Facebooking At Work Is Not A Federal Crime

[Perrie Juran]

You can relax now.

You won't go to jail.

Facebooking At Work Is Not A Federal Crime

[161488303349]

am glad to read about that

is so silly to say that breaking a company use policy is a crime. stealing stuff of the company computer ok but

if was upheld then could even end up in jail for making a personal call on a compnay phone. or even in a company car you drive off the road into a carpark to buy a coffee. like you stole their petrol or something

like giving your employee the sack is somehow not enough already

 

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Glad to see there is still some common sense.  What should be a crime is employers, loan officers, insurance companies and others demanding your facebook password so they can snoop on your private life.  That is the same as they asking for keys to your house so they can go through your stuff in my opinion.

More and more employers are trying to control their employees private lives by saying you can't do this or that even when you aren't at work.   We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing more privacy in our private life, and that prevents companies from data mining and selling your information and profiting by it without your consent and without compensating you as well as other questionable practices  IMHO. 

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

Sometimes it is good not to live in the US.
Here in Germany, things like internet use at work is firmly set into workers contract law.
In other words, the employer regulates internet use during work in the employment contract details and that's it.
If you break these rules, you'll get admonished, or in serious cases like downloading porn onto a work computer,
you'll get fired. But that's it, no police, no criminal investigation, it's a civil law matter.
Oh, and employers are prohibited from asking for login credentials of online services and a lot of other private things.
Almost all of the private life of an employee is protected, unless it directly interferes with the job.

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

The USA is on the path to being a Corporatocracy.

Libertarians would gladly hand our system off to them by reducing government regulation and doing away with civil rights. Thereby doing away with all of the protections that ensure 'rights' outweigh 'liberty'. Too much 'liberty' with a check to ensure 'rights' just means the powerful step on the weak with impunity - the whole reason the USA has the Bill of Rights and divided government to begin with was to prevent that (the founders just never envisioned there would be a force that could be more dangerous with power than a government - but the system they built is ideal to stop either).

GOPers play right into it by virtue of their love of the rich - who run the corps. It blinds them to the reasons they objected to strong government to begin with. Its not government that is bad, but abuse of power. And in the modern age, government works to prevent abuse of power by an even more dangerous hydra: corps.

Issues like the Citizen's United ruling have more or less handed 'US Inc.' the reigns of power...

At some point, its going to get downright nasty over here...

This ruling is a stopgap. But its no more. We need -more-. And we need to get the people sitting in the halls of government to wake up to the tool they have and use it to stand up for 'rights' rather than being in the pockets of corps.

- Things that will not happen...

Eventually there will be a change on the Court, and ruling like this will get undermined. Much as what happened with Citizen's United.

 

 

[Melita Magic]

I'm for individual and privacy rights. But why are people goofing off at work? I would fire them.

But then I'm morally ambiguous.

[solstyse]

You say that America is on the path to becoming a corporatocracy, so I have to ask how much further you think we have to go? It seems to me like we're already there. The link you posted seems to be a very accurate depiction of the current state of the US. I would really like the chance to talk more with you about it Maybe if you agree we should take that to it's own thread.

But back to the original subject. Use of a company computer should be for business purposes only. I can understand a person getting fired for using a work computer for personal things, but nothing further as long as the content accessed is not illegal. Most businesses make you well aware that nothing done on THEIR computers is private.

At the same time, there is no way that a company would ever get me to submit my PASSWORDS to anything. Passwords exist to limit who can log on or access. Paying me barely enough to live, as most busineses do while their CEO brings home it's average worker's salary each and every day does NOT in any way entitle them to any password I have for anything. It's not even a reasonable request. As someone else has already mentioned, that's like asking you for the keys to your house and car.

There seems to be a growing movement by businesses to watch everything everyone does, at work and on their personal time, and try to control it. More and more, it seems that corporations are trying to assert a sort of "ownership" of their employees and sometimes even customers. I do not see government as a solution to this so much as an enabler. Whether republicans or democrats hold the power, ludicrous amounts of money taken from the shrinking middle class are dedicated to corporate interests.The only real difference is that the r's pick different corporations than the d's.  Meanwhile neither party seems interested in passing more than a token gesture to workers rights. If they did, Unions would be obsolete. This whole facebook thing is as token as it gets.

Maybe we should be blaming ourselves. I mean, really, if your privacy is something you value, and if you want to keep your professional life seperate fromm your personal life, then what are you putting all of these things about youself on facebook for anyway? It's like handing over your rights without even being asked to.

[161488303349]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

I'm for individual and privacy rights. But why are people goofing off at work? I would fire them.

But then I'm morally ambiguous

.

---

quite a few companies whitelisting now. business only websites and services. same with phones. can only call work-related numbers on them

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

solstyse wrote:

You say that America is on the path to becoming a corporatocracy, so I have to ask how much further you think we have to go? It seems to me like we're already there.

---

Yeah... We're essentially there.

My question is will they push it to the point that people eventually rise up violently, or will we manage to reform out of it in time... I hope we can find a peaceful solution, but the corporate powers do not know the meaning of excess and they're on a path to pushing common folks to a breaking point.

Occupy... well occupy lost any credibility when it refuses to have a list of goals or demands... But the frustration in it is out there, and over time its building up more and more in common folks.

Babylon's gonna burn... but will that be a metaphor, or a literal truth?

 

People will say "really, you're making all that fuss over Facebook at work, that's not what you should be doing at work anyway." ON the surface thay are right on the second point. But... what this is, is a trendline of controls... and its the overall weight they are pushing down on common folks that is oppressive. And criminalizing the failure to follow the dictates of your employer? That's not trivial at all...

 

 

[Reikokimyo]

If people rise up (and this sounds horrible, I know), I hope it is violently.  A violent uprising will put an unmistakable line in the sand, showing the government that the people will not allow them to cross.  Peaceful solutions, I fear, will simply tell them that they have to be more careful in how they proced next time.

Not all Libertarians are for handing everything over to corperations.  There are some out there that would like to see government being only for the protection of the people.  Such as providing protection as is done in the constitution, but see it as an overstep of power if they are taking something away.  It's a hard concept for me to type out simply, but as I see it, the government should be there to simply protect the rights of the people and not hinder how people live (outside of breaching other's rights). 

[161488303349]

---

Reikokimyo wrote:

If people rise up (and this sounds horrible, I know), I hope it is violently.  A violent uprising will put an unmistakable line in the sand, showing the government that the people will not allow them to cross.  Peaceful solutions, I fear, will simply tell them that they have to be more careful in how they proced next time.

Not all Libertarians are for handing everything over to corperations.  There are some out there that would like to see government being only for the protection of the people.  Such as providing protection as is done in the constitution, but see it as an overstep of power if they are taking something away.  It's a hard concept for me to type out simply, but as I see it, the government should be there to simply protect the rights of the people and not hinder how people live (outside of breaching other's rights). 

---

political violence comes when the path to peaceful resolution of disputes is removed. like what happened in Eygpt. was an election and people accept the outcome

some didn't like the outcome but ok can accept that part. but they then try to overturn/change/influence an outcome they believe will come out the election outcome through the courts. they entitled to do this. is how peaceful resolution is done

the elected leader Morsi then annul the Courts system. is now no way to resolve the dispute by peaceful means. so uprising

+

while there is a way to resolve our differences. like a democracy and a independent judiciary, then we must use them. if not then we saying we dont think that these serve us very well. so maybe will be better/easier/cleaner/more fair just to shoot them we disagree with

the Eygptian uprising, two of them now, and all the other Arab Spring uprisings, are to get what we in the western countries have. they uprising to actual get democracy and judicial independence

one of the features of modern western democracies is that governments actual leave office when they lose the elections. laws are automatic cancelled when the courts rule that they are unconstitutional or illegal or are contrary to common law principles

is a slow system sometimes all this. but i rather have it than not. and end up go down the other path

 

 

  

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Reikokimyo wrote:

 

Not all Libertarians are for handing everything over to corperations.  There are some out there that would like to see government being only for the protection of the people.

---

Government regulates. It is the only actor that can regulate itself. It is the only actor that can regulate corps.

Remove that, and who checks the power of corps?

 

A post on Daily Kos back during the elections:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/05/1156004/-Tuesday-I-cast-my-first-Democratic-ballot-ever#

Her father is a lawyer, and we'd spend a lot of Fridays and Saturdays dining and talking politics. He opened my eyes with one simple concept for which I had no rebuttal. He said (and I am paraphrasing a bit) the following:

"John, the government can have too much power, as you suggest. But that power has a check on it in the form of the Constitution and the legal system behind it. But corporate power has no check. It grows and it takes what it wants and there is nothing you can do about it. That is why libertarianism (closest system to my beliefs at the time) fails. It's why Republicanism fails. It's why you're wrong."

 

You don't have to hand anything to the corps, you merely have to fail to keep them from taking it.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

---

Reikokimyo wrote:

If people rise up (and this sounds horrible, I know), I hope it is violently.  A violent uprising will put an unmistakable line in the sand, showing the government that the people will not allow them to cross.  Peaceful solutions, I fear, will simply tell them that they have to be more careful in how they proced next time.

Not all Libertarians are for handing everything over to corperations.  There are some out there that would like to see government being only for the protection of the people.  Such as providing protection as is done in the constitution, but see it as an overstep of power if they are taking something away.  It's a hard concept for me to type out simply, but as I see it, the government should be there to simply protect the rights of the people and not hinder how people live (outside of breaching other's rights). 

---

political violence comes when the path to peaceful resolution of disputes is removed. like what happened in Eygpt. was an election and people accept the outcome

some didn't like the outcome but ok can accept that part. but they then try to overturn/change/influence an outcome they believe will come out the election outcome through the courts. they entitled to do this. is how peaceful resolution is done

the elected leader Morsi then annul the Courts system. is now no way to resolve the dispute by peaceful means. so uprising

+

while there is a way to resolve our differences. like a democracy and a independent judiciary, then we must use them. if not then we saying we dont think that these serve us very well. so maybe will be better/easier/cleaner/more fair just to shoot them we disagree with

the Eygptian uprising, two of them now, and all the other Arab Spring uprisings, are to get what we in the western countries have. they uprising to actual get democracy and judicial independence

one of the features of modern western democracies is that governments actual leave office when they lose the elections. laws are automatic cancelled when the courts rule that they are unconstitutional or illegal or are contrary to common law principles

is a slow system sometimes all this. but i rather have it than not. and end up go down the other path

 

 

  

 

---

"Corporations, and especially combinations of corporations, should be managed under public regulation. Experience has shown that under our system of government the necessary supervision can not be obtained by State action. It must therefore be achieved by national action. Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth. The capitalist who, alone or in conjunction with his fellows, performs some great industrial feat by which he wins money is a welldoer, not a wrongdoer, provided only he works in proper and legitimate lines. We wish to favor such a man when he does well. We wish to supervise and control his actions only to prevent him from doing ill."

 

Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union, 1902

http://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/19021202.html

 

Damn, if only Congress had listened to him.

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

16 wrote:

---

Reikokimyo wrote:

If people rise up (and this sounds horrible, I know), I hope it is violently.  A violent uprising will put an unmistakable line in the sand, showing the government that the people will not allow them to cross.  Peaceful solutions, I fear, will simply tell them that they have to be more careful in how they proced next time.

Not all Libertarians are for handing everything over to corperations.  There are some out there that would like to see government being only for the protection of the people.  Such as providing protection as is done in the constitution, but see it as an overstep of power if they are taking something away.  It's a hard concept for me to type out simply, but as I see it, the government should be there to simply protect the rights of the people and not hinder how people live (outside of breaching other's rights). 

---

political violence comes when the path to peaceful resolution of disputes is removed. like what happened in Eygpt. was an election and people accept the outcome

some didn't like the outcome but ok can accept that part. but they then try to overturn/change/influence an outcome they believe will come out the election outcome through the courts. they entitled to do this. is how peaceful resolution is done

the elected leader Morsi then annul the Courts system. is now no way to resolve the dispute by peaceful means. so uprising

+

while there is a way to resolve our differences. like a democracy and a independent judiciary, then we must use them. if not then we saying we dont think that these serve us very well. so maybe will be better/easier/cleaner/more fair just to shoot them we disagree with

the Eygptian uprising, two of them now, and all the other Arab Spring uprisings, are to get what we in the western countries have. they uprising to actual get democracy and judicial independence

one of the features of modern western democracies is that governments actual leave office when they lose the elections. laws are automatic cancelled when the courts rule that they are unconstitutional or illegal or are contrary to common law principles

is a slow system sometimes all this. but i rather have it than not. and end up go down the other path

 

 

  

 

---

"Corporations, and especially combinations of corporations, should be managed under public regulation. Experience has shown that under our system of government the necessary supervision can not be obtained by State action. It must therefore be achieved by national action. Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth. The capitalist who, alone or in conjunction with his fellows, performs some great industrial feat by which he wins money is a welldoer, not a wrongdoer, provided only he works in proper and legitimate lines. We wish to favor such a man when he does well. We wish to supervise and control his actions only to prevent him from doing ill."

 

Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union, 1902

http://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/19021202.html

 

Damn, if only Congress had listened to him.

---

the power to regulate Congress/Parliament is in the hands of the citizens. works every time in a democracy whenever we choose to do so

[Melita Magic]

---

16 wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

I'm for individual and privacy rights. But why are people goofing off at work? I would fire them.

But then I'm morally ambiguous

.

---

quite a few companies whitelisting now. business only websites and services. same with phones. can only call work-related numbers on them

---

This is a good idea.

I'm not aware of all the details of this issue but if they are grabbing people's private passwords that is not right - no one should have to sacrifice their off work hour, private details, only to keep a job.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

16 wrote:

---

Reikokimyo wrote:

If people rise up (and this sounds horrible, I know), I hope it is violently.  A violent uprising will put an unmistakable line in the sand, showing the government that the people will not allow them to cross.  Peaceful solutions, I fear, will simply tell them that they have to be more careful in how they proced next time.

Not all Libertarians are for handing everything over to corperations.  There are some out there that would like to see government being only for the protection of the people.  Such as providing protection as is done in the constitution, but see it as an overstep of power if they are taking something away.  It's a hard concept for me to type out simply, but as I see it, the government should be there to simply protect the rights of the people and not hinder how people live (outside of breaching other's rights). 

---

political violence comes when the path to peaceful resolution of disputes is removed. like what happened in Eygpt. was an election and people accept the outcome

some didn't like the outcome but ok can accept that part. but they then try to overturn/change/influence an outcome they believe will come out the election outcome through the courts. they entitled to do this. is how peaceful resolution is done

the elected leader Morsi then annul the Courts system. is now no way to resolve the dispute by peaceful means. so uprising

+

while there is a way to resolve our differences. like a democracy and a independent judiciary, then we must use them. if not then we saying we dont think that these serve us very well. so maybe will be better/easier/cleaner/more fair just to shoot them we disagree with

the Eygptian uprising, two of them now, and all the other Arab Spring uprisings, are to get what we in the western countries have. they uprising to actual get democracy and judicial independence

one of the features of modern western democracies is that governments actual leave office when they lose the elections. laws are automatic cancelled when the courts rule that they are unconstitutional or illegal or are contrary to common law principles

is a slow system sometimes all this. but i rather have it than not. and end up go down the other path

 

 

  

 

---

"Corporations, and especially combinations of corporations, should be managed under public regulation. Experience has shown that under our system of government the necessary supervision can not be obtained by State action. It must therefore be achieved by national action. Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth. The capitalist who, alone or in conjunction with his fellows, performs some great industrial feat by which he wins money is a welldoer, not a wrongdoer, provided only he works in proper and legitimate lines. We wish to favor such a man when he does well. We wish to supervise and control his actions only to prevent him from doing ill."

 

Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union, 1902

http://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/19021202.html

 

Damn, if only Congress had listened to him.

---

the power to regulate Congress/Parliament is in the hands of the citizens. works every time in a democracy whenever we choose to do so

---

I've only really started studying that time period in our history.  My general overview is this but I'll say that there is a lot I still don't know.

Bank & Corporate Fraud was growing at an alarming rate.

Roosevelt was pushing for Congress to do something.  If you read through his State of the Union Addresses he had very detailed ideas but Congress refused to listen or act on what he said.

The American People were calling for Congress to act. Congress passed laws that even though they offered some consumer protection, they actually favored the banks and corporations.

Roosevelt in frustration signed those bills making them law.  He yielded to the public acceptance (and demand) of the laws as passed by Congress.

World War 1 happened and the whole topic of banking and corporations got dropped.

Ever since that time we have been struggling to regain control and to get the Laws rewritten so they favor the Public and not the Corporations.

It takes money to get elected, and with out big money backing you, it is next to impossible to do so.

The last two Presidents who I think actually understood this and were trying to do something about it were Eisenhower & Kennedy.

I agree, the solution is electing better leaders.  But it seems we are fighting a huge uphill battle to do this because too many people are just thinking what is in it for them.

 

wow, what a thread jack.

[solstyse]

16 wrote: the power to regulate Congress/Parliament is in the hands of the citizens. works every time in a democracy whenever we choose to do so

I really wish I could agree. The ideal would be if you wree right. But think about this. A bad employee can be fired at any time by an employer. We can only replace people in government oncce every two years or four years, depending on what branch they're in.  And that's about the most minor problem we have.

The president of the US earns about $400,000 per year. That's $1,600,000 for his full elected term. Which is far, far less than the amount of money spent to gain that 4 year term. Why do they spend so much more than the salary they'll be bringing home? That's something to think about. Congress and Sentate also typically spend more money trying to get elected than the amount they'll bring home in a single term.

Add to this all the smear campaigns that get run against basically all candidates, and an honest man would end up overspending for a job that pays less than the cost of getting in, only to have his reputation ruined and his family verbally attacked?

Then there's the issue of a two party system being flawed at it's core. There are two possible outcomes. Either both parties agree, leaving those who disagree with no voice, no representation, or they disagree, usualy for the purpose of political posturing, and an issue becomes so polarized that there is no effective solution. Not to mentiion there is always a minority and a majority. Basically, whatever party holds the majority in 2 of our 3 branches hold the power. Third parties have to do much more, with much less financial backing to even get on the ballot.

And where does this financial backing come from? If not corporations, then unions. Neither of which are currently geared toward helping the worker. The truth is that unions have become "corporatized." And the worker is it's product. They are not so much about worker's rights as they are about recruiting, sometimes against members wills, so that there are more people to pay dues, thus providing more income to the union president and "administrative team." and more money for them to persue their political agendas, regardless of whether or not that agenda provides a direct benefit to the worker. There ARE some unions out there that are very good. But there are also some that do nothing but exert force on corporations to make them hire more people than what they need, then prevent them from layoffs, thus driving the corporation out of business, sacrificing thousands of jobs to "save" maybe a hundred.

Occupy wallstreet was inarticulate. I could see what their cause was, and agree with it, to an extent. The problem is that every single one of them who was interviewed either contradicted another, or sounded like an idiot. It's an idea that lacked leadership.

The tea party is a single-purpose movement. It seems their only agenda is to decrease government spending. They're right. Bill Clinton had a balanced budget and over 200 years of US history before him left us with a deficit of only 5 trillion dollars. Bush, a republican, ran up an additional 4 trillion in only 8 years, nearly doubling that number that seems to go against everything republicans stand for, doesn't it?. Obama so far has spent over 6 trillion by himself. Spending is out of control. But with a record number of people recieving some form of government asistance, simply chopping the budget will cause panic.

What you don't hear from any party is the fact that federal minimum wage has stayed the same since the clinton era. Several states have raised it on their own, but that's not the point. Minimum wage earners do not recieve enough money to pay income tax. One of clinton's coolest tricks was to raise minimum wage, which gave people more money to live on (happier voters and more confident consumers), widened the taxpayer base (more government revenue), and uplifted the working poor (less government spending on benefits.) Yes, Clinton, a democrat, actually reduced the number of welfare recipients.

Basically, this country can't be fixed by the way that democrats or republicans are talking about right now. Redistrobution of wealth will not lead to more productivity. It will simply take from the rich to give more to the unproductive. (Please don't think that I'm saying that all people who are not currently productive are that way by choice. I'm not.) While the republicans plan to increase the benefits to corporations will not trickle down anywhere near the middle class, and it will keep consumer confidence low. Put it this way. If someone is dedicating 40 hours of their lives each week so that a business can run, then that is a person deserving of a living wage. That is a person who should feel secure that they can afford rent, a used car, to have their bills paid, and at least a minimum of luxuries. A college student should be able to feel confident that if they find a job in their field of study, then they can afford to repay their student loan while doing all of the above, and then begin saving up for a new car and a house to own, if that's what they want.

What is needed, but what nobody wants to do is bring the minimum wage up to at least some form of standard of living. Anyone who tries to argue that bringing up minimum wage causes inflation clearly hasn't bought anything at all in the last 14 years to see how inflation increased independantly of minimum wage. And the corporations, which pay their CEO's more than 300 times what they pay these minimum wage earners can certainly afford it, nomatter what they say. Executive compensation needs to be capped. Not at the same number for all corporations, but based on a formula that accounts for how many people that company employs and what kind of standard of living that company provides to it's workers. Our generation has seen too many scandals involving "white collar" fraud that to continue paying these execs like we do is inexcusable.

Furthermore, our government needs to stop making sweetheart deals with individual companies. To do so is simply robbing everyone else. Remember Haliburton? Remember the bank bailouts, which provided banks with plenty of money to award bonuses to the same executives that made things so bad they couldn't stand on their own while the tellers that do your banking for you are still earning only $8 per hour. The reason why our economy is in shambles is that our taxes were dedicated to longterm occupation of foreign countries and to reward banks, who do nothing but handle money, for robbing from people and mishandling their ill-gotten gains.

The solution is not to give money to the rich and hope it trickles down, or to take from the rich for redistribution to the poor like Obama wants. The solution is to demand opportunity, to narrow the rich/poor gap by distributing the wealth properly in the first place. Raise minimum wage, cap executive wage, balance the national budget, and the economy will once again be able to take care of itself.

[161488303349]

you and Perrie making lots of good points

i think can agree that is not easy and is most likely impossible to have a perfect system of governance that suits everyone all the time

+

also seems to me that the US system is quite complicated

written Constitution

upper and lower houses of Congress

elected head of State

independent Judiciary

then State governance underneath as well

is lots of layers this they seem to me anyways. to create a separation between the citizens and their elected reps. artificial almost

+

i live New Zealand. here we got:

constitutional monarch with only one power. the power to dissolve the Parliament and have a new election when the Parliament itself cannot agree on forming a Government

only other check we have is the Courts. they take their responsibilities pretty serious. and just confine themselves to common law principles and arguments when it comes to disputes btween Government and citizens 

we also used to have Province governments. like States. we dump them. was waste of time money and effort and way to much arguing and not doing anything useful or helpful. excpet for them who swan round in the jobs looking important

we only got one chamber of parliament. we used to have a upper house. but we dump it as well. for the same reasons

so now whoever can win the confidence of parliament becomes Prime Minister. is pretty much defacto Emperor for 3 year term

we used to have first past the post elections - FPP - for Parliament. like you run you win you rule style. worked ok that way for ages bc if they ever start get a bit swollen head then we boot them out at election and give the job to the other side

when the other side start to all look the same as the first side to us then we change to proportional representation - MMP. so now no one party ever gets a outright majority. to be the Prime Minister and defacto Emperor on New Zealand then have to make a coalition partnership with other smaller parties who represent a different constituency

is better this way now. like more inclusive. the Prime Minister have to negotiate terms if they wants to survive as Emperor

also you only get to be Prime Minister/Emperor if you enjoy the confidence of your fellow elected members in your own party. they can replace you as caucus leader anytime they want. lose caucus leadership and you gone as Prime Minister. is pretty brutal if you dont know what you doing

+

is quite different our way to the USA way. even the Europe way. is more raw here. the Prime Minister and the Government are very close to us. like there are no layers between us and our elected Emperor. they know this and so do we

+

dunno how USA could change or if they ever will. their way of governance. probably will never strip it down to more direct grassroots control in the way we have

but i think MMP could work in USA Congress. like the libertarians in MMP election would get direct representation in the chambers and the greens as well. maybe some others as well thru more independents directly elected in some seats. happens quite a lot that. like vote for a independent/small party candidate and give your party vote to someone else. happens here this quite a bit. like split voting

the 2 main parties in USA: Republican and Democratic would then have to negotiate with the parties/views to their own left and right to secure passage of legislation. is same what happens here

+

is about changing the way the institutions work i think. dont need to chuck out the whole democracy just bc of bc

can change it to work better. like is not cast in stone. just change it and if later on new situations/ways come then change it again. is how is done here anyways

is defo not perfect tho. but is quite pragmatic/practical

we having another big debate now about change again at this time. lots of people have plenty to say about it as well. all kinds. is all good and we will decide to change or not after we chat about it some more

[solstyse]

After seeing your summary of how New Zealand politics works, I think I would prefer that over how US politics works. I think you're right about the seperation between government and the governed. Too right, in fact.

for the US to save itself, we need multiple parties. Not just two. I think that's why it's so difficult for a third party to get onto the ballot. Both republicas and democrats enjoy the lack of competition. The only part of the New Zealand model that you wrote I can't see working in the US is eliminating states. The US covers too much area not to be divided into states. In fact, in the early days, the States did more of the governing than the federal government. Because of it's size, that worked better. It is about the only way to put government close to the people.

Unfortunately, what we see in modern times is a bloating of federal government, where most of the seperation you mentioned is. The constitution was written as a set of laws that government must follow. And the seperate branches of government were created to enforce the constitutiion on eachother. Failure to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws it sets is actually what put the US in the situation it's in right now.

Any method of changing things for the better can happen only after significant changes for the worse. Americans have grown to accept things that previously would have been considered unacceptable. It will take becoming unlivable to spur people into any form of action. The US was founded by people who were overtaxed, and unrepresented. I consider government spending in 4 years to be greater than it was in 200 years combined unacceptable. Particularly when much of that money went to certain "pet" corporations. I find the rate of inflation unacceptable. And it horrifies me that a president who calls himself a democrat would be so willing to give billions of dollars to banks and to energy companies that have yet to provide any viable product or show any profit while allowing the middle class and the working poor to flounder.

[161488303349]

---

solstyse wrote:

The constitution was written as a set of laws that government must follow. And the seperate branches of government were created to enforce the constitutiion on eachother. Failure to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws it sets is actually what put the US in the situation it's in right now.

 

---

i sometimes wonder if a written constitution is actual worth it sometimes

i only say this tho bc i not have experience of having one. we havent got a written constitution at all

it comes up sometimes if we should have one or not. but end up not go anywhere

i think is bc when we look at other countries who do have one then it seems like is some kinda game. like how far can we/self-interested party, go in getting round it. like its some kinda obstacle course

well seems like to me anyways. dunno really if is good or bad to have or not

 

[161488303349]

i just add here

Australia probably got a system that would work for USA. they got State and Federal govts. and a Emperor as well same as us

they also go PR voting. and is compulsory for citizens to vote in Australia

their politics even more raw than ours in many ways 

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

Here in Germany, a constitution plus a constitutional court has prevented some bad laws created by the currently ruling idiots.
The court shot down a data retention law, killed a surveillance law, corrected a bunch of other idiocies. All in the last few years.
In that regard it is good to have another quality assurance on law making.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

i just add here

Australia probably got a system that would work for USA. they got State and Federal govts. and a Emperor as well same as us

they also go PR voting. and is compulsory for citizens to vote in Australia

their politics even more raw than ours in many ways 

---

On one hand I like the idea of compulsory voting.  On the other hand it scares me.  How dumb will their choices be if they are already too dumb to vote?

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

16 wrote:

 

they also go PR voting. and is compulsory for citizens to vote in Australia

their politics even more raw than ours in many ways 

---

On one hand I like the idea of compulsory voting.  On the other hand it scares me.  How dumb will their choices be if they are already too dumb to vote?

---

It couldn't be any worse than the people who go out there voluntarily...

- But it would force a country to the center, more than likely.

 

It would put an end to trying to appeal to the lunatic fringe. That would kill the influence of groups like the Tea Party, the NRA, PETA, Occupy, and such.

- Anyone on the extremes would be marginalized.

 

It would also make it more difficult to ensure the protection of the rights of minorities. But numbers would -usually- matter more than power (South Africa, where blacks were the 'minority' of power despite the majority in numbers - a common theme in repressive regimes in the Middle East as well).

However, improving civil rights of a numeric minority, like Native Americans, or like Tamils in Sri Lanka - would get very difficult.

Supressing counter-culture movements would get easier.

 

This all means that it would have to come with even stronger Constitutional protections for the rights of the disempowered, or it would fall into a tyranny of the majority.

- So kind of a wash...

[Melita Magic]

If you take away freedom of speech for some you take it away from all.