What a wonderful surprise. I'd forgotten about the judicial branch, and now they appear like the cavalry to sort out this mess.
Wouldn't it be great if they went after the patent trolls next?
Wouldn't it be great if they went after the patent trolls next?
Remember such detestations as the Child Online Protection Act? Which, after being struck down, and the Supreme Court agreeing with the ruling, a John Ashcroft led Department of Justice continued to use tax payer money to push back through the courts?
I suspect that the differences between functional and dysfunctional governments, elected or not, lie largely in their legal and court systems.
But for the judiciary, many of the liberties we take for granted wouldn't exist. It's easy to sneer at "activist judges" when you don't like how the rule, but never forget how brilliant the multi-branch system of government is.
True. Then again, a lot of evil has been done by the judiciary. Particularly with the supreme court, you have a small number of unelected decision makers who wield an enormous amount of power.
> It's easy to sneer at "activist judges" when you don't like how the rule,
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, though. "activist judges" is a loaded pejorative, but in the right context it labels a real corruption of our system that we should be wary of.
A true "activist judge" is one who gives the government new powers not explicitly granted by the US Constitution -- whether by allowing a new law to stand that doesn't pass Constitutional muster, or by creating new concepts out of thin air.
The Legislative body is where we want our laws to be constructed, since those guys are the easiest to control through democracy. We don't want that law making function to leak all over the system like into the judiciary and the bureaucracy of the executive branch where we don't have good mechanisms to track and control.
It is very much worth remembering that the judicial branch invented software patents in the first place. And that the Federal Circuit (which has jurisdiction for most patent-related appeals) seems to be a big fan of patents of all stripes and has been actively fanning the software patent flames. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has been correcting them recently on patents, but that is a slow, painful and potentially fallible process (see: Eldred v Ashcroft, IMO).
It worked for Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton 222 years ago. This could be exactly what we need.
Seriously though, you want 3 privileged, white men to decide the fate of your entire country? I'm all for smart people coming up with solutions, and I know your comment wasn't mean't to be taken too seriously, but this is just ridiculous. Technocracy is not the answer, no matter how much technologists would love it to be.
I think that he has a point in saying that if you have an heterogeneous society, it's not wise to put all the power in an homogeneous group.
I like affirmative action, but I don't think it is a viable principle for determining political rights, which should be universal and colorblind rather than being denied or granted based on race or a distaste for homogeneity.
The idea that white people should not have power because of their inherent moral depravity is definitely a racist idea.
You explicitly mentioned race. It's racist.
Pointing out the unbalanced composition of a group meant to solve society's problems is not in any way racist. It's a specific application of the general rule that humans have hard time understanding the experiences of people different than themselves, especially when there's privilege involved.
"attack" might be a strong word, but it was definitely a racist comment. Whenever you generalize or predict behavior or outcomes based upon race, you've made a racist comment. Maybe you liked the sound of it. Doesn't really matter, though, does it?
Substitute "black" for "white" and how does your original statement sound?
You're decrying the solutions that those three guys could come up with in part because they're white. Maybe you wanted to say, "ethnically homogenous"?
They were also described as men. Does that make it sexist?
They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare?
The point is obviously that they come from the same, very particular place at the very top of the same hierarchy that's created the world we now live in. Simply because the media has chosen to glamorize those people more than others doesn't mean we should do the same.
Why not throw some equally intelligent and qualified people as Elinor Ostrom or Amartya Sen in there? Aside from the fact that they're probably a bit more left-leaning/sympathetic to the little guy than the three mentioned.
It notes the sex of the decision-makers and implies the quality of results as part of a generalization, so I guess it is sexist.
> They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare?
Warfare? That has a lot of extra meaning. "Classist" would be more clinical.
Words like "racist", "sexist", and "classist" have real definitions and you don't get to apply them only when they support portions of an argument that you happen to agree with.
Why not? Democracy doesn't seem to be so great.
Another problem is getting your technocracy to be accepted. Installing it only to have it quickly overthrown is another scenario for getting a dictator.
Remember that 222 years ago the entire country of America didn't even have the population of New Jersey and a budget smaller than most school boards.
Keep in mind that whatever dream team you assemble has to have experience solving real world problems. Not sure exactly of the connection between the individuals you choose and the particular problems that need to be solved but forgetting that for a second and assuming they are qualified there are also politics to consider. It's not as if the citizens are going to authorize binding arbitration by a group of arbitrarily chosen "smart" guys.
Thomas Jefferson's head would explode if he witnessed the dictatorial authority with which Bloomberg is attempting to control the most minute aspects of citizens' lives.
Madison and Jefferson did everything they could to allow people to be free from the control of government. They would both be tremendously saddened by how our individual liberties that they worked so hard to protect have been given away to politicians and a government bureaucracy that is lunging headlong toward mediocrity and undeniable unsustainability.
When Alexis de Tocqueville toured the US in the early 1800's and wrote "Democracy in America", he noted the rugged individualism and lack of trust in anything from the government and the elite. He wrote that only in America could the culture and nature of the citizenry insulate itself from the inevitable erosion of democracy, "But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom".
That America no longer exists. The slow march of government toward tyranny that Jefferson tried to warn us about passed a point of no return a long time ago.
Since you mention tyranny and a point of no return, I suppose your solution will be to start killing people who you find to be complicit with the government? Watering the tree of liberty, etc. etc.?
They certainly play a role in governing, but where Contress is active (in theory), the Courts are reactive, waiting for a case to be brought to them. Where Congress is reaching for power and often places limitations on citizens, the Courts (in principle) ensure Congress does not claim too much power and limits Congress.