Why the USA has the least democratic form of government of all the Western nations.
232 2012-09-16 by [deleted]
The USA is not a democracy; it never was. From the start, the elite arranged a coup whereby the articles of confederation were illegally replaced by our current undemocratic constitution. The guiding principle behind this new constitution was an expansion of the federal govt so that enlarged voting districts were created.
This was done by the elite so that the voters in the several states could not use their own gov't against the rich. The idea was that enlarged voting districts would contain more factions. More factions meant fewer common shared interests among the voters of that district.
Fewer common shared interests meant that the voters were less able to elect and hold accountable their political representatives. The more important of these enlarged voting districts were the federal positions of president, senator and to a lesser degree, congressman.
The elite also set up a system of strong checks and balances, staggered elections and balances and separation of powers to make it harder for the gov't to serve the will of the majority. For more on this, see Federalist Paper 10, written by James Madison, the so called father of the constitution who when he came into his inheritance, was worth about 100 million in today's dollars.
Over the decades the USA became even larger, creating even more factions among the voters. This meant less voter unity and therefore less control by the voters over their own govt. And then mass immigration of nonwhites and racial integration created yet more factions among the electorate. This means that at this point, there is very little control of the federal govt, and, to a lesser degree, the state govts, by the voters.
Take a look at the rest of our cultural cousins--the rest of the western nations: britain, ireland, germany, france, sweden, norway, denmark, finland, switzerland, netherlands, belgium, australia, canada, new zealand, italy, etc.
If you look at recent history you can see that these nations have it set up where the voters have far more control of their govts that the americans do. The principles of divide et impera are thus more clearly seen when you do this comparison: smaller is better for the majority because it causes fewer factions.
Homogeneous is better for the majority because it causes fewer factions. Small and homogeneous vs large and heterogeneous. This is one of the spectrums/measures of democracy.
The other spectrum/measure of democracy is democratic structure of the government: parliamentarianism vs federalism. Names mean nothing. How the gov't is structured means everything. Parliamentarian forms of govt means that you put the real power of the government into the hands of politicians elected from small districts. Small districts have fewer factions than large districts. Very important, that. Read it again. Small districts means fewer factions among the voters and therefore MORE UNITY among the voters. More unity and more common interests shared.
In parliamentarian gov'ts the prime minister operates at the behest of the lower house. THe upper house is usually weak or powerless, unlike federalist govts like the USA. The executive office, i.e., the president or prime minister, almost voted in by the lower house, not the voter populace. And that prime minister can be thrown out by the lower house. The lower house controls everything, for all practical purposes. In almost every parliamentarian govt there is no judicial review like we have here in america where unelected life tenure judges get the final word on everything. Thus, in parliamentarian govts the people have the power because the power is held by the lower house, which representatives are elected from small voting districts where it takes less money to run and where the populace is smaller, more united, more homogeneous and therefore are better able to elect and hold accountable their representative.
Which nations have parliamentarian forms of govt? EVERY OTHER WESTERN NATION EXCEPT AMERICA. There are some few exceptions of a sort, but for practical purposes, the usa is the only western nation not to have a parliamentarian form of govt. And it shows.
However now that the elite have managed to slip in some recent nonwhite immigration into most of the other western nations, that has weakened voter unity and created more factions.
The way that the elite have managed to slip in more immigration has been the creation of a false-left, which replaced tradtional economics-oriented leftism with race-and-gender-based leftism, replacing an economic focus with a social issues focus. This false-Left subculture started in academia in the USA. It is pushed onto young minds and converts them to false-Leftism. This false-Left was started by academic grants funded by the large nonprofit foundations such as the Ford, Getty, and Rockefeller foundations, which were started by plutocrats. These foundations gave grants to writers, academicians and activists, but favored those writers, academicians and activists who had a race-oriented perspective and who favored racial integration, mass immigration, minority and female rights and mass immigration. These grants were also given to those writers, academicians and activists who thought white people and in particular white males were bad, evil.
This all started almost 100 years ago. The falseLeft grants focused at first on elite colleges, e.g., harvard, yale, et al. That way they were able to mold impressionable young minds that went on to seats on the Supreme Court and other places of power.
Eventually over the decades, the effect of these grants was to build an academic subculture that put minorities and women on a pedestal and denigrated white males. This subculture favored the interests of the rich people who funded these grants because the eventual effect was the so called civil rights movement which increased factions, lowered voter unity and increased the supply of labor, driving down wages.
For more on this idea, see Dr Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM.
Back to the present-day USA:
So business and the rich can now do pretty much whatever they want. The USA is so large, so divided by heterogeneity, by diversity, by race, by size, that the only real check on govt power now is the media. And of course the media is owned by corporations. And the media is now so closely tied to the govt that I call it CorpGovMedia. Really it should be called CorpGovAcademiaHollywoodMedia because these powerful institutions are now so closely tied together that they operate as a single unit.
CorpGovAcademiaHollywoodMedia is governed by the false-leftism subculture created by the plutocrats via grants. Professional people who work in CorpGovAcademiaHollywoodMedia are governed by the false-left principles, unwritten code of conduct and mores instilled into them as impressionable youth in their high-ranked colleges.
This entire system was started by and for the rich.
It's not a conspiracy; it's an ecosystem.
131 comments
24 [deleted] 2012-09-16
As long as e-voting machines exist there will never be a true election.
4 principle 2012-09-16
This is what they want you to believe.
The reason voting machines were invented was due to widespread fraud associated with paper ballots. Contrary to popular belief, Internet based voting methods are the most accurate because they allow for real-time independent verification of each vote cast. With voter being able to immediately see that the vote was properly registered.
1 MuteReality 2012-09-16
Actually what he said makes perfect sense. If these machines were wired to separate non profits using one way cabling like ethernet bridge cables, they actually would be extremely hard to fake.
Unfortunately what we have now are voting machines that are standalone Dells in a fancy shell that could be really easily cracked and hacked to throw votes.
-8 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
17 Alcorr 2012-09-16
The voting machines are rigged. The auditors never even tested to see if they could be hacked, which diebold internal documents show they can, and former employees have also testified to this.
-9 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
3 Alcorr 2012-09-16
I realize that. I am not advocating voting in the current political system as a means of changing the system, even if the machines were not rigged. I agree with your original post for the most part, I am simply pointing out that the machines indeed are rigged.
14 kookydad 2012-09-16
other than the city state, democracy is a fail. really no different than a monarchy we've just created a different aristocracy thats all
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
14 floodster 2012-09-16
I actually moved from Sweden to the US because I could not stand the swedish system any longer. The problem with a nanny state (which sweden has) is that it forms a population with a very broad middle class that are basically clones of each others. Swedish people are not as different from each other as people in the US. Now, one could argue that it is a good thing. Like a strong working force, but to me that is on the fringe of society the US seems alot more accepting.
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
10 floodster 2012-09-16
Old people get treated like shit in sweden, because the government owns all the instutions.
But yes, alot of the socialist system is good. Alot of it is also bad. There is no "best country ever" imho
4 Chavagnatze 2012-09-16
Old people get treated like shit everywhere. No book of laws has any real effect on human nature.
2 floodster 2012-09-16
Old people in the mediterranean are not treated like shit. Alot of italian families live together with their grandmothers and so on.
Same is probably true of china, from what I saw visiting
-5 americangoyblogger 2012-09-16
To be killed and raped by a moslem immigrant?
Not especially in this order.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Jew not so smart.
9 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
0 extrasauceplz 2012-09-16
or not
8 hedbangr 2012-09-16
The US has the least democratic form of government because our government predates the general acceptance of democracy as a valid form of government. We worked some republicanism in there because full blown democracy was too revolutionary, but we've also been actively playing catch-up ever since and one day the electoral college too will pass.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
3 Inops 2012-09-16
Hang on. I've read the Federalist paper 10, and I thought it said that the checks and balances are there to prevent a majority from having too much power over the minority. For instance, if the Republicans take office and have a majority in the Senate, they'll be able to do far less damage than if there were no checks. It's essentially a safeguard, because pure democracy has its downsides too.
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 Inops 2012-09-16
First, where are you pulling this quote from? I don't see it anywhere in the editions available online, nor in my own printed edition. I do not wish to be pedantic, but if this quote is inaccurate then this argument is frivolous, especially considering the quote seems to be referring specifically to the wealthy minority.
Searching the quote reveals it to be from Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Constitution, so disregard the above, although the quote is not relevant to the concerns addressed in the Federalist. Concerning Madison's personal position on these matters and how it may affect his philosophy is an issue, however. The full quote apparently is about his concerns on how there will eventually be a minority of landowners when compared to the population as a whole, and so this 'opulent minority' ought to have a role in government to protect their interests.
I don't think there is any other way to interpret this other than a concern that wealthy landowners should have some sort of protection, but his concern is that if the masses have an overwhelming vote, then there will be no way for the wealthy to protect their riches. This may perhaps be a legitimate concern, although considering your earlier point of Madison's great fortune, it is probably personally influenced. This especially considering the source of the quote, which was from the debates during the construction of the Federal Constitution.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 Inops 2012-09-16
I think it's very easy to interpret this as the wealthy protecting their interests, so you may have a legitimate concern as to a fundamental misconstruction of our Constitution. However, is it completely unreasonable that the wealthy, if their fortune was earned fairly, should have some sort of protection? Considering that Madison's major theme was a balance of power between the minority and the majority, it would be consistent if not taken too far. Giving either the minority or the majority too much power is bad.
Edit: Don't take this as a defense of the ultra-rich and powerful, but I think affairs may have been different when Madison was alive. The imbalance between the rich and the poor was nowhere near as wide as it is today.
1 space_walrus 2012-09-16
You're right on both counts. Madison's motives were not ignoble, and, the protections he secured have led to fantastic wealth inequality and public unhealth in this country unthinkable in France or Scandinavia, more on a par with India and China, if not far beyond.
2 Inops 2012-09-16
Yeah... it's really a shame. I don't think any of the founding fathers intended for the country to end up like this. But people seem to naturally find a way to exploit any system to their own advantage, which leads to messes like this where the elite have used the rules to expand their own wealth and power.
1 space_walrus 2012-09-16
I think they expected regular revolts, but America got prosperous fast and the opulent started nailing down the furniture. As they say, all we need is one big dose of class consciousness and we small folk will start to have a very serious voice, perhaps for the first time.
... but, right after Dr Who, ok? ;)
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 Inops 2012-09-16
Yep, he did say it, so it's relevant to a degree. I just didn't see it in Fed 10 and was confused.
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 Inops 2012-09-16
Well, that's true. He's talking about factions, and in those days land was extremely valuable and contested. The dream of many middle-class citizens during those days was to save up enough money to purchase themselves some land and slaves.
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 Inops 2012-09-16
Let's keep things in perspective. In your own words, Madison was worth approximately 100 million dollars in today's money. That's wealthy, but nowhere near the level of today's 1%.
Second, anecdotal evidence of a man's character is unreliable, although I agree that Madison's character was dubious, although perhaps not as much as Hamilton's. Concerning slavery, here is a letter that Madison himself wrote, if that changes anything.
6 yahoo_bot 2012-09-16
So you are saying that checks and balances of GOVERNMENT which is creating majority of the problems is bad?
I mean let me ask you few questions:
Who is starting wars? Is it the executive branch with disregard of the constitution or business owners?
Who is spying on you?
Who is searching your house and property and papers and belongings without warrants?
Who is touching you at the airports, government of business owners?
Who is passing NDAA, Patriot Act, business owners or the government?
Who is raising taxes on you?
What you basically want is mob rule, rule of the 51%, which is most cases aren't even 51%, but more like 21% over the 79%. In most democracies about 40% go out and vote, out of those 40%, about 21% vote for party A, 19% vote for party B and party A ends up ruling over 79% of the people. That is democracy these days.
From your profile I can see you are part of this "new right" which is basically neocons with underlying socialists agenda on the economics.
I mean don't be new, you are the old, you are neocon, neocons are basically socialist as well in their economic plans, just as the democrats these days.
-6 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 Kirkayak 2012-09-16
This ideological leftist, socialist in fact, gives you an upvote for mentioning the militarism and fascist-like rights violations of capital.
0 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Disingenuous asshole would be more appropriate with a post like that
5 extrasauceplz 2012-09-16
I don't agree with your analysis of the constitution at all. I don't think you have a full understanding of the theory behind it. The way you talk about local level government and how when to many people have to many different ideas its somehow a bad thing. We were never supposed to have a democracy, we were meant to have a constitutional republic. We then turned into a representative democracy, which is one step worse than a democracy. And today we have a fascist representative democracy that is corrupt from the ground up. So when you keep using the word democracy as the goal we should try to attain, it shows me you don't understand the constitution at all. A democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep deciding whats for dinner, just because there is a majority doesn't make it right. Our system failed because the general population wasn't smart enough to handle it. Even when the constitution was first written, only a bout a third of the population understood what it was. It order for and from of justice to survive you need a highly educated population that can pass it down to their children, we never had that and neither has any population that has ever lived.
4 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Your conclusion contradicts all of your premise[s].
It most definitely is a conspiracy. If it is an ecosystem (which doesn't seem to be an inaccurate description, by the way) it is one which is maintained by conspiracy for the conspirators.. a government "of the conspirators, by the conspirators, and for the conspirators", if you will.
3 SonOfMan11 2012-09-16
I think another way to put it whereby you are both right is that it was a conspiracy to create an ecosystem that serves the interest of the rich.
3 [deleted] 2012-09-16
So, it is a conspiracy. I rest my case. ;)
2 SonOfMan11 2012-09-16
Yes i agree with you, semantically. But i agree with both of you substantively.
2 Soupstorm 2012-09-16
I think he was using the "common" i.e. incorrect definition of conspiracy. It is a literal conspiracy and an ecosystem.
-5 [deleted] 2012-09-16
let's start by defining the words 'conspiracy' and 'ecosystem.' You go first.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
So, you're a master debater, eh? Not interested in casual discussion?
Your premise is that the Articles of Confederation were overthrown/cast-aside to be replaced by the constitution to serve the interests of the rich. That sounds like a conspiracy to me.
The only part of your conclusion which contradicts everything else you said was the part where you said "it's not a conspiracy". I do not doubt that it is an ecosystem ... but (assuming it is an ecosystem), it is contrived ... by conspiracy.
No need to get defensive. I agreed with 99% of what you said... just not the first half of your big finale. It most certainly is a conspiracy.
-8 [deleted] 2012-09-16
I am not defensive. I asked for those definitions and I mean it. The definitions are really important.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
And I'm not interested in debating you. I guess that implication slipped past you.
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
ok, fine. No law that says you have to debate me. But making america better means that we have to understand the forces in play. An engineer cannot design a car without a detailed understanding of the physical forces in play--such as newton's law of force, motion, inertia, gravity, friction, corrosion, etc.
Understanding the real laws of sociopolitics is crucial for making america better. Fundamentals first, that is what I am all about.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
I agree. And, I would like to take this opportunity to help you get your point(s) across. But, only if you're willing to read and consider what I write, without turning it into a debate. It doesn't have to be a debate. It can be a discussion - a non-hostile, mutually beneficial, exploration and inquiry (in lawyer terms, think of it as "preparing a better case via discussion with an ally").
My chosen topic for this exploration is (from the statement I quoted, above) the environment of reddit and, specifically, r/conspiracy.
You interested in such an interaction?
-3 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
3 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Personally, I think a better place to start is by setting aside the courtroom demeanor. It's very unappealing to this community. Logical thought is welcome. Hostile debate is only welcome by a few... and they're mostly trolls.
You following along yet?
tl;dr: the court of public opinion works differently than a court of law. I'm making an offer of human insight (I have degrees, too... in philosophy and sociology [with emphasis on social psychology]).
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
As I've already said, I agree with 99% of your original post. You're beating a dead horse here.
Maybe an analogy will help. A stand-up comic/comedian needs to know his audience.
What I'm saying here is - you don't know this audience very well. And, I base this only on your comments, not on your original post (which I thought was very well-presented ... except that "it's not a conspiracy" part, and I've already stated why).
Another way of saying the exact same thing you've been saying is: The current government is an ecosystem of conspiracy.
That is: conspiracy vs. ecosystem isn't an either/or proposition. It can be both.
Once you see this point I've been trying to make, you may realize there's a very broad audience open to hearing your words... but you have to take off the lawyer hat, if you really want to reach the individuals in one-on-one interactions (i.e., in the comments section).
Your message is welcome, your tone/approach isn't conducive to spreading that message in this environment.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
In the big picture, it isn't a single conspiracy.
Rather, it's an environment conducive to corruption, manipulation, and yes... conspiracy... An ecosystem in which lots and lots of conspiracies occur... and which is maintained by conspiracy.
i.e., it's both. There are conspiracies (groups of people who meet in secret in order to impose their plans upon the masses). The US government isn't necessarily one large conspiracy. But, it is manipulated by conspiratorial forces (small groups meeting in secret to manipulate it).
And, again, my point is: Just because it's an ecosystem ... an environment conducive to corruption. Does not mean there's not a conspiracy in play to maintain it as such.
EDIT: Also, you hit the nail on the head in one of your other comments about the influence of capital.
2 superfusion1 2012-09-16
I learned a lot from this discussion thread. thank you.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
This repeatedly telling me "where to start" is arrogant and condescending... i.e., it's the "offensive" part of your presentation which I was trying to help you amend, but which you keep ignoring.
Good luck.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Why are you even bothering with this??
OP is obviously a wanker intent on proving just how intelligent he is to you.
Pfft--like your degrees even matter!
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Just to be clear OP...your stated case makes a TON of sense and I for one was very impressed with the intelligence and passion with which you stated your views.
You seem quite argumentative though. Or simply passionate, don't know. It was a good read though--and I apologize for calling you Internet names. ; ')
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
I saved this one for last... hoping we've become allies at this point...
Define: It.
;)
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Do any of the individual members of this quasi-organic entity ever collaborate in secret as part of the means of maintaining this hegemony?
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
And I assert the (not-so-unique) proposition that it is precisely those who are in control of the rest.
Are you familiar with this book?
1 Kirkayak 2012-09-16
More important than any secret meetings is the core homogeneity of interest among those who control capital-- whatever else each of them may be, whether feminist, philanthropist, war hawk, disseminator of tracts, etc., they are, to the man (woman), first servants of their financial and power interests. Since they always agree on any necessary policy, they can each promote their own particular panaceas or poisons freely, per their individual predilections and temperaments, in every area that is considered non-necessary, because such efforts will never help the workers enough to empower them, nor hurt the workers enough to destroy their ability to feed the engines of wealth generation. They cultivate us EXACTLY like a socially cohesive group of parasites might cultivate a population of hosts.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
For the vast majority of them this is true. They, themselves, however, are another tier in the predation cycle.
I noticed you chose not to go one level of commentary further, because Jekyll Island kind of encapsulates why conspiracy must not be excluded from the picture.
As I've stated (to unperson) multiple times now, I do not disagree about the big picture assessment/analogy of "ecosystem" (environment/culture/etc. - all work well if clarified via reference points). My only point is that none of this excludes or negates the existence of conspiracy.
If you had gone to the next level of comment, your response "More important than any secret meeting" falls apart, for... without that secret meeting, there'd be no Fed.... feeding upon the masses.
1 Kirkayak 2012-09-16
I cannot imagine that at least some planning did not go into creating the current weave (understatement). It is only that I emphasize the character of the persons so involved, as that which any and all meetings are predicated upon. But then also, chickens and eggs.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Because I was trying to recruit a potential ally... a potentially valuable asset to this community.
Just think if we had an experienced practicing attorney on hand to deal with the debate trolls when they emerge. But, simultaneously, when he's "preaching to the choir" here, he has to understand that it's a choir of non-lawyers.
4 mrpeepeetoes 2012-09-16
It's a republican form of govt.,in theory.
-5 [deleted] 2012-09-16
what does that mean? A word means nothing. I can put a feather in my hat and call it macaroni. But it aint. Tell me what you mean by republic.
And tell me why that is a good word. I would say republic is a propaganda word that really means 'undemocratic.'
but please go ahead with your definition of the word.
It might help if you first read Dr Fresia's online book, which I linked in a comment above.
8 EricsOzone 2012-09-16
I like how you devalue this comment, because of their word choice -- but you OP used many undefined words (undefined by you). You're whole argument seems to be more based on the semantics of words than the actual topic.
This is why you seem to "debate" everyone that questions your theory. Your argument is based upon circled logic, one that no one can enter unless they have the knowledge you have already obtained for yourself.
Sorry that we all weren't assigned these specific books by you, so we can speak on "your level."
TL;DR Fuck off, you can't be joking with this level of pretension (yes, I'm aware this sentence devalues any argument I might have had prior.)
-2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
What is this, Fox news?
3 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Hahaha, the articles of convention were illegally replaced??
And what source do you have for this re-imagination of history?
4 [deleted] 2012-09-16
one of my sources is Dr Jerry Fresia, PhD in political science, from his book TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
Online in its entirety here:
http://cyberjournal.org/authors/fresia/
we can continue this discussion when you have read the first half of the book!
Another source is the book UNRULY AMERICANS by Dr Woody Holton, PhD in history.
0 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
You don't have a page or chapter that refers to how the Articles of Convention were somehow illegally replaced?
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
it's all there, man.
First, the laws surrounding the method for altering the Articles were not followed.
Second, a crucial vote was short a quorum, and the federalist elite made the quorum by kidnapping one of the representatives who was not there. That was illegal. Hence, the vote was illegal, and therefore the adoption of the constitution was illegal because illegal means were used to make the quorum.
if I ever get on the Supreme Ct, if I could find 4 other justices who agree with me (fat chance!), if a case arose that contained this issue (fat chance), I would invalidate the constitution and reinstall the Articles, such re-installation to be done over a long period of time.
-1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Well, I'll have to get back to you because apparently the only way for me to understand how the articles of confederation were illegally replaced is to read at least half of an obscure book.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
-2 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
for you to find any other source besides the one you provided? Indeed
4 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
4 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
-1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
That's a lot of stuff for the two points of contention you made.
Seeing as how they weren't modifying the AOC, I'm not sure why they would have to follow AOC procedures.
Furthermore, removing opposition from debate has no effect on reaching quorom, which is a minimum number.
1 FemaCampDirector 2012-09-16
"that's a lot of stuff for two points."
What? You asked for more sources. You got them.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
I asked you for sources for your assertion
1 FemaCampDirector 2012-09-16
Different guy.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Well you certainly understand what I was asking for, then.
1 FemaCampDirector 2012-09-16
Yes, my take is he delivered.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Yeah, you read that stuff?
1 FemaCampDirector 2012-09-16
Nope but if I was serious and I asked for sources, I would at least look into them and not make an offhand comment. I'd also thank OP.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Well, it's gonna take a couple of weeks for amazon to come through so we will have to see.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
It's great that you understand the powers of judicial interpretation, but to what extent is you playing judge relevant?
How is it relevant to make the point that using the powers you are complaining about allows one to abort the adoption of such powers?
Unless, do you think judicial interpretation was part of AoC?
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Are you making an argument for broader representation on the supreme court? Sotomayor grew up as a poor girl in the Bronx with a single parent. I'd love to see more people like her on there.
But it seems the rest of your point is wayward handwringing about people that went to better schools than you did.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
K, thanks brah.
Now that you've gotten over your diarrhea of the fingers you've come to the same exact debate underlying the federalists and anti-federalists.
That you think everything should be left to a ballot initiative is amusing. Have you seen california? Do you have faith in the American public to use critical thinking skills in order to vote intelligently?
4 SonOfMan11 2012-09-16
It would probably help if you didn't begin a discussion with "Hahaha"
4 jenecarepas 2012-09-16
Ok first off its The Articles of Confederation. If you can't even get that right you shouldn't be laughing.
Anyways, I don't know if "illegally replaced" is the terminology I would use, but it is clear that there was significant and legitimate opposition to and concern regarding the Constitution. See: Anti-Federalism
-1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Yes, the federalists and anti-federalists aren't exactly news.
To say that anti-federalists existed is a pretty big difference from saying that they conspired to illegally change the rule of law in this country.
1 space_walrus 2012-09-16
My friend, this is r/conspiracy. I have seen this claim many times, frequently with documentation. You may find summaries via duckduckgo.com, or if you prefer, YouTube. If you come across a far-out claim in this sub, it provokes good conversation to be civil. If you cannot, please see yourself out. Thank you.
3 hedbangr 2012-09-16
TIL anti-racism is destroying democracy....
also, "CorpGovAcademiaHollywoodMedia" you forgot to shoehorn in military, industrial, and medical - at which point we've crossed 50% of the population belonging, so it's no longer a conspiracy!
-4 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 joy_indescribable 2012-09-16
i would fucking hate to live in a nation that takes no steps against racism, but i guess the needs and wants of our most equal citizens should come first.
3 lowrads 2012-09-16
You should travel more.
There is no conspiracy that we have institutional protections against mob rule. Checks and balances and our voting system ensure that moderates tend to hold power. If radical changes enter our laws, it is because those notions have taken over a majority of the public on their own merits. Unlike in PR systems, it is political suicide for a "well-meaning" politician to try to force anything on an unwilling public.
The system protects wealth, not wealthy people. There is no protection for people to fall out with their wealth, nor for new individuals to acquire it. Social immobility is a hallmark of clientelism or patronage, both of which are increased by a government which has the power to expropriate resources from some, and it give it to others.
A free market is a market of free individuals, and ostensibly as a highly participatory system, each of us helps in choosing to reward those who do what many of us like the most. Even the most watched media outlets only get a few million viewers, out of hundreds of millions of potential viewers, but that is enough to make them successful or discussed. There will always be defections and some people trying to game a system. However, in a society that is not founded on fear of others, it is easy to see that people make a rational assessment that most other people can be trusted to be neighborly most of the time. We still lock our doors, but we go through our day to day lives in relative confidence. Societies of patronage have extremely limited confidence, often limited to a single ethnicity, or even a single neighborhood depending upon the scope and success of the network to which they belong. It is probably the oldest form of government in human society, but it's not particularly venerable as it only promulgates law as a way to protect the strong.
1 Kirkayak 2012-09-16
And this is better? That the scrupulous, the stupid, or the splitter may fall out with wealth is no (ethical) reason to support the massive inequality that wealth seeks to keep perpetual.
1 lowrads 2012-09-16
Why not? Why should we give control over so many processes and little decisions made in society into the hands of people who are barely able to make good decisions for themselves? So what if they can't afford lower mpg cars or bigger televisions?
If it was a couple hundred years ago, they could be as wealthy as King Louis, and still only be able to afford ice cream one season out of the year. Now they have air conditioning, and the reason for their improved comfort, longevity and ever increasing access to the means of production is because society safeguarded the interests of the keen and the dogged.
Your inequality is meaningless.
1 Kirkayak 2012-09-16
Gross inequality is not meaningless.
3 GueroCabron 2012-09-16
They also didnt call it a democracy, only modern pundits who dont understand our govt call it a democracy
3 kingoftyre 2012-09-16
Republic, not democracy. That's what the people forget.
2 Gaddpeis 2012-09-16
So what? Even if you are correct - you're still also a pawn. You will not be able to change anything. Even worrying about it makes you play into it.
Except you can decide to not worry about it - and love and take care of those close to you. What else is there of real value? Ever wondered why we live? Why we are really here?
2 stephinrazin 2012-09-16
This reminds of the debate about the Bill of Rights. The rights are not granted by government, and the inclusion of them in the Constitution suggests so.
These rights are our by the fact of our existence. Government in any form is derived from these natural rights. Codifying them suggests the government is separate from the citizenry instead of derived from them.
2 wazzel2u 2012-09-16
One word... "Lobbyists"!!!
2 torino_nera 2012-09-16
If you've ever read The Federalist Papers, the founding fathers were very against the idea of calling the new form of government a democracy -- hence why we've never had one. We have and have always had a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is a pretty horrible idea if you think about it unless your entire voting population consists of the most informed people possible, which has never happened in the history of ever in a society with a substantial amount of citizens.
2 thehague67 2012-09-16
I feel like once this divulged into favoring the white male, I'm not sure if I completely agree. It's not like we can go back to being a strictly male dominant, white society. I guess I see all the divisions amongst the people, but what should we do NOW to fix the problem. do you have an answer to our quarrels?
2 americangoyblogger 2012-09-16
From the start, the elites riled up the masses to fight for them so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes (which were lower than what Europeans were paying).
Also, study the winter camp in Valley Forge - the officers lived in houses, with women company, while the scum ("patriots") starved and froze in tents.
2 mdrmoya 2012-09-16
What you forget to mention it -A Democracy during that time period would have given all the power to farmers, who had little no no education. -The United States had just previously been oppressed by a Strong Central Government, Britain, So a system of checks and balances and separation of powers would only make sense to have. -Our founding fathers were all in favor of republicanism, for those who don't know, this is not democracy which makes the OPs rant invalid
TL;DR: USA never intended on having a Democracy
1 SoundSalad 2012-09-16
Divide and conquer.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 SoundSalad 2012-09-16
Is this why we have immigration problems? Political objections to immigration are just an act?
1 ghost_of_maynard 2012-09-16
Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers?
1 mattidore 2012-09-16
wait, so why is the whole system against white males? Wouldn't you say the puppeteers is composed mostly of white males?
1 MuteReality 2012-09-16
A certain part of your part makes me feel as if you are xenophobic... But what you mention about women brings up a very controversial topic.
What if much of the pain now IS from emasculation. Seriously, consider the fact that men can't really be men anymore because they must compete with women, which makes them feel inferior, especially if they lose.
Take the flip side also. This may probably sound really odd, but I've spoken to MANY women about this, and a lot of them say they wish the suffrage movement had never happened.
Now while I think that's a little overboard, I can see where there coming from... Some women just want to be submissive and raise children and take care of a household.
don't take this the wrong way but I really have experienced this and the thoughts that result from it...
But the death of the feminine is evident.
Not to mention specialization leads to higher skill in whatever it is.
And no, I am not sexist. I think women should be allowed to vote and make their own decisions, but society really pushes the image of the Superwoman who cooks, cleans, works, and does everything for the kids every day.... And looks down upon a stay at home wife, who just raises her kids and cares for them.
How's that feasible in today's hyper inflated economy anyways?
0 selfplex 2012-09-16
Democracy sucks. Ask the founders. We in the U.S. have a constitutional republic where you're free to get rich and free to be poor. Quit bitching and get on with your life.
0 firashtamir 2012-09-16
Just posting to save this for later
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
0 riotingchimps 2012-09-16
excellent analysis
-1 Beiber_h0le69 2012-09-16
nobodies ever claimed the us is a democracy is a republic. this post sucks right off the bat
-2 dccable 2012-09-16
Americans were the first people to ever be set completely free from the bonds of slavery through the declaration of independence and the consitution of the United States.
The USA is "the great experiment" of the secret societies to see whether or not we would contract our rights away for benefits from the government and we played right into their hand.
Wake the Sheeple! EMpower the People. And maybe we'll have a chance to stop this NWO.
3 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 dccable 2012-09-16
If you wanna sit back and surrender to the NWO you go right ahead. My goal is to Wake the sheeple, through education, EMPOWERING the people (who have been waking (like yourself)) to DO SOMETHING! Because c) how the fuck can you even go an hour in this world, KNOWING what is going to happen, and look yourself in the mirror after having done nothing to stop it? Do you have kids? How can you look at your kids or your parents and say "Oh well, the nwo is coming, i guess I better have a beer and do nothing".
Don't bet on it? I have to bet on it . Otherwise...what the fuck are we doing here?
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
0 dccable 2012-09-16
It sounds like you are truly interested and devoted to finding out who and what and why so I hope you will actually hear this when i say.
If you want to know what is happening and why it is happening listen to the 43 hours of Mystery babylon series by William Cooper.
It is the best source of information on the TRUE history of the world and how the hell we got to this point. Link
3 carlosortegap 2012-09-16
The U.S.A was one of the countries that took the longest to abolish slavery
-1 dccable 2012-09-16
But it was abolished around the time of the American Revolution which was the signing of the declaration of independence and the constitution. So....my point still stands and needs to be appriciated.
Americans were the first collective people on earth to be set free from the bonds of slavery (not just overt slavery but from elites, etc etc).
3 carlosortegap 2012-09-16
elites set themselves free from other elites. The working classes were still subdued
0 dccable 2012-09-16
Let's just talk Americans, not other people of the world. (for arguements sake).
Americans are born free. The elites of the country have now eroded the consitution and bill of rights etc. but on its founding, America was the first free country in the world. Period. I'd love to hear proof and examples otherwise. But simply reading the declaration of independence and the constitution of America compared to any other country's "papers", Americans are the most free (don't have to answer to anyone).
2 carlosortegap 2012-09-16
France after the french revolution?
1 BanjoBilly 2012-09-16
and who did they call upon to help write the French constitution?
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
sigh....
look, the american colonies were started as a slave colony for cheap white enslaved labor. You may have heard of them as indentured servants. They were slaves. Period. And that slave colony culture is still with us today.
Western europe is the most free of all regions. They were freer than america ever was or ever will be.
You are the descendant of slaves. America is a slave colony because the man is the product of the child. The fruit don't fall too far from the tree. And for the rest of your post...sigh...there is no way to reach you.
1 dccable 2012-09-16
Upon review. I think you could use listening to some william cooper. Please check out his archive of 1900 hours of broadcasts, i recomend the entire mystery babylon series to give you your first true look at the real world. http://www.hourofthetime.com
1 RKBA 2012-09-16
Indentured servants were freed after they had served whatever term their agreement for passage to the "New World" specified.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 RKBA 2012-09-16
Indentured servant:
"Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of a person contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture."
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 RKBA 2012-09-16
What you're talking about is slavery, not indentured servitude. If you want to talk about white slavery, that's fine but please do not refer to it as indentured servitude because it is not. Personally, I speak English and here is the English language definition of "Indentured Servant":
"(noun, American History) a person who came to America and was placed under contract to work for another over a period of time, usually seven years, especially during the 17th to 19th centuries. Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers."
-3 dccable 2012-09-16
Sigh. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Is there a way to reach you?
This isn't a fact, it is an opinion.
What is a fact is that being born in America, you do not have to sign a birth certificate (in order to gain alllllllllll the rights that were left for you by the founding fathers), you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES (period), what is freedom to you? Do you even know what it means to you? Once you figure it out. Go look at other countries in the world and find me ONE that makes people as free as the American constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I would LOVE to see it.
6 [deleted] 2012-09-16
freedom does not come from a piece of paper--it comes from control of the majority over the govt, and that control is based on voter unity and shared common interests. Otherwise, your elected representatives can do as they please. And that means Big Money can buy them.
Shared culture and a shared race and small voting districts and a parliamentarian govt. That is what increases freedom.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
If those countries are more free why are they essentially member states of the Great Empire of the United States?
-2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
first you tell me what you mean by 'member states of the Great Empire of the United States.'
3 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
You ever hear of NATO?
You are aware of the empire the US has built, yes?
They pass our legislation and buy from our corporations.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
Yes, I believe that somewhere I heard someone mention something about NATO. Sounds familiar.
:-)
Yer funny!
1) Look, there is a shared common culture and ethnicity between the usa and western europe.
2) The USA is the single biggest consumer market in the world, BY FAR. That gives Capital, which controls the american govt, a lot of power over other nations.
if those nations want to sell to americans, they have to more or less do what Capital wants. Capital controls the american govt.
3) WW2.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Aaand your point being that I'm correct?
0 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
So, what's your point then?
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
I literally have no idea what you are talking about in this sentence.
Do I? What do I put so much importance on?
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Feel free to talk about specifics at any point
1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
2 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
So wait, you think that I suggested that the europeans toe the American line because they are self-evidently not as good? or some such nature? That America just has a bigger dick? Yes, what you speak of is exactly what I'm talking about.
However, it was you that suggested these other countries have more freedoms. Not only have you not demonstrated this, but apparently you recognize that they are slaves to American influence. You can call it capital and say they need to sell things to America, but isn't that a bit naive? That consumer engine has been dead for almost a decade now.
America has the guns, power, and resources. That's why the toe the line.
Now, why America has that power is an interesting question. But to leave it all up to capital is certainly missing the point, especially from your own perspective.
0 dccable 2012-09-16
Freedom does not come from control.
Freedom is guarunteed with a "piece of paper" laying out the rights of the people in that country. That's why the American constitution doesn't do anything for a Brit. Or an African. It only guaruntees the rights of the citizens of the country in which the representatives of the people have agreed to.
SO. Yes. Freedom is ensured and guartunteed through the signing of forms by our elected reps.
No no..you're talking about enslavement. Control = restricting freedom. Constitution/Declaration of independence = Guaranteed "agreed-to" freedoms for ALL. And America is the first country in the world to give such unprecedented freedom to their people.
-1 [deleted] 2012-09-16
[deleted]
0 dccable 2012-09-16
You shared your position and had an explanation of your thought process. However, thoughts are thoughts. Declarations of independence and constitutions of countries that can be read and critiqued are what the issue should be about, and the fact that other than america, no other country has been set as free from those documents.
Your ideas on increasing freedom are interesting and debatable, but that's not what I am here to argue. Understand that.
0 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Best to leave facts out of the equation when talking with you?
-3 ThomasRoll 2012-09-16
Shut up. The USA is the #1 democracy in the world.
0 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
You don't have a page or chapter that refers to how the Articles of Convention were somehow illegally replaced?
2 [deleted] 2012-09-16
I agree. And, I would like to take this opportunity to help you get your point(s) across. But, only if you're willing to read and consider what I write, without turning it into a debate. It doesn't have to be a debate. It can be a discussion - a non-hostile, mutually beneficial, exploration and inquiry (in lawyer terms, think of it as "preparing a better case via discussion with an ally").
My chosen topic for this exploration is (from the statement I quoted, above) the environment of reddit and, specifically, r/conspiracy.
You interested in such an interaction?
-1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
That's a lot of stuff for the two points of contention you made.
Seeing as how they weren't modifying the AOC, I'm not sure why they would have to follow AOC procedures.
Furthermore, removing opposition from debate has no effect on reaching quorom, which is a minimum number.
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-09-16
Feel free to talk about specifics at any point
2 Inops 2012-09-16
Yep, he did say it, so it's relevant to a degree. I just didn't see it in Fed 10 and was confused.