Over 200,000 Americans sign petition to deport Justin Bieber

GreyGhost said:

Agreed. We should leave that stuff to the professionals, they have our best interests at heart. :P

I would rather have my life controlled by some asshole who only half-heartedly cares about me but still has at least some idea about what he is doing, rather then have my life controlled by some random idiots on facebook who care more about what stupid celebrities are doing then what is going on in the economy.

Shit all over governments as much as you want, they are still a million times more competent at governing then the general public would be.

Also, do you think some random asshole you don't know has your best interest at heart more than the professionals do? You think people would not abuse the fuck out of their ability to just vote to them self's whatever the fuck it is that they want or bully other groups that don't agree with them simply because they can?

I know it may sound hard to believe at times, but the government goes care about you. Or at least, it cares MORE then the masses would.

Petitions aren't direct democracy anyway. A petition, by definition, is an echo chamber for a single opinion. There is no way to know whether the people who do not vote the petition did not vote because:

• A: They oppose it
• B: They don't care about it
• C: They would support it but haven't heard about it
• D: They would support it if (some unmet condition)

So, a petition in itself shouldn't be the basis for governance. It could be the basis for organizing a referendum on the topic, though. Then you can tally the opposition to the petition's proposal adequately.

Also, frivolous petitions like this one completely undermine, by their unreasonable success, petitions that are actually motivated by political activism (like Avaaz does).

Gez said:

Oh, he's an immigrant? I didn't know that.

I think the most appropriate term to use for someone of Justin's standing and status is "expatriate" or "expat", essentially a "deluxe" version of the word "immigrant" carrying -mostly- positive connotations

"Immigrant" is a word that has strong negative connotations: it implies that the person having this status has some or all of the following bad things going on about it:

• Comes from a third world country
  
• Emigrated because things were really, really bad in his own country.
  
• Is piss-poor/broke EVEN for the standards of its own country.
  
• Belongs to the lower classes/lumpen-proletariat of EVEN of its own ocuntry.
  
• Smells bad
  
• Is dark skinned
  
• Is muslim
  
• Is mostly unskilled/unqualified
  
• Is a potential criminal
  
• Is a welfare leecher
  

etc. and in general, that it's a fundamentally undesirable person.

OTOH, an "expat" person has the following, more positive traits:

• Comes from a Western or at least EU country.
  
• Decided to become an expat due to career ambitions that couldn't be easily satisfied in his own country, or even simply on a whim "to see the world". May even be a retiting pensioner, wanting to spend his days in a different country.
  
• Is the very least middle class even in his own country, but emigrated due to being more ambitious/upwardly mobile or just on a whim "to see the world".
  
• Is not necessarily rich, but a true expat is never piss-poor either.
  
• Typically of the same race as the majority in the host country
  
• Culturally not too distant from the host country (e.g. a Brit or a Canadian in the USA)
  
• Well trained and qualified, might even have university degrees or higher, if of working age.
  
• Is a law-abiding citizen even in his country of origin and in his host country.
  
• Soon integrates himself in the countributing workforce, if of working age.
  

etc. and in general, its presence is neutral at best or seen as little more than a tourist, to the locals. Certainly, very few "expats" would like to be called "immigrants".

In Italian, there's even a word "extracommunitario" (literally "outside of the (European) community") used to refer to the -mostly undesirable- immigrants from Africa, Middle East, South Asia, etc.

Technically, the same word should apply to a citizen of the USA, a Swiss citizen or an Australian, but it's practically NEVER used to describe citizens of those countries in journalistic use at least, only those of a "lower" status.

hardcore_gamer said:

This is why direct democracy must never become reality...

I don't know about that. I don't equate direct democracy with mob rule: there's a thing called a constitution that acts as a general guide and restraint. I view it more as direct voting on bills, within the restrictive guidelines in place to protect the minority. Not just recklessly do whatever just because it gathered enough votes.

While you could theoretically have an insanely hateful populous amend a constitution to throw those safeguards out, it'd be very difficult to do and unlikely to happen, since I'm sure people could generally agree that minority protection is a good thing for society at large, and they wouldn't want to be the ones getting the short end of the stick if they ended up on the "wrong" side of the people.

To summarize, to keep things in check, you need self reflection. I don't think that having a defined system for that is contrary to what direct democracy is.

It would take a lot to undermine a well informed and sensible people. You just have to make sure the culture is well informed and sensible in the first place to understand why such values are important, and you can probably only do that with coordinated and high quality education. We clearly don't have that in the US, so that'd be the first step before trying anything else to improve our democracy (besides overturning Citizens United).

hardcore_gamer said:

This is why direct democracy must never become reality...

All kinds of democracy need constraints to protect individual liberties: constitutions and independent judiciaries help to ensure that.

I do think that direct democracy in the form of referendums can be a good thing, though for limited purposes. It ought to be for issues that have cultural impact or moral issues attached to them (and not "should we fund X or raise taxes for Y"). When people think of "direct democracy" they always think of California - where it doesn't appear to have worked out so well - and not eg. Switzerland, where they seem to have it figured out much better.

I think it also requires having a healthy political system and a populace who are educated and informed enough to properly understand the issues. Perhaps because of that, it's maybe just not suited to America, where the politics is just too hysterical to conduct the kind of necessary public debate in an adult fashion.

fraggle said:

I think it also requires having a healthy political system and a populace who are educated and informed enough to properly understand the issues. Perhaps because of that, it's maybe just not suited to America, where the politics is just too hysterical to conduct the kind of necessary public debate in an adult fashion.

Careful. The line between your position and proposals of an "elitist democracy" (which are often misinterpreted as "fascist", as they try defining a sort of democracy with a narrower right to vote or assigning a different "weight" to individual voters based on tests/social schievements/status) is not so clearly defined. There's always the risk of being misunderstood when, in one way or the other, you imply that some voters, for the benefit of the rest, should really not be voting (I can't disagree with that, BTW...)

However, so far, no Western country has ever put something to that effect in action: you may be clinically diagnosed an imbecile or insane, incapable of e.g. keeping your children or being held accountable for your own actions, but that's not enough to take away your right to vote, AFAIK (you'd need to do something bad enough to warrant revocation of your political rights).

Maes said:

Careful. The line between your position and proposals of an "elitist democracy" (which are often misinterpreted as "fascist", as they try defining a sort of democracy with a narrower right to vote or assigning a different "weight" to individual voters based on tests/social schievements/status) is not so clearly defined. There's always the risk of being misunderstood when, in one way or the other, you imply that some voters, for the benefit of the rest, should really not be voting (I can't disagree with that, BTW...)

I should clarify that my main focus is not on the individual voters but rather the overall culture: that includes the political parties and the news media that inevitably shape public opinion and understanding. Those are both, IMO, utterly broken in America. As with all things it comes back to the two party system that turns everything into a fight over issues instead of an attempt to properly understand them and solve them.

However, so far, no Western country has ever put something to that effect in action: you may be clinically diagnosed an imbecile or insane, incapable of e.g. keeping your children or being held accountable for your own actions, but that's not enough to take away your right to vote, AFAIK (you'd need to do something bad enough to warrant revocation of your political rights).

Actually, in the UK "idiots" and "lunatics" are banned from voting. I don't know how much this is actually enforced, though.

But ultimately it's the system that's most important, not individuals.

Maes said:

However, so far, no Western country has ever put something to that effect in action: you may be clinically diagnosed an imbecile or insane, incapable of e.g. keeping your children or being held accountable for your own actions, but that's not enough to take away your right to vote, AFAIK (you'd need to do something bad enough to warrant revocation of your political rights).

Not so fast! Prisoners in the UK are denied voting rights.
Interestingly, the inverse measure was also in place here until (I think) 1948, before which citizens meeting certain educational/property criteria could gain additional votes.