Swatch LGBT Watches Seized in Malaysia - Swatch wants them back

[durangodawood]

I think the "We're not a democracy, we're a republic" talking point has been around quite a while.

Thats always a funny one. If we the people vote for our government, then we're a democracy - in addition to being a republic.

Also most of the people who love that talking point cling dearly to their voter-initiative direct democracy powers (which out of the other side of their mouth is what they call the worst kind of democracy.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thats always a funny one. If we the people vote for our government, then we're a democracy - in addition to being a republic.

Also most of the people who love that talking point cling dearly to their voter-initiative direct democracy powers (which out of the other side of their mouth is what they call the worst kind of democracy.)

The sentiment itself I actually agree with. I do think there is some importance in the concepts of compromise via a bicameral legislature (one house being proportional, the other one not) as well as the notion that populous coastal cities don't get to dictate policy for everyone in the country.

The entire framework was supposed to be a "happy medium" between the one extreme of "because 51% of people want it, they get to push it on everyone else" and the other extreme of "90% of people want something, but because that 10% doesn't, they get to tank it for everyone else"
(although I think we, in the US, often miss the mark on that and commit both kinds of fouls pretty regularly.

However, you're correct in that it seems to be selectively invoked (more often by the GOP) when convenient or to "make a point"

I would say it's pretty similar to the "selective" nature of peoples' opinions on Federal vs. State powers, where the two parties seem to trade sides depending on what the issue is and what level of government happens to be on their side.

 

[durangodawood]

.... the notion that populous coastal cities don't get to dictate policy for everyone in the country....

This one always cracks me up. Cities dont vote. Nor do acres. Individual people vote. And why one rural persons interest is considered more valuable than one city persons interest is beyond me. What we currently have is like affirmative action for rural people, where we artificially inflate their say beyond the "one person one vote" principle.

As for tyranny by the majority, thats what we have a constitution for, which provides guardrails on what govt can do no matter what the majority wants.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This one always cracks me up. Cities dont vote. Nor do acres. Individual people vote. And why one rural persons interest is considered more valuable than one city persons interest is beyond me. What we currently have is like affirmative action for rural people, where we artificially inflate their say beyond the "one person one vote" principle.

As for tyranny by the majority, thats what we have a constitution for, which provides guardrails on what govt can do no matter what the majority wants.

No, cities don't vote, but people in the big coastal cities are pretty monolithic in terms of their policy preferences (if past voting habits are any indicator) and their areas have higher population density.

So in that sense, simple majority rule at the federal level would equate to people in the big progressive cities dictating the rules for "fly-over" country.

 

[durangodawood]

No, cities don't vote, but people in the big coastal cities are pretty monolithic in terms of their policy preferences (if past voting habits are any indicator) and their areas have higher population density.

So in that sense, simple majority rule at the federal level would equate to people in the big progressive cities dictating the rules for "fly-over" country.

Why should minority opinions necessarily have equal overall power to majority ones? Why should sometimes being in a "voting bloc" mean your individual vote should count less. Its like if more people want a thing, we need to cut down their voting power until the effect of their majority vote is eliminated. Its absurd.

Or lets run with it and inflate the voting power of every kind of minority interest so their overall power is equal to the majority!

Hey lets make black peoples votes count 3.5 to whites 1.0
Lets make disabled peoples votes count 4.6 to everyone elses 1.0
Lets make military service peoples votes count 12.2 to civilians 1.0

 

[Pommer]

No, cities don't vote, but people in the big coastal cities are pretty monolithic in terms of their policy preferences (if past voting habits are any indicator) and their areas have higher population density.

So in that sense, simple majority rule at the federal level would equate to people in the big progressive cities dictating the rules for "fly-over" country.

Montana’s population density is 7.09/sq mi California’s is 253.1, both get two senators

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Montana’s population density is 7.09/sq mi California’s is 253.1, both get two senators

Correct.

However, the compromise is that Montana gets 2 house reps, while Cali gets 52.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why should minority opinions necessarily have equal overall power to majority ones? Why should sometimes being in a "voting bloc" mean your individual vote should count less. Its like if more people want a thing, we need to cut down their voting power until the effect of their majority vote is eliminated. Its absurd.

Or lets run with it and inflate the voting power of every kind of minority interest so their overall power is equal to the majority!

Hey lets make black peoples votes count 3.5 to whites 1.0
Lets make disabled peoples votes count 4.6 to everyone elses 1.0
Lets make military service peoples votes count 12.2 to civilians 1.0

It shouldn't have overall power to majority opinions... However, it's a balancing act. And what works for NYC may not work as well for a rural town in Idaho. Likewise, just because a million people in NYC want something that works well for them, they shouldn't get to dictate it from a federal level and make 3000 people in an Idaho town go along with it if nobody there wants it.

Thus the reason we have different levels of government, and a lot of compromise is made for laws that are dictated from a federal level.

 

[durangodawood]

It shouldn't have overall power to majority opinions... However, it's a balancing act. And what works for NYC may not work as well for a rural town in Idaho. Likewise, just because a million people in NYC want something that works well for them, they shouldn't get to dictate it from a federal level and make 3000 people in an Idaho town go along with it if nobody there wants it......

Do you realize that the principle you are advancing is this: a minority interest should not ever have to submit politically to the will of the majority. Any minority interest should be elevated to equality with its corresponding majority interest.

Think about how absurd it would be if that principle prevailed. (And obviously we're setting aside various rights which are constitutionally protected no matter how majority opinion swings.) That principle is bogus.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you realize that the principle you are advancing is this: a minority interest should not ever have to submit politically to the will of the majority. Any minority interest should be elevated to equality with its corresponding majority interest.

Think about how absurd it would be if that principle prevailed. (And obviously we're setting aside various rights which are constitutionally protected no matter how majority opinion swings.) That principle is bogus.

That's not what I'm saying...I'm saying there's certain things better handled at state and local levels of government than federal.

So it's not that "a minority interest should never have to submit to the majority", it's that the minority interest "shouldn't always have to submit in every single circumstance".

When the federal government was trying to use the DEA to push the war on drugs and trying to push DOMA, I assume you'd be of the position that it was a good thing that California was pushing for states rights for medical marijuana and that states like Vermont were pushing for states rights on being allowed to honor same sex marriage licenses, yes?

 

[durangodawood]

That's not what I'm saying...I'm saying there's certain things better handled at state and local levels of government than federal.

When the federal government was trying to use the DEA to push the war on drugs and trying to push DOMA, I assume you'd be of the position that it was a good thing that California was pushing for states rights for medical marijuana and that states like Vermont were pushing for states rights on being allowed to honor same sex marriage licenses, yes?

Ok. Somehow I got the idea that you were defending the current bigger per-capita voice in congress that rural people have on average - invoking the principle that for "fairness" minority positions need to be artificially overrepresented.

I'm all for local control of local issues, subject to the protection of basic rights, of course.

As for the mj, that seems like a natural state issue. Marriage is less clear because that might fall under the US constitutions 14th amdmt equal protection clause in which case no state could restrict it. Scotus seems to agree, for now anyway.

Other issues are by nature national, even global, where our individual local behaviors affect people well beyond your borders. Clean water act issues for example.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok. Somehow I got the idea that you were defending the current bigger per-capita voice in congress that rural people have on average - invoking the principle that for "fairness" minority positions need to be artificially overrepresented.

I'm all for local control of local issues, subject to the protection of basic rights, of course.

As for the mj, that seems like a natural state issue. Marriage is less clear because that might fall under the US constitutions 14th amdmt equal protection clause in which case no state could restrict it. Scotus seems to agree, for now anyway.

Other issues are by nature national, even global, where our individual local behaviors affect people well beyond your borders. Clean water act issues for example.

If you refer to my prior post, I specifically cited the efforts to overrepresent minority conservative values as a bad thing (where I cited the gerrymandering the Pennsylvania GOP did a few years back)

I'm not in favor of any platform in which either minority rule or majority rule is the "blanket rule". There are times when those scenarios make sense, and other times when they don't.

My original post going down this rabbit hole was highlighting that people seem to have a love/hate relationship with these dynamics based on whatever the present circumstances happen to be.

For instance, many people in Cali were none-too-pleased about abortion restrictions being returned to the states (despite them not actually being impacted by it), but during the beefs between the DEA and medical dispensaries in Cali a few years back, those same people were 10th amendment aficionados.

Likewise, when conservatives thought they had the upper hand (nationally) since Bush was president, they pushed for DOMA to define marriage at the federal level. When a federal branch of government ended up ruling the other way, all of those same conservatives had a convenient change of heart and started saying "well, this should really be left up to the states"

 

[durangodawood]

....
I'm not in favor of any platform in which either minority rule or majority rule is the "blanket rule". There are times when those scenarios make sense, and other times when they don't.
...

First off, minority rule should never prevail. If it does then we've failed to achieve the most basic measure of the consent of the governed, which is: do more people prefer this than not?

So how do you engineer your system? Because right now, some regions have a permanent overrepresentation per capita in congress.

The only thing I can think of that doesnt rely on bogus principles is equal per cap representation in congress, plus a supermajority requirement for the passage of any bill. Say 55% or 60% or whatever. This obviously is a recipe for near perma-shutdown of the govt with brief interludes of functionality. I'm reminded of hippie "consensus" requirements for running a co-op house. I can see it with 15 people. Maybe.