Agree or Disagree: The U.S. is Now an Oligarchy

Turtleneck wrote:

I think we want governance in the form of authoritative norms. To me, both governance and government are more-or-less systems of rules. However, what would be ideal is not government backed by force but shared governance - between citizens - backed by norms that create standards of behavior and structure relations. In other words, instead of submitting our will to the power of a central authority, our behavior is governed by social norms and what is seen as appropriate/inappropriate. Yet, as I said above, we have been socialized into competitive behaviors that make such a state seem like a utopian dream world. Imagine a state defined by small communities governed by social norms of cooperation rather than force? At the same time, according to how we think about politics, people equate such talk with dirty words like socialism.

Exactly!

Us heathen anarchists/minarchists call that system "voluntarism". Which is the end goal. It's not like we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We didn't burn down all of our buildings funded by the British empire or dig up all of the roads when the Colonists defeated the British to set up the US of A. That's how all new systems have worked; assimilation. We are in a much different world than the one we existed in when this government was created; we have a sprawling infrastructure and technology unimaginable by anyone at the time. I'm not sure why Pervis insists on air dropping everyone into aboriginal Australia in a bid to prove human beings cannot peacefully voluntarily exist with one another and get things done without a fictional entity with the immoral monopoly of violence over them.

Turtleneck wrote:
For me, a couple of main problems are that the two parties in the US care more about winning seats than they do representing the people. On top of that, House districts are too big. On average, each member of the House represents approximately 700,000 people. I think a proportional representation electoral system increases representation, and would facilitate a move to a larger House. This may seem counterintuitive, but maybe we need more ideological parties. Why? Because they do not care as much about winning seats as they do representing the interests of their membership. In a proportional representation system, those parties will get seats and can represent the interests of their membership. However, like I said, that is not going to happen. Outside of general unfamiliarity (and fear of major change) on the part of the general public, the Constitution would stand in the way and I do not see - even if a proposal was on the table - 3/4 of the states would ratify such changes,

1. That seems to have always been a problem. Our government has never represented the interests of the people. Ever. Certainly it has served the interests of some people, usually a small collective of very wealthy people... but all the pomp and circumstance of freedom and liberty and pursuit of happiness meanwhile our "brand spankin' new benevolent, representative government of the people" allowed humans to be bought, sold, tortured, raped, and murdered for nearly 100 years... and then through that monopoly of violence allowed them to be legally treated as subhuman for another hundred years. Many people (and I am one of them) believe our government still treats those same people to enslavement and subhuman conditions through the archaic "drug war".

2. And that's the problem... we could put all of our energy into a system we know has failed us all these years and hope it will miraculously work for equality for once in human history... or we could put our energy into moving society forward and breaking free of the antiquated system of enslavement and caste we and our forefathers have allowed ourselves to be funneled into. We have much more advanced tools with which to work with than we did 50 years, 100 years, and certainly 200 years ago.

I don't particularly like the attitude that "Whelp... it says right here on this there piece of paper that we just can't live amongst each other voluntarily. Nope, sorry... the 'Constitution' says so." George W. Bush was an idiot, but he was dead on when he declared the Constitution (which is regarded as the fucking Bible for christ sake) 'just a piece of paper'. Because it is. Some slave owning sadists wrote it on a piece of paper and our history books (written by who else? Oh... umm, I'll take The Government for $200, Alex; convenient) treat them like the saints of the Vatican... so we can't **** with it. It must be how it is... for all eternity.   

+1, Turtleneck.

Billionaire plans to target Republicans in seven states

It's not only the Koch's.

If only there was a way to limit or eliminate politicians from being bought and paid for year in and year out, compromising our countries best interest for personal gain, what could be done, hmmmm....

FishHead wrote:If only there was a way to limit or eliminate politicians from being bought and paid for year in and year out, compromising our countries best interest for personal gain, what could be done, hmmmm....

I've already outlined the perfect democracy above.

Publicly funded elections, well paid politicians, ban on lobbying post term for a decade or so... Probably add a ban on being employed by any company who holds a federal contract for a decade or so too.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
I've already outlined the perfect democracy above.

Publicly funded elections, well paid politicians, ban on lobbying post term for a decade or so... Probably add a ban on being employed by any company who holds a federal contract for a decade or so too.

How in the world do you plan on implementing and enforcing a "ban"? Do you plan on actually jailing individuals that take a job with the alleged "no-go" companies?

xsanguine wrote:



Exactly!

Us heathen anarchists/minarchists call that system "voluntarism". Which is the end goal. It's not like we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We didn't burn down all of our buildings funded by the British empire or dig up all of the roads when the Colonists defeated the British to set up the US of A. That's how all new systems have worked; assimilation. We are in a much different world than the one we existed in when this government was created; we have a sprawling infrastructure and technology unimaginable by anyone at the time. I'm not sure why Pervis insists on air dropping everyone into aboriginal Australia in a bid to prove human beings cannot peacefully voluntarily exist with one another and get things done without a fictional entity with the immoral monopoly of violence over them.



1. That seems to have always been a problem. Our government has never represented the interests of the people. Ever. Certainly it has served the interests of some people, usually a small collective of very wealthy people... but all the pomp and circumstance of freedom and liberty and pursuit of happiness meanwhile our "brand spankin' new benevolent, representative government of the people" allowed humans to be bought, sold, tortured, raped, and murdered for nearly 100 years... and then through that monopoly of violence allowed them to be legally treated as subhuman for another hundred years. Many people (and I am one of them) believe our government still treats those same people to enslavement and subhuman conditions through the archaic "drug war".

2. And that's the problem... we could put all of our energy into a system we know has failed us all these years and hope it will miraculously work for equality for once in human history... or we could put our energy into moving society forward and breaking free of the antiquated system of enslavement and caste we and our forefathers have allowed ourselves to be funneled into. We have much more advanced tools with which to work with than we did 50 years, 100 years, and certainly 200 years ago.

I don't particularly like the attitude that "Whelp... it says right here on this there piece of paper that we just can't live amongst each other voluntarily. Nope, sorry... the 'Constitution' says so." George W. Bush was an idiot, but he was dead on when he declared the Constitution (which is regarded as the fucking Bible for christ sake) 'just a piece of paper'. Because it is. Some slave owning sadists wrote it on a piece of paper and our history books (written by who else? Oh... umm, I'll take The Government for $200, Alex; convenient) treat them like the saints of the Vatican... so we can't **** with it. It must be how it is... for all eternity.   

+1, Turtleneck.

I don't think reforms are enough. Reforms do not take us to what we most prefer. All they do is rearrange existing institutions. But at least it might be a step in the right direction of achieving some semblance of greater representation. At the same time, parties are vehicles to political power. Parties are ripe for manipulation, corruption, and abuse of power given their internal hierarchical nature and purpose in government. This means that even expanding the current landscape in an attempt to ensure greater representation might accomplish very little.

In a very general way, I disagree to some extent about the Constitution. I understand what you're saying, but even a society governed by norms rather than domination needs some sort of by-laws. Such laws - when thought of as more than words on paper - lend themselves to stability.

This will be hard to keep non-partisan so maybe we can keep rational rather than emotional.

I would argue, from what I have seen, this is not about to change. I have little to no hope that American government is going to become more responsive to the interests of average citizens as compared to a small percentage interest groups and wealthy citizens. I do put (some of the blame) on citizens from divorcing themselves from the political process, but it is still unhealthy for our institutions to be so unresponsive.

We just elected a President who praised a Russian who has create oligarchs to seal his power.

3 or 4 billionaires nominated for cabinet positions and a billionaire as President.

The horse is out of the barn and the barn is burning but we did this to ourselves by electing people who've made it possible and that started decades ago.

This article cites some interesting research regarding the relationship between public opinion and how congress actually legislates.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think

TL:DR Congress and the government don't give a shit what the public wants and never have. They do whatever their corporate overlords want. Most of us know this already but interesting to see it proven by research.

Not sure if this fits the thread subject but French owned Lafarge (probably the biggest or second biggest) employer in Alpena paid ISIS roughly $6 million to leave them alone in Syria while they could grind out profit. Fined $800 million

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/18/1129657573/lafarge-isis-fine

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:



Exactly!

Us heathen anarchists/minarchists call that system "voluntarism". Which is the end goal. It's not like we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We didn't burn down all of our buildings funded by the British empire or dig up all of the roads when the Colonists defeated the British to set up the US of A. That's how all new systems have worked; assimilation. We are in a much different world than the one we existed in when this government was created; we have a sprawling infrastructure and technology unimaginable by anyone at the time. I'm not sure why Pervis insists on air dropping everyone into aboriginal Australia in a bid to prove human beings cannot peacefully voluntarily exist with one another and get things done without a fictional entity with the immoral monopoly of violence over them.



1. That seems to have always been a problem. Our government has never represented the interests of the people. Ever. Certainly it has served the interests of some people, usually a small collective of very wealthy people... but all the pomp and circumstance of freedom and liberty and pursuit of happiness meanwhile our "brand spankin' new benevolent, representative government of the people" allowed humans to be bought, sold, tortured, raped, and murdered for nearly 100 years... and then through that monopoly of violence allowed them to be legally treated as subhuman for another hundred years. Many people (and I am one of them) believe our government still treats those same people to enslavement and subhuman conditions through the archaic "drug war".

2. And that's the problem... we could put all of our energy into a system we know has failed us all these years and hope it will miraculously work for equality for once in human history... or we could put our energy into moving society forward and breaking free of the antiquated system of enslavement and caste we and our forefathers have allowed ourselves to be funneled into. We have much more advanced tools with which to work with than we did 50 years, 100 years, and certainly 200 years ago.

I don't particularly like the attitude that "Whelp... it says right here on this there piece of paper that we just can't live amongst each other voluntarily. Nope, sorry... the 'Constitution' says so." George W. Bush was an idiot, but he was dead on when he declared the Constitution (which is regarded as the fucking Bible for christ sake) 'just a piece of paper'. Because it is. Some slave owning sadists wrote it on a piece of paper and our history books (written by who else? Oh... umm, I'll take The Government for $200, Alex; convenient) treat them like the saints of the Vatican... so we can't **** with it. It must be how it is... for all eternity.   

+1, Turtleneck.

I don't think reforms are enough. Reforms do not take us to what we most prefer. All they do is rearrange existing institutions. But at least it might be a step in the right direction of achieving some semblance of greater representation. At the same time, parties are vehicles to political power. Parties are ripe for manipulation, corruption, and abuse of power given their internal hierarchical nature and purpose in government. This means that even expanding the current landscape in an attempt to ensure greater representation might accomplish very little.

In a very general way, I disagree to some extent about the Constitution. I understand what you're saying, but even a society governed by norms rather than domination needs some sort of by-laws. Such laws - when thought of as more than words on paper - lend themselves to stability.

I will put this here, since I disagree with you about human nature.

The government's classic role is to provide the rules by which we interact with each other when the interactions would lead to physical fighting. It also provides the rules on how the strong can exploit the weak, and what protections the weak have.

Norming behavior to this would take education and requirements that everyone follow the norms, aka government.

Marx is perhaps the most famous of those who thought that government would, in the end, fade away, but even small groups of people, like the Shakers, who tried that ideal, couldn't make it work.

In a modern society, based on markets on the sanctity of contracts, government still is needed to crate and enforce the rules, as the society and complexity of market transactions increase the rules also increase to provide some minimum protection for the weak.

Turtleneck wrote:"The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy

Agree. We are little better than Russia. The difference is we have many more of them so there is still a semblance of a democracy, but only among the many wealthy oligarchs. While friendships or connections often is the main driver for one being raised into being an oligarch, it can be achieved on one's own through a good business or idea. Though rarely as sometimes that's not even enough with the way patents work and of course corporate warfare.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:"The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy

Agree. We are little better than Russia. The difference is we have many more of them so there is still a semblance of a democracy, but only among the many wealthy oligarchs. While friendships or connections often is the main driver for one being raised into being an oligarch, it can be achieved on one's own through a good business or idea. Though rarely as sometimes that's not even enough with the way patents work and of course corporate warfare.

Totally disagree. While there are lots of sucky stuff ongoing, the US still has a much better tradition of following its creed of "The Rule of Law"

Trapper Gus wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I don't think reforms are enough. Reforms do not take us to what we most prefer. All they do is rearrange existing institutions. But at least it might be a step in the right direction of achieving some semblance of greater representation. At the same time, parties are vehicles to political power. Parties are ripe for manipulation, corruption, and abuse of power given their internal hierarchical nature and purpose in government. This means that even expanding the current landscape in an attempt to ensure greater representation might accomplish very little.

In a very general way, I disagree to some extent about the Constitution. I understand what you're saying, but even a society governed by norms rather than domination needs some sort of by-laws. Such laws - when thought of as more than words on paper - lend themselves to stability.

I will put this here, since I disagree with you about human nature.

The government's classic role is to provide the rules by which we interact with each other when the interactions would lead to physical fighting. It also provides the rules on how the strong can exploit the weak, and what protections the weak have.

Norming behavior to this would take education and requirements that everyone follow the norms, aka government.

Marx is perhaps the most famous of those who thought that government would, in the end, fade away, but even small groups of people, like the Shakers, who tried that ideal, couldn't make it work.

In a modern society, based on markets on the sanctity of contracts, government still is needed to crate and enforce the rules, as the society and complexity of market transactions increase the rules also increase to provide some minimum protection for the weak.

Government bombs an aid worker's family, including his 7 children and then lie about it afterwards.

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Agree. We are little better than Russia. The difference is we have many more of them so there is still a semblance of a democracy, but only among the many wealthy oligarchs. While friendships or connections often is the main driver for one being raised into being an oligarch, it can be achieved on one's own through a good business or idea. Though rarely as sometimes that's not even enough with the way patents work and of course corporate warfare.

Totally disagree. While there are lots of sucky stuff ongoing, the US still has a much better tradition of following its creed of "The Rule of Law"

If that's true, when do the last 5 presidents get charged for war crimes at The Hague?

No citations, oh fact checker. so total failure om your part.

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Agree. We are little better than Russia. The difference is we have many more of them so there is still a semblance of a democracy, but only among the many wealthy oligarchs. While friendships or connections often is the main driver for one being raised into being an oligarch, it can be achieved on one's own through a good business or idea. Though rarely as sometimes that's not even enough with the way patents work and of course corporate warfare.

Totally disagree. While there are lots of sucky stuff ongoing, the US still has a much better tradition of following its creed of "The Rule of Law"

Rule of law? Only for you and me and the other little people. Not for them.

You can pick any number of things to "prove" me wrong but in the end when you talk about who has the power and what they do with that power, it's the oligarchs doing it all. Like i said, there are way more of them here so it's not quite as bad as russia as power in russia is highly concentrated.

As horrible as Progressives claim America is, we still have a massive amount of migrants risking their lives to get into this “oligarchy” every day. I haven’t heard of any crowds trying to get into Russia or China.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Totally disagree. While there are lots of sucky stuff ongoing, the US still has a much better tradition of following its creed of "The Rule of Law"

Rule of law? Only for you and me and the other little people. Not for them.

You can pick any number of things to "prove" me wrong but in the end when you talk about who has the power and what they do with that power, it's the oligarchs doing it all. Like i said, there are way more of them here so it's not quite as bad as russia as power in russia is highly concentrated.

Well first to quote the obvious. "The perfect is the enemy of the good"

If you want perfection then join a cult and believe in their stupid God, or whatever.

The United States was the first country which was ever based wholly on the ideal of "the rule of law"

Does it work perfectly, of course not, nothing in reality works perfectly.

Still, we hold it as an ideal, unless you are all in on Trump, in which case, fuck off.

But because Republicans have focused, since the 1950s, on control of a large number of low-population states with inexpensive media markets where it’s cheap to own radio stations and newspapers, the last time Republicans in the Senate were elected to office by a plurality of American voters was 1952.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-democrats-must-add-3-more-states

Trapper Gus wrote:

But because Republicans have focused, since the 1950s, on control of a large number of low-population states with inexpensive media markets where it’s cheap to own radio stations and newspapers, the last time Republicans in the Senate were elected to office by a plurality of American voters was 1952.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-democrats-must-add-3-more-states

“The art of war”

All credit to the republicans. Democrats should learn from them.

DWags wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-democrats-must-add-3-more-states

“The art of war”

All credit to the republicans. Democrats should learn from them.

We all think that, and that is Hartman's basic point.

Big money was able to peel off the two votes in the Senate that they needed to block real voting & districting reform, and to block adding States to the Union. It sucks that this country is still being run by Kings & Queens.

Trapper Gus wrote:

DWags wrote:

“The art of war”

All credit to the republicans. Democrats should learn from them.

We all think that, and that is Hartman's basic point.

Big money was able to peel off the two votes in the Senate that they needed to block real voting & districting reform, and to block adding States to the Union. It sucks that this country is still being run by Kings & Queens.

Agree…. Unless you’re a king or queen. Think they’ll give that up? What I will never understand is, so many real peasants agreeing to this.

DWags wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

We all think that, and that is Hartman's basic point.

Big money was able to peel off the two votes in the Senate that they needed to block real voting & districting reform, and to block adding States to the Union. It sucks that this country is still being run by Kings & Queens.

Agree…. Unless you’re a king or queen. Think they’ll give that up? What I will never understand is, so many real peasants agreeing to this.

The explanation that seems to fit is that the peasants would rather see their neighboring peasants suffering and that they think that the Kings & Queens will never be touched no matter what.