This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Will The Self Cannibalization Of Democracy Only Be Stopped Through A Revolution Of Ideas?
The Editor-in-Chief of the otherwise quiet and non-descript Global Custodian magazine has written what can pass for an extremely controversial if not outright revolutionary essay on the topic of democracy, and specifically how our current regime has cannibalized itself, and is in dire need of a "revolution." Dominic Hobson says: "In a market, the cumulative expenditure of the modestly endowed easily trumps the expenditure of the rick. And even the rich are ultimately answerable to the market: They became rich by satisfying customers, and will remain rich only so long as they (or their investments) continue to satisfy consumers. Consumer sovereignty is far more powerful a constraint on the rich than political sovereignty. Indeed, even the erosion of the rich by democracy is ultimately self-defeating, for it eliminates that class of men and women in public life who are under no financial pressure to remain at their posts, pursuing policies in which they no longer believe. It is no coincidence that the democratization of politics has been accompanied by a decline in resignations on points of principle or of honor. The vast majority of modern politicians simply needs the money. But even the restoration of a rentier political class would not be enough to restore the blessings of good government. As long as politicians must compete for votes, they cannot govern honestly, or even disinterestedly. They cannot reverse decisions or policies that have proved unworkable. They must persist, even in intellectual error, and cannot escape a certain narrowness of vision. To release politicians from this predicament, a revolution is required. That revolution must be one not of blood, but of constitutional and political ideas. It must put an end to democracy without limits, before the prosperity of the species is destroyed and liberty extinguished...The only lasting solution to the plague of unlimited democracy is to attack democracy at its moral foundation: the political equality of the citizen." Well, the Greeks seem to have been wrong about a whole lot of other things. Is it so alien to ponder whether they also screwed up the most taken for granted concept of modern society as well?
Democracy Devours Itself
»
- 10454 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Cannibalization, bitchez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJhvyq7u-c
Why don't you just post 'first' like every other troll? You think you're special?
You can kill a revolutionary. But you can't kill a revolution...
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
"i don't wanna your revolution unless i can dance to it" -- e.g. (supposedly)
Again:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Solzhenitsyn-200...
Unlimited Democracy? What the f*ck is he talking about?
We are drifting towards fascism, not more democracy.
Fascism and democracy are fine bedfellows, no?
At the extremes, the snake always eats it's own tail.
We are living in extreme times.
None of this incremental talk is going to do anyone any good. Nor should the revolution be external (pointless) but internal (pointful).
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
Fascizm or socializm - no difference.
Socializm - is a ONE OPINION ONLY.
What USA-country has now - is not a democracy. It is a pharisees' society. 10000 pages of so-called "tax code" and 2000 pages of a "health care law" - are exact pharisees' law during Pontius Pilate and Rome paganistic empire.
fucking right
real democracy is exactly what we need
I used to live in a socializm for 28 years.
" Indeed, even the erosion of the rich by democracy is ultimately self-defeating, for it eliminates that class of men and women in public life who are under no financial pressure to remain at their posts, pursuing policies in which they no longer believe."
Wrong: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/11/11/does-congress-have-too-many-milli...
45% of Congress are millionaires. They don't need the money. They are addicted to power and money and will never stop.
Agree.
The immediate focus should be on removing conflicts of interest in politicians - separating them from bribes ("donations"/"contributions"/"consultancy fees"), investments and sinecures with the rich. There should be prosecutions.
Regulators should be empowered to match the wealthy. There should be prosecutions.
Representation of citizens in a democracy should exceed representation of the rich by lobbyists.
Calling for a revolution to restore a rentier political class who don't need to "compete for votes" - maybe this is dry humor but he seems serious.
Creeping democracy is certainly destroying our little experiment in republican governance. After the move to popular election of the Senate, it was all over but the shouting. The shouting will next proceed to shooting. What follows will be ugly and utilitarian, maybe for a long, long time.
Dead on. Maybe this is the answer to my question below. Any way back from the decision to elect Senators by popular election?
Electoral College Bitches!
You can't eat the Electoral College...(well, you could try)
I think the shouting is over, the mob just hasn't run out of bread or spectacles yet (did you hear Lebron is going to Miami? and LiLo is headed to rehab!! ZOMFG!!1!)
Agreed. We need to focus on Liberty and not Democracy. History has taught us that a populace typically does not vote in it's best long term interest. Just look at California.
Two words- TERM LIMITS.
Of course, what fools have we been? Clearly the elites are the only good folk in this country and we must bow before the elites who know better than us. Do you even contemplate this kind of stupid crap before saying it? If you deny the people a voice in government you deny them liberty altogether. Without some popular check on power authority has no incentive to honor any piece of paper that says they should treat the masses better.
Agreed. We need to focus on Liberty and not Democracy. History has taught us that a populace typically does not vote in it's best long term interest. Just look at California.
HAHAHAHA! Breath.
HAHAHAHA! Breath.
HAHAHAHA! Breath.
Ok. Take a sip of vermouth. Back to reading.
hedgeless:
Vermouth, you drink Vermouth?
Sweet or dry? Cold I assume>
Interesting.
If citizens which now number 25% of our populace can not hold our politicians accountable democracy will fail. Allowing 12 million illegals who are mostly uneducated despite being hard workers citizen ship will just compount the already hostoric failers of such past practices and perpetuate more socialistc govt behavior to buy votes.
You seem to suffer from the delusion that majority of the population who have the least amount of wealth, even if educated (and especially if educated) would ever vote against their own interests, i.e. sharing wealth. In order for the kleptocracy to continue, the state will need to clamp down on democracy. Christian morality is no longer the controlling meme so people will not be lead to believe that it is their lot in life to suffer by virtue of their being born in the wrong place. None of these truths are static, but as things are today, this is the only way forward. We have a president who seems to be a tool of the kleptocracy to fool enough of the foolish into believing that he is a socialist working on their behalf. It doesn't seem to be working.
Only stakeholders get to vote... sounds like Jefferson's only land owners get to vote. If you coupled this with no salary or benefits for public office (bring back public servant) it may fix some problems, but certainly not all. Is this man simply echoing Locke?
gotta get rid of the taxation power, methinks. Flat tax perhaps.
Gotta admit that it is LUDICROUS that a rancher or farmer or some other productive person out there in say N. Nevada has one vote because their land is occupied by cattle that people want to eat, whereas a bunch of useless leechfucks in Las Vegas outnumber him 1000000:1 and can vote representatives who divert his water supply to fountains outside of casinos.
The entire study of GDP is a fucking SHAM. A gov't borrows and spends $1 and it changes hands 10 times, that's suddenly $10 worth of production?
The idea that that leach fuck in N. Nevada cannot make a profit on selling his cattle and needs subsidy from the productive workers in a copper mine in Nevada makes me sick. Just because he owns 500 acres he deserves their money so he can hire illegals to tend his cattle?
Jump, fucker. There's a point sailing far above your head.
+1000
Enlighten me.
I believe he was referring to the person with alot of land and produces something (cattle for food) get's on 1 vote, but that nearby in a city with people that produce nothing of value or are on social welfare can outvote him simply because they where busses to a voting booth and told to check the box.....something along those lines.
Those that actually do something others need get gangbanged by those that don't. The problem with a democracy...2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper...
Now you're seeking enlightenment? Here I thought you were just a snarky ding-dong.
The point is, no more voting for free lunches. That means no food stamps or welfare for the miners. No price support or subsidies for the farmers. In fact, it means we recognize that because the government has an absolute monopoly on the use of force at the end of a gun, we only allow that power to be used sparingly, namely on actions that a proper government should actually perform because they cannot be performed by the individual or delivered through the market (e.g. border security and national defense). We must also realize and accept that because government action is delivered only through some form of consensus, we cannot therefore use that government action in areas where the vast majority of citizens are deeply divided over deeply held beliefs and principles, even if a simply majority can deliver the necessary votes. Should we pass a bill that says pan-the-ist should pay for 51% of the country's lunches tomorrow? Why or why not?
Democracy is fine and dandy if limited, as our Founders intended in structuring this country as a Republic. Unlimited democracy devolves into, well, what you see now all around you. Special interests, lobbyists, convoluted taxation, bought politicians, all brought to you by a citizenry voting to loot the nation's Treasury simply because they can.
I might possibly regain faith in America's future if one, just one, politician would step forward on any of the numerous contentious issues in the limelight and simply say, "that's not up for a vote nor is it in the government's power to take action on this issue." Similarly, I also contend that not everyone should have a say on any issue they please simply because they exist. We have far too many people with zero tax burden voting on how to spend the nation's tax dollars. Ludicrous, absolute nonsense, total absurdity. Is it any wonder that extended unemployment, welfare, health insurance, and old-age retirement are the hot-button issues of the day? Why wouldn't they be? I want some free shit, too! Give this Chump some free shit!
Just checking, I wanted to make sure the point did not go over my head.
I grew up rural so I am well aware of the attitude that isolation can create.
Are you trying to say that all politics are local and local means his ranch? That's country talk if I ever heard it. He deserves no special rights just cuz he owns land.
More often than not the vote goes to give his lazy ass subsidy from someone else's wealth- that's farm welfare, and that is what keeps red states red.
I should have just stayed with the assumption that you're a snarky ding-dong. Next time, read before you reply.
"The point is, no more voting for free lunches. That means no food stamps or welfare for the miners. No price support or subsidies for the farmers."
If I were trying to say "all politics are local" I would have simply said, "all politics are local."
You say potato, and seeing the bigger picture, I say "pa-tah-to."
Speaking of snarky, I still don't understand the "jump fucker" comment.
And that makes it even more hilarious.
You'll understand someday, until then, "small minds think alike."
So can we agree to start with men only? What do you think Ms. Creant?
I agree with everything up to his conclusion which doesn't seem like a magic bullet to me. Isn't there another way to have limited government?
Oh, I am about to get junked, but it has to be said.
Since we started letting women vote, we've had TWO huge world wars, wars that changed what the definition of war is. War became a conflict between whole peoples, and not just armies on a field. This made war a whole lot more deadly for the average joe. Is this the fault of women? I don't know, but it sure is coincidental.
Also, since women have been allowed to vote, we developed nuclear weapons. Weapons that can make the world uninhabitable. Sound like something a woman would come up with.
Since we let women vote, we have seen poverty in Africa and South America that couldn't have been dreamed of during the 1800s or earlier.
Is it the fault of women? I don't know.
I could go on and on. We could go further back and say we let people who owned no land vote. And now we let people who live off of government checks vote. You really think people who live off of government checks will vote to stop the checks? This is why the nation is doomed, as was predicted early in our history. Once the people figured out how to vote themselves money from the treasury, it's only a matter of time before the nation implodes. Add this to the fact that our nation is the least educated it has ever been... Bah, who cares, I need another bottle of wine.
I do know that a lot of bad stuff has happened in the last century which just happens to coincide with when the west started to let women vote.
Oh also, so sick of reading that Athens was a Democracy. People need to go back to school. Athens was an oligarchy, like most of the other city states. Except in Athen's oligarchy, land owners were allowed to vote. Basically, a pluralistic oligarchy. I love oligarchies, especially our oligarchy.
"Since we started letting women vote, we've had TWO huge world wars, wars that changed what the definition of war is. War became a conflict between whole peoples, and not just armies on a field. This made war a whole lot more deadly for the average joe. Is this the fault of women? I don't know, but it sure is coincidental."
I believe that you have missed a very large part of the history of warfare. Many ancient wars were fought to the death of one male population or the other and the women and children, if they were considered of use, were enslaved...ie, ethnic and cultural cleansing taken to the extreme.
...and, I do not believe that women having the vote contributied in any meaningful way to WW1 or WW2.
Especially since WWI ended in 1918 and the 19th amendment passed in 1920.
This is true in the US. But women were granted the right to vote much earlier in Europe, which is where WWI was fought.
My post was sort of tongue in cheek. But it might also be accurate. :)
Well, that one sure is. Without the women having far too many children, Africa would never have become so overpopulated in the first place.
Noob, noob, noob. Welcome to class. You're about 55 minutes late to a one hour class. But that's OK. I will leave you with one little nugget of information. Replace "since women were allowed to vote" with "since the Federal Reserve was created". Now, you have a lot of homework to do. Start by "youtubing" Jeckyll Island...
On a side note, while we are talking about women, "Women's Lib" was funded by the Rockefellers. Why? So that the other half of the adult population can start providing tax payments to the "Frauderal" Reserve and break up the family unit (only part of the reason why we have so many divorces). Class dismissed!
Yes, and the gov't claims to have programs that are designed to help families.
Good point Rock, look at the actions and the consequences. Families in america are isolated and non-functional as a whole. It's okay though, the government is your new family.
Yeah, let's help the family by making welfare and child support contingent on having no male breadwinner in the household. Wait, why are there so many single mothers with four or five fatherless children? We simply must have more welfare and child support!
Might want to check your history...
August 18, 1920. womens voting rights or the 19th Amend.....that would be AFTER WW1
and well after the civil war. Also if you will notice there were ~ 10 women in congress during WW2...I don't think they weilded much power.
Poverty in Africa isn't due to women...it is due to men starting conflicts...typically women bear the brunt of civilian causualties...I won't get into rape.
Your argument is massivly flawed.
Maybe we just need 50 Independent States...no America. One-size-fits-all central government solutions are impossible.
Huh, like a republic that adheres to individual rights...
Interesting concept.
But you end up with the same problem. Eventually the towns and cities will say, why do we need a central state government. Let's just govern ourselves. And then the suburbs will one day say, why do we need a central city government. Let's just govern ourselves.
Eventually, it's every man for himself.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I think we could all do with a tad more subsidiarity.
So refreshing to call a spade a spade, no? Isn't it every man for himself now?
You could qualify it by saying it's every man for himself at the expense of no one else.
Now it's more like every man for himself at the expense of every other man.
One is good, the other is pure, unadulterated evil.
Yes, yes...
Decentralization of government under one general rule of law specifically designed to protect the individual's rights so that one man cannot live at another's expense. Wait...that sounds familiar, what was that? Damn my government educated brain, I cannot remember.
@faustian
"Maybe we just need 50 Independent States...no America. One-size-fits-all central government solutions are impossible."
Will you be living in one of the Southern slave States or maybe points North?
I think you made a few good points there...but I only seem to recall two of them.
I'm sorry, did Muir say something?
I will follow the bouncing ones to the ends of the earth. Nice Avatar
50????
I thought it was 57....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
"Maybe we just need 50 Independent States...no America. One-size-fits-all central government solutions are impossible."
...Very close to what the US was like pre civil war. If slavery could have been abolished peacefully the US could have avoided the unbridled growth of the US Federal Government. What a cluster fuck we are stuck with now! FUBAR!
I'm all for it. It would put me in a separate "country" from California.
A society may be based on Liberty, as our Constitutional Republic once was.
A society may be based on Equality, as most post-French Revolution western democracies are.
But no society may be based on both, for these two principles are forever and intrinsically opposed.
Will we choose Liberty or Equality?
Sounds like something Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn would have said...
Sounds like something Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn would have said...
I reckon govt.s are the way they are- with people in Ivory towers protected from inquiry- largely due to historical cause as much as it is a corruption of citizen egality- the largest enterprises protect intellectual property which is a part of defending the borders and so there is a natural bias to maintain secrets in the national interest. As economic competition increasingly difficult to keep up with, those secrets have extended beyond purely military assets into the industrial complex. ..so there's a paradox inherent in putting market-based pricing, nations and democracy into the same box and expecting some sort of sensible utcome. I'm less concerned with the material needs of the population primarily, as I am with seeing a framework which defines the property and powers of an individual: and I think we should have property, to obviate the a link of the chains into which we are born.
Well, I don't have the answer, but I will mention that I gave up voting a long time ago because I realized what a sham our system is. The solutions to our problems will not come from politics because politics stands in the way of meaningful (positive) change by design--the pols are there to redirect what happens for their pre-designated winners and losers. There really is nothing more to say about it than that.
Choose your Lord of the Ring, it matters not, for it is no choice, so long as the Ring is chosen.
The Age of Men is over. The Time of the Orc has come.
Orc Eunuchs (with bouncing boob avatars)
Democracy devours itself because the fascist-Socialist moto of "there is no alternative" is dominant. Democracy is pluralistic, allows always alternatives, allows all the ideological expresions, except the ones that are against democracy.
It's the political slice of the thought that Real Free Markets have full information.
The financial "markets" obviously do NOT have full info available to the "public" (ie, sheeple),
hence this is NOT the REAL (FREE) Market ...
which can only be the market in legislated economic advantage in knowledge & leverage.
A simple functional analysis leads to conclusions that parse very closely to those derived in the
"Enlightenment" through the present, based on humanistic social & political principles.
Eh ?
"When the crisis came, governments failed to fulfill their sole important duty, and act as lender of last resort" - based on what political philosophy is acting as lender of last resort an "important duty" of government??
Not withstanding that objection I thought the article was well written. There's a couple reasons why his "revolution" will never happen.
You'll never get the average citizen to be a thinker/philosopher. It's just not how most people live their lives. Only a small percentage of adults (I'd guess 25%) actually read books in any quanity (more than 10 a year)... and only about one in 10 of those read serious books. The ideas behind free markets and classical liberalism are difficult to grasp, complicated, with many non-intuitive insights, with hidden, cascading effects that require serious thinking to understand. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that you'll ever get the average citizen to apply the requisite effort.
Many highly intelligent people, otherwise well read and informed, do not understand these ideas. (Take, for example, the constant drumbeat on Zerohedge for increased bank regulation) Not only do they not understand, often times they aren't open to hearing them. We've reached the point in this country where the party most frequently seen (although they don't practice) as the party of limited government is also the party of "creationism" and "anti-intellectualism". What that means in practice is that often more educated people are politically oriented against those fighting for limited government and lower taxes. Therefore, even to broach the subject of the free-market requires overcoming of most educated peoples' own political prejudices. The more someone knows, the less they think they don't know.
Even if you were to convince the ruling class of the soundness of the free market principles, you'd face constant upward pressure from unprincipled "populists". Since everyone votes, but few "win" in a free market society (although all benefit), the losers will always turn to the force and violence commanded by government to remedy their loss. They won't care that by doing so they are sacrificing principles which always impoverish succeeding generations. A loser has no concern for the "principles" of the winner. They hate the winner - certain that he must have cheated them somehow, and will use any excuse to justify using the machinery of government to reward themselves when the market refuses.
So then the question becomes "should we deprive certain people of the vote?" But that doesn't work either! Because someone has to decide WHO gets political power. And the "deciding" class's first objective will be to protect their power - not promote those who are enlightened. Hereditary, class societies have no greater propensity to the rule of law and limited government.
What is the solution? First, recognize that every generation needs to fight for freedom. There is no final, decisive, structural framework that any one generation can devise that will forever banish the enemies of freedom (closest we came is the American Constitution). Don't allow yourself to think otherwise. Second, it is my conviction that the only way to have the ideas of freedom permeate the population on a whole is to create a religion. A "Church of Liberty" complete with the symbols and trapping of traditional religions, might serve as a "gimmick" to communicate the ideas of freedom pre-digested and easily understandble to the masses. (Imagine a "Ten Commandments of Freedom" or the "psalms of Liberty") This "religion" would be weaker than extant religions because it will lack the sort of mystical wonderous concepts of heaven, hell, free will, trinity, life after death, miracles, etc... that appeal to the less rational minds of the masses, but it will be stronger because it will be DEFENSIBLE using reason (instead of faith).
Keep writing and maybe one of the elites will take notice and invite you to join the CFR.
What he is talking about is the exact opposite of a CFR! Freedom of the individual does not allow for councils (in Russian = "soviets").
I know, but by using "gimmicks" to trick the "less rational" masses into accepting freedom. Intimating that he is superior (elite) to those around him, therefore perfect for the CFR. After all they too believe their way is progress for the masses, no?
Wrong. Sorry Unclefester. I never called for compulson. This is all voluntary. Think of the "gimmick" as an easy way to communicate complex ideas to people. And yes, some people ARE in fact more educated, informed, and thoughtful than others. That doesn't make me an "elite" as a person, but it does make me an "elite" in a certain sense. (like our athletes can be called "elite" without minimizing our sense of worth)
If you simply reverse the ranking order it should self regulate well.
The poorest would have the highest political status the rich the least. I like it. Implimentation will require some thought but I think teh concept works. ;)
You mean like a dictatorship of the proletariat? My God man what a novel idea! I think you're onto something here! What could possibly go wrong?!!
there's no virtue in poverty. Most poor are that way because they lack the attributes to ever acquire any wealth.
What we need to do is remove legacy nepotism and establish merit-based societal models.
If you elevated the poor to power, they'd quickly destroy everything like their do their own lives. Elevate the SMART to power, instead of founding an idiocracy
The problem ISN'T the notion of elevating "smart" poor to power... History is FULL of that...
Instead... It's the ultimate (and probably inevitable) succession of their STUPID and LAZY heirs, and the inevitable forthcoming attempts, by those heirs, to maintain a kung-fu grip on that power, and ABUSE it to the "n"-th degree...
Nero bitchez!
Argumentum ad lazarum..
I've had enough of the SMART in power thank you.
trav7777,
I don't think the CFR trolls ZH for recruits, might try somewhere else.
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
What if the system would be random.
Simply create a machine that is given the whole populace between the ages of 20-60 and make it pick 200 representatives randomly.
Now I know that this can be hacked and parameters chaged etc. etc. but this idea could work if the system is fully closed and made by people who are not under any bias (impossible I know, but think about this).
I've often contended that we should be a careful picking peace officers as we are in picking juries.
Would work for politicians.
But I won't concede the common notion that a state is necessary. Too much like picking a poison.
All forms of government suck. Period. And to believe that they are a "necessary evil" just encourages them.
Why the fuck are we arguing about "who" should be in power when the centralized growth of power is the problem to begin with?
Decentralization, bitchez!
Shrink the franchise. Problem solved.
Of course this administration is not even be satisfied with extending the franchise to tens of millions of non-citizens. They now apparently have (last year actually) dropped all ongoing prosecutions of voter fraud cases as well because they aren't helping to increase "access" and "turnout." [Gee I thought Republicans were the ones who stole elections and commited voting fraud - is Justice just being nice?]
Expect massive urban, Democratic voter fraud this November. Massive.
Sir, though you have been flagged as junk. Me thinks you have hit our nail on the head.
The Obama administration is currently prosecuting a "slow motion coup" (I may trademark that) by turning our elections into farces (as the Al Franken fiasco demonstrated, ditto the Black Panthers case, ditto, ditto, ditto).
In addition, the Dems are moving to destroy the Electoral College even as we speak.
The middle class (as the article noted) are the only group that really cares about responsible, lawful governance. The "rich" can always manipulate the government to benefit themselves, the poor only care about getting handouts. (Generalizations, not true for every individual, but true overall).
We need a government set up with strong checks and balances to ensure that government cannot favor either the rich or poor to the detriment of the middle class. We need a government controlled by the working and middle class (who pay for the government, fight the wars, and are taxed to pay for pork to benefit the rich and welfare to benefit the poor).
How to reach this good governance? We had it once but I fear our republic is too far gone to regain its sanity.
Due to the imbalances of rule by the rich, the French Revolution allowed the poor (the "sans culottes") to loot and murder. Eventually, a "strong man" arose to restore order (Napoleon) but, as usually happens, he took a desire for order to mean a mandate for conquest (see Hitler, etc.)
Eventually, after much turmoil and destruction a middle class controlled government was restored and for a time France prospered even though this government was imperfect and over time has turned to the rule of the parasites [government employees, politically connected unions, corporations competing with influence (not good products) and welfare recipients]. This is destroying the economy as producers (the middle class) are devoured by parasites.
We are close behind in this evolution toward control by parasites. As our economy collapses (due to destruction of the innovation and capital providing group (middle class) and the group striving to become middle class by hard work and education (working class), we move closer and closer to chaos. We will then be rescued by the "strong man" who will temporarily restore our economy (for purposes of conquest) which will lead to war and destruction. At the point of exhaustion, the middle class (and its working class allies) will reassert control and set up a government that allows them to prosper and the cycle will repeat.
That is my reading of history. I just hope I reach the end of my life before we reach the "chaos."
The Supreme Court setting precedents confering individual rights to Corporations sure as hell isn't helping a whole lot.
absolutely. god that is exactly, EXACTLY the wrong direction to go in. to pervert the idea of rights to now include corporations. if this sort of thinking continues I will have to leave this mad and insane profit obsessed country permanently. this is simply a garbage idea by our supreme court. no pseudo intellectual reasoning will help to prop it up...
kazakstan here we come....I wanna live in a third world police state, I wanna live in a third world police state....then you will have lots of rights for the big corporations and none for the people, exactly like in a banana republic. thats what the supreme court would like. lets turn the USA into Honduras.
Do I personally have the "right" to create a documentary? If so, why doesn't my company have the "right" to make a documentary, even if its subject matter is a current political campaign? See, sometimes these issues are a bit more nuanced and difficult to understand than you might think on first blush.
no sir. why should your company/corporation be trying to influence elections? why is that a good thing at all? can't you sell your products without making documentaries to influence elections? is there something wrong with the products that you need to do that?
if you make a documentary just about your business....then you are free to do that, that has nothing to do with election laws. see in your nuance, you are actually being very coarse. btw...im not blushing. :-)
also....if you, steve, make a documentary that is entirely something else. you have rights.
Suppose my company is making a documentary to SELL to the proponents of one side of the election - say, for example, that I call it "Sicko"... now, are you going to argue that my company doesn't have the "right" to make that documentary?
And if your answer is "NO" then who decides whether or not my documentary is too "political" - do you? Does a government commission? Who decides what my media company can produce?
As soon as your company fears imprisonment or pitchforks to the larynx, only then can it assume the responsibility of personhood. Until then, my pitchfork recognizes no limitation to the liability of executives.
Wyndtunnel,
Link please?
New Era: 6 year terms for the President, Senate and House. One term only.
Also a strict, cash basis balanced budget ammendment. No games (er, like the shell game called Social Security - shame on you Maestro)
Someday, after of course another major crisis, we will see a march on Washington to force this or something like this into law.
Think about it. No more media circus. Lobbyist influence will be diminished because we will not have the insane election cycle every two years that is ruining us....
The idiocy ruining this country is the best story the media has ever had. It is a constant. It has to stop.
Balanced budget is a must with a 50 year paydown of the existing deficit so $13 trillion divided by 50 is $216 billion a year, PV.
Love to hear better ideas..
Term limits matter not. It's still a revolving door.
Enforce the constitution: gold and silver the only medium of exchange, no counterfeits.
Shhhh! You'll wake up Johnny B. He's asleep now on the couch in his Mom's basement. That pizza delivery job kept him up late last night, and he has to study for finals.
The only lasting solution to the plague of unlimited democracy is to attack democracy at its moral foundation: the political equality of the citizen
Is that its foundation? What's the difference between these scenarios?
1. A guy walks to your home, breaks your door, and then steals your TV
2. A group of 10 people from your neighborhood break into your house and take a bunch of property
3. A group of 1,000,000 people demand money from you; if you refuse, a bunch of armed men hired by them will break your door and then kidnap or shoot you
The foundation resides in the rule of law protecting the individual:
1. A guy walks to your home: shoot him.
2. A group of 10 people from your neighborhood break into your house: shoot them too.
3a. A group of 1,000,000 people demand money from you: don't pay.
3b. A bunch of armed men hired by them will break your door and then kidnap or shoot you: shoot some of them first, eventually they will realize it's cheaper to produce than steal.
I am afraid that is what is coming. Unfortunately, your approach forgets that some people have wives (and/or children) that we love. We must balance the desire to do what strikes a blow for liberty and what best protects the interests and lives of our families. Those of us with loved ones are hostages to fortune and also hostages to the desire to protect their interests, even at the cost of compromising what we know is right.
I am willing to die to protect my family and I am willing to make a deal with the devil to protect my family. Your answer is not going to work for me until we are "in extremis" and we know we cannot protect and can only seek revenge.
The devil you've made a deal with is the government. I can't argue where you put your priorities since I have the same right. I can't criticize your decision since I'm not in your shoes. Therefore, I should not call you names and demand that you change your way of thinking or your beliefs. A little more tolerance on this level could ameliorate some of the conflicts. The level of discourse here at ZH is just a microcosm of what goes on in the streets. Until there is harmony here there will be no justice nor tolerance out there in the hot, dry streets.
Let's try that again:
If you initiate force against me or anyone else that thinks like me, you get shot. Your wife and children will then looking for a way to produce for themselves, now without the benefit of your productive ability. So your desire to do whatever it takes, make a deal with the devil or whatever, will inevitably make it worse for your family. Solution? It is better to produce than to steal. If you cannot sustain yourself now as it is then you should not be here anyway. Help me and mine produce or die. You must be useful to society. Get prepared: seeds, chickens, goats, fresh water, solar panels, etc.
Starvation is coming back in a big way.
what is this guy taking? which meds are they? what day dream is he floating in? whose voting rights does he wish to take away? this is garbage tyler. he sounds like a wealthy fool who wants to make sure his taxes stay down and the poor stay poor. this kind of stuff isn't going to help one bit. you can't have real prosperity for "the people" (and yes there are people out there, alot of them, and they care about themselves as much as you care about you) without a modicum of fairness and equality.
in my view we don't live under a democracy right now, but more a controlled plutocracy. the big bankers and corporations set all the rules. the fact that we live in a democracy is a smoke screen. both parties are just a charade. it's an interesting article to discuss perhaps, but i feel its dangerously misguided.
Fairness?? That's a pretty word! Nobody can be against "fairness" can they?
Now tell me how you define it.
I humbly submit my application for the new position of Fairness Czar.
My first edict will be aimed at making sure my salary, pension, and benefits (e.g. private jet) are 100% fair.
"a wealthy fool who wants to make sure his taxes stay down and the poor stay poor"
Shame on the greedy, rich people for wanting to keep what they've earned. So what if entrepeneurs risk their own fortunes trying to anticipate future market conditions and satisfy the urgent wants of consumers. They are nothing but a bunch of lazy idiots.
I say steal all their money. Rich people - who needs them? After all, there are plenty of poor people who are offering to hire me.
"in my view we don't live under a democracy right now, but more a controlled plutocracy."
In other words, people aren't responsible when they vote for destructive idiots. Blame it on the plutocracy. Blame it on the rain, yeah, yeah. Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol. Just don't blame the voters.
Dr. Acula,
I also think most people are idiots and vote like idiots as well, and I have nothing against rich people wanting to stay rich. thats only natural. and hey i admire someone like jim rogers trotting around the globe and anticipating future market conditions. thats fine. but really, whose voting rights do you plan on taking away in this transition away from democracy? i mean cmon, its laughable. we need less stepping on the people, not more. please. I'm sure jim rogers would even agree on that.
where do you see democracy today??? WHERE ???? we are fighting extremely unpopular wars, we have had a banker bailout which the people didn't want!! and we have had a wierd kind of corporate health reform, which the people didn't want! ....so where do you see here democracy? where is that i would like to know? the people are not perfect. no sir. not by a long shot. but the elitists ARE WORSE! having everything decided by rich, well connected bankers IS EXACTLY the disaster we now face!!! god help us.
" but really, whose voting rights do you plan on taking away in this transition away from democracy"
If people want to form a club, where they get to vote on stuff, I don't really care. What I dislike are crimes like theft and fraud being inflicted on me. The government is failing to protect property rights - its only just purpose. In fact, it seems to be entirely built around finding ways of violating them.
A good start to improving things would be to remove from the government (and the voters') hands the lever of counterfeiting - fiat currency. I would like to see Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution enforced; it says that the States may accept only gold and silver as legal tender.
I'm saying I would like to see the Constitution adhered to and enforced - not treated like a nut rag.
i think those ideas of yours sound good. i've got zero problem with what you are saying.
You're making the all-too-common mistake of believing that every rich executive or banker is a Henry Ford or Milton Hershey. Most of these fools are just warm bodies slowly killing their host while handsomely rewarding themselves for doing so. We have an enourmous and incestuous class of leeching rentiers that are just as stupid and shortsighted as the average ghetto dweller. Every day they warp this government and our economy to serve their worthless and suicidal interests.
Spend much time in California? All kinds of crazy, moonbat shit gets put on the ballot there, and a lot of it gets passed because the majority of voters know it won't affect them, just those "rich" bastards.
i'd be curious to hear an example. i don't always like what "the people" or the majority vote for either. I just think having some secret cabal decide things, is actually more representative of our problems today, then some kind of overdose of populism or democracy
Please you don't tell me you want to hear an ACTUAL example of "moonbat shit"...
barkingbill, Example, Ballot Measures 66 and 67 in Oregon. The measures were rushed to special election in January of 2010. The measures were for extra taxation for public funds (schools, PERS, etc.) These were measures written by a Democratic congress. These were the worst measures that I have ever seen in my voting life (41 years). The pro argumentents in the voter's pamphlet pandered to the emotions, "our poor children", "rich evil bankers and corporations". These measures were unbelievably vicious taxation measures on private small business owners, taxation on gross revenue in all future years, and, retro-active taxation to 2009 revenues. Also, a sweetener for the voting public was included that there would be no taxation on any unemployment income received in 2009. These measures both passed. All of these poor people voting for this didn't realize that they just passed themselves a regressive sales tax, and that there local home town grocery store would just be passing on the extra costs to them. For years Oregonian's have rejected sales taxed and now they have a wopper. Already hit financially by the recession, this final blow as knocked out some Oregon businesses. Disclaimer: I don't own, nor have ever owned a small business. I was a registered Democrat for 41 years, but no more.
Dear me. I believe the author is advocating some form of facsist dictatorship. We could start by setting it up so that some lesser citizens could be empowered to with 3/5s of a vote, although we'll need a way to easily distinguish them. Of course, the overall leader will need like 100 million votes, and perhaps we could give a million or so votes to our most productive citizens, the ceos of our larger banks.
I think the author is confused. Equality is not that which should be attacked.
We do need people to be equal. Equal to free people whose rights to their own bodies and property deserve to be protected.
Not equal to thralls who can be abused on a whim and whose property can be stolen through theft (taxation), fraud (fractional reserve banking), and counterfeiting (fiat currency), not to mention every other form of abuse perpetrated at our own expense.
You are all confused.
Watching you debate is like watching the Demagogues and Republicrats go at it. Equality, f*ck it! No one is equal, everyone is unique. Take all the wealth in the US and divide it equally amongst every man, woman, and child. Give them freedom and...some have more, some have less. That's freedom Bitchez!
Not fair, not fair! OK, set aside a generation or two where every infant is nationalized and reared in uniform gov't nurseries, educated in uniform gov't schools, and then released into the free market upon adulthood (ring a bell, you D&L?)...same result.
Not fair, not fair! OK, set aside a generation or two where every every embryo is genetically modified to be the same, reared in uniform gov't nurseries, educated in uniform gov't schools, and then released into the free market upon adulthood (coming to a theatre near you)...same result?
There is no compromise: freedom or equality, choose now!
PS. As for the wealthy that maintain and expand their wealth through the gov't sponsored counterfeiting monopoly(point of a gun), they get what they deserve...the point of a gun.
+10 very well said.
Revolution of ideas? Most of the people I speak to only seem to care about Michael Jackson, their kids' baseball games, where Leroy James will play next year.
Very few will talk about these pointless wars.
Maybe they've just tired of it? It's been almost 9 years since 9-11 and nobody's listened to them. Even electing Hopey McChange on anti-war promises didn't do anything.
I did not understand a word of what this learned gentleman said.
I can only surmise by his eloquence that it must have been something of great depth.
Sorry folks this is not impressive at all. A very brit way of looking at things, if you read between the lines. Yup the problem with democray is people....brilliant.
Today's state of affairs is a long road from the 60's counter culture to the 70's political collapse via watergate, the 2000's economic debacle. However, the discarding of democracy will imperil what little is right here. Hobbsen's suggestion of a type of Platonic cabal running things is offensive to my autonomy, and yours.
i agree. Platos Republic was never meant to be a real society. most agree if it was, it would be a form of fascism.
but i mean cmon people. this really should be obvious to us. as much as we don't trust the people, do you trust some secret group of "Guardians" more? I do not.
The only form of government that has the capacity, let alone the ability to solve the world's problems, is self-government. For it is only the individual that has the necessary faculties of reason, and compassion/empathy towards others required to create solutions.
The collective, on the other hand, is an unthinking, unfeeling abstraction that only exists to allow empowered individuals (a.k.a. "leaders") to destroy without the worry of accountability for their individual actions.
absolutely agree, but what mechanism is there that will preserve the autonomy of the individual in the real world of thieves and warlords?
Personal weapons (e.g. guns)
Neighborhood nightwatchmen clubs
Security guard companies
Insurance companies
Credit ratings & other kinds of private rating systems
Private arbitrators
Bounty contracts
If I'm poor, the ability to sell my claim of having been wronged (say, mugged or beaten up) to a richer party who can afford to prosecute the matter
Libertopia sounds like a wonderful place to visit. If it happened as you describe it, I'd be giving crack to your wife and selling your children as sex slaves.
Good luck getting a decent rating from a private rating agency!
Hobson is basically a "greed is good" idiot wearing a fancy shirt
to begin with, we don't have a democracy in the US
Not to mention we already have disproportional polical power based on geography. Maybe we should have all national issues decided by the New Hampshire state legislature
Unless I've missed it, there has been no mention in the comments about the fact that the U. S. is not/never has been a "democracy". I know it's old news. The closest we get to it is when California puts an item on the ballot as to whether gay folks can get married. The "people" vote their narrow views so that sort of thing does not pass. Civil Rights and all that legal gobbledy-gook gets sidelined. So, the Courts have to decide, and they get blamed for ignoring "the will of the people". All garbage.
The Constitutional Republic form of gov't would be nice, if we actually had it.
Reversing the pecking order doesn't work much better.. the poor want to be rich and the rich want to play. There are enough professionally-mided responsible people- the issue is getting everyone in the right place to do the right thing. Money doesn't solve that problem.. that's what we have today.. here on Zerohedge and to my mind, few other places, is a moot hall with a thane lost behind a beard and flagon. ..But, as an example, look at what's going on with the DOE initiative into Fusion and there are several approaches, staffed by enthusiastic experts who yet don't have the fire found in these pages.
The financial industry is staffed by people who actively attempt to impose their will by whatever means they feel may serve them best. Perhaps those who are integral to other fields prefer a better structured approach. Either way, it does seem likely that forums such as these were would probably remain as the best source of parsing intelligence; but here we had a clear and known danger- a discussion without a cliff to fall off at the end of, would likely be less constructive. ...in practice these are about limits on resources, who decides what gets allocated where.. part of revolution should really take leverage IT and new-fangled fabrication methods and see if that bottleneck can't be widened.
If you are a net recipient of wealth redistribution, you should not have a vote. Period. Yes, this includes government employees with taxpayer-funded salaries.
The logic of this position is unassailable. A VC-type might recognize it as the requirement of "having skin in the game." No skin? No vote.
"If you are a net recipient of wealth redistribution, you should not have a vote."
But how can I possibly calculate whether I am a net recipient? I receive for "free" the services of state road access, city police protection, etc. What if you drive on the roads 10x as much as me, then how do we calculate how much redistributed wealth each of us is getting?
It would help if the government could provide itemized tax bills. I could then see which taxes are actually worthwhile as opposed to providing services I don't want, like educating my neighbor's 10 children, or blowing up pregnant Iraqi women, or invading houses where the wrong kinds of plants are being grown.
Do you pay taxes? No? Well, then you can't vote.
Do you receive welfare? Section 8 housing? Foodstamps? Yes? Well, then you can't vote.
I think this is a good start. We can work on the nuances later.
The military sucks the nipple of the government? Shall they have the right to vote? What about the employees of corps that receive corporate welfare? Defense Contractors? Should they have the right to vote? The police? Firefighters? What about social workers? Farmers who receive subsidies? Does the IRS choose who is a net contributor? What about doctors? Some get most of their money from Medicare? Are they contributing?
+1
We're talking about "citizens in a democratically elected republic" here (however ridiculous that might sound - theory vs. practice)...
In any case, we're not talking CORPORATE EQUITY SHAREHOLDERS here (in which case, I might slide towards your argument)...
'Permanent principles'
'Weighted votes that are Earned'
In other words, Algo-World Government. Master encryption by use of a quantum computer, and stick it on the Moon so the terrorists can't blow it up. In Machine We Trust (because we can't trust humans, every one of them is a potential traitor)
"'Weighted votes that are Earned'"
How do I earn voting power? By purchasing it with money?
If I'm the head of a rich company, can I get enough votes to buy a monopoly, i.e. outlaw any competing companies in the same geographical region? The new law could be enforced with clever terms like "guilds", "professional licensing", "patents", "subsidies", "bailouts", "tarriffs", etc.
If I'm a poor person, can I get 1,000,000 other poor people to pool our voting power into stealing rich people's wealth?
I don't understand what you've solved exactly.
Ooooh, oooh! Your idea can be monetized! I can see the hedge fundies going nuts.
We gather them into securitized tranches. Like carbon credits. Trading the spreads.
I love it!
What an incredibly stupid article. What is good leadership? It's pretty much up to history to decide. For a while there, the Germans thought Hitler was pretty nifty. Same for the Italians and Mussolini. This guy seems like would have been happy under either in the thirties.
Were all the Greeks wrong? The problem with monotheism is the universal state of the absolute is basis, not apex. So a physical or spiritual source would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal form from which we fell. The problem is that there are no economic, political or religious models of perfection out there. It's a matter of building up what we have until it gets too unstable and top heavy and then it crashes back down to a stable level and we start building it up again. So Aristotle was right and Plato was wrong.
Our problem is that a market needs a medium of exchange and whomever controls that medium, controls the market and we are too naive to understand this because those controlling the money prefer we treat it as private property, so we will swallow it into the core of our existence, like a fish swallowing the bait and they have that much more control and ownership of every aspect of our lives. Look at those pieces of paper in your pockets. Do they have your picture on them? You don't own them and the tighter you hold them and the more you pray to them, the more they own you. How much of every aspect of your life have you been willing to trade for a little more money? You don't want to get taxed. Idiots. All they have to do is print more money. If you really want to control the money, you need to accept it is a form of public utility, much like a road system and treat it as such. We all like having roads, but no more than necessary. If we treated money with the same regard, life would be far healthier.