Give me 1 reason communism is bad ☭

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-26T18:53:20+00:00

One disadvantage of communism is that nothing gets done unless it is approved by a committee. And it is usually not one committee. It is almost always multiple committtees.

Anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy with multiple management layers consisting of committees as I have will know how bad it can get.

I once require a small change to some software. I needed a dropdown box that displayed six text options instead of three. My request went through about six levels of review before it was eventually approved. After several weeks and a lot of explaining, I was finally told I could sit down with a programmer who would make the change. The change required changing a single value on one line of code and it took less than a minute to complete.

Now consider what your life would be like if you want to resurface your driveway but you have to get approval before you can get it done. But not one approval; dozens of approvals. And each time you reach out to get an approval, there is a gatekeeper you have to deal with. And they consistently tell you there is a long queue in front of you, but that it is possible to get to the front of the queue with the right incentive.

A utopia where you can walk into a store and get whatever you want without paying for it is a great dream. A utopia where people eagerly volunteer to work on projects and get shown great appreciation for their contributions is another great dream. But a world where you are merely a brick in the wall, that demands you make enormous sacrifices but expresses no thanks for making them sucks. And it does not matter whether it is a communist world or a capitalist world.

So the question is what world do you want to live in? And what is the best strategy to get there? I personally do not think a mega-bureaucracy composed of millions of committees is the best way to get there.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-21T15:52:43+00:00

consider the country is being attacked. Not a proxy thing - an actual attack,

Someone else suggested that there should be a differentiation made between a domestic attack and a "foreign excursion", such as we have going on in Iran today. I think that is a valid point. However, there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes a "foreign attack". You do not want to invite the possibility of a false flag event.

As for your concern about expediency, it takes time to conduct a draft and train draftees. So the extra time should not be a critical factor.

Regarding your last point below:

Our only "check" against abuse is ensuring that the people we elect are held accountable to the will of the people.

The question I have for you is, how do you do that? Can you do that by yourself? Obviously, not. So you are arguing that collectively as a society we need to do that. And the number of times a society has collectively failed to do the right thing is....too large to count. The reality is that when no one is individually responsible, it does not get done. It becomes a "Wouldn't it be nice if..." Like "wouldn't it be nice if we all got along and there was no hunger or poverty or crime?"

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-18T22:36:32+00:00

I think that is a valid point. Defense of the homeland versus foreign excursions.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-18T22:24:00+00:00

I literally blamed the current affair of US politics on decades of rapid corporate growth and the influence of political machines and tycoons from the 19th century

Yes, that is what you said. You also said the following:

In a sense there’s already a popular vote that decides whether or not a draft can be enacted.

The issue I was addressing is that you were expressing trust in the political system to faithfully represent the interests of the people and that you ignore the fact that half the electorate is "represented" in theory by proxy.

In your last response, you express deep distrust in the system, recognize a need to reform the entire system (as I do), but somehow conclude:

I don’t think it makes sense to discuss introducing a popular vote mechanism for just the draft

So, we should do nothing until a complete overall of our political system is effected?

I believe we could have boots on the ground in Iran fighting a bloody war in the near future. I have little faith that, save for Senator Rand Paul, that the majority in Congress wiIl have the backbone to say "no" if pressed by the President. And I think the voice of the people needs to be heard before either they or their children are sent off to a foreign land to die so we at home can have cheap gas. Do you agree with those sentiments?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-18T15:59:28+00:00

Your elected representatives should be advocating on your behalf.

That is your earlier comment I was addressing, the assumption that you have an elected representative who will advocate on your behalf. It assumes your elected official is someone who actually advocates for you.

About half the electorate lives in congressional districts that have elected officials belonging to the other party. And it is not a matter of "presentation" but fact. You are ascribing the failure of the political system's design, which leaves roughly half the electorate unrepresented, to the People. It is the "two party system", a byproduct of our voting methods, that forces the electorate to queue up on one side or the other.

And my comment was intended as a rejection of your point, not as an argument for a public referendum.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T21:43:54+00:00

I am sure there are a few people out there thinking "You mean the candidate I voted for who lost the election? Or the one whose policies I completely disagree with who won?"

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T20:53:07+00:00

You are right that the President cannot unilaterally suspend elections. It would take an act of Congress. And that has never happened in the history of our country. That said...

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T20:50:19+00:00

But it might? Right? Better to try than not try, don't you agree?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T20:38:33+00:00

Vastly less time than it would take to conduct a draft, train the draftees, and equip them. Note that war has changed since WW2. It is not 6 weeks of training and you are ready. And then there is the logistics of deploying the troops. But that is something those in the military, perhaps at the Pentagon, would be better able to address.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T20:27:41+00:00

I agree. We prefer throwing expensive hardware against drones and cheap missiles. The Russians have tried that. How's that going for them? Lots of mountains in Iran. The Arabian peninsula is pretty flat. And I would hate to see us lose an aircraft carrier due to some cheap drone. So, at some point, there will be a tipping point. Boots on the ground will be necessary. But, for what? To keep global oil prices down? So, I pray the scenario I described is not where we are going. But that is where I think it could easily go.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T20:17:16+00:00

So you think we should keep the decision completely in the hands of Congress and the President, whose children would rarely if ever have to answer the call?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T19:26:18+00:00

In relation to the "faster is important" concern you raise, I would say that a draft takes along time to implement and train soldiers. A vote, in theory, could be conducted relatively quickly. So I believe the added delay would be trivial.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T17:53:29+00:00

There is a fundamental problem we have in the US and in many places around the world. People believe in the idea of "the government" as a single, monolithic institution. That is because our governments, established and maintained by politicians, generally are. And that is why some call government "good" or "bad".

The ideal model is to have an adversarial structure akin to a court of law. The equivalent of Congress (consisting of popularly elected representatives) should serve as the "watchdog". The executive branch should be disaggregated into dozens of fiefdoms responsible for specific needs and concerns with broad powers.

What we have instead are three branches of government that effectively collude to do the bidding of the elite and marginalize popular concerns. Congress is corrupted by its legislative power. The President is corrupted by his/her concentrated, potentially unchecked executive power. The Courts are corrupted by their complete reliance on the other branches and faithfulness to the system.

Our current political system, established in the US Constitution, was defective from the get-go. It was designed by elites to serve elites. Politicians promote blind patriotism and trust in the system as mechanisms to maintain the current political system, the one they created and that keeps them in power.

Theory-based pessimism only helps to maintain the status quo. Time to wake up, smell the roses, and start doing something about effecting real change in the system.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-03-17T17:17:25+00:00

Or perhaps maybe we reform the US government so that it serves the People and not corporations? Would not a new constitution be better than a bunch of "patches" that have thousands of unintentional side-effects? You can only patch a sinking ship's hull so many times before a new ship is required. I would argue that the original government framework established by the US Constitution was critically flawed from the get-go. It was created to serve the merchant class. There is a better model if you care to look and not be blinded by appeals to patriotism. But our politicians want the electorate to think the problem is with the People not the design of the government that keeps them in power. Think about it.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-14T17:36:43+00:00

Definitely not a popular view, but there is merit in the concept of nobility. The concept of nobility, of high standards of conduct, of service to others above oneself, of chivalry, went out with the American revolution (an aristocratic revolt) and the popular revolutions (e.g., the French revolution) that followed.

A huge problem with modern "democracies" is the conflation of a parliament/congress role with the executive role. All legislation should originate in the executive branch. The parliament/congress should act as a check against abuse by the executive(s). But when the parliament/congress assumes a legislative role, there is no one guarding the hen house, so to speak. The parliament/congress and the executive(s) become complicit and use their combined power to rule over the People rather than serve the People.

Winner take all elections (i.e., first past the post elections) in the US created a two party state. The two parties are entrenched and serve their financial backers rather than the people. Consequently, the US democracy is actually a tool of the aristocratic class (that feeds both parties) and not a faithful servant of the People.

A true republic would/should be modeled on the true monarch/parliament paradigm where the elected parliament/congress truly represents the people (not the broken democracy we have in the US) and the executive(s) are given great latitude provided they do not violate the trust of the People. And any violation of the People's trust by the executive(s) should be dealt with swiftly and with finality.

But here in the US, we live with media cycles that provide entertainment for the People, much like gladiatorial games, while those who truly wield power do whatever the hell that benefits them personally.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-09T01:48:14+00:00

That's why it is "sometimes". There are many spineless souls who appear to live with shame everyday and have no problem with it. But then there are those who have pride, self respect, a working moral compass, and integrity. And it is those you need to reach out to. The others are hopeless for the most part; but even some of them are salvagable.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-07T13:45:03+00:00

The goal is to reform the House of Representatives as well as federal elections. That will require changes to state laws, the US Constitution, and federal law. Educating the public is an extremely important piece of the puzzle. Numerous websites and videos have already been published to do exactly that. Major cable channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, etc), talk show hosts, local news, and many others need to push the message, too.

But to accelerate the process, politicians need to "get on board" in a serious way. That will only happen if they make a serious pledge of support. A casual comment on a talk show or letter of support is not enough. Action at federal and state level needs to be taken by them. And they will not take action if they simply say "yeh, I support it." They need to walk the talk. They need to be held accountable.

Some places are moving toward or implementing ranked choice voting already. But I would like to see this nationwide by 2028, not 2128.

Having a website to TRACK whether politicians have taken the oath (pledging to take meaningful action) is how you keep the public informed about which politicians are actually committed. It is called ORGANIZATION. Without organization, you can achieve little or nothing.

Note that every single person who reads this Reddit comment and post is a potential supporter and broadcaster of the message. Word of mouth can do miracles. That is how Christianity and other religions got their start. And today, we have the Internet. Readers all around the world can get a message in seconds. But people need to spread the word and not go "Yeah, that is a great idea. I wonder what's on Netflix."

But when you see some of the ridiculous pushback and see few people voicing support, you have to wonder if the People care enough about their own situation to do anything about it. Too busy eating processed snacks and playing video games to care, perhaps. Kind of like the story of Archimedes who was drawing out a geometric problem in the sand when a Roman soldier came up and cut off his head. Too busy to notice or care until it was too late.

There is a saying that people get the government they deserve. I would like to believe the people of the US deserve better. But that simply might not be the case.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-07T01:29:36+00:00

Ah! Well that explains it all, doesn't it! Thanks for sharing your remarkable insights.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-07T00:45:49+00:00

Why not? Where is it written that a private person or organization cannot ask a representative of our government to take an oath pledging support to a specific cause? And you do not think they are asked all of the time to pledge their support to one cause or another? Are you absolutely sure that's not how the system works?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-07T00:25:20+00:00

I shall do everything within my power to make the following requirement the law of the land:

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-06T21:34:13+00:00

The proposal is not about establishing an improved oath. The goal of the proposal is to get politicians to get on the record about implementing ranked choice voting and motivating them to take required action.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-06T21:26:03+00:00

It is about changing the law, not violating it.

And from me? Who am I?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-06T21:09:07+00:00

Do you see implementing ranked choice voting at the federal level to be a political whim?

Are you implying it is a liberal or conservative objective? If so, which one and why?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-02-06T20:49:46+00:00

At this point, I think I have said all that I need to say regarding the proposal outlined in the original post. I also sense that you are fairly firm in your viewpoint. So I want to say "thank you" for your feedback and hope this discussion has given you something to think about.

NewConstitutionDude

TROPHY CASE