Is democracy fading away,,,, should it ?

[cowboyangel]

Thanks to the catholic wing of the supremely right wing court, whatever is left of national democracy pretty much died today. Corporate totalitarianism is what we have and most of us don't even know it, and that my friends, is a sign of the most successful takeover ever staged in world history.
Rebel, revolt, stop shopping, barter, buy gold, help your friends and neighbors. Death to the corporations=death of corporate personhood.

[can't sit still]

Cowboy, Cook has an interesting article;
http://www.richardccook.com/2010/01/10/ ... a-in-1998/
He posits that barter saved Russia after the default. I'm sure that he's correct because the IMF tried to discourage barter. What better indication could there be?

I've posted stuff before from FOFOA. You have to look at the quality of his logic and judge for yourself the quality of his logic implies that his conclusions are correct. IMHO, it takes a pretty good mind to encompass and validate his position.
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/01/gold- ... -fund.html
If he is correct, the evaporation of financial instruments will leave behind a complete financial wasteland. GOV will have to survive on tangibles,,, nothing more. I can't say if that would bring dictatorship or dissolution. Either way, we get a new system.

[gyre]

Thanks to the catholic wing of the supremely right wing court, whatever is left of national democracy pretty much died today. Corporate totalitarianism is what we have and most of us don't even know it, and that my friends, is a sign of the most successful takeover ever staged in world history.
Rebel, revolt, stop shopping, barter, buy gold, help your friends and neighbors. Death to the corporations=death of corporate personhood.

I haven't read it yet, but what I have heard didn't cheer me.

[can't sit still]

This is a very good article about the executive branch working to neutralize congress. It also talks about states movements to distance themselves from control of central GOV;
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/rose/100115

[1durphul]

The senate is what should be neutralized, perhaps the Senate should be relegated to consultation/advisory role like it is in Canada.

I say this because while the original intention of the Senate was the represent the interest of the states, and provide equality between states regardless of population levels, that is not what the Senate is now. The Senate now is representation of the wealthy, they do not represent the states. You have to be very wealthy to become a Senator.

In addition, when the House of Representatives first formed the ratio of congress persons to constituents was 1 to 20,000. Today it is about 1 representative to every 700,000 constituents. Now, what would a person need to reach 700,000 constituents? That's right, MONEY. You'd have to be RICH. So basically we're at a point where it is IMPOSSIBLE for somebody who isn't rich to be a representative.

How do we solve this problem? States could require that their representatives at the federal level vote in blocks based on what the state legislature decides their vote should be. This would drastically slow down the congress and senate though.

We could also go back to the 20,000:1 ratio. Which provides some logistical problems, but surely is not beyond the ability of the United States to overcome. I mean, I imagine it is possible to contruct a building large enough to hold 15,400 people. Surely in some crazy alternate universe there are buildings large enough to hold 15,400 people. A congressional stadium that can hold the 15,400+ reps we would need to go back to the original 20,000 constituents to 1 rep. Or we can have the 15,400+ representatives elect a "super representative" that takes all the votes for the state reps and hand delivers them.

Whatever the case we currently have a country that is entirely run for the sole benefit of the very wealthy, because they are the only ones who can get power.

[gyre]

Tennessee passed a law about state manufactured weapons not being regulated here by the ATF.
The ATF has responded by saying their rules nullify the law.

There is a lot behind this about state's rights.

[1durphul]

The senate is what should be neutralized, perhaps the Senate should be relegated to consultation/advisory role like it is in Canada.

I say this because while the original intention of the Senate was the represent the interest of the states, and provide equality between states regardless of population levels, that is not what the Senate is now. The Senate now is representation of the wealthy, they do not represent the states. You have to be very wealthy to become a Senator.

In addition, when the House of Representatives first formed the ratio of congress persons to constituents was 1 to 20,000. Today it is about 1 representative to every 700,000 constituents. Now, what would a person need to reach 700,000 constituents? That's right, MONEY. You'd have to be RICH. So basically we're at a point where it is IMPOSSIBLE for somebody who isn't rich to be a representative.

How do we solve this problem? States could require that their representatives at the federal level vote in blocks based on what the state legislature decides their vote should be. This would drastically slow down the congress and senate though.

We could also go back to the 20,000:1 ratio. Which provides some logistical problems, but surely is not beyond the ability of the United States to overcome. I mean, I imagine it is possible to contruct a building large enough to hold 15,400 people. Surely in some crazy alternate universe there are buildings large enough to hold 15,400 people. A congressional stadium that can hold the 15,400+ reps we would need to go back to the original 20,000 constituents to 1 rep. Or we can have the 15,400+ representatives elect a "super representative" that takes all the votes for the state reps and hand delivers them.

Whatever the case we currently have a country that is entirely run for the sole benefit of the very wealthy, because they are the only ones who can get power.

I may have got the 1:20000 number wrong.
It may have been 1:33,000.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/colu ... ign.06.30/

[knowmad]

...
We could also go back to the 20,000:1 ratio. Which provides some logistical problems, but surely is not beyond the ability of the United States to overcome. I mean, I imagine it is possible to contruct a building large enough to hold 15,400 people. Surely in some crazy alternate universe there are buildings large enough to hold 15,400 people. A congressional stadium that can hold the 15,400+ reps we would need to go back to the original 20,000 constituents to 1 rep. ...

I may have got the 1:20000 number wrong.
It may have been 1:33,000.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/colu ... ign.06.30/

So heres what those numbers would look like:

The current U.S. population according to the CIA World Fact Book is 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)
So if the ratio of representatives to citizens is 1:33,000

307,212,123 / 33,000 = 9,309

9,309 more piggies at the trough! No Thanks.

[1durphul]

So heres what those numbers would look like:

The current U.S. population according to the CIA World Fact Book is 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)
So if the ratio of representatives to citizens is 1:33,000

307,212,123 / 33,000 = 9,309

9,309 more piggies at the trough! No Thanks.

It would be much more difficult for the corporations to reach 9309 piggies. Not to mention at 1:33,000 the QUALITY of the individual representing you would be much more like you than your current rep who. If Nancy Pelosi is your rep she represents every San Francisco from Nob Hill to Hunter's Point. Do you really think she represents the people in Hunter's Point? I don't. What if the people in Hunter's Point had their own congress person?

[knowmad]

So heres what those numbers would look like:

The current U.S. population according to the CIA World Fact Book is 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)
So if the ratio of representatives to citizens is 1:33,000

307,212,123 / 33,000 = 9,309

9,309 more piggies at the trough! No Thanks.

....What if the people in Hunter's Point had their own congress person?

Aww The Representative would prolly be a fall down drunk.

[knowmad]

But Really, We Should just scrap Democracy and have a bootie judging contest.

[1durphul]

But Really, We Should just scrap Democracy and have a bootie judging contest.

sigh.

[can't sit still]

Bootie judging contest sounds discriminatory. I prefer BOOBS.

OK, back to the topic at hand. Democracy has never worked with just a few exceptions. Universal suffrage has never worked. The people always vote more money for themselves than is available. Pure Democracy just won't work. Too many people are stupid, lazy and greedy. In a nutshell, pure democracy allows people to consume more than they produce. Small percentage of "overconsumers" seems to work OK,,, depending on the productivity level of the country. They ALWAYS seem to be joined by increasing numbers of shiftless people.
Now that we live in the machine-age, it takes fewer and fewer people to produce enough for everybody to survive. The non-producers seem to always increase their demands commensurate with the wealth around them,,, not according to their needs.
You can read Ayn Rand. You can read lots of other authors.
Should non-producers be subsidized? At what level? What percentage of the population should be allowed to kick-back for their whole lives?

Institutional Investor Magazine reports that since 1999, California's ". . .pension outlays have ballooned by 2,000%, while state revenues have increased only 24%."
""One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 toward his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits -- a total of $3.8 on a $120,000 investment."
http://www.elliottwave.com/features/default.aspx?cat=mw

California routinely spent $ 10 billion a year more than it took in. Along with greedy, lazy and stupid, add short-sighted. Leaving aside the losses caused by the banking industry, why should stupid, lazy people be allowed to vote?

[Ugly Dougly]

We're all in this together.

[Trishntek]

I'll be the first to admit I did not read every post on the discussion. I did scan enough to get the gist of the conversation. There is one major item which needs to be pointed out:

The United States of America is not a democracy and never has been. It is a Constitutional Republic. If it were a democracy, everything would be majority rule. The beauty of our original system was the individual states form a central government of limited and enumerated powers to protect the borders, assure interstate commerce and maintain relations with other countries.

The state and local governments were intended to have the greatest influence on the lives of the citizens. Representatives were supposed to represent the interests of the people in their district. And they were supposed to be part of that community. In other words, career politicians were never intended. The representatives were intended to be part time positions of honor, not careers of isolation and insulation. The Senate was originally intended to be made up of individuals elected by the State Legislatures. The Senators were to represent the individual states.

We are a very long way from what the founders intended. It never was democracy. It was a Constitutional Republic. The U.S. Constitution limits the National Government. That is why they are doing all they can to destroy it. Those limitations inhibit control and power. Our founding fathers knew all too well what monarchies and dictatorships were.

I believe it was James Madison who said something like, "A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person. " So a community could be a democracy or maybe even a county.

He also said, " I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. " Does this raise any flags to you? It's been coming for generations,,,, baby steps.

So you believe everything you learned in school. The founding fathers own slaves, so-and-so died of syphilis, they killed Indians or this that and the other. Once again it was Madison who said, " A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people." You actually trust the gubmint to teach you everything you should know? Or does it teach you only what they want you to know?

The United States of America was the most productive, generous and inventive country the world has ever known. Thanks to our ignorance and willingness to believe government lies, it has become pussified, dependent, and subject to relative ethics. There is no standard. The constitution is that standard. It simply is not held to the esteem it deserves.

[ygmir]

Khruschchev said it fairly plain, and, directly, IIRC.

[can't sit still]

No arguments Trish. All societies seem to become lazy and hedonistic. Then, they lose cohesiveness.
YGMIR, I seem to be missing something here. I made it a rule to not believe ANYTHING from the GOV. The other question is "pussified". How does one become pussified? Does one have to grow a pussy or does one have to visit a whole bunch of pussys? I seem to have missed out entirely on this one too. As far as dependent goes, I've been working since I was 6 or 7. I can't remember being dependent.
How do I go mainstream???

[ygmir]

I don't remember using the term "pussified"......so, can't really address your question related to same. Same for your reference to "dependent".

I, too, am cynical towards anything told me by the gov.


Now, if you're asking me, about these things, rhetorically, well, that's different.

I do, for the most part, agree with Trishnteks above post, though.

[gyre]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f0_1175771241

China's Death busses
Supposedly using lethal injection (invented here), but that seems odd since it contaminates organ transplants.

[Rising Flame]

I found the Bush era incredibly troubling. What troubled me most was our shift in language. It was the first time that I can recall that it became to "consort with" or "be a member of". It was when America unabashedly tortured, not because these things happen in war, but as a matter of explicit policy.

More recently I've been depressed by the political discourse. Gays, Blacks, Latinos, city-dwellers and hosts of other groups are routinely thrown under the bus for incredibly short-term political gains. It doesn't shock or bother me that there are people that do this, but rather that the elected republican leadership tacitly endorses this behavior. How can I ever be part of a political group that puts the value of my life below scoring a negligible political point? Sadly, if the country is to operate, we need to functional parties.

Is it broken? Sadly, yes. But then again healthcare did pass so maybe I’m just watching sausages get made. Is it solvable? Yes, very. But too few politicians will actually try to make the necessary changes when then score some other political point instead.

[Trishntek]

No arguments Trish. All societies seem to become lazy and hedonistic. Then, they lose cohesiveness.
YGMIR, I seem to be missing something here. I made it a rule to not believe ANYTHING from the GOV. The other question is "pussified". How does one become pussified? Does one have to grow a pussy or does one have to visit a whole bunch of pussys? I seem to have missed out entirely on this one too. As far as dependent goes, I've been working since I was 6 or 7. I can't remember being dependent.
How do I go mainstream???

The reference to "pussified" is from a term coined by George Carlin. He called it the "pussification of America". He talked about swimming in sewage when he was a kid in the Bronx and how that fortified his immune system. While today we have bottled water and isolate ourselves from environmental threats (i.e. helmets with bicycles, pads for skating, etc).

The dependent comment is not necessarily how we are as individuals. It is the goal of the gubmint to make us more dependent and thus less independent. I'm convinced we are being forced this direction, not necessarily there but being nudged into dependency (i.e. healthcare, retirement, redistributing wealth, etc).

[gyre]

Don't get too excited over the incredibly weak health care reform bill.
The most important changes are things most people have always believed are law.

The republican reaction to such a pathetic reform, in defense of the health care denial industry, tells the whole story.
They have now openly declared war on all the citizens.
They don't even pretend to represent the public any longer.
But they keep trying to con the suckers anyway.

Only one step will help- closing the doors on the care denial industry.
Why did anyone think for-profit business would work?

How health care should be done has many choices.
But wall street proved they aren't one of them.


For those objecting to having health care, the same solution as abortion has been suggested- don't do it.
Too bad this is currently illegal, for emergency care.

Scene,
someone hurt lying in the street.
People run to help.

"Oh my god, what do we do?"
"I don't know. Check his bracelet"
",What does it say?"

"Says he's shit out of luck.
Leave him."

[Trishntek]

Only one step will help- closing the doors on the care denial industry.
Why did anyone think for-profit business would work?

But at least they actually have money to cover the liabilities.

Are we to trade a stable business structure for one already trillions (millions of millions of dollars) in the hole? There must be some middle ground here without tossing out the entire system for the promise from a black hole gubmint bent on increased control of its people.

[gyre]

The problem is they have proven over and over that they aren't interested in meeting their obligations, even with a rigged game.

Whether the same government that won't regulate the health care denial industry, can do what must be done is an issue.

I won't bother quoting figures on the enormous profit and waste in the denial business.
That's where the money will come from.
We're paying and getting little for it now.

And people continue dying without care.
What is the cost of that?

[ygmir]

as has been so eloquently pointed out previously:

Who is going to want to be a doctor, nurse, etc.....when the gov. decides how much you make or can charge.....gov. is not known for it's generosity towards (unelected) employees.........

so, yeah, lets go for the lowest common denominator.
Lets find the very few, that, will be doctors, etc. just because they want to "help humanity"......if it were just that, I bet we'd have few health practitioners........

The money is a big part of why we get the smartest and best as doctors, nurses, etc.....
hard truth, but, I think, accurate.

and, to be so myopic, or maybe naive, to think it's one party that is so evil and wants people to die......jeeze.........

some want communism.
Well, ok.......that is your choice, and valid, for you. But, quit hiding behind "rights and freedoms", and denying it.
sit around demanding all these "rights", and, demand "the rich" pay for them..........WTF?
Just say you'd like to live in a communist society, and, go from there.
There are still places in the world to find your utopia. And, if you can get enough people here to agree, vote it in. Honestly, not using back room deals and parliamentary procedures.

It seems to boil down to differing types of people:

those who want to succeed, or fail, but, on their own
and
those who want to be taken care of, all the way through, and, are willing to accept the lowest common denominator to that end.

I don't say one is "right or wrong", if it works for you, and you're happy, great.
But, for me, I want to succeed or fail, by my own hand, without gov. "help", or, interference.

[gyre]

You're assuming there is a free market now, which is not the case.
And huge generosity on the part of the denial industry, not the case.

Health care hasn't recovered from the great HMO scam.
I am still baffled that anyone fell for that bullshit.
Most people don't realize that most healthcare downgraded to match the HMO payouts.
Even people with good insurance started getting substandard care, as nurses and doctors were made redundant.

I believe this is why I nearly died getting inadequate care, while having massive insurance.
Ask any nurse.

Simultaneously they are almost immune from lawsuits, while whinging about tort reform, meaning they want the HMO's free ride.


As for the republican party, watch the news.
They write the press conferences.


How health care is managed (or not) has always and will always be a government issue, which means it is up to us to fuck it up or not.

The republican party AND their master, the industry, have proven they can't do it, and aren't even pretending to try.

[Trishntek]

gyre wrote: "Health care hasn't recovered from the great HMO scam.
I am still baffled that anyone fell for that bullshit.
Most people don't realize that most healthcare downgraded to match the HMO payouts.
Even people with good insurance started getting substandard care, as nurses and doctors were made redundant. "

Ohhhh man! You think HMO's are bad? Wait until the Gubmint has monopoly!

And just one thing,,,, show me a person who died in the U.S.A. from lacking essential healthcare, and I'll show you a person desperately reliant on others for their livelihood in general.

[can't sit still]

Well the good ole USA went around the world pushing democracy. Problem is: democracy with universal suffrage just doesn't work. It never has. Democracy promises more to consumers than they are producing.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing...."
http://www.safehaven.com/article/16433/ ... what-to-do
Democracy might have a chance in a setting where machines are doing most of the manufacturing and food production.
Capitalism, on the other hand promises it's rewards to those who produce. The two systems are at odds.
Capitalism , as a system , produces surpluses [capital] that is necessary for it's ongoing proliferation. Democracy, as a system. always finds a way to consume the surplus.

The public-service unions voted to give themselves benefits that cost far more than the wealth that the workers had produced. A big percentage of people want to spend more wealth than they produce. No big surprise.
Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles said that L.A. should declare bankruptcy immediately,,, before they go completely broke. The city wants to jack taxes way up. That should push away even more businesses.

Democracy is a born profligate. Capitalism only wants to give it's earnings to investing participants or workers. The voters are more than willing to starve capitalism of it's capital to get a free ride. Collapse has historically been the outcome.

[FIGJAM]

I have heard that as "bread and circuses".

[gyre]

Ohhhh man! You think HMO's are bad? Wait until the Gubmint has monopoly!

And just one thing,,,, show me a person who died in the U.S.A. from lacking essential healthcare, and I'll show you a person desperately reliant on others for their livelihood in general.

Well, I'm one of those people and I had a million dollars of coverage and nearly died from substandard care.
I'm alive, with permanent damage, only because I had enough cash to get care with cash up front (while insured).
Hard to be really aggressive when you keep drifting in and out of consciousness.
Then I was forced off the policy (even with fairly cheap medical costs).

No insurance at all now.
It took me ten years to get a cancer screening.
I still have every indicator of cancer, but the test is clear.

What if it hadn't been?
Ten years too late?


But I'm sure you'll never have your insurance refuse to pay.
You're somehow more special than everyone else this happens to, I'm sure.
I'm just as sure your health will never affect your income ( see special).

Yes, the bar is set so high the government could never do better.
You're ignoring that we have government regulated insurance now.
We're just letting the insurance companies write the rules.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that's going to work out?


They have run hours of interviews with people that died from lack of care in this country.
Most of them were sure it could never happen to them too.