PDA

View Full Version : Where capitalistic democracy has failed




Perry
05-02-2008, 01:48 PM
How is it that two political parties, republican & democrat, that are supposedly so different and polarized both ideologically and politically, invariably end up supporting the same geopolitical doctrines and philosophies?
The body of the US government and other democratic nations are elected by a democratic process. When an individual votes, he is loaning a piece of his God given power to another individual. How does the public decide to which person they loan their power? An individual studies the choices before him on the ballet and decides which person will best fulfill their personal goals/vision for each respective government position, whether local or national. The knowledge the average America citizen has of any prospective government official is more often then not received through the mainstream and local medias outlets i.e.; newspapers & television.
Needless to say advertisements, especially for major media outlets, are extremely expensive. Most prospective government official’s lack the funds needed for these advertisements and therefore must raise the cash.
It’s no secret that many US government officials attain their political seat by making compromises with private industry in order to acquire sufficient financial support to run their campaign. With whom do they compromise? Obviously with institutions, industry & peoples that have the resources needed to plaster that persons face on the media outlets. Because media coverage is so expensive, the larger the election, the more funds are needed and the more compromises that individual must make both ideologically and ethically.
When we look at higher levels of government the corruption becomes so widespread and uniform that it begs the question how did this happen? I think it boils down to the following idea. The individual running for a particular seat in government is confronted by, for example, a tobacco company that has money and which sings something to the tune of promising financial support in exchange for political support. The prospective government hopeful, assuming they are an “ethical” human being, naturally draws the conclusion that if they do not compromise their ethics on this issue they will not garner the support needed to attain the desired office and therefore not have the ability to accomplish all the “good” they envision. They justify their compromise because they believe that in the end it will have resulted in more good then harm or “the ends justify the means”.
The trouble with this philosophy is that it is used repeatedly by many individuals in order to acquire better positioning and more political power.
Ultimately this individual has made so many compromises that those decisions have compounded effects and form a part of a new commercially driven ideology that make our politician what he is today. Because of the nature of politics a politician must constantly defend his position and what he has become. At any time suddenly reverting to his original ideas would mean undermining his new ideology pulling the carpet out from under his own feet.
He therefore finds it necessary to defend those means which have sustained his political progress and contributed to his position.
Who helped him attain that position? Entities with money. This, I believe, is how an atheist, pro-choice liberal democrat and a religious pro-life neo-con end up supporting the same geopolitical doctrines and philosophies that the major parties adhere to today.
Now this speaks to the so-called “ethical” man and I use this word ethical very loosely to make a generalized point.
Obviously there are many others in all parties who play a part and who simply want power for the sake of power.
Let me now give you the simplistic view.
Money is all-corrupting.
If you’ve read Bethany McLean’s “The smartest guys in the room”, or have seen the documentary by the same name on pbs, you have caught a glimpse of a form of corruption that borders on perfection for corruptions sake. The number of people that permitted themselves to become blinded by money in Enron’s case to this day astounds me. Watching Enron employees as they interact with the likes of Jeff Skilling & Ken Lay sent chills down my spine as I realized their behavior, their devotion, was reminiscent of the Jonestown tapes.
Nazi Germany had a formula for corruption that worked effectively at the political/military level via promise of power on one hand and fear on the other. The Enron system of corruption trumps that of Nazi Germany as Enron’s system has people not becoming corrupt under the heavy hand of fear, but completely of their own will for love of money.

How can this course be reversed?

Winston Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time”.

Churchill’s view in my opinion was incomplete as he hadn’t the opportunity to read the complete story of democracy from beginning to end. He read half the book coming to the page where freedom abounds and populations prosper and then his time on earth was finished. Democracy/Capitalism is in fact a story in progress. To date in history we have not seen a capitalistic society run it’s course.
Greed or selfishness is one of many human attributes. The desire to acquire more than one needs is prevalent in a good percentage of humanity. If we continue on the current path a great deal of power will eventually be centralized to a small few. How is this different from a communist state or a dictatorship?
Ultimately, I think, it is not so different.
If one believes in true freedom the conclusion must be drawn that campaign finance reform is not the solution. In a free country individuals should have the right to spend their own money as they see fit and yet with money comes corruption.
So where does this leave us?
The question begs to be asked…
”What can we do? How can we change direction when the very election process by which we put our leaders in power is at the heart of the a system which is becoming increasingly corrupt?
Many that rant against the idea of capitalism do so on behalf of dictatorships, socialist or other forms of government but ultimately these forms of government have identical flaws as those of democracy & capitalism. All forms of government tend to follow one basic rule in that any nation is only as tolerable as the powers leading that government.
Essentially even an absolute dictatorship could entertain a blissful paradise if an “ethical” man were steering the ship. Back in the real world we know that most dictatorships are not run by “ethical” men and that centralized power is most often abused.

The only logical deduction that can come of this is that less centralized power is better. Maximum freedom spread throughout an entire population can be the only solution to government corruption. A good start would be to eliminate the governments power to subsidize and regulate the market which in turn would remove a huge incentive not only for industry to legally bribe politicians but diminish the desire for large lobbies in Washington that ultimately sap the individual taxpayer of his hard earned wages
Going back to Churchill’s view that democracy is “better than” other forms of government we can see clearly now that he saw democracies at a time when the population still had a good deal of power. Our individual freedoms dissipate as power is continually more centralized. By its very nature our current form of democracy will strip its citizens of its rights and freedoms and of each individual his god given allotted power.
This story has two endings. One is that of an increasingly centralized power that ultimately ends in a “socialized” state where government has overwhelming power.
The other is a free & prosperous nation
Which route will America take?

Truth Warrior
05-02-2008, 01:58 PM
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

Perry
05-02-2008, 02:01 PM
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

HA! I'd never heard that one thanks.:D

AutoDas
05-02-2008, 03:39 PM
State run capitalism is the government's favorite whipping boy. Whenever something goes wrong in the "free-market" (despite never having achieved one) they call for more regulations and agencies. The people fall into this great stupor that crowds make wise decisions, but they only come to this conclusion because they make rational decisions about themselves. When society bears the responsibility the cost of making a mistake is understandable cause after all it is not your money being taken away, it's just some rich guy who would've spent it upgrading his factory.

I don't understand why people hate selfishness so much. You live for yourself so it makes logical sense to care and prize yourself first. Socialists who want everyone to be equal view greed with contemptuous behavior, but when everyone has that middle income where no one is rich or poor they are still scared of losing everything. Greed is the rational assumption to be secure in your belongings because human nature will take it away if you aren't protective of it.

I think it's inevitable that any kind of democracy will eventually lead to a socialist state just before it takes the market behind the pasture to finish the deed. The best form of government for a libertarian is no government.

But there is something that can prevent a despotic form of government. Simply establish one to protect life, liberty, and property. I'm for this type of government because the socialists are the ones stealing and they should be punished.

http://begthequestion.info/

FreeTraveler
05-02-2008, 03:48 PM
The less government, the less distortion of the market process, the less productivity is lost to non-productive, parasitic jobs, and the more freedom for every individual.

Anarchy FTW!

Zippyjuan
05-02-2008, 05:55 PM
The parties moved towards the middle of the spectrum because that is where the voters are. With a two party system, you need to attract the most voters you can. If there are many viable parties then you can stake out a more extreme position and attract more hardcore supporters since you need a smaller piece of the pie to win (provided it is bigger than anybody else's pie) than you do in a two party system.

voytechs
05-02-2008, 06:05 PM
The parties moved towards the middle of the spectrum because that is where the voters are. With a two party system, you need to attract the most voters you can. If there are many viable parties then you can stake out a more extreme position and attract more hardcore supporters since you need a smaller piece of the pie to win (provided it is bigger than anybody else's pie) than you do in a two party system.

Not really. He who controls the media and the money controls it all. Its just more convenient for them with 2 party system to give people a "choice".

pcosmar
05-02-2008, 07:07 PM
The parties moved towards the middle of the spectrum because that is where the voters are. With a two party system, you need to attract the most voters you can. If there are many viable parties then you can stake out a more extreme position and attract more hardcore supporters since you need a smaller piece of the pie to win (provided it is bigger than anybody else's pie) than you do in a two party system.

Not really.
Both parties are controlled by the same group of people.
They maintain the illusion of choice, to maintain control.

Theocrat
05-02-2008, 07:39 PM
How is it that two political parties, republican & democrat, that are supposedly so different and polarized both ideologically and politically, invariably end up supporting the same geopolitical doctrines and philosophies?
The body of the US government and other democratic nations are elected by a democratic process. When an individual votes, he is loaning a piece of his God given power to another individual. How does the public decide to which person they loan their power? An individual studies the choices before him on the ballet and decides which person will best fulfill their personal goals/vision for each respective government position, whether local or national. The knowledge the average America citizen has of any prospective government official is more often then not received through the mainstream and local medias outlets i.e.; newspapers & television.
Needless to say advertisements, especially for major media outlets, are extremely expensive. Most prospective government official’s lack the funds needed for these advertisements and therefore must raise the cash.
It’s no secret that many US government officials attain their political seat by making compromises with private industry in order to acquire sufficient financial support to run their campaign. With whom do they compromise? Obviously with institutions, industry & peoples that have the resources needed to plaster that persons face on the media outlets. Because media coverage is so expensive, the larger the election, the more funds are needed and the more compromises that individual must make both ideologically and ethically.
When we look at higher levels of government the corruption becomes so widespread and uniform that it begs the question how did this happen? I think it boils down to the following idea. The individual running for a particular seat in government is confronted by, for example, a tobacco company that has money and which sings something to the tune of promising financial support in exchange for political support. The prospective government hopeful, assuming they are an “ethical” human being, naturally draws the conclusion that if they do not compromise their ethics on this issue they will not garner the support needed to attain the desired office and therefore not have the ability to accomplish all the “good” they envision. They justify their compromise because they believe that in the end it will have resulted in more good then harm or “the ends justify the means”.
The trouble with this philosophy is that it is used repeatedly by many individuals in order to acquire better positioning and more political power.
Ultimately this individual has made so many compromises that those decisions have compounded effects and form a part of a new commercially driven ideology that make our politician what he is today. Because of the nature of politics a politician must constantly defend his position and what he has become. At any time suddenly reverting to his original ideas would mean undermining his new ideology pulling the carpet out from under his own feet.
He therefore finds it necessary to defend those means which have sustained his political progress and contributed to his position.
Who helped him attain that position? Entities with money. This, I believe, is how an atheist, pro-choice liberal democrat and a religious pro-life neo-con end up supporting the same geopolitical doctrines and philosophies that the major parties adhere to today.
Now this speaks to the so-called “ethical” man and I use this word ethical very loosely to make a generalized point.
Obviously there are many others in all parties who play a part and who simply want power for the sake of power.
Let me now give you the simplistic view.
Money is all-corrupting.
If you’ve read Bethany McLean’s “The smartest guys in the room”, or have seen the documentary by the same name on pbs, you have caught a glimpse of a form of corruption that borders on perfection for corruptions sake. The number of people that permitted themselves to become blinded by money in Enron’s case to this day astounds me. Watching Enron employees as they interact with the likes of Jeff Skilling & Ken Lay sent chills down my spine as I realized their behavior, their devotion, was reminiscent of the Jonestown tapes.
Nazi Germany had a formula for corruption that worked effectively at the political/military level via promise of power on one hand and fear on the other. The Enron system of corruption trumps that of Nazi Germany as Enron’s system has people not becoming corrupt under the heavy hand of fear, but completely of their own will for love of money.

How can this course be reversed?

Winston Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time”.

Churchill’s view in my opinion was incomplete as he hadn’t the opportunity to read the complete story of democracy from beginning to end. He read half the book coming to the page where freedom abounds and populations prosper and then his time on earth was finished. Democracy/Capitalism is in fact a story in progress. To date in history we have not seen a capitalistic society run it’s course.
Greed or selfishness is one of many human attributes. The desire to acquire more than one needs is prevalent in a good percentage of humanity. If we continue on the current path a great deal of power will eventually be centralized to a small few. How is this different from a communist state or a dictatorship?
Ultimately, I think, it is not so different.
If one believes in true freedom the conclusion must be drawn that campaign finance reform is not the solution. In a free country individuals should have the right to spend their own money as they see fit and yet with money comes corruption.
So where does this leave us?
The question begs to be asked…
”What can we do? How can we change direction when the very election process by which we put our leaders in power is at the heart of the a system which is becoming increasingly corrupt?
Many that rant against the idea of capitalism do so on behalf of dictatorships, socialist or other forms of government but ultimately these forms of government have identical flaws as those of democracy & capitalism. All forms of government tend to follow one basic rule in that any nation is only as tolerable as the powers leading that government.
Essentially even an absolute dictatorship could entertain a blissful paradise if an “ethical” man were steering the ship. Back in the real world we know that most dictatorships are not run by “ethical” men and that centralized power is most often abused.

The only logical deduction that can come of this is that less centralized power is better. Maximum freedom spread throughout an entire population can be the only solution to government corruption. A good start would be to eliminate the governments power to subsidize and regulate the market which in turn would remove a huge incentive not only for industry to legally bribe politicians but diminish the desire for large lobbies in Washington that ultimately sap the individual taxpayer of his hard earned wages
Going back to Churchill’s view that democracy is “better than” other forms of government we can see clearly now that he saw democracies at a time when the population still had a good deal of power. Our individual freedoms dissipate as power is continually more centralized. By its very nature our current form of democracy will strip its citizens of its rights and freedoms and of each individual his god given allotted power.
This story has two endings. One is that of an increasingly centralized power that ultimately ends in a “socialized” state where government has overwhelming power.
The other is a free & prosperous nation
Which route will America take?

The problem is twofold. One, we weren't established as a democracy, but now we function like one. Two, we once held to Capitalism in our economy, but now we're heirs of Socialism.