What is America's True Form of Government?

Nice to see you are so ignorant you resort to ad hominem rather than sustain actual discussion. HAHA

 

You do not know what you are talking about, and you have provided no, zero, nada, zilch evidence to b ack up your false assertion.

 

Actually I gave an example and a quote - you have given no evidence at all in disagreeing or for any of the points you have made. So you are not only a hypocrite (unless you will now say you are a even less knowledgeable than I for presenting less information) you are also ignorant.

Let me expand on my point. Madison for example, grounded constitutional thought on the theories of democracy dating back to the fundamentals of liberal thinking. When approaching the challenge of social well being and individual liberty in conjunction with governance, there were a number of ways to form constitutional ideology. Chiefly of his concern related to our discussion is the power of the masses and the wealthy. This was a problem confronting rulers, particularly democratic thinkers since ancient times. Aristotle believed in order to protect the wealth and power of the most capable society should impinge slightly on their greater standing so as to raise the state of the worst off. This would create social cohesion and stability. So he was socially orientated. This is different to Madison, with the concept of polyarchy that dominated half of his associates. His instead pursued a policy in which social cohesion and order were maintained by protecting and enhancing the power of the wealthy and better positioned, rather than direct governance so as to maintain some kind of socially orientated mentality, as Aristotle had. Hence my contention as the US as a polyarchy. It seeks to maintain the power and position of a few over that of the majority.

 

Irrelevant
Article. IV.Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

 

How so?

Actually I think it is totally RELEVANT

Ok, so what? Polyarchy doesn't stop at the Federal government, although it is certainly deepened by it.

 

Refine what YOU mean by polyarchy.

 

Those who want to face their responsibilities with a genuine commitment to democracy and freedom -- even to decent survival -- should recognize the barriers that stand in the way. In violent states these are not concealed. In more democratic societies barriers are more subtle. While methods differ sharply from more brutal to more free societies, the goals are in many ways similar: to ensure that the "great beast," as Alexander Hamilton called the people, does not stray from its proper confines.

Controlling the general population has always been a dominant concern of power and privilege, particularly since the first modern democratic revolution in seventeenth-century England. The self-described "men of best quality" were appalled as a "giddy multitude of beasts in men's shapes" rejected the basic framework of the civil conflict raging in England between king and Parliament, and called for government" by countrymen like ourselves, that know our wants," not by "knights and gentlemen that make us laws, that are chosen for fear and do but oppress us, and do not know the people's sores." The men of best quality recognized that if the people are so "depraved and corrupt" as to "confer places of power and trust upon wicked and undeserving men, they forfeit their power in this behalf unto those that are good, though but a few." Almost three centuries later, Wilsonian idealism, as it is standardly termed, adopted a rather similar stance. Abroad, it is Washington's responsibility to ensure that government is in the hands of "the good, though but a few." At home, it is necessary to safeguard a system of elite decision-making and public ratification -- "polyarchy," in the terminology of political science -- not democracy.
http://www.chomsky.info/books/survival01.htm

 

You made some good points. The guards against tyranny were put into place with the drafting of our Constitution, BUT it takes the courage and the will of We The People to maintain the liberties we have inherited. We have not fought to retain those liberties and the steady drip of tyranny is drowning us, the citizens in a socialistic/democratic coup. Nikita Khrushchev said he would bury us without firing a shot. We would die from within. (OWTTE)

We The People have been lulled into our flock mentality, and been given cake and circuses to keep us satisfied. We as a nation must either fight back with the tools we inherited or sit back down and accept our slaughter, as Khrushchev predicted.

 

"Socialist"? No way, more like corporate.

He was right, to a degree. No offense, but if people like you keep saying its because 'socialism' and all you need is another Republican who says they aren't socialist, then you will just perpetuate America's problems.

Yes, but also overburdened by a propagandist system. Most Americans dont get 'cake and circuses'. Most work harder, for more ours and more productively than they used to and big business continues to make profit. Obama was the most distant thing from socialism imaginable. All his economic policies favored economic elites - that isnt socialism. Socialism is worker centric and pro-democracy. Both parties despise these ideas.

Perhaps Gorbachev was more insightful - he said America might destroy itself - not through socialism, but because its state-capitalist system was untenable. The Founding Fathers believed in polyarchy, however today's state of affairs is far worse than what they envisioned. Many like Jefferson were truly democratic liberals. I doubt whether Americans can change when they think Democrats are socialists and Republicans, who are NO DIFFERENT are treated as an alternative. Then when they get in power they are called elitists and Democrats are saviors. The cycle continues.

 

Corporations and socialism are not equal. You should be grateful of corporations. You would not have computers or internet access without them.

I am not an Elephant. Republicrats have been screwing the USA for a Century plus.

Thankfully business makes a profit. It provides retirement incomes for folks, and business expansion for more jobs for the increased population.

Socialism is the government stealing from the rich to give to the lazy and addicted. Obama's own words include redistribution of wealth.


Perhaps Gorbachev was more insightful - he said America might destroy itself - not through socialism, but because its state-capitalist system was untenable. [/quote]


BTW, He was referring to Communism taking over in the USA.

 

America's true system is a plutarchy. A system created to favor the rich people, the burgois class.

 

yes a country that is in favor of the rich. that is why the U.S. and most states are going bankrupt because of the welfare, and public unions.

 

Socialism does not exist in America.

Some sure, but I dont have to be 'grateful' for anything. Corporations have been more bad than good.

Actually I would. The internet was created by what you call "socialism" actually.

Good, still however, there is no such thing as socialism in modern US politics.

Yes it provides a retirement for a tiny group of people. Business makes a profit - workers and thus people generally, dont.

Not at all, that is statism. Socialism is not statist.

Of course - all politicians do. But that isnt socialism.

No, he was referring to America falling in on itself. He hoped the US would become socialist but clearly doubted it. Kruschev was the one that said socialism would rise up in America - he actually said America would be forced because it would see the (so-called) "socialism" in the USSR was better. What an idiot.

 

http://www.sp-usa.org/

You give no example, just your misguided opinion?

Sorry, your king of socialism, AlGore did NOT invent the intenet. The US military did.

YouTube - ‪MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA‬‏

Everyone that has an IRA, 401(k), public employee pension, union pension, or Mutual Funds invests in corporations.

Socialism:Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.

I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.
Nikita Khrushchev

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/nikita_khrushchev.html#ixzz1P4Wqaw6o
​

 

Even now we feel that Stalin was devoted to Communism, he was a Marxist, this cannot and should not be denied.
Nikita Khrushchev

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.
Nikita Khrushchev

Support by United States rulers is rather in the nature of the support that the rope gives to a hanged man.
Nikita Khrushchev

The press is our chief ideological weapon.
Nikita Khrushchev

 

You mean, even though the government is growing no faster than the size of the population?

Heh. I guess the conspiracy theorists will run around in the thread saying that we live in some sort of dictatorship or that Obama's a Marxist in some perversion of the CT mindset...

 

Let me complete the sentence because you obviously couldnt process it with any logic - "there are no socialists in America with any political power, let alone influence."

LOL You want an example of a crap corporation? Are you frciking serious you are that ignorant? How about Enron? or how about more historical - United Fruit(one of the first corporations in the world)?

My king of socialism? Man you are one presumptive idiot.
1. Al Gore isnt socialist
2. He isnt my king
3. You may fantasies about him, but I personally cant stand the man.

Yep - and that's socialism according to you - the government created it - not private enterprise. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Sorry I dont buy conspiracy theories, let alone one crap comment. But hey when the Liberal government 'controls' companies. you let me know. hahaha

Oh well Australia is different - far more efficient.

Um... isnt that capitalism?? Like I said Socialism is not statist.

What is this in reply to?

 

What, do you expect the Marxist/socialists to march down Pennsylvania Avenue. Do you believe the USA uses clandestine operations to topple other governments. Do you understand the the USA is not the only country that uses secret ops?






ONE recent criminal enterprise, Enron, is your only example of ALL corporations being corrupt? Who do you work for? A corrupt corporation? Do you drive a car, live in a home, use a computer? You are involved with these "criminal" enterpr9ises when the suit your needs. But they are all corrupt? Right?

No conspiracy, Ms. Waters stated it unequivocally the Democrats are attempting to institute socialism.

You obviously are so ingrained into the Monarchy socialist system of Australian that you do not know HOW true free enterprise works. Do you enjoy being a subject and not a freeman?

 

Nope.

Yep.

Yes - still doesn't jusitfy its crimes.

You think Nazis were Marxists? LOL hahaha

Not at all, just an example. How is it possible to give an example pertaining to all? Also I gave another example.

Wouldnt you like to know.

Nope.

Yep.

Yes.

Nope.

Right what?

BAHAHA. Man you are paranoid. Where? Where did she state "Democrats are attempting to institute socialism"? Let me know when they abolish private property

BAHAHAHAHA! Everyone is socialist! Haha you sound like a Nazi - everything is controlled by the Jews! Or in your case - socialists. Hilarious.

How does "true" free enterprise work? America has never had the basics of capitalism. In fact Australia has more property rights and free market economics than the US could DREAM of.

I am free; and safer, happier, less corrupted and longer living to boot.

 

Enjoy yourself.

 

Already doing so buddy.

Is this your opinion of the US?

Human Development Index (HDI) - 2010 Rankings
Very High
Human Development
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. New Zealand
4. United States
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

You are clueless, if not deluded. But you keep blaming it on 'socialists'

 

Oh wow a ranking of nations by some leftist group.

 

Amazing how you deny reality like someone from communist Russia in the 70s would - 'oh no you cant say that about the party; it has only good intentions and brilliant results to give us'. Good luck to you - you need it.

 

Don't buy from Corporations. Go off grid.

 

Why not just buy from ethical corporations? Why not also vote for governments that dont protect corrupt corporations? Both of these are better than 'off grid' bs.