Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

why do so many americans ...

Page 8 of 10 [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Jan 2013, 3:55 pm

thomas81 wrote:
elections arent the be all and the end all of democracy. What the USA and similar western countries have in free speech, they lack in citizen participation in the political process. The only meaningful difference between the USA and some of the dictatorships it criticises is that twice a decade its citizens get to choose between a two horse race on whose tyranny they will be under the rest of the time.
Free speech is only as meaningful as the depth of your pockets. It means nothing when you are freezing on the cold pavement.


Using that criterion, over 90 percent of the folks in the U.S.A. have free speech.

That is not bad. Compare to the former unlamented soviet union or to N. Korea.

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

28 Jan 2013, 4:00 pm

thomas81 wrote:
[
de·moc·ra·cy
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
1.A system of government by the whole population


That's not what you said. You said you wanted a "social majority" rule. That often is not democracy at all. Look what happened in Northern Ireland 1922-1972. That rather undercuts your point, doesn't it? That was a 'democratic' system - or rather, a majoritarian system with a 'democratic' dressing - that mistreated the Catholic minority. Perhaps not quite as seriously targeted at Catholics as Irish nationalists would have you believe, but the system (and the anti-Catholic remarks made by numerous NI prime ministers that equated all Catholics with nationalism and violence) certainly served to discriminate against them.

Either put up a proper argument or wind it in. You can't have it both ways. A "social majority" can easily oppress a minority. I saw plentiful evidence of that in a documentary film I saw tonight called Call Me Kuchu, about the vile hatred of gays in ultra-Christian Uganda.



lotuspuppy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 995
Location: On a journey to the center of the mind

28 Jan 2013, 5:34 pm

thomas81 wrote:
elections arent the be all and the end all of democracy. What the USA and similar western countries have in free speech, they lack in citizen participation in the political process. The only meaningful difference between the USA and some of the dictatorships it criticises is that twice a decade its citizens get to choose between a two horse race on whose tyranny they will be under the rest of the time.
Free speech is only as meaningful as the depth of your pockets. It means nothing when you are freezing on the cold pavement.


How do you choose to rectify the participation problem? What ideal system would you like? If you have referred to it in a previous post, kindly point me to that post, so I can take a read.



lotuspuppy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 995
Location: On a journey to the center of the mind

28 Jan 2013, 5:38 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
lotuspuppy wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
@ OP:

I'd agree with a lot of what lotuspuppy said and would also raise you these:

1) We're a country of 300 million spread out over a couple thousand miles and when you look at cultural and regional needs we're closer to several countries rather than one. Having all pegs jammed into the same round hole organizationally and budgetarily is excruciating. When you have a central government ruling over something the size of one of our larger states the cultural and geological/economic variances become more of a moot point.

2) Aggrevating those regional differences is a central government that's taken the teeth out of the check and balance that the states have against it (ie. 17th Amendment, 1913). Because of this we feel like we presently have a juggernaut on its hands, something like a golem with its own mind and will (a bit like what John Ralston Saul likes to say happens when the courtier/courtesan class gets so big that government's decisions start revolving around them more than anyone else). No one knows how to get it back under control.


This is very true.

I personally feel the states should have more decision making power, not less. I am not a states rights advocate for the most part, but I feel it is pragmatic for government services to be provided mostly at the state level. Take infrastructure. The East and West coasts have vastly different infrastructure needs than the interior does. Same goes for social services, or city development.

The U.S. is just too big and too diverse for the federal government to do much for us. Unless it involves securing our borders, defense, or commercial regulations, I just don't see a role for them.


I disagree. There are many states where legislatures have been taken over by extremists who seem to feel it's their duty to punish those without by cutting services, including education. Many of these same state governing bodies and their governors would rather cut taxes for the richest citizens. With such a record, and potential record, I prefer to see the feds handle such programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am actually ambivalent to that fact, although I don't think "extremists" can thrive in economically productive states. Rather, I am more or less fine with state control of social services because a.) it increases competition between states, and b.) it lets unproductive states, like Mississippi, not drain as many resources as a more productive state, like Connecticut. I know it sounds like cruel capitalism, but I think it would work fine in practice because everyone has the freedom to move, and we know Americans historically exercise it.



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

28 Jan 2013, 5:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
There are many reasons to distrust and dislike the government.....I personally still like the idea of communism, a classless society I think that would solve a lot of problems.


Ideas like that work well only on paper. People can't be controlled like that. It's an ideal that human nature just cannot, and shouldn't try to, aspire to.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

28 Jan 2013, 5:55 pm

Tequila wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
[
de·moc·ra·cy
/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun
1.A system of government by the whole population


That's not what you said. You said you wanted a "social majority" rule. That often is not democracy at all. Look what happened in Northern Ireland 1922-1972. That rather undercuts your point, doesn't it? That was a 'democratic' system - or rather, a majoritarian system with a 'democratic' dressing - that mistreated the Catholic minority. Perhaps not quite as seriously targeted at Catholics as Irish nationalists would have you believe, but the system (and the anti-Catholic remarks made by numerous NI prime ministers that equated all Catholics with nationalism and violence) certainly served to discriminate against them.

Either put up a proper argument or wind it in. You can't have it both ways. A "social majority" can easily oppress a minority. I saw plentiful evidence of that in a documentary film I saw tonight called Call Me Kuchu, about the vile hatred of gays in ultra-Christian Uganda.


Northern Ireland was a completely different circumstance. The 6 counties were deliberately 'gerrymandered' by London due to their unionist concentration in order to protect the status quo in the 6 counties.

Admittedly, my 'ideal' democracy doesn't exist; however some elements of the chinese system for example, where people are encouraged to participate in politics locally is one desirable tennent. I hate Maoism though so I would not advocate the rest.

What I am advocating is a self sufficient area of land that can easilly sustain the people who live there while enabling them to live happilly. Arbitrary nation states, whose borders are drawn up on the antiquated basis of the results of centuries old wars is a foolish basis on which to divide labour and resources.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

28 Jan 2013, 6:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Using that criterion, over 90 percent of the folks in the U.S.A. have free speech.



It means regressively less exponentially, the farther the way down you make your way down the food chain.

The mid 80 percent of those folks have somewhere exactly between none and negligible voice. It is worse if you dont live in a swing state, where the politicians do not have to work for your vote.

Electoral democracy is a dictatorship where those in a contested area select between tyrant A and tyrant B.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

28 Jan 2013, 6:25 pm

Democracy works in county elections,I know who's running,I know my vote makes a difference.I'm lucky to vote in a small rural area where my neighbors are working the polls,there is food,coffee,visiting,etc.....and after the polls close maybe a beer or two.
But I don't know if my vote counts in the big elections.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

28 Jan 2013, 6:45 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Democracy works in county elections,I know who's running,I know my vote makes a difference.I'm lucky to vote in a small rural area where my neighbors are working the polls,there is food,coffee,visiting,etc.....and after the polls close maybe a beer or two.
But I don't know if my vote counts in the big elections.


depends what you mean by 'democracy'.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jan 2013, 6:47 pm

lotuspuppy wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
lotuspuppy wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
@ OP:

I'd agree with a lot of what lotuspuppy said and would also raise you these:

1) We're a country of 300 million spread out over a couple thousand miles and when you look at cultural and regional needs we're closer to several countries rather than one. Having all pegs jammed into the same round hole organizationally and budgetarily is excruciating. When you have a central government ruling over something the size of one of our larger states the cultural and geological/economic variances become more of a moot point.

2) Aggrevating those regional differences is a central government that's taken the teeth out of the check and balance that the states have against it (ie. 17th Amendment, 1913). Because of this we feel like we presently have a juggernaut on its hands, something like a golem with its own mind and will (a bit like what John Ralston Saul likes to say happens when the courtier/courtesan class gets so big that government's decisions start revolving around them more than anyone else). No one knows how to get it back under control.


This is very true.

I personally feel the states should have more decision making power, not less. I am not a states rights advocate for the most part, but I feel it is pragmatic for government services to be provided mostly at the state level. Take infrastructure. The East and West coasts have vastly different infrastructure needs than the interior does. Same goes for social services, or city development.

The U.S. is just too big and too diverse for the federal government to do much for us. Unless it involves securing our borders, defense, or commercial regulations, I just don't see a role for them.


I disagree. There are many states where legislatures have been taken over by extremists who seem to feel it's their duty to punish those without by cutting services, including education. Many of these same state governing bodies and their governors would rather cut taxes for the richest citizens. With such a record, and potential record, I prefer to see the feds handle such programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am actually ambivalent to that fact, although I don't think "extremists" can thrive in economically productive states. Rather, I am more or less fine with state control of social services because a.) it increases competition between states, and b.) it lets unproductive states, like Mississippi, not drain as many resources as a more productive state, like Connecticut. I know it sounds like cruel capitalism, but I think it would work fine in practice because everyone has the freedom to move, and we know Americans historically exercise it.


But then, what happens to the disabled and needy in places like Mississippi? They're left out in the cold - often quite literally - when their state government is controlled by those extremists I was talking about.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

28 Jan 2013, 6:56 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Democracy works in county elections,I know who's running,I know my vote makes a difference.I'm lucky to vote in a small rural area where my neighbors are working the polls,there is food,coffee,visiting,etc.....and after the polls close maybe a beer or two.
But I don't know if my vote counts in the big elections.


depends what you mean by 'democracy'.



Well, I know that I have a say in my county officials,I'm not talking about national elections,I'm talking about a rural county that has roughly 7,000 people.My vote counts here,and to me that's pretty darn important.I do have a say over county taxes,who my judge or sheriff is,or who I don't want in office. I can vote with no hassle,no lines,with people I know and trust.What else would you call this?I call it LUCKY :lol:


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

28 Jan 2013, 7:28 pm

CaptainTrips222 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
There are many reasons to distrust and dislike the government.....I personally still like the idea of communism, a classless society I think that would solve a lot of problems.


Ideas like that work well only on paper. People can't be controlled like that. It's an ideal that human nature just cannot, and shouldn't try to, aspire to.

Classes are ultimately a result of individual control over others. Human nature is a result of societal influence and condition and is not static at all. The question is which conditions/systems of organization bring about which traits?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZWsFmjSi78[/youtube]



AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

28 Jan 2013, 8:48 pm

thomas81 wrote:
It means regressively less exponentially, the farther the way down you make your way down the food chain.

The mid 80 percent of those folks have somewhere exactly between none and negligible voice. It is worse if you dont live in a swing state, where the politicians do not have to work for your vote.

Electoral democracy is a dictatorship where those in a contested area select between tyrant A and tyrant B.


Thomas81, please note that US voters* select a local US house member every 2 years, and 2 senators on rotating 6 year terms (say, in 2010 and 2012, and then in 2016 and 2018), so it's not like the presidental is the only one that matters. Given the vast powers given to individual members of the US Senate, and the powers held by the states, it's not quite the system you're making it out to be.

* District of Columbia voters do not get a voting seat in the US congress. The district, which was carved out of Virginia and Maryland, is not a state.

In 2008, both parties had very compitive primaries that produced two good candiates. In 2012, the Republicans had a hard fought primary system that featured more than a dozen debates, and compitive races in multiple states.


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Jan 2013, 9:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

But then, what happens to the disabled and needy in places like Mississippi? They're left out in the cold - often quite literally - when their state government is controlled by those extremists I was talking about.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


When the Dust Bowl happened the Oakies moved to California or some other states.

The solution is simple: Move

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jan 2013, 9:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But then, what happens to the disabled and needy in places like Mississippi? They're left out in the cold - often quite literally - when their state government is controlled by those extremists I was talking about.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


When the Dust Bowl happened the Oakies moved to California or some other states.

The solution is simple: Move

ruveyn


A lot of those Oakies didn't make it. Accounts of them dying while in dilapidated camps, or on the road, wasn't just Steinbeck's invention for The Grapes Of Wrath. On top of that, Oakies were regarded as trash for their poverty and rootlessness by many of the people of California or the Pacific Northwest, and continued to live as "stoop labor" for some years to come.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

28 Jan 2013, 9:35 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Northern Ireland was a completely different circumstance. The 6 counties were deliberately 'gerrymandered' by London due to their unionist concentration in order to protect the status quo in the 6 counties.


You're so predictable.

They were not gerrymandered. People living inside the region decided that they wanted to remain in the UK. It was an imperfect compromise (and they took far too much land, which they have paid for dearly) but that doesn't mean that Ulster unionists were not justified in saying that they wanted to remain British.

Anyway, I'm not on about what happened in 1921. I'm on about afterwards, in the 1930s and 1940s. Having got their majority, even under its own terms the system mistreated the Catholic minority.