CDZ Can America function like this?

[Tehon]

And sometimes, someone has to be first

It's always me first in the land of opportunity. That's the main cause of our problems of course.

That only pertains to the Oligarchy. They THINK they are the chosen ones...they think they must rule and must attain enormous wealth.

No it doesn't, it's everyone. Our economic system is driven by self interest.

Therein lies the problem. I see nothing wrong with self interest and it is human nature to be self interested. This is what is fundamentally wrong with your ideology. It goes against human nature and as such, is unworkable.

That said, the Oligarchy are the ones taking self interest to a level that is damaging for the country and most of the people. The poor, working, and middle classes can't damage the nation with extreme self interest. The Oligarchy can due to it's ability to control the central government.

As with most things, finding proper balance and equilibrium is the key.

Yes, an economy based purely on self interest is not going to sustain because the inevitable imbalances will lead to destructive reaction. And yes, too much control by a central government will suffocate a free economy and give its people far, far less than it could.

Seems pretty clear to me that we need to keep our eyes and minds open, and find an efficient level of regulation and safety controls that does not retard the dynamics of a capitalist economy too much ("too much", being the key point that must be identified by cooperation).

As usual, binary thinking simply isn't good enough for something this complicated. An open, curious and humble mindset and honest communication are required.
.

It's not complicated, a singular mindset only offers the allusion that it is.

But I agree that we need an honest debate, and that an open mind is a prerequisite.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues?

As your question that follows the one above implies, the issue isn't that "little attention" is paid to issues, but rather that the attention paid is inapt to the issues at hand. All the attention in the world amounts to naught if folks focus on immaterial aspects of the topic/issue. To wit, perusing some of the most heavily posted-in threads on USMB, one sees that overwhelming majority of comments don't actually offer substantive and soundly germane on the topic but rather offer a cacophony of tu quoque, red herring, straw man and other insipid thoughts. Discourse too often is suffused with rhetoric not reason.

Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov​

Plenty of the best and brightest eschew high government service. I mean really...How many U.S. Nobel laureates have held top level positions as the heads of key government organizations or as members of Congress? Are any U.S. science or economics laureates heading any government agencies? What Rhodes or Fulbright scholars have held high elected or appointed office? [1]



Note:

1. The Rhodes Scholars whom I'm aware of and who have held high government service roles are: Bill Bradley, Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, Dean Rusk, Bill Fulbright, Strobe Talbot, Cory Booker, Gen. Wes Clark, and Bobby Jindal.
   
   There may be a Nobel laureate or two holding or who held high elected/appointed office, but none come to mind.

According to Doug Casey we are headed for a disaster...a very bloody disaster. He makes a very good case for it. Divisiveness and hatred for one's political opponents seems to be on the rise in the people, MSM, academy, and central government. We Americans have little in common anymore.


Doug Casey on Why Race Will Break the U.S. Apart, Part I
When the U.S. democracy was started, it was much like that. It was very much like a Greek city-state, an extended one. Everybody shared culture, ethnicity, language, habits, and so forth, with just minor regional differences. People saw themselves first as New Yorkers, Virginians, or whatever, just as the Greeks saw themselves first as Athenians, Thebans, Corinthians, or many scores of other polities.

As you know I don’t believe in democracy, I believe in personal freedom. Democracy is workable enough in something like a cohesive city-state. But absolutely not once voters get involved in economic issues—the poor will always vote themselves a free lunch, and the rich will buy votes to give themselves more. Democracy always devolves into class warfare.

In ancient Greece, if you weren’t a landowner you weren’t respected. In the U.S., voting rules were determined by the States, and originally, everywhere, you had to be a landowner. That meant you had something to lose. But that’s not the case anymore.
Race Will Break the US Apart - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Doug Casey on Why Race Will Break the U.S. Apart, Part II
In the late ‘60s and the early ‘70s, hundreds of bombings took place at universities, banks, and all kinds of places. The National Guard was in cities like Detroit during the riots, and they were raking buildings with .50 caliber machine guns. It was wild.

I don’t think most remember this. At least, I don’t see it being brought up anywhere.

I lived in Washington DC then. It seemed like there was tear gas in the air half the time I went out on a date on a Friday or Saturday night

But as wild and wooly as things were back then, what we have now is much more serious.

The racial element is still there, but the ideological element is even more pronounced.

In those days, people at least talked to each other. You could have a disagreement, and it was a simple difference of opinion.

It’s much worse now. Today, there’s a visceral hatred between the left and the right, between the people that live in the so-called red counties and blue counties.

You add that to the racial situation. Then throw in the fact that the rich are getting richer at an exponential rate while the middle class is disappearing.

And let’s not forget the large-scale subsidized migration of people from totally alien Third World hellholes. This is not what the U.S. was founded on. Before changes in the immigration law that were made in the ‘60s, immigrants were culturally compatible opportunity seekers that were coming to America to improve themselves.

Now, people from all kinds of alien places are being imported by the hundreds of thousands by NGOs; they then go on welfare in enclaves in different places around the country. This is unlikely to end well. The U.S. is no longer a country.

That said, I’m actually for open borders. But it’s only possible if, A, there is zero welfare to attract the wrong types. And, B, all property was privately owned, to help ensure everyone is self-supporting.

Race vs. America - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Before remarking on parts of Mr. Casey's essay, I have to say I don't see what any of it (that you've posted) has to do with my comments in the post to which you've shared his remarks as a reply to mine....I'm sorry but I see no correlation between his thesis and that of my post -- that the best and brightest don't, by and large, hold positions of high elected/appointed office.

(Hell, I think it's a stretch to say his essay even has race and its divisive effects a core theme more so than it's merely an "also mentioned" element in the essay. Maybe you've excerpted elements of his essay and omitted the race-related parts? I haven't clicked on the link yet, so I don't yet know if that's the case. )

 

[usmbguest5318]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

What do you propose, Mac, to get us on a better track? Continually harping on how bad our system is doesn't actually fix it, does it?
I'd love to see Super PACS outlawed. I'd love to see all campaigners allotted a specific amount of money and they can't spend more than that. It will never happen, though, because the exact same people who depend on all that money are the ones who would have to vote in those rules, aren't they?

There is only one way in which D. C. can be changed.

Increase the quality of the citizenry. An immoral citizenry leads to immoral leadership.

??? What?

If one is of a mind that the citizenry is immoral now, on what soundly rational basis might one conclude that the citizenry breeding is doing to do produce not a increased quantity of immoral offspring and instead produce moral offspring? Increasing the number of immoral citizens by breeding them from immoral citizens isn't going to reduce the immorality among the citizenry or its leadership.

 

[flacaltenn]

Politics has always sucked. You might check quotes from Mark Twain. That said because the DNCMSM so hates Trump, they are making it even worse.

No one really successful and smart goes into politics. Only criminals go into politics.

It was said long ago, the worst among us go into politics.

There's a big difference tho. In the 19th century, folks KNEW right from wrong. And the politicians actually were screwing themselves by engaging in finger pointing and mud wrestling. Or it was just amusing. So people who DID wrong eventually got punished when the facts come out.

The difference TODAY IS -- that if you do ANYTHING that your opposite party did FIRST and got AWAY with it -- that heinous act is now longer a sin. You are Atoned and cleansed. No investigation needed. Just move on to the NEXT scandal.

After nearly 100 years of defining deviance down close to zero and no one getting punished, but having the Rehab biz skyrocket, --- there's VIRTUALLY NOTHING a politician can do that will have consequences or moral judgements.

This is the theme of 80% of the threads in USMB Politics. The 2 hypocritical sides stand 20 feet apart shaking spears and spitting and acting like banshees SCREAMING about the fact that the OTHER SIDE did it first. Or the OTHER SIDE did it worse. And the litany of abuses are listed just like squirrel brains Hannity and Wolf lay them out.

And NO ONE comes out of the thread with any INTEGRITY or consistency or victory...

You even see talking head panels square off in this same dysfunctional tribal way. Confront the eternal enemy, manage a draw and go home for dinner.

HELL NO -- we can't survive this way. You're witnessing what happens when only a dozen people from 2 TIRED and CORRUPT and INEPT political parties whip every partisan into line. And PUNISH THEM for speaking out on the hypocrisy of EXCUSING the INEXCUSABLE.

You watching the demise of an Empire. Literally. UNLESS the 2 Brand Name parties are REMOVED from power.

 

[Zander]

We are a nation of snowflakes, fauxraged at everything and everyone. The corporate media shills keep pumping out propaganda like McDonalds Big Macs, ready for mass consumption, and we keep swallowing. The news cycle is filled with endless pablum designed to distract, never inform. We're deeply invested in the Dem/Rep paradigm but there is almost no difference between the parties. It's all a mass distraction. To avoid the obvious. We're fucked.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In ancient Greece, if you weren’t a landowner you weren’t respected. In the U.S., voting rules were determined by the States, and originally, everywhere, you had to be a landowner. That meant you had something to lose. But that’s not the case anymore.

Therein is alluded to one of the central problems in America today: we are living in the "Information Age" under a system designed for an agricultural age. If one were to implement voting restrictions today that are corollaries to those implemented in the 1700s, they'd be based on intellectual acuity, not land ownership.

In the Age of Enlightenment, land ownership was the most significant determinant to one's wealth and ability to thrive in the colonies and United States formed from them. Today, it's largely the possession of a well developed mind that determines one's ability to thrive, and unlike land, that can't really be taken away once one has obtained it and that it cannot bodes well for productive transferability (one's aptness for putting one's mind to "something else" besides that to which one initially devoted it) across both geography and industry.

But as wild and wooly as things were back then, what we have now is much more serious. The racial element is still there, but the ideological element is even more pronounced. In those days, people at least talked to each other. You could have a disagreement, and it was a simple difference of opinion. It’s much worse now.

It works that way among civilized and bright people today as well. What's different is that the disagreements of old that became well known were mostly among the political, social, intellectual and economic elite. (I'm referring to being heard/speaking individually on a broad-based level...national, statewide, citywide or countywide.)

These days, we have social media which is good in that it offers a voice to the non-elites of the country, and that's a good thing to a point insofar as it's good that people who have something germane and of merit to contribute to a discussion should have an easy way of doing so, regardless of their social station or physical location.

What's bad about it, and it's not social media's existence per se, is that a lot of non-elite folks are willing to and do share their thoughts on matters, especially political ones, about which they are not fully informed. There is too another aspect of the problem that has nothing to do with social media -- that today, unlike in the even the 20th century, there is vastly more knowledge, more information to consider with regard to any given issue.

Today, people confound being able to say something with having something worth saying. In the past, people who had only puerile comments on a matter weren't widely heard, whereas today the can be and are. The filter is gone, and that is the problem.

You add that to the racial situation. Then throw in the fact that the rich are getting richer at an exponential rate while the middle class is disappearing.

I'm so sick and tired of sophistic implication concomitant with citing the shrinkage of the middle class, that is, that as we've been experiencing it in late 20th and ongoing 21st centuries in the U.S. is a bad thing. Quite simply, it's not. I'd care about the fact that the middle class is disappearing were it not also true that the middle class' disappearance is overwhelmingly due to their becoming upper income individuals/households. Sorry, but I don't see a problem with middle class folks "movin' on up."

Look at the chart below and do the math.

​

• Middle Income group decreased by 19%: 62% - 43% = 19%.

Where did the members of that 19% go?

• Upper Income group increased by 20%: 49% - 29% = 20%
• Lower income group decreased by 1%: 10% - 9% = 1%

Fewer lower and middle income folks and more upper income folks. What's not to like about that?!? That chart depicts quantities of households as a percentage of the whole, not share of income held by the respective genres of households. Yes, income inequality has increased. Of course it has. How can that not happen when nearly 20% of middle income households have become upper income households?

I mean, really. If one is financially "doing alright," is one truly going to gripe about the fact that others are doing vastly more "alright," and thereby view "everything" through the lens of that difference in "alright-ness," or is one going to take satisfaction in the fact that one is "doing alright" and not get one's panties in a bunch over the fact that someone else far more "alright?"

That said, I’m actually for open borders. But it’s only possible if, A, there is zero welfare to attract the wrong types. And, B, all property was privately owned

What? All property privately owned? That's not even possible, let alone plausible. The lands that have been designated as parks and that is holds many government buildings and the buildings themselves are rarely going to be privately owned. Can you imagine the Pentagon being privately owned? Who's supposed to hold title to Yellowstone park and other wilderness areas that are publicly held so all may enjoy them?

Even ignoring those things, the fact is that about 60% of U.S. land is privately owned. And I've only addressed land, real property, for the most part. What about personal property? Nobody "rents" their personal property from the government. Including personal property may seem outlandish, but I didn't write "all property;" Casey did.

 

[Mac1958]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

What do you propose, Mac, to get us on a better track? Continually harping on how bad our system is doesn't actually fix it, does it?
I'd love to see Super PACS outlawed. I'd love to see all campaigners allotted a specific amount of money and they can't spend more than that. It will never happen, though, because the exact same people who depend on all that money are the ones who would have to vote in those rules, aren't they?

There is only one way in which D. C. can be changed.

Increase the quality of the citizenry. An immoral citizenry leads to immoral leadership.

What would be easier and faster - "Increasing the quality of the citizenry" or just changing the system under which these people have to operate?
.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

1) I don't want the government functioning properly, b/c when it is, we lose freedoms for our own good.
2) Our best and brightest have NEVER been drawn to politics or if they were, they got out.

recall the good Dr that just ran and how he openly felt about how things got done

 

[Mac1958]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

1) I don't want the government functioning properly, b/c when it is, we lose freedoms for our own good.
2) Our best and brightest have NEVER been drawn to politics or if they were, they got out.

recall the good Dr that just ran and how he openly felt about how things got done

Okay, same question I asked another poster who agrees with you: Are you okay with the environment in this country as it pertains to politics?
.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

1) I don't want the government functioning properly, b/c when it is, we lose freedoms for our own good.
2) Our best and brightest have NEVER been drawn to politics or if they were, they got out.

recall the good Dr that just ran and how he openly felt about how things got done

Okay, same question I asked another poster who agrees with you: Are you okay with the environment in this country as it pertains to politics?
.

in the specifics of politics, yes.

in the entire arena, this includes the media spins that have, are and will lead to violence, yes.

America is long overdue for a revolution. We can't vote out the problem, we can only kill off the problem.


cancer won't cure itself and you can't cure cancer with cancer.

 

[Mac1958]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

1) I don't want the government functioning properly, b/c when it is, we lose freedoms for our own good.
2) Our best and brightest have NEVER been drawn to politics or if they were, they got out.

recall the good Dr that just ran and how he openly felt about how things got done

Okay, same question I asked another poster who agrees with you: Are you okay with the environment in this country as it pertains to politics?
.

in the specifics of politics, yes.

in the entire arena, this includes the media spins that have, are and will lead to violence, yes.

America is long overdue for a revolution. We can't vote out the problem, we can only kill off the problem.


cancer won't cure itself and you can't cure cancer with cancer.

Okay - I don't see it, but since I have no choice as to where this is going, I hope you're right.
.

 

[Darkwind]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

What do you propose, Mac, to get us on a better track? Continually harping on how bad our system is doesn't actually fix it, does it?
I'd love to see Super PACS outlawed. I'd love to see all campaigners allotted a specific amount of money and they can't spend more than that. It will never happen, though, because the exact same people who depend on all that money are the ones who would have to vote in those rules, aren't they?

There is only one way in which D. C. can be changed.

Increase the quality of the citizenry. An immoral citizenry leads to immoral leadership.

What would be easier and faster - "Increasing the quality of the citizenry" or just changing the system under which these people have to operate?
.

So you just now demonstrated one of those qualities that America has lost. We used to be a patient people by comparison to today's standard. You want to know how to fix it fast instead of wanting to fix it to last. Short term, short-sighted, solutions that invite corruption without consequences for the outcome.

 

[Mac1958]

If you disagree with the premise, please pipe up, I'd like to hear that too.

It seems to me that national politics have essentially decayed into an ongoing contest of smears, innuendo, accusation, condemnation and conspiracy theories. Not to mention, outright lies. And obviously, if the Democrats gain back control, that certainly is not going to change.

Yes, it has "always been like this". But in the age of the internet, instant news, and fake news, the noise is like nothing ever seen.

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Can the government function properly, can it move the country forward, when so little attention is paid to issues? And when debate of the issues amounts to little more than simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, wedged in between smears and attacks?

2. Do we not think that many of our Best & Brightest are going to stay away from politics because of this trend?
.

What do you propose, Mac, to get us on a better track? Continually harping on how bad our system is doesn't actually fix it, does it?
I'd love to see Super PACS outlawed. I'd love to see all campaigners allotted a specific amount of money and they can't spend more than that. It will never happen, though, because the exact same people who depend on all that money are the ones who would have to vote in those rules, aren't they?

There is only one way in which D. C. can be changed.

Increase the quality of the citizenry. An immoral citizenry leads to immoral leadership.

What would be easier and faster - "Increasing the quality of the citizenry" or just changing the system under which these people have to operate?
.

So you just now demonstrated one of those qualities that America has lost. We used to be a patient people by comparison to today's standard. You want to know how to fix it fast instead of wanting to fix it to last. Short term, short-sighted, solutions that invite corruption without consequences for the outcome.

I don't think that changes to a system based specifically on human nature is just a fast fix. It's a wise and observant thing to do.

Thinking that we're going to change human nature is folly. We can work around the edges, but when a game is clearly flawed, we fix the game.
.

 

[gipper]

That only pertains to the Oligarchy. They THINK they are the chosen ones...they think they must rule and must attain enormous wealth.

No it doesn't, it's everyone. Our economic system is driven by self interest.

Therein lies the problem. I see nothing wrong with self interest and it is human nature to be self interested. This is what is fundamentally wrong with your ideology. It goes against human nature and as such, is unworkable.

That said, the Oligarchy are the ones taking self interest to a level that is damaging for the country and most of the people. The poor, working, and middle classes can't damage the nation with extreme self interest. The Oligarchy can due to it's ability to control the central government.

It's not just political power we are discussing, it's also social power. In the age of technology there are a plethora of outlets available to promote our differing self interests.

It seems to me that your ideology is the one not working. At least if this thread is any indication.

There are no boogeymen. Just people acting in there own interest.

When a central government is owned and controlled by wealthy elites, that government will not do what is right for the majority of the people. You know? Like the USSR and now the USA.

Then why do you support an economic system that provides the means for wealthy people to dominate the people's government?

I don't. Governments that allow this to occur are the problem. It is not the rich I blame, as they always do what they do.

Why do we need government, if it's primary purpose is to protect and enrich the extreme wealthy?

 

[BlackSand]

There's a big difference tho. In the 19th century, folks KNEW right from wrong. And the politicians actually were screwing themselves by engaging in finger pointing and mud wrestling. Or it was just amusing. So people who DID wrong eventually got punished when the facts come out.

The difference TODAY IS -- that if you do ANYTHING that your opposite party did FIRST and got AWAY with it -- that heinous act is now longer a sin. You are Atoned and cleansed. No investigation needed. Just move on to the NEXT scandal.

After nearly 100 years of defining deviance down close to zero and no one getting punished, but having the Rehab biz skyrocket, --- there's VIRTUALLY NOTHING a politician can do that will have consequences or moral judgements.

This is the theme of 80% of the threads in USMB Politics. The 2 hypocritical sides stand 20 feet apart shaking spears and spitting and acting like banshees SCREAMING about the fact that the OTHER SIDE did it first. Or the OTHER SIDE did it worse. And the litany of abuses are listed just like squirrel brains Hannity and Wolf lay them out.

And NO ONE comes out of the thread with any INTEGRITY or consistency or victory...

You even see talking head panels square off in this same dysfunctional tribal way. Confront the eternal enemy, manage a draw and go home for dinner.

HELL NO -- we can't survive this way. You're witnessing what happens when only a dozen people from 2 TIRED and CORRUPT and INEPT political parties whip every partisan into line. And PUNISH THEM for speaking out on the hypocrisy of EXCUSING the INEXCUSABLE.

You watching the demise of an Empire. Literally. UNLESS the 2 Brand Name parties are REMOVED from power.

Take for instance Immediate Gratification ...
You feel hungry, drive up to a box, manage almost incomprehensible communication ... Whalla, bag of food.
You have a question, manage to ask it correctly using a search engine ... Whalla, a selection of answers*.

* If you don't necessarily get the answer you want ... You can rephrase the question until you at least get an answer that might support your warped opinion.
If you follow the suggestions that pop up while you are typing ... There is a chance you may not realize someone is leading you to an answer (more importantly ... their answer).



How that translates into politics and debate ...
First and foremost ... It has given the people a false sense of importance.
It is not the government's business to be concerned with your personal desires nor requirements.
They are there to serve you ... But it isn't a carte blanche menu.

With modern technology ... Communication is a lot faster.
This leads to the misconception that personal needs/desires can be satisfactorily addressed in a more rapid manner as far as legislation is concerned.
People can voice their opinions much quicker ... And debate can be held in a instant.

Hasty debate has hindered our ability to arrive at worthy debate.
A person now can start at either the surface or their core principles ... And easily find corresponding evidence to support their desired direction.
Alter the questions you ask ... Tailor the responses you get ... Whalla, an answer that suits your purpose/desire*.

*What you really end up with is an overwhelming, ever expanding pool of minutia ... Predetermined results to answer a faulty hypothesis.
A plethora of easily accessible data ... Used to support poorly constructed debate ... Provides us with a house of cards in personal validation to satisfy immediate gratification.

Go ahead ... Ask me for a link to that!



How that makes a difference in government, our political environment and accountability ...
First off ... People have become way too dependent on government as a desired response to their immediate problems.
It is always easier to relinquish your personal responsibility to a greater power in hopes of accomplishing something*.

*That doesn't necessarily mean that what you want to accomplish is any of the government's business nor responsibility.
Burdening the government and the idiots in charge ... With a task they are incapable of effectively and efficiently accomplishing ... Is a stupid idea as well as a less than sustainable solution.

Then the desire to have our needs immediately addressed ... Skips the step where we should look at what we can do versus what we require the government for.
That leads to dissatisfaction for one group or another ... But not towards the desire to compromise on anything*.

*Compromise has sufficiently been transformed into surrender.
One side of the argument has replaced leverage with demand ... And compromise can only be accomplished if their demands are met.

Accountability is completely gone ... It is so polluted by the minutia ... Failure is expected as part of success.
Failure is inconsequential ... Because we can always jump to the next best thing government can do*.

*In times past ... The public was not so easily distracted by an abundance of garbage thrown in their face.
If their Representatives had been goofing around ... They were less likely to be appeased by the candy thrown from the train upon the politician's return home.



Aw, crap ... I could ramble on about this mess for hours ... Thinking about some Hot Wings from Kentucky Fried instead.
Good Luck ...

.

 

[gipper]

In ancient Greece, if you weren’t a landowner you weren’t respected. In the U.S., voting rules were determined by the States, and originally, everywhere, you had to be a landowner. That meant you had something to lose. But that’s not the case anymore.

Therein is alluded to one of the central problems in America today: we are living in the "Information Age" under a system designed for an agricultural age. If one were to implement voting restrictions today that are corollaries to those implemented in the 1700s, they'd be based on intellectual acuity, not land ownership.

In the Age of Enlightenment, land ownership was the most significant determinant to one's wealth and ability to thrive in the colonies and United States formed from them. Today, it's largely the possession of a well developed mind that determines one's ability to thrive, and unlike land, that can't really be taken away once one has obtained it and that it cannot bodes well for productive transferability (one's aptness for putting one's mind to "something else" besides that to which one initially devoted it) across both geography and industry.

But as wild and wooly as things were back then, what we have now is much more serious. The racial element is still there, but the ideological element is even more pronounced. In those days, people at least talked to each other. You could have a disagreement, and it was a simple difference of opinion. It’s much worse now.

It works that way among civilized and bright people today as well. What's different is that the disagreements of old that became well known were mostly among the political, social, intellectual and economic elite. (I'm referring to being heard/speaking individually on a broad-based level...national, statewide, citywide or countywide.)

These days, we have social media which is good in that it offers a voice to the non-elites of the country, and that's a good thing to a point insofar as it's good that people who have something germane and of merit to contribute to a discussion should have an easy way of doing so, regardless of their social station or physical location.

What's bad about it, and it's not social media's existence per se, is that a lot of non-elite folks are willing to and do share their thoughts on matters, especially political ones, about which they are not fully informed. There is too another aspect of the problem that has nothing to do with social media -- that today, unlike in the even the 20th century, there is vastly more knowledge, more information to consider with regard to any given issue.

Today, people confound being able to say something with having something worth saying. In the past, people who had only puerile comments on a matter weren't widely heard, whereas today the can be and are. The filter is gone, and that is the problem.

You add that to the racial situation. Then throw in the fact that the rich are getting richer at an exponential rate while the middle class is disappearing.

I'm so sick and tired of sophistic implication concomitant with citing the shrinkage of the middle class, that is, that as we've been experiencing it in late 20th and ongoing 21st centuries in the U.S. is a bad thing. Quite simply, it's not. I'd care about the fact that the middle class is disappearing were it not also true that the middle class' disappearance is overwhelmingly due to their becoming upper income individuals/households. Sorry, but I don't see a problem with middle class folks "movin' on up."

Look at the chart below and do the math.

​

• Middle Income group decreased by 19%: 62% - 43% = 19%.

Where did the members of that 19% go?

• Upper Income group increased by 20%: 49% - 29% = 20%
• Lower income group decreased by 1%: 10% - 9% = 1%

Fewer lower and middle income folks and more upper income folks. What's not to like about that?!? That chart depicts quantities of households as a percentage of the whole, not share of income held by the respective genres of households. Yes, income inequality has increased. Of course it has. How can that not happen when nearly 20% of middle income households have become upper income households?

I mean, really. If one is financially "doing alright," is one truly going to gripe about the fact that others are doing vastly more "alright," and thereby view "everything" through the lens of that difference in "alright-ness," or is one going to take satisfaction in the fact that one is "doing alright" and not get one's panties in a bunch over the fact that someone else far more "alright?"

That said, I’m actually for open borders. But it’s only possible if, A, there is zero welfare to attract the wrong types. And, B, all property was privately owned

What? All property privately owned? That's not even possible, let alone plausible. The lands that have been designated as parks and that is holds many government buildings and the buildings themselves are rarely going to be privately owned. Can you imagine the Pentagon being privately owned? Who's supposed to hold title to Yellowstone park and other wilderness areas that are publicly held so all may enjoy them?

Even ignoring those things, the fact is that about 60% of U.S. land is privately owned. And I've only addressed land, real property, for the most part. What about personal property? Nobody "rents" their personal property from the government. Including personal property may seem outlandish, but I didn't write "all property;" Casey did.

Does this make sense to you?

A concise answer works best.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In ancient Greece, if you weren’t a landowner you weren’t respected. In the U.S., voting rules were determined by the States, and originally, everywhere, you had to be a landowner. That meant you had something to lose. But that’s not the case anymore.

Therein is alluded to one of the central problems in America today: we are living in the "Information Age" under a system designed for an agricultural age. If one were to implement voting restrictions today that are corollaries to those implemented in the 1700s, they'd be based on intellectual acuity, not land ownership.

In the Age of Enlightenment, land ownership was the most significant determinant to one's wealth and ability to thrive in the colonies and United States formed from them. Today, it's largely the possession of a well developed mind that determines one's ability to thrive, and unlike land, that can't really be taken away once one has obtained it and that it cannot bodes well for productive transferability (one's aptness for putting one's mind to "something else" besides that to which one initially devoted it) across both geography and industry.

But as wild and wooly as things were back then, what we have now is much more serious. The racial element is still there, but the ideological element is even more pronounced. In those days, people at least talked to each other. You could have a disagreement, and it was a simple difference of opinion. It’s much worse now.

It works that way among civilized and bright people today as well. What's different is that the disagreements of old that became well known were mostly among the political, social, intellectual and economic elite. (I'm referring to being heard/speaking individually on a broad-based level...national, statewide, citywide or countywide.)

These days, we have social media which is good in that it offers a voice to the non-elites of the country, and that's a good thing to a point insofar as it's good that people who have something germane and of merit to contribute to a discussion should have an easy way of doing so, regardless of their social station or physical location.

What's bad about it, and it's not social media's existence per se, is that a lot of non-elite folks are willing to and do share their thoughts on matters, especially political ones, about which they are not fully informed. There is too another aspect of the problem that has nothing to do with social media -- that today, unlike in the even the 20th century, there is vastly more knowledge, more information to consider with regard to any given issue.

Today, people confound being able to say something with having something worth saying. In the past, people who had only puerile comments on a matter weren't widely heard, whereas today the can be and are. The filter is gone, and that is the problem.

You add that to the racial situation. Then throw in the fact that the rich are getting richer at an exponential rate while the middle class is disappearing.

I'm so sick and tired of sophistic implication concomitant with citing the shrinkage of the middle class, that is, that as we've been experiencing it in late 20th and ongoing 21st centuries in the U.S. is a bad thing. Quite simply, it's not. I'd care about the fact that the middle class is disappearing were it not also true that the middle class' disappearance is overwhelmingly due to their becoming upper income individuals/households. Sorry, but I don't see a problem with middle class folks "movin' on up."

Look at the chart below and do the math.

​

• Middle Income group decreased by 19%: 62% - 43% = 19%.

Where did the members of that 19% go?

• Upper Income group increased by 20%: 49% - 29% = 20%
• Lower income group decreased by 1%: 10% - 9% = 1%

Fewer lower and middle income folks and more upper income folks. What's not to like about that?!? That chart depicts quantities of households as a percentage of the whole, not share of income held by the respective genres of households. Yes, income inequality has increased. Of course it has. How can that not happen when nearly 20% of middle income households have become upper income households?

I mean, really. If one is financially "doing alright," is one truly going to gripe about the fact that others are doing vastly more "alright," and thereby view "everything" through the lens of that difference in "alright-ness," or is one going to take satisfaction in the fact that one is "doing alright" and not get one's panties in a bunch over the fact that someone else far more "alright?"

That said, I’m actually for open borders. But it’s only possible if, A, there is zero welfare to attract the wrong types. And, B, all property was privately owned

What? All property privately owned? That's not even possible, let alone plausible. The lands that have been designated as parks and that is holds many government buildings and the buildings themselves are rarely going to be privately owned. Can you imagine the Pentagon being privately owned? Who's supposed to hold title to Yellowstone park and other wilderness areas that are publicly held so all may enjoy them?

Even ignoring those things, the fact is that about 60% of U.S. land is privately owned. And I've only addressed land, real property, for the most part. What about personal property? Nobody "rents" their personal property from the government. Including personal property may seem outlandish, but I didn't write "all property;" Casey did.

Does this make sense to you?

A concise answer works best.

And Gilens and Page's opinion/survey results have what to do with my posted comments to which you've shared them as a reply? Please be specific with regard to which of my points they either amplify or refute.

 

[Tehon]

No it doesn't, it's everyone. Our economic system is driven by self interest.

Therein lies the problem. I see nothing wrong with self interest and it is human nature to be self interested. This is what is fundamentally wrong with your ideology. It goes against human nature and as such, is unworkable.

That said, the Oligarchy are the ones taking self interest to a level that is damaging for the country and most of the people. The poor, working, and middle classes can't damage the nation with extreme self interest. The Oligarchy can due to it's ability to control the central government.

It's not just political power we are discussing, it's also social power. In the age of technology there are a plethora of outlets available to promote our differing self interests.

It seems to me that your ideology is the one not working. At least if this thread is any indication.

There are no boogeymen. Just people acting in there own interest.

When a central government is owned and controlled by wealthy elites, that government will not do what is right for the majority of the people. You know? Like the USSR and now the USA.

Then why do you support an economic system that provides the means for wealthy people to dominate the people's government?

I don't. Governments that allow this to occur are the problem. It is not the rich I blame, as they always do what they do.

Why do we need government, if it's primary purpose is to protect and enrich the extreme wealthy?

But you do, and you know it. It's why you deflect to government responsibility. But you're wrong on that count. Government's primary responsibility is to protect liberty not to protect the wealthy. It's wealth that subverts the purpose.

 

[BlackSand]

But you do, and you know it. It's why you deflect to government responsibility. But you're wrong on that count. Government's primary responsibility is to protect liberty not to protect the wealthy. It's wealth that subverts the purpose.

Anyone who looks towards the government to suit their personal interests/gain is looking for something that is not the government's responsibility.
It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor ... The government's responsibility is the same to the rich as it is to the poor.

We are all ... The People!

.

 

[gipper]

Therein lies the problem. I see nothing wrong with self interest and it is human nature to be self interested. This is what is fundamentally wrong with your ideology. It goes against human nature and as such, is unworkable.

That said, the Oligarchy are the ones taking self interest to a level that is damaging for the country and most of the people. The poor, working, and middle classes can't damage the nation with extreme self interest. The Oligarchy can due to it's ability to control the central government.

It's not just political power we are discussing, it's also social power. In the age of technology there are a plethora of outlets available to promote our differing self interests.

It seems to me that your ideology is the one not working. At least if this thread is any indication.

There are no boogeymen. Just people acting in there own interest.

When a central government is owned and controlled by wealthy elites, that government will not do what is right for the majority of the people. You know? Like the USSR and now the USA.

Then why do you support an economic system that provides the means for wealthy people to dominate the people's government?

I don't. Governments that allow this to occur are the problem. It is not the rich I blame, as they always do what they do.

Why do we need government, if it's primary purpose is to protect and enrich the extreme wealthy?

But you do, and you know it. It's why you deflect to government responsibility. But you're wrong on that count. Government's primary responsibility is to protect liberty not to protect the wealthy. It's wealth that subverts the purpose.

Exactly. We agree. Why do you wish to argue?

Government's job should be to protect liberty of all the people. Today our government's job is protecting and enriching the wealthy.