Gore unelectable? Well that was an inconvenient truth
Oops, sorry, I just liked your comment because I thought you were being ironic. I canât seem to unlike your comment now
Heâs kind of slouchy, and he wears cheap suits, and honestly, isnât well put together⌠But I voted for him, because I donât care about that stuff.
But arenât codes and standards written by the state (or by someone working for the state) specifically in regards to public safety. Just for those 2 things, they should be public domain. Sure, you can sell them as well, but if they are being funded by public funds in any way, they need to be public domain. I think thatâs the bottom line here.
Besides, not al aspects of life need to be profit-making.
Maybe the problem is with the concept of making the law and the regulations available for free which is distinctly unamerican - everything costs money and suggesting that we make things available for free is a heresy that is opposed instinctively ⌠Perhaps Carl Malamud could offer to charge the states for making the law available for the public at large, in a readily searchable format? I think PublicResource.org is doing something valuable - perhaps they should position themselves as the outsourced website of every standard incorporated by reference?
At the moment, I guess PublicResource.org is run on a best-effort basis - but what happens when a code theyâve digitized gets updated? Does PublicResource.org take down or note that the codes theyâre hosting are out of date? Or could someone unknowingly use an out of date standard via that website?
I think if I was running a million dollar construction firm then I would still want to buy the current version of the relevant building codes, rather than save a few hundred dollars and find later that Iâd built something that was out-of-spec ⌠but as a private citizen Iâd make use of the best information I could find for free.
What we actually need is a comprehensive version of PublicResource.org thatâs run as a non-profit and with the different safety standards organisations required to deposit their documents as a copy of reference. Possibly ANSI and the like could contract PublicResource.org to maintain their âpublic reading roomsâ - or perhaps PublicResource.org could team up with the library of Congress and/or state copyright libraries, to make the relevant information available.
As an American, I firmly disagree with the idea that everything should cost money and donât respect that concept. I believe that laws should be free, I believe that people in need should have both charity and opportunity, and I believe that every child should have the same opportunities for education and future enjoyable lives as every other.
If people are going to redefine my birthplace around me then Iâd appreciate it if the rest of us were able to have a nation to contribute our efforts to that isnât in tryouts for âCartoon Villain of the Yearâ
You would think, but no. There are laws which adopt standards, but the standards are included by reference.
Yes it would be a tangent, but the canard that Nader cost Gore the election has been debunked by voluminous research and published articles, but it was a great method of destroying the potential for a green party in 'merica, while green partyâs thrive in dozens of other countries.
I was one of ten or so people who recruited Ralph in '96 and believe me, he gave the greens a lot more than we gave him. Still, we continue to recruit talented and honorable candidates. Luis Rodriguez for Guv in Cali.
It is, but Iâd argue (and I believe rightly so) that our winner-take-all voting system supports a two-party equilibrium fairly mercilessly. One could eventually supplant one of the two parties and change which issues are polarized which way, but I really would rather not since the system itself is still a problem.
Could not agree more. Ralph proved himself a stubborn fool, Iâd be happy to never see his face again.
Iâm sure some days he feels âRalphierâ than other days.
Steady on there! Thats blasphemy to the far-right
And thatâs been Naderâs argument for ages now.
Yeah, I just never saw a plan that didnât involve playing the same political game.
Our political system just plays to the strengths of the worst of us, Iâd rather we just have another option and side-step out of it.
Good point on that. But if you buy Foucault, there is no âout of itâ⌠whether thatâs true or not, I donât know, but the system we are in is pretty all-encompassing the way i see it. I think Foucault is right about how the system, for lack of a better term, has colonized us in such a way that control actually manifests from inside ourselves, rather than being forced from withoutâI think when people dismiss third parties as being able to make a difference, that is part of that colonization in regards to political structures.
I do like that youâre trying to forge an alternative, for what itâs worth⌠Iâll have to go look at what you posted in the other thread and see what I think about your proposalâŚ
My take on it is that if we put a fraction of the effort/resources we put into contributing to the existing system into creating something better we wouldnât be having these problems, they exist only because thereâs no obvious and easy way for people to choose between whatever government theyâre born into and other options, weâre just trapped.
You can try to change it for everybody, or you can give the people whoâd rather do something else the option to do so, I prefer the latter for a multitude of reasons.
On the side discussion (using a corporation to create multiple options for self governance), itâs one of many options IMHO, and the fact that we have to focus on venture capitalists and sponsors is a travesty, but it seems like doing things the ârightâ way hasnât produced much for results in the grand scheme of things. Recruiting into something better is faster and leaves a more solid psychological foundation than trying to make everybody agree on a way to fix this government.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.