spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature). Peaceful transfer of power through election is an incredible thing.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Yup. Not elected by anyone. But he's appointed by the democratically elected governor, which is totally in his power. Not everyone working for the government is elected.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing out that all this is all totally democratic. you can't say it's undemocratic just because the guy gets an astonishing amount of power.
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature).
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Peaceful transfer of power through election is an incredible thing.
Except when its passed to terrible people.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.
Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.
I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.
Well what are you calling the right to self-governance? Because you don't actually have the right to your own local government. The right to self-governance is at the state level.
Only legally. Which is the point of the question. Would you be ok if the right to self-governance was at the federal level instead? Would you consider a change from the current situation to that to be a removal of your right to self-governance? Would the residents of Washington or Colorado consider it ok if the federal government decided, against the wishes of the state, that no, they aren't allowed to have legal weed? Would that be those state residents "loosing their democracy"?
I think it's easily arguable that it would be.
Yes of course it would, because those state residents would be losing right they currently explicitly have. It's in the federal constitution. The right to local government is not in the federal constitution, and so if it isn't in the state constitution it's not a right that is being lost.
The analogy to state-> federal doesn't work because states have the right to self-governance. Of course a change from that would be losing that right! Regardless of whether or not it is ok, the rights you have under the law are really the only ones relevant to this discussion. Because the law is decided by democracy, it was democratically decided that local government isn't a right so it's nonsensical to say you're losing a right to democracy that you didn't have. You're simply not losing any democracy that you have a right to.
And Detroit isn't going to fall under undemocratic rule now, it's just that the democratic rule is at the state-level rather than local.
The only other way to argue the claim that this is losing democracy is the rather trivial observation that your vote now has less direct say over things. Which isn't a moral argument itself! It's also a nonsensical argument in a representative democracy. You lose and gain that stuff all the time.
Maybe it would be democratic if the governor's office itself took over the running of Detroit but that is not what is happening. The City of Detroit will be handed to an appointed EM with broad powers. Let's look at those powers for a second:
-Hire/fire local government employees
-Renegotiate, terminate, modify labor contracts with state treasury approval
-Sell, lease, or privatize local assets with state treasury approval
-Revise contract obligations
-Change local budgets without local legislative approval
-Initiate municipal bankruptcy proceedings
-Hire support staff
So a person, not elected by anyone, can come in kill union contracts and sell anything not bolted down. Legally. I mean sure with state treasury approval but I'm pretty sure I don't see the treasurer saying no to much of anything the EM will do.
I do wonder where @ spacekungfuman with his love of defending contracts is right now. He had such righteous indignation when the UAW got shares in the new GM and Chrysler for having taken over the retiree healthcare obligations. After all the poor, poor bondholders contract rights might have been affected.
Actually, I think this is fine, since this isn't an after the fact change in the rules. You know (or should be able to know) that the government may have the ability to unilaterally change certain contracts, and so should price that into your deal. Contrast the car companies, where all contracting entities were private and the secured bond holders paid for the right to not be superceded, and were then superceded by an unsecured creditor. If there was such a thing as "secured contracts" with the government and the EM was given the special power to break those (which power did not exist under the EM law at the time the contracts were made) then I would be furious.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature).
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Peaceful transfer of power through election is an incredible thing.
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature).
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Peaceful transfer of power through election is an incredible thing.
Except when its passed to terrible people.
That's our fault then, in both cases.
Why it our fault? In case you haven't noticed its extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to control political parties or powerful individuals for doing what they want.
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature).
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Yup. Not elected by anyone. But he's appointed by the democratically elected governor, which is totally in his power. Not everyone working for the government is elected.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing out that all this is all totally democratic. you can't say it's undemocratic just because the guy gets an astonishing amount of power.
Well that's true but then you have the entire populace of a city's fate being decided by the west and northern part of the state.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature).
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Peaceful transfer of power through election is an incredible thing.
Except when its passed to terrible people.
That's our fault then, in both cases.
Wait. . . If the rule of law at the voting booth is the supreme equalizer then how do you account for the fact that the populace of Michigan voted the very law they are using down and they still put it in place under a budgetary loophole?
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Yup. Not elected by anyone. But he's appointed by the democratically elected governor, which is totally in his power. Not everyone working for the government is elected.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing out that all this is all totally democratic. you can't say it's undemocratic just because the guy gets an astonishing amount of power.
Well that's true but then you have the entire populace of a city's fate being decided by the west and northern part of the state.
Yes. It's an incredibly fucked up situation. But it's important that people know this precisely because when the guy put in charge inevitably fucks up everything everyone knows that it is the fault of Snyder and the Republican Party. They are to blame and they are the ones up for election, not the guy in Detroit.
Because we know that they're going to try to distance themselves from this.
+1
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Is it different from the prior law? If it is, then I do not think that the EM should be able to set the contracts aside, and should be liable for any breaches of contract that occur.
This is a small cabal using a technicality to reinstate a law that the people repealed by popular vote.
How anyone can believe that this is democratic is beyond me.
You can vote those people out.
Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them, or they don't. Via voting.
You can also vote in people who will change the rules to prevent this type of thing. Voting is always the solution to political problems in a democracy.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Guys, the answer to problems with the government is always to elect better people, under a democratic system. This is not an oversight, its a feature (maybe the main feature).
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Peaceful transfer of power through election is an incredible thing.
Except when its passed to terrible people.
That's our fault then, in both cases.
Wait. . . If the rule of law at the voting booth is the supreme equalizer then how do you account for the fact that the populace of Michigan voted the very law they are using down and they still put it in place under a budgetary loophole?
Reminds me of the EU-constitution thingie. The population of The Netherlands voted against it in a referendum, then the government of The Netherlands said "we love your input guys, really" and said they were going to vote for it. If it hadn't been for the french not being such pussies we probably would've ended up agreeing with something the country didn't agree with!
Of course they just, after "a period of reflection", adopted much of that shit into another treaty and nobody held a referendum except Ireland (their own constitution obligated them) so yay democracy! If you're not going to vote in favour we're not even going to ask you any more!
Oh, they are saying Mitt Romney is the top candidate for the job.
I'm...I dunno. I could see him doing a good and dedicated job trying to erase 'let Detroit go bankrupt' and create some positive legacy.
But man...that is a fuck you to this state from Snyder. It's enough of an asshole move...I think he might be doing it.
Still, I'd be surprised if Mitt was any worse than any other asshole Snyder would bring in.
He'll try really hard at least. This gives him a chance for a legacy that is more than losing to Obama.
Yeah, that's why I'm actually sort of torn on it.
If anyone cam do it - the combination of factors it will take to pull off - I think he is one of a short list.
For all the things I dislike about Romney and hate about Snyder / the EM law, I'm not sure he could realistically put someone who maybe could ne better forward.
A chip on his shoulder trying to fix the city that broke on hos dads watch? It's kind of a fitting end. Plus, he's wealthy and not as beholden to rich jerks as a lot of people.
And hey, when everyone hates him and he crashes AMD burns, can't think of a better asshole for it to happen to. Here's that 47%...jackass.
There's is absolutely no way Snyder would appoint Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney to this post. It's inconceivable. Where's this nonsense coming from? Fox?
There's is absolutely no way Snyder would appoint Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney to this post. It's inconceivable. Where's this nonsense coming from? Fox?
It'd be a pretty potent fuck you to Obama, I must admit.
"Maybe he didn't win the election, but we're giving him complete authority over a chunk of the US anyway."
Oh, they are saying Mitt Romney is the top candidate for the job.
I'm...I dunno. I could see him doing a good and dedicated job trying to erase 'let Detroit go bankrupt' and create some positive legacy.
But man...that is a fuck you to this state from Snyder. It's enough of an asshole move...I think he might be doing it.
Still, I'd be surprised if Mitt was any worse than any other asshole Snyder would bring in.
He'll try really hard at least. This gives him a chance for a legacy that is more than losing to Obama.
Yeah, that's why I'm actually sort of torn on it.
If anyone cam do it - the combination of factors it will take to pull off - I think he is one of a short list.
For all the things I dislike about Romney and hate about Snyder / the EM law, I'm not sure he could realistically put someone who maybe could ne better forward.
A chip on his shoulder trying to fix the city that broke on hos dads watch? It's kind of a fitting end. Plus, he's wealthy and not as beholden to rich jerks as a lot of people.
And hey, when everyone hates him and he crashes AMD burns, can't think of a better asshole for it to happen to. Here's that 47%...jackass.
I'm curious. What's Romney done that makes you think he can fix Detroit?
The only, inevitable solution will be outside money paying for the decommissioning of the unviable parts of the city. The only question is when, how, and how bad do we let it get before.
Hence my fairytale suggestion of 'rezoning' the unviable parts to the surrounding rich suburbs.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
He might save Detroit but there'd be nothing left as a public good afterwards.
isn't the city pretty much in a hopeless situation though?
Drastic times etc etc. I mean what is the alternative? Just turn your back on the place and let it continue to disintegrate until... what?
Its the problem of profits or people. Do we care about people independent of whether they can help themselves or do we have a limit on what we will give through redistribution? The amount of money that would need to be sunk in to fix the city is massive, and its not clear that the country will get much of a "return" on that investment, and other people will be hurt in the process (since this money will need to come from taxes and cuts elsewhere) but the people that live in Detroit as still American citizens. After looking at Katrina, maybe that isn't enough?
He might save Detroit but there'd be nothing left as a public good afterwards.
isn't the city pretty much in a hopeless situation though?
Drastic times etc etc. I mean what is the alternative? Just turn your back on the place and let it continue to disintegrate until... what?
Its the problem of profits or people. Do we care about people independent of whether they can help themselves or do we have a limit on what we will give through redistribution? The amount of money that would need to be sunk in to fix the city is massive, and its not clear that the country will get much of a "return" on that investment, and other people will be hurt in the process (since this money will need to come from taxes and cuts elsewhere) but the people that live in Detroit as still American citizens. After looking at Katrina, maybe that isn't enough?
Fuck return of investment. The people must be the first priority. This isn't a company, it's a city. Also when you make the city a place where the populace can succeed living there, it'd become a long term investment. That's an untapped resource for jobs and putting money back into the economy once they're financially safe.
He might save Detroit but there'd be nothing left as a public good afterwards.
isn't the city pretty much in a hopeless situation though?
Drastic times etc etc. I mean what is the alternative? Just turn your back on the place and let it continue to disintegrate until... what?
Its the problem of profits or people. Do we care about people independent of whether they can help themselves or do we have a limit on what we will give through redistribution? The amount of money that would need to be sunk in to fix the city is massive, and its not clear that the country will get much of a "return" on that investment, and other people will be hurt in the process (since this money will need to come from taxes and cuts elsewhere) but the people that live in Detroit as still American citizens. After looking at Katrina, maybe that isn't enough?
I don't believe it is. Cities don't have an inherent need to continue existing... if it can't sustain itself and no one wants change, then let it disintegrate and the people move elsewhere until it shrinks to a manageable size.
Oh, they are saying Mitt Romney is the top candidate for the job.
I'm...I dunno. I could see him doing a good and dedicated job trying to erase 'let Detroit go bankrupt' and create some positive legacy.
But man...that is a fuck you to this state from Snyder. It's enough of an asshole move...I think he might be doing it.
Still, I'd be surprised if Mitt was any worse than any other asshole Snyder would bring in.
He'll try really hard at least. This gives him a chance for a legacy that is more than losing to Obama.
Yeah, that's why I'm actually sort of torn on it.
If anyone cam do it - the combination of factors it will take to pull off - I think he is one of a short list.
For all the things I dislike about Romney and hate about Snyder / the EM law, I'm not sure he could realistically put someone who maybe could ne better forward.
A chip on his shoulder trying to fix the city that broke on hos dads watch? It's kind of a fitting end. Plus, he's wealthy and not as beholden to rich jerks as a lot of people.
And hey, when everyone hates him and he crashes AMD burns, can't think of a better asshole for it to happen to. Here's that 47%...jackass.
I'm curious. What's Romney done that makes you think he can fix Detroit?
He knows how to lobby for enormous amounts of money, or he did ten years ago.
Something that's been bugging me: What is the eventual vision of all this? What is the endgame of this law? Putting aside any good or bad values, what exactly is the expected upside? Best case scenario, what are we looking at?
Posts
Yup. Not elected by anyone. But he's appointed by the democratically elected governor, which is totally in his power. Not everyone working for the government is elected.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing out that all this is all totally democratic. you can't say it's undemocratic just because the guy gets an astonishing amount of power.
You're ignoring how difficult it is to get those people to run in the first place. Too many elections consist of bad or worse candidates. That's a shitty choice to choose from.
Except when its passed to terrible people.
Actually, I think this is fine, since this isn't an after the fact change in the rules. You know (or should be able to know) that the government may have the ability to unilaterally change certain contracts, and so should price that into your deal. Contrast the car companies, where all contracting entities were private and the secured bond holders paid for the right to not be superceded, and were then superceded by an unsecured creditor. If there was such a thing as "secured contracts" with the government and the EM was given the special power to break those (which power did not exist under the EM law at the time the contracts were made) then I would be furious.
That's our fault then, in both cases.
Why it our fault? In case you haven't noticed its extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to control political parties or powerful individuals for doing what they want.
You can start your fury.
What else do you suggest? Armed revolt?
space may be making a simple point but it's true.
Well that's true but then you have the entire populace of a city's fate being decided by the west and northern part of the state.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Wait. . . If the rule of law at the voting booth is the supreme equalizer then how do you account for the fact that the populace of Michigan voted the very law they are using down and they still put it in place under a budgetary loophole?
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
How anyone can believe that this is democratic is beyond me.
Yes. It's an incredibly fucked up situation. But it's important that people know this precisely because when the guy put in charge inevitably fucks up everything everyone knows that it is the fault of Snyder and the Republican Party. They are to blame and they are the ones up for election, not the guy in Detroit.
Because we know that they're going to try to distance themselves from this.
Is it different from the prior law? If it is, then I do not think that the EM should be able to set the contracts aside, and should be liable for any breaches of contract that occur.
You can vote those people out.
Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them, or they don't. Via voting.
You can also vote in people who will change the rules to prevent this type of thing. Voting is always the solution to political problems in a democracy.
Reminds me of the EU-constitution thingie. The population of The Netherlands voted against it in a referendum, then the government of The Netherlands said "we love your input guys, really" and said they were going to vote for it. If it hadn't been for the french not being such pussies we probably would've ended up agreeing with something the country didn't agree with!
Of course they just, after "a period of reflection", adopted much of that shit into another treaty and nobody held a referendum except Ireland (their own constitution obligated them) so yay democracy! If you're not going to vote in favour we're not even going to ask you any more!
I'm...I dunno. I could see him doing a good and dedicated job trying to erase 'let Detroit go bankrupt' and create some positive legacy.
But man...that is a fuck you to this state from Snyder. It's enough of an asshole move...I think he might be doing it.
Still, I'd be surprised if Mitt was any worse than any other asshole Snyder would bring in.
He'll try really hard at least. This gives him a chance for a legacy that is more than losing to Obama.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Yeah, that's why I'm actually sort of torn on it.
If anyone cam do it - the combination of factors it will take to pull off - I think he is one of a short list.
For all the things I dislike about Romney and hate about Snyder / the EM law, I'm not sure he could realistically put someone who maybe could ne better forward.
A chip on his shoulder trying to fix the city that broke on hos dads watch? It's kind of a fitting end. Plus, he's wealthy and not as beholden to rich jerks as a lot of people.
And hey, when everyone hates him and he crashes AMD burns, can't think of a better asshole for it to happen to. Here's that 47%...jackass.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
isn't the city pretty much in a hopeless situation though?
Drastic times etc etc. I mean what is the alternative? Just turn your back on the place and let it continue to disintegrate until... what?
It'd be a pretty potent fuck you to Obama, I must admit.
"Maybe he didn't win the election, but we're giving him complete authority over a chunk of the US anyway."
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm curious. What's Romney done that makes you think he can fix Detroit?
Hence my fairytale suggestion of 'rezoning' the unviable parts to the surrounding rich suburbs.
Its the problem of profits or people. Do we care about people independent of whether they can help themselves or do we have a limit on what we will give through redistribution? The amount of money that would need to be sunk in to fix the city is massive, and its not clear that the country will get much of a "return" on that investment, and other people will be hurt in the process (since this money will need to come from taxes and cuts elsewhere) but the people that live in Detroit as still American citizens. After looking at Katrina, maybe that isn't enough?
Fuck return of investment. The people must be the first priority. This isn't a company, it's a city. Also when you make the city a place where the populace can succeed living there, it'd become a long term investment. That's an untapped resource for jobs and putting money back into the economy once they're financially safe.
I don't believe it is. Cities don't have an inherent need to continue existing... if it can't sustain itself and no one wants change, then let it disintegrate and the people move elsewhere until it shrinks to a manageable size.
These things happen. Boom towns go bust!
He knows how to lobby for enormous amounts of money, or he did ten years ago.
Yeah, lets relocate the white suburb population into Detroit.
What good would that do?
We pretty much already did.