You are allowed to repeal one law...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:40:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  You are allowed to repeal one law...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: You are allowed to repeal one law...  (Read 1653 times)
MadmanMotley
Bmotley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,340
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -5.91

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2013, 07:29:14 PM »

Tough choice between the Unpatriotic act, the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve act.

I was so baffled by that third one that I had to look it up to make sure it was what I thought it was. Why do you oppose direct election of Senators? To keep power in the hands of state governments and party bosses, and away from those dirty plebeians upon whom you spit?

mang, that's libertarianism for you
Here's why:
1. You elect the legislators and Governor (depends on state law) that appoint the Senators
2. Less politicization of senators
3. If the senator doesn't do what the state wants them to, they can be pulled back immeditely and someone else can take their place.
4. For reason num. 3, less special interest groups trying to buy out the senator
5. States can choose which system they want, whether they want to have the people elect senators, or just appoint them.
6. Less confusion when a senator dies in office or retires before their term is up


Why can't I just elect the person who represents me directly?
You do, That's your congressman/woman.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2013, 07:32:12 PM »

NDAA or USA PATRIOT ACT.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2013, 07:57:13 PM »

Tough choice between the Unpatriotic act, the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve act.

I was so baffled by that third one that I had to look it up to make sure it was what I thought it was. Why do you oppose direct election of Senators? To keep power in the hands of state governments and party bosses, and away from those dirty plebeians upon whom you spit?

mang, that's libertarianism for you
Here's why:
1. You elect the legislators and Governor (depends on state law) that appoint the Senators
2. Less politicization of senators
3. If the senator doesn't do what the state wants them to, they can be pulled back immeditely and someone else can take their place.
4. For reason num. 3, less special interest groups trying to buy out the senator
5. States can choose which system they want, whether they want to have the people elect senators, or just appoint them.
6. Less confusion when a senator dies in office or retires before their term is up


Why can't I just elect the person who represents me directly?
You do, That's your congressman/woman.

I still don't quite understand why you want to deprive me of representation in the Senate. I would be completely fine with depriving myself of representation if it meant abolishing the Senate, but so long as a Senate exists, shouldn't the people have a say in who represents them?
Logged
MadmanMotley
Bmotley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,340
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -5.91

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2013, 08:15:15 PM »

Tough choice between the Unpatriotic act, the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve act.

I was so baffled by that third one that I had to look it up to make sure it was what I thought it was. Why do you oppose direct election of Senators? To keep power in the hands of state governments and party bosses, and away from those dirty plebeians upon whom you spit?

mang, that's libertarianism for you
Here's why:
1. You elect the legislators and Governor (depends on state law) that appoint the Senators
2. Less politicization of senators
3. If the senator doesn't do what the state wants them to, they can be pulled back immeditely and someone else can take their place.
4. For reason num. 3, less special interest groups trying to buy out the senator
5. States can choose which system they want, whether they want to have the people elect senators, or just appoint them.
6. Less confusion when a senator dies in office or retires before their term is up


Why can't I just elect the person who represents me directly?
You do, That's your congressman/woman.

I still don't quite understand why you want to deprive me of representation in the Senate. I would be completely fine with depriving myself of representation if it meant abolishing the Senate, but so long as a Senate exists, shouldn't the people have a say in who represents them?
You do have a say in who represents you, you have your governor and state congresspeople and state senators.
Essentially, I'm against the federal mandate of each state electing senators. That should be up to the states to decide how their senators are elected or appointed.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2013, 11:02:27 PM »

people saying NDAA or the PATRIOT Act need to realize these are mere codifications of fundamentally centralist, federally-driven activities that would persist with or without their codifications in law; in fact, the very activities preceeded the codifications.  massive mafias like the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. operate very much outside the law, in an extra-legal realm.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2013, 11:26:24 PM »

Another fun thread ruined by Libertarians.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2013, 11:49:01 AM »

Another fun thread ruined by Libertarians.

You mean it ruins your fun if other people give their views? Can you guys at least pretend to tolerate other peoples?

As for me, the Patriot Act is certainly the first thing I would repeal. It would not be the last, but it would be the first for sure.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2013, 02:27:49 PM »

This thread is literally the shining example as to why Libertarianism is a joke (no offense to Maxwell or Sanchez)

For me, I'd say the Patriot Act or the Controlled Substances Act.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2013, 02:35:21 PM »

Speed limits. One of the greatest impediments to human progress imaginable.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2013, 04:27:46 PM »

people saying NDAA or the PATRIOT Act need to realize these are mere codifications of fundamentally centralist, federally-driven activities that would persist with or without their codifications in law; in fact, the very activities preceeded the codifications.  massive mafias like the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. operate very much outside the law, in an extra-legal realm.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2013, 07:13:22 AM »

Terminating the ethanol heist is way up there on my little list.

I sympathize with this, not because I object to heists - I think they're good economics and all - but because I don't like the effect it has on the good old internal combustion engine.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2013, 08:17:35 AM »

I don't know.  Probably some law in China, though I guess the question is whether the Chinese government would truly recognize the repeal of whatever law I picked.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2013, 01:22:35 PM »

Of the choices people have proffered so far, I'm actually most partial to Torie's suggestion of axing ethanol subsidies.  I might take it one step further and say, "the farm bill"- targeted ag subsidies tend to do more harm than good (for instance, as silly as ethanol is, HFCS is worse).  But apparently food stamps are part of the farm bill too, and we really do need to keep them going and if anything expand them- it's an anti-poverty program that really does help farmers in a non-counterproductive manner.

I'd also consider axing the law that says any road built with federal help can't be tolled.  This is exactly backwards, as all Interstates ought to be tolled.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2013, 02:15:30 AM »

The Constitution, in favor of the Articles of Confederation.  Of course, one must point out at this point its illegal adoption.

what is this i don't even

Ah yes.  During the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress issued a large quantity of paper currency called "Continentals."  These were supposedly "equal to" a 'dollar' (then a Spanish coin) of silver, but not redeemable for silver, so they were worth much less than their face value.  Also during the war, several states had issued debt to fund the war effort, but subsequently defaulted on it.

A group of speculators, among the wealthiest men in America (including Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton etc.), bought large quantities of Continentals and state debt in default at pennies on the dollar, betting that they could convince the Continental Congress to redeem them at face value.  When Congress refused to do so, they took it upon themselves to declare that they refused to abide by any actions of the Continental Congress until they had concluded a "constitutional convention" - of themselves!  The convention, already illegal since amendments to the Articles had to be approved by state legislatures, not self-appointed speculators, was doubly illegal since only 9 out of 13 states represented approved the document, in direct contravention of the Articles' clause that any amendments had to be adopted unanimously.

The plotters swiftly threatened to raise a mercenary army to crush any "rebellion" against their putsch, had their new government as its very first act agree to pay off all Continentals and state debt at their full face value in specie, in true coup fashion "elected" a figurehead general "unanimously," and violently crushed "rebellion" by poor farmers against the crippling taxes they imposed to pay off themselves.

I think Zinn is leading you astray.  Madison and Hamilton didn't have much if anything in distressed securities.  There is a straightforward reason behind wanting to pay back the war bonds - they wanted a government that would be a credible lender.  Madison wanted to give some of the returns to the original holders who had sold them to speculators, but Hamilton's argument that it was unfeasible won out.
Logged
perdedor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2013, 01:29:39 PM »

I would repeal the 10th amendment and replace it with a specific bill of rights for state governments.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2013, 11:37:14 PM »

Another fun thread ruined by Libertarians.

You mean it ruins your fun if other people give their views? Can you guys at least pretend to tolerate other peoples?

As for me, the Patriot Act is certainly the first thing I would repeal. It would not be the last, but it would be the first for sure.

Oh please. Saying you want the Articles of Confederation dusted off and brought back into use is attention-whoring at best.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2013, 11:55:32 PM »

Roe v. Wade if you'll allow that to count. It's not really a "law" but neither are various constitutional amendments.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2013, 12:34:45 AM »

I can't even imagine what kind of person you have to be to sit around stewing about the replacement of the Articles of Confederation.

I really don't know how I would answer this question at all, though. There are a lot of things I dislike, but no one law sticks out in my mind as something I go through my days hating day in and day out. Gramm–Leach–Bliley, maybe? I don't know. I'd be much more likely to go after court decisions or Constitutional Amendments, but those aren't laws, really.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2013, 05:30:50 AM »


I thought I was going to be unique going into this topic. That would be my vote as well.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 12 queries.