Message from @Atkins

Discord ID: 447006919606009886


2018-05-18 08:55:43 UTC  

You know alot of us in msia were like that. Except most of us were either too stupid or lazy to see it.

2018-05-18 08:56:05 UTC  

3 parties that claimed to fight for x race rights.

2018-05-18 08:56:21 UTC  

But they are all in a coalition with one another.

2018-05-18 08:57:53 UTC  

Personally it was more of convincing people to vote in the first place since they were all convinced that any vote not for the coalition was a wasted vote since they had a stranglehold on the rural areas and the more paranoid members of society.

2018-05-18 08:58:56 UTC  

We do have a 2 partyish system but all the major parties are all coalitions of several more all with somewhat different focuses.

2018-05-18 09:01:48 UTC  

Its not perfect, but at least it keeps the smaller parties wary, since everyone you piss off is less support for you and more for fhe opposition.

2018-05-18 09:04:30 UTC  

true, but the issue with coalitions, like we have here in the netherlands for example,
Is that no decissions are made because the ruling coalition can't even agree with itself

2018-05-18 09:04:41 UTC  

and they then start blocking the other members of the coalition

2018-05-18 09:05:38 UTC  

over ridiculous matters, stuff like, "Because you won't agree with our demands for Euthenasia, we won't support your desire for better infrastructure"

2018-05-18 09:06:07 UTC  

on the other hand, all of them could find solice in voting to remove the citizens rights to a public referendum...

2018-05-18 09:13:51 UTC  

Which is strange, since I dont recall parties here bickering over issues like that. For example, I am only aware of 2 positions as of now, finance is now under the mayor of penang, our version of san fran. And defence is under former leader of PAS.

2018-05-18 09:14:59 UTC  

They work in accordance to their own choices. People can disagree but they can still do it. And if you are unhappy, you can state it, and if its bad enough, you join another coalition instead.

2018-05-18 09:21:07 UTC  

Funny thing, those two I mentioned were opponents before. Some progressive chinese guy and a really relligious malay guy. Both were arrested under some anti sedition law.

2018-05-18 09:37:13 UTC  

well i guess the difference here is that theres no big country-wide issues to tackle (aside from the mass immigration, but they're pro-that and anti-referendum to oppose it)

So they start bickering, because they know the people won't hang them for wasting time and lives

2018-05-18 10:27:33 UTC  

Or that the country is not big enough. US has many states, each if their own dinstinct culture and beliefs. They then have more freedom on the policies they can enact. Not the case here.

2018-05-18 10:28:03 UTC  

We also have monarches as well, though they are pretty much just figureheads.

2018-05-18 10:41:26 UTC  

Though I am getting the feeling that this system is deliberately designed to be inefficient.

2018-05-18 10:57:33 UTC  

you misunderstand,

Its like how democrats are blocking everything in America because Trump doesn't want illegal immigration to run rampant
like how they didn't vote on a budget earlier this year.

Basically, "You don't want to help our niché issue, so we'll just stop everything, and hurt everyone"

2018-05-18 11:59:31 UTC  

Hence why even a minority can block something.

2018-05-18 12:04:25 UTC  

The American system was designed to be conservative in nature, meaning resistant to rapid, radical change. As opposed to parliamentary systems in which a majority government effectively has total and unassailable power.

2018-05-18 12:05:54 UTC  

There are benefits and drawbacks to such a system.

2018-05-18 12:06:37 UTC  

The benefit is that it's less amenable to the whims of the mob. The drawback is that it's less adaptive to rapidly changing conditions.

2018-05-18 12:10:49 UTC  

Huh, I. Didnt hear that before, but it does make sense.

2018-05-18 12:11:21 UTC  

The original form of the American system was even more conservative. Senators were appointed and recalled by state legislature, and state legislatures don't tend to change in make-up very often.

2018-05-18 12:12:08 UTC  

Well my explanation was how would you like it if you as a farmer was yold what not to do by some city dweller.

2018-05-18 12:13:03 UTC  

Federalism was supposed to alleviate that. Unfortunately Federalism has lost most of its strength post-Reconstruction.

2018-05-18 12:13:52 UTC  

The original idea was that individual states would handle most of their own affairs, and only the common defense, borders, etc and the trade between states would be subject to federal law.

2018-05-18 12:14:17 UTC  

Well basically the civil war was about a disagreement regarding that.

2018-05-18 12:17:56 UTC  

Well, there was a lot of preemptive action taken by the South. They perceived eventual legal loss of their ability to own slaves, and so acted extra-legally before such legal action could be taken.

2018-05-18 12:18:34 UTC  

Slavery wasn't banned until after the war was well underway.

2018-05-18 12:19:21 UTC  

And under the system of federal government that existed at the time, it's quite possible that had the South stayed in the union that they would've held onto their slaves for decades more.

2018-05-18 12:36:31 UTC  

Thing is, it was about how much overreach a singular govt would have.

2018-05-18 12:37:15 UTC  

Confederates wanted less govt. But to establish a rule of law, you have to be prepared to shoot anyone who adamantly refuses.

2018-05-18 12:39:26 UTC  

a lot of changes in recent time have made it more adaptive to rapidly changing conditions at the cost of consolidating power.

2018-05-18 12:41:02 UTC  

which is slightly ironic because smaller, independent units with autonomy are much quicker to adapt to things that are causing a direct problem to them, which may not end up being problems elsewhere

2018-05-18 12:42:35 UTC  

isn't that like 50% of the gun debate issue?
city slickers wanting all guns away (NYC, LA and D.C.)
country people needing it to defend property and hunt pests? (anywhere outside cities)

2018-05-18 12:43:05 UTC  

cuz those that want it removed want it everywhere in every state

2018-05-18 12:43:12 UTC  

not exactly, but is a noticeable trend.

2018-05-18 12:43:54 UTC  

there are people in the inner cities who want guns to protect themselves from others with guns, and there are people who live in the country who are animal loving hippies who will probably get eaten by a bear

2018-05-18 12:44:16 UTC  

I get what you mean though,

Arizona doesn't need a federal supply for snow-tires

2018-05-18 12:45:06 UTC  

Change at the federal level should be hard for that reason. Because a change at the federal level should be resistant to rapid change to prevent mod rule, and prevent tyranny. Give the states more power, they can adapt quickly. if each state can adapt quickly, the country can adapt quickly. But it will not happen at the same time.