Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
    A repeal of the 17th Amendment would be a major step in the right direction, but it won't happen now. It is time to start building Atlantis.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 10 months ago
      I'm in, jbrenner.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
        Then please contribute to planning Atlantis, mamaemma. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/d9...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 10 months ago
          Tell me how
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
            Read the responses to the post, and add in your thoughts on one of the many requirements (not NEEDS) and amenities, and how to make that possible. What I am asking you to do is to tell me how.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 10 months ago
              I've thought a lot about it. It's a hard problem. You want something with elements of all these things: angel investors' network, commercial RE / business incubator space, ideological interest group, and hotel / conference center. All four of those are hard to develop, but we want something with elements of all four. If any objectivists have the ability/interest to be involved with one or two of those, they should b/c they're all pieces to the puzzle.

              At most I would be able to serve as secretary or treasurer, and that would probably require me to give up one org and stop goofing off on this site. People with more time an abilities than I will appear if you have some pieces of the puzzle.

              For the ideological part, you'd need a large but clearly demarcated tent, all spelled out in a one-page document.

              I fear this part the most. We'd get to what extent having a reason to be nasty to others motivates us. For it to work, those involved would have to spend most of their volunteer time making things work and very little time explaining who's to blame for things, even if they feel like the world desperately needs them to wake people up as to how stupid they are-- the world actually doesn't need that. It needs a post-state model for government.


              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 10 months ago
    I'm not saying this approach is wrong, but I don't see how senators being elected by the legislature rather than the people would help. Couldn't the legislatures apply the same kinds of pressures as people?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
      That's the whole point. State legislatures have the interest of their own state uppermost in their minds. This would eliminate the ability for the federal gov't to create laws that are pushed by populace states (the coasts) and make the senate what it was really implemented to be, a sanity check answerable to the interests of the legislatures, and hence people, of their state.

      You probably think that is the case today, but that's not true. Popular election allows those who have funding to be elected/re-elected regardless of the actual interests of their state constituents. Because only a relatively few seats are truly at risk, national funding can focus on those few races. If instead, the legislatures of each state were responsible for electing the Senators, now you have hundreds, maybe thousands of individual elections that would need to be addressed. Not that it is impossible, but certainly much more of a challenge. And the election of a Senator would be up to the state legislatures that change on a more frequent basis, so it wouldn't be just every 6 yrs, but likely every 2 yrs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
      State legislatures would only send Senators who championed their state's rights, over the interests of the Federal government.
      This balance was put into place by our Founding Fathers, and stripped away (in effect) by the 17th Amendment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 9 years, 10 months ago
      What???
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 10 months ago
        I thought the article said there would be less spending on sweatheart political deals if the state legislatures elected the Senate. (Did I misunderstand the whole point?) My perhaps naive question is why would the legislatures be any better than the people when it comes to not demanding spending deals for their friends? I understand the problem. It just seems like it would crop up regardless of who's voting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo