Beginning Essay on truth -- not harm -- as the central focus

Bipartisanship isn't an American value.
Monfd
American values are truth, justice for all, and lack of political parties.
dk57
CA-39 is within 130 votes of flipping
Monfd
(George Washington famously noted in his farewell address that political parties were immensely dangerous)
dk57
to dem
dk57
i'm sure they'll do a recount, but sucks we couldnt pick up this one.
Monfd
So, all you have to do is ensure you're being truthful with an eye on justice for all and you've met your duties. There's no additional 'bipartisan' duty.
Monfd
Bipartisanship is entirely an artifact of a two-party system, which is an artifact of our first-past-the-post voting system, which is strictly worse to several alternatives.
stratum__ has joined (~strata@chattin.online)
stratum__ is now known as stratum`
Monfd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Political_parties
Monfd
His concern is exactly what has happened in the last few decades.
Monfd
So, again, why is bipartisanship an anti-value? It perpetuates the myth that people can seek the interests of the republic while in political parties, which is largely false.
fieryUSA
jeff flake wanting to protect the mueller investigation is a show of bipartisanship.  mcconnell cockblocking that bill, with his tiny little turtle dick, is NOT a show of bipartisanship.
Monfd
Jeff Flake's actions are not to be understood as bipartisan, but rather as serving the interests of the republic.
Monfd
It's in the interests of the republic to continue the investigation into Trump, as the publicly available evidence indicates it's extremely likely he's guilty of dozens of felonies.
Monfd
fieryUSA: Remember, the GOP and Democrat Parties are merely private organizations that exist inside the republic.
Thor_dk
Monfd: What do you think would change the political landscape, so that parties would disappear?
Monfd
The unbelievable propaganda job both parties have done in having us identify our republic with them is extremely dangerous for the long-term health of the republic.
Monfd
Thor_dk: Great question. There are a number of things we can do and we could rank them by feasibility and effect if enacted.
Monfd
The primary thrust to reduce factionalism/partisanship has to be the exaltation of science above the law, in general.
Monfd
To wit, it is know that first-past-the-post is *strictly inferior* to alternatives, i.e. it's not on the Pareto frontier of voting optimality and so must be replaced.
Monfd
2. A national voting scheme for president.
Monfd
3. A constitutional restriction on enacting any legislation with is anti-science.
Monfd
4. A constitutional recognition that violation of science is to be understood as an attack on the republic/serious crime.
Monfd
For example, any politician that speaks in a way contradictory to human accumulated knowledge is to be removed from office.
Monfd
5. Restrictions on mass media to block them from presenting non-factual accounts or restrictions on who can vote, i.e. a test to vote.
Monfd
For example, you can watch unrestricted media, but then you need to demonstrate you still live in the evidence-based reality.
Monfd
I'd like to see a general cultural shift, possibly enforced by law, that general lying while in any position of power is criminal.
Monfd
So, truth is definitely a current value in our legal system, but harm is more central. I think it may be necessary to push truth to the same level as harm, or even higher.
Monfd
Probably higher.
Monfd
Human brains immediately understand the harm that occurs when a person does a violent crime against an individual, but that same mind struggles to appreciate how much worse, for example, it is when Tucker Carlson lies on "Fox News".
Monfd
Our current legal system looks for direct harm for which Tucker Carlson is fairly immediately culpable for, but this vulnerable to stochastic terrorism, a phenomenon only named in 2012.
Monfd
Those are a few ideas. :)
Monfd
(Thomas Jefferson famously argued America should rewrite its Constitution every 14-19 years, in case any of these ideas seem 'extreme' by 18th century standards)