How the Ideal of America was lost

[KafirChobee]

Rant master that I am, I begin this discussion with the premise that the founders were political idealists - rather than the pragmatic materialistists they were ("no taxation without representation" - ergo, share the wealth with the wealthy, or else). Therefore, I start this discussion with the idea that the nation was not conceived by ideals, so much as on the idea that fairness begins and ends with economic equality - for the wealthy. After all, had King George and his advisors realised the fairness of complying with the demands of the Americas colony - we'ld all have health insurance today (though we would be honoring the Queen Mother's b-day as well). It was as much a matter of conflict of principle (one wealthy class opposed to another - neuvo rich versus old rich) as anything else.

Thing is, the King had pride ... as did the wealthy in the Americas - all they need do was convince the lower classes to fight for them. Worked too, both sides (as always). Much to the chagrin of GB. Thing is, those in the American colonies that convinced the lesser classes to sacrifice (I understand that those with the name Kennedy died more frequently, than others) are still about today directing traffic for the "partys". Or, not ... if one wishes to believe that business is not the power that is. BTW, I can join the SAR - just for your info. Not that it means anything, other than anyone whose family has been here less than 70 years saying anything about immigration has less meaning? Still, what ever. It may not be the amount of blood shed for a nation, so much as the rhetoric spewed by those in the know. You know - those that know how to avoid a draft.

During my life, I have listened to countless pragmatists demure that at this point or that American became .... well, unamerica. That is, the principles of the founders were altered by circumstance (civil war), social needs (the great depression), and the political assassinations of key political figures (Lincoln, Garfield, JFK, King, RFK, and numerous Senators). As well as, the incursion a two WW's - which can mess up any ideals or principles. Though, WWII did create a working-middle-class, something never seen before. And something the Republicans' seemingly been intent on allowing to pass into the archives of history: allowing corp's to default on their retirement funds to employees, while guaranteeing the execs' - and such. I have watched as both partys transformed or morphed into entitiies that neither resemble their orginal premises for being, or today even bother to attempt to justify their reasons for existance. Other than attempting to trash the opposition - samo samo. Me beginning to thinks.

Today, it seems acceptable (for some) that torture, denial of human rights, and going to war on the word of a President (as long as it is the Prez of THEIR PARTY) is justified, OKie Dokie, and once there stay there.

When, exactly - in your opinion - did America become ....... a caracture? When did the worm turn that torture, the rights of "any" individual under the jurisdiction of our laws, etc change?

Please!!!!!!!!!!!! It began before 9/11/01. So think.

Answer in two weeks.

I will not comment further - for 2 weeks. Fill in the blanks, or not. :balloon2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where you went wrong is in thinking there's been a change, there hasn't.

I hate to say it but most of your "Great" Presidents had decidedly dark sides.

Jefferson owne slaves.

Washington was traitorous British Officer with no sense of "Honour" something his British enemies did have, for instance, he attacked on Christmas day; that was how he won many of his battles.

Lincoln was quoted as saying "I am in favour off freedom for blacks, I am not in favour of equality for blacks."

You leaders have always been just a bad, and good, as everyone else's. The American ideal has only ever been an ideal.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

[QUOTE=Wigferth Ironwall]

Washington was traitorous British Officer with no sense of "Honour" something his British enemies did have, for instance, he attacked on Christmas day; that was how he won many of his battles.

QUOTE]

and GB was a bit ountnumbered what with france, spain, holland etc joining in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/rebels_redcoats_04.shtml

[scooter_the_shooter]

A caracature? That's a wee bit strong. But if you want me to list the points where I think we took serious turns for the worse, here you go:

1.) When George Washington resigned, and made a big speach about how a two-party system would never work, and nobody listened.

2.) When Andrew Jackson told the supreme court to pike off, and they did.

3.) When the Union won the Civil War, and it became not an alliance of independant states for the common good, but a forced cooperation for Washington's benefit. This isn't to say the CSA was any better--it wasn't--but I believe self-determination trumps the "National Good." That's a whole 'nuther rant.

4.) When we got an income tax in 1912. And, for that matter, every single tax that has ever been forced upon us. Once again.. that's a whole different subject.

5.) The formation of our intelligence agencies. They have been responsible for countless billions in wasted tax dollars, and are responsible for countless clandestine acts that the average citizen would never approve of. Yet who watches them? Who ensures they do good, and not evil (pardon the absolutism)? The Senate? Hah! The executive? Hell, they're a tool OF the executive? "He would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither and loses both." Guantanamo anybody? These agencies should be disbanded. But the repurcussions and what-ifs on this subject could cover an entire thread.

6.) FDR in general. Did some good, did some bad, and now Social Security is looking to take over 40% of the national budget in the near future.

7.) McCarthy. I hope he's rotting in some kind of hell.

8.) When Nixon was merely impeached. He should have been shot.

9.) All the pain-in-the ass Executive power-mongering between 1970-2000.

10.) Bush. Patriot Act. Secret Prisons. War on Terror. Guantanamo. Wire-Tapping. The list goes on...

Yet through all that crap, there are basic things we take for granted that make this country great. But an overhaul of the government, our budget and tax-laws, and our foreign policy are all loooong overdue.




What he said:2thumbsup: GC Always agree with eery thing you say except you religous views.


But I have one more thing to add. We keep stuff around we don't need, like the atf they served their purpose and were needed for a while, but now they are uneeded and make up reasons to keep in power.



And



Where you went wrong is in thinking there's been a change, there hasn't.

I hate to say it but most of your "Great" Presidents had decidedly dark sides.

Jefferson owne slaves.

Washington was traitorous British Officer with no sense of "Honour" something his British enemies did have, for instance, he attacked on Christmas day; that was how he won many of his battles.

Lincoln was quoted as saying "I am in favour off freedom for blacks, I am not in favour of equality for blacks."

You leaders have always been just a bad, and good, as everyone else's. The American ideal has only ever been an ideal.


You are just a sore loser, Want me to go dig up a bunch BS about the uk during the revolution?

[Justiciar]

Go ahead. I doubt it's anything that hasn't been said thousands of times before. To say that Washington had no honour is a gross exaggeration, as is to say that he was a hero and some kind of prophet (which I get the impression a few Americans view him as, though not literally). Let's not go off topic though. If you want to discuss the American Revolution start a thread in the Monestary, and you can bash the UK and US to your hearts' content.

[JimBob]

Jefferson owne slaves.
And treated them better than other slave owners. The only reason he did not free them was because if he did they would have to leave Vriginia (at the time a slave freed in Virginia had to leave right away, if they did not they could be picked up and sold back into slavery, propably to a master who didn't give a damn). Read his writings and letters. He and other founders had a time line in mind that would have seen slavery abolished by 1818. Read What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann, he spends a fair bit of the book disproving the idea that Jefferson was evil.


Washington was traitorous British Officer with no sense of "Honour" something his British enemies did have, for instance, he attacked on Christmas day; that was how he won many of his battles.
Poor Redcoats, did the Yankees not stand in a line to get shot? The British commanders were not a bunch of saints on the battlefield. Does Waxhaw mean anything to you? At least Washington let those who surrendered live.


Lincoln was quoted as saying "I am in favour off freedom for blacks, I am not in favour of equality for blacks."
Care to remind me of the date when he said that? Lincoln's views on slavery and blacks changed over time. He started out as a racist, but by the end of his life he had changed considerably

[scooter_the_shooter]

My god I shoulda' used spell check:help:


Anyway we don't really have to pick any specific dates for this, we lost America when they centralized everything, right now I'd probably support a secession(sp?) if one got started.

[drone]

Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

[Redleg]

The American Idea was lost when the United States Congress as a body politic started allowing the Executive Branch to assume its congressional responsiblities.

The best and easiest examble to cite is the Emergancy War Powers Act of 1973. There are others but this is the most visible of them all.

Then there is when the Judicial Branch begain to use the bench to make law versus rule on the law. Several cases are involved in that particlur area.

When Presidents take and usup the constitutional authority of both Congress and the Courts - numerous exambles have been conducted in history.

That is where the government has failed and the American government Ideal was lost.

Where the American Ideal was lost was when the American people lost focus on striving for improving themselves but settled into a entitlement mindset. When we emerged from the mindset of a nation of immigrants wanting to better ourselves to a nation that believes it is entitled to greatness. There can be several arguement about when and how this took place but one can not deny that it has happened.

This took many years to develope - and over several adminstrations.

When one believes they are entitled to things - they no longer desire to work for what they can achieve on their own.

Who's fault is this - its a combination of the failures of the American Government to abide by the Constitution and the American People themselves to insure that the government abides by the constitution.

[Tachikaze]

The best answer is that it has been a long development in stages. But that is pretty lame for the benefit of discussion. So, I'll say that the seeds were planted between the world wars.

I believe that the actions against the trusts in the late 1800s was very much in the spirit of the original US. Meanwhile, I believe that the US has not been the same since 1945.

I also agree with drone's use of the Wikipedia reference.

[rotorgun]

Having grown up during the turbulent 1960's and 1970's, it has been my experience that the majority of people I know lost faith in the "ideals" of America after three calamitous events during these decades. The assasination of President John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal. As a young man, I could literally feel my faith in the government and those in power ebb away, like an outgoing tide. As an optimist, despite the negative tenor of some of my posts, I expect the tide to turn the other way. Perhaps this is why St. John compares the nations of the world to the sea in Revelation.

Like a man desperately in love with his erring wife, I still love my country despite her wicked ways. :kiss2:

[Tribesman]

How the Ideal of America was lost
Have they tried looking down the back of the sofa ?
It is amazing how many things you can lose down there , an ideal would slip between the cushions without any trouble at all .

[rotorgun]

How the Ideal of America was lost
Have they tried looking down the back of the sofa ?
It is amazing how many things you can lose down there , an ideal would slip between the cushions without any trouble at all .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
That's a good one Tribesman! I can see the headlines on CNN now: Man finds his morality while vacuming his furniture. Idealism is restored! You make a good point, because that is one of the problems afflicting American society in general-a pure lack of motivation.....that reminds me, I need to get to the gym. :laugh4: :laugh4:

[-Silent-Pariya]

First of the men who founded are country made sacrifices. But they were also lavishly rich. Many had slaves, they did not live up to what they wrote down at all.

Secondly the party systom though it seems messed up is really the only way this government could efficiently work. Without it who do you think would be the only canidates? The ones with loads of money which means they are able to get enough signatures to be on each ballet and can afford advertisements. Now although it seems it is only the very wealthy who run now anyways its atleast a step better. See the parties select canidates to run for there parties, and hope they will sway there way in the future as he serves his term they helped him gain. However the men they choose to run are usually very well qualified and very well viewed by the people. There normally good people. Now that is not saying a few idiots slip through the cracks now and then aka Goerge Bush... but that's the peoples fault for electing the moron not the party systom. Hell in the last two elections the people managed to pick the two worst canidates from each party to run. Anyways without the party systom it would only be the wealthiest of the wealthiest in the government positions. Now it's the only the wealthy who are in those positions but it is not now necicarly the wealthiest of them who will win the positions in the government. Becouse there parties finance there campaigns.

The biggest problem i see today is the media. It is corporate run propoganda bull-crap. Though it is not as many people see it aka some conspiracy or anything tricky or sly. It's just them wanting to make money... what's the best way for a news station to make money? Report on the worst possible stuff, get people scaired. That's when they watch the news. If the world was fine they would watch t.v. shows not news channels. But no no no.. the news companies will pick up and go along with anything that can get them that doe... aka terrorism ect.

As far as how we became immoral ect. Well if you look at it dude we have always been immoral. Descrimination and exploitations of every race within our own nation. We didnt finally start correcting all these things till about 1960's and later. Some are still around. Anyways most people think we bacame "dirty" "corrupt" ect. when we started becoming imperialistic... aka 1910's... phillipines ect. Then the other countless wars.

We never became "dirty"... we were always "dirty"... every country is "dirty".. it's just a matter of how you view it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Lion - you sincerely believe that the two-party system, which stifles third-party and independent candidates, is the best way to run the country? George Bush is not directly the people's fault; he's at least as much the fault of his party. Ditto for Kerry. Both parties wanted to win - and they thought that Kerry and Bush were their respective best shots.

I like the way Australia elects people, from what Pape has posted here. But our system is quite flawed.

And I contend our government would be more efficient if members of it weren't beholden to different wings of their own party.

I dislike the media, too, but how else could we do it except run by corporations?

[Strike For The South]

We should just shoot every politican and put the guys in there who dont want to be (like Powell) Nobody will listen to me but that is the best way

As Thomas Jefferson said
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

He wasnt talking about middle class yankee children with disposabnle income who dye there here wear girl pants and write in diares talking about there feelings. He was talking about a bang bang bloody killing revoultion. Of course America today is spineless the 2nd amnedment is even losing vaule. The people who own the must guns are content with todays America and even with Bush. Sitting there with there beer gut hot dog and wife (complete with a beatufiul new shiner) and spew how much freedom we have in this country. The libreals arent much better covering everything with red tape and seemingly convinced hard work is a tired cliche. There is no freedom in our country just a status quo.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What do you have against middle class yankees?!

:furious3:

I neither dye my hair nor wear girl pants! And the diary is filled with plans of revolution! Right, Mr. Snuffles?

Uh.

:hide:

[-Silent-Pariya]

The problem is not with the government. It is the media, if your tired of a 2 party systom. Bitch about the media, it is there fault. Anyone can run for the presidency if they get enough signatures. The media decides who gets the coverage though.

[rory_20_uk]

The reality is that money is required to run for President - masses of it. For a nobody to emerge and win with no party backing and therefore untested is not going to happen.

Even getting members in the house on the backing of another party is going to be extremely tough. views are entrenched enough that big business doesn't want the added complexity of having to bribe a third party.

There is the illusion that anyone can become President, then the reality that enough insurmountable obstacles are present for this not to occur.

~:smoking:

[Avicenna]

What do you have against middle class yankees?!

:furious3:

I neither dye my hair nor wear girl pants! And the diary is filled with plans of revolution! Right, Mr. Snuffles?

Uh.

:hide:

Sadly, it is true for most people in that class of that age, though. Where I'm from, lots of them spend their time acting 'cool' and generally being **** at, well, practically all they do.

[yesdachi]

Some of your comments are so bias they are difficult to get past but I will try and answer your question.

When, exactly - in your opinion - did America become ....... a caracture?
I am not exactly sure what you mean by “caricature” but I can tell you when, approximately IMO, America changed. It was some where between the end of WWII and the beginning of Viet Nam. The rise of rise of liberalism, gay rights, feminism, the roots of political correctness, the increased influence of the media (which loved the things just mentioned), and a new generation of college educated idle hands all contributed to Americas change from a “masculine” nation to a “feminine” nation. For better or worse, America, prior to the end of WWII was the macho alpha male. But since the Viet Nam era, America has become a stereotypical female.

A good caricature representing today’s America would be a macho Uncle Sam being held back from doing the “right thing” by a bunch of pansies, gays, butch dykes, and attorneys. The number of parties wouldn’t matter, America changed because being a white, straight, traditional, man became a bad thing.

There you have it folks, America replaced its big stick with tea cup, all thanks to a neutering by the people that are now complaining about the way things are.

Lady Liberty has never been a truer phrase.

[Tachikaze]

Some of your comments are so bias they are difficult to get past but I will try and answer your question.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by “caricature” but I can tell you when, approximately IMO, America changed. It was some where between the end of WWII and the beginning of Viet Nam. The rise of rise of liberalism, gay rights, feminism, the roots of political correctness, the increased influence of the media (which loved the things just mentioned), and a new generation of college educated idle hands all contributed to Americas change from a “masculine” nation to a “feminine” nation. For better or worse, America, prior to the end of WWII was the macho alpha male. But since the Viet Nam era, America has become a stereotypical female.

A good caricature representing today’s America would be a macho Uncle Sam being held back from doing the “right thing” by a bunch of pansies, gays, butch dykes, and attorneys. The number of parties wouldn’t matter, America changed because being a white, straight, traditional, man became a bad thing.

There you have it folks, America replaced its big stick with tea cup, all thanks to a neutering by the people that are now complaining about the way things are.

Lady Liberty has never been a truer phrase.
Archie Bunker lives!!!

No, really. This is exactly like an Archie Bunker rant. I can hear Carroll O'Connor saying these words.

It was a joke, right?

[rory_20_uk]

It must be. The sweeping statements. The sheer idiocy of it. We seem to ignore the huge number of conflicts America has been in since WW2, the whopping number of people they have killed, and also the extreme reluctance the "macho" nation joined WW2 in the first place!

I agree that more people being able to think without moving their lips has helped reduce the caveman-with-club approach to all issues, but possibly the country (and clearly not all individuals) learnt something from Vietnam???

Traditions develop over time. America "traditionally" prior to WW1 was staunchly isolationalist. So unless the right thing is pulling out everywhere yesdachi contradicts himself. :oops:

~:smoking:

[AntiochusIII]

The "ideal of America"...what is it?

:balloon2: :book:

As for my opinion, the modern state has no time, nor place, nor any intentions to uphold any sort of ideals except for the simplest possible. The USA is a particular case where such ideals are underlined and written in the Constitution. Find any nation that is not pragmatist, and I'll find you a nation in need of serious attention.

Now, to address directly the comments (I have too much time? It's summertime!)


...
Your argument...what is it based from? I understand your first point being that the leaders of the Revolution are actually acting on their own benefit, which is quite reasonable, considering our studies; but you first claimed to start the discussion based on a premise that directly contradict this, that they are political idealists. How do they tie together?

(Of an interesting note is that the "rallying of the masses" is almost a French Revolution, the rich directing the poor, the majority, where they want--not everybody reads Locke, but they all want to drink tea...)

What I can derive as your thesis then, is that you want the opinions of others on the issue of "When America lost its Ideals," correct?

That would require you to express those ideals, however, which you did not.

1.) When George Washington resigned, and made a big speach about how a two-party system would never work, and nobody listened.

2.) When Andrew Jackson told the supreme court to pike off, and they did.

3.) When the Union won the Civil War, and it became not an alliance of independant states for the common good, but a forced cooperation for Washington's benefit. This isn't to say the CSA was any better--it wasn't--but I believe self-determination trumps the "National Good." That's a whole 'nuther rant.

4.) When we got an income tax in 1912. And, for that matter, every single tax that has ever been forced upon us. Once again.. that's a whole different subject.

5.) The formation of our intelligence agencies. They have been responsible for countless billions in wasted tax dollars, and are responsible for countless clandestine acts that the average citizen would never approve of. Yet who watches them? Who ensures they do good, and not evil (pardon the absolutism)? The Senate? Hah! The executive? Hell, they're a tool OF the executive? "He would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither and loses both." Guantanamo anybody? These agencies should be disbanded. But the repurcussions and what-ifs on this subject could cover an entire thread.

6.) FDR in general. Did some good, did some bad, and now Social Security is looking to take over 40% of the national budget in the near future.

7.) McCarthy. I hope he's rotting in some kind of hell.

8.) When Nixon was merely impeached. He should have been shot.

9.) All the pain-in-the ass Executive power-mongering between 1970-2000.

10.) Bush. Patriot Act. Secret Prisons. War on Terror. Guantanamo. Wire-Tapping. The list goes on...
1. Washington was under fire, hot fire, from the anti-Federalists, his--or, to be more exact, Hamilton's--political opponents. Naturally, he was quite angry and exhausted, being not the best of politicians. Do I have a point? I guess not.
2. Everybody hates King Andrew. :2thumbsup:
3. Absurd. The CSA was MUCH worse. The entire premise of that so-called nation is to uphold slavery. Don't give me the state's rights crap; slavery, that's what it is. Those scared bunches of racists they were. The forced centralization and expansion of the federal government, as circumstances of the war demands, are not the main causes of the changes in American society. They might accelerate the process, but they aren't the keys. It is the Industrial Revolution that changes the nation from an agrarian to an industrial society. And was one better than the other? Your opinion.

I'm always amused when I see such expressions that essentially entails to a "return to Eden, please? Those good old days..." comment.
4. Taxes run a modern state. Hey. And anarchy isn't nice, from what I heard. It probably isn't as bad as Hobbes portrayed (that crazy old Brit...), but from the looks of the "state of nature" I'd rather live in a state and a functioning society.
5. I do not know of the contributions of Intelligence Agencies to the United States, so I'll refrain from comment. The nature of Intelligence Agencies are rather...complex.
6. Newsflash. FDR saved America. And Democracy, if you want. No joke. He could've titled himself Il Duce de Fuhrer d'America if he wanted. Be thankful he didn't.
7. Ditto. That demagogue.
8. Emotional response: ditto. Rational response: we still have a code of law, do we, DO WE?
9. Such expressions entails to a major fundamental human nature: we hates the present.
10. Look at nine.

Where you went wrong is in thinking there's been a change, there hasn't.

I hate to say it but most of your "Great" Presidents had decidedly dark sides.

Jefferson owne slaves.

Washington was traitorous British Officer with no sense of "Honour" something his British enemies did have, for instance, he attacked on Christmas day; that was how he won many of his battles.

Lincoln was quoted as saying "I am in favour off freedom for blacks, I am not in favour of equality for blacks."

You leaders have always been just a bad, and good, as everyone else's. The American ideal has only ever been an ideal.Let me see, you're a Brit, aren't you? Jefferson...a case study would've revealed him as a complex individual, not easy to just say "evil dude" like you did. Guess what? Humans aren't perfect. Jefferson was tormented by his own hypocrisy, to say the least.

Washington...your point is laughable. Christmas day? Since when is war about "honor" and "stand there and get shot on a good field day?"

And Lincoln...same as Jefferson. He evolved, no less, with a very different opinion of the colored people after one big bloody war.

The leaders are always pragmatists. Some have ideals, but they'll never let that get in the way of pragmatic decisions. That I agree, but your expressions of hatred on the American Presidents? Nah.

and GB was a bit ountnumbered what with france, spain, holland etc joining inSo the Europeans want to kill each other, like all competing empires do. And poor Great Britain happens to have her rivals supporting her rebels. Your point being?

But I have one more thing to add. We keep stuff around we don't need, like the atf they served their purpose and were needed for a while, but now they are uneeded and make up reasons to keep in power.What's atf?

Anyway we don't really have to pick any specific dates for this, we lost America when they centralized everything, right now I'd probably support a secession(sp?) if one got started.Lovely state's rights expression there. Did you know that states are governments too, and they are equally corrupted, if not more? And often bigots, no less, being quite out of the media's spotlight?

What's with state's rights and America? Don't tell me [I]this is the "ideal we, omg, lost."

The American Idea was lost when the United States Congress as a body politic started allowing the Executive Branch to assume its congressional responsiblities.

The best and easiest examble to cite is the Emergancy War Powers Act of 1973. There are others but this is the most visible of them all.

Then there is when the Judicial Branch begain to use the bench to make law versus rule on the law. Several cases are involved in that particlur area.

When Presidents take and usup the constitutional authority of both Congress and the Courts - numerous exambles have been conducted in history.

That is where the government has failed and the American government Ideal was lost.

Where the American Ideal was lost was when the American people lost focus on striving for improving themselves but settled into a entitlement mindset. When we emerged from the mindset of a nation of immigrants wanting to better ourselves to a nation that believes it is entitled to greatness. There can be several arguement about when and how this took place but one can not deny that it has happened.

This took many years to develope - and over several adminstrations.

When one believes they are entitled to things - they no longer desire to work for what they can achieve on their own.

Who's fault is this - its a combination of the failures of the American Government to abide by the Constitution and the American People themselves to insure that the government abides by the constitution.Interesting. So your argument is that the American ideal is based around the seperations of power? And self-improvement? Can you elaborate on both, especially the latter? I rather agree with the former. Albeit one could argue that such are necessities to efficiently run a modern state.

However, your expression of the American People as a singular entity is rather...doubtful. I'd rather think there are more factors than just "this generation lost its motivation to be."

Secondly the party systom though it seems messed up is really the only way this government could efficiently work. Without it who do you think would be the only canidates? The ones with loads of money which means they are able to get enough signatures to be on each ballet and can afford advertisements. Now although it seems it is only the very wealthy who run now anyways its atleast a step better. See the parties select canidates to run for there parties, and hope they will sway there way in the future as he serves his term they helped him gain. However the men they choose to run are usually very well qualified and very well viewed by the people. There normally good people. Now that is not saying a few idiots slip through the cracks now and then aka Goerge Bush... but that's the peoples fault for electing the moron not the party systom. Hell in the last two elections the people managed to pick the two worst canidates from each party to run. Anyways without the party systom it would only be the wealthiest of the wealthiest in the government positions. Now it's the only the wealthy who are in those positions but it is not now necicarly the wealthiest of them who will win the positions in the government. Becouse there parties finance there campaigns.Naive. It is most reasonable that the fewer the rivals, especially if their interests are not directly opposed--best being ideologically opposed; conflict, after all, drives progress--a cartel can easily be formed in which a group's interests will come before the greater society.

Blaming the media is futile. Besides, what kind of media are you envisioning beyond this? State-controlled? Muckrakers?

We should just shoot every politican and put the guys in there who dont want to be (like Powell) Nobody will listen to me but that is the best wayEmotional response: ditto. Rational response: such expressions also cover the same ground that all humans share: no frogs are ever pleased with their lords.

Of course, the Yankee thing...really, you are uncool. ~;)

The reality is that money is required to run for President - masses of it. For a nobody to emerge and win with no party backing and therefore untested is not going to happen.Of course, since the topic is "American Ideal," one could argue that the replacement of money, power, for ideology, is the cause of this loss. Pindar's thread on "Perspective on the Left...blah blah blah" demonstrates one fundamental fact: ideology arouses enthusiasm in men.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by “caricature” but I can tell you when, approximately IMO, America changed. It was some where between the end of WWII and the beginning of Viet Nam. The rise of rise of liberalism, gay rights, feminism, the roots of political correctness, the increased influence of the media (which loved the things just mentioned), and a new generation of college educated idle hands all contributed to Americas change from a “masculine” nation to a “feminine” nation. For better or worse, America, prior to the end of WWII was the macho alpha male. But since the Viet Nam era, America has become a stereotypical female.

A good caricature representing today’s America would be a macho Uncle Sam being held back from doing the “right thing” by a bunch of pansies, gays, butch dykes, and attorneys. The number of parties wouldn’t matter, America changed because being a white, straight, traditional, man became a bad thing.

There you have it folks, America replaced its big stick with tea cup, all thanks to a neutering by the people that are now complaining about the way things are.

Lady Liberty has never been a truer phrase.Certainly, you miss the point entirely? Or perhaps you did not pay attention to the American History class? Since obviously you forgot that the United States had never been "masculine" in your, might I say, fascistic (not in a biased way, simply that fascism demands the strength and "unity" of a nation at the cost of individuality that one could argue as a masculine system...and not very nice) sense. And of course, there's this thing about Isolationism, and the myths you seemed to buy from the post-Vietnam neocons, and...

Gah.

[yesdachi]

Archie Bunker lives!!!

No, really. This is exactly like an Archie Bunker rant. I can hear Carroll O'Connor saying these words.

It was a joke, right?
Funny you mention Archie Bunker, I was totally thinking of him while writing (I only wish I could have incorporated the word, meathead)! I laced this with as much sarcasm as I could just for fun, but remember sarcasm is often a defense mechanism for the truth.~D
Does this dress make my butt look big?


rory, you seem to have misinterpreted my post, I see no contradiction and your reply doesn’t make much sense to me.
BTW, your post #21 is pretty accurate.

[Redleg]

Interesting. So your argument is that the American ideal is based around the seperations of power? And self-improvement? Can you elaborate on both, especially the latter? I rather agree with the former. Albeit one could argue that such are necessities to efficiently run a modern state.

Yes and yes. Seperation of Powers is one of the principles of the Constitution. When the different branches began to directly assume responsiblities and powers inherient in other branches - the idealism behind the constitution began to erode. This erosion was not the primarily downfall of the American Ideal but it does demonstrate a downward trend. When branches compete with each other it enables the American people to grow as a society. When the branches take power that is not theirs by the constitution it creates stagnation within the government.

If your not improveming yourself what are you doing? Stagenation leads to dissatification.



However, your expression of the American People as a singular entity is rather...doubtful. I'd rather think there are more factors than just "this generation lost its motivation to be."


Good thing I didn't state "this generation lost its motivation to be"....

The particlur issue happened over several generations spanning over several decades.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let me see, you're a Brit, aren't you? Jefferson...a case study would've revealed him as a complex individual, not easy to just say "evil dude" like you did. Guess what? Humans aren't perfect. Jefferson was tormented by his own hypocrisy, to say the least.

Washington...your point is laughable. Christmas day? Since when is war about "honor" and "stand there and get shot on a good field day?"

And Lincoln...same as Jefferson. He evolved, no less, with a very different opinion of the colored people after one big bloody war.

Yes I'm a Brit and I didn't say they were evil, I merely said they weren't the moral poster-boys American education would have you believe. Yes, they were great men and mostly good men, but not wholey.

My point is that I don't think there ever was an "ideal" when they were bickering over the niggly bits of the constitution Jefferson probably looked out the window at the birds and wondered where all the idealism went.

With ideals you're always looking back to the past to try to find it. If you believe in an ideal you hold onto it and you fight for it, its not something you can misplace or lose behind the glove compartment.

If you think your country is going off the rails get on a soap box and tell people, get elected to Congres, become Presedent.

Sort it out, don't look back and go "Where'd it go."

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I think the caricature of America right now would be small right and left wings fighting for political control of a beauracracy with little connection to the people - there has been, I think, a disconnect to some degree of the people from the government, and Washington is too much of its own entity rather than an extension of the people.

[Redleg]

With ideals you're always looking back to the past to try to find it. If you believe in an ideal you hold onto it and you fight for it, its not something you can misplace or lose behind the glove compartment.

If you think your country is going off the rails get on a soap box and tell people, get elected to Congres, become Presedent.

Sort it out, don't look back and go "Where'd it go."

This in essence should be how everyone thinks in a democracy IMHO. If your unwilling to believe in something - its not hard to find yourself looking back wondering where did it all go.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Where you went wrong is in thinking there's been a change, there hasn't.

I hate to say it but most of your "Great" Presidents had decidedly dark sides.

Jefferson owne slaves.

Washington was traitorous British Officer with no sense of "Honour" something his British enemies did have, for instance, he attacked on Christmas day; that was how he won many of his battles.

Lincoln was quoted as saying "I am in favour off freedom for blacks, I am not in favour of equality for blacks."

You leaders have always been just a bad, and good, as everyone else's. The American ideal has only ever been an ideal.

Jefferson had a misstress that was a slave. He loved her from the letters. It wasn't just "fun".

[Tachikaze]

Funny you mention Archie Bunker, I was totally thinking of him while writing (I only wish I could have incorporated the word, meathead)! I laced this with as much sarcasm as I could just for fun, but remember sarcasm is often a defense mechanism for the truth.~D
Does this dress make my butt look big?


rory, you seem to have misinterpreted my post, I see no contradiction and your reply doesn’t make much sense to me.
BTW, your post #21 is pretty accurate.
Thanks. I was inspired to read the quotes (there are millions) in the IMDB. My favorite TV series of all time (tied with Get Smart).

I figured you were exaggerating but were inspired by some personal observations that got you started.

[KafirChobee]

Since this slipped to page 3, I figure it maybe as good a time as any to re-weigh-in on my rant.

Many here already touched on a number of the "things" that have redefined the ideals of America, I intend to expand on some of them and attempt to be more explicit in the whys and hows we let them occur. Feel free to expand on them or challange them as you see fit.

Originally the men of Congress were said to be "called to office" - they were asked to represent various interests, including those of their constituents. At some phase those interested in holding public office began "running for office", as opposed to being called to represent their States. When this occurred, rather than having open debates on issues (though, through our history there have been debates - Lincoln-Douglas for example) the opponents began belittling their opponent and attempting to acquire more funds than him (women didn't vote 'til the 1920's) to ensure their "message" was being heard - that is, buying more space in the paper - TV today.

Running for Office; it is the key for the digression from the principle "every man is created equal". That principle was the cornerstone of our democracy - it allowed that every man had the same opportunity to succeed in his lifes endevour (s) - even political. When, he who gets the most cash wins election over one with the higher morality, ability or intrinsic social values - then the original ideals are corrupted or recreated to mean something entirely obtuse to their original meanings. Allowing a cart blanche on the spending in an election creates an atmosphere of anything goes. The truth flies out the window, and it simply becomes a game of cash registers - he who gets the most money wins.

It may have been a slow process, or not, but today what we in America have is a political system based on legalized bribery. Candidates are inclined to sell pieces of themselves to whom ever can afford them to the highest bidder. Further, we have allowed our politicians to trivialize the corruption, and even become a part of it (DeLay, for example) by continually rewarding them by re-electing them - even when we knew they were crooks.

Take a moment and read the following by David Sirota, it is quite enlightening, but depressing.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/224/money-democracy.html
Also, check out Politics and Economy while there - is a short quiz on freedom of speach, as well as other interesting tidbits - like the progression of spending by candidates.

The next Presidential elections will be the first $$BILLION$$ election - I remember when we were shocked to discover Nixon (GOP) had spent $69million$ on his. No member of congress spends less than a $million$ for his seat at the table (think there is one actually, name escapes me). So, what we have are men (and now women) obligated to those contributing for favors. And, as we have recently witnessed (and will even more before this November) there are more than a few congressmen selling our system out for monetary gain. It is just the iceberg. Corruption breeds corruption.

Another major factor (imo) is the corruption of greed in businesses - or, how we do business today. In the 1880's it was realized that RailRoads were in fact a monoply that was setting prices, charging less to their friends than enemies and in general messing with the random economic system of fairness (j/k - but, it was the belief at the time). So, congress went on a monopoly busting spree (Teddy did) - and all was well again. Well, except we still had no limits or restrictions on acquiring or creating a monoply. On occassion, congress has in the past busted up cartels - oil, telephone-communications (AT&T), etc. But, sooner than later they are back at it (AT&T is 70-80% of its old self thx to deregulation of the communications industry). Today, the GOP (and DCC) mantra seems to be unlimited expansion of businesses, and the deregulation of everything. Oh, and they (business) should be allowed to oversee themselves - after all don't you trust them to do the right thing? For their economy - ignore environmental concerns, they will just do the right thing. Trust them. The government guarantees for bailouts, loans, and covering businesses responsability to (for) their employees retirement funds is total BS. Our economy was based on the strong survive, the innovative grow, and to guard against monoply - or price fixing (personally, I blame Reagan's advisors for much of the present deregualtion fiascals, but I am sure others are just as reponsible - and the errosion began before him - just not as rapidly).

What both these factors have contributed to is the new (old) monarchial rules - what is good for the wealthiest individuals must also be good for the poorest. And, if it is not? So what - the poor don't vote. Or contribute to political campaigns. So, trickle this.

Wars. It escapes me, but a few did mention that with each war America lost its naivity and some of its morals/values. I agree, beginning with our own Civil War - but more seriously, WWI. The saying, "You can take the boy outta Kansas (where ever), but not Kansas out of the boy.", was not talking about sending the Ks. boy to war. War does change a person, and one can pick up some bad habits. But, in WWI there was only a handful of Americans picking up all those evil European perceptions of freedom and equality - and French kissing. WWII 'bout did us in - thank god Korea came along. Unfortunately, Vietnam did do us in.

The Vietnam War solidified the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex that Ike had warned us about - but, everyone chose to ignore. So, now our military budget is so swollen (over 40% of our taxes) it equals all the other nations of the world combined. I mean, who the he77 do we intend to fight - Mars? To support this beast we cut our social programs, education plans, ignore the needs of the poor, the elderly, the mentally ill, and all the less fortunate. All so we can spend money on the developement of weapons that will be obsolete before they reach production, or useless unless we have a real war. This is our economy today - based on warefare. Where as, Carter and Clinton attempted to curtail the beast and stop the suckling by congressmen from its swollen teets - by encouraging diversification and the use of military technology in the private sector. Today, the more ludicrous the proposal for a weapon - the more likely it will be approved. [have you seen that "new" infantry rifle the Marines are developing? Looks like that Beverly Hills survival weapon in BH Cop II ... or was it?] See where Bush43 got away with slipping the StarWars program back into work - not that it will ever work, but it sure makes a few congressmen happy.

Lastly, gerrymandering was (is) suppose to be illegal. Guess again. Toady, we have redistricting that allows that 98% of all incumbents will be re-elected. Both parties did this, The GOP was just smarter about it. The American people are the losers because there is no debate - we are so polarized we vote straight party lines - as much out of tradition (Daddy and Mommy did - so, so will I.) as actual commitment to political principles or what the party does. It is a "that sounds good", regardless of what the actions truelly are.

Summary:
1) Legalization of bribery through the unlimiting of acquiring cash to "run for office".
2) The business creed of Greed = Good. While the government rewards bad business practices thru bailouts and paying off their debts to their retired employees (at 10 cents to the dollar owed).
3) The deregulation of all facets of business, and the allowance that they oversee themselves - conducting illegal activities amongst them. Setting prices, wages, etc.
4) Wars, and the developement of the MICC.
5) Gerrymandering
6) The creation of the new monarchial system, where by man is no longer equal - the wealthy are better and there is less chance for sharing the wealth.
7) Systematic dismantling of all social programs - Social Security must go! After all it doesn't do a thing for the top 1%.

We hit the slippery slope almost from day one of our nations creation, it has just been a slow slide - right now we are close to a complete free-fall from every philosophic principle we once held dear.

[yesdachi]

He he, you said Clinton and teets in the same sentence. ~D

You seem to have a pretty negative view on this topic. Much of what you say is true and could be even further summarized by saying big business and big government are destroying the “ideal of America”. But honestly, aside from the rich and powerful 1%, aren’t the majority of Americans living with and enjoying the ideals America was founded on? :shrug:

What principle did we hold dear that we are now close to a complete free-fall from?

[Watchman]

You know, I'm kinda in the opinion "big business and big government are destroying the 'ideal of America'" is really just the logical end-result of the way Americans approach both economy and politics - too much blind faith placed on the industriousness and cleverness of the individual, and believing that the fervent energy of the "pioneer" phase when the continent was taken from the natives would last forever, as well as romanticization of that phase and mystification of the "land of opportunity" idea; too much belief in the idea of the "self-made man" and hence too little recognition of the built-in inequalities no society or economy can avoid; hence lack of sympathy towards "losers" and the generally down-and-out and refusal to recognize the part structures play in their situation (the particular branches of Christianity widespread in the country are also often pointed as one source of this cold attitude), as well as excessive glorification of success; hence too few and weak safeguards and backup systems built into the society, politics and economy; too little sense of real solidarity on grand scale and (according to some studies critically important) "social trust"; and more.

I'm even willing to claim there's an element of arrogance bred from too much continuous success early on (probably from around the Revolution really) - an idea that we, God's favoured people or whatever (the idea does crop up in a fair few turn-of-the-century sources...), won't and cannot falter, fail or go wrong in any of the above and thus a tendency to underestimate challenges, overestimate own capabilities and externalize responsibility of failures.

All of which results in certain kind of complacency that allows the society to rot from the inside and the hegemonic elite of the private sector interwine with the power elite of the actual national adminstration to an unhealthy degree, all the while refusing to admit the fault lies in the over-optimistic base values and not in something "external" - 'socialism', illegal immigrants, "the lazy social bums and their entitlement mindset", corrupt politicos, anything but us and our ideas.

*shrug*
Or at least that's the synthesis I've arrived at.

[Aenlic]

The caricature was enhanced and enshrined by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 in 1886, and the erroneous inclusion of a Statement of Facts by the court clerk, despite the author of those facts, the Chief Justice, stating that the case was not decided using them. Duh.

[Kralizec]

Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

That alone can't be the cause of anything, every nation recognises companies and other institutions as fictional persons so that they can be brought before a court.

[Aenlic]

It's different in the US. Kralizec. Corporations aren't just fictional persons. They have, by virtue of some rather dubious Supreme Court decisions, been given power they were never meant to hold in the US. The decision gave them the rights of a person under the Constitution. This gives them the right to petition the government as individuals, and has resulted ultimately in all of the lobbying mess.

At the time of the writing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, corporations were generally looked upon with disfavor by all of the founding fathers. Corporations were seen as anti-democratic, anti-republican, and anti-capitalist. Every state at the time had very draconian laws on the books restricting corporations. They had no rights, as such. They had privileges only, as granted to them by the states in their incorporation. Rights can't be taken away, privileges can. Corporations were also prohibited by law, in all of the original states, from attempting to influence the government and the political process in any way. They were prohibited from owning other corporations. They were of limited duration. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention,. Madison and Jefferson attempted to introduce an amendment which would have become part of the original set of amendments known as the Bill of Rights. This amendment would have enshrined all of the controls on corporations into the Constitution. It was defeated and not included in the Bill of Rights. Why it was defeated was important. It was defeated because every state already had such laws on the books and it was thus considered to be redundant and unnecessary. How wrong they were. Within 100 years those laws had been repealed in every state due to the illegal monetary influence of those same corporations (particularly during the Civil War).

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'd like to address a point Ronin brought up in his last post.


Originally the men of Congress were said to be "called to office" - they were asked to represent various interests, including those of their constituents. At some phase those interested in holding public office began "running for office", as opposed to being called to represent their States. When this occurred, rather than having open debates on issues (though, through our history there have been debates - Lincoln-Douglas for example) the opponents began belittling their opponent and attempting to acquire more funds than him (women didn't vote 'til the 1920's) to ensure their "message" was being heard - that is, buying more space in the paper - TV today.

Originally those "called" to office did as much belittling of their opponenets as their modern comtemporaries. The battles between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans had just as much base character attacks as modern politics. Each side had fully-functioning propoganda machines, through supportive newspapers (far more partisan than today's). If you want proof of this, you can read (among other things) the book John Adams by David McCullough.

And can I see some info on the military budget 40% figure? I hadn't heard that it was that high. Plus, it isn't too big a deal if our spending is higher than everybody else's because simply we have more to spend than everybody else.

[KafirChobee]

I'd like to address a point Ronin brought up in his last post.

Originally those "called" to office did as much belittling of their opponenets as their modern comtemporaries. The battles between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans had just as much base character attacks as modern politics. Each side had fully-functioning propoganda machines, through supportive newspapers (far more partisan than today's). If you want proof of this, you can read (among other things) the book John Adams by David McCullough.

And can I see some info on the military budget 40% figure? I hadn't heard that it was that high. Plus, it isn't too big a deal if our spending is higher than everybody else's because simply we have more to spend than everybody else.

True enough, character attacks have been a part of politics dating back to the Romans - and probably Athens. However, it is the incursion of vast sums of money by special interests buying favors and influence that have sent our system of government into a tailspin of by the wealthy, for the wealthy and of the wealthy. All our representatives are millionaires - either before or after election. Mark Twain once said (tongue in cheek) that any Senator that didn't become a millionair or expand his fortune during his term of office should be voted out as incompetent. That my friend is exactly what we have today. Legalized bribery.

As for our military budget - spending, here are but a few perceptions and absolutes:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2056.html

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1890825&C=america

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm This one is slanted, but is a good read.

Are many more, just put US Military Budget in a search engine - $567.7 Billion was just approved for 2007 ($50Bil is for Iraq) - but, it doesn't tell the whole truth or show the hidden factors.

One sorta scary aspect is that 9% of our budget goes now goes to paying the interest holders of our national debt (Japan, China and Saudia Arabia are the big winners here).

Time, Newsweek, USN&WR, NY Times and most of the existing free press all acknowledged that our military budget is not only equal to the rest of the worlds', but exceeds it by billion$ upon billion$. While we congress continues to cut social programs, it expands the military budget. For what purpose? To make us safe? Couldn't we be safe at half that cost? And more economically proficient.

[KafirChobee]

Things one might point out (Gel), budgets for police and firefighters are still being cut by various citiies - is one of the reasons HomelandSecurity decided to spread around the monies for anti-terroism. Cutting the major cities like NY (a "blue" city) by as much as 40% and determining others - like LV - not to be worthy at all. BTW, cities in "red" states will benefit. As I said - we now live in a reward the vote getters political sphere (it has always been - but, never to the present extreme).

It might also be noted that crime is up - despite 2 million people in our gulags. Just one of those things that happen during war time - you know? When a plan is not thought out, or the repurcussions of an action are misunderstood (or not even considered), sh-t happens. Or as we know it Iraq.

Sorry to digress.

[AntiochusIII]

Hmm...you haven't been around for quite long, eh? Welcome back (a few days late...) ~:wave:

Look back in the Backroom archives about half-a-year ago, maybe longer, and you'll see a flurry of topics on this subject. I'll briefly re-iterate my position here:

Slavery was unsustainable, economically. That is a fact. The idea that seceeded states would have been able to sustain a system of slavery longer than half a decade is rather suspect, so the argument that not going to war would have allowed slavery to flurish is silly. Now, as a general disclaimer, I don't like the CSA. I don't like its constitution, I don't like its general character. The fact remains, however, that the Union was intended as an alliance. A permanent alliance with some strong ground-rules, but largely the states would be able to do their thing so long as it was not in contrary to the common good. Obviously, this no longer applies. I am of the opinion that no matter how immoral or suspect a state's motives are, if the consensus within that state is to seceed, they should have that right. Self-Determination is the utimate human right, and to take that away for the common good has been the hallmark excuse of every despotism ever put into action. Therefore, Self-Determination is a principle that this UNION of STATES should hold very very dear. As for the CSA? Left alone, their economies would have collapsed, and sooner or later they would have come crawling back to the Union for economic reasons.Whether slavery was sustainable or not does not bear relevance here, since the war was fought, from the perspective of the South, to protect its traditions and its way of life, which revolves around slavery. If its mission fails even with a victory in the war, as you claim to be likely, it does not accomplish anything except more bloodshed and atrocity. In other words, the CSA sucks. The argument that the Union was intended as an alliance has gone down the toilet since the first day. The Constitution was a defining document that clearly defines the United States as a single federal entity. What do you do if the Basques decided that they no longer like France and Spain (well...they kinda...) and decided they would secede-in-force and take away all those Spanish and French within their desired borders with them, or expel them by force, or genocide them? I'm sure the governments of Spain and France would've fought a war to keep them in.

Your argument rests on weak grounds: the South was not a unanimous voice calling for Self-Determination as you said. At most, it's just Democratic...and quite riled up by extremist demagogues among them no less. In my opinion? The true libertarian does not seek "Self-Determination" as a group entity, but as an individual. Self-Determination as a group entity leads to nowhere since we are only identifying ourself with a new group, ceding our freedom to do "whatever the hell we want" to another loyalty. Nothing is achieved in the end. What does it matter if the overlord is South Carolina and the arses in Richmond instead of the United States and Washington, especially if the justification for the change is to protect, well, slavery?

I absolutely loathe taxes. What right does the anyone have to take my hard-earned money and spend it on something I may or may not like? Don't get me wrong, the state needs money for basic things like a military and a justice system, but most of what my taxes get spent on is crap. There can be better ways to do it, for instance: Everyone is required to pay x amount of taxes, and when they send it in they check off on a sheet of paper what programs that money is allowed to be spent on. That way alot of the crap that only goes through because aloud minority wants it to would remain unfunded by the sensible majority. Things like Law Enforcement would probably remain untouched, although the military would almost certainly take a cut. But such is the will of the people. Quite frankly, there are only three truly inaliable rights: The right to Self-Determination, the Right to Earn, and the Right to Your Own Property, money included.Where did you get your own theory of "inalienable rights," and why are they inalienable, exactly? God? Moses? Stone? You think so? Your plan for a "check for what this should be spent on" is unfeasible in a state larger than a million people. It will be one heck of a beaurecracy and the end result is the same: embezzlement.

You confirmed yourself that the state does need money to run itself. Considering the theoretical Social Contract theories that are generally accepted by the United States (considering how the "Founding Fathers" were surely fans of Locke), we cede our utter freedom in favor of what the state can provide. A realistic effort would be directed on improving the system and the state rather than breaking free from it.

Complex, yes. And most suspect. Bottom line is that there is no transparency. An exteremely powerful government agency with no public transparency is unsettling, and definately un-democratic.My point is that I didn't know if the intelligence agencies saved America or something or not, or that making them transparent would screw their works up or not, therefore, there is not enough evidence present for this debate to make such a clear and complete statement that you are making.

I love transparency as much as the next person, for sure, though.

Yes, yes he did. Sometimes temporary super-measures must be taken in times of crisis. But they keyword is temporary. The results of his shake-up might have saved America during the great depression, but the left-overs have been around for far, far too long. He left a big foot-print that is now costing the nation, not helping it. You'll see when Social Security begins to really smash the budget. Necessity will demand it be cast aside, and ignored, but doing so would likely ruin any politicians career. I personally think we'll see massive, massive budget cuts to accomodate the 40% of the budget Social Security will occupy, which will make everyone unhappy and eventually lead to the necessary solution.So you blame the man who saved America for the faults in the system sixty years after the guy's death? Yeah...

You really can't blame FDR for instigating radical measures and used it, and did much better than an average American dumbarse of a President, no less. If anything, all you could blame are his successors--the later generations of politicians, that is--for their inability to adapt the system half a century old to a changing America and the world.

8: Yes, it is an emotional response. All kidding aside, though, we need tougher laws regarding corrupt politicians. I say we break ranks with tradition the world-over, and start treating corrupt politicians like the first-rate felons they are. Put 'em away with the murderers, rapists, an gang-bangers. Or kill 'em. Either-Or.Corruption punishable by death is an emotional response. The destruction of corruption require much more than the marginal, or rather completely nonexistent, deterrent effects for these types of crime. After all, even with ordinary criminals whose chances of being captured are much higher than the well-connected politicians the deterrent effects of higher, more brutal, less humane (and less human?) punishments are neglectible at best.

9-10: I really, really hate this president. The depth of my hate can't be expressed in words.Why? Everyone dislikes his arse and all but "really, really hate" beyond words?

I'm a freedom-hating liberal so you can say it without terrible backlash. I think.

[AntiochusIII]

I love a good debate. Let's get this party started:My, my. It's like 2 A.M. over here in Vegas and I don't really expect any Americans to be awake except, well, my nocturnal self.

The secessions were the will of the people, and as such they were exercising the human right to self-determination (i'll expand on that later). I don't think you understand how freedom works. By allowing yourself to be lorded over by forces you disagree strongly with (especially when they are stealing from you), you are giving up that self-determination as an individual. Self-Determination as an individual cannot be maintained without the right self-determination as a state (or city, or whatever). Slavery was absolutely detestable, but "Hey, those guys suck." is not reason enough to go to war, and oppress. You say you're liberal? By your logic, you should be in favor of the Iraqi War.You missed the important part of my earlier Basque analogy (which was thought up sloppily as a completely hypothetical one. The better more well-grounded analogy would be the Turkish-Kurdish controversy and perhaps the Israeli-Palestinian one, though the latter is far too complex to even be generalized like that) that not everyone agrees to secede. Why would West Virginia broke away, then? And what about, well, the slaves, who welcomed the Union troops with open arms and gratitude? The flaw in your logic is the conclusion that "the People of the South" is a single identity. It is, rather, a complex makeup of various subgroups which are then equally complex makeups of smaller subgroups onto the point of the individual, which is where the libertarian line should be drawn, not any higher. That is, if we are the argue from a libertarian perspective, which, in its radical form, anarchism, isn't entirely feasible. After all, the wicked ways of absolute freedom...

The Civil War is justified, by Lincoln himself, based on the nation-state logic which I don't entirely subscribe whole-heartedly, true, but in the end the blame can go to the seceders for trying to breakup an existing Union without a truly good and well-supported cause. Certainly Lincoln was planning to eventually liberate their slaves against their will. But does that count as oppression, when the act is liberation? And even if you use a very strict definition and say yes, the basic utilitarian (roughly...) logic would then clearly demonstrates that less oppression is better.

The Iraq war example doesn't work. Whatever the US goes into Iraq for, it's not for the spread of colored flowers, prosperity, and justice. Or, in parallel to the Civil War issue, not to preserve an existing Union from a breakup that will only cause more oppression. Heck, the first excuse to enter it was "WMDs OMG!"

Inalienable rights is probably a bit strong. A better term would probably be universally expected rights. On most levels, people want to be able to determine how their government runs, what their state does, and how their money is spent--Hence the right to Self-Determination. People want to be able to earn their keep in the world by exercising their talents or trades, in order to better themselves financially or otherwise--hence the Right to Earn. And most importantly, people want to feel that they actually do own the things that their earning grants them. Whether it be money, a house, or a gun, it belongs to the person who earned it; and no arbitrary law (however grounded in the "common good") has the right to take it away from you--Hence the Right to Property. Normally I am against basing your politics on morality, but when it boils down to it this is as basic as you can get regarding morals. I should not have to worry about someone stealing from me, misleading me, or ruining my livelyhood. Especially when that someone is the state.In theoretical terms, if we are to base the theory of our society on the Enlightenment social contracts (which is what the original American Whigs were aiming for anyway, at least, the optimistic Locke version), then you secede rights to complete Self-Determination--basically, right to do whatever you want--in order to create a functioning society where another person cannot Self-Determine that he wants to rob you and rape your wife. The common good involves a more complex concept of progress and general benefit, which is far too complex to be dismissed, albeit one must admit it is also used as an excuse for those who seek individual profit under this "sheep" cloak.

Nonetheless, you are asserting that everyone agrees with you and wants all these rights: are you certain?

I think we're on the same page here. There are alot of smaller things FDR did that I don't like (Internment camps, meddling in the Supreme Court, ect.) but his temporary measures did save the country. It was truly the moment that capitalism failed. Luckily, it looks to have been a one-time thing--and quite frankly I'm not educated enough to determine whether or not there were viable alternatives.
The big problems we have now are due largely to the failures of his successors to end his programs in due time.Perhaps. Albeit in my opinion the system should not be demolished but rather optimized. General Welfare does have its benefits, such as the leveling of income discrepancy to an acceptable level, the provision of basic human necessities to all humans (theoretically) and "confirm their rights as humans," and prevent the excessive cruelty that was so common in the Age such that Charles Dickens lived in. Welfare helped moderated an overly individualistic, completely selfish, and quite frankly cruel America. After all, one could make a case that Welfare is exactly the practical general end of the Progressive movement, a movement sparked by general discontent and weariness of an old social darwinist-Victorianesque society.

Emotional? Hardly. What does a politican do? He decides the policy of the government that is responsible for your country--and in the end for your financial security, your personal well-being, and your general livelyhood. When a politician breaks that trust, he's as bad as any burglar, murderer, or war-criminal.A politician is often a war-criminal himself in many senses ~;) . Nonetheless, as I oppose excessive cruelty and capital punishment, I see no reason to lower politicians beneath the human rating--that, after all, will count as an emotional response--and put them in such punishments, especially since that will help just about nothing except to savor our own desire of revenge. Revenge that wrecks the world all blind.

A successful crackdown would require, as I said, a far more fundamental change in society and system. Maybe we can start with being done away with the attitude that what I win is mine by right? ~;) Or maybe the "I alone matters" attitude?

He has eroded personal freedoms far worse than any president during my lifetime so far. That earns him a special place in Libertarian Hell.I guess that is a good reason for a libertarian to say.

[rory_20_uk]

I maintain that what is good for the individual is good for the society, not the other way around. Yes, laws are needed. But only very basic ones. We do not need excessive market regulations, dumb laws that supposedly support the public interest but only end up filling the state's coffers (i.e. most public safety laws, such as no speeding, no jay-walking, wearing seat-belts, ect.--if someone wants to risk their life, that's their own business.).

I have no problems with people wanting to end thieir own lives. Speeding and jay walking can end other people's lives. You want people bieng able to do 60mph in residential areas? :inquisitive:

And market regulations. So, no anti monopoly laws, nothing against cartels? Allow artificial shortages of goods?

I'm not big on laws, but I feel that the logical point to your way of the world would be clans setting up for mutual defence. Then requiring a decent perimeter to protect themselves from others. After all, welfare has ended, and there are no controls on the market, so what's to stop marauding gangs of unemployed from attacking others? After all, they're not going to get any money from the state. They could look for other work, but the monopolies only need a very small number of people in their automated factories.

Quite the dystopia IMO. Taking away uneccecary laws is difficult, and will have unpredictable results when they are taken away with the broad brush you were advocating.

~:smoking:

[AntiochusIII]

It's a majority thing. If the majority wants to seceed, then the rest of them can either deal with it or leave--nobody is stopping them from leaving. A good example is here in the states. If you like Abortion Laws, go to South Dakota. If you don't then come here to Oregon. There's a place for everyone, and no government is going to go to great lengths to stop a hostile population from emigrating.Ah, but that directly and fundamentally conflicts with your libertarian position: if the majority can gets its way with the minority; the society, the group, over the individual, then where is the line drawn? The "group" that is the United States of America had voted for Lincoln, after all. Why does South Carolina suddenly becomes more important as a "group" entity than the United States?

I've said no such thing. The South broke away in parts, when the legislatures of the southern states decided to break away, or in Virginia's case, the state actually split along lines of Self-Determination.Only in Virginia's case, and only by Lincoln's military intervention. What about parts of Texas, the little counties, that clearly voted for Union? And in fact large parts of Florida? Why, again, does Texas and Florida supercedes the smaller counties? And if they can supercede the smaller counties, why not the United States supercede them?

It would not be that big of a stretch to call me an Anarcho-Capitalist.A ruinous result would stem from anarcho-capitalism. The greed and evil nature of mankind, well testified by the actions of politicians, rapists, war-criminals, and us ourselves, will ruin and destroy and acquire power at the expense of others. Extremity breeds extremity. After all, what would stop the stronger to take advantage of the weaker, now that the laws are gone? Morals? Morals are just as fickle as humans are.

The war was justified only in that the South attacked first. The Civil War is a bad example because of just that--The people exercising Self-Determination broke that golden rule: Your freedom ends at my nose. All bets are off.What I mean is that Lincoln himself gave the reason in which the Union chose to persecute war: to save the Union. He considers that entity more important than the individual states, which themselves are just political entities. The justification of that reason is based on the ground that the United States is the highest single political entity that any Americans own allegiance for, i.e. the idea of a modern nation-state.

That, of course, changes with time just as any other. We might as well are living in the age that human societies begin to assert another, even higher political union. Who knows?

I maintain that what is good for the individual is good for the society, not the other way around. Yes, laws are needed. But only very basic ones. We do not need excessive market regulations, dumb laws that supposedly support the public interest but only end up filling the state's coffers (i.e. most public safety laws, such as no speeding, no jay-walking, wearing seat-belts, ect.--if someone wants to risk their life, that's their own business.). I also believe that states should be small. A large state can only be held together by excessive regulation, and the larger a state is the more detached the rulership becomes.rory_20_uk explained what would happen if your goals are succeed: regulation is a society's artificial stop on the behavior of humans, by its very definition depriving freedom. Nonetheless, laws and regulations are necessary, utterly necessary, to maintain a functioning society that does not engulf in anarchism. Anarchy, as historical examples sadly demonstrate, leads to dictatorship and extreme forms of oppression. The communist (Stalinist?) coup on the Catalan anarchist models, the very entirety of the Russian Revolution, and countless others display that trend. Thus, a middle line is drawn. Where is that middle line is the duty to be defined by laws and regulations.

Most, yes. The vast majority, even. Don't you? Would you not be angry if those three rights were taken away?Ah, but anectodal evidence does little to confirm the claim. Many values safety and economic well-being over political freedom. Many might be right or wrong.

The idea of giving money to the less fortunate is a noble one, but the idea of welfare is tarnished by the fact that it can only be achieved through theft. If I do not want to give money to the government welfare, I should not have to. In return, I don't get welfare from them. Quite frankly, I don't want it or need it. If I get money from anyone--government included--I want to pay it back, with interest.Back to the Social Contract theory again: technically, it is not theft, but rather an implicit consent given that we are willing to be taxed in order to live in society. Naturally, of course, in the real world just about everyone lives in society so the implicit consent is only theoretical. Unless you go The Matrix and claim that the pill leads you to freedom from society or something...

You do get the benefits of society, don't you? Roads, electricity, science, culture, safety from crime, markets and necessities...

I suppose this comes down to a debate over the death penalty and general criminal penalties. There's really no definite right or wrong answer here. Such laws should be determined on a region-by-region basis, as different populations will have different opinions on it.A debate over death penalty can have (I think, others might find completely new angles) two dimensions: either its the pragmatic debate of its benefits and losses, or the moral debate. The relativist in me says that the moral debate is inherently futile. But the pragmatic debate has indeed been pursued to great lengths at this forum and elsewhere, and I've come to the conclusion that death penalty really has no real results either way. Add that to my own moral dimension, the moralist in me, that killing for the sake of killing is morally wrong, and I firmly oppose death penalty or cruel punishment.

Nonetheless, when you said by a region-by-region basis. What is your line of "region?" A world? A continent? A nation? A sub-division of the nation (state in federal countries and provinces elsewhere)? A county? A village? A clan? A family? After all, even within the family there will often be different opinions on it.

[rory_20_uk]

Right, so what is a basic law? And what is viewed as infringing another's freedom?

I used your examples of speeding and jaywalking. Do you still think that people should cross roads wherever they want, and cars should tear along them at whatever speed they want?

~:smoking:

[AntiochusIII]

Conflicts? Hardly. Look, where fundamental differences exist in a region that would make a significant minority become oppressed by majority laws that they find utterly distasteful, they should have the right to seceed, and when it is a very tiny minority then the option to emigrate is always there. Call it a free market of ideas, with individual regions/states/whatever being the products offered.Forced emigration is just about as oppressive as anything else. They are basically usurping an individual's property, threating his life, and thus, limiting his liberty. You are playing on a very slippery slope here: where is the line? An artificial administrative dictrict of some sort that one might as well disagree with? The European splitting of Africa is a prime example: are you going to blame the tribes that happen to live on the lands that the "Great Powers" draw their borders halfway through for not emigrating to one side?

Let's play a short analogy here: in the hypothetical county with a very small minority of the homosexual population, Dr. John thinks that gays are entitled to Freedom of Speech. The majority of the people in his county disagrees and vote to block gays of having Freedom of Speech. Now, if we are to take your position, it's Dr. John's fault for not emigrating when he disagrees, and it's the gays' fault for being a minority and deprived of their rights because they refuse to abandon their homes.

Rather unfair, isn't it?

There are more kinds of difference than a regional one. The topic was "The Ideal of America"--the Constitution of the United States seems more concerned with individual rights--human rights--far more than state's right. There is no Bill of Rights for the states, for example.

I think we're in agreeance here--those smaller counties should not have been forced to go along with the secession.In this particular case of the situation, the Confederates would've overran the territories anyway since they're closer than the Union forces. In our debate, again, where is the line? Should the town of, say, Miami, if it votes for Union, while the county votes for secession, be able to remain in the Union? How about if the beach district of the town of Miami thinks it should remain in the Union, while the majority of the people of Miami, mainly those inland, thinks it should secede? Where is the line?

I agree. Anarchy is unsustainable. Something has to hold a people together, whether it be an idea or a government. But an oppressive government is just as bad.According to Hobbes, oppression is better than the state of nature. I'm not such a fan of the guy but your standards for a government are rather unrealistic. Just about none of the states in human history had ever reached your demands and never err or "oppress" by your standards.

Ugh, globalism. Global prosperity should be brought about by the elimination of oppressive governments, and the free exchange of goods and ideas all around the world. Not by some kind of super-government.Well, you see, different governments kinda blocks the "free exchange of goods and ideas" all around the world. Just look at China and its blocking of the internet. Presumably, a worldwide institution of something like the Bill of Rights, together with its enforcement all across the world (which would be just about impossible in a world with 200+ countries) would instead give the Chinese an ability to use an uncensored internet.

This, by the way, is a mild example. The benefits of cultural exchanges are implicit anyway also. Globalism, as you called it, has its benefits. In any chance I believe it is a logical step to take: national, regional, even clan or tribal loyalties are futilities and quite ruinous. Oooh, I'm American so I pwn all. Nah, I'm English so I'm like, superior to all of you. Lies! I'm French and I'm better than the rest of the world! Oh, but wait, I'm Chinese and you're all barbarians! :wall:

Or worse yet: damn Yankees! vs what a bunch of Rednecks!

People who put short-term safety before freedom deserve the ruinous results that such policies inevitably incur.Idealistic. You are demanding what the overwhelming majority of humanity fails to do. What is more horrid to an ordinary human? Starvation or being unable to cuss in public? What will be the ordinary human's priority? Getting food and making ends meet or fighting for the Freedom of the Proletariat?

All those revolutions, by the way, can't succeed only with the idealistic few. It needs an economically-and/or-socially deprived populace to succeed. Politics is but secondary to everyday social and economic life for most people. Are you saying most people don't deserve to live in a free society thus?

When and how did I sign this contract? When was I given the choice to take it or leave it? I want my roads, elecricity, science, culture, and safety to be the results of peoples' minds and achivements--and in the case of law enforcement, of willing donations (who doesn't want cops?). By grounding all of that in a forced contract, it is tarnished.As I've said, the "contract" is but theoretical; it is an attempt to define the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state, the state and society, and individual and society, etc.

Willing "donations" will not drive a society anywhere. It's either pure opportunistic greed or an administrative system.

Tough to say. I think it varies from place to place. Here in Oregon, for example, there are several distinct regions: The Coast, The Willamette Valley, and the larger but less-popolous Eastern Oregon. Within each of these areas you'll find a general consensus on ideas, and the variety of idea provided by the three distinct regions ensures that dissatisfied people have a good choice of places to go.You call for a general consensus, whereas a truly modern (as most understood) libertarian ideal would demand not a general concensus but at least an absolute agreement from all: an impossibility.

Now, if we look back on the topic on (paraphrased) "The Lost Ideal of America," it is much easier to look back and realize that what you are painting as your ideal state is rather different from the original picture--or even the original goal--of an America that was painted by the Revolutionaries. I could make an agreement that these are Whigs first and foremost--thus, men who sought to maintain a state, and collective state no less--and the split, the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, is a split of the two extremes of the Whig ideology.

The close study of the American Revolution will show a surprising--to most Americans--fact that, in the language of the 18th century, the "freedom" sought is not the libertarian, individualistic freedom that we understand today, but the political freedom, the right for a collective group to decide what is best for itself instead of a royal figure from afar. Indeed, they are willing to supercede individual rights for the Greater Good if that's what it takes to maintain the latter. The level in which that collective group should be maintained is the main point of the conflict later on. Therefore, it boils down to the fact that you are contradicting yourself between supporting individual rights and political rights of a group, added to that is the question of the exact point where the authority of the majority turns from rightful to oppressive, which you have yet to succeed in answering.

[Aenlic]

I must ask that some distinction be made between libertarian socialists and liberatarian capitalists (which I consider to be an obvious oxymoron, considering the general tendency of capitalism away from individual freedoms in favor of a compliant and unquestioning consumer class which won't bother the capitalists with trite things like the freedom to breath clean air or drink clean water or not have the capitalists dump radioactive waste in their backyards and on the playgrounds.) Perhaps use Libertarian with the capital "L" when talking about the poor deluded tools of the corporare elites, and libertarian with the small letter when talking about the poor deluded utopian socialists like myself. Just using libertarian indiscriminately gives me a rash. :wink:

And way back up there somewhere, AntiochusIII I think, made a comment about the Stalinist coup over the Catalan experiment. They were doomed from the outset, with the Stalinist-controlled remnants of the Republican Army on one hand and Franco's Falangist fascists on the other. Caught between a rock and a hard place, as it were. Bad timing, but at least they tried. I'm surprised they managed even 3 years of anarcho-communism. I suggest reading George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, if you can find it. He was there during the Catalan experiment in anarchism. :book:

Now I'll go crawl back in my futile utopian corner and return to nefarious lurking and such.

[AntiochusIII]

I must ask that some distinction be made between libertarian socialists and liberatarian capitalists (which I consider to be an obvious oxymoron, considering the general tendency of capitalism away from individual freedoms in favor of a compliant and unquestioning consumer class which won't bother the capitalists with trite things like the freedom to breath clean air or drink clean water or not have the capitalists dump radioactive waste in their backyards and on the playgrounds.) Perhaps use Libertarian with the capital "L" when talking about the poor deluded tools of the corporare elites, and libertarian with the small letter when talking about the poor deluded utopian socialists like myself. Just using libertarian indiscriminately gives me a rash. :wink: That ultimately depends on what GC believes himself as, the latter.

Of course, the logical procession of a "libertarian capitalist" position is away from libertarian to capitalist (no capitalized distinction), but GC maintains that the most basic of his principles is the right of the individual to act the way he wants to act. That his principles might not achieve this end is unfortunately on the margin of the discussion, which right now focuses on whether or not the Secession was an act "righteous" based on this libertarianism, and the ideal of America that was the original topic. In my opinion GC seems to be contradicting himself between majoritarianism and libertarianism.

Libertarian socialism is so fascinatingly complex that I think an entirely new topic could be made for a potentially fruitful discussion. Nonetheless, a case could be made that libertarianism that is being discussed right now is a different creature from libertarian socialism, rather more akin to the "mainstream" American libertarianism, the capitalist one.

And way back up there somewhere, AntiochusIII I think, made a comment about the Stalinist coup over the Catalan experiment. They were doomed from the outset, with the Stalinist-controlled remnants of the Republican Army on one hand and Franco's Falangist fascists on the other. Caught between a rock and a hard place, as it were. Bad timing, but at least they tried. I'm surprised they managed even 3 years of anarcho-communism. I suggest reading George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, if you can find it. He was there during the Catalan experiment in anarchism. :book: Ah, the famous Orwell. In my inconclusive, amateurish opinion he seemed to become the libertarian socialist himself anyway. I'm aware of the precarious--nay, doomed--position that the libertarian socialists of the Catalan experiment were in. It's quite sad, really. I'll have to read Orwell someday. Still, I think the Catalan experiment is more akin to anarcho-syndicalism than purely libertarian ideas alone.

What is your "libertarian socialism," in your opinion, by the way?

[KafirChobee]

There are more kinds of difference than a regional one. The topic was "The Ideal of America"--the Constitution of the United States seems more concerned with individual rights--human rights--far more than state's right. There is no Bill of Rights for the states.[I]

According to Hobbes, oppression is better than the state of nature. I'm not such a fan of the guy but your standards for a government are rather unrealistic. Just about none of the states in human history had ever reached your demands and never err or "oppress" by your standards.
Well, you see, different governments kinda blocks the "free exchange of goods and ideas" all around the world. Just look at China and its blocking of the internet. Presumably, a worldwide institution of something like the Bill of Rights, together with its enforcement all across the world (which would be just about impossible in a world with 200+ countries) would instead give the Chinese an ability to use an uncensored internet.

This, by the way, is a mild example. The benefits of cultural exchanges are implicit anyway also. Globalism, as you called it, has its benefits. In any chance I believe it is a logical step to take: national, regional, even clan or tribal loyalties are futilities and quite ruinous. Oooh, I'm American so I own all. Nah, I'm English so I'm like, superior to all of you. Lies! I'm French and I'm better than the rest of the world! Oh, but wait, I'm Chinese and you're all barbarians! :wall:

All those revolutions, by the way, can't succeed only with the idealistic few. It needs an economically-and/or-socially deprived populace to succeed. Politics is but secondary to everyday social and economic life for most people. Are you saying most people don't deserve to live in a free society thus?
As I've said, the "contract" is but theoretical; it is an attempt to define the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state, the state and society, and individual and society, etc.

Willing "donations" will not drive a society anywhere. It's either pure opportunistic greed or an administrative system.
You call for a general consensus, whereas a truly modern (as most understood) libertarian ideal would demand [I]not a general concensus but at least an absolute agreement from all: an impossibility.

Now, if we look back on the topic on (paraphrased) "The Lost Ideal of America," it is much easier to look back and realize that what you are painting as your ideal state is rather different from the original picture--or even the original goal--of an America that was painted by the Revolutionaries. I could make an agreement that these are Whigs first and foremost--thus, men who sought to maintain a state, and collective state no less--and the split, the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, is a split of the two extremes of the Whig ideology.

The close study of the American Revolution will show a surprising--to most Americans--fact that, in the language of the 18th century, the "freedom" sought is not the libertarian, individualistic freedom that we understand today, but the political freedom, the right for a collective group to decide what is best for itself instead of a royal figure from afar. Indeed, they are willing to supercede individual rights for the Greater Good if that's what it takes to maintain the latter. The level in which that collective group should be maintained is the main point of the conflict later on. Therefore, it boils down to the fact that you are contradicting yourself between supporting individual rights and political rights of a group, added to that is the question of the exact point where the authority of the majority turns from rightful to oppressive.


edited, modified beyond the authors recognition - but, attempted to maintain the key points of its discourse. My appologizes.

The first statement on the Bill of Rights was an absolute. But, things change as laws allow them to - or court interpretation of those laws are modified to conform with either popular view or the minority view of the powerful. The US gas digressed to a good for business good for freedom mentality - and its populace seems more than willing to give up its social freedoms for the promise of security or monetary gain (be it theirs or the wealthy - as long as it is presented to them in a manner demonstrating the need for it to expand the imperialistic umbrella of the new concept of economic freedom).
As someone pointed out earlier - the inclusion of allowing Corporations to become individual entities with the same rights as individuals allowed them to become super-political-entities able to impose their will upon our political system. Heck, they even write the laws meant to protect us from them - oil and power companies rewriting the environmental and power policies, etc. All behind closed doors.

The arguements between or about individual rights versus the "good" or will of the majority all began when? Rights of the individual, was a radical concept upon its introduction by America. The will of the majority, seems (to me) more of an excuse to deprive individual freedom than to expand it. A justification for reducing freedoms by claiming majority rule (51%) is democracy - when in fact it is a political means for one group to dominate another.

As for slavery, we still have it - it is called the minimum wage ($5.15 and hour). While congress has increased their wages by $30,000 a year - they have denied the poorest of americans even the mearest of increases. The poverty level is $20,000 a year (for a family of 4) - it is the first crime of the 21st century against the poorest of our fellow citizens. Fortunately, for the GOP, they don't vote. Further, looking back over the history of the Supreme Court one realizes that whom so ever controls it controls the law - slavery was upheld countless times prior to 1860, and had the slavers maintained it we very well would have a formal form of it today (aside from what I mention above).

The discourse between GC and Antiochus was (is) both enlightening and confusing. It seems to me, atleast, that bothof you are argueing the same side from different ends of the table. It is more about maintaining liberties, than how we lost those already dismissed as antiquated by the majority. Still, much of what your discussion debated seemed clear to you. Perhaps by toning down the philosophilic analogies it might be clearer for the weak minded as myself.:bow:

Gah! Hobbs! Gah! Orwell! :duel:

[Watchman]

Ugh, globalism. Global prosperity should be brought about by the elimination of oppressive governments, and the free exchange of goods and ideas all around the world. Not by some kind of super-government....and seeing as how the "local" level, if not properly regulated, descends into a Hobbesian jungle of naked exploitation, what magic is supposed to keep that from happening on the "global" level ?

How they used to harvest raw gum in those jungles less than a century ago (or thereabouts) is a kind of case in point of that predatorism.

[Watchman]

Apparently I should explain that funny method of rubber-harvesting, GC.

Begin with a bunch of armed, remorseless thugs.
Take a native village in the vicinity of rubber trees.
Go in with the thugs.
Hold the women and children hostage at gunpoint.
Tell the men you're going to kill their women and children - and not necessarily quickly - unless they bring you so-and-so much of the stuff within such-and-such time.
Wait.
Probably rape, torture and/or kill a few of the villagers to pass the time and make a point.
Take the raw rubber from the men once they get back.
If the quotas aren't met, kill at the very least the appropriate hostages. Overkill is optional, as is rape and torture; but they help make the point, if only for the folks in the next village.
Sell the raw rubber to the international market for neat profit.
Rinse and repeat; if you start running out of natives, move elsewhere or force more to move in.

This was how things were done both in South America and various parts of Africa. Leopold (II's?) little personal fiefdom, the Belgian Kongo, is a particularly grotesque case - total death toll among the populace over several decades is conservatively estimated to around two million (in part from famines and similar distruptions), and missionaries in the country reported many local women refused to have children anymore as they did not want to bring the helpless little things to such a cruel world.
I understand Joseph Conrad's famous book Heart of Darkness, on which Kubrick based much of Apocalypse. Now. is pretty much a travel diary from his trip to a comparable scenario.
How much Leopold raked in profits from it is AFAIK difficult to estimate, as he had most of the meticulous and detailed bookkeeping burned (which took a day or two, even with all the fireplaces in his palace) when the Belgian governement forced him to nationalize the colony.

That is the bottomless charnel pit of naked exploitation you can reach in a global capitalist economy with insufficient or nonexistent overwatch. The German industrialists who profiteered from Nazi slave labour are another brilliant example of capitalist profit-seeking with all the moral stops off.

[Watchman]

Why do you think assorted regulatory and overwatch agencies, ministries, UN organs, NGOs and suchlike exist ?
You know, assorted "oppressive governement" kinds of structures that seek to place limits to the "free exchange of goods and ideas all around the world" ?

At least we've largely gotten past those ugly business practices since then. But, as mentioned, someone buys those "war diamonds" from the Tupac Armies in Congo (yes, the same), and I wouldn't count on the warlords there being the most scrupulous or humane employers...

There are NGOs that focus on tracing down possible "exploitative" practices involved in the production of goods somewhere along the line, and inform the consumers of it. And state legislation that seeks to establish some norms on just how goods being sold inside their borders have been made - if it was up to the market alone I can pretty much quarantee no sneaker would owe up its country of origin, for example (unless counting on it serving as a sort of brand-name "value addition" element - but then, without reliable checks on their authenticity there wouldn't actually be all *that* much keeping the manufacturers, importers and whoever from lying like the proverbial politicians on the matter...).

It took a while before the manufacturers could be bothered to print a list of ingredients on foodstuffs too, I seem to recall. And some strong-arming on the legislative and consumer side.

[Watchman]

Catch-22, isn't that ?

Ought to tell you something of the supposed benevolence of the Market, really. "If we can't exploit you, we'll go exploit them - so there!
...actually, we'll go exploit them anyway; it's cheaper."

[Watchman]

I'd say that's sort of moot point for the exploited - they suffer anyway. And if it's a big bubble that goes pop... well, some of those have had pretty nasty aftereffects.

One funny thing about capitalism is its tendency for economic "bubbles" that then burst, and the whole economy gets buggered. Know when the first known one was ?
1600s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania).

Insustainability is something that capitalism and the market can deal with - once the dust settles they'll just find something new, don't worry about that.
People, however, deal with it a bit worse. Even without Nazi references, I presume you have no longing for the desperate squalor of the Great Depression...?

IMHO that's really the point. Boom-and-bust cycles are pretty much built right into the core of capitalist economy (in economy based on agriculture they were just tied to the success of the harvest, so no really big change here) - some of the associated wave theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_waves) are kinda interesting - so there's not really much point worrying about "sustainability" too much, besides trying to build up assorted social shock-absorption systems.

If it's immediately profitable, it gets pursued. Long-term sustainability can pretty much go hang itself, at least as far as modern shareholder value quarterly capitalism is primarily concerned.

Ergo, IMO worrying about sustainability is redunant and the concern should be on minimizing the undesirable side effects - all the more so as that makes people better equipped to recover from the inevitable low tide. To put it crudely, odds are you're going to have a way easier time getting back to your feet after a recession if you can read and have some meaningful degree of education, than if you don't...

[Aenlic]

What is your "libertarian socialism," in your opinion, by the way?

I'm about right in the middle of a wide spectrum, or perhaps more of a circle, of varying viewpoints named things like anarcho-syndicalism (with which you seem to be familiar), anarcho-communism, mutualism, free market anti-capitalism (which is actually more of a side branch of mutualism), plain vanilla socialism, non-Statist anti-Stalinist communism and Chomskyesque rationalist-modernism.

If I had to pick one to associate myself with, with a large caveat that I don't agree 100% with any of them, then I'd pick anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. A big clue is in my sig, with the author of the second quote. One of my favorite books on the subject is The Ecology of Freedom: the emergence and dissolution of hierarchy, by Murray Bookchin. A very good read.

The best source for explaining all of it, although it's a huge read and a big investment of time and mental energies is The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html), a wonderful compilation of just about everything regarding anarchist, libertarian-socialist theory. It's put together by a group of dedicated UK amateurs and updated regularly. It has a great set of appendices dealing with the differences between anarcho-communism and the so-called anarcho-capitalism (Libertarians with a big L) and the differences between the various groups that might fall within the umbrella of being called "anarchist" or other variants of it.

I find it difficult to argue against rabid anti-socialist capitalists who haven't ever even read Ludwig von Mises critiques of socialism, have never heard of the Austrian School, don't know who Bakunin or Kropotkin or Proudhon were, think socialism is all about Marx and Lenin and Stalin, and believe everything that Ayn Rand spouted from her bitter and twisted psyche is the absolute truth. :wink:

Not that I'm opinionated or anything like that. :laugh4:

[Watchman]

How do you explain extant high-intervention governements that in all international corruption comparisions come out practically pure as the driven snow, then ?

It may be just my opinion, but I really do think that weird deterministic idea "Governement = Corruption => More Governement = More Corruption" sucks. Because it does not, in fact, work even remotely that neatly - or that way *at all* - in practice.

[Watchman]

Outta curiosity, how's Canada doing in the corruption departement ? Not exactly a wretched hive of scum and villainy, I understand...?

Size is largely irrelevant, as the whole is in any case built up of the smaller parts. Bigger units just require more organisational chutzpah.

What public-sector corruption or lack thereof really depends on is primarily internalized honesty and the bureaucrats' professional ethic - ie. the officials, adminstrators and whatever should not need to ask themselves "why shouldn't I take this bribe" but instead simply react "I will not take this bribe (and preferably turn the guy in)" - and the rather complex question of social trust. Goes roughly so that if people can trust and believe in other people behaving honestly and not sacrificing common interests for individual gain, then they will behave likewise. The lack of such trust will lead people to assume more or less everyone else is just out for his or her own gain, and behave likewise.

The self-reinforcing tendencies are pretty obvious.

Anyway, for assorted reasons the Scandinavian countries have managed to work out that pattern; the Swedes AFAIK built up theirs in the 1800s to replace a (by modern reckoning) badly corrupt one. Singapore reformed its own adminstration in the Seventies or thereabouts and managed to largely "de-corrupt" itself in the process - no mean feat, as already established corruption is very self-reinforcing and very difficult to root out intentionally (since any official attempts at such will not be really believed in...). I'm pretty certain quite a few other countries too have it at least on a manageable level - ie. it's something that people are aware of and makes the headlines every now and then, but on the whole the system runs smoothly enough and the officials can on the average be relied upon - or at least AFAIK bribery isn't exactly widespread in, say, France, UK or Germany (Italy is kind of weird, apparently). Or Canada.

Another anyway, though, is that one major factor in generating such trust is that people must be able to trust in laws and their enforcement, in other words, that they have legal protection against others betraying their trust and can rely on it if needed, fairly and objectively.

And the US for one has a pretty crappy track record in this... Frankly, I've read enough on just how fair and unbiased law enforcement over there used to be not all that many decades ago (and to a degree still is) to be able to a certain degree understand why Americans on the average seem so distrustful of authorities.