The fundamental problem is the US government has essentially unlimited power (despite the legal basis for its existence, the constitution) and has manipulated the courts and the elections process such that there's little anyone can do about it.
Many of these really egregious bills are unpopular with the majority of americans, but their opinions are not represented by the actions of government. There's little they can do to get real reformers elected because the "two party" system focuses on immaterial differences between the parties and on these issues the parties are pretty close. Most democrats and republicans voted for the PATRIOT ACT (and its renewal and extension under Obama) as well as NDAA, etc.
I'd love for someone to find a way to make democracy work. If there were a way to keep the US government constrained to the powers enumerated for it by the constitution, then we wouldn't have these problems.
But the only "checks and balances" on the government are all part of the government, and thus have long ago been compromised, there's no real oversight.
That's the fundamental problem.
If SOPA is "defeated" it will just rise up under another name in a few months.
SOPA itself is only the latest attempt to do this- they've been attempting to gain this level of control over the internet using the excuse of fighting terrorism for several years now.
The two party system is an inevitable outcome of the election system we have. The game theory dictates it. Switch to approval voting(http://www.electology.org/approval-voting) and we'll have a much more responsive and ethical government.
In a winner take all system, if there are more than two candidates, the dominant effect is the spoiler effect, where having more similar candidates makes it less likely that any will win. This means that anything more than two parties is degenerate, which implies that only the dominant eigenvector of political opinion will ever be reflected in an election. (Which in the US is typically the culture wars/identity politics, unless the economy is falling apart.)
If I'm guessing correctly what you mean by spoiler effect, I guess a 2-stage election does minimize its effects. For instance, in Brazil, a presidential (or gubernatorial, etc) candidate must have a majority (that is, more than 50% of the votes) to win. Suppose in the first-stage we have candidate A with 30%, B with 20%, C with 15%, etc. Then a couple of months later we have a second-stage with candidates A and B. So it's possible that B wins.
I believe in the approval voting that you mention, there's a situation where candidate C would be able to win, which is also interesting.
I've thought a system like this would be great, but it seems like we would end up with so many candidates that it would be difficult to make informed decisions for every one. Then congress would become fragmented with dozens of factions that don't work together. It seems like a system of a small number of large parties (but more than 2, perhaps) would be most efficient. I suspect that there's a solution but couldn't find one in the link.
> Then congress would become fragmented with dozens of factions that don't work together.
That sounds like an excellent outcome. They might actually have to talk to each other, work out solutions that work for everyone, and refrain from doing things they can't all agree on.
This is a pretty empty rant. Nothing about SOPA/PIPA is the product of the government overstepping its Constitutional powers. Whatever else it might be, the internet is a medium of interstate commerce, squarely within Congress's power to regulate. Moreover, the regulation in question concerns a property right created by the Constitution itself.
There are certain due process, etc, arguments you can make at the edges, but the fundamental idea of SOPA/PIPA are squarely Constitutional.
Commerce is legal jargon which doesn't carry the same meaning as regular English. You're misinterpreting it because you're not treating it in its legal context.
There is no magical legal context. What you're referring to is people being dishonest and trying to cheat and get away with violating the constitution by pretending words mean different things. For instance, the power to "regulate" is not the power to ban, though politicians and judges have pretended it is, and many people have been tricked into believing it.
The constitution does not give the federal government the power to limit interstate commerce, only the power to prevent states from imposing tariffs on it.
The regulations in question allow the government to censor websites, something that they are not given the power to do in the establishment clause, and are also strictly forbidden from doing in the first amendment.
If the bills simply entailed the power to require websites to take down IP violating content, then what you say would be true.
The fundamental ideas are not constitutional. I suggest you read the constitution. (Seriously, it was meant to be read. It doesn't take lawyers or judges to interpret it, it is written in pretty plain language.)
> not given the power to do in the establishment clause
What does a prohibition on establishing a national religion have to do with DNS blocking? Perhaps metaphorically, unlimited-copyright is the religion of many politicians, but legally that seems like a stretch...
Many of these really egregious bills are unpopular with the majority of americans, but their opinions are not represented by the actions of government. There's little they can do to get real reformers elected because the "two party" system focuses on immaterial differences between the parties and on these issues the parties are pretty close. Most democrats and republicans voted for the PATRIOT ACT (and its renewal and extension under Obama) as well as NDAA, etc.
I'd love for someone to find a way to make democracy work. If there were a way to keep the US government constrained to the powers enumerated for it by the constitution, then we wouldn't have these problems.
But the only "checks and balances" on the government are all part of the government, and thus have long ago been compromised, there's no real oversight.
That's the fundamental problem.
If SOPA is "defeated" it will just rise up under another name in a few months.
SOPA itself is only the latest attempt to do this- they've been attempting to gain this level of control over the internet using the excuse of fighting terrorism for several years now.