Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.

So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?

So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate? How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"

In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.

FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.

How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government? All it would do is put a new gang in charge.

 

[bripat9643]

Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.

Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:

"For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

Or we could shrink government so much that it doesn't attract power grubbers.

That requires shrinking it to zero.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."

I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf

So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?

Depends on how you define "representative", doesn't it?

This author claims his analysis of US Senators' responsiveness to the preferences of wealthy, middle class, and poor constituents concluded Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle class constituents, "while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators' roll call votes."

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf

No, it doesn't depend on that.

 

[georgephillip]

That's the problem isn;t it? You're worried about your payout.

By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.

After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.

But the process has to start somewhere.

Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.

If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?

If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?

A select few?

Really?

It has nothing to do with income. if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.

And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.

Why would you think someone should have to work two jobs in order to be entitled to retire? When I began working forty years ago, a single minimum wage job provided all I needed. At that time the richest among us earned about 8% of US income every year; today they earn nearly a quarter of all US income. That redistribution, abetted by both major parties, explains why many of my generation exist on >$1000 a month.
You're solution to devote more hours of my life to those who control the means of production sounds like an endorsement of servility, to me.
Really.

 

[georgephillip]

So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate? How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"

In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.

FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.

How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government? All it would do is put a new gang in charge.

A new gang independent of the richest 1% of voters.
What are you afraid of,
freedom?

 

[bripat9643]

In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.

FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.

How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government? All it would do is put a new gang in charge.

A new gang independent of the richest 1% of voters.
What are you afraid of,
freedom?

You're delusional if you believe Green Party or Libertarian candidates wouldn't get money from rich people to finance their campaigns. The first Libertarian candidate for president was a rich guy.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

So does every other form of government that actually exists. In theory, all are perfect.

What are perfect, in theory?

 

[gnarlylove]

Yet, you can't explain how your alternative version would work. Why should anyone believe it's possible when you can't even explain it? If you have some understanding of how it would work, then post it. Otherwise we'll know that you've never even thought about it.

In this conversation I've not professed to have a viable alternative. And you've not said anything relevant except how serious you are that I don't have an alternative. We can talk about viable alternatives but with it doesn't help to discuss 10 things at once. Let's be patient and discuss one topic at a time. So for the purposes of learning what you think I have repeatedly asked you questions that you have barely responded to except to attack something I have repeatedly said I am not defending. My simple question is why do you think Democracy doesn't work?

What I gather is you think a representative is a contradiction in terms. People can only represent themselves and so any system of representation will fail immediately. So before we move on, is this an accurate characterization of your perspective about why Democracy is impossible?

 

[bripat9643]

Yet, you can't explain how your alternative version would work. Why should anyone believe it's possible when you can't even explain it? If you have some understanding of how it would work, then post it. Otherwise we'll know that you've never even thought about it.

In this conversation I've not professed to have a viable alternative. And you've not said anything relevant except how serious you are that I don't have an alternative. We can talk about viable alternatives but with it doesn't help to discuss 10 things at once. Let's be patient and discuss one topic at a time. So for the purposes of learning what you think I have repeatedly asked you questions that you have barely responded to except to attack something I have repeatedly said I am not defending. My simple question is why do you think Democracy doesn't work?

I'm not interested in telling you what I think on subjects of your choosing. You attack our current for of government because you claim it's "elitist." If you don't have some alternative in mind that isn't "elitist" then you're engaging in verbal masturbation. If you want people to support your ideas and abolish the democracy we have, then people are entitled to know what you intend to replace it with. All your vague generalities are meaningless unless you can come up with a plan containing specifics. Of course, you don't want to do that because specifics can be criticized. There's no way to criticize your magical hand waiving except to point out that it's magical hand waving.

What I gather is you think a representative is a contradiction in terms. People can only represent themselves and so any system of representation will fail immediately. So before we move on, is this an accurate characterization of your perspective about why Democracy is impossible?

A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms. By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists. No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists." I've already said that much.

 

[bripat9643]

In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.

FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.

How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government? All it would do is put a new gang in charge.

A new gang independent of the richest 1% of voters.
What are you afraid of,
freedom?

Voting for either of those parties only means that some scumbag Democrat will get elected.

 

[gnarlylove]

A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms. By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists. No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists." I've already said that much.

In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?

Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.

 

[Andylusion]

One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority. It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.

This is how actually existing systems we call "Democracy" exist. You put it very succinctly. We claim to have a democratic culture but we have anything but. Culture is mostly created through funding. Who funds? Those who have money. Therefore those with money set the tone of society through cultural dissemination and deciding what passes for acceptable criticism and what doesn't.

So the question becomes what culture exists? One that says vote very 2-4 years and besides that, forget Democracy. In the average life of a person they wake up, brush their teeth, and go to work. They do what they are told and live with the decisions made by others. They depend on this totalitarian arrangement day in and day out. But what if you made it so that the people made decisions? Do you think people are uninterested in the condition of their lives? Of course not! That would be plainly stupid. Each person on some level wishes their circumstances could be mitigated. This is precisely what Democracy purports, so people can influence the condition and policies that effect their life. It's clear why most people don't vote and are not stirred: it doesn't matter which way they vote, so why get stirred up in the first place?

So instead of allowing the culture to be funded through those with money, what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives. Do you think this is an impossibility or do you agree with me that if people were given a chance to influence the policies that effect their life in legitimate ways they would become deeply interested?

Again, that's my whole problem. You say "what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives", as if we could just.... do it. Like this is a nikey commercial.

We can't. Not to change topics.... pardon the bunny trail for a minute...

But this I am convinced is the ultimate question of all humanity.... How can I make others do what I want? How can I make someone act the way I want?

How can I get my boyfriend to stop flirting with other girls, and staring at porn?
How can I get my alcoholic brother-in-law to stop drinking all his money away?
How can we get that church is Florida to stop burning books and protesting funerals?
How can we stop that group of people over there from putting the lives of their kids up for auction, as suicide bombers?
How can we get every corporation in the world to cut their prices in half, and double their wages, and have them come and hold hands around a camp fire singing Kumbya at the next Earth Day celebration?

You can't.

You can't!

There is only one way that you forcibly change the culture, the attitudes, and the education. That's to institute a totalitarian regime, which inflicts itself on the country with brutal violence.

If people have a choice, many are going to choose to say 'screw you' to your "You should care about the policies that govern your lives!" and they are going to do what they want.

You can't just "make them care".

You want to know how Islam has created a fairly uniform belief system across dozens of countries? They slaughtered people who didn't conform. And EVEN THEN... they still have the Sunni and Shiite divide.

Are you prepared to lethally enforce your cultural reforms on America, for the sake of having a Democracy?

And here's the other side.... even if you succeeded, I honestly don't believe that the results would be inherently good.

Let's say somehow you magically did zap everyone, and voter turn out was in the 90s. And lets even say that everyone cared about every individual policy.

You are assuming that if you 'educated' them, and that they 'cared' that this would result in something different than what we have.

I am not so sure. How many times on this forum, even on this thread, have people posted information about this specific topic, and two different people, look at the same evidence, and come to opposite conclusions?

In fact, how many times have *YOU* posted stuff on here, and I've looked at your evidence, and came to the opposite conclusion?

By the way, I'm still reading your PDF you posted. I have only read 20 pages, but I'm not seeing much. But I always read at least half, before making a judgement call on any research.

But the point is, if we end up with a massively divided population, then we'll end up right where we already are. Nothing will change.

I keep thinking of Venezuela when you talk like this. Hugo Chavez was elected with 3.67 Million votes, in a country of 23 Million people.

He was hugely popular. And Hugo Chavez pushed a Populist agenda, at the extreme opposition of the wealth.

How did that work for them? Production of food fell. Shortages nation wide. Power outages. Lack of automobiles. Housing shortages. Massive unemployment.

Democracy in action! The people wanted this. They got it.

In the mean time, how did Chavez push these policies? He controlled the media, and eliminated unfavorable press. He allowed militias to intimidate opposition. He reformed education, to push his political agenda, of course "to educate the public on policies".

Are you willing to do what Chavez did to this democracy you want? And why do you think the outcome will be any different?

 

[LilOlLady]

GOD never promised us equality. Men were not created equal.

"All Men Are Created Equal." Really? | The Proverbial Skeptic | Big Think

 

[Andylusion]

A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms. By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists. No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists." I've already said that much.

In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?

Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.

Yeah, but you don't care. Nor do those of your ideology care.

Conservatives care more about their fellow man, than you on the left ever have, or ever will.

And it's fact too.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Arthur C. Brooks, James Q. Wilson: 9780465008230: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

So conservatives (contrary to popular belief) on average earn slightly less than liberals, and yet give 30% more then liberals to charity causes.

We make a little less, and give quite a bit more.

See unlike the left.... we actually care. The left only feigns caring, in order to justify their ideology.

Conservatives volunteer their own time and effort to help people.

Leftists try to avoid helping people, and instead offer government programs.

Conservatives give of their own money, that's in their own pocket, to help others.

Leftists are only interested in attacking productive people, stealing their money, and giving that money which isn't theirs, to other people.

Even when conservatives do provide programs, they are designed to help the individual to get back to a place of self-sufficiency. Such as the ex-convict job placement services at a shelter here in Ohio. As long as you check in every night, and provide proof of working during the day, they will place you in a job, provide you food, shelter, even clothes for work and play, and a private room. But they teach you to work, and you must work, and earn a steady pay check.

Helping ex-convicts back on their feet, and back to stable self sufficiency.

What do leftists provide? Welfare, food stamps EBT, and subsidized housing, which encourages people to stay out of the work force, thus making them less and less employable over time, and thus more and more dependent on government over time.

In short, it makes them even worse off than before the left "helped" them.

That.... is the difference. You talk a good talk about caring for others, but the reality is, the left doesn't give a crap about others.

Your main motivation is not the good of your fellow people. If it was, you would never support the things you do, and you would support the things you don't.

No, your main motivation is hatred, greed, and envy of the wealthy. That's why you spend most your time complaining about the 'Oligarchy', and very little talking about the 4th generation welfare recipients, and how to get them on their feet.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?

A select few?

Really?

It has nothing to do with income. if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.

And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.

Why would you think someone should have to work two jobs in order to be entitled to retire? When I began working forty years ago, a single minimum wage job provided all I needed. At that time the richest among us earned about 8% of US income every year; today they earn nearly a quarter of all US income. That redistribution, abetted by both major parties, explains why many of my generation exist on >$1000 a month.
You're solution to devote more hours of my life to those who control the means of production sounds like an endorsement of servility, to me.
Really.

It's not just to retire it's to start a process of creating generational wealth.

Up until the last few years I worked at least 2 jobs since I was 16. I saved and that allowed me and my wife to open a business. It's not servitude when you are working to better your own position.

And hey if you want to retire on the 1200 a month you'll get from social security then be my guest but that's your choice and if you make that choice then you have no right to whine about inequality because you chose it it was not forced upon you.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

America has definitely never been a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy. The entire idea of America was individual freedom. A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely, as a -genuine- democracy enforces the will of the majority, PERIOD.

I forget who said it, but I seen this quote on the board that says it perfectly. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations."

But let's examine your criticism: "A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely..."

While I'm not trying to defend Democracy, I am trying to define our terms and understand them with accuracy and clarity. You may be right and I am therefore inclined to agree. But let's not be so hasty.

When you shun Democracy, you are saying I want a different organization of politics. We already have an oligarchy and I think we can agree it produces terrible results and limits freedoms of certain groups of people outrageously (minorities, those born into poverty etc). So if our goal is freedom for maximum number of folks, Oligarchy is not the way to go. But neither was Monarchy. Do you have another suggestion to meet the goal of freedom for all?

It turns out that the majority of people in America (58%) will face poverty for at least 1 year. So the majority of people exist in conditions without economic freedom. If they want to survive, they need to work. And while living should and does require work, it's clear why many people are opposed to our current system of work: they have continued to produce more for their employer while their real wages have remained stagnant for 5 decades. Thus, the current organization of the lives of most people are such that their bosses incur tons of profit while stringing them along for mere survival. This is not a genuine sense of freedom. Do you agree? It sounds a bit like wage slavery to me and anyone under slavery should want to end those conditions, surely, since it entails their lack of freedom.

So yes, the rule of the majority would likely attempt to undo the maniacal levels of profit and low taxation (corporations pay 25 cents for every dollar an individual pays when in the 50s it was a buck 50). But why would you want the rule of a minority as opposed to majority? Do you trust the minority to make decisions in your interest? Or would you rather participate in those decisions yourself? Perhaps you are part of the minority (employers) and it would clearly explain why you don't want human beings taking autonomy over their own lives since your profits would drop, although your sustenance would in no way be threatened.

Hahaha. Sorry, but I don't claim to know the hidden agenda of the founders when they wrote our founding documents, I tend to read the wording in said documents and make my inferences at that level. If you believe that individual freedom in the sense that no person should be subject to the whims of another is another way of saying "keep the wealth in the hands of the land owners", fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Next, Oligarchy. In my view, this representative form of government that we have in the US is along the lines of the best thing I could imagine. The biggest problem with our system, in my mind, and the reason it's become something that resembles an oligarchy, is because we've laid out a number of regulations that literally no human being could keep track of. Our tax code alone is so unbelievably complex that there isn't a tax professional on the planet who is knowledgeable on all of it. Let that sink in for a moment. Our tax law alone is too complex for any single human being to know all of it.

When you have so many regulations that no single person can keep track, you have so much legal action taking place that transparency, even in major financial law questions, is nearly impossible.

The other problem with this massive amount of legislation, as well as the breadth and scope of what the government now takes it upon itself to regulate, is that it allows for ever greater levels of corruption.

Example: If you give a government agency, say the EPA, the power to bypass the separation of powers, declare a problem, and then use that problem to unilaterally fine and shut down businesses, AS WELL as the power to give other businesses a pass on obeying the new rules, you have created a situation where the richer and more powerful businesses can use their influence (wealth) to get themselves passes and have their competitors shut down. The more power and discretion you give to the government, the more opportunity you create for the rich to turn your republic into an oligarchy. When you combine this power factor with the lack of transparency that our mass of regulation has created, you end up with a system where the rich have access to total economic control via the government and the privacy to use that power without being called out for it.

The trick, in my opinion, is what many of the founders seemed, based on the language in the founding documents, to be aiming for in the first place: A representative democracy with as little power as is necessary to keep people from treading on others' basic freedoms.

So yeah, I want a different form of government from "democracy". I'd like to see our current form of government scaled back to what was initially intended. That, to me, would be ideal.

Next up: Economic freedom. I must admit, I have nothing but contempt for this term based on how it's used in these discussions. Your idea of economic freedom is everybody having an amount of material property consistent with whatever your personal sensibilities define as sufficient.

Here's the problem: If someone doesn't have anything to offer that anyone values as much as the money required to achieve your personal level of sufficiency, then the implication you're making is that "freedom" can only be achieved by forcing someone to give this person more than they wish to. Essentially, "economic freedom" is the term you use to justify subjugating the capable to the needs of the incapable.

Freedom = subjugation? **** that. Sorry, lemme be really clear. **** that.

I don't want "rule" of a minority or "rule" of the majority. I want as little rule as possible, as answerable to the people as possible. Pure democracy doesn't create this. Pure democracy implies the absolute power of the majority over the minority. Absolute power of anyone over anyone is completely contrary to everything I believe in.

The base problem here, and the reason you and I will never agree on any of this, is in the difference in our highest values.

Yours, as demonstrated by the particulars of your argument, is everyone having enough stuff to get by comfortably.

Mine is everyone, capable and incapable, enjoying as much self determination as possible.

Where I think you're wrong is saying that having enough stuff is freedom the same way that self determination is freedom, and that not having as much stuff as you want or need implies that your freedom is somehow being infringed even if your self determination is intact.

If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.

 

[gnarlylove]

If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.

But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?

 

[bripat9643]

If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

The problem with your theory is that in those days a majority of Americans were land holders. There weren't a lot of large cities over populated with ticks on the ass of society. Madison considered owning land a sign that you were responsible enough to vote.

Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.

It may not be obvious, but it is congenital feature of democracy. When everything is decided by the mob, the result is innumerable rules and regulations, especially when every special interest is angling for special provisions for itself.

But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?

Your term "self determined" is meaningless. Your belief that everyone has to have a multi-million dollar inheritance to be "self determined" would make any form of the concept impossible, wouldn't it?

Despite most people not having what you call "the resource to survive," Many Americans become wealthy and some even become billionaires. That kind of blows your theory that it can't be done out of the water.

 

[gnarlylove]

Leftists are only interested in attacking productive people, stealing their money, and giving that money which isn't theirs, to other people.

Precisely my motiviation and goal. Your caricature of me and I assume anyone who dares disagree with you must always be 100% accurate and certifiably insane. Why are you so shy as to deny the fact that leftists want to **** animals? Why do you cast me in a stupid light but leave room for fringe people to support my ideas? Why not come out and fully say the caricatures that really grab attention, like:

"I am a neo-nazi gang rapist and so are all leftists. We are anti-human and want to end the all life on earth. We are destruction and death. The left will kill your family."

Now that is a genuine caricature of the left. Your petty idea that leftists steal money is child's play. Of course as a leftists I want to steal all the money in the world. This game is fun Androw. I didn't know make believe and caricaturing could bring such a release! From now on I'll be like you and just say whatever comes to mind without being concerned whatsoever with its correspondence to reality. I know you deeply believe what you say and that's what's troubling: you have already cut the left off from being understood as rational human beings. Instead, they are defined from the outset as thieving lunatics.

Sounds like you need to run for office because your rhetoric is so departed from reality and the fact that you believe your own leftist-hate-speech makes a great combination as our representative in congress. When you understand me as your enemy instead of trying to engage in rational discussion, you prevent criticism of your ideas every being heard since you've tuned out criticism as thieving leftists.

 

[bripat9643]

A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms. By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists. No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists." I've already said that much.

In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?

Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.

Nothing requires humans to look out for their own interests. I'm sure somewhere on this planet there are people who live like the saints who populate your idea Utopia. However, the reality is that most people are concerned about their welfare before they even think about the welfare of others.

Any scheme of society based on ignoring the above fact is doomed to failure. You can't change human nature, especially not with a few rah-rah speeches. Decades of hardcore brainwashing failed to convert the Soviet man into a creature that didn't look out for his own welfare.