The U.S. Goverment

[Tonkyhonk]

I believe they are avowed marxists, and that usually doesn't sit well with me. I haven't read it, however. I just think that the word Empire looks better when capitalized.

ive been wanting to read their trilogy for a while and havent made it yet. but their usage of "E"mpire seems to distinguish the word to mean a bit differently from historically known empires like Roman empire or imperialism.
anyways, what do you have against marxists? (antonio negri is rather known for his work on spinoza and as an autonomist.)
for some reasons, what negri said on the interview reminded me of your posts, jorb, like how he called himself rather a pro-american than an anti.
the way he replied (or the way how his words were translated xD) how the current representative democracy and trias politica cannot function any more while implying the emergence of a new form of democracy, whose main body he believes to be "Multitude" instead of "Empire", and how each state is not managing to follow the present globalization... i would really like to hear what you two (yes, loftar, you too) would say to his thoughts if you get a chance to read his work (this japanese writer who interviewed negri seems to believe negri is one of the most important intellectuals that this century provides.)
as a side note, negri was supposed to visit japan and make a few lectures in 2008, but our stupid government didnt let him with an excuse of the G8 summit that year. i really hate my own government when such happens.

I think politics is a dangerous thing, especially since we're pretty much wired to take sides without looking to closely at the logic behind the viewpoints that we are supposed to be siding with.
This is a pretty good article, and a big reason for why I now monitor how political I get in certain contexts. I will always defend science though, regardless of context, but one shouldn't discuss politics in all contexts as people tend to be way more irrational when they discuss politics compared to when they discuss things such as how to make good Pasta Carbonara (even though I have gotten into some heated discussions because I firmly believe peas or any vegetable for that matter should not be included in Pasta Carbonara).

when i was younger, lots of "sensei"s advised me NEVER to try to talk about politics nor religions in english, or avoid such topics at all costs. i was about to explode when one kid in my class was raging to teachers how they could teach "evolutions" at school, but oh well, my english was horrible to express what i had in mind anyways and he seemed to be real immature as well. (and so was i.) and i just concluded as, "yay, this IS America!"
once i had a friend living in israel on another mmo, but then our friendship ended all of a sudden after we had a talk on israeli/palestine conflicts, some friends of ours tried to work it out to make us friends again (to play the guild together), but he refused unless i would sincerely *apologize* to him for what i had said. aye, im a full-time trouble maker.
it is not the content that drives people crazy, but the way people believe how "right" they should be with what they are used to and feel so insecure to see others not changing their point of view. it is more about whom you talk to, imo.
it can happen with food discussion if you are so much of a gourmet with your assertion? taste? too strong. (ever heard of how some people rage out of our cuisine, eating raw horse meat and/or eating some fish raw, alive. and i *could* rage how people eat rice with sugar, like rice pudding, although i have no problems eating bread pudding. after all, i think i can stay calmer when talking about real life politics than food or game.)
p.s. i have never ever seen any carbonara with peas in my whole life yet.

[Potjeh]

I would argue that they aren't. Corruption tends to breed in anonymous environments where those in charge of the money are far removed from those who actually pay it. The European super state is thus more prone to corruption than my local municipality government. Also, the beauty of decentralization is that you get a risk distribution. Some states may very well become corrupt, but there is at least more than one die roll. A municipality is also far easier to change and affect for those who live in it than a large, anonymous herd of voters in a superstate.

And this is precisely what I mean when I say that a Swede can't really understand corruption. It's all just a mental exercise for you, and your conclusions do make sense. But the thing is, they don't match reality at all.

Arguably the most corrupt man in Bosnia, and maybe even all of Balkans, is Milorad Dodik, the leader of the Serb part of Bosnia. Republic of Srpska is quite autonomous, and it certainly holds much more power in it's territory than the government of Bosnia as a whole. It's rather sparsely populated, with just over 1.4mil inhabitants total. Certainly smaller than vast majority of US states. So you have strong decentralization and a small voterbase, and yet the government is embezzling billions and everyone knows it.

If you want an even smaller scale example, my town of 25 000 (neighbouring villages included) has a mayor who hired at least a dozen of his close relatives as advisers.

Decentralization also leads to institutional competition between state governments, since people and businesses tend to move from corrupt states to less corrupt states.

No, not really. The most common form of corruption is bribery, and it's usually companies doing the bribing to get decisions favourable to them. I really don't see why a company would leave a state where it gets preferential treatment. What I think would happen is big corporations carving out America between themselves, where each gets a share of states where they get preferential treatment.

I don't know. That seems like a more fundamental "injustice" of human life that I'm not sure anyone can do much to alleviate. The point I am trying to make is that I don't see what regulation introduces (save regulatory bloat) that a functioning system of tort law wouldn't already cover. Lawyers and their uses seems like a bit of a side-track.

It's much, much easier to prove breach of regulations than harm and responsibility for preventing it.

[jorb]

Arguably the most corrupt man in Bosnia, and maybe even all of Balkans, is Milorad Dodik, the leader of the Serb part of Bosnia. Republic of Srpska is quite autonomous, and it certainly holds much more power in it's territory than the government of Bosnia as a whole. It's rather sparsely populated, with just over 1.4mil inhabitants total. Certainly smaller than vast majority of US states. So you have strong decentralization and a small voterbase, and yet the government is embezzling billions and everyone knows it.

If you want an even smaller scale example, my town of 25 000 (neighbouring villages included) has a mayor who hired at least a dozen of his close relatives as advisers.

I shall happily give you that there is a form of nepotistic behavior that probably is more common in smaller social contexts, but corruption comes in more forms than one. I think it would be very hard to openly bribe a man like José Manuel Barroso, for example, yet I believe him to be one of the most corrupt men in Europe. His only political agenda seems to be to grow the power and influence of the political class he belongs to -- although he always does so professing only the best intentions -- and I thus consider him to be corrupt. I would, in fact, argue that that form of corruption is far more serious than the police officer who needs a couple of bucks to forget a speeding ticket or, indeed, the local mayor who hires a couple of his relatives.

But, sure, you have a point. Small social contexts can at times be suffocating, and anonymity is not always a bad thing.

No, not really. The most common form of corruption is bribery, and it's usually companies doing the bribing to get decisions favourable to them. I really don't see why a company would leave a state where it gets preferential treatment. What I think would happen is big corporations carving out America between themselves, where each gets a share of states where they get preferential treatment.

It seems to me that when you think of corruption you think precisely of direct bribes and open nepotism. I don't. When I think of corruption I think of the far more insidious silent weddings of political and economic self-interests that centralized power causes. I think of the fact that Brussels and Washington are both swarming with hordes of lobbyists -- paid for by big, multinational companies and so-called NGOs -- who are constantly lobbying for the introduction of new special legislation to favor their particular pet peeve or interest. Such lobbying -- and, for lack of a better word, such rubbing of shoulders -- is almost never carried out under the banner of explicit and admitted corruption. When Greenpeace argues for the establishment of environmental regulatory agencies it is always the baby seals in the arctic that is the professed object of interest. The fact that this regulatory agency would also create a completely new avenue for such an organization to perpetuate itself and its aims is always just a side-effect. When lobby organizations paid for by big pharma argues for stricter enforcement of mandatory testing of new drugs being introduced to the market place, it is always the patients' interests they profess to have in mind. The fact that such regulation makes competition and the establishment of new pharmaceutical companies completely impossible is always just a side-effect. When Dick Cheney argues for going to war in Iraq it is always the weapons of mass destruction that is the reason for going to war. The fact that Halliburton gets the contracts to rebuild the place is always just a side-effect.

Again, I don't think you can bribe Barosso. Why would he risk getting thrown out of the warm political (cess)pool when it is after all so warm and cozy to be in it?

It's much, much easier to prove breach of regulations than harm and responsibility for preventing it.

Maybe, but is that a good thing? Why would you want to apply different standards of necessary evidence to what is essentially one form of criminality?

[Potjeh]

Dodik is more like Barroso than my mayor. You can't bribe him because the entire state is de facto his property. All the appropriation of power he does (such as outright refusing to recognize Bosnia's supreme court in favour of Republic of Srpska's court, which just happens to be stacked with his minions) is justified as strategic interest of Bosnian Serbs, of course. He keeps the focus on these "strategic" interests (and himself in office) with rhetoric that includes denial of Srebrenica massacre and threats of secession. Basically, Bosnia is still very much a keg of powder and he's playing with matches just to keep and expand his power, regardless of possible consequences.

Maybe, but is that a good thing? Why would you want to apply different standards of necessary evidence to what is essentially one form of criminality?

Cutting down on wiggle room, so they can't just lawyer their way out of everything.

[jorb]

Dodik is more like Barroso than my mayor. You can't bribe him because the entire state is de facto his property. All the appropriation of power he does (such as outright refusing to recognize Bosnia's supreme court in favour of Republic of Srpska's court, which just happens to be stacked with his minions) is justified as strategic interest of Bosnian Serbs, of course. He keeps the focus on these "strategic" interests (and himself in office) with rhetoric that includes denial of Srebrenica massacre and threats of secession. Basically, Bosnia is still very much a keg of powder and he's playing with matches just to keep and expand his power, regardless of possible consequences.

Exactly. So why would we not want power to be as decentralized as possible? Why would you want to give this man a bigger arena to work with? Isn't it better to, again, have multiple die rolls? Corruption in high places spoils the whole cake. Can't we make muffins instead and hope that some of them turn out good?

I mean, you've been arguing against Monarchy on the grounds that it puts too much power in one man. How can you not see that there is such a thing as putting too much power in a political unit or body as such?

[Potjeh]

It's harder to rock a bigger boat. If he didn't have his own fief he'd have to wrestle with other politicians in the national government, which would leave less time for abusing his position.

As for muffins, we have cantons in the Federation part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All of their governments are corrupt. As is every single municipal government over here. I can only conclude that corruption is not an issue of the political system, but rather an issue of culture. Over here costumes change every act, but the characters and the plot remain the same.

Oh, and I didn't argue against Monarchy just because it puts too much power in one man. I argued against it because it does so without a mechanism to replace that man.

[Skorm]

corruption

Can't be as bad as Mexico, really.

[Potjeh]

I can't say because I've never been in Mexico. Do you have to join a political party to get a job there?

[Skorm]

I can't say because I've never been in Mexico. Do you have to join a political party to get a job there?

Yep, and a great deal of the population ( the low tier, poor, or however you wanna call me ) often ¨sell¨their votes or are just forced to vote for said party or president, that's how awesome it is.

Because we are also poor due to the president and Govs literally stealing all the money, i mean, a 12 meter bridge that costed $15 Million Dollars?

[Potjeh]

Sounds pretty familiar.