Slashdot Mirror
The Dangers of One Party Rule
Marxist Hacker 42 writes "Now that the Politics section is up and running, I can submit this story. Back in February, The American Prospect ran a speculative article on The Danger of NeoConservative One Party Rule. A quote: 'Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was asked by a bystander what kind of government the Founders had bestowed. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times.'"
Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration. Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry. This is serious.
I think they were edited out because this is Politics, not Ask Slashdot (and yes, I promise to pick my topics more carefully in the future).
Will this lead to a Stalin-like hard right rule in the United States, and the warned curtailing of rights that a single, right-wing party is feared to be? Or will it be neoconservative utopia, ushering in an era of low taxes, small government, trickle down economics, and an end to labor law disputes?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm not entirely sure if there was a Democratic Senate, House and President that they wouldn't do the same. The issue is not that the political authorities are asserting power, because yanno, it's politics. The problem is that the Republicans are more aggressively pushing their agenda [than normal] without much opposition.
Of all the political quotes I could use here, I'm going to use Dr. Ian Malcolm via Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way." What I mean is, if a majority of people in four years find their life is worse, they vote Bush out. They vote a Democratic congress. People have phenomenal capacity. If you think the people are voting for all the wrong reasons, go back to 11th grade: all men are created equal. People have the right to vote for Bush on an uneducated opinion just as much as people have the right to vote for Kerry.
(For the tin-foil crowd, no, I don't think elections will be made illegal or term limits extended in the next four years. Sorry.)
Often times in a democracy, other people win.
"There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times" quipped Franklin, only moments before attending a Hell-Fire orgy followed by an all expenses paid (by the American tax payer) trip to the most expensive hotel in France, during which he induldged himself in the most expensive wines, cheeses and prostitutes.
I haven't. At least, I don't think so. Somebody's always saying that.
1 party rule, and it is happening as we speak, and has been happening for a while: The constitution is set up assuming that all 3 branches of the government would be constantly suspicious of what the other ones are doing. However, with the solidifcation of political parties, this isn't happening. Everyone is just toeing the party line, and that is dangerous. The supreme court justices aren't supposed to like the president, congress isn't supposed to depend on the president for inspiration for legislation. The president isn't supposed to just sign everything that his party passes. (I can't seem to think of one veto that George W. Bush has had overrided) That to me is dangerous, it signals that the checks and balances are erroding.
Monstar L
I was with for your first three sentences. The left often engages in hyperbole. No one rational here thinks Bush is in any substantial way like Hitler.
Then I get to sentence four. I am not giving my civil liberties up, even a little bit, not because of Al-Qaeda or for any other reason. I'm probably the nine-millionth person to quote Ben Franklin on this, but "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
And then I see sentence five: "The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France." And your credibility is shot.
a) Do you honestly think that?
b) If so, why?
c) What the hell?
spreer
I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I pine for the day... that /. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters."
True, but I think the editors have made a brilliant stroke by creating the "Politics" section. It's a heat sink.
The heat generated by a power transistor is an inevitable part of its operation. Unfortunately, it tends to degrade the component's operation, to the point where it's no more than a two-legged* blob of molten silicon. To prevent this, we use a Heat Sink. The transistor can then function normally, with the waste heat dissipated somewhere other than the silicon.
Slashdot generates heat, too, in the form of strong opinions that don't actually contribute to the discussion at hand. Post a story about the next release of Knoppix, and someone will say something about the government supporting/restraining Open Source, then someone will say something about the current administration, and pretty soon you're looking at a hole in the screen where a discussion used to be.
The Politics section is Slashdot's heat sink. People like me who have strong opinions can vent them here, where they don't affect the articles in the Games, Science, and Apple sections. The heat is inevitable, but you can at least make sure it doesn't interfere with your performance.
* I know transistors have three connections. I'm thinking of the power transistors where the body is the ground connector. And Bush sucks, by the way.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Please tell me where to find this "objective journalism". I haven't seen any in over a decade, if ever.
Nope.... may I suggest reading the Federalist Papers? You have to read the process and rational to understand it.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
The rights it represents are God given, not changable as to the whims of men.
Actually, men had to fight for those rights. They weren't "given" to them by any one/thing.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I doubt you served at all, ever. You sound like an utterly typical chickenhawk conservative who thinks he knows everything about the military because he knows some guy who knows some guy who says ... etc., but who never had the guts to wear a uniform himself. You, and Dick Cheney, can go fuck yourselves.
sincerely,
Daniel Dvorkin
former SSgt, USAF
USAR infantryman 1987-1989
USAF medic 1989-1997
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The Republicrats (or is it the Demopublicans?) differ on most fundamental topics so little as for it to be irrelevant. That is the essence of Clintonian triangulation. It existed long before it had that name and has been used by both parties. The Republicans want to launch neo-colonialist wars and enslave those of us back here in the Heimat (sorry, homeland). The Democrats want to do it more slowly, and to try to smile benevolently rather than sneering while doing it. But this is mainly a difference of style, not substance. Neither questions their corporate masters. And neither accepts limitations on state power in times of crisis. The only difference is which corporations get their snouts into the public trough first.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction
In what direction would *that* be?
You imply that it is the left, but the US is and has been (for *at least* the past sixty years) one of the most right-winged first world nations around. The "Democrats" in the US would be what is considered very conservative in most of Europe and also in Canada and AU.
Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago, except that we have an economy that has a firmer foundation than an extremely volatile bubble (which was put firmly into place by the economic policies of the Clinton era).
How very unpolitical and nonpartisian of you.
May we never see th
The Fine Article makes an assumption that may not be accurate. It assumes that the current minority party is unable to gain power because of political chicanery on the part of the majority party.
Ten years ago the current minority party held the Presidency, House and Senate. They had held the House and Senate for decades. It was just as hard to defeat an incumbent back then as it is now.
The danger to the USA is not a NeoConservative monoparty. That sounds like FUD to me. The danger to the USA is that we have learned to vote ourselves funds from the public checkbook.
sigs, as if you care.
Whoah, there, cowboy.
Civil rights violations under Clinton are "more telling"?
The Clinton administration was much more open. No FOIA denials. No imprisoning people without access to lawyers. No Karl Rove with dirty tricks. No Ashcroft (I don't care *how* much of a social conservative you are, Ashcroft is the scariest thing since Hoover). No Cheney urging for war, with defense contracting cronies growing fat on public funds.
The Assault Weapons Ban was stupid and a bad idea, I agree.
But the gutting of the intelligence departments and military? I call bullshit. Back up what you're claiming.
May we never see th
...and Taco said the Politics section would be balanced.
No offense, but "the $GUYS_I_DONT_AGREE_WITH are going to outlaw elections" is not what I'd call balanced.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr07 1003.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo - CONNED !
The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong--and I believe they are--we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down--even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced--and they certainly should have been--but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or "printing" new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the "tax" is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a "tax" burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
You mean elected, not reelected, since he was not elected in 2000.
I usually like reading long, intellectually stimulating articles, but WOW, that was just too much.
Now, contrast that with the Republican's message: reduce taxes on the people who have capital to encourage them to invest and create new jobs. Or even shorter, "trickle down."
That's all a huge pile of crap, as we all know, but the message works in part because it's very simple. Nobody's going to read and understand 20 pages of dense prose with hundreds of perfectly rational arguments, leading to a beautiful well-supported conclusion.
Everyone, take a lesson from this. If you write about politics, keep it short. Keep it simple. Use simple words. Short sentences are nice. Make your point quickly, and wrap it up.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Wrong. The recount showed Gore got more votes in Florida. Oh, not when they recounted only those counties Gore asked to be recounted, and that explains your news links. But when they recounted ALL the counties, thus trying to figure out the will of the people of Florida, Gore had more votes. Thus he won the popular vote and the electoral vote.
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes?
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"? I get my money by selling my labor to an employer, who is not "society", but a specific group of individuals. Everyone else is free to market their skills and labor just like I am. Some do better, some do worse. But the fact that some individuals have more valuble skills or ideas than others doesn't mean they owe "society" the time of day. I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government. Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
$0 is still worth $0. So if there's a ever-widening disparity between $0 and max-dollars, that means that means more wealth is being created, and the potential for acquiring wealth is greater than ever. If people are able to earn ever greater sums of wealth relative to $0, that's a Good Thing!
You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
And slavery was outlawed a long time ago. If you don't like what you're getting paid, you're free to find an employer who is willing to pay you more. If you can't find an employer who will pay you more, that's a pretty good sign you're already earning what you're worth.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use.
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
The public roads are available to anyone. The fact that a businessman was smart enough to take better advantage of an infrastructure that was built just as much for your benefit as for his, it doesn't follow that he owes you anything for it.
It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security. Maybe you should be reimbursing him for having to pay for yours as well?
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
You haven't explained why those things are necessarily a function of government. There are plenty of privately funded schools, museums, roads and forms of transportation. The fact that I've used some that were publicly funded doesn't necessarily mean they had to be, or should be.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
Well then, the obvious solution to that is to cut taxes so that low income people aren't put in that position.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway. So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Sez who?
Yes, it is my money, despite what parasites like you would have me believe. If I have no claim to it by virtue of working for it, you certainly have even less claim to it by virtue of not working for it.
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
You're in serious need of a class in economics.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it. You can spend your days digging a hole to China in your back yard, but while digging a hole to China may be hard work, it creates no value to anyone. Nobody is going to pay you anything to do it.
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
Most of the examples you provided were work that produces little value. Which is why it's lowly compensat
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Let's put aside the fact that it would be impossible to figure out who actually benefits from it, as well as the fact that you've created a world where everyone who thinks they have done me some "service" are now sending me bills. The real problem is, the faintest whim of a rich person is valued as much as the fondest dream of a poor person.
Say I'm a very wealthy individual. I want the statue's boobies draped. How much do I have to want it in order to make it happen? Not much. I'm rich enough that I can simply speak the word, and some hireling will take care of all the details.
Now say I'm a very poor person. Scraping together $1000 would be a huge deal. It might even be impossible. Yet I'm as horrified by the sight of Justice as anyone. Because I'm living in a libertarian system, my opinion matters zero, because I don't have the capital to enforce it.
Under a system where dollars are essentially votes--which is what I feel you are proposing--the opinions of the rich matter, and the opinions of the poor don't.
It isn't? I thought that the reason you were pushing libertarianism was because you thought it the most just, equitable system, and that everyone would be better off living under its precepts.
Now, are you saying that the only reason you're promoting libertarianism is because you believe that you could cash in big time? If so, I'm ignoring any further displays of moral outrage.
To me, your attempt to equate taxation to slavery is simply further indication that you're a libertarian just because you think taxes suck. In reality, there is no comparison. With slavery, the basic rights of a human being are being violated. You would be hard pressed to get more than a few people to agree that taxation is inherently immoral.
If you're a slave, there is nothing you can legally do to end your enslavement. If you're a rich person who thinks he is being charged an unfair share of taxes, all you have to do is quit whatever employment provides you your income, and live like the rest of us shmucks.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!