Democracy and Freedom

[Dragon]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from.

Well, sir, I happen to be something of a patriot, so I'm not prepared to give up on the U.S.A. just yet. I'm of the firm persuasion that "America: love it or leave it" does not make much sense, and that the proper motto should be "America: if you love it, work to perfect it."

However, if worse comes to worst, then emigration will indeed be an option. I'm updating my passport and improving my French for that purpose (preferred destination Corsica), and already have a way to make a living anywhere in the world I go, provided I can get Internet access. I'll certainly use all this to pay a visit abroad. Whether I stay will stay, though, remains to be seen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our Republic is a system of Government others have been trying to duplicate all around the World for many many years.

No, they haven't. The following features are common to other advanced democracies that make them work better at translating the people's will into government policies than our system, by far:

1) Proportional representation -- instead of our winner-take-all system of electing Representatives, most advanced nations have some sort of proportional representation. If we had a similar system, and in California (let's say), the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 40%, and the Libertarians and Greens 5% each, that would send 27 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and either 3 Greens and 2 Libertarians or 2 Greens and 3 Libertarians, to Congress. Ours would send right around 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans with no Libs or Greenies at all.

2) Public financing of campaigns -- while they aren't completely immune to corporate influence, most other advanced nations greatly reduce this problem.

3) Shorter campaign seasons -- their campaigns are a lot shorter than ours and a lot less expensive, too.

We're an old, outdated model. Improvements have been discovered and implemented abroad.

There are other countries that do things better than we do.

We could learn from them.

Since you think they do things better there's nothing better than experiencing what you think is good. Pick a country move there. Best way to learn how much a failure you have been lead to believe was a good thing.

Look Socialism will work for people who have lived in that kind of system all their life. Full blown socialism will never work here.

 

[The T]

No, they haven't. The following features are common to other advanced democracies that make them work better at translating the people's will into government policies than our system, by far:

1) Proportional representation -- instead of our winner-take-all system of electing Representatives, most advanced nations have some sort of proportional representation. If we had a similar system, and in California (let's say), the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 40%, and the Libertarians and Greens 5% each, that would send 27 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and either 3 Greens and 2 Libertarians or 2 Greens and 3 Libertarians, to Congress. Ours would send right around 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans with no Libs or Greenies at all.

2) Public financing of campaigns -- while they aren't completely immune to corporate influence, most other advanced nations greatly reduce this problem.

3) Shorter campaign seasons -- their campaigns are a lot shorter than ours and a lot less expensive, too.

We're an old, outdated model. Improvements have been discovered and implemented abroad.

There are other countries that do things better than we do.

We could learn from them.

Since you think they do things better there's nothing better than experiencing what you think is good. Pick a country move there. Best way to learn how much a failure you have been lead to believe was a good thing.

Look Socialism will work for people who have lived in that kind of system all their life. Full blown socialism will never work here.

But if Chris and obama succeed? They will make millions suffer for it.

 

[Dragon]

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal

Ah. So you DON'T believe that the rich should be the ones calling all the shots in government. Glad to hear it.

In that case, you believe in the redistribution of wealth downward, because as soon as government is taken out of the control of the rich, the redistribution of wealth upward that we've seen over the past 30 years will be reversed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from.

Well, sir, I happen to be something of a patriot, so I'm not prepared to give up on the U.S.A. just yet. I'm of the firm persuasion that "America: love it or leave it" does not make much sense, and that the proper motto should be "America: if you love it, work to perfect it."

However, if worse comes to worst, then emigration will indeed be an option. I'm updating my passport and improving my French for that purpose (preferred destination Corsica), and already have a way to make a living anywhere in the world I go, provided I can get Internet access. I'll certainly use all this to pay a visit abroad. Whether I stay will stay, though, remains to be seen.

I'm of the firm persuasion that "America: love it or leave it" does not make much sense, and that the proper motto should be "America: if you love it, work to perfect it."

Your motto and my motto is very different

"America: if you love it, work to protect it" Because it's perfect as is. until the gubernment loving hacks think the government should rise above America.

 

[bripat9643]

The special rights of those who hold property over those who do not.

What "special rights" are those, the right to use their property?

The special rights of creditors over debtors.

Again, what "special rights" are those, the right to collect the money they are owed? Do you think debtors shouldn't be obligated to repay their debts?

If your idea of a social contract includes the idea that the legitimacy of all governments result from an agreement of all its citizens to form one, debtors and those without property are all victims of the 55 rich, racist aristocrats who secretly crafted the US Constitution.

The social contract is a myth conceived to justify organized plunder.

The answer to your question about capitalism's victims is too obvious to warrant an answer. Google "chattel slavery."

It's "obvious" only to lunatics who reject all the fundamental institutions of a just society.

 

[bripat9643]

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal

Ah. So you DON'T believe that the rich should be the ones calling all the shots in government. Glad to hear it.

In that case, you believe in the redistribution of wealth downward, because as soon as government is taken out of the control of the rich, the redistribution of wealth upward that we've seen over the past 30 years will be reversed.

Your belief that government should decide who gets what is where your theory of society collapses.

 

[dblack]

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal

Ah. So you DON'T believe that the rich should be the ones calling all the shots in government. Glad to hear it.

In that case, you believe in the redistribution of wealth downward, because as soon as government is taken out of the control of the rich, the redistribution of wealth upward that we've seen over the past 30 years will be reversed.

Exactly! The problem is, most people (even progressives who say they want that very thing to happen) don't believe that would happen.

 

[georgephillip]

Both countries have corrupt anti-free market governments .

.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Both countries are afflicted with elites who abuse their authority.
Which one do capitalists choose?

And you came to the conclusion that "CAPITALISTS" use either one of those countries how?

.

The US Empire exists to support capitalists.

"Dupuy and other Haiti observers say the (WIKI) cables serve as a warning for future Haiti governments. The U.S. will continue to be 'an invisible and influential'’ member of the government of Haiti until the crisis-prone nation gets its political, social and economic acts together.

“For the U.S., elections have no meaning other than to create the image that Haiti is democratically run and has a democratic government. But that doesn’t mean that with democracy comes autonomy,’’ Dupuy said. 'As long as they think they have someone they can control, they will support them.'’’

WikiLeaks cables show US calling shots in Haiti | McClatchy

 

[dblack]

In that case, you believe in the redistribution of wealth downward, because as soon as government is taken out of the control of the rich, the redistribution of wealth upward that we've seen over the past 30 years will be reversed.

Your belief that government should decide who gets what is where your theory of society collapses.

Can't speak for Dragon, but what I read there is not the government deciding who gets what. It's the government getting out of that business.

 

[bripat9643]

In that case, you believe in the redistribution of wealth downward, because as soon as government is taken out of the control of the rich, the redistribution of wealth upward that we've seen over the past 30 years will be reversed.

Your belief that government should decide who gets what is where your theory of society collapses.

Can't speak for Dragon, but what I read there is not the government deciding who gets what. It's the government getting out of that business.

Then you don't understand dragonspeak. Anyone who claims the government is "redistributing wealth upward" is actually arguing to plunder the wealthy. People like dragon believe that anything short of confiscation of all incomes above a certain level constitutes subsidies to the rich.

 

[Contumacious]

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal

Ah. So you DON'T believe that the rich should be the ones calling all the shots in government. Glad to hear it.

In that case, you believe in the redistribution of wealth downward, because as soon as government is taken out of the control of the rich, the redistribution of wealth upward that we've seen over the past 30 years will be reversed.

You know , I am 60 years old yet , and I can honestly tell you that neither Sam Walton nor Bill Gates came to my house to steal from me.

But I guarantee that had I failed to pay uncle Sam my "fair share" the cocksuckers would have descended to my property and beat me to a pulp.



.

 

[dblack]

You know , I am 60 years old yet , and I can honestly tell you that neither Sam Walton nor Bill Gates came to my house to steal from me.

But I guarantee that had I failed to pay uncle Sam my "fair share" the cocksuckers would have descended to my property and beat me to a pulp.

But it sure looks like the health insurance industry is gearing up to do exactly that, eh?

 

[dblack]

Then you don't understand dragonspeak. Anyone who claims the government is "redistributing wealth upward" is actually arguing to plunder the wealthy. People like dragon believe that anything short of confiscation of all incomes above a certain level constitutes subsidies to the rich.

Well, I'll let Dragon speak for himself. But what I'm saying is that it wouldn't take any 'corrective' redistribution. If we removed the perks and special privilege that many of the rich currently enjoy, they wouldn't be able to hang onto their excess wealth for long. It would find it's way back to the people who deserve it.

 

[Contumacious]

You know , I am 60 years old yet , and I can honestly tell you that neither Sam Walton nor Bill Gates came to my house to steal from me.

But I guarantee that had I failed to pay uncle Sam my "fair share" the cocksuckers would have descended to my property and beat me to a pulp.

But it sure looks like the health insurance industry is gearing up to do exactly that, eh?

Wrong again.

before 1965 health care was relatively affordable. health care became expensive after Medicare/medicaid went into effect, Research, then and only then , re-post.

.

 

[The T]

Then you don't understand dragonspeak. Anyone who claims the government is "redistributing wealth upward" is actually arguing to plunder the wealthy. People like dragon believe that anything short of confiscation of all incomes above a certain level constitutes subsidies to the rich.

Well, I'll let Dragon speak for himself. But what I'm saying is that it wouldn't take any 'corrective' redistribution. If we removed the perks and special privilege that many of the rich currently enjoy, they wouldn't be able to hang onto their excess wealth for long. It would find it's way back to the people who deserve it.

^^Class Warfare Rhetoric^^

 

[dblack]

^^Class Warfare Rhetoric^^

Heh.. yeah, I'm big on class warfare. Go team!

Which reminds me of a fine song by Ike Reilly:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoOLR9v7Ls]Ike Reilly Assassination -- Commie Drives A Nova - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragon]

To clarify the above, the government does certain things that always redistribute wealth in one direction or the other. These include:

1) Tax policy. The government must levy taxes. How progressive the tax structure is, and what deductions apply, either encourages or discourages concentration of wealth.

2) Labor policy. The passing and enforcement of laws affecting the rights of labor, particularly the right to collective bargaining, has a huge influence on wages. High wages distribute wealth downward, while low wages distribute wealth upward.

3) Immigration policy. When the government encourages high rates of immigration, either honestly or in the look-the-other-way fashion it currently uses, wages fall; when immigration is restricted, wages rise -- in both cases due to supply and demand factors.

4) Trade policy. Which countries we choose to enter into free-trade agreements, and how incentives are structured, either encourages or discourages outsourcing. Encouraging outsourcing distributes wealth upward, while discouraging it redistributes wealth downward.

5) Corporate subsidies and socialization of risks/costs. Subsidies for business, and socialization of the costs and risks of business (e.g. the bank bailout), generally redistributes wealth upward; there can be times when the long-term effect of this sort of thing acts to redistribute wealth downward, however.

All of these policies are things that the government must do in one direction or another, and how it sets these policies redistributes wealth either upward or downward. For the last 30 years, we have been redistributing wealth upward. For the four decades prior to that, government policy redistributed wealth downward. None of this (or very little of it) is done by literally, hamhandedly taking money from one person and giving it to another. But the distribution of wealth in our society is complex and responds to a lot of different factors, many of which are in the control of the government.

A democratic government (whether representative or direct) would set these policies so as to redistribute wealth downward. A plutocratic or aristocratic government sets them to redistribute wealth upward.

 

[georgephillip]

I think the most interesting topic raised in this thread so far is the desired relationship between economic power and political power. It seems to be at the source of so many of our disputes - from OWS to the Tea Party - and at the heart of what most of us would consider 'corruption'. Clearly the ambiguity of our current system regarding this issue isn't helping us.

From what I can tell, the socialist solution to the problem is to make them one in the same. Just as the theocrat would seek to combine religion and the state, socialists want to bring economic power under democratic control. In my opinion, free-market societies have failed by not recognizing the importance of doing the opposite - firmly separating economic and political power. I think getting that separation right will be the next major positive evolution in the development of free society.

Socialists are working to bring democracy into the workplace (see Mondragon).

Given the authority that corporations currently wield over our economy, who would control them if not their workers or the state?

 

[dblack]

To clarify the above, the government does certain things that always redistribute wealth in one direction or the other. These include:

1) Tax policy. The government must levy taxes. How progressive the tax structure is, and what deductions apply, either encourages or discourages concentration of wealth.

2) Labor policy. The passing and enforcement of laws affecting the rights of labor, particularly the right to collective bargaining, has a huge influence on wages. High wages distribute wealth downward, while low wages distribute wealth upward.

3) Immigration policy. When the government encourages high rates of immigration, either honestly or in the look-the-other-way fashion it currently uses, wages fall; when immigration is restricted, wages rise -- in both cases due to supply and demand factors.

4) Trade policy. Which countries we choose to enter into free-trade agreements, and how incentives are structured, either encourages or discourages outsourcing. Encouraging outsourcing distributes wealth upward, while discouraging it redistributes wealth downward.

5) Corporate subsidies and socialization of risks/costs. Subsidies for business, and socialization of the costs and risks of business (e.g. the bank bailout), generally redistributes wealth upward; there can be times when the long-term effect of this sort of thing acts to redistribute wealth downward, however.

All of these policies are things that the government must do in one direction or another, and how it sets these policies redistributes wealth either upward or downward. For the last 30 years, we have been redistributing wealth upward. For the four decades prior to that, government policy redistributed wealth downward. None of this (or very little of it) is done by literally, hamhandedly taking money from one person and giving it to another. But the distribution of wealth in our society is complex and responds to a lot of different factors, many of which are in the control of the government.

A democratic government (whether representative or direct) would set these policies so as to redistribute wealth downward. A plutocratic or aristocratic government sets them to redistribute wealth upward.

You lost me with the last statement. If it's really your conjecture that the list of policy imbalances you cite is what maintains an economic elite, eliminating those perks would inevitably "redistribute" that wealth back to people who earn it. Indulging the tit-for-tat urge, and promoting programs to redistribute the wealth 'downward', only encourages more of the kind of government that cause the problem in the first place (ie government that has the power to directly redistribute wealth in the first place.)