• "America is no longer a functioning democracy" - Ex President Jimmy Carter
    130 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Fangz;41530365]I really don't think it is fair that someone can throw excessive amounts of money at a issue for selfish reasons, and get it passed. We are voting for people to represent their district, and this silences those voices.[/QUOTE] Well unfortunately without lobbying, many of the advances in civil rights would have not come about. Change also comes from pressuring politicians as it does from the ballot box.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41530318] This is actually bad. You'll end up killing off all the environmentalist, feminist, LGBT, and animal rights groups at the same time.[/QUOTE] So you mean minority groups that are over-represented in our government no matter which way you slice it, special interest groups that work against the will of most in favor of their own agenda. If those groups cannot survive without government corruption, then they do not have a right to exist.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41530373]Well unfortunately without lobbying, many of the advances in civil rights would have not come about. Change also comes from pressuring politicians as it does from the ballot box.[/QUOTE] So why not cap a lobbyist group on how much money that can use then? Something to maybe pass a few laws per a year, but not enough to pass though laws that would hurt everyone but the lobbyist in the long run.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41530352]How do you think resource allocation operates? What do you think of Keynesian or Monetarist economics?[/QUOTE] Resource allocation is all driven by capital and profit generated by catering to the wants of consumers and rabid unnecessary consumerism. Much of what is produced I think should really be put back a few notches until, y'know, everyone is able to eat, work productively (not just produce profit i.e. theft), and have shelter, etc. There is enough resources for everyone but because of the way they are produced and distributed not everyone gets any. I think that monetary system is a big mess personally and should there be a monetary system that all money should be backed by actual productive work and not produced out of thin air through hedge funds and "risky investments". Essential commodities to survival should not, in my opinion, be subject to a capitalist style 'free' market.
[QUOTE=SaltyWaters;41530398]So you mean minority groups that are over-represented in our government no matter which way you slice it, special interest groups that work against the will of most in favor of their own agenda. If those groups cannot survive without government corruption, then they do not have a right to exist.[/QUOTE] LGBT groups do not have a right to exist? [editline]20th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JustExtreme;41530409]Resource allocation is all driven by capital and profit generated by catering to the wants of consumers.[/quote] Crudely correct so far. [quote]Much of what is produced I think should really be put back a few notches until, y'know, everyone is able to eat, work productively (not just produce profit i.e. theft), and have shelter, etc.[/quote] So some things should be produced less? [quote]There is enough resources for everyone but because of the way they are produced and distributed not everyone gets any.[/quote] This is the impossible one to fulfill. There will always be scarce resources. The best we can do is perfect resource allocation. [quote]I think that monetary system is a big mess personally and should there be a monetary system that all money should be backed by actual productive work and not produced out of thin air through hedge funds and "risky investments".[/quote] There is a different between wealth and money. Money is created by the central governments bank. Wealth is produced by every member of society by doing work for other members of society. If a demand for something exists, there is wealth to be created. [quote]Essential commodities to survival should not, in my opinion, be subject to a capitalist style 'free' market.[/QUOTE] What about luxury versions of these commodities? The raw materials used in their creation? Should they be free or merely subsidized for the poor?
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;41527499]I think its time for another civil war[/QUOTE] i'm sure you were joking but anyone who legit thinks it's time for another civil war or that there's a revolution coming is out of their fucking mind.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41530422]LGBT groups do not have a right to exist? [/QUOTE] Stop using the LGBT community as a shield as a counter-argument against lobbyists. Being able to throw endless money at senators to get something passed isn't what the founding fathers intended.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41529961]A non-functioning democracy doesn't sound like a democracy.[/QUOTE] What Carter is referring to is probably a procedural democracy, or a democracy that has all the motions but is "shallow"- it does not fully involve liberal ideals like equality, fairness, inclusion, representation, or lack corruption. At this stage in the game, I would say that we're getting there. As a political democracy we are under represented, and those that do represent us are generally not representative of us. Women, minorities, and almost all classes are not represented although they make up a very large part of the nation. To be elected, one must have power, prestige, or money, as well as a centralist and center-right message, with some exceptions. A government, which ideally in a substantive or polyarchical system is respondent and dependent on the needs of the people, acts without its consent and against it, without adhering to the common good, common principles, or common wants. If a government acts opposing to the will of the majority, without their consent, then is it truly representative of that majority? As it stands the interests of the state are confined to the interests of "those in power" and "those who influence power": that is, they are accountable to those who maintain their status, which in a country which is highly ignorant, is those with money and a voice. By all means, the government is not accountable to the masses except once every 4/6 years. Hence, it is not a democracy in that it substantively relies on and exacts the will of those who vote, nor represents them, but rather the will of a contracting minority. Famed political scientist and sociologist Robert Dahl characterized substantive and "good" democracy as "polyarchy", and determined that in order to have a functioning polyarchy, one needs, amongst other things, "associational autonomy". Associational autonomy requires that one is able to associate privately, without interference, threat, or chilling effect (that is, one should not be afraid to do something legal)- NSA, CIA, etc snooping is a threat to that. Jimmy Carter currently heads one of the world's more notable democracy investigative orgs, the Carter Center, which focuses on human rights issues and frequently "rates" government based on their human and political rights situation and democratic integrity. Carter could be seen as an expert, or at least knowledgeable, on the topic, and it would seem to me that his opinion on the matter is backed out of his position in the Center as well as his inner knowledge of the working of American politics, once being president and all. It seems as though you can not tell the difference between a de facto and de jure democracy, or a substantive or procedural democracy. By all means, what legally goes and what actually happens are different. Take for instance the majority of American history, where x y and z group had legal powers and protections but in reality had no rights- the 100 years after the civil war for african americans, for instance, or the ~100 years prior to that for x minority, or the first 30 years of the country where non-landowners had no say in government even though they legally did.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;41527460]I don't get it. You guys are up in arms about this whole thing and assume you know literally everything there is to know about the whole situation, yet you call the protesters of the Trayvon trials "Traybots" and act like they are so stupid, uneducated and illogical. You're doing literally the same exact shit.[/QUOTE] It's pretty telling that despite the fact that everything you just said is bullshit and you have scout1 confused with someone else, you have about twenty people (as of now) agreeing with you. I'd take the viewpoint of those complaining about the surveillance much more seriously if they could actually give concrete evidence for their claims instead of bandwagoning and circlejerking on every assertion pulled out of thin air, whether true or not. 'Violates the Constitution' this (never mind that almost all lawyers say otherwise, but we know better than them, right?), 'recording all phone calls' that (let's ignore the memory and bandwidth requirements, it's scary so it must be true), 'a shocking new revelation of power' (what do you mean the FBI's been doing it since the 50s?). Whatever credible arguments exist, the people crying foul over every little thing the government does haven't found them yet.
Man! So many parallels between the Roman Empire/republic's governments and people still wonder why it's going down in flames? It's a breeding ground for corruption. I dunno what the people that laid the political course were thinking, but they sure as shit weren't in on anything post-middle ages... Which is essentially where all of Europe magically found its brains again. We're talking 1390-1789. Take a bit of a look at the thinkers within Humaniora and then draw the lines to where nothern Europe is today. None of it includes [B][U]Holding ON to[/U][/B] passive Aristocracy, State delegates, senators and a horrible system where one states citizens weigh 1.2 and others weigh 0.7. Talk about fucking screwed election process. A ton of what's wrong with USA's government today is exactly what Europe went and learned since independence was gained. USA gets mad credits for being one of the longest standing modern democracies, but in this day and age, they're also the least evolved and least equal. Well, apart from puppet democracies like NK and China. But how much is it worth being better than a giant act? I really think USA would do great with a total, from the ground up political reform that'd rebalance the weight of each citizens votes to 1. No more delegates (or whatever they're called) The votes will count directly, wit no extra layers or gates. This'll also encourage the creation of new parties, since each state doesn't just fly in the direction of one party/candidate. Before you tell me to fuck off, tell me this. How is a Feudal Lord with 12 votes towards a king any different than a state with 12 towards a president? It's essentially the same system. Only difference really, is that in the "democratic" one, about half the populations supposed votes gets entirely ignored. Also: [quote=French guy who died 200 years ago]The very right to vote imposes on me the duty to instruct myself in public affair, however little influence my voice may have in them.[/quote] People should apply this to their lives. [quote=Dead French guy again]As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State "What does it matter to me?" the State may be given up for lost.[/quote] If this is your stance and your excuse is that your vote gets drowned out anyway, then demand a reform! Reforms aren't just things that happened in the old days. Reforms happen when you need them and it's painfully obvious that USA needs this. At least if they want to keep their whole "Freedumz" act alive. Also. Reforms don't have to be violent. i Know you think i'm a fucking idiot for saying this. But your rights are getting violated and that's only because you didn't care enough to fix the system that allows it. Politicians are only corrupt because the entire governmental system is set up to accomodate it.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41531140']To be elected, one must have power, prestige, or money, as well as a centralist and center-right message, with some exceptions.[/QUOTE] This is a good thing though. It means that the politicians elected represent the middle of the inhabitants of the country, and nowhere near evils such as Fascism or Communism.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41532038]It's pretty telling that despite the fact that everything you just said is bullshit and you have scout1 confused with someone else, you have about twenty people (as of now) agreeing with you. I'd take the viewpoint of those complaining about the surveillance much more seriously if they could actually give concrete evidence for their claims instead of bandwagoning and circlejerking on every assertion pulled out of thin air, whether true or not. 'Violates the Constitution' this (never mind that almost all lawyers say otherwise, but we know better than them, right?), 'recording all phone calls' that (let's ignore the memory and bandwidth requirements, it's scary so it must be true), 'a shocking new revelation of power' (what do you mean the FBI's been doing it since the 50s?). Whatever credible arguments exist, the people crying foul over every little thing the government does haven't found them yet.[/QUOTE] Memory? Bandwidth? Are you serious? That is your crutch against this? Have you not been following along? We have terabyte storage and connections now, its just getting into the public which means the military/government has had it for AT LEAST a year now. Moore's Law - Google it
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41529891]No longer a democracy? What is it then? An autocracy? I bet you any money that it isn't.[/QUOTE] That's like saying that a non-functioning car is not a car, but a bus. It's still a car, it's just broken.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41529891]No longer a democracy? What is it then? An autocracy? I bet you any money that it isn't.[/QUOTE] its a communist dictatorship if you're right winged enough because you know, Lenin and Stalin are best friends with Obama, apparently.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41532119]This is a good thing though. It means that the politicians elected represent the middle of the inhabitants of the country, and nowhere near evils such as Fascism or Communism.[/QUOTE] Those things were the very combination that brought down Rome. Have you no historical awareness? Placing your fate in the hands of people that deem themselves above you is fucking retarded. That's exactly what rich, powerful and prestigeous people think. You need to get out of your head, this imagination that you have to let your betters decide your course. Government in its truest form is about serving the interests of society. I hope you know this. That's what the greeks did and what the romans didn't.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41532171]Those things were the very combination that brought down Rome.[/QUOTE] Please explain why the Roman Empire collapsed. Like, as many factors as possible that contributed to it? I bet you my arse that the most important factors wasn't "Politicians representing the centrist position caused it to fall".
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41532160]Memory? Bandwidth? Are you serious? That is your crutch against this? Have you not been following along? We have terabyte storage and connections now, its just getting into the public which means the military/government has had it for AT LEAST a year now. Moore's Law - Google it[/QUOTE] If you seriously think that the military and/or government are on the cutting edge of private-sector technological development, you're giving them way too much credit. Especially for an organization as paranoid about data security as the NSA, where every piece of hardware has to be scrutinized and every piece of software has to be picked through line-by-line. We're also leaving aside the necessity of extensive infrastructure in EVERY phone service provider to record and then transmit the recordings to NSA data centers, and the enormous overhead required to supervise all that and then keep it so secret that nobody knows about it, and yet government agencies are STILL pursuing warrants for wiretaps when of course if there is such monitoring in place they could just listen to the phone call after the fact. Funny that. Then there's that nagging problem that all of this is pure speculation anyways. You're not saying they're doing this because of evidence, you're saying they're doing this because there's no evidence they aren't. That's damn near a conspiracy theory and it highlights the sheer sensationalism that's been present from this case since day one.
Carter is just a senile old man trying to fuel the flame and get attention. Like it or not, looking from a historical standpoint his statement is simply not true, if anything the country now is considerably more functional than it was when he was president.
[QUOTE]it does not fully involve liberal ideals like equality, fairness, inclusion, representation, or lack corruption.[/QUOTE] So anything that's not a fascist dictatorship is liberal. OK.
Kind of a lame duck president, but still a cool guy!
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41532262]Please explain why the Roman Empire collapsed. Like, as many factors as possible that contributed to it? I bet you my arse that the most important factors wasn't "Politicians representing the centrist position caused it to fall".[/QUOTE] It essentially turned into a mild version of Game of Thrones until one guy got enough influence to make it an empire. Then they turned to rapid expansion and eventually, as citizenship was only for Romans born in rome or military veterans of 20+ years, every province got annoyed, the economy went to shit (This is the important bit) and eventually all these factors had it come crashing down in just about a century. The first mistake was making it a republic combined with focus on ancestral honor and family name. (Fortunate son (why is it relevant if a senators son is gay or fighting in the current war? This is a trait USA shares.)) ended up with politics more focused on the individuals than the people. Ring any bells? It's not what the politicians represent. It's that they're free to just put on a show instead of doing anything and that's because of this system. Greece didn't have career politicians. You served one year and then you'd be back on your old job. This ensured that whatever said politician did, he'd be doing it in the interest of the people and IF he got into self-interest, that self-interest wasn't corporation incomes, but profession specific. Too large territory, Corrupt politicians, indirect consequences of slavery-based economy, low representation of the people, lack of cultural unity, lack of respect for non-romans in general. A few of these again reappear. What i was arguing before was that USA largely missed the enlightenment era. Or rather participated on the sidelines. In europe, that was the transition from kings ruling by divine right, to kings ruling because they were competent and finally to different incarnations of democracies. The HUGE difference here is that USA, being first went directly for the goode ol' proven system, while most of Europe gradually evolved their systems from either the Roman or Greek system. What it is, is that Europe kept adjusting until it worked. USA just added rules and otherwise left it be. It could use a revamp. A loving revamp from non-radical, non-extremist and properly educated Americans. It's feasible, however insanely unlikely since you, to even get within an inch of doing so, you either have to have... what.. 400-500 people (dunno?) at the time in senate and congress agree to do so, or do it by military coup (seen those before lol. Fat chance at going right). It's probably why it's not been done yet. Which is again the core of the problem: Politics in USA aren't going anywhere unless they're against terrorists, in which case they seem to rush ahead. It's essentially broken and in some cases, corrupt. I know this all sounds fast and loose. But i haven't got my source texts with me. Forgot them at Århus University and the whole subject is a goddamn mess.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41533868]It essentially turned into a mild version of Game of Thrones until one guy got enough influence to make it an empire.[/quote] I've never read or watched it. Please explain. [quote]Then they turned to rapid expansion[/quote] Expansion was piecemeal and over time. First you had them unify Italy, then moving into Ibera and Greece. Next they moved into Gaul and North Africa, etc. From about 100ad til about 395ad, the borders barely changed. [quote]and eventually, as citizenship was only for Romans born in rome or military veterans of 20+ years[/quote] Actually it was for more or less the residents of Italy. You also forget this: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship#The_Edict_of_Caracalla[/url] [quote]The Edict of Caracalla (officially the Constitutio Antoniniana (Latin: "Constitution [or Edict] of Antoninus") was an edict issued in 212, by the Roman Emperor Caracalla which law declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship and all free women in Empire were given the same rights as Roman women were.[/quote] [quote]every province got annoyed[/quote] Which ones? I know it wasn't all of them because each one was often quite different. [quote]the economy went to shit[/quote] In what way? [quote]eventually all these factors had it come crashing down in just about a century.[/quote] Rome didn't crash that quickly. It was a wet rot. By the 300s the professional army was beginning to break down, the cities went bankrupt, the landed nobility assumed private armies, and public works began to decay. By the year 476, the King of Italy (Odacer) didn't make himself Emperor because he didn't want to claim the rest of the Empire and instead set about strengthening his hold on Italy. Rome rotted slowly. Some cities in Italy and Gaul managed to keep using Roman laws, monies, government, latin, etc for many centuries afterwards, nobles lived in villas, and denarii remained a medium of exchange. The Roman Church and the Latin language meanwhile never ended up dying and remained pretty strong. [quote]The first mistake was making it a republic combined with focus on ancestral honor and family name. (Fortunate son (why is it relevant if a senators son is gay or fighting in the current war? This is a trait USA shares.)) ended up with politics more focused on the individuals than the people. Ring any bells?[/quote] But Rome wasn't a Republic for most of its history. Most importantly, the last 500 years of its existence. [quote]It's not what the politicians represent. It's that they're free to just put on a show instead of doing anything and that's because of this system. Greece didn't have career politicians. You served one year and then you'd be back on your old job. This ensured that whatever said politician did, he'd be doing it in the interest of the people and IF he got into self-interest, that self-interest wasn't corporation incomes, but profession specific.[/quote] The same Greeks who frequently left babies to die on hillsides, kept slaves, and the vote was restricted to wealthy male landowners over the age of 30. [quote]Too large territory, Corrupt politicians, indirect consequences of slavery-based economy, low representation of the people, lack of cultural unity, lack of respect for non-romans in general. A few of these again reappear.[/quote] Some of these are true. The biggest problem for Rome was the lack of economic integration. Why do I need an emperor if I can produce my own things here and my lord will protect me? Self-sufficiency was what ended up destroying the Roman economy. [quote]What i was arguing before was that USA largely missed the enlightenment era. Or rather participated on the sidelines.[/quote] It did? America was based on the works of men like John Locke or the English parliament and legal system? [quote]In europe, that was the transition from kings ruling by divine right, to kings ruling because they were competent[/quote] This never happened. [quote]and finally to different incarnations of democracies.[/quote] Only in the late 19th century at the earliest. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire remained pretty autocratic until the 20th century. [quote]The HUGE difference here is that USA, being first went directly for the goode ol' proven system, while most of Europe gradually evolved their systems from either the Roman or Greek system.[/quote] European democracies and parliaments are more built on the traditions of Medieval politics. Viking althings, burghs, free cities, the Hanseatic League, the rights of the nobility, etc. [quote]What it is, is that Europe kept adjusting until it worked. USA just added rules and otherwise left it be. It could use a revamp. A loving revamp from non-radical, non-extremist and properly educated Americans.[/quote] I agree.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41531140']What Carter is referring to is probably a procedural democracy, or a democracy that has all the motions but is "shallow"- it does not fully involve liberal ideals like equality, fairness, inclusion, representation, or lack corruption. At this stage in the game, I would say that we're getting there. As a political democracy we are under represented, and those that do represent us are generally not representative of us. Women, minorities, and almost all classes are not represented although they make up a very large part of the nation. To be elected, one must have power, prestige, or money, as well as a centralist and center-right message, with some exceptions. A government, which ideally in a substantive or polyarchical system is respondent and dependent on the needs of the people, acts without its consent and against it, without adhering to the common good, common principles, or common wants. If a government acts opposing to the will of the majority, without their consent, then is it truly representative of that majority? As it stands the interests of the state are confined to the interests of "those in power" and "those who influence power": that is, they are accountable to those who maintain their status, which in a country which is highly ignorant, is those with money and a voice. By all means, the government is not accountable to the masses except once every 4/6 years. Hence, it is not a democracy in that it substantively relies on and exacts the will of those who vote, nor represents them, but rather the will of a contracting minority. Famed political scientist and sociologist Robert Dahl characterized substantive and "good" democracy as "polyarchy", and determined that in order to have a functioning polyarchy, one needs, amongst other things, "associational autonomy". Associational autonomy requires that one is able to associate privately, without interference, threat, or chilling effect (that is, one should not be afraid to do something legal)- NSA, CIA, etc snooping is a threat to that. Jimmy Carter currently heads one of the world's more notable democracy investigative orgs, the Carter Center, which focuses on human rights issues and frequently "rates" government based on their human and political rights situation and democratic integrity. Carter could be seen as an expert, or at least knowledgeable, on the topic, and it would seem to me that his opinion on the matter is backed out of his position in the Center as well as his inner knowledge of the working of American politics, once being president and all. It seems as though you can not tell the difference between a de facto and de jure democracy, or a substantive or procedural democracy. By all means, what legally goes and what actually happens are different. Take for instance the majority of American history, where x y and z group had legal powers and protections but in reality had no rights- the 100 years after the civil war for african americans, for instance, or the ~100 years prior to that for x minority, or the first 30 years of the country where non-landowners had no say in government even though they legally did.[/QUOTE] Dude, are you a PoliSci major? If not, you really should be, you always tend to clear things up about these matters. Enlightening post, Seed Eater.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41532119]This is a good thing though. It means that the politicians elected represent the middle of the inhabitants of the country, and nowhere near evils such as Fascism or Communism.[/QUOTE] You assume that the political bourgeoisie are politically center, firstly, which is historically wrong: it is normally [URL="http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?al=on&ak=on&az=on&ar=on&ca=on&co=on&ct=on&de=on&fl=on&ga=on&hi=on&id=on&il=on&in=on&ia=on&ks=on&ky=on&la=on&me=on&md=on&ma=on&mi=on&mn=on&ms=on&mo=on&mt=on&ne=on&nv=on&nh=on&nj=on&nm=on&ny=on&nc=on&nd=on&oh=on&ok=on&or=on&pa=on&ri=on&sc=on&sd=on&tn=on&tx=on&ut=on&vt=on&va=on&wa=on&wv=on&wi=on&wy=on"]center-right[/URL] to [URL="http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012"]right-wing[/URL] in America historically. As it stands today most international political scientists rank the vast majority of American politicians as center-right. You secondly assume that the political majority is center, also historically wrong. While the US population has been moving slowly center-right, historically the majority has been left-leaning, and now [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-zweifach/are-we-still-a-centerrigh_b_2585758.html"]center-left[/URL]. What you're saying, is that it's okay for the political representatives to be unrepresentative of the majority. You are arguing for an undemocratic system. Following that, I'd ask of you what happens when the majority of the population are fascistic or communist? Is okay then for the political bourgeoisie to be unrepresentative of the people then? In the interest of saving democracy, does one sacrifice it by turning "representation" into aristocracy? That is what it is-the difference between a democracy and any class-dominating state is the popular support and electoral participation- what happens when the political bourgeoisie remain in power without popular consent? It is an aristocracy, corporatocracy, or plutocracy. And what of, say, a communist or socialist system that has a democratic process? If this democratic process is even more democratic and substantive than the existing capitalist-representative system, would you be so opposed? Historically speaking, there have been socialist states with greater representation and inclusive democracy than in the United State, and in some instances perhaps even communist ones. What then? Do you propose that we ignore the leaning and position of the majority to maintain liberal politically-center control? At which point do we abandon representative representation? At what point is it safe to say that we need to be representative of the majority? And when do we consider representation of the minority? When is it safe to no longer represent them and limit the choices based on de facto class or social status? [editline]20th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=daschnek;41536804]Dude, are you a PoliSci major? If not, you really should be, you always tend to clear things up about these matters. Enlightening post, Seed Eater.[/QUOTE] I am.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41536953']You assume that the political bourgeoisie are politically center, firstly, which is historically wrong: it is normally [URL="http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?al=on&ak=on&az=on&ar=on&ca=on&co=on&ct=on&de=on&fl=on&ga=on&hi=on&id=on&il=on&in=on&ia=on&ks=on&ky=on&la=on&me=on&md=on&ma=on&mi=on&mn=on&ms=on&mo=on&mt=on&ne=on&nv=on&nh=on&nj=on&nm=on&ny=on&nc=on&nd=on&oh=on&ok=on&or=on&pa=on&ri=on&sc=on&sd=on&tn=on&tx=on&ut=on&vt=on&va=on&wa=on&wv=on&wi=on&wy=on"]center-right[/URL] to [URL="http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012"]right-wing[/URL] in America historically. As it stands today most international political scientists rank the vast majority of American politicians as center-right.[/quote] Different countries have different standards. That poll is by a British website which puts Tony Blair as right wing because they got angry about new labour. [quote]You secondly assume that the political majority is center, also historically wrong. While the US population has been moving slowly center-right, historically the majority has been left-leaning, and now [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-zweifach/are-we-still-a-centerrigh_b_2585758.html"]center-left[/URL].[/quote] The political center is always changing though. [quote]What you're saying, is that it's okay for the political representatives to be unrepresentative of the majority. You are arguing for an undemocratic system.[/quote] The center in the spectrum changes. For a centrist to not represent the majority opinion is literally impossible. [quote]Following that, I'd ask of you what happens when the majority of the population are fascistic or communist?[/quote] This has never happened in human history. Even if it was, then there would be groups in existence even further to the left or right, and the center would still be represented by the elected politicians. [quote]And what of, say, a communist or socialist system that has a democratic process?[/quote] The only example of a Communist getting into power democratically I can think of was Allende, and he fucked up badly. [quote]If this democratic process is even more democratic and substantive than the existing capitalist-representative system, would you be so opposed?[/quote] No, just that it doesn't exist. [quote]Historically speaking, there have been socialist states with greater representation and inclusive democracy than in the United State, and in some instances perhaps even communist ones.[/quote] Such as?
[QUOTE=SaltyWaters;41530398]So you mean minority groups that are over-represented in our government no matter which way you slice it, special interest groups that work against the will of most in favor of their own agenda. If those groups cannot survive without government corruption, then they do not have a right to exist.[/QUOTE] lol, overrepresented Women are half the population, but not half the government LGBT people are a quarter to a third of the population, but not 1/4 to 1/3 of the government not only that, but more than 50% support gay marriage yet there is no US-wide gay marriage and 63% perceive global warming as a threat but environmental policies are lacking this is actually one of those times "check your privilege" could be used 100% non-ironically
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41537041]Different countries have different standards. That poll is by a British website which puts Tony Blair as right wing because they got angry about new labour.[/quote] The site obtains its information from trusted sources. I'm not going to argue the merit of the site to you because the site is used only in example and is not the basis of my claim, merely only an illustration. Also, strawman. [quote]The political center is always changing though. The center in the spectrum changes. For a centrist to not represent the majority opinion is literally impossible.[/quote] That's not how that works. The political center is the center of the static political spectrum. It does not change, and center does not change. The political center is not an average or a median of political thought, it is a position between the political left and the political right- generally speaking it is a moderate progressive-liberal position that favors statism with liberal political control. If everyone on earth suddenly became fascist then the center would still be the center it is today, just irrelevant. We no longer live in a world where left-right-center means where the sprawl of parliament sit and their political convictions. While the political spectrum is still developing because ideological studies still have far to go, it still stands as a meter and not a weight. [quote]This has never happened in human history. Even if it was, then there would be groups in existence even further to the left or right, and the center would still be represented by the elected politicians.[/quote] This is a hypothetical. [quote]The only example of a Communist getting into power democratically I can think of was Allende, and he fucked up badly.[/quote] And the majority of the Spanish Second Republic's governments. Regardless this is a hypothetical. [quote]No, just that it doesn't exist.[/quote] This is a hypothetical. [quote]Such as?[/QUOTE] Pretty much any socialist system except for Marxist-Leninist and Leninist systems. i.e. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url] (Somewhat) [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communist#Council_communism_and_the_Soviets_of_the_USSR[/url]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41529582][img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/998693_632926853385981_385550000_n.jpg[/img] lead the way[/QUOTE] My beanie has the equipment to kick your ass
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41537199']The site obtains its information from trusted sources. I'm not going to argue the merit of the site to you because the site is used only in example and is not the basis of my claim, merely only an illustration. Also, strawman.[/quote] No, my point is that the site is so far to the left that it counts the Labour Party as right wing. Depending on where you put the center, somebody is going to look either right or left wing. [quote]That's not how that works. The political center is the center of the static political spectrum. It does not change, and center does not change.[/quote] It does change though. If you were a centrist 200 years ago, you would have probably advocated for abolishing the slave trade. But if you advocated for gay marriage (which is increasingly common these days given half the USA supports it) you would be labelled a loony. [quote]The political center is not an average or a median of political thought, it is a position between the political left and the political right- generally speaking it is a moderate progressive-liberal position that favors statism with liberal political control. If everyone on earth suddenly became fascist then the center would still be the center it is today, just irrelevant. We no longer live in a world where left-right-center means where the sprawl of parliament sit and their political convictions. While the political spectrum is still developing because ideological studies still have far to go, it still stands as a meter and not a weight.[/quote] That's an objective and philosophical view of the matter. In normal discourse however, most people think of the center as "Inbetween the two main parties". [quote]This is a hypothetical.[/quote] Let us imagine a communist state. The rightwing would be people like the Mensheviks, arguing for a less revolutionary system. The leftwing would be those saying that Lenins NEP reforms were almost traitorous. [quote]And the majority of the Spanish Second Republic's governments. Regardless this is a hypothetical.[/quote] Similar case as with Chile. Mismanaged policies, people are unhappy, economic is in the shitter, dictator pops in for tea and biscuits. [quote]This is a hypothetical.[/quote] Then show me a successful one. [quote]Pretty much any socialist system except for Marxist-Leninist and Leninist systems. i.e. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url] (Somewhat) [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communist#Council_communism_and_the_Soviets_of_the_USSR[/url][/QUOTE] Those all didn't last very long, and all of them went around shooting people they didn't agree with. In Democracy you have to put it to a vote.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.