The politics of the United States, and where it is leading our nation.

[toastywombel]

Let us get straight to the point,

 

I fear for my future, our future. And by 'our' I am particularly referring to my fellow citizens in the United States. Our nation has been growing into a strange corporate controlled police state for sometime, and while I realize that we are not on the level of a country like China or North Korea, I find our fate even more terrifying. Let me explain.

 

Technology lately, as most would agree, has been advancing and growing beyond what many of us ever imagined. And if you have ever read a Brave New World or 1984 you as the reader may find it easier to understand my fear. As technology grows, methods of control become more and more intricate. Here for example is a list of current tools of control that are currently being implemented or are implemented by our government/ corporate governance.

 

Data Mining- The implementation of the internet allowed for centralization of data through linking computers and servers throughout the world. Furthermore social networking sites such as facebook and others have sold to us the idea, in a sense, of trading our information for access to our friends and a world of new friends and their information. Finally recent laws and upcoming bills have allowed corporate entities and government entities free reign over accessing such information. The Patriot ACT I and II, SOPA, and ACTA are all examples of this.

 

Tracking- The miniaturization of advanced computing devices capable of sending information through wireless transmission has brought about the modern day cell phone, and even further the modern day Smart Phone. It has been shown recently that information from such phones can be logged and backed up to locations. Such locations are accessible by the corporate entities of our state and our government through many of the above listed recent laws and upcoming bills. Such information includes our whereabouts, our desires, our friends, our politics, our ideas. Even down to the individual keystrokes we type into our phones.

 

Surveillance- It is no big secret that cities, states, and the federal government have/has implemented the use of cameras, listening devices and other monitoring devices throughout our country. Now the government has the legal authority to fly predator drones over United States soil to prevent crime. Local, state, and federal law enforcement are now privy to live information being gathered from such monitoring devices listed above without any type of due process, and this information is often accessible at any given time.

 

Enforcement- The ability to imprison and use all the above tools without due process was done in the name of safety. Safety primarily from an arbitrarily defined enemy, terror. What is a terrorist? Well that concept is up for debate, but the point is it is a definition assigned to a person, but it is not linked with any specific action, as opposed to a thief (someone who steals or has stolen) or a murder (someone who kills or has killed), a terrorist is someone who inflicts terror upon the public to advance an agenda. Now that definition seems rather broad yet so damning seeing as anyone who is stamped with the label of terrorist has no right to due process.

 

These four aspects have lead me to fear, but somewhat accept that we are coming ever closer to the eutopian world described in books such as 1984 and Brave New World and embodied by creations such as the Borg on Startrek. A world in which we catch criminals before a crime is committed, begging the question, are such people even criminals? A world in which freedom is trivial and privacy is forbidden. A world in which a small group of men/ women have the power to create and ruin any other persons life at any given time for any given reason without any discourse. I believe that Voltaire said, "if there were no God it would be necessarily to invent him", and that is exactly what our society seems to be working towards. An overlying governing body that has all the power listed above.

 

Some of you may say I am simply paranoid, and maybe I am haha. But the simple fact is that all the tools are practically available right now, but the power over the tools has yet to become completely centralized. And the worst thing is, we were never forced to give all this freedom up. Instead it was sold to us, commercialized through the repetitive nature of the media. And worse yet, sold to us as a choice. When the society begins to lean so heavily on such technologies for everyday events such as work, education, and finances when do they stop becoming a choice and instead become a requirement by default?

 

As my friend said the other day referring to our country as it was intended to be in the hearts and minds of so many who loved freedom, "America is done son!" As it saddens me to admit it I think the statement might very well be true.

 

I am curious to know your thoughts on this and how our political system, or lack of, has enabled the powers at be to further such agendas. I apologize beforehand for any grammatical or conceptual errors, I am tired and I have work in the morning so I am in somewhat a hurry to get to bed.

Edited December 26, 2011 by toastywombel

[dimreepr]

Let us get straight to the point,

 

I fear for my future, our future. And by 'our' I am particularly referring to my fellow citizens in the United States. Our nation has been growing into a strange corporate controlled police state for sometime, and while I realize that we are not on the level of a country like China or North Korea, I find our fate even more terrifying. Let me explain.

 

Technology lately, as most would agree, has been advancing and growing beyond what many of us ever imagined. And if you have ever read a Brave New World or 1984 you as the reader may find it easier to understand my fear. As technology grows, methods of control become more and more intricate. Here for example is a list of current tools of control that are currently being implemented or are implemented by our government/ corporate governance.

 

Data Mining- The implementation of the internet allowed for centralization of data through linking computers and servers throughout the world. Furthermore social networking sites such as facebook and others have sold to us the idea, in a sense, of trading our information for access to our friends and a world of new friends and their information. Finally recent laws and upcoming bills have allowed corporate entities and government entities free reign over accessing such information. The Patriot ACT I and II, SOPA, and ACTA are all examples of this.

 

Tracking- The miniaturization of advanced computing devices capable of sending information through wireless transmission has brought about the modern day cell phone, and even further the modern day Smart Phone. It has been shown recently that information from such phones can be logged and backed up to locations. Such locations are accessible by the corporate entities of our state and our government through many of the above listed recent laws and upcoming bills. Such information includes our whereabouts, our desires, our friends, our politics, our ideas. Even down to the individual keystrokes we type into our phones.

 

Surveillance- It is no big secret that cities, states, and the federal government have/has implemented the use of cameras, listening devices and other monitoring devices throughout our country. Now the government has the legal authority to fly predator drones over United States soil to prevent crime. Local, state, and federal law enforcement are now privy to live information being gathered from such monitoring devices listed above without any type of due process, and this information is often accessible at any given time.

 

Enforcement- The ability to imprison and use all the above tools without due process was done in the name of safety. Safety primarily from an arbitrarily defined enemy, terror. What is a terrorist? Well that concept is up for debate, but the point is it is a definition assigned to a person, but it is not linked with any specific action, as opposed to a thief (someone who steals or has stolen) or a murder (someone who kills or has killed), a terrorist is someone who inflicts terror upon the public to advance an agenda. Now that definition seems rather broad yet so damning seeing as anyone who is stamped with the label of terrorist has no right to due process.

 

These four aspects have lead me to fear, but somewhat accept that we are coming ever closer to the eutopian world described in books such as 1984 and Brave New World and embodied by creations such as the Borg on Startrek. A world in which we catch criminals before a crime is committed, begging the question, are such people even criminals? A world in which freedom is trivial and privacy is forbidden. A world in which a small group of men/ women have the power to create and ruin any other persons life at any given time for any given reason without any discourse. I believe that Voltaire said, "if there were no God it would be necessarily to invent him", and that is exactly what our society seems to be working towards. An overlying governing body that has all the power listed above.

 

Some of you may say I am simply paranoid, and maybe I am haha. But the simple fact is that all the tools are practically available right now, but the power over the tools has yet to become completely centralized. And the worst thing is, we were never forced to give all this freedom up. Instead it was sold to us, commercialized through the repetitive nature of the media. And worse yet, sold to us as a choice. When the society begins to lean so heavily on such technologies for everyday events such as work, education, and finances when do they stop becoming a choice and instead become a requirement by default?

 

As my friend said the other day referring to our country as it was intended to be in the hearts and minds of so many who loved freedom, "America is done son!" As it saddens me to admit it I think the statement might very well be true.

 

I am curious to know your thoughts on this and how our political system, or lack of, has enabled the powers at be to further such agendas. I apologize beforehand for any grammatical or conceptual errors, I am tired and I have work in the morning so I am in somewhat a hurry to get to bed.

 

Read "The pearl" by John Stienbeck this is the reason western society is in the trouble it's in. Its a novella so wont take long.

Edited December 26, 2011 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

toastywombel,

Your list drives home Benjamin Franklin's words that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also why the original dads put the second amendment in the constitution. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking the second amendment is about hunting and not liberty.

 

Having said the above, our liberties have always been, and always will be under attack. Those attacks most often come from those claiming to promote our health, well being, and safety. Today we are told that if we just give up a little liberty, we can have economic equality, be safe from terrorism, and have a stable climate. Yesterday the promises were perhaps different, but like today I'm sure the Faustian bargains offered were just as compelling.

 

My guess is that the real reason you are worried is that people today seem more likely to make the trade, and in the end lose both safety and liberty.

[kitkat]

You are not being paranoid and I agree with you. We are heading into a new society where any freedom we once had will be a thing of the past. As the masses are sheep they went willing into the slaughter house on their own ignorance.

[Moontanman]

Yeah, i really don't like doomsday type prophecies but... and while I don't think it's time to exactly stick a fork in the USA, we do seem to be uncontrollably driving in that direction at an ever increasing rate. I often look at some of the internet type movements to see if any real hackles are being raised by my sons generation. And I do see some glimmer of hope but the final battles will be fought long after I am a thing of this antiquated past we live in today.

 

I often look back on the conversations I had with my grandfather, he ran illegal liquor, made it and sold it and went to jail for it. I remember some of the horrific things my grandfather told me about what happened then and some of the laws that were passed to limit local law enforcement, thinking back most of the time it was more a matter of actually enforcing our constitution rather than changing it but now days you hear from every quarter screams to change the document, usually to allow religion to continue it's advance.

 

If you go back 150 years or so even though our constitution was secular a great many local laws were indeed based in religion. From laws that prevented birth control from being sold to putting people in jail for adultery, god help you if you were a homosexual, no one else would.

 

What really frightens me is the combination of fascist elements, religion, and technology. There would be no escape if the government controlled all of modern information technology and allowed religion to control the government.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Moontanman

[doG]

IMO, you should be most afraid of the system we use for choosing the leaders that enable such an inept leadership, voting. When a majority of the masses are morons they will elect whatever moron promises them the most. When a majority of the voters want to live off the taxpayer's dole they will vote for whomever promises them that and as a majority they will win and the taxpayer will lose. Our Republic is headed for the same anarchy that eventually destroys all democracies.

[Moontanman]

When a majority of the voters want to live off the taxpayer's dole

 

 

What?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Moontanman

[doG]

Huh? Something unclear about that?

 

Perhaps http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_DownfallDemocracies.htm will explain the trend I am pointing out.

 

P.S. No intention to support the apathetic voter with that link, It was just the first article I found about voters voting themselves gifts from the public treasury.

Edited December 26, 2011 by doG

[Moontanman]

Huh? Something unclear about that?

 

Perhaps http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_DownfallDemocracies.htm will explain the trend I am pointing out.

 

P.S. No intention to support the apathetic voter with that link, It was just the first article I found about voters voting themselves gifts from the public treasury.

 

 

Again, I fail to see it that way, evidently I can't contort myself quite enough to see it from your perspective. I suggest you start a new thread with that theme to avoid derailing this thread.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Moontanman

[doG]

Again, I fail to see it that way, evidently I can't contort myself quite enough to see it from your perspective. I suggest you start a new thread with that theme to avoid derailing this thread.

There's no derailment. The politics of the United States is a direct result of the american voter. When our system gets to the point that the majority of voters are dependent on government subsidies for their livelihood then that majority will vote for the politicians that promise the greatest subsidies to their constituents. As it is now our system continuously chooses the most popular politicians for office, not the most competent or capable. IMO, the democratic traditions of our republic will eventually lead to the same demise that all democracies have suffered.

[Moontanman]

the democratic traditions of our republic will eventually lead to the same demise that all democracies have suffered.

 

 

All democracies? Please elaborate...

[doG]

All democracies? Please elaborate...

Yes, all true democracies have failed eventually since true democracies are effectively mob rule and all forms of mob rule eventually collapse. Try finding successful democracies in history. I'm not aware of any.

[Moontanman]

Yes, all true democracies have failed eventually since true democracies are effectively mob rule and all forms of mob rule eventually collapse. Try finding successful democracies in history. I'm not aware of any.

 

 

You made the assertion that all democracies fail, then it was all true democracies, then you suggested I find one that had been successful but you never showed any evidence your assertion was factual in any way.

[zapatos]

Yes, all true democracies have failed eventually since true democracies are effectively mob rule and all forms of mob rule eventually collapse. Try finding successful democracies in history. I'm not aware of any.

US, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Iceland, Britain, Canada...

[doG]

US, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Iceland, Britain, Canada...

None of those are true democracies. They are of the following government types:

 

U.S. - Constitution-based federal republic

Switzerland - Federal Republic (formerly a confederation)

Denmark - Constitutional Monarchy

New Zealand - Parliamentary Democracy, a representative democracy like a republic

Australia - Federal Parliamentary Democracy

Sweden - Constitutional Monarchy

Iceland - Constitutional Republic

Britain, actually the United Kingdom - Constitutional Monarchy

Canada - a Parliamentary Democracy, a Federation, and a Constitutional Monarchy

 

In a true democracy every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls, not by constitutions or representatives. The founders of the U.S. intentionally avoided creating a democracy because it creates a tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority.

[Moontanman]

IMO, you should be most afraid of the system we use for choosing the leaders that enable such an inept leadership, voting. When a majority of the masses are morons they will elect whatever moron promises them the most. When a majority of the voters want to live off the taxpayer's dole they will vote for whomever promises them that and as a majority they will win and the taxpayer will lose. Our Republic is headed for the same anarchy that eventually destroys all democracies.

 

 

So this remark was not related to the discussion and was therefor irrelevant?

[zapatos]

None of those are true democracies. They are of the following government types:

 

U.S. - Constitution-based federal republic

Switzerland - Federal Republic (formerly a confederation)

Denmark - Constitutional Monarchy

New Zealand - Parliamentary Democracy, a representative democracy like a republic

Australia - Federal Parliamentary Democracy

Sweden - Constitutional Monarchy

Iceland - Constitutional Republic

Britain, actually the United Kingdom - Constitutional Monarchy

Canada - a Parliamentary Democracy, a Federation, and a Constitutional Monarchy

 

In a true democracy every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls, not by constitutions or representatives. The founders of the U.S. intentionally avoided creating a democracy because it creates a tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority.

 

That seems to me a ridiculous definition of 'true democracy'. For example, under your definition of true democracy, before I can pick up a jar of peanut butter at the store, my whole family has to go to the polls and vote on whether the peanut butter should be chunky or smooth.

 

But if that is the case, then I say that any time you have a single person living in isolation, you have a true democracy.

 

It looks to me like you are trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracies.

[doG]

That seems to me a ridiculous definition of 'true democracy'.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy Take it up with Merriam Webster. I didn't write the definition, I just passed it on. True democracy is usually interpreted to mean 'mob rule'.

 

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." Source - Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

[Moontanman]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy Take it up with Merriam Webster. I didn't write the definition, I just passed it on. True democracy is usually interpreted to mean 'mob rule'.

 

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." Source - Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

 

 

Again, this makes your original post irrelevant to the discussion...

[doG]

Again, this makes your original post irrelevant to the discussion...

 

Here for example is a list of current tools of control that are currently being implemented or are implemented by our government/ corporate governance.

The very government that is elected by the people. Technology is not the problem, government is and the means we use to choose that government is a big part of the problem.

[iNow]

In a true democracy every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls, not by constitutions or representatives.

That seems to me a ridiculous definition of 'true democracy'. For example, under your definition of true democracy, before I can pick up a jar of peanut butter at the store, my whole family has to go to the polls and vote on whether the peanut butter should be chunky or smooth.

 

But if that is the case, then I say that any time you have a single person living in isolation, you have a true democracy.

 

It looks to me like you are trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracies.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy Take it up with Merriam Webster. I didn't write the definition, I just passed it on. True democracy is usually interpreted to mean 'mob rule'.

 

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." Source - Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

It seems apparent to me that he was referring to the bolded portion above, and your own link to Merriam Websters does not refer to everybody having "an equal say in everything that effects their lives." It just says, "a democracy where power is exercised directly by the people, and not through representatives."

[kitkat]

There's no derailment. The politics of the United States is a direct result of the american voter. When our system gets to the point that the majority of voters are dependent on government subsidies for their livelihood then that majority will vote for the politicians that promise the greatest subsidies to their constituents. As it is now our system continuously chooses the most popular politicians for office, not the most competent or capable. IMO, the democratic traditions of our republic will eventually lead to the same demise that all democracies have suffered.

 

 

 

Excuse me, the american voter has no choice since both candidates never follow through with what they promise. They are all corrupt!

[iNow]

The very government that is elected by the people. Technology is not the problem, government is and the means we use to choose that government is a big part of the problem.

I appreciate what you're saying (the elected are only as good as those who choose them, and those who choose them are quite often rather lacking), but how else might we proceed? It's all well and good for us to point to the problem, but it's really a waste of time until you propose solutions and we can shift the discussion to those.

[zapatos]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy Take it up with Merriam Webster. I didn't write the definition, I just passed it on. True democracy is usually interpreted to mean 'mob rule'.

 

From your link:

 

Definition of PURE DEMOCRACY

: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives

 

First, this is the definition for 'pure democracy', not 'true democracy'.

 

Second, nowhere does this definition say "every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls".

 

Third, if this is the definition you are using, then you are indeed trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracy as I pointed out in my previous post.

 

And if it is an example of successful direct democracy you are looking for, how about Town Meeting Day in Vermont?

 

On the first Tuesday of March most Vermont towns hold a meeting to elect local officials, approve a budget for the following year, and conduct other local business. Vermont town meetings (with one exception) are the practice of direct democracy. That is, eligible citizens of the town may vote on specific issues that are announced through a warning.

 

The town meeting warning tells us when and where town meeting will be held, and it lists all of the articles (topics) that are going to be discussed and voted on at the meeting. The warning must be posted at least 30 days before the meeting.

 

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html

[doG]

I appreciate what you're saying (the elected are only as good as those who choose them, and those who choose them are quite often rather lacking), but how else might we proceed? It's all well and good for us to point to the problem, but it's really a waste of time until you propose solutions and we can shift the discussion to those.

That's a good question and I don't claim to have an explicit answer. Admitting we have a problem is a big step in the right direction though and everyone should be just as responsible to suggest ways to fix the problem as I. IMO, we also need to ask ourselves if what we really want is popular leaders or qualified leaders and answer ourselves honestly. I personally would rather have quality leaders regardless of their popularity.

 

First, this is the definition for 'pure democracy', not 'true democracy'.

 

Second, nowhere does this definition say "every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls".

 

Third, if this is the definition you are using, then you are indeed trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracy as I pointed out in my previous post.

Pure democracy is true democracy. Indirect democracies are not really democracies at all. They are representative systems. An example is the U.S. which is technically a Constitution based Federal Republic with a democratic tradition, not a democracy.

 

And if it is an example of successful direct democracy you are looking for, how about Town Meeting Day in Vermont?

 

 

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html

Town hall meetings are great for the populations of towns, not countries with 300,000,000+ people. FWIW, I think our republic is a fine form of government, we just need a better way of choosing qualified representatives instead of the self-serving incompetent leaders we keep getting.