CDZ Can America function like this?

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?

PublicLandsMap2.jpg

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?
23621298_2092316524115541_7695759886330681615_n.jpg


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.
I can't. I generally refuse to read long winded wordy posts, so I didn't read yours. Sorry.
 
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?

PublicLandsMap2.jpg

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?
23621298_2092316524115541_7695759886330681615_n.jpg


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.
I can't. I generally refuse to read long winded wordy posts, so I didn't read yours. Sorry.

Okay....Going forward, would you be mature enough not to respond to my posts that you don't read. I don't mind at all that you don't read them.
 
Okay....Going forward, would you be mature enough not to respond to my posts that you don't read. I don't mind at all that you don't read them.

I am not sure he minds if you mind ... That's the beauty of our modern society.
We are all capable of telling each other we don't give a damn what they think ... :thup:

The idea you have any more maturity in feeling the necessity to pursue a fruitless endeavor in addressing the poster's comment with your objections ...





Well, think again.

.
 
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?
It cant just happen with one person.
Im with you on the spending. I would prefer all federal campaigns be paid for by the tax payers with a small set amount. No need to spend a million dollars on nothing more than saying your opponent wants to run over children with their vehicles.


So, you voted for Hillary?
 
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?
It cant just happen with one person.
Im with you on the spending. I would prefer all federal campaigns be paid for by the tax payers with a small set amount. No need to spend a million dollars on nothing more than saying your opponent wants to run over children with their vehicles.


So, you voted for Hillary?
you sorry sumbitch!
 
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?
It cant just happen with one person.
Im with you on the spending. I would prefer all federal campaigns be paid for by the tax payers with a small set amount. No need to spend a million dollars on nothing more than saying your opponent wants to run over children with their vehicles.


So, you voted for Hillary?
you sorry sumbitch!



Government funded campaigns favor the incumbent.
 
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?
It cant just happen with one person.
Im with you on the spending. I would prefer all federal campaigns be paid for by the tax payers with a small set amount. No need to spend a million dollars on nothing more than saying your opponent wants to run over children with their vehicles.


So, you voted for Hillary?
you sorry sumbitch!



Government funded campaigns favor the incumbent.
seems like the system we have now does as well.
 
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?
It cant just happen with one person.
Im with you on the spending. I would prefer all federal campaigns be paid for by the tax payers with a small set amount. No need to spend a million dollars on nothing more than saying your opponent wants to run over children with their vehicles.


So, you voted for Hillary?
you sorry sumbitch!



Government funded campaigns favor the incumbent.
seems like the system we have now does as well.


Who’s the president?
 
It cant just happen with one person.
Im with you on the spending. I would prefer all federal campaigns be paid for by the tax payers with a small set amount. No need to spend a million dollars on nothing more than saying your opponent wants to run over children with their vehicles.


So, you voted for Hillary?
you sorry sumbitch!



Government funded campaigns favor the incumbent.
seems like the system we have now does as well.


Who’s the president?
Did you really just use term limits as justification? LOL
 
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 ... :thup:

.

There were embers of brilliance there -- in spots. LOL. For instance, there's not a lot of distance between "Instant Gratification" and the Voting strategy of "looking for winners".. Americans don't vote for qualified principled Independents and 3rd parties BECAUSE -- only Repubs and Dems can win. And WINNING is the Pavlovian treat that they desire. NOT GREAT GOVERNANCE.. You lust for WINNERS because you can't allow the "other side" to win.. Another way the 2 party system constantly moves us to the "bottom" when it comes to impressive, NEW names on ballots. That's how you end up with a choice between Clinton the 2nd and Trump the Magnificent. Both meglomaniac Power Whores who hijacked or outright bought their parties.
 
There were embers of brilliance there -- in spots. LOL. For instance, there's not a lot of distance between "Instant Gratification" and the Voting strategy of "looking for winners".. Americans don't vote for qualified principled Independents and 3rd parties BECAUSE -- only Repubs and Dems can win. And WINNING is the Pavlovian treat that they desire. NOT GREAT GOVERNANCE.. You lust for WINNERS because you can't allow the "other side" to win.. Another way the 2 party system constantly moves us to the "bottom" when it comes to impressive, NEW names on ballots. That's how you end up with a choice between Clinton the 2nd and Trump the Magnificent. Both meglomaniac Power Whores who hijacked or outright bought their parties.

A third party candidate ... Wouldn't supply immediate gratification for anyone.
Crap, you would probably have to lose a while before they could make a substantial difference in the political scene.
Are you expecting a third party miracle candidate is going to jump out of a cake and immediately satisfy our needs?

It isn't going to happen chief ... The best people for the job aren't going anywhere near that circus in Washington ... And I don't blame them.
You get what you ask for when you look towards the government for anything ... And it's just a sloppy bag of a lukewarm, poor excuse for "food".

.
 
Are you expecting a third party miracle candidate is going to jump out of a cake and immediately satisfy our needs?

I'm POSITIVE it would have an immediate effect. Let me explain why. You see the diff now when Corker, Flake, McCain are no longer running for office. They can SPEAK OUT against the party bosses and not fear retribution. Same deal with Sanders -- who never was a "loyal party animal"..

Just having a HANDFUL of Indies and 3rd parties there that are not endentured slaves to the 2 parties would make a HUGE difference in the dialogue -- even in the votes. Because THEIR INDEPENDENT concerns would need to be addressed on every CLOSE key vote.

Don't NEED ALL of the power. You just need folks that aren't muzzled and whipped into line..
 
I'm POSITIVE it would have an immediate effect. Let me explain why. You see the diff now when Corker, Flake, McCain are no longer running for office. They can SPEAK OUT against the party bosses and not fear retribution. Same deal with Sanders -- who never was a "loyal party animal"..

Just having a HANDFUL of Indies and 3rd parties there that are not endentured slaves to the 2 parties would make a HUGE difference in the dialogue -- even in the votes. Because THEIR INDEPENDENT concerns would need to be addressed on every CLOSE key vote.

Don't NEED ALL of the power. You just need folks that aren't muzzled and whipped into line..

Don't hold your breath ... I will hate to risk being accused of sexual assault if I have to give you CPR ... :thup:
I would give you CPR ... But let's not go there anyway.

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top