Raze said:
1 - Not quite what I meant. Call it premonition, 6th sense, or just me being stupid and being crazy. I do understand your point, but it sounds like you believe that people will remain complacent. Threaten a man's survival, they're not going to be complacent. Which is why the gov't has had failsafes like unemployment and welfare in place. The key difference between the poor being placated with welfare and the once-middle class, is that people who have a resumé with 10 to 20 years experience, a college degree, etc are not going to openly accept the fact that they require welfare to survive. What are the options? Continue to extend unemployment benefits beyond the current 99 weeks? (there's a lot of this number showing up lately, no? ;) ) 4 - Not particularly, but given the amount of fallout from such actions, don't you think a 40 month term (which will likely be reduced for good behavior) is a bit on the light side? 5. In a case of a barebones gov't there wouldn't be "opponent bills". As for the proposed bills, it'd have to be written in layman terms. I've always found legalese arcane and outdated myself, the laws would have to talk in a manner everyone would get, with a complete description of their ramifications. As for flat tax, it would make filing a lot easier. there's no question about write-offs, etc. Tax wouldn't be such a mystery. No one could complain about "so and so paid less taxes than me" etc. In other words, it could probably quell most of the complaints people have in this country. |
1) Why won't they? They do in most other countries like France. Aside from which, unemployment for college grads is at like... 4%.
4) Who got the 40 month term? Is it light, well yeah sure. It isn't armed robbery though... and I don't think people actually do care that much since they never push for the offending legislation to be repealed.
5) How would there never be opponent bills? If the politicians aren't picking the laws to vote on, who is? If it's the people there will only be MORE opponent bills since the people are far more divided then politicians in what they believe in... this brings a large issue as people often just vote for things that are up to a vote if they don't have a strong feeling about it.
Which brings me to a new point
6) In greece in the Austerity riots huge fights broke out. Between the protesting Anarcists and the protesting Rioters. It's nearly impossible to get a revolution in a democracy where everyone still has the right to vote, because revolutions, like the recent ones in Libya and Egypt for example are made up of disparent parties that feel disenfranchised, and democracy is the only way to satisfy those agendas. It's REALLY hard to convince people to revolt against the US government when they could just as eaisily run a "Direct Democracy" candidate, or whatever the hell else they want, and try to vote them in peacefully.
If they don't have enough of a majority to elect them you can bet a revolution would be worthless since those who don't want a revolution will just rise up as well... and if the revolutionaries are mostly the super left wing like occupy wallstreet, they'll be in real trouble since it's mostly conservatives who own most of the guns.
7) Actually that one unjustified act ended up justified as well, the women got pepersprayed by accident when it sprayed out farther then he though due to the wind. He was aiming for protestsers who weren't on the shot, but were on the ground trying to pull down the barriers/grab polices feet. At that point it's either pepper spray or a boot to the mouth, and the pepper spray is the better option.
