27 Feb 10
Democracy works like this:
The rich and powerful, who might oppress the poor and powerless, are restrained by the government, which guarantees such restraint through legislation.
The government, which might oppress its citizens, is restrained by the voters, who hold the government to account through the threat of dismissal.
Whodey's formulation overlooks this latter part of the process: the fact that the democratic process is itself one of the checks and balances that protect the citizen from the state. To read his posts, one would assume he thought that every state is a totalitarian dictatorship. Not so. Who watches the watchmen? In a democratic state, we all do.
It is curious that despite the fact that the United States was practically the first country in the modern world to adopt a (broadly) democratic form of government, suspicion of democracy seems more strongly entrenched there than in any other developed country. Americans therefore seem reluctant to conceive of the possibility of a benevolent, enabling state, despite the evidence of the other side of the Atlantic that it can exist and can work rather well.
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeywell, I think there were legitimate concerns which inspired marxism (such as the welfare of the workers, and poverty), but the whole ideology quickly developed into something that was authoritarian, ineffective, and ultimately damaging to soceity.
FMF has once again inspired Whodey. Instead of asking whether the actual man was good or evil, whatever that means, we will ask the question how has Marxism influenced us today and in days past? Has the political influence been good or has it set mankind back or a combination thereof?
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by badmoon
A reminder, folks, the USA is a Republic...
...which holds democratic elections for its presidents, senators and congressmen. Sure, it has a constitution, which places limits on what the majority can dictate; but so do pretty much all democracies, whether written or (as in the case of Britain) unwritten.
Actually, it rather confirms my point about the widespread American suspicion of democracy that so many Americans are so keen to deny that they live in a democracy.
27 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeDemocracy? As was pointed out, the US is a Republic. We elect people into office to vote for us. So who have we had to vote for? It seems to me that only two parties hold power. One gave us "W" who was soundly rejected and the other gave us Obama who seems to be headed down the same path of never ending spending, entitlements, and wars abroad. So who do we turn to genious? By all accounts, the elections since Obama was put in office would indicate that they reject him as well.
Democracy works like this:
The rich and powerful, who might oppress the poor and powerless, are restrained by the government, which guarantees such restraint through legislation.
The government, which might oppress its citizens, is restrained by the voters, who hold the government to account through the threat of dismissal.
Whodey's formulation ov ...[text shortened]... pite the evidence of the other side of the Atlantic that it can exist and can work rather well.
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyYou're just hammering his point home.
Democracy? As was pointed out, the US is a Republic. We elect people into office to vote for us. So who have we had to vote for? It seems to me that only two parties hold power. One gave us "W" who was soundly rejected and the other gave us Obama who seems to be headed down the same path of never ending spending, entitlements, and wars abroad. So who do ...[text shortened]... unts, the elections since Obama was put in office would indicate that they reject him as well.
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by generalissimoBeing authoritarian is at the heart of statism. In fact, if they had their way we would all be fined if we choose not to buy health insurance. I think you will find that the health insurance that they provide for the masses and the retirement they provide for the masses if subpar to their own. They glibly say that the populace has a moral obligation to support the poor by incorporating them into their health care plans and retirement plans while they often don't even pay their own taxes nor participate in such programs. What they do know is that forcing nonpaying customers into either health care of retirement will weigh down the system and cause it to decrease in quality, but they will not personally suffer because they are exempt. Then we see them self righteously declare that we have a moral obligation to the poor when they themselves give next to nothing to charitable organizations compared to the average Joe who makes far less money.
well, I think there were legitimate concerns which inspired marxism (such as the welfare of the workers, and poverty), but the whole ideology quickly developed into something that was authoritarian, ineffective, and ultimately damaging to soceity.
In short, Maxist like policies are brilliant for such hypocritical theives. It gives them a liscence to take your money, on the one hand, and the support from the populace, on the other hand, for those who are sympathetic to the plight of the poor. Meanwhile these statists run up debt, payed by the masses, and at the same time destroy the notion of private property because they now own it all.
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyWho do "we" turn to?
Democracy? As was pointed out, the US is a Republic. We elect people into office to vote for us. So who have we had to vote for? It seems to me that only two parties hold power. One gave us "W" who was soundly rejected and the other gave us Obama who seems to be headed down the same path of never ending spending, entitlements, and wars abroad. So who do ...[text shortened]... unts, the elections since Obama was put in office would indicate that they reject him as well.
But it's "we" who've been electing these people. It's "we" that insist on never considering candidates other the GOP or Dem. It's "we" that demand that candidates offer nothing but spending or tax cuts (or both).
Do you suggest "we" need to turn to some wise outsider to make these choices for us?
27 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe powers that be decide who runs and when they win what they will do. The only advice I offer is for the average joe to get involved and voice their diapproval when they strong arm us with statist policies. If they insist on ruling over us and running up debt and forcing health care and retirment plans on us that they themsevles think is beneath them, let it not be with the ruse of our support.
Who do "we" turn to?
But it's "we" who've been electing these people. It's "we" that insist on never considering candidates other the GOP or Dem. It's "we" that demand that candidates offer nothing but spending or tax cuts (or both).
Do you suggest "we" need to turn to some wise outsider to make these choices for us?
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyPerhaps, if that is what he really wants, the "average Joe" could found a new party that rejects these "statist policies", and vote for it.
The only advice I offer is for the average joe to get involved and voice their diapproval when they strong arm us with statist policies.
27 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBut perhaps, underneath the superficial agitation, almost all of the "average joes" like those statist policies. Perhaps they like their Medicare and their Social Security. Perhaps they even like the high debts (at least they like it more than any of the alternatives).
The powers that be decide who runs and when they win what they will do. The only advice I offer is for the average joe to get involved and voice their diapproval when they strong arm us with statist policies. If they insist on ruling over us and running up debt and forcing health care and retirment plans on us that they themsevles think is beneath them, let it not be with the ruse of our support.
So how would you go about convincing those joes to join your revolutionary movement to overthrow the statists?
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeMy guess is that if you created a new party that party would sooner or later be institutionalized like the other two.
Perhaps, if that is what he really wants, the "average Joe" could found a new party that rejects these "statist policies", and vote for it.
27 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesPeople don't mind "free" things. They just don't like have to pay for "free" things.
But perhaps, underneath the superficial agitation, almost all of the "average joes" like those statist policies. Perhaps they like their Medicare and their Social Security. Perhaps they even like the high debts (at least they like it more than any of the alternatives).
So how would you go about convincing those joes to join your revolutionary movement to overthrow the statists?
Really the only reason people are given entitlements is to get them to champion their cause. You see them blindly day in and day out on these boards. People will defend them to the death just because they get "free" things from them.