Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

Then articulate the machine's purpose for me.

The specific machine I most worry about is the US Federal Government.  It's purpose:

1. Establish justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote the general welfare
5. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

[EddieRUKiddingVarese]

Think the Mexicans better start building the fence now, before Trump to stop the flood heading to the south.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

More evidence that a vote for Hillary is a vote for war:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

[Madiel]

The specific machine I most worry about is the US Federal Government.  It's purpose:

1. Establish justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote the general welfare
5. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

A lovely set of platitudes, I'm sure. The Federal Government doesn't make laws, though. The Federal Congress does.

At least, that's one of its formal functions when members don't decide that their job is to just block anything and everything if Obama thought of it.

From my perspective, the Tea Party is a pretty neat illustration of what happens when you decide to break the machine because you don't like what the machine is doing.

[Todd]

A lovely set of platitudes, I'm sure. The Federal Government doesn't make laws, though. The Federal Congress does.

It's from the preamble of the Constitution. 

Congress is the legislative branch of the US Federal Government, and passes legislation.  Congress has assigned much administrative law making authority to the executive branch.

But I'm sure you knew that.

From my perspective, the Tea Party is a pretty neat illustration of what happens when you decide to break the machine because you don't like what the machine is doing.

If you think I am a member of the so-called "Tea Party", you are incorrect.

[drogulus]

From my perspective, the Tea Party is a pretty neat illustration of what happens when you decide to break the machine because you don't like what the machine is doing.

     Yes, that's the case, but not in an exclusive sense. Mitch McConnell is as far from a libertarian or Tea Partyist as one can get. Nihilism can be sheer careerism if you make your living "leading" these scumbags from behind. I suppose he has no choice, from his rotten perspective.

[drogulus]

 
    From whatever self interest vantage point, or team player perspective, what Romney did was pretty fine. I watched him speak and I was impressed. Of course one should take in stride that opposing Trump doesn't require heroism. It's part of being decent in a very ordinary way. Still, it was a good thing to do, even a good Machiavellian thing, so doubleplusgood for me.

[EddieRUKiddingVarese]

Democrat or Republican supporter ?

[Todd]

So, I get home today, and check my mail, and what did I receive but a Democratic Presidential Strategy Survey from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  They want money.  I'm mulling it over . . .

[Brian]

So, I get home today, and check my mail, and what did I receive but a Democratic Presidential Strategy Survey from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  They want money.  I'm mulling it over . . .

I got the same thing from the Republicans, and sent mine back in. Even found a friend willing to pay for the stamp.

[drogulus]

Democrat or Republican supporter ?

     I thank Fox every day for infromming it's loyal viewers. Yet, something tells me, the shape of that cloud, perhaps, that a Repub is trying to thank Fox for something else entirely. I don't know what that would be.

     I'd consider giving some "go away" money to the Repubs except as things stand I don't know if it would be cruel or kind....they might take it the wrong way. I don't know, I can't tell about these things....

[Gurn Blanston]

Democrat or Republican supporter ?

Neither one; Faux News shareholder.

[Madiel]

Todd, I wasn't intending to imply you were a Tea Party member. I was largely reflecting on something I read recently about what caused the rise of 'outsiders' to the system and ultimately to Trump.

[drogulus]

 
    The fantasy of the libertarians is that they will promote the general welfare by not promoting it. It's not as clever as it might seem to the adolescent minds so strongly attracted to the idea. You can test an idea and see it succeed or see it fail, or fail to test it. It's hard to say whether libertarianism is formally untestable because it would be a crime to run such an experiment, but if that barrier could magically be crossed, proponents of a priori systems just aren't testers. An a priorist runs a test only to see if the idea falsifies the world. They should get along well with theocratic types, but rival mysticisms generally don't, so that's an idea falsified by the world! What did I do wrong?

[Pat B]

Johnson may gain something from this, but 0.01 + 0.01 is only 0.02.  The Republicans may have to hijack the Constitution party this election season, put Romney or <insert sacrificial lamb here> in as their candidate, and steal enough votes from Trump to insure a Clinton win.  This would be a last ditch effort.  Blaming the liberal media is a safer approach. 

The reason I mentioned Johnson is that Ben Sasse and his ilk might find it politically easier to support him than Romney. If he were to get some significant endorsements, and some resulting money and mainstream attention, then he could make a much bigger mark than any previous L (including himself in 2012).

As wild as this race has been, I just can't envision Mitt Romney running as a third-party candidate. But I certainly won't be surprised if most of those folks eventually fall in line behind the nominee.

[Jo498]

    The fantasy of the libertarians is that they will promote the general welfare by not promoting it. It's not as clever as it might seem to the adolescent minds so strongly attracted to the idea. You can test an idea and see it succeed or see it fail, or fail to test it. It's hard to say whether libertarianism is formally untestable because it would be a crime to run such an experiment, but if that barrier could magically be crossed, proponents of a priori systems just aren't testers. An a priorist runs a test only to see if the idea falsifies the world. They should get along well with theocratic types, but rival mysticisms generally don't, so that's an idea falsified by the world! What did I do wrong?

The main difference seems that there have been working theocracies in history (at least I think so) but never ever anything close to libertarian pipe dreams. Most vulgar libertarians simply seem to ignore the forces and structures that made seemingly more libertarian societies possible in the first place.

[Florestan]

Sometimes things change because the written law is impractical, or even illogical.

If it´s impractical, then those who have written it are ignorant of, or deliberately ignore, the specific conditions of the society they write the law for; if it´s illogical, then they need to be send back to school. Shouldn´t that automatically disqualify them from ever writing another law? Is not the constant passing of impractical, illogical or bad laws the surest way to discredit the very idea of law?

Does the general population support the law, does it have legitimacy in their eyes?

If we talk about the formal legitimacy of laws being passed by an elected assembly, then I think few people would argue against it. But when it comes to moral legitimacy, things change drastically. A legislative assembly which consistently produce bad, impractical or illogical laws, or laws which are specifically designed to promote and protect vested interests,  is bound (sooner or later) to discredit not only itself, but its very raison d´etre. Representative democracy is less endangered by its avowed ennemies than by those who abuse it, ie many, if not most, of the lawmakers, politiicians and lobbysts.

At its core, law is supposed to be a tool for modifying and controlling human behaviour

I´m not sure I can subscribe to that, actually I am sure I cannot subscribe. It presupposes that human behavior is in need to be modified and controlled --- and that immediately raises the question: by whom? Those who make the laws are human themselves and share all the flaws and imperfections of other humans and then what reason can they claim for their being in the position of modifying and controlling the behavior of others? What makes their own behavior exempt from the need to be controlled and modified itself? Then, another question: modify in which direction, and control in which way? Well, of course in the direction, and in the way, in which those who make the laws seem fit --- and this is the blueprint for authoritarianism at best and totalitarianism at worst. 

In my view the purpose of the law should be neither to modify nor to control human behavior, but to keep its bad consequences at the lowest possible level, and the purpose of the lawmakers should be to discover (as opposed to invent) those rules and regulations whose general, uniform and impartial enforcement promote a humane society with as much liberty as possible and as much coercion as necessary.

If you hope for inefficient legislation; you have also to hope you are never the victim of it not working when you need it to.

One of the many problems, indeed.

Except for legislation pertaining to emergency services (eg, fire, police), the legislation and administrative law that affects me now and will affect me in the future is almost solely centered around receiving an economic benefit of some sort, and all of the programs I would qualify for are already inefficient.  I merely advocate for a variant of what is already happening.

In other words, you don´t mind inefficient legislation, bad, impractical and contradictory laws as long as they don´t affect you personally, moreover, you want legislation and laws to be precisely that because as such their chances of affecting you personally are very small.

With all due respect, sir, and please excuse my using the Marxist jargon: this is petty bourgeois narrow-mindedness of the worst kind.   

Many attempts to fix the machine may or definitely will make things worse.

Oh yes, the eternal conservative argument against change. Had mankind followed it we would still live in caves and fear the fire.

A lovely set of platitudes

Amen, brother!

It's from the preamble of the Constitution. 

It could be from the Bible itself, it´s still a collection of platitudes.

They have been proclaimed as the goal of their government by people as diverse as, say,  Frederick the Great, Robespierre, Napoleon, Bismarck, Mussolini and Stalin.

To proclaim that you want justice for all, law and order, peace, liberty and prosperity is easy. What matters at the end of the day is the concrete and efficient rules and regulations one adopts and enforces in order to create, protect and promote them.

[Madiel]

In my view the purpose of the law should be neither to modify nor to control human behavior, but to keep its bad consequences at the lowest possible level, and the purpose of the lawmakers should be to discover (as opposed to invent) those rules and regulations whose general, uniform and impartial enforcement promote a humane society with as much liberty as possible and as much coercion as necessary.

Discover as opposed to invent?

Ah. A natural lawyer.

A distinction without a difference when it comes to the actual process of making laws.

[The new erato]

Donald has always been a bully, that's well documented. His voters, who in many instances wants a better chance if a more fair society, really should ask themselves if that is likely in a system where you can bully yourself to the absolute top. One of the many ironies of todays situation.

[Florestan]

A distinction without a difference when it comes to the actual process of making laws.

Fair enough.

Anyway, be it discovered or invented, I doubt that an ineffective, impractical, illogical, contradictory or partisan legislation is of much help in promoting and protecting justice, liberty and general welfare.