Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

What does democracy mean?

Archive: 33 posts

The title says it all, what does 'democracy' mean in your opinion?

In case you are wondering why I would ask such a question; it's for assignment and I need a few respondents from outside my course to that question so I can later sort them according to which theory of democracy is reflected in your answers.

Thank you. 		2009-10-04 11:05:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

itm eans im holding 1 cake in my left hand and a cup of coffee in the other - good morning syroc2009-10-04 11:33:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

Good morning to you good sir.

It's the wrong day and time for that sort of question isn't it? ^.^		2009-10-04 11:39:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

XD Ask me again in another lifetime.2009-10-04 11:49:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

Democracy? I'm going to be lame and give the textbook answer. xD;;

*ahem* Democracy is a form of government in which the people elect the government officials. There are different types of democracy, but in the end, they all boil down to the same thing.		2009-10-04 14:58:00

Author:
dandygandy2704
Posts: 1002

Democracy? I'm going to be lame and give the textbook answer. xD;;

*ahem* Democracy is a form of government in which the people elect the government officials. There are different types of democracy, but in the end, they all boil down to the same thing.

That would be a republic- a democracy is where everyone votes for everything. D:

Pretty much only works on a deserted island XD

Anywho... I won't go into my thoughts furthermore :kz:		2009-10-04 15:28:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Technically, a republic is just a non-hereditary, non-monarchical government. And what you're talking about is a direct democracy. There's also representative and indirect democracy. Ancient Greece had a direct democracy. The USA is technically a republic with democratic ideas (or the other way 'round...)

Yeah, I've got Government this year...		2009-10-04 15:58:00

Author:
dandygandy2704
Posts: 1002

Are we talking about democracy in the American sense, or democracy in the literal sense? I'm taking a Political Science course, and we frequently write essays on these topics.

Literally, democracy means "rule by the people".		2009-10-04 17:41:00

Author:
BSprague
Posts: 2325

Democracy is an ideal way of running a society. Unfortunately, it is also a myth.... sad, but true.2009-10-04 18:08:00

Author:
Rustbukkit
Posts: 1737

By Mugabe's standards: A new name for "dictatorship".2009-10-04 18:37:00

Author:
deadmensboots
Posts: 54

By Mugabe's standards: A new name for "dictatorship".

Quoted for truth.

Also, I see democracy as rule by the populous, be it through election or general voting.		2009-10-04 19:03:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

Democracy is an ideal way of running a society. Unfortunately, it is also a myth.... sad, but true.

Is it, really?

A direct democracy like in ancient Athens only can work very well if you have a small society with little variety; the problems start when the society gets bigger and more varied.

Then direct democracy turns into mob rule with no representation of the minority - this is where a republic comes in.

The ideal type of government for a large, modern society would have to be one that's a democratic republic. Of course, that's a vague term so the implementation of varies wildly so the effectiveness depends on the particular society's implementation.

In the USA for example, the people still have supreme power over all, whether they choose to acknowledge or exercise this is another story. We've been spoiled by modern industrialized society and have become complacent, taking for granted the foundations of our society.		2009-10-04 19:03:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

A democracy is the worst kind of government because you're giving racists, biggots, idiots, and religious fanatics the right to vote.

Now dictatorships, that's the way to go. Kim Jong Il is leading North Korea, and they are the most fantastical awesome super country number one. Obama doesn't wrestle giant squid. Kim Jong Il does.		2009-10-04 19:50:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

I think this should have been a blog. Hopefully the admins and mods won't get to upset.

Anyways. Here's my opinion.

*Puts on glasses, suit, and a smart accent just to sound professional*

Democracy is a government by the people for the people. It's a country with such government and it has social equality.

*Starts to take off suit, but trips over a shoelace*

Ouch! My head!		2009-10-04 23:45:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

Democracy.... if he means an Athenian democracy, it is, to me, a form of government where the common folk can dictate and decide for the government, which in turn upholds the rules/standards that the public voted and distiguished for themselves.

As for our current democracy, it is, to me, the largest political party in the USA, who have recently voted for President Obama. They are infamously known for their deep governmental spending and poorly discussed political decisions that have currently put the U.S. in an about $3 TRILLION debt to the Chinese. Unfortunately, it will most likely be my generation having to bear the burdens of such a harsh and cruel consequence bestowed upon our young country.

I'm not sure if that's what you needed, but that's how I'd describe "democracy".		2009-10-05 06:40:00

Author:
Outlaw-Jack
Posts: 5757

Democracy.... if he means an Athenian democracy, it is, to me, a form of government where the common folk can dictate and decide for the government, which in turn upholds the rules/standards that the public voted and distiguished for themselves.

As for our current democracy, it is, to me, the largest political party in the USA, who have recently voted for President Obama. They are infamously known for their deep governmental spending and poorly discussed political decisions that have currently put the U.S. in an about $3 TRILLION debt to the Chinese. Unfortunately, it will most likely be my generation having to bear the burdens of such a harsh and cruel consequence bestowed upon our young country.

I'm not sure if that's what you needed, but that's how I'd describe "democracy".

WOW! Came in with your guns blazing, didn'tcha?
Although the "democratic party" as differentiated from the "republican" party, I'm sure you know has nothing to do with nomenclature. They're both democratic. They're both republican.

Okay. I suppose I could define democracy as an Orwellian nightmare in which every cast ballot is a placebo meant to satisfy the public, under a system in which the popular vote doesn't even MATTER, when the real powers behind the nation's curtains are free to be as crooked and corrupt as they want, and if they want to illegally spy on and torture innocent people, start unjust wars for morally decrepit reasons without so much as a modicum of real public support (what support there is being based on blatant lies), then they are certainly free to do so! Lying, cheating, stealing, corruption of power, poor people in the dirt, rich people on thrones - Democracy - just like every other type of government ever conceived.

Remember the massive public outcry against the financial bailout, and how it seemed to create true backlash? The Senate declined the bill.

Days later, it was syphoned through and passed anyway.

American Public: "OH WELLS!!!"

http://imgur.com/B3cZM.jpg

Another big part of the issue of "democracy": In our democracy, people have zero say about what is actually produced and distributed to them, and this is perhaps the biggest part of our lives. Corporate interests decide all this. Talk about corruption of power. There's a very powerful system of corporation and propaganda - we're spoon fed this thing and that thing, and then led to believe that we chose it from the beginning. They call it the "free market", but in truth, there's more tyranny here than anywhere else in the government - the only way Corporations are even remotely accountable to the general public is through regulation, but people will have you believe that this is government interfering in "freedom" - and I'll have another spoonful, please. Thank you, this is delicious!

At the risk of sounding like a dirty hippie, Corporations run this show, that's the bottom line. And there's absolutely nothing democratic about our Corporate system. It's "civilized" tyranny. And they're not accountable. When something goes horribly wrong and it becomes public, there is an outcry - and then we're given our medicine and it continues.

A democracy should be about people being able to influence the way in which they're governed. On the national government level, it's alarmingly difficult for people to get their needs and wants all the way up to the top, and the extreme disparity in these "needs and wants" practically cancel each other out. Democratic government relies on the public arena. The U.S. government's "public arena" exists quite well on the smaller scale - people can affect real changes in their community. In their towns, in their schools. But not so much in their country. On the national scale, it's privatized democracy. It's behind the curtains, and this "democratic" influence belongs to Corporations.

You might spend nearly a third of your life working, and the workplace is not democratic either.

So, we live in a democracy that happens to be not very democratic at all. Having to deal with that gives me nothing but confusion about what "democracy" even means. To be completely honest, the more I think about it, the less I have any clue what "democracy" actually means in any real context.		2009-10-05 10:55:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

Nice one. Some good replies there.


Are we talking about democracy in the American sense, or democracy in the literal sense? I'm taking a Political Science course, and we frequently write essays on these topics.

We are talking about what democracy means to you.
So giving a textbook definition of democracy isn't really what I'm looking for. I can find all 5159 of those myself. 		2009-10-05 11:59:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Teebonesy, in what way are the corporations tyrannous? Corporations are given their power by the general public. Without us, they would have nothing. They are not oppressing us or forcing us to do their bidding, kidnapping and torturing people who have not bought enough kitkat chunkies this month. They offer us things we want and we pay them for it.

In many ways capitalism is a form of [edit] analogous to democracy, IMO. We "vote" with our money and everyone gets their say. Admittedly, due to the highly skewwed distribution of wealth across society, it's not by any means fair or even - the standard, key elements of democracy, but we do have a choice and we do have a say. As consumers, we pay the corporations for convenience and luxury. We may believe we need them, but we don't - We choose them, individually and en masse, every day. I don't think anyone on this forum can claim to be innocent of that.

If they were tyrannous then we would have no say whatsoever. Now I understand that an individual boycotting the corporations would be meaningless, but that's another logical aspect of democracy: on a large scale the individual can't get their say - but how exactly would you implement several millions of people all having significant control, it's just not workable. But this isn't a criticism of democracy or even our version of democracy. This is a basic, fundamental issue with pretty much every political system - no matter how good it is in theory, when it is scaled up everything becomes blurred and muddied. I'll take that version because the alternative is to revert back to small, self-contained and self-governed tribes. We could do this, but that's not exactly progress, and we really wouldn't achieve much.


Anyway, we in the west love to ***** and moan about how bad our lives our and how everything isn't fair and we're so hard done by and the government isn't exactly the way we want it and the grass is always greener. We all do it - complain about the things that really aren't that significant when compared with the rest of the world - and you have to look at yourself and just wonder...		2009-10-05 12:56:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

The two most notable points I gathered from all answers I got so far on here and elsewhere:

-We are not living in a true democracy. Democracy is not perfect.
-Companies/Money rules even in a democracy.		2009-10-05 17:07:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Companies/Money rules even in a democracy.

Probably not so much in a communist democracy 		2009-10-05 17:17:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Probably not so much in a communist democracy

You forgot to put quotation marks around democracy. it's so funny to me that the least democratic communist states always have the MOST democratic names. "The People's Democratic Republic of..."; "The Free People's Votiest Votey-Vote Nation of..."


Teebonesy, in what way are the corporations tyrannous? Corporations are given their power by the general public.

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about politicians? They get their power from us, but that doesn't stop them from being corrupt and breaking promises and doing grotesquely illegal things behind the scenes - And in fact politicians are WAY more accountable to the public than Corporations. Corporations are barely accountable at all. You ask me how they're tryannous - Well, the lack of any real accountability has allowed them to shift from becoming what you describe, which is a fundamentally democratic free market - to a ruling entity. Corporations have more political sway than any other entity. They're legally considered "people" - but people that are able to actually mold and shape the country far more substantially than ACTUAL people. They've gained so much power in the last hundred years that they're actually beyond Government at this point. There was a great documentary called The Corporation which assumes that if Corporations are people, perhaps they're psychopathic. So they run down the definition of psychopath and conclude that Coporations fit the bill to a T. It was snarky humor, but the real point they're making is that they're NOT people and shouldn't be considered such legally.

And beyond their political power, even in the "free market", there's a widespread system of propaganda in the media which happens to be controlled by Corporate interests. "Manufacturing consent" is a term I've heard to describe this. Not only can corporations control what we see and read about in the news, but it's not even a remote secret that the White House's "talking points" pretty much dictates what they want each day's big news items to be. This is part of a propaganda system. Advertising, too, has become an intrinsic part of daily life. If we're told what we should want, when we do go out and buy it, is that really democratic?


no matter how good it is in theory, when it is scaled up everything becomes blurred and muddied.

I agree completely. I'm not offering up any preferrable solution to this either, merely pointing out the "democratic" ramifications of this. But I agree, there's no way around it on a large scale. And if this disconnect creates bigger opportunites for political corruption - which it undoubtedly does - the best thing people can do in the face of any injustice is organize. Which leads me to my next point:


Anyway, we in the west love to ***** and moan about how bad our lives our and how everything isn't fair and we're so hard done by and the government isn't exactly the way we want it and the grass is always greener. We all do it - complain about the things that really aren't that significant when compared with the rest of the world - and you have to look at yourself and just wonder...

This is one thing we probably have better than everyone else in the world. There is a system of people organizing and protesting and demanding changes at certain watershed moments throughout American history, and quite objectively, IT WORKS. It's amazing to think that at the beginning of this country, women and black people were seen as subservient, lesser humans than white men. And even more amazing that it took SO LONG for this to change. But the suffragettes marched. The civil rights movement was undeniably massive in scale. They affected real change. In so many other countries they would have been openly hanged for this behavior. The nation allows dissent, and there's a historical record of this dissent actually creating real progress. It's happening right now with *** marriage. It's awesome and incredible, but it actually works. This is our democracy at its best. This is democracy working.

I think the problem with the Corporate system is that it's not as obvious to see. if you're not even allowed to vote because you're a woman or because you're black, you know immediately, in your gut, this is a fundamental injustice.

But if huge parts of your life are governed without your even realizing it, if a crucial part of this government is convincing you that you're the one in control, that you're the one making the decisions and calling the shots - then there's none of that gut "instinct" of injustice that everyone can clearly feel simultaneously. It's murky water.

So, yes, it's true that there's always going to be a "grass is greener" pandemic, no matter who, no matter where. But we do ourselves a dangerous disservice to not question what's going on around us just because we also happen to believe we live in the best country in the world. And it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside to realize that we have a few incredibly rational people in the Senate and House of Reps. There are more than a few shining lights. But let's not get carried away with how wonderful life is, and that it's quite good enough. I honestly think that by doing so, you endanger your worldview, you become complacent, and eventually lose your ability to question.

There's nothing in the world healthier than the ability and willingness to question everything.		2009-10-05 22:10:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

There's nothing in the world healthier than the ability and willingness to question everything.

Now that I'll agree with. Even an overreaction is sometimes better than no reaction at all.		2009-10-05 22:18:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

Now that I'll agree with. Even an overreaction is sometimes better than no reaction at all.

In a way, don't the over-reactions even compensate a bit for the silent ones? I think that's why you see some people getting overly riled up about things. Sometimes merely feeling like you're all alone out there can cause you to just scream it a bit louder.

I also wanted to mention another facet of the "how corporations are tyrannical" argument which I briefly mentioned in my first post - They're 100% top-down. They're the modern monarchy. The miniscule number of rich, powerful people at the top dictate everything. It trickles down all the way to the very bottom. In this sense, INTERNALLY, a Corporation is literally tyrannical.		2009-10-05 22:28:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

This is one thing we probably have better than everyone else in the world. There is a system of people organizing and protesting and demanding changes at certain watershed moments throughout American history, and quite objectively, IT WORKS. It's amazing to think that at the beginning of this country, women and black people were seen as subservient, lesser humans than white men. And even more amazing that it took SO LONG for this to change. But the suffragettes marched. The civil rights movement was undeniably massive in scale. They affected real change.

I'm sorry but there is a big gap between abolishing slavery and getting the vote for women and generally moaning that we don't live in utopia. The latter is what modern western society is notorious for. Occasionally people march for things that matter, but the vast majority of the whinging is exactly that. For example, what exactly are you protesting here - you can't offer any preferrable solution, but you want something better. We want all the pros of what we have, none of the cons, we ***** and moan and expect someone else to provide the solution, whilst simultaneously pointing the finger at everone but ourselves. We don't even know what it is that we want, but we have grown to expect so much convenience and luxury that if it's not quite right, then we complain.

I do question everything, including the things that I'm questioning


This is part of a propaganda system. Advertising, too, has become an intrinsic part of daily life. If we're told what we should want, when we do go out and buy it, is that really democratic? If you are incapable of deciding for yourself then why the hell does democracy even bother you? Lol, we all have a choice to not deal with the corporations - discounting a few things that wouldn't even be possible without them, and these aren't necessities. The corporations' only power is financial, and they get that from us. Condemn with one hand, whilst supporting with the other.		2009-10-05 22:52:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

rtm223: I thought it was fairly clear, but the change that I see we need is Corporate accountability, and an end to the top-down Corporate system. If major corporations are openly regulated and accountable to the general public, and if the top-down internal corporate system is replaced with one in which workers and the public have a direct say - as is the case in co-ops, for example - then I feel like most of the problems I'm talking about would diminish. EDIT: A bit of extra detail here - part of how we do away with the privacy of Corporations and increase accountability is to remove the rights that Corporations have as equal to private citizens. It's absurd that this has even happened. A Corporation, in court, has all the rights of a person. Which, frankly, sounds like some weird Monty Python joke, but it's somehow true.

What have I done about this? Not a whole hell of a lot, short of keeping the representative in my old district updated with an occasional reminder to please make it a point of effort to make this a priority, that it matters strongly to me. But then again, I'm in the strange position of living in Canada and not being a citizen, and not yet having a vote here - so I vote in American elections, I'm engaged in the American political system, though I actually live in Canada.


If you are incapable of deciding for yourself then why the hell does democracy even bother you? Lol, we all have a choice to not deal with the corporations

It's so easy to dismiss the system of control that's in place as "if you don't like it, don't deal with it". It's all around us - it's a major part of everyday life. It's impossible to avoid, short of going out and roughing it in the bush, building a shack and living on the shore of Walden. Actually, **** it, I'd LOVE to do that someday! I'm calling it right now - someday I'm going to disappear for a few years out in the woods.

I think the major difference between us is that you simply don't see that the problem with the current Corporate system is worth fighting to change. You say that it's not on the same level as Civil Rights - and I agree with you, as I mentioned before. If you're a black person before or during the civil rights movement, you don't need to research how the country works to march for Civil Rights. You know in your gut, instinctively, that you're living in an unjust state. It's clear for everyone to see and feel. Thus, organization on a massive scale is possible.

The current problems aren't so clear - they sometimes require diligent research in order to even see. But yes, I do believe that it's a major and unjust problem that involves everybody. Michael Moore just released his next nearly-pointless movie (pointless in that it basically preaches to the choir and is only going to polarize audiences), but it did have some amazingly insightful sequences, for example, major corporations' "Dead Peasants" plans. In the internal Corporate literature, this is literally what the policies are sometimes called. These are life insurance policies taken out on the lowliest workers. These workers are sometimes worth more to the corporation dead than alive, situations in which the Corporation PROFITS from their death, rather than recoups loss. This is not "work-related" death either, it's any death. And it's taken out on the lowest rungs. It doesn't take a litigation genius to recognize that this is beyond smarmy, it even approaches cruel, particularly considering that sometimes the families of the deceased cannot afford their own life insurance policies and are thrust into poverty while the Corporation makes an enormous bundle of cash. It's an example of what can happen without regulation, without accountability. EDIT: I realize the irony in discussing accountability of something that's exposed in a major documentary. It took an employee to LEAK internal memos in order to get the word out. I'm sure that now, corporations will know better than to take out dead peasants plans distribute memos so willy-nilly.

Honestly, I'm not some radical here. And I'm not arguing for some abstract "utopia". Simply a change to our beyond-out-of-control system of Corporate power. They have WAY more than just the power we hand them with our cash. With the current system, with massive financial power comes influence, and what they have that even politicians don't is privacy. So they are free to exert influence in unjust ways. This is WAY more than an issue of free market machinations - it's not an issue of "I don't want to drink Pepsi, but I have to because it's being shoved down my throat" - that's easy enough to avoid - obnoxious though it is. It's an issue of morality, and it flies in the face of the very concept of democracy.		2009-10-05 23:19:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

Are the corporations murdering the employees? If not I see no problem. I honestly don't. And how much will they recoup from these "dead peasants"? They could kill one or two before arousing suspicion. Then they get hit with a massive external investigation.

If we are talking american corporations then they are heavilly regulated externally, even when they are operating in foreign countries. In fact they are often regulated in those countries as well, leading to complex conflicting regualtory factors that have to be managed. For this reason, compliance and ethics are a massive part of the internal structure of a typical corporation and when the fines can reach multi-millions for individual transgressions, the corporations really can't afford to screw up.

Yes there is corruption, but there is also the accountability that you describe. It's not perfect, but it's getting better. The corporations genuinely are scared - money and reputation is all they have and things are improving.


The difference here is that I don't see the situation as being as bad as you do. If I did, then I probably would see it as being something to fight for, and I probably would be actively fighting for it.		2009-10-05 23:41:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Are the corporations murdering the employees? If not I see no problem. I honestly don't. And how much will they recoup from these "dead peasants"? They could kill one or two before arousing suspicion. Then they get hit with a massive external investigation.

If we are talking american corporations then they are heavilly regulated externally, even when they are operating in foreign countries. In fact they are often regulated in those countries as well, leading to complex conflicting regualtory factors that have to be managed. For this reason, compliance and ethics are a massive part of the internal structure of a typical corporation and when the fines can reach multi-millions for individual transgressions, the corporations really can't afford to screw up.

Wow, you're making it sound like Corporations really aren't that bad at all! I might even go on a vacation to one of those! I see them, in their current state, as abominable, so there's definitely quite the disconnect there. Right now, we hear about some of the atrocious things done by people at the top of Corporations, and we can even occasionally see them punished for these things. That seems to be the nature of current regulation. Punishment here, persuasion there. A slap when something naughty is accidentally made public. It's like putting a couple of caltrops down in front of a tank that's just turned your car into a Honda Pancake.

I would expect such a violent convulsion of opposition to the re-installation of a new corporate system that it would never happen all at once. Right now I see a broken, crooked, tyrannical problem, and the complete dismantling of it isn't here - it may be way way over there, but it's nowhere near here. Ideally I would see workplaces as being democratic. This isn't even remotely a new idea, in fact it's crucial to the enlightenment that was at the heart of America's inception. But now we're so entrenched in the complete opposite that we're used to it, we've become complacent.

But I think we both agree where our gap is, so for now let's agree to disagree.

But since we've somewhat derailed this thread, I'll see if I can't steer it back a little bit:

Democracy-to-me-means-freedom-and-choice-for-all!
*RRRIIP*
http://imgur.com/z577I.jpg
OW MY HAND!!		2009-10-06 00:42:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

The current financial system is broken in many ways... but it's not an inherent flaw of corporations or free market.

In fact if we had a proper free market that was regulated efficiently (which is an integral component of a market economy) then none of the problems we have now could ever exist.

There is no greater accountability for a corporation than going out of business if you screw up.

It seems like people place all corporations into the same light as a government sponsored entity and corrupt politicians. They're started by people, in fact any of us here can start a corporation if you want to. Maybe I'll list FOOF on the Nasdaq? No problem! All I have to do is pay some fees to list and issue a quaterly earnings report, etc.

Corporations are an essential part of a market economy, and one of the main reasons it can actually function. See a proper corporation not as some big oppressive monster or the manor of a Feudal European lord, but as a business started by regular people. Being a corporation means other people can freely buy part ownership or stake in the corporation, making it grow... providing more funds for the business to create better products and provide more jobs. Trading the investments also leads to allowing banks to give us interest on our deposits; you can't have a free market economy without corporations.

That said, the problems arise when you start deviating from everything a corporation should be. For example, the big investment banks crippled themselves not because the government didn't watch them enough - it's because the government got TOO involved with them.

They made deals with the SEC that said the SEC could be in their offices every single working day and in return they could take EXORBITANT loans from our DEPOSIT banks to back their investment activity, leveraging themselves into eventual oblivion - with the government's guarantee they'd back them up no matter what.

Coupled with the government's intervention in other areas like lines of credit and housing, money soon became worth less and less due to rapid super inflation.

The answer isn't to cripple what proper business there is left, and we do need to regulate these sectors very carefully, but we cannot interfere and tip the scales.

We're only exacerbating these issues, we need to stop facilitating this whole "bubble and pop" economy, or we'll keep having "recessions" and every time it'll be worse and worse.

Of course the government's approach is to make you blame free market as a whole and not the government. No. In a proper free market economy it is impossible for one entity to become so large that it can take everything down with it.

I think I might need to clarify what I consider free and freedom to mean, too.

I do not define freedom as being able to do whatever you want with no consequences - I define it as doing as you will and being solely responsible for yourself and all consequences.

I will liken my definition of "free" in "Free market" to a flowing river. The river is regulated by banks and shores, however it flows freely through them. Government interference is like shoving a rock in the river so only half of it can flow.		2009-10-06 00:59:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

Actually, I have a friend who got his company incorporated. So technically, he runs a corporation! Number of employees? One - him. Profit? Somewhere in the negatives.

most of this talk about the problem with corporations doesn't apply to smaller companies, because just like with any form of government, democracy is easily obtained on the small scale. It's the big, powerful ones that are the problem, and the current system allows them to be freely corrupt and far too powerful.

A corporation going out of business doesn't work as an example of accountability if we're talking about corporations that exert far-reaching control in politics and the public through mass media - they're not going to be going out of business anytime soon, and they're the ones that need the most checks and balances.

And it is getting ridiculous seeing how much money the U.S. government has spent this decade, and how much of that spending money has been printed by the Reserve in order to accomodate costs. Jesus, give us another decade or two and McDonald's "dollar" menu will be the "1K menu - everything on the menu only one thousand dollars!"*

*plus appropriate taxes		2009-10-06 01:35:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

Your last bit is exactly correct, if what continues goes on eventually we'll tell our grandchildren stories about how far money used to go, as our grandparents tell us.

But you see, it's the government getting in bed with these corporations that facilitates them being that huge in the first place. That just needs to stop, plain and simple. But it won't happen anytime soon because it would require a monumental effort on everyone's part to put forth a truly free market economy. It's just easier to add fat to the fire and blame everything else.		2009-10-06 01:43:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

I'm with you, big government and big corporations both extend their feely, writhing tendrils into the other. They can keep each other in power this way. That's good for precisely themselves and each other, but it kind of leaves out 99% of the actual population of the country. Oops!

It's actually astounding to think about, because business being a completely separate entity from state was one of the central reasons for the creation of the U.S. There's "healthy skepticism" of corporate power on one hand, and then there's the founding fathers. These guys were plain scared of it! And for good reason!

You could say that early in U.S. history, the state had a GREAT deal of influence over corporations, but it was in limiting their power in order to keep them separate, and for the public benefit. Looking at where we are now, that sounds like a phenomenal (and novel) idea.

The industrial age rolls in, corporations gained money and power, and fought like the dickens for more money and more power and more privacy and more freedom to gain yet more of all of the above. I mean, considering that one of the greatest fights the founding fathers fought was over too much corporate power, here we are, and it's essentially the American nightmare come true. These are two major power centers in the country, engaged in kind of a sick incenstuous cycle. the evolution of the corporation in America is actually an amazing story. It's a "rags to riches" story in a way, except it's the bad guy that wins.

It's such a massive problem, and the nation's population is so ridiculously polarized, that it seems like a phenomenally uphill battle.

What sucks the most about it is that you HAVE to learn about it to even know it's there. you have to read and research and talk to people who know what they're talking about. There's no simple gut-feeling that unites everybody. Who wants to march if they don't know what they're talking about? ****, I barely know what I'm talking about! I've read approximately four books and seen maybe four documentaries on the subject, in addition to websites, articles, columns, interviews, etc. I couldn't begin to write a treatise on the topic.

I think a lot of people have twisted the notion of "government intervention" into meaning that the Government shouldn't even touch a corporation with a ten-foot pole. That, on the surface, might seem to agree with the founding fathers, when in fact they touched corporations with a TON of ten foot poles, which they built around them in a 10-foot-pole-prison, which they hoped would contain them. They placed a magical seal using the distilled blood of a hundred slaughtered demons to contain the vile things, to ensure that they only did good for the world.

I never realized how similar corporations were to dark Cthulhu himself!		2009-10-06 02:39:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937

Any more thoughts on democracy? 2009-10-06 14:13:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

I think a lot of people have twisted the notion of "government intervention" into meaning that the Government shouldn't even touch a corporation with a ten-foot pole. That, on the surface, might seem to agree with the founding fathers, when in fact they touched corporations with a TON of ten foot poles, which they built around them in a 10-foot-pole-prison, which they hoped would contain them. They placed a magical seal using the distilled blood of a hundred slaughtered demons to contain the vile things, to ensure that they only did good for the world.

I never realized how similar corporations were to dark Cthulhu himself!

O_o .. well, people do think in extremes. My views on how US government should be, especially on the federal level - regulate but do not interfere.

For example: A hockey game, a referee is supposed to regulate the game for fairness to maintain all things equal for both teams with no edge on either side. Interference would be if the referee likes one team and does them favors.

How does this tie into democracy in general? Well, corporations are far from the government went towards interfering rather than regulating. For at least the last 60 years or so we've been making the federal government have more and more power - this is totally against what the founding fathers wanted.

The way the US was meant to be setup is with smaller, modular governments, with the most direct power lying in the most local governments because you are right - democracy works best in a smaller, focused society. It makes the government more efficient, it means less power distributed amongst many hands, and it also means anyone in government is easily replaced - Perfect.

But we just keep going backwards, feds interfering with everything. It's been killing the foundations of our market economy and inflating our currency towards worthlessness, it's crippled local education and healthcare systems, etc. and more is due to happen.

It's impossible for a democracy to work effectively when the government is so big and employs a "one size fits all" for a nation of 300,000,000 people. The answer is definitely not to make the federal government even bigger.		2009-10-06 14:40:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.