracy in a federal republic this size but with each shift in consensus the issues would then have to be deliberated on again. Nothing serious would get accomplished.

 

Oh, that's what you're saying. Are you implying I'm that type of person? Because I don't want to run for anything, I want to be my own self governance. I govern who I love, what I wear, what car I drive, etc not some politician. It's like not being able to wear a Budweiser hat in school, or something with 'bad' language on it. It's stupid, people think they control others when they don't, or shouldn't. It's also like how people get offended by bad words. Like what? it's a sound, and you're offended? What happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words could never hurt me lol seriously...

---------- Post added 11th Aug 2014 at 12:23 AM ----------

Well... at least people would be free.

 

Ah, I see. I actually want to run for something, sorry for my rudeness, I just got a bit too passionate.

 

You're fine, apology accepted. Just remember assuming makes an ass out of you and me lol

 

Unfortunately I should say that it is too free. I subscribe to the notion that every positive arrives from the appropriate balance between two extremes. That is an extreme form of freedom, and it also seems unstable and prone to corruption.

 

Haha, I'll make it a quote!

 

Well... I subscribe to the notion that to do what thou wilt is the whole of sentient law, and that thou hast no right but to do thy will. Every person possesses a true will, a single overall motivation for their existence. Each person follows their true will to attain fulfillment in life and freedom from restriction of their nature. No one can interfere with the will of another person. Everyone's will is different, and because each person has a unique point-of-view of the universe, no one can determine the will for another person. Freedom.

 

I grant you that that is certainly a fair definition for freedom. However, surely between Rousseau and Hobbes we can find common mutual ground in which each person is protected their freedoms from harm and infringement while still being able to coordinate on the construction of things like airports and hospitals?

My contention being that absolute freedom is essentially identical to anarchy.

 

Maybe, but do you remember what Joker said in The Dark Knight?

"...and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

 

Nature is also fair, and it is arbitrary and cruel and devoid of intelligent direction or purpose. Why should we strive for absolute fairness when the cost is all of our safety, security and prosperity?

I mean, do you really think that this would work or are you merely speaking about ideal states?

 

Well, honestly the world needs a bit of a reboot if you ask me. There's too many people out there who try to control others, whether it's on political or religious grounds, and that just doesn't fly with me. So I say get a little anarchy going (at least temporarily), let the crazies fend for themselves while we more loving and caring human beings cut them out like a cancer so that we can finally set the world on a better course.

 

It is interesting that you say that. I've long suspected that there is a real historical cycle to big changes. Because the people at the top have the most to lose, they resist change the hardest and sometimes they bring everything crashing down with them. At least things do change and often for the better when it happens. Shame about all the people that get crushed by history's inexorable movements, though.