Bolsonaro's Presidency

[Endus]

I'm never going to argue against the separation of powers. I'm just making assumptions about Canada that clearly showcase I have no fucking clue about the Canadian Government lol.

Honestly, I'm more thinking about the US, the Canadian system seems to work fine from the outside. Sure, you love to hate Trudeau for some reason, but it ain't as if he's Trump's little cousin, he's the typical head of a state from what I can tell. Doesn't rock the boat too much, tries to do what he can with Parliament blocking him whenever they can... something like that?

Not particularly. The PM has pretty limited power, actually. If there's a majority government (the PM's party holds better than 50% of seats), chances are they can pass whatever they want into law. If a minority, they need to get some support from opposition parties, but the NDP are often up for that, as long as it aligns with their views too. And the PM isn't the one proposing bills and such; that's generally other Members of Parliament.

Democracy is directly based on the perpetual consent of the governed or non-violent opposition to current leadership. Non-democracies are not.

This is not true.

It's a term that emerged solely in response to concepts like the "divine right of kings". The "consent of the governed" exists in nearly all forms of government, even kingships, because that king only gets to go on about their "divine right" as long as the peasants don't rise up and tear the whole thing down.

That's all "consent of the governed" boils down to.

For instance, Stalin's regime had the "consent of the governed". So did Hitler's. So did Saddam Hussein's. You're misusing the phrase; it has no direct connection to democracy in any way whatsoever.

Right you're pro-democracy but you just want to question its validity. Similarly you're not a communist but you always jump to defend communism every time it is criticized.

Feel free to dig through my 67,000ish posts and find any where I support communism.

Just one.

I'll pre-emptively note that I won't accept posts where I just point to historical facts or just describe communist theory and its principles, as neither of those are "support" or "defense", just establishing a fact-based standard.

[tehealadin]

Uh, immunity doesn't mean there's no oversight. There should absolutely be a political process to watch over the national budget. And if that gets violated, there should be rules about that as well.

Look, I don't want to fight too hard about immunity. I just want to preserve the protection of political offices. The ideal state for a politician is that he only has to answer to his own conscience and convictions. And as far as I'm concerned, whatever you can do to provide that kind of security for him by removing the bribery incentives and/or making sure he'll never be uh... hounded for having the "wrong conviction", I'm game with that. But you must ensure that there's no trolling with charges etc.. fuck, I'm missing a word here, it's like threatening to basically make your life a misery if you don't comply.

I think we will have to agree to disagree, to an extent at least. The last thing I will say here is I do disagree with immunity- I think elected officials should have to uphold the law, I think it is more important for them than any other group, given that their position gives them power, for me one of the points behind democracy was to hold power to account and move away from unaccountable power. And I believe to achieve this, politicians who break the law need to be prosecuted. I know this isn't the world we live in, but I like to believe in a world where everyone is equal under the law, no matter who you are, if prosecution is good enough for someone on benefits then it has to be the same for the leader of a country, no exceptions, when you have unequal standards, it rings hollow when people complain that the "wrong ones" start breaking the law, people have a sense of fairness, and this breeds anger and resentment when there is a sense (real or imagined) of unfairness that damages institutions.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not true.

It's a term that emerged solely in response to concepts like the "divine right of kings". The "consent of the governed" exists in nearly all forms of government, even kingships, because that king only gets to go on about their "divine right" as long as the peasants don't rise up and tear the whole thing down.

That's all "consent of the governed" boils down to.

I disagree with this to an extent, though take your point that technically all forms of government rely on consent, however in a mature democracy it is much more freely given, in dictatorships/authoritarian regimes the consent is coerced via intimidation, in a functioning democracy the secret police don't kick your door down in the middle of the night for voting the wrong way, the idea of consent manifests itself in a very different way in developed democracies in the West versus the Stalinist USSR or Nazi Germany etc, to the point where I would argue it is practically different, when the choices are tick a box at the ballot or violent revolution, the idea of governing by consent takes on a polymorphic dimension, so while technically the same, in practice they are very different.

[Slant]

No there's no reason to think there will be a civil war. In the West we're in the process of creating the first immortal civilization. Bank on it.

You shouldn't say that. The idea that society is even remotely close to a finite limit is a myth. In terms of size we've barely even gotten started, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Thinking the West is in the process of establishing an "immortal civilisation" makes you not just foolish but arrogant as well. That is step one of the downfall of every empire, by the way. Go through history and you'll see every single empire say the exact same thing. The Athenians did it, Alexander did it, The Romans did it, The British did it... heck, the Germans did it, too. Except they talked about 1000 years, because why not... in any case, every single regime went away in the end. Even what Endus and I are discussing is just delaying the inevitable.

And the US hegemony will fall too. The question is not if, it's when. And you making the same empty and silly statements tells me that you're really not educated well enough to discuss this. You're completely ignoring all of written human history, you are not learning from the past. You are in fact repeating the same mistakes. I can only hope for the sake of the US that you are the exception and not the rule...

The next step in human societal evolution is to accept that no empire, no regime, no societal seggregation or governance is forever. None. Not a single one. The trick is to reinvent yourself before there's bloodshed. That's the missing link, there's not been many of these fundamental changes without bloodshed. And the task we have is to find a way to orderly move from an old regime to a new regime without killing millions in the process.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we will have to agree to disagree, to an extent at least. The last thing I will say here is I do disagree with immunity- I think elected officials should have to uphold the law, I think it is more important for them than any other group, given that their position gives them power, for me one of the points behind democracy was to hold power to account and move away from unaccountable power. And I believe to achieve this, politicians who break the law need to be prosecuted. I know this isn't the world we live in, but I like to believe in a world where everyone is equal under the law, no matter who you are, if prosecution is good enough for someone on benefits then it has to be the same for the leader of a country, no exceptions, when you have unequal standards, it rings hollow when people complain that the "wrong ones" start breaking the law, people have a sense of fairness, and this breeds anger and resentment when there is a sense (real or imagined) of unfairness that damages institutions.

Well, they are being prosecuted, after their term ends. Immunity doesn't mean amnesty. But for the length of their term, they need to be able to do the job that is critical for the country. They can serve their time later. Unless we're talking capital crimes like murder or somesuch thing. But typically Parliamentary rules have sections that deal with the political process of removing immunity on a case by case basis. Just not by the judiciary, as that would be an interference into the legislative process the judiciary should not be able to get a hand on necessary.

Or maybe it should. I mean, you make good points. But let me ask you, where would it stop? Just breaking the law? What about things you consider against the constitution? But they think it's not. Now what? Who decides that? The Supreme Court. But they can't unless there's a process. So what if you remove their immunity and process them? Should they continue do be in office? What if they lose that trial, you wouldn't want someone unconstitutional in office, right? What if the Supreme Court sides with them? How many weeks were they unable to exercise the duty the people have put upon them? Do you suspend all legislation because one guy is being challenged in court?

It's not all black and white. And separation of power is a very tricky subject. Very tricky. That's why most countries have put down exhaustive rules about when and where they can interfere with each other. Look it up for your country. Sneak preview: All constitutions are very, very restrictive to the max about those interferences.

I don't care much about people's sense of "fairness". It means nothing to me. People are idiots. They are untrained in legal matters. They're shortsighted and emotional. Whenever people talk about something being "fair" or not, it's am emotional gut reaction to things they most likely don't know enough about. And remember, even if it's easy to forget, everyone is innocent until a trial has proven them to be guilty. You'd have to have a very, very solid case built before you should even consider removing immunity. Talking smoking gun area here. Whatever Trump did? Not good enough, honestly. It's take decades to decode what he actually did wrong and where he may have skirted the law.

[tehealadin]

Well, they are being prosecuted, after their term ends. Immunity doesn't mean amnesty. But for the length of their term, they need to be able to do the job that is critical for the country.

I disagree here, if our PM was ousted, the country would be fine, it wouldn't collapse, a replacement would be found, no one is that important that the country would fall apart without them in a position of power. The job needs to be done by someone who abides by the law of the land. I think this is just something we will disagree with. As for other things, we don't have a written constitution in the UK, so things get tricky there. Though I would argue that sending public money to your friends with no oversight, bypassing established norms of tender should qualify for corruption and such a person is not fit for public office.

As to your point about fairness, that ties back to what I was saying about consistency. We need standards that apply to everyone in public office, regardless of political affiliations. That is why everyone being equal under the law is important. And that is why when we aren't, things get messy.

[PC2]

Thinking the West is in the process of establishing an "immortal civilisation" makes you not just foolish but arrogant as well. That is step one of the downfall of every empire, by the way. Go through history and you'll see every single empire say the exact same thing. The Athenians did it, Alexander did it, The Romans did it, The British did it... heck, the Germans did it, too. Except they talked about 1000 years, because why not... in any case, every single regime went away in the end. Even what Endus and I are discussing is just delaying the inevitable.

And the US hegemony will fall too. The question is not if, it's when. And you making the same empty and silly statements tells me that you're really not educated well enough to discuss this. You're completely ignoring all of written human history, you are not learning from the past. You are in fact repeating the same mistakes. I can only hope for the sake of the US that you are the exception and not the rule...

The next step in human societal evolution is to accept that no empire, no regime, no societal seggregation or governance is forever. None. Not a single one. The trick is to reinvent yourself before there's bloodshed. That's the missing link, there's not been many of these fundamental changes without bloodshed. And the task we have is to find a way to orderly move from an old regime to a new regime without killing millions in the process.

It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

And yeah I get it, you're a hardcore pessimist who thinks a downfall is inevitable in the future. You think it's not possible for humans or groups to improve past history and if there was societal failure in the past then that means we must fail in the future. Which is entirely wrong.

[Endus]

The next step in human societal evolution is to accept that no empire, no regime, no societal seggregation or governance is forever. None. Not a single one. The trick is to reinvent yourself before there's bloodshed. That's the missing link, there's not been many of these fundamental changes without bloodshed. And the task we have is to find a way to orderly move from an old regime to a new regime without killing millions in the process.

Ultimately, the central problem is that once people have power, they will do everything they can to retain power. Reinvention requires, necessarily, the death of the "self" that is current governance; those in power must, necessarily, seek to undo themselves and everything they have built. Ultimately, while I can agree with the idea of regular deconstruction and reconstruction, in practice, it will require bloodshed.

The only way to get around that, in the end, would be to find a way to divorce personal self-interest from the governmental process. Perhaps, require all elected officials to sell off all their properties, save their family home and personal vehicle (one). You have a million-dollar business? Sell off all interests in that firm. You have a multi-billion-dollar inheritance? Give it all away. Every goddamned red cent. You have a retirement account? Purge every last dime.

In recompense, you'll get paid a salary while in office, and are not entitled to draw income from any other sources, not even gifts. Same applies to your spouse, if any, and you'll be expected to declare a conflict of interest when it comes to anything that might affect any business your family has involvement with; if one of your kids works for an oil company, you abstain from every vote based on that industry.

You get your salary and that is it. When you're done, you draw your pension, which will be generous, but that's the only thing you should have as income at that point. You'll retire in a decent level of upper-middle-class retiree comfort, and can be satisfied with the legacy of your work in office.

If that's not enough for you, get the fuck out of politics. Good riddance.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

You don't have any clue what you're talking about.

The Nazis were part of that "re-invention". So was Stalinist communism. So was the slave empire of early America. So was Jim Crow and its legacy. You're confusing "change" with "improvement", and history clearly demonstrates that is not a correlation.

You're also mistaking that said "re-invention" is generally incredibly violent in nature. It does not come about peacefully.

[Slant]

It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

And yeah I get it, you're a hardcore pessimist who thinks a downfall is inevitable in the future. You think it's not possible for humans or groups to improve past history and if there was societal failure in the past then that means we must fail in the future. Which is entirely wrong.

A few reforms aren't a reinvention. I'm takling the evolution from chief to king to dictator to republic. I'm talking diametrically opposing forms of Government. You're talking about twisting a few dials in the "Democracy machine". That's not even remotely the same.

I'm talking about a system we haven't even gotten a name for yet.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm just aware of history. And I reject the idiotic optimism that some people in some regions on the planet subscribe to so readily. Especially when that optimism is entirely unfonded in the face of millenia of human history.

- - - Updated - - -

Ultimately, the central problem is that once people have power, they will do everything they can to retain power. Reinvention requires, necessarily, the death of the "self" that is current governance; those in power must, necessarily, seek to undo themselves and everything they have built. Ultimately, while I can agree with the idea of regular deconstruction and reconstruction, in practice, it will require bloodshed.

The only way to get around that, in the end, would be to find a way to divorce personal self-interest from the governmental process. Perhaps, require all elected officials to sell off all their properties, save their family home and personal vehicle (one). You have a million-dollar business? Sell off all interests in that firm. You have a multi-billion-dollar inheritance? Give it all away. Every goddamned red cent. You have a retirement account? Purge every last dime.

In recompense, you'll get paid a salary while in office, and are not entitled to draw income from any other sources, not even gifts. Same applies to your spouse, if any, and you'll be expected to declare a conflict of interest when it comes to anything that might affect any business your family has involvement with; if one of your kids works for an oil company, you abstain from every vote based on that industry.

You get your salary and that is it. When you're done, you draw your pension, which will be generous, but that's the only thing you should have as income at that point. You'll retire in a decent level of upper-middle-class retiree comfort, and can be satisfied with the legacy of your work in office.

If that's not enough for you, get the fuck out of politics. Good riddance.

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. This is the philosophical discussion you promised me earlier. I like the way you're thinking. It also ties in with a current problem: North Korea. How do you convince an evil dictator to abdictate if you can't also promise him amnesty for everything he's done? Would that make it easier to "fix" problematic countries? Or do you have to wait for the current guy to die and then hope the die lucks out on a "good reformer" like Gorbachev?

I think part of this problem is human's inability to actually forgive. Our need to retaliate, to seek justice at all costs.

And I agree with the aspect about self-interest. It made me speculate about AI running our Governments. I know it's crazy for all the obvious reasons, but... is it? It would solve the problem of human greed for power.

Ultimately, your scenario is something I could live with. It would steer people that are actually passionate about politics into the career path and move people that are in it for power or greed away from it. The true servant of the people type of job.

[Shadowferal]

It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

Oh please. You're just wishing this were true. As usual you've nothing to go on but empty claims.

[Edge-]

The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism.

This is begging for an actual definition and explanation, because it sure as heck seems verifiably false on many levels as-is.

Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

This is an empty, unsupported statement? Re-invention doesn't have any connection to "improvement", and it ignores practical realities where a "re-invention" may not be possible.

And yeah I get it, you're a hardcore pessimist who thinks a downfall is inevitable in the future.

No, you just live in a magical, fictional land of sunshine and roses where the only thing you need to tackle the biggest, most pressing issues that have plagued us for decades/centuries is just a little bit of optimism and everything will be alright.

You think it's not possible for humans or groups to improve past history and if there was societal failure in the past then that means we must fail in the future. Which is entirely wrong.

No, it's being realistic and not thinking that things will always turn into sunshine and roses. Look at labor rights, for example. We've made progress, then we've slid back considerably. We'll make more progress, hopefully, but will slide back again.

Because reality isn't as simple as your world view requires it to be, which is why you exist in fantasy land more often than not.

Bolsonaro is kinda a pretty good example of why the whole, "We'll figure things out, don't worry." viewpoint remains nonsense. Could it lead to improvements? Possibly, but first he's gonna drag Brazil back into the muck first, and he'll fight kicking and screaming to maintain his power so he can call everyone he doesn't like a "gay" because they want to do something like protect the rain forest.

[Flarelaine]

In autocracies the kleptocrats and the corrupt thieves prosecute you for being discontent with the scraps off the table.

Tell me about it.

[PC2]

Bolsonaro is kinda a pretty good example of why the whole, "We'll figure things out, don't worry." viewpoint remains nonsense. Could it lead to improvements? Possibly, but first he's gonna drag Brazil back into the muck first, and he'll fight kicking and screaming to maintain his power so he can call everyone he doesn't like a "gay" because they want to do something like protect the rain forest.

I guess it's good to get back on topic here, which I hate it when the topic is about a person... I like how Bolsonaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil. However ultimately I view both the left(labor, PT) and the right wing as having sub-optimal policies and all the world needs from politics is to gradually implement more and more (neo)liberal policies.

Brazil probably isn't going to do that anytime soon so I suspect they will just keep chugging along and making slow progress in spite of their historical and current leadership. Bolsonaro was just a release valve that needed to happen, he did his job but I don't think his politics is going anywhere in the coming years and decades.

[Edge-]

I like how Bolsanaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil.

And replaced it with a hateful, anti-science, anti-thinking regime that calls everyone they don't like "gay" and cheers on clearcutting the rainforest. Not exactly an improvement.

Odd that you'd think that's a "good" thing.

Brazil probably isn't going to do that anytime soon so I suspect they will just keep chugging along and making slow progress

They're regressing right now dude, not progressing.

Bolsanaro was just a release valve that needed to happen

"Those racist, hateful, homophobic people just need to blow off some steam every now and then!"

Not a great argument either.

[Skulltaker]

It might be time to start having some serious philosophical discussions about the validity of democracy as a model.

The mantra was always that it prevented extreme viewpoints by requiring the support of the masses, and frankly, the last decade or so have shown that to be an outright fuckin' lie.

I say this as someone who's always supported democratic ideals and who doesn't have an answer.

The core issue is human nature. As long as you have people willing to step over others for their own personal gain, there's no hope in betterment, no matter the system of gouvernment. We consider ourselves advanced because we furthered technology and implemented basic human rights, and yet they are trampled everywhere on the globe left right and center. Humanity hasn't evolved since 500 BC, properly even longer. You still have decent people being screwed over by assholes, the methods have just gotten more refined, and that's all.

[JohnBrown1917]

I guess it's good to get back on topic here, which I hate it when the topic is about a person... I like how Bolsonaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil. However ultimately I view both the left(labor, PT) and the right wing as having sub-optimal policies and all the world needs from politics is to gradually implement more and more (neo)liberal policies.

Brazil probably isn't going to do that anytime soon so I suspect they will just keep chugging along and making slow progress in spite of their historical and current leadership. Bolsonaro was just a release valve that needed to happen, he did his job but I don't think his politics is going anywhere in the coming years and decades.

Yeah, he did such a good job that Lula is now free and at around 55% in the polls, 33% ahead of Bolsonaro.


But no surprise you loved him trying to shut down the left with whatever hard-handed means he could.

[Santti]

And replaced it with a hateful, anti-science, anti-thinking regime that calls everyone they don't like "gay" and cheers on clearcutting the rainforest. Not exactly an improvement.

Odd that you'd think that's a "good" thing.

He's a Trumpster. Cheering for an undemocratic strongman is not that odd. In fact, It's entirely expected.

[PC2]

And replaced it with a hateful, anti-science, anti-thinking regime that calls everyone they don't like "gay" and cheers on clearcutting the rainforest. Not exactly an improvement.

Odd that you'd think that's a "good" thing.

They're regressing right now dude, not progressing.

"Those racist, hateful, homophobic people just need to blow off some steam every now and then!"

Not a great argument either.

I think they should deregulate and clearcut parts of the forest if they can sustain an on-going stream of resource/wealth creation from the plot. If that cannot be sustained then I disagree with clearcutting for very short-term profits.

As far as social issues the solution is to convince right wingers that personal liberty is better than social restrictions unless they can prove harm. Right wingers often believe in supernatural stuff and that there will be repercussions for anything they view as "deviant". People like Bolsonaro are not really evil bigots though, they're simply wrong about the idea that homosexuality is improper and has negative consequences. LGBT acceptance actually has positive consequences because it gives people more options to figure out who they are and live their best life.

[Shadowferal]

I think they should deregulate and clearcut parts of the forest if they can sustain an on-going stream of resource/wealth creation from the plot. If that cannot be sustained then I disagree with clearcutting for very short-term profits. .

oh, you mean fuck the indigenous people living in the Amazon.... Coming from you that doesn't surprise anyone.

[uuuhname]

I think they should deregulate and clearcut parts of the forest if they can sustain an on-going stream of resource/wealth creation from the plot. If that cannot be sustained then I disagree with clearcutting for very short-term profits.

at what point, at any time in history has the desire for "sustainability" ever been a thing capitalists care about? I bet you think Dodo's still walk the earth...

[Edge-]

I think they should deregulate and clearcut parts of the forest if they can sustain an on-going stream of resource/wealth creation from the plot. If that cannot be sustained then I disagree with clearcutting for very short-term profits.

And the environmental impacts? The loss of a massive store of carbon? The damage to the native species and related ecosystems? The people living in these forests for hundreds/thousands of years? All of that is just like, trivial and inconsequential?

No wonder you don't think global climate change matters, because you don't understand anything about it, apparently.

People like Bolsonaro are not really evil bigots though

Yes, they are. Stop carrying water for them.

LGBT acceptance actually has positive consequences because it gives people more options to figure out who they are and live their best life.

This is true. Which is why it's so strange that you view hostility towards these people as "oh, they are just wrong, they're not bad." rather than, "The people attacking this long oppressed group are awful, vile human beings."

[uuuhname]

This is true. Which is why it's so strange that you view hostility towards these people as "oh, they are just wrong, they're not bad." rather than, "The people attacking this long oppressed group are awful, vile human beings."

"I care so much about LGBT rights I love it when a right wing president comes in to piss in their cereal." "they totally needed to be taken down a peg or two."