Discussion in 'Political Science' started by NaturalBorn, Mar 6, 2011.
There are no ethical corporations or uncorrupt governments.
According to you there is no such thing as an ethical corporation.
Greedy and ethical don't go hand in hand.
All the ethical corporations were consumed/dismantled during hostile takeovers about 30 years ago.
No according to me there are bad AND there are good corporations. Learn to read.
There are some.
So do we use YOUR measure of which corporations are goooood and which are baaaaad?
Do you know what my measure is? I dont recall having discussed one, let alone mine. Also are you seriously saying there are no bad corporations in the world? Even when they robbed of your money during the GFC? Really are you that deluded?
Well then what /who defines which corporation is good and which is bad?
Usually common sense and reasonable judgment. Obviously you have neither.
Who's common sense and reasonable judgment.
Please keep your childish insults to yourself, I realize you are still as child but you are among adults here.
Well most Aussies have it, maybe they dont have said characteristics generally in the US.
Really? Oh yeah coz you gys cant drink at 19 can you? LOL Weak. In Australia you can drink when you're 18.
You seem to be evidence rebuffing that statement.
So, you choose not to answer my questiojn?
Because at 19 years you are still a minor. Drinking makes one "a man"?
I am not a minor child as you are.
What is America's true form of government? Republicanism. Sure, there are a lot of special interests that might make it seem at times like an oligarchy, but (technically) a bloc of voters can still vote out politicians they disagree with. Unfortunately, corrupt practices such as gerrymandering make this undemocratically difficult.
And before you mention socialism (I'm sure you already have), that is just a type of economic system, similar to capitalism. Socialist (i.e. "planned" or "command" economies) have been tried under both republican and totalitarian forms of government.
Like I said, most people, except obviously, many Americans.
I thought you said that on the last thread of yours about masculinity. Perhaps it was one of those other idiots. Anyway, no at 19 I'm not a minor I'm actually an adult.
BAHAHAHA You got intellectually owned by a child!!! BAHAHA
I'll bet you learned that in the re-education camp at your school.
Socialism is a liberal economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services. Socialism is the economic system imposed by Communism, but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) which was headed by the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler. Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as European countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).
A classic strawman.
Not by much.
Yeah, you got me alright.
WRONG. Your link's definition is APPALLING. Socialism is about worker control and direct democracy, something that has never existed in any broad sense. Certainly state centrality is CONTRARY to socialism.
That makes absolutely no sense. That is in fact INCREDIBLY STUPID. Communism is utopia - it is an economic system thought by some to be capable of creation through socialism, where society degenerated into an anarcho-communal society. The above claim is extraordinarily ignorant.
How was it socialist? Actually it was more right wing than left wing, by far.
LOL Yeah you called Australia socialist even though its economy is more open than the US'. And guess what we have a higher standard of living and practically NO financial troubles!
How so? LOL Do you even know what a strawman is?
Oh no by a lot. In fact as you show, age has nothing to do with intelligence.
Looks like you got yourself.
"the re-education camp at my school." That has got to be the most intellectual dishonest statement I have read all week. Most of the people in my class would not have been able to participate in this kind of argument. People like yourself, churned out by public education with base knowledge and the equivalent intellectual capacity. No amount of Conservapedia citations will change that. In fact, Conservapedia is a parody site; most of the top contributor are liberal trolls. I have an inkling you're one of them, here to give the right-of-center a bad name.
Your "argument" is incoherent, incorrect, and unworthy of a response.
That's correct, our government was not founded as a democracy, but as a Constitutional Republic. Democracy, is mob rule where the majority may violate the rights of the minority. However, today, I would say our system of government is now a plutocracy rather than a Constitutional Republic. Special interests and money have way too much influence and power in our political system. Voting becomes nothing more than a formality where their is the illusion of choice but the reality underneath this illusion of choice is that both parties are bought and paid for by basically the same special interests. Independent candidates have no real chance of winning an election either. Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those with the money decide everything. Those with money can also buy PR to whip up fear, hysteria and disinformation against any politician (or policy or legislative ideas which actually might be a good idea for the best interest of the nation) who wish to do what is in the legitimate and genuine best interest of the nation but do not katoe to what special interests want or when the interests of special interests clash with the best interest of the nation. Today, America's "elections" look more like auctions where money, rather than the vote and the electoral college, rules. We are in this mess today partly because special interests and money are allowed to influence our politics way too much. People no longer really feel like their vote or their opinion really matter anymore because they know that their opinion and vote can always be circumvented by the cash of special interests.
Interesting stuff here. I agree with the above post, as the system of election and management of government in the uSA is up for sale. As others have mentioned, it did not start out this way. With ongoing ammendments to the constituion and added administrative laws, the corporations and any entity that can pay to influence has dominated the political landscape. And it seems that the results of the changes in campaining has come to light.
In a more simplified explaination of how politicians are elected: those with major funding will get elected because they will have the opportunity to get media time. The funding comes from the corporations who expect the favors when their horse wins. The corporations also pay the broadcast media for pumping thier adds. As a result the corporations use the communications media as a tool to keep the politicians in line of the corporate ideology. The communications media on the other hand also controls the politician and they are where the buck stops when election time is over. Why? because they profit all the campain money. You and I know that there are basicly 3 major communications media and entertainment moguls who own over 90% of all communications media.
If you look at the appointments of the past 2 presidents, you can basicly see who has the political influence (who paid big fat money for their campain). simple example: The 3 major Food Corporations in the USA, has created laws and government regulations to squeeze out the mom and pop farmer by appointing Corporate food lawyer (Clarance Thomas), insider of Monsanto to the supreme court. Hence Monsanto was given rights to patten soy bean seeds in the USA. Other Food Manufacturer Insiders were also appointd in the FDA, and oil corporation lobbiest were appointed to the EPA. These appointment to key positions are not just random, they are payback with an agenda to profit. Also take a look at the investment bankers insiders; Ben Bernanke (goldman Sacks), Tim Ghitner (Citi Group), etc. If you check any one of the politicians in Washington it's not hard to find to what industry they are connected with.
So the American dream is possible, what ever it may be. Reminds me of the movie "Thank yo for not smoking". Perfect example of the American government in action.
This is a good question. Many of the discussions here seem to be like arguing over what type of tires to put on a car when the problem is that the engine and transmission are shot.
In any good design, form follows function. Since the purpose of the government is to do things for the people, it should be a control system or feedback network. Ideally, a republic should do this: the government does the work and the voters give feedback on whether they did right or not. The US founding fathers did surprisingly well at the design considering the sciences of control theory, game theory and psychology did not exist back then. Unfortunately, they made enough mistakes that the system does not work very well.
The #1 problem is what people here complain about all the time: various forms of corruption. In essence, what this does is interfere with the feedback network. Instead of getting feedback from the populace, which is what the system is supposed to control for, the people in control get most of their feedback from those with money or other forms of power over them.
#2 is that the federal system is designed so that the officials are in ultimate control rather than the population. The politicians can pass laws, (like the bailouts) that are very unpopular with the populace, but the people cannot pass any laws without the cooperation of the elected officials. So again, the system will not work right.
For those who claim that the people are too dumb to have control, the response is simple. The people do not have to come up with solutions, they simply recognize when a solution is not working. Take for example, a movie. You may not know a single thing about making one, but you know when what you are seeing is junk. The reason is that the purpose of the movie is to entertain you, so you are the #1 expert, not anyone else.
There is lots more, of course, and other people have given some good insights in this thread. I will try to give some more response as I have time.
If government is to do nothing for the people in a republic until it is told. Then a republic is a government that obeys the people. But since the people are the major corporations and media moguls that pay money to the government, it also tells the government what to do. So there you have it a republic government by the people (of the wealthy), and for the people (of corporations).
Also, republicans are good at doing nothing untill told by the ones who pay them to do something, that will benifit only those who pay to get things done. Sounds like capitalism to me. A very selfrighteous, self serving system, that is all about each persons greedy wants and desires, just like the freedom they take.
And the present state of this cronyism plutocracy, disguised as a republic, is the rich minority, violate the rights of the majority for political and financial gain.
While the ignorant majority foolishly believe they are the determining factor that decide which direction the country will take each and every election day.
It’s sad really.
Human psychology makes this almost inevitable in any form of centralized government, especially as the area being governed gets bigger: we are programmed to do things for people we know, not for the faceless masses. The problem is that doing stuff for the faceless masses is what government is supposed to do, not for their pals in their party or down on K street.
This is why charities have a "poster child". Tell people about a million starving children and nothing happens. Tell a story about one child, so the donors feel connected, and the money pours in.
There are a couple of possible solutions. One is to get the politicians out of the central capital and back into their districts (the way they spent most of their time 200 years ago). There is no reason most of the voting and debates cannot be done electronically rather than in person. None of the politicians actually watch most of the debate speeches nowadays anyhow. So just post them on youtube or some equivalent government site. This gets them away from being "buddies" with the people in the capital. Then pass a law requiring them to meet every day with some random assortment of their constituents. That puts a face back on the people they are supposed to be working for, making it harder to think of them in derogatory terms like "the mob".
Another possibility is to reduce their pay and make more of their earnings and perks based on how popular they are with their constituents. This way the happiness level of the politician is linked to the happiness of the voters, so the politicians are more likely to work for them. This is the same sort of thing most businesses do nowadays to make sure that workers are also motivated to do what is best for the company.
Separate names with a comma.