I'm reading some stuff for history and thought this could spark discussion. This is from 1905 but I imagine Chinese today may have the same opinion.

Quote :

"The American constitution was based on Montesquieu’s theories but went further in clearly demarcating the separation of powers.... As to the future constitution of the Republic of China, I propose that we introduce a new principle, that of the “five separate powers.” Under this system, there will be two other powers in addition to the three powers just discussed. One is the examination power.... American officials are either elected or appointed.... With respect to elections, those endowed with eloquence ingratiated themselves with the public and won elections, while those who had learning and ideals but lacked eloquence were ignored. Consequently, members of America’s House of Representatives have often been foolish and ignorant people who have made its history quite ridiculous. As for appointees, they all come and go with the president. The Democratic and Republican parties have consistently taken turns holding power, and whenever a president is replaced, cabinet members and other officials, comprising no fewer than 60,000–70,000 people, including the postmaster general, are also replaced. As a result, the corruption and laxity of American politics are unparalleled among the nations of the world.... Therefore, the future constitution of the Republic of China must provide for an independent branch expressly responsible for civil service examinations. Furthermore, all officials, however high their rank, must undergo examinations in order to determine their qualifications. Whether elected or appointed, officials must pass those examinations before assuming office. This procedure will eliminate such evils as blind obedience, electoral abuses, and favoritism...."

Full text: http://college.cengage.com/history/primary_sources/world/three_peoples_principles.htm

1/30/2012 12:23:52 AM

The free market will take care of us all. Stop trying to think about things and understand how systems might work.

1/30/2012 12:28:13 AM

This is Taiwan and not proc which people usually refer to as "china" as the thread title would indicate.

1/30/2012 12:54:30 AM

The author clearly missed the whole point of separation of powers. While the House of Representatives was, is, and always will be full of "foolish and ignorant people", the President was, is, and always will be "corruption and laxity", they must agree to make law and therefore only law that both the ignorant and the corrupt agree is in the nations interest gets to be law.

That said, he had a point about a professional civil service. I personally find such an idea to be absurd, it did seem to work for the British for a century or so until the rise of socialism did what it always does, wreck the social fabric. But I suspect it only worked because of Britain's tradition of a dictatorial parliament. As such, it wouldn't work here.

1/30/2012 1:25:33 AM

^^oh yeah by bad

^I think maybe the two interpretations of the separation come from different ideas about what a government should do. My idea of our constitution is that they desired gridlock between the three so that no one could do very much damage, whereas the author above thought that they could filter out the riff-raff and have a powerful, just government.

1/30/2012 1:53:48 AM

i've always said that all candidates should take an "SAT" of sorts and that the results be published for all the public to see for at least 365 days before any candidate be appointed a public servant.

not just 1 either.. but several, covering various topics from math,logic,and technology, to languages,history,and politics.

1/30/2012 10:01:16 AM

hell, why stop at elected officials for the "examinations"? Why not push that along to the voters, too? no way that could end up badly

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 10:05:02 AM

nice logic! why stop with just voters? why not apply that logic to welfare recipients too! or even protestors. force everybody to take exams that require support or aid or need of the state.

we can just have tests made by some 'random' group to control everything. giggle giggle

1/30/2012 10:24:43 AM

I would note that from a historical prospective, this did not work well for the Republic of China. Mind you, they were under a lot of stress between the pressures of a communist insurgency and Japanese invasion, but the Republic of China during the 1930s and 1940s was extremely corrupt and dysfunctional despite these structures especially the Guangzhou government. That's one of the big reasons the Communists came out on top in the mainland despite having inferior numbers and resources: people simply got sick and tired of it. Even if you consider Taiwan, it took them at least another 40 years after that to get a functioning democratic system, and even with the Examination Yuan, I don't think their politicians are of a superior quality to the ones we have in our own system.

1/30/2012 12:04:18 PM

I guess there's the question of who examines the examiners. Having tests just passes the power to that branch where they are free to become corrupt or the tests can be gamed, etc.

1/30/2012 3:55:15 PM

I've thought about this topic quite a bit recently. Honestly, as useful and effective as it has been, the Constitution simply seems broken and it needs a huge overhaul. Adding the bureaucracy as a 4th branch of government seems like it might be a good idea. I know some of you think this sounds like a terrible idea, but hear me out.

Right now bureaucratic institutions pretty much fall under the executive branch of government, especially in relation to high level appointments. The people appointed to those positions generally have the power to change the policies of that particular bureaucratic institution at will and overnight if they so choose. This has to make working for one of these organizations extremely erratic and ineffective since policies can be changed so quickly and without notice. Key concept here is inefficiency.

If the bureaucracy was an independent 4th branch of government competing against the other branches, it could increase bureaucratic efficiency aka more bang for the buck. Checks and balances could be written into law. They're really basically law now anyways, but we could make them hard coded into a new Amendment.

-Congress will have the power to define what areas the bureaucracy is allowed to reign.
-The Supreme Court can determine whether their actions are in line with powers designated by Congress
-The Presidency has the power to review job performance and fire high level officials only with the approval of Congress. The Presidency will also have the power to adjust the budget for each department by no more than +/-3% per year unless approved by a supermajority in Congress.

The last part is the most important I think. It detaches the bureaucracy from the executive branch thereby making it a competing branch of government, hopefully improving efficiency by increasing job stability within each department, and containing exploding budgets by bringing it to popular awareness.

Obviously this would be a monumental shift in the history of the United States and I don't think I've figured it all out with this back of a napkin sketch. But the bureaucracy is becoming a huge problem because it is failing to provide the services Americans need and it's sucking down money while failing. Separating it's power from the rest of government would be one way to throw a check or balance on it. I know a lot of you will say that it's unconstitutional for much of the bureaucracy to exist in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. At least this way would provide a mechanism to slowly close down wasteful spending while also maximizing efficiency through greater stability. If future governments desire to change institutions of government, they have a clearly defined way of doing so. Providing a stable mechanism for balancing real government power would be better than shutting it down altogether for fear that the executive branch is getting too powerful.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 7:37:02 PM

If they make a test I'm starting a braindump website that charges $99.95 for all the questions and answers.

1/31/2012 1:05:52 PM

People keep talking negatively about XI like he is some dictator who just decided to stay in power. It was actually a fair process where congress amended the constitution to remove term limits. I have respect for China's system and think it works much better than the system we have. They are so flexible and willing to adapt with the best move at the time. Our political system doesn't work at all really, is inflexible, and still tries to lend wisdom to men who lived in the 18th century for decisions being made today.

3/14/2018 2:48:47 AM

Brutal Headline Yo:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-is-china-treating-north-carolina-like-the-developing-world-w517973


(basically about NC exporting Pork and Poultry to China, and the associated negative externalities of CAFOs)

3/26/2018 7:54:51 AM

That was good read.

It's a shame that when I go to Harris Teeter, if I want a pork loin, the only option is one from SmithField. I guess that's where they get most of their other pork as well.

3/26/2018 8:16:48 AM

Yeah, Meatpacking is one of the most consolidated industries in the US, so if it’s not Smithfield’s it’s probably one of two other companies, which are exactly like Smithfield’s in every conceivable way.

3/26/2018 8:23:50 AM

It's a good article, but I don't think it does anything to defend its central premise that China is exploiting NC (and rural America in general) because of lax regulations. It may be true that we need better safety and environmental rules around pork production and other things in agriculture besides, but I don't think they really register with Chinese companies. The fact is that we have industrial infrastructure and economies of scale in agriculture that they can only dream of.

Agricultural goods are one of the few sectors in which this country enjoys a substantial trade surplus, and that goes double for China. It's not because we're a backwoods, undeveloped country that only knows how to farm. It's because we're really, really, really efficient at farming.

3/27/2018 7:43:11 AM

To add to that, it isn't like hog lagoons weren't a problem prior to Smithfield's buyout. The regulations were lax before any of that took place. But there doesn't seem to be many good solutions to hog waste. Sure there are some biofuel possibilities, but you've still got to worry about the lagoons. And it isn't like people are going to stop eating pork all of a sudden.

The following article details some of the solutions that NC State, in conjunction with Smithfield, came up with but appeared to not really implement:

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/agcomm/magazine/spring06/end.html

And here is the expose that IndyWeekly did regarding the hog industry. This expose is referenced in the article that BTT'd this thread. This is section 3 that talks about solutions, but it also links to sections 1 and 2. Interesting reading as well.

https://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/part-3-solutions-exist-for-the-hog-industrys-waste-management-problem-why-arent-they-being-used/Content?oid=7019789&storyPage=2

Granted I feel like the IndyWeekly article is somewhat biased, because IndyWeekly, but it has many good points about how unsustainable the industry is today.

3/27/2018 10:27:33 AM

And this is infuriating. Why does it always have to be a Republican?

Quote :

"On a Thursday afternoon in June, the Republican state representative swoops into his office in a neatly pressed suit, with perfectly coiffed white hair and pink cheeks. More than two months have passed since Dixon, a former poultry farmer who represents Duplin County, introduced House Bill 467 at the behest of the industry. HB 467 capped the amount of damages people living near agriculture and forestry operations, including hog farms, could collect in nuisance lawsuits at the reduction of their property's fair market value. Dixon's bill—which originally would have nullified twenty-six pending federal nuisance lawsuits against Murphy-Brown LLC, though that provision was later voted down—attracted strong opposition from environmentalists, industry critics, and neighbors of hog farms. But the pushback ultimately proved unsuccessful; the legislature overrode Governor Cooper's veto on May 11. In public comments, Dixon—who has collected more than $115,000 from the industry throughout his political career, according to an INDY analysis of campaign finance records—was unsympathetic to HB 467's critics. "Is there some odor? Yes," he remarked at a hearing on the bill. "But I would like you to close your eyes and imagine how ham and sausage and eggs and fried chicken smell." He also dismissed claims that pig feces landed on the houses of farms' neighbors as "outright lies" and said that the plaintiffs involved in nuisance litigation were being "prostituted for money" by their attorneys. In a letter to the Goldsboro News-Argus, he argued that the bill's opposition was fomented by "radical groups who have become vicious enemies of our hardworking farmers." "

From the Indy article.

3/27/2018 10:34:16 AM

Quote :

"Why does it always have to be a Republican"

3/27/2018 10:38:25 AM

i'm still waiting for rjrumfel to explain which parts of the republican platform are the parts that he likes

3/27/2018 10:40:21 AM

I've explained it before. I'm a fiscal conservative.

But Republicans these days don't even seem to care about that.

3/27/2018 10:44:52 AM

so you're no longer a republican?

3/27/2018 10:49:33 AM

Quote :

"I'm a fiscal conservative."

Long term or short term? A long term fiscal conservative would support single payer healthcare and green energy initiatives.

3/27/2018 10:52:17 AM

^But the tax increases needed to make single payer a viable option in this country are anathema to my Republican roots.

I haven't seen an argument yet that shows me how much more I would lose in taxes vs. my employer subsidized healthcare, or if I would actually lose anything.

This isn't the right place to discuss that though, make a thread for why do you vote the way you do or something. This thread has morphed into how horrible the hog industry is to the environment. Look I love pork, and I'm proud that our state is such a large producer, but unfortunately it comes at such a huge cost.

And I don't really blame the politicians. I mean I do, but behind every dirty politician, be they Republican or Democrat, is money pushing them in a certain direction. Who is behind the money? Lobbyists. Always lobbyists. And the corporations/industries they represent. People are going to be people regardless of the letter beside their name. And in the end, they'll cave to money no matter the ideals for which they started their political career.

[Edited on March 27, 2018 at 11:03 AM. Reason : are not is]

3/27/2018 11:02:07 AM

Capitalism is a system where your worth is determined by your ability to make money (and for the elite, not for yourself). It's literally to the point where political candidates are chosen based on how much money they can raise. All you're seeing is the inevitable globalization of that system & it only gets worse from here.

You've admitted that corporations do not have our interests in mind (actively lobbying against us, even), so why remain in this system? It sounds to me like you're a step away from becoming a socialist.

Quote :

"But the tax increases needed to make single payer a viable option in this country are anathema to my Republican roots. This isn't the right place to discuss that though, make a thread for why do you vote the way you do or something"

I might take you up on this if I have time to put some research together.

[Edited on March 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2018 11:32:44 AM

most people are socialists at heart.

3/27/2018 11:42:06 PM

https://g.co/kgs/MVfGv4

3/28/2018 7:21:02 AM

Even when I was a Republican I was sold on socialized healthcare. There are two basic options. One costs more and has worse outcomes. One costs less and has better outcomes. I want the cheap good one, not the expensive shitty one. To me that has never been ideological, it's been common sense.

Quote :

"Who is behind the money? Lobbyists. Always lobbyists."

Lobbyists are an easy scapegoat. Hating them is fun and often justifiable. But I think it's lazy to pin dirty politics on them. Half the time the problem is that politicians themselves are involved in the industries in question - just look at state representative Dixon from the segment you quoted, or Murphy from the Rolling Stone article. When you let the fox run the henhouse, you're gonna lose some chickens.

---

But I digress. Going back to the original discussion here...sadly I can't support the idea of an exam for elected officials, as much as I might like to, as much as I think any reasonably difficult exam would have spared us our current president. Whom the people chose, we must accept, at least long enough to find them guilty of an impeachable offense. Which, even to me, seems like it comes close to splitting hairs - either way, we're talking about invalidating the choice of the people - but if voters are denied their choice before he/she even assumes office, they're going to disengage from the democratic process.

As for the civil service, I'm all for subjecting it to exams and reducing the number of Presidential appointees as much as possible. Having gone through just one transition, I can say that the sheer scope of personnel turnover really gums up the works.

3/28/2018 8:07:50 AM

Quote :

"I've explained it before. I'm a fiscal conservative. But Republicans these days don't even seem to care about that."

"These days" ?

When was the last time that Republicans actually demonstrated their ability to be fiscally conservative on the national level?

The next thing you'll tell me is that you're starting to think that trickle down economics is a myth...

3/28/2018 10:08:03 AM

Didn’t you hear? They are going to introduce a balanced budget bill soon. Just a few weeks after instituting a massive tax cut and 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget!

This may come as a surprise but I don’t think Paul Ryan is acting in good faith here and it will all be about gutting benefits for old and poor people!

3/28/2018 11:40:32 AM

Quote :

"Lobbyists are an easy scapegoat. Hating them is fun and often justifiable. But I think it's lazy to pin dirty politics on them. Half the time the problem is that politicians themselves are involved in the industries in question - just look at state representative Dixon from the segment you quoted, or Murphy from the Rolling Stone article. When you let the fox run the henhouse, you're gonna lose some chickens."

Money buys access to politicians, and if you're spending most of your time with lobbyists, they're probably going to pull you in their direction. Maybe not all the way, but enough to where the "centrist" position sides with money instead of the people.

3/28/2018 12:52:38 PM