Well said. It's very interesting how in America there is a distinction like this. The terms used commonly in politics actually have a meaning. Here in the former combloc, we have only adopted a crooked version of them. The fact that democracy is only some 30 years old here means that the people are yet to form a set of beliefs by which they vote. This gives the populist the opportunity to throw big words (liberal, conservative, dictator...) around and the common folk don't have a clue what they really mean. Then the lines between different ideologies get blurry and change frequently. And oddly enough, at the moment, the politically liberal politicians seem to represent typically socially conservative values and vice versa, which is flipped compared to what is the case in America, as you described. That gives many (myself included) quite the headache when deciding who to vote for. Love the channel, greetings from Slovakia!
At the end of your discussion your summary shows why we need Term Limits on the House ,Senate and all Political Appointees to Limit the Power of these Corrupt Politicians and Retain our Freedom. Trump /Vance 2024. God is Watching.
@@gslavik The 1A is precisely there to protect speech that someone might find disagreeable; and that includes his comment; and your comment about his comment.
The founders of the US envisioned that a person would serve their term in office (somewhat grudgingly) and then return to private life - a farm or business. The concept of a career politician who could or would want to spend 40+ years in Washington DC was inconceivable to them. Yet this is what we have. Schumer, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, the late Ted Kennedy - people who live their whole career in the DC bubble and who know nothing about the actual lives of normal Americans. Their wealth and influence create a lock on getting re-elected every term. The second year of a Representative's two-year term and the last year of a Senator's term is spent campaigning. Term limits would break the career-politician mindset and overall give us better representatives.
@@PalKrammer patently absurd, many notables of the founding fathers spent the remainder of their lives in federal offices, to say nothing of their sons.
I think 18th and 21st amendments are good examples of the conservatism/liberalism that you describe in action. Using government power (which never went away) to first enforce social conservatism and later using that same power to enforce social liberalism.
Your weed-smoker example: as a political conservative and somewhat social conservative, I am not afraid that the weed smoker's smoke is going to cause me "to lose control" - what I object to in that scenario is the pothead is being inconsiderate by polluting my space. They can do whatever they want in their own space. I really despise drugs and alcohol - as a young kid I saw what that did to people in my neighborhood and hated it, but won't dictate to others my thoughts about it.
Problem with representative democracy is that strangers, who do not know you, cannot represent you. The premise is simply false. Voting is entering a contract, asking to be ruled by a handful of strangers. Extending them Power Of Attorney, four years into the future ... If you sign that, whatever happens, you have no right to complain, because you accepted the deal. Here is what we should do instead : *Government by lottery* 1000 citizens randomly selected. 200 replacements selected every year, giving five years in government for each. Then perhaps a quarterly online voting session for the rest of us; Yes/No to the bill with slimmest decisive vote, in the 1000-man parlament during that quarter. This setup would be next to immune to many of the problems plaguing our system today ... For example: 1) Four most controversial bills can only be passed/rejected via popular vote. 2) Candidates won't need a party-organisation, media attention or donors to get elected. So, party leadership, media and money become powerless. 3) Predicting who is likely to get into government is impossible, so special interests have no way of preparing candidates, and no incentives to keep them close post term. 4) All 1000 have incentives to actually make society as a whole better, because they go back to where they came from soon. However ... the most impactful difference would probably be the fraction of psychopaths in government, automatically going down to population average (~2%).
Well said. It's very interesting how in America there is a distinction like this. The terms used commonly in politics actually have a meaning. Here in the former combloc, we have only adopted a crooked version of them. The fact that democracy is only some 30 years old here means that the people are yet to form a set of beliefs by which they vote. This gives the populist the opportunity to throw big words (liberal, conservative, dictator...) around and the common folk don't have a clue what they really mean. Then the lines between different ideologies get blurry and change frequently. And oddly enough, at the moment, the politically liberal politicians seem to represent typically socially conservative values and vice versa, which is flipped compared to what is the case in America, as you described. That gives many (myself included) quite the headache when deciding who to vote for.
Love the channel, greetings from Slovakia!
At the end of your discussion your summary shows why we need Term Limits on the House ,Senate and all Political Appointees to Limit the Power of these Corrupt Politicians and Retain our Freedom. Trump /Vance 2024. God is Watching.
Part of 1A just died a little bit with your comment.
@@gslavik The 1A is precisely there to protect speech that someone might find disagreeable; and that includes his comment; and your comment about his comment.
Stuff your term limits, worse idea than ranked choice.
The founders of the US envisioned that a person would serve their term in office (somewhat grudgingly) and then return to private life - a farm or business. The concept of a career politician who could or would want to spend 40+ years in Washington DC was inconceivable to them. Yet this is what we have. Schumer, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, the late Ted Kennedy - people who live their whole career in the DC bubble and who know nothing about the actual lives of normal Americans. Their wealth and influence create a lock on getting re-elected every term. The second year of a Representative's two-year term and the last year of a Senator's term is spent campaigning. Term limits would break the career-politician mindset and overall give us better representatives.
@@PalKrammer patently absurd, many notables of the founding fathers spent the remainder of their lives in federal offices, to say nothing of their sons.
The US government no longer has Liberal and Conservative parties, only the government party
I think 18th and 21st amendments are good examples of the conservatism/liberalism that you describe in action. Using government power (which never went away) to first enforce social conservatism and later using that same power to enforce social liberalism.
A brilliant discussion!
Yes sir!👍🏽😊❤️🇺🇸
Very well put.
Have you read "A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell? It discusses this in detail.
Your weed-smoker example: as a political conservative and somewhat social conservative, I am not afraid that the weed smoker's smoke is going to cause me "to lose control" - what I object to in that scenario is the pothead is being inconsiderate by polluting my space. They can do whatever they want in their own space. I really despise drugs and alcohol - as a young kid I saw what that did to people in my neighborhood and hated it, but won't dictate to others my thoughts about it.
nice breakdown
they are liberal and authoritarian at the same time.
Problem with representative democracy is that strangers, who do not know you, cannot represent you. The premise is simply false.
Voting is entering a contract, asking to be ruled by a handful of strangers. Extending them Power Of Attorney, four years into the future ... If you sign that, whatever happens, you have no right to complain, because you accepted the deal.
Here is what we should do instead : *Government by lottery*
1000 citizens randomly selected. 200 replacements selected every year, giving five years in government for each. Then perhaps a quarterly online voting session for the rest of us; Yes/No to the bill with slimmest decisive vote, in the 1000-man parlament during that quarter.
This setup would be next to immune to many of the problems plaguing our system today ... For example:
1) Four most controversial bills can only be passed/rejected via popular vote.
2) Candidates won't need a party-organisation, media attention or donors to get elected. So, party leadership, media and money become powerless.
3) Predicting who is likely to get into government is impossible, so special interests have no way of preparing candidates, and no incentives to keep them close post term.
4) All 1000 have incentives to actually make society as a whole better, because they go back to where they came from soon.
However ... the most impactful difference would probably be the fraction of psychopaths in government, automatically going down to population average (~2%).