Democracy in America…

Topic: Democracy in America… (Read 70526 times)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #75 – 2014-10-01, 01:36:04

Getting a map of the Democracy index with legend is easy if we skirt Wikipedia:

That said, these were for illustrative purpose. Reducing the political, economic, and social system of a country into a number from 0.00 to 10.00 will lose a little bit of the picture.

Edit: In this one Norway wins the democracy beauty contest; Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
North Korea on the other hand is not in the running to advance to the next planetary round.

Quote from: Wikipedia

According to the latest issue of the index for 2012, Norway scored a total of 9.93 on a scale from zero to ten, keeping the first place position it has held since 2010, when it replaced Sweden as the highest-ranked country in the index. North Korea scored the lowest with 1.08, remaining at the bottom in 167th place, the same as in 2010 and 2011.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #76 – 2014-10-01, 01:58:59

In this map red denotes the monarchies, while the blues have to do without.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #77 – 2014-10-01, 03:54:43

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-09-29, 21:52:38

Where the American system is breaking down is that you have Senators and Representatives paying lip service to their constituents' concerns, but are really representing the mega-corporations - especially since the Citizen's United decision

…you do know, that the Citizen's United case was about whether it was allowable to broadcast a bio-pic about Hillary Clinton while she was "running" for president?
Perhaps you should move to Scotland, and advocate "independence"…

More seriously, if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government, Sang, the "mega-corporations" (and even their minions, and other minor "players") would have no reason to suck up to the government — given that it could give them nothing…or next to nothing.
(You have an argument that says otherwise? That letting government choose who "deserves" subsidies, accommodation or any kind of special treatment?
Of course, our state's governments do this sort of thing; they compete with each other, for limited resources… But they're more like "us" and less like what we imagine or perceive the US to be.
Can't you make that distinction?)
Everything that you advocate leads to an elite who -sure, it's the majority!- must prevail! (Except when the majority goes against your views. I'll be one of the few standing with you, then.) If you don't understand what principles upon which our country was founded, perhaps you should go back to school?
Or emigrate. (Where would you go?

)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #78 – 2014-10-01, 16:07:27

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-01, 03:54:43

More seriously, if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government, Sang, the "mega-corporations" (and even their minions, and other minor "players") would have no reason to suck up to the government — given that it could give them nothing…or next to nothing.

Where have you been? Mars? Maybe you feel into a blackhole and emerged out the other end in an alternate universe? Really, you have never heard of Federal laws being passed in corporations' favor? Reality called and said to tell you the Federal government, can come close to doing whatever the hell it wants and find some why to make it constitutional. I would have thought you guys would have figured that out with Obamacare. I mean, holy shit, you seriously don't know why corporations and corporate special interests (such as ALEC donations to Federal candidates can be found here ) spend millions to get the Senators and Representatives they want elected? Do tell us why organizations such as this spend money on Federal candidates if it does them no good. I wish I could dismiss you as an idiot, I really do. But you're not. You've been so self-indoctrinated on conservative and right wing blogs and even some actual essays about how "limited" the Federal government supposedly is and whatnot (never heard of the commerce clause and necessary and proper laws one?) that it's blinded you to what actually happens, which is a type of Mussolinian fascism lite - the collusion of state and corporate power. Yes, Virginia, Santa Federal delivers gifts to corporations, too.

You are correct that the state's compete for a corporation's favor (such as Nevada winning the Telsa "Giga factory" ) but that's not the end of the story.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #79 – 2014-10-01, 21:22:34

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-02, 04:07:27

....I mean, holy shit, you seriously don't know why corporations and corporate special interests (such as ALEC donations to Federal candidates can be found here ) spend millions to get the Senators and Representatives they want elected? Do tell us why organizations such as this spend money on Federal candidates if it does them no good........

Then one might ask why do some, if not many, of these same corporations & special interests spend heaps of cash on opposing candidates in the same election?

If candidate A & candidate B must both disclose who their political contributors are/were, after the election of say candidate B, wouldn't he know that XYZ corporation contributed to his opponent. What would XYZ's benefits be there?

Explain that for us won't you?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #80 – 2014-10-01, 23:25:13

Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-10-01, 21:22:34

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-02, 04:07:27
....I mean, holy shit, you seriously don't know why corporations and corporate special interests (such as ALEC donations to Federal candidates can be found here ) spend millions to get the Senators and Representatives they want elected? Do tell us why organizations such as this spend money on Federal candidates if it does them no good........

Then one might ask why do some, if not many, of these same corporations & special interests spend heaps of cash on opposing candidates in the same election?

If candidate A & candidate B must both disclose who their political contributors are/were, after the election of say candidate B, wouldn't he know that XYZ corporation contributed to his opponent. What would XYZ's benefits be there?

Explain that for us won't you?

Smiley, I have a suspicion even an uneducated doofus like me can probably answer that one. The reason a corporation would support (behind the scenes of course) both candidates for a given race is to make sure that whoever wins, the newly elected representative is bought and paid for. Covering all the possibilities, you might say.

Here in Illinois, they say you can tell when a politician is honest. Once you buy him, he stays bought. Try not to think about that too much, it'll make your brain explode.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #81 – 2014-10-02, 02:28:14

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-10-01, 23:25:13

Smiley, I have a suspicion even an uneducated doofus like me can probably answer that one. The reason a corporation would support (behind the scenes of course) both candidates for a given race is to make sure that whoever wins, the newly elected representative is bought and paid for. Covering all the possibilities, you might say.

You're right. But a bit more specifically, unless one drinks of the "what principles upon which our country was founded" flavored Kool-Aide too deeply. one understands that senators and representatives impact industry specific regulations, etc (and not just broad issues of minimum wage, taxation and whatnot.) While I can appreciate those principles, they weren't what happens in Washington for a long time, no matter how much lip service a candidate pays to them. Power and influence beyond what a given country's laws theoretically allow is just part human nature.

But what does the United States Constitution allow? Via the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Laws Clause damn near whatever the Federal government wants (short of Bill of Rights protections such free speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.) Short of "founding fathers" and "what principles upon which our country was founded" many of the men who founded the country and shaped its early history were actually in favor of a strong central government.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #82 – 2014-10-02, 02:41:55

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-10-01, 23:25:13

Here in Illinois, they say you can tell when a politician is honest. Once you buy him, he stays bought.

Hrm, sounds like a fine Las Vegas tradition. Maybe we learned from your folks? Oh, Bugsy Seigel. Now it makes sense. Maybe Vegas is the illegitimate child Chicago and LA? For course, if either of the cities were people, you'd want a a full-body condom and still visit the doctor in the morning. The doctor's response will be "You'd slept with who? Are you crazy or were just drunk of your gourd ? I'm going to order a full battery of medical tests..."

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #83 – 2014-10-02, 08:41:57

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-01, 08:07:27

Where have you been? Mars?

Do they not understand tensed expressions and conditionals there, like you do here?

I said, "if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government"… Too complicated for you, I guess; both the expression and the concept. Oh, well.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #84 – 2014-10-02, 11:31:56

You said:

Quote

More seriously, if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government, Sang, the "mega-corporations" (and even their minions, and other minor "players") would have no reason to suck up to the government — given that it could give them nothing…or next to nothing.

You know damn the implications of your words. Trying to cloak it as a conditional doesn't fool anyone. Maybe you don't, since you vehemently disagreed with me about how subtle phrasing and word choice affect the entire meaning of sentences and passages.

But I see you have no real answer. That's because in your heart of hearts, you know I'm right despite the rightwing nonsense you've been reading. I can feel your cognitive dissonance from here and it's tearing you apart. The politicians are bought and sold like used cars, and like used cars there's always something wrong with them that the salesmen "forget" to point out. However, this has nothing to with Right nor Left and everything to do with reality.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #85 – 2014-10-02, 11:50:36

Oakdale, I gotta wonder what you've been smoking. Limited or not, senators and representatives would have power to pass laws that influence how business operates. As long as greedy people can be bought, and those greedy people get elected to public office, we're going to have corrupt government-- regardless of its size.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #86 – 2014-10-02, 17:16:07

Ah! I see you, Sang and mjm, have converted to full-time cynicism… In that case, your only reasonable recourse to reforming our system is to hope (or work?) for a benevolent dictatorship.

It takes a lot of work, to maintain both a constant outrage and ennui or actual despair!
Not everyone can do it…

That's kinda what the Constitution was about in the first place: The creation of a federal government strong enough to function in some crucial areas but limited otherwise, by explicit grants and prohibitions and the separation of powers into "jealous" branches.

Slowly (but surely…) you two are coming around to the Framers' conception of human nature. (mjm, you probably know it better as "Man's sinful nature"

and expect the millennium. Sang used to believe in progressivism in the same spirit!) That's a good sign, I'd say.
It is to be expected that re-building an optimism for you sufficient to engage you in our experiment (again?

) will take time…
Not to worry: Others will do the heavy lifting!

But you can start with reacquainting yourselves with the old saw You can't cheat an honest man. Happy ruminations!

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #87 – 2014-10-02, 17:40:53

Hey, I'm from Illinois. Honest politician? What's that?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #88 – 2014-10-02, 18:03:53

A mere man, mjm… Hence it behooves us to cleve to our principles of government, though they impede "progress" and require a humility long out of fashion.
A virtuous polity is not an impossibility. Or is it?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #89 – 2014-10-02, 18:29:45

You know, I've seen you lambaste Sang because of his belief in utopias run by ever expanding and ever more benevolent governments. Now I see you, Oak, believe in a utopia brought about by smaller government that, somehow, isn't corrupt.

I have two words to say to that. Stone Park. Stone Park is a village about ten miles from where I live, reputedly bought and paid for by the mob, which gets to do whatever it pleases in the sin-strip along Mannheim Road. It's cleaned up some from what it was, but the stretch from Lake Street to Grand Avenue has long been notorious for being a place with bars, sleazy hotels, girls of questionable repute and you can probably get illegal drugs if you know who to ask.

Small government? It doesn't get much smaller than village government, especially in a non-home rule town.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #90 – 2014-10-02, 20:09:51

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-10-02, 10:29:45

Now I see you, Oak, believe in a utopia brought about by smaller government that, somehow, isn't corrupt.

(I'm replying in haste — because, in conversation, that's how it's done!) You mistake rational accommodation -with a view to "civil" society- with Utopia? How droll.
Cynicism is very tempting!

Indeed, Man is corrupt; or, at least, corruptible. Shouldn't we then tempt him to virtue? Shouldn't we obviate the most obvious vice, government's monopoly on the use of force for private gain? Oughtn't we re-asses our travails from time to time to see where we may have over-reacted, and created unnecessary controversies?
Even the worst of us has our better moments… (Hitler was a vegan; Stalin loved puppies! Sautéd — but love is love, for such as Sang; who are we, to judge?

) When Washington set the example of a modest chief executive, by declining a third term as president, he himself meant more than that he was old and tired and had done enough… He'd previously declined kingship, as unbecoming.
I'd ask you: That estimation (for it is only an estimate!) of "unbecoming" refers to what? I'd say, both his own and his contemporaries' view of the state of mankind.
I doubt we've transcended or much surpassed that state. Would you have us renounce society? Or pursue it, in full knowledge of our faults?
That is the choice, as I see it.
Or -as you and Sang now seem to argue- sit on the sidelines and carp? (And snipe at those who still care…) Simple questions, mjm.
What simple answers do either of you give?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #91 – 2014-10-03, 15:44:08

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-02, 20:09:51

Shouldn't we obviate the most obvious vice, government's monopoly on the use of force for private gain?

We're seeing the result of that right in the Middle East. Isis used to be an Egyptian goddess with a phonetically pleasing name

Let's break that monopoly and have multiple armies within the US using force for private gain. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. We can be just like Somalia

Maybe that's why the authors of the constitution in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. Relevant parts from that article:

Quote

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

You, use of the force is the job of Congress according to the constitution. Despite and obvious second amendment argument, multiple private factions doing those jobs doesn't seem to be permitted by the constitution, in addition to it just plan being a bad idea (yay, private for profit armies operating in the US without the oversight of the congress nor the president who are sure to step on each others toes. Instant civil war: just put it in the microwave of overheated passions and pride for a minute and a half and it explode.)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #92 – 2014-10-03, 21:10:05

Sang, how many words you omitted (left out…), put in (because you thought they sounded "cool"), mis-spelled (because you don't know any better…) and simply regurgitated — I can't say; I can, however, say that I have no idea what you meant to convey by your (above) post.
Oh! Wait… Now I see: You think of monopoly as something natural! And you think I'd want a "free market" in the "goods and services" provided by the use of force… You can't be that stupid! (Can you?)
Remove from the purview of government as much as you can, Grasshopper! That's how you regain a civil society…
Put more forcefully (and you seem to require such…): Prohibit the government from interfering in the private sphere, except in exigent circumstances.
We can do this. Indeed, we mostly did a quarter of a millennium ago!

You'll always look for the "odd" phrasing, to make your snarky points. But will you ever take ideas and politics seriously enough to understand your antagonist's points? (Or even your own?

) I have -on the basis of more than a few years of reading your posts- serious doubts…
You're a single-issue voter, par excellence! Your attempts to embrace or address other issues are pitifully lacking in sincerity or understanding. Won't you say what really matters to you, so others can respond appropriately?

But since you so obviously are an ESL drop-out, let me be clear: Preclude the government from employing it's monopoly of force for the benefit of private actors… (I know, that's too complicated for your political "philosophy" to grasp or encompass; just take my word for it.)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #93 – 2014-10-06, 06:16:51

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-03, 21:10:05

You'll always look for the "odd" phrasing, to make your snarky points.

Let's address this, shall we? You are perhaps this single snarkiest one here. You provide snark and sarcasm in lieu of real answers on a regular basis. In psychological terms terms, it's call projecting.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-02, 20:09:51

Shouldn't we obviate the most obvious vice, government's monopoly on the use of force for private gain?

It's hardly my fault, you didn't make your meaning clear. A non-monopoly implies allowing other actors to use force and violent. We seem the results in the most war-torn and impoverished regions of the world. The Right-wing blogs and articles tend say things iike "remove the government's monopoly on the use of force." What does that mean? The most obvious answer is quite dangerous and no country has ever survived this with a government able to keep order through the nation.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-03, 21:10:05

And you think I'd want a "free market" in the "goods and services" provided by the use of force… You can't be that stupid! (Can you?)

In fact, I don't begin to think that. Where are you getting this stuff from? The problem is that I've known the answer for a long time. It's your strange predilection for assigning positions to me that, at times, I've made direct statements against. Note that you're being snarky and indirectly calling me stupid by assigning and insane position to me. But what is force? There's military force. But the government hasn't had a monopoly on other, more subtle types of if in at least a century. Much, if not most, of the government's regulatory, is by proxy. The special interests, including the Kochs (whose candidates no doubt voted for) apply force the government via lobbying, campaign contributions, and perhaps more malevolent means to get what they want and it's all within the framework of the constitution. Far from having a monopoly on force, the government has become a tool for those with the real power. Think of it as the Wizard of Oz. You see an impressive figure in smoke, seemingly all powerful. Look behind the screen to find Kochs and their brothers holding the real force, while denouncing their own avatars in Washington as further concealment. The "liberals" have attempted to weaken the force of the puppetmasters, and therefore that of their puppets in government, but that was recently defeated by the Supreme Court to the cheers of conservatives.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-03, 21:10:05

You're a single-issue voter, par excellence! Your attempts to embrace or address other issues are pitifully lacking in sincerity or understanding.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #94 – 2014-10-06, 19:26:00

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-05, 22:16:51

It's hardly my fault, you didn't make your meaning clear. A non-monopoly implies allowing other actors to use force and violent.

Might a more reasonable interpretation of my phrase using the word obviate be: make the use of force (which is government's monopoly, and generally unarguable) unnecessary and averted…?
I'm sorry I sometimes use words that you don't understand. Just as I'm sure you regret that your typing can't keep up with the speed of your thoughts, hence your meaning often has to guessed at by your readers.

How long ago was it that you were arguing that conservatives and small-government types should be in favor of the PP&ACA, because they'd likely get a single-payer system if they didn't "compromise"?
Crony capitalism's ills aren't solved by granting more and more regulatory power to higher and higher levels of government…

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-05, 22:16:51

The "liberals" have attempted to weaken the force of the puppetmasters, and therefore that of their puppets in government, but that was recently defeated by the Supreme Court to the cheers of conservatives.

I assume you mean the Citizens United decision? (Of course, I've long maintained that McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional, on 1st Amendment grounds… W. should have vetoed it.) That was the last straw, for "Liberals", wasn't it?

I'd disagree, that the "force of the puppet-masters" was ever meant to be weakened by "Liberals." They just want to be the only ones allowed to pull the strings…
By the bye: How'd that vote turn out?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #95 – 2014-10-07, 06:35:24

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-06, 19:26:00

I'd disagree, that the "force of the puppet-masters" was ever meant to be weakened by "Liberals." They just want to be the only ones allowed to pull the strings…

Surely you don't really believe that last part. Why is that both Democrats and Republicans seek a majority in the chambers? But yes, weakening corporate influence in Washington has been a long term goal of liberals on the street, not be be confused with the corrupted Democratic Senator or Representive

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-06, 19:26:00

Might a more reasonable interpretation of my phrase using the word obviate be: make the use of force (which is government's monopoly, and generally unarguable) unnecessary and averted…?
I'm sorry I sometimes use words that you don't understand

You think I don't understand what obviate means? Of course the government shouldn't have the right to use force for private gain. It has been long noted that the Iraq debacle was (at least arguably) the result of that with Cheney still getting money from Halliburton, who mysteriously won no-bid contracts over there. The whole war smacked of corruption at the highest level - before a Republican reflectively says "Bush Blame!" I'm positive that wasn't the first time something like that happened and won't be the last.

Where you alarmed was me with the word "monopoly." The backstory is I've seen conservative to outright rightwing articles and blogs calling for an end of the the government monopoly on presumably military force. That's a Somalia scenario. But you mean to say to make it unnecessary for private gain. It's not necessary now, but is the result of corruption and conflict of interest. We can go through a few more drafts of the phrasing but perhaps a better and clearer way to say it would "Shouldn't we preclude the government's most obvious vices of conflict of interest and endemic corruption, which extends to the use of force for private gain?" This way, it's slightly more original and not cribbing from blogs and talking points that become more nonsensible the more you analyze the phrasing. More importantly, it doesn't begin to imply extending the right to use force to any Somalia type, sociopathological would-be warlord that claims he can keep order with no congressional oversight. When it comes to English, or any other language, there at least as many ways to parse the meaning of a sentence as there are speakers of the language. Case in point: what do I mean by "speakers?" Native speakers, those that picked it up as a second language (L1 v L2) - note the wide disagreement between Infoplease and Wikipedia and Infoplease claims its numbers are the total number of speakers and not just native ones.

This is what I've been trying to get through to you. The author's intent is not always the only reasonable way to parse words. If the reader misunderstands the author's meaning, it's not always a deficiency in his reading ability - it's lack of clarity on the the author's part. So, for another case in point, the preceding sentence probably should be two sentences. Technically, you could argue there's a pronoun issue was well.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #96 – 2014-10-07, 17:10:54

I don't see the present adminstration much different from the one before. Obama has been well into warfare attitudes. However most Americans are decent and I hope one day democracy is the norm and not the dated system run by the money clan. The people deserve better.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #97 – 2014-10-08, 04:05:57

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-06, 22:35:24

Where you alarmed was me with the word "monopoly." The backstory is I've seen conservative to outright rightwing articles and blogs calling for an end of the the government monopoly on presumably military force.

Hm. I suspect you read more right-wing blogs than I do!

(I regularly read

National Review Online

Chaos Manor

The Volokh Conspacy

Taki's Magazine

Wm. Briggs, Statistician to the stars!

That's pretty much it; no "aggregators" deserve my regular attention. Some individual writers are -since they continue- of interest to me: Theodore Dalrymple and John Derbyshire, both of whom you likely hate or know nothing about; or both…

I also like and regularly visit Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. and that Canadian statistician's blog ClimateAudit… (I'd try to keep up with current science, and the "memes" others would substitute for it. I do have the background to understand, what's what and what's at stake.
But no credentials… Do your darnedest!

I give you smiley-faces, because you shown yourself unable to deal with words. (Do you talk that way? I mean, the way your write? You graduated cum laude from an accredited university; even though it was with a Sociology major, you should still be capable of producing prose in English… Of course, if you've gone post-doc, all bets are off!
I miss the whisper function of the old MyOpera forums… Because I'd ask: Why don't you bother to "proof" your posts?
Next, I'll ask why you don't bother to "proof" your politics and preconceptions; etc. … )

[I was tempted, to leave off the final parens… Sang, I have no idea what you believe in, because you change with the wind!* Tell me, what have you learned in the last -say- six years?]
————————————————————————
* You have no idea what you believe in: Other than what you want, you've never given anyone a clue… Your concerns are all about what you want; why should anyone else be so concerned, since you so routinely denigrate and abuse others who don't agree with you?
You're a Democrat voter!

But —tell us!— would you vote for Joe Biden, against any Republican candidate in 2016?
You might also tell us, why…

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #98 – 2014-10-08, 11:17:31

Not much of a choice between Biden and a Republican candidate the shambles that lot are. Obama was supposed to be different from GW but wasn't. The number of drones, killings, security rubbish, etc shows that.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #99 – 2014-10-08, 12:45:17

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-10-08, 11:17:31

Not much of a choice between Biden and a Republican candidate the shambles that lot are. Obama was supposed to be different from GW but wasn't. The number of drones, killings, security rubbish, etc shows that.

Might as well give it up, RJ. This thread has become a slug-fest between Oakdale and Sang, the rest of us barely exist here. Fact is, I have a suspicion the whole reason for this thread is to give Oak and Sang their own sandbox, so--- leave them at it, I reckon.