Slashdot Mirror
Lessig Campaign and the Change Congress Movement
GoldenShale wrote a follow up to last week's discussion about Lessig running for congress. He writes "Larry Lessig has created a Lessig08 website, and it looks like he is getting serious about running for congress. In his introduction video he proposes the creation of a national "Change Congress" movement which would try to limit the influence of money in the electoral and legislative processes. Having a technologically savvy representative and a clear intellectual leader to head this kind of movement is exactly what we need to counter the last 8 years of corporate dominance in government."
8 years? Corporations have been exhibiting control over the legislature for much more than the past 8 years... One only has to look at the copyright act extensions to see that.
I'm all for this, but as the old spam form response says, "Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical".
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Intellectuals make terrible politicians. You need a wheeling-dealing sort, not a thinker.
Anyway, the only way to change the game is to play it - if the congress is run by corporate types, then you need to become a corporate type to change congress. Revolution happens, but it's pretty rare - and frankly I don't think that Lessig has it in him.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Seems there are 2 major obstacles which will surely hinder him from getting anywhere in politics. (I could have said "American politics", since he is aspiring to get into that, but that would disregard the universal nature of politicians.)
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Corporate influence over Congress has been way past acceptable levels for a lot longer than eight years, even in the sphere of intellectual property. Even the DMCA is ten years old.
I recognize the temptation to blame Bush, but this is too old and it runs too deep to pin on him alone.
the truth is of course that, even if lessig were voted in, lessig would be but a drop in an ocean of the entrenched financial stranglehold on washington dc. however, most of the american public would probably agree with his charge about undue influence of money in politics in washington dc
that being the case, one has to put a stopper on the defeatist and cynical comments about his chances. simply because his fight is the right fight and every good fight has to start somewhere, no matter how formidable the opponents and how dire the odds
your brain can say lessig is hopeless. but what does your heart say? so give voice to your heart, and shut your brain up for the moment. because heart is exactly what is needed with issues like financial influence in washington dc
everyone knows the fight will be long and hard. no shit sherlock. so your cynical observations about his long odds are in fact useless and obvious. so shut up about the obvious. give voice to your heart on this issue instead, and commit to the long hard battle
to believe lessig's fight is not our fight, or can't be won, simply means you support the evil status quo
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Most lobbyists are working for companies who want tax laws changed in their favor.
Implement the FairTax and the power of the politicians goes back to where it should be.
I'd also favor a simpler flatter tax system THAT CAN'T BE TWEAKED once implemented.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The main point of my post was corporate control is not a liberal or a conservative problem, its an institutional problem.
It's not Walmart's fault that people shop there and buy so much Chinese stuff. It's not Toyota's fault that Americans would rather pay Toyota and get a nicer car than have a better standard of living for American auto workers. It's not just that a banker on wall street is greedy. It is that -every- American is greedy, and therefor, we got the institutions we asked for.
This is my sig.
... heh? Did Y2K reset your counter??????
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Hate to break the news to you, child, but Shrub isn't that innovative.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
As the late Terence McKenna once said:
:D
"But we are led by the least among us - the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons"
Culture is our Operating system and Culture is NOT your friend.
http://erocx1.blogspot.com/2007/12/terence-mckenna-culture-is-not-your.html
And why is the small quote at the bottom of the page saying the following right now?
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. -- Jean Giraudoux"
I actually disagree here. I think Europeans have taken the high ground in this. The only reason we are in Iraq is oil. The President, intentionally, is a seat to make peace and forge trade agreements... not to make war. The only role the President plays in war is to lead the armies when Congress votes it necessary to go to war. Other than that, the President's job is to kiss as much ass as possible.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
When I visit Lessig08 all I see is a bunch of "download plugin" boxes. How lame is that?
Yeah, instead they are taking care of Afghanistan (remember it?) now that America has committed almost all their forces to Iraq. Damn Europeans (and Canadians!)
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"Europeans are not American allies, or they would be fighting with Americans in Iraq."
Wars costs a LOT of money. Maybe the cost/benefit ratio was just not there for them?
Who? Never heard of him, but good luck.
Anyone know what state he's planning to run in? (The article submitter was a little thin in this area.)
This gets modded Insightful?
Well, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq A lot of European countries have troops in Afghanistan.
Sorry for not fighting all your ill-concieved wars.
Read, refresh, repeat.
Do you mean the EVIL tm BUSH Administration started "8 years of corporate dominance in government."??
No better example of Slashdot bias exists than this.
I think it is fallacious to say money is the problem in the congress. It's not money, its the sheer greed of all involved. Congress has too much power and therefor people want it too much. If you take away the money for elected officials, there will be other, more secret levers that will be unaccountably manipulated. Decisions will be made in stealth, in secret, like the smoke filled back rooms of the old days.
No, it is better, really, to just have money go to whomever and without restriction. That way, we can at least see whom is owned by who, and vote accordingly. Better a billionaire writes a million dollar check to a senator than the same billionaire indirectly invests into a bevy of people to work some foul valve of power in the furnaces of Washington.
This is my sig.
They weren't think that when we were bailing them out the last few times.
So England is not part of Europe then. Or the US part of NATO for that matter.
Sorry for not fighting all your ill-concieved wars.
Sorry our ill-conceived wars are not as so well conceived as World War I and World War II.
Why take offense though? All I said was that Europe is not an American ally, and if anything, you've only bolstered the point. Let's bring US troops out of Europe, bury NATO, and just trade with each other. Europe can handle European security.
This is my sig.
Hello! We're there with you. Not that we want to be, damned Blair.
Bein allied with someone doesn't mean "invaeds the same places despite advice", it means mutual defence and giving consideration to any other military actions.
Frankly I've more respect for those that didn't go than those that did.
You can not "limit influence of money" without trampling the First Amendment-provided right to free speech. McCain-Feingold did just this, but it does not make it right (it is the primary grudge against McCain, in fact)...
Funny, how the same people, who complain about First Amendment violations almost all the time — right to sell porn, right to distribute copyrighted (by someone else) material, right to create/publish law-breaking software are all deemed protected by the same Amendment by these people — not only fail to see this trampling, but actually demand more of it... Or, rather, it would've been funny, if it weren't sad.
I thought more of Lessig...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Europeans are not American allies, or they would be fighting with Americans in Iraq.
Thanks a lot buddy.
Signed
The UK.
I think you're confusing the concept of "allies" with the concept of "vassal states". Allies aren't there to help you start wars of aggression, they're to help defend you if you're aggressed against.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I actually disagree here. I think Europeans have taken the high ground in this... war is about oil snip
That's fine and dandy, and I think you were unfairly modded troll, by the way. All I'm saying is, if Europeans aren't fighting for us, why should we fight for them? Why does it matter to the USA if Poland or Germany are independent from Russia any more than Iraq is liberated from Saddam? There's no difference. I'm saying, let Europeans deal with their own security, the USA can trade with them, but lets end NATO now and move on with life.
Nothing to get mad about.
This is my sig.
2. If the dumbest thing you can think of is to appease the largest economic power outside of North America, then you clearly haven't watched American politics for the last 50 years.
3. Europeans ARE fighting with Americans in Iraq. United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Latvia, Albania, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Estonia (in decreasing number of troops) all have troops in Iraq. Not all of these are EU members, but some are, and all are part of Europe. Europe is not France and Germany, no matter what France and Germany may say about that. That said, Germany is a staunch US ally, host to US bases that are key in moving troops and equipment around the world, and a key member of NATO that helped us during the cold war. Discount such an ally at your own peril....
4. All of the above nations are quite concerned that they've done quite the opposite of what they intended (bring instability to the region rather than stability).
Wheeler-dealer types are precisely why we are where we are now.
One compromise after another, until eventually we're in this mess. What we *need* are people who actually have some ideals and well thought out principles and are willing to stick to them or go down in flames trying. Then we might actually see some change, rather than continued appeasement of the entrenched interests.
You know why we were able to bail them out? Because we didn't have our military spread to the four corners of the Earth trying to police the world. We were able to mobilize a fairly nimble economy into producing TONS of goods and support. All that is vanishing increasingly with more and more Socialist policies and our stretched budget.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Look where your "wheeling-dealing sort" president has got you...
Uh, when was that, WWII? A time when you had to fight or lose your country vs an "optional war" we have today.
I watched Lessig's video, and my concern was that selfish, clever people will find a way to game pretty much any democratic system. So I'm afraid that Lessig's goals are unattainable.
For example, if campaigns are all publicly funded, then someone will find a clever way to make lots and lots of other campaign speech be volunteer, which is protected by the First Amendment. If there are limits on the sources of money, someone will find a way to sneak in money through cracks in the definitions.
While I applaud Lessig's goals, I'm just not sure they're attainable in a world where many actors lack scruples and seek something other than the common good.
However, the only way to limit the influence of money (without gross violations of the First Amendment, etc) is to remove the reason people/corporations/interest groups pour money into the system in the first place. We have allowed the government to micromanage an increasing amount of our lives and activities, and this provides a strong incentive to try to influence the political process so that you don't get screwed (or so that the other guy gets screwed instead). If the government was actually kept limited to its constitutionally-granted powers and otherwise got out of our lives, you would see a lot of the money in politics dry up.
As to what the difference to the USA is, in case you have forgotten you were involved in a cold war with the USSR. The USA and Europe provided a counterbalancing force to the USSR and China. How long do you think the USA would have lasted if the USSR, Europe and China had been allies? US involvement in Europe, as in South-East Asia in the last century was all about national security.
[1] Yes, unlikely, I know.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant. I understand the notion, but you have to look at it this way. We are considered the evil war monger superpower now. That's not a good thing. If we were to take a step back, let the world work it's magic and help them instead of inhibiting them, we might actually make it off this planet and on to better things. The whole idea behind living a cooperative existence is to NOT go to war unless absolutely necessary. This is why it should take a paramount shift in the popular vote of Congress to go to war. This allows time for minor skirmishes all over the globe to play out... good or bad. If it gets bad. We are there to help. Like your neighbor stepping in and calling the police when your house is broken into. (Or are you the same type of person that assumes that your house value will not depreciate because your neighbor was broken into?)
There was a reason that everyone wanted to live in America in the past. It was a goal (of sorts) for many people to aspire to. Today? We are "stupid ignorant Americans with our tanks and bombs." The reason people want to live here now? The Feds will pay for your health care, education and Social Security. I'm sorry, but that's not the America I feel my ancestors bled for.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
People like to talk a lot about changing politics, changing congress. But how? Things like McCain-Feingold are at best weak protections. If someone wants to get around them, there is always a way. From 'issue ads' paid for by PACs/Lobbyists to other even harder to track things.
For example, there is a 'donation cap' of $2300 per person for individual contributions to a campaign or party, I believe. I could think of ways to get around such a donation cap. Most people don't have $2300 to give to political campaigns or parties. So, if someone 'arranges' for the people without the money to get the money to give to the favored candidate, it could be used to funnel a lot of money from one person/corporation to the candidate. I mean, there's nothing stopping me from giving $2300 buck to the campaign, then giving you, my close friend, who just so happens to support the same candidate, a gift of $2300, or a job with a 'signing bonus' of $2300.
Also, besides human ingenuity at getting around any type of rule/law, there is the simple, fundamental fact that corporations are made up of people. Boards of directors, executives, employees. Those people have free speach rights, and they have money. You will never, ever, ever be able to eliminate the influence of people with money and power from politics. It cannot be done. The influence of the rich and powerful on politics goes back far beyond the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. The definition of 'powerful' is that you have influence that you can wield.
The best you can hope to do is either convince the people with money and power that it is in their so-called 'enlightened self-interest' to use their influence and powern in such a way that benefits everyone, and not just themeselves and their allies, or else try to accumulate more power, influence, and money than they do.
Might may not make Right, but Right without power is meaningless and useless. Don't get me wrong, this post is not a defense of the way government is currently being run. I'm disgusted by the way Republican majority governments under Reagan and Bush have expanded the Federal Governments spending outrageously, expand earmarks outrageously, and are generally running the country bankrupt. I'm disappointed with the 'leadership' of a government which has gotten us into an occupation which wasn't necessary, under false pretenses, ticking off the rest of the world, and dropping the ball in Afghanistan, a country we absolutly needed to invade and remove the current government from power because it was clearly aiding, abetting, and providing safe harbor for the enemies of the United States who had actively commited crimes against us. By the way the government is systematically attacking our constitutional freedoms and privacy, justifying torture on a scale and with a lack of transparency or accountability that is horrifying to me as a us Citizen. By the way they have been continuousy expanding patents and copyrights, in the name of trying to protect the economy, but which is most likely having the opposite effect.
But, it's just a statement of plain truth: If you want to change government, you must influence the people around you, and it certainly helps to become famous, or run a large company. So go out and start your own company, or your own political group or blog or news organization and start building your power and accumulating wealth. Find friends who can give you $2300 (if you don't have it yourself) to donate to campaigns and causes you believe in, and donate it.
Define "appeasing". Is it "appeasing" to treat other nations with the respect we would expect to be treated with?
The USA buys more from Europe than the other way around. If that's not respect, then I do not know what is.
If the dumbest thing you can think of is to appease the largest economic power outside of North America, then you clearly haven't watched American politics for the last 50 years.
Again, if Europe is so powerful, why does the USA need to have bases in Germany? Who is out there that can threaten Europe militarily, and more importantly, why should Americans care? America isn't a white country any more, its a mixed country, so, even the cultural similarity argument pales.
Europeans ARE fighting with Americans in Iraq.
America has roughly 150,000 men in Iraq, the UK has what, 3,000? Maybe we should have 3,000 soldiers to defend Europe and call it a day?
That said, Germany is a staunch US ally, host to US bases that are key in moving troops and equipment around the world, and a key member of NATO that helped us during the cold war. Discount such an ally at your own peril....
My question is, why is the USA so bent on moving troops all over the world. I don't want this job for America any more. America was better off as a trading superpower that it was before it became a military superpower.
This is my sig.
This gets modded Insightful?
It gives quite an insight into US mainstream thinking.
I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant. I understand the notion, but you have to look at it this way. We are considered the evil war monger superpower now.
I don't disagree with any of that. That is why I am saying that the USA should not be military allies with anyone. We should bring all of our troops home from everywhere, cut down the size of our army, and focus on trade. We can sit fat and happy behind a mountain of nukes and a missile defense system for our own national security, plus with a sufficient navy to guard our waters and an air force for our air. But we don't need to be operating in 100 countries across the globe. Iraq is the least of our military perception problems.
This is my sig.
The influence of money on government is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the influence of government on money. If you want a corruption-free government, then you have to stop trying to regulate every business. I mean, for GOD'S SAKE, the ANGLE of the cut on green beans is REGULATED BY LEGISLATION.
The government has exactly one job: to monopolize violence to ensure that people can make arrangements free of violence. Everything else, people can arrange for themselves through voluntary peaceful means.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
In high school, back in the 90's, as I watched politics, I made a fundamental observation about politics. You have third party candidates and independent politicians try to make a run for the Presidency every couple of election cycles, and they never get anywhere. Why? Because they *have no base of support*. Even if the third party/independent candidate did manage to win the presidency, it would be, to a certain extent, meaningless, because the other parties would still control Congress, and a President can't do much without congress (which is as it ought to be; the Constitution sets out a government where the parliament is the primary branch, and the executive branch is fundamentally supposed to be the servant of Congress, carrying out the will of the People).
You won't overcome the republicans or democrats in one big presidential election. Never gonna happen. If you want to make any progress, you will have to build from the bottom up. Start getting candidates into local and state positions, and build on a track record of good governance at the local and state level to leverage your party into the House and the Senate. Once you have enough support in the House and Senate (at least 1/3rd of each), and are nationally known as a party people like and trust, then you are in an excellent position to run a Presidential candidate as a true, meaningful alternative to the two establisment parties.
Otherwise, your just a flash in the pan.
Larry Lessig is better known as Lawrence Lessig, the guy behind Creative Commons. IIRC, he's running for the seat vacated by the late Tom Lantos, who passed away last week.
I agree that limiting money is useless. The current limits + disclosure + federal funding regime isn't working - witness all the presidential candidates refusing federal funds because they (and their opponents) can raise more money outside the public funding system.
The only way to reduce the influence of money in politics is to make it unneeded - to find ways of mobilizing voters without bales of cash for tv/radio/print ads.
Maybe by 2012 it will be possible for a candidate to run with a message like this:
Our movement communicates and organizes via the Internet - the most flexible and least expensive means of information sharing ever invented. The other guys use outdated, expensive media, which means they need lots of campaign money, which means they are indebted to the big contributors that fund them.
Every time you see a slick TV ad, or a full-page newspaper or magazine ad, regardless of the content, THINK - who funded that? Who owns the candidate?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Reasons:
- It would provide a level of transparency into the voting patterns, hence the beliefs or opinions, of Congresspersons.
- It would lead to the curtailment of "pork", since everyone would be able to see which Senator(s) voted for another's "special project".
- It would require elected officials to read, or at least know about, any item on which they vote, which would lead to
...
- Reduction in the number of laws passed, since (I would think) more study time would be required prior to a hand-wavey "yea" or "nay". Would any Congressperson actually vote on an item about which he or she knew absolutely nothing? Possibly, but that could come back to haunt them.
- (IMHO)It would have a powerful "focusing" effect on the habits of Congress
.... no longer able to slip personal or corporate privileges into bills as "payoff" for big campaign contributors, and have it accepted by their compatriots, Congresspersons would be stuck paying more attention to necessary legislation.
Drawbacks:- Campaigns would become more difficult. Since a big contribution would no longer be a guarantee of a "reach-around" legislative favor, the big corporate money would probably diminish. There are no doubt wealthy individual contributors with a sense of responsibility, but not enough. Campaigns would either have to be funded directly by the public from, for example, a shared fund, or could only be undertaken by the very wealthy. That might generally be considered a bad idea, since they are already too far separated -- physically, economically, educationally, and culturally -- from the electorate majority.
Having set it down, I can see more thought is required....The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
For a truly honest debate about the power of government - from war to size to control - something like http://www.stopwithholding.com/ is the best solution. It promotes transparency and discussion.
That's funny, I thought we were helping out in Iraq? Or were all our soldiers that have died out there just on holiday?
Yours slightly confused and pissed off,
Scottish Slashdotter
which is totally what she said
Oh, how I wish this were true. I think that we'd be a lot less likely to engage in wars of adventure like the current one if the President were legally required to lead the troops in battle. Any leader who isn't willing to put his own life on the line as much as he is willing to risk the lives of others is a coward and a hypocrite.
He's a socialist.
If Mexico or Canada invaded[1] the USA,
It can't happen. If Mexico or Canada invade, we nuke them. End of story.
As to what the difference to the USA is, in case you have forgotten you were involved in a cold war with the USSR.
See I was a staunch cold warrior in my youth and now I just see as replacing a Russian continental super power as a rival with a European one that actually has money. So, the thing for the USA to do is classic British continental foreign policy - stay neutral to all world affairs, and occasionally meddle in things enough to pit other powers against each other. I mean, let's not have a USA unequivocally anti-Russia with its NATO membership, and instead let the USA court Russia and the EU both and treat both as mutually important blocs. If people want freedom, they can come to the USA.
This is my sig.
Huh? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of Govt., meaning his job is to Execute the laws of the country and implement those things necessary to keep the nation going. He's the CEO, and Congress is the Board. There's a lot more to his job than being Commander-in-Chief and kissing ass.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
If Mexico or Canada invaded[1] the USA, would you expect support from your European allies?
I would. You don't understand how it works. The only thing that's really wrong with america (for lefties) is it's power, and it's size, and the mere fact that it functions. Not how it's using that power, we're more than happy to buy oil from Iraq, we have no moral standing ourselves (we only shout loudly, but giving up a single percent of GDP for morality is not something any leftie would go for in Europe). In short anything that might kill America, the bastion of capitalism, is considered a good thing for European lefties*. (keep in mind that by American standards, the most "right" parties are really lefties in comparison, certainly to republicans, but mostly also to democrats).
* even though, and I agree on this, it would be a terrible thing indeed
Hate for america is not based on hate for it's citizens, but on american symbols. The capitalism. The military-industrial complex. The space program. The huge cities. The freedom. It is NOT based on any foreign policy that the US implements. Yes Iraq didn't help, but to say it's the cause of anti-americanism anywhere (except perhaps amongst the baathists of iraq) is not just delusional but outright danguerous deception.
Europe is anti-america because it's the devil. It shows that, while lefty politics are failing all over the globe, policies to the extreme right, and extreme liberty amongst citizens largely holding the Christian faith is a working, stable state structure.
Therefore the mere EXISTENCE of America is the enemy (of European, extreme-and-"moderate" lefty parties, and as I said, the Vlaams Belang of belgium is located to the LEFT of the democrats). Not really anything America does.
You might want to follow that ancient advise "don't listen to what a person says, look at what he does, and you will know his thoughts".
Isn't that a question that should be answered by you and your country men? It is not only you that do not want this `job': most of the rest of the world emphatically does not want it either. This last war of `liberation' was very loudly opposed by essentially everyone, remember?
The problem is the voters. As long as people let their decisions be swayed by what they see in the mass media (a situation which may never change), it's going to be impossible to keep money out of politics, because the money that buys tropical vacations is a drop in the bucket compared to the money that buys mass media exposure.
If the First Amendment wasn't an obstacle, what would you want to do? Limit political contributions, and all you do is restrict the power of middle class individuals' money (which must be pooled to buy a single commercial) in favor of the rich (who can afford to advertise without going through campaign middlemen. We've seen some of that in these primaries, where the $2,300 cap on ordinary Americans' contributions obviously doesn't apply to wealthy candidates who can "loan" millions of dollars to their own campaigns. Limit political advertisements, and all you'll do is force some of those advertisements to call themselves "fair and balanced news", concentrating power still further into the hands of media owners. Limit news that doesn't pass "Fairness" laws, and that just moves the power into the hands of the incumbent politicians and judges who get to write and arbitrate such laws.
The best we can do is encourage the dissemination of less corrupted political information, to inoculate people against the misinformation that money can buy. By the time a voter is watching the commercials that have been pushed at him rather than trying to pull information on issues and candidates for himself, it's practically too late.
The crux of the matter is the homebuilders wanted Congress to pass a new tax law for them, and only them, which would allow them to offset their past profits with future losses. Congress didn't do this when they implemented their debt-increasing package (er, stimulus package) and so the PAC has stomped off like a mad three year old, taking its money with it.
What is Lessig's opinion of such legalized bribery and how does he intend to compensate for it?
Links to the NAHB PAC announcement may be found here and from The Washington Post.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
your cynicism has distorted your perception of reality. reality is not as you describe it. you are full of more bs than what you describe. you need a vacation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Are you serious? We have a Presidential Candidate who holds almost all Slashdot's views to a T, and you don't give him the time of day except to link to a Democrat's blog that misinterprets one of his statements. If you want corporate America out of power, you should've supported him more. He's the epitome of not being funded by corporations. Geez, as one person said, "Only on Slashdot..."
Again, if Europe is so powerful, why does the USA need to have bases in Germany?
Well, in that particular case it's a great staging area for middle east operations, and a nice halfway point to evacuate casualties to. I think our military presence in Germany have probably saved a lot of American lives.
The real question is why we need so many ground troops there. And I don't think there's a good answer for that.
E pluribus unum
Keep it to only 3 months before election, PERIOD. Isseus ads can't be halted, but no candidate ads before that period.
Beside, who said 'spending money' = 'speech'? the SCOTUS.
So, refill the SCOTUS with new members and that decision can be overturned. No constitution amendment necessary.
I think you're the twentieth person to point out the stupidity of the "8 years" statement, and so far I haven't seen a single comment defending it.
Slashdot != submitters;
Slashdot != article summaries;
Slashdot == user comments;
If there were really a bias, there would have been an outpouring of anti-Bush sentiments instead of people pointing out when DMCA was passed, the history of copyright extensions, and the joke about the submitter's counter being reset by Y2K.
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
Isn't that a question that should be answered by you and your country men? It is not only you that do not want this `job': most of the rest of the world emphatically does not want it either. This last war of `liberation' was very loudly opposed by essentially everyone, remember?
PRECISELY MY POINT! Most Americans do NOT want an Empire around the world. Conservatives don't want it. Liberals don't want it. I don't know anyone that in their right mind as an American who wants US bases everywhere. So.... why does the USA keep doing this?
Let's engage the world on the high ground, promoting our superior American values by living them first at home, keeping our borders open to those who are able and share them, but let's let the rest of the world handle its own security needs and stop being a bully.
I mean, if there was ONE candidate that actually said, "we're going to dismantle the American empire and bring our troops home from -everywhere-", he'd win in a landslide.
This is my sig.
Speech is something that everyone has equally. Anyone can take a box to a street corner, stand on it, and start talking. Anyone can take a web browser to blogger.com, create a blog, and start writing (assuming they have internet access, which the vast majority of people at least have access to).
Money is not something that everyone has equally. When money becomes protected as speech, then suddenly a very few people--and, worse, non-people--have a lot more speech than the rest of us. Their words can get out in ways that ours cannot. Microsoft (just as a ridiculously rich example) could buy ads on television across the country with content very carefully crafted to never tell an outright lie, but make people believe that (just, again, as an example) Barack Obama will order the murdering of thousands of kittens if he's elected as president.
I know that the Supreme Court has found that spending money is protected under the first amendment as "expression," but can't see how that is justifiable, given both what the first amendment was designed to protect in the first place, and how that freedom is being used--and abused--by very rich corporations and others whose interests are significantly against those of the American public at large.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
The real problem isn't that all this corrupting money is chasing political power, the real problem is that there's all that political power available in the first place for it to chase. If the federal government were truly limited, then there'd be a lot less reason to try to buy it.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
And once the radioactive cloud drifts over your midwest and destroyes the agriculture there, you'll feel really stupid for doing so.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The reason people want to live here now? The Feds will pay for your health care, education and Social Security.
That's only an incentive for people from countries with no social safety nets of their own AND who intend to indefinitely be dirt poor once they get here.
Plenty of people come here for other reasons.
Europe is anti-america because it's the devil. It shows that, while lefty politics are failing all over the globe, policies to the extreme right, and extreme liberty amongst citizens largely holding the Christian faith is a working, stable state structure.
I think Europe is anti-American solely because of what they perceive to be American militarism. I think Europe is so scarred from the World Wars that anything that smacks of a risk of a war terrifies them. And, I think that is understandable. Everyone in Europe, especially Germany, has a family member that was killed on the Eastern Front. Everyone in Europe has families tales of occupation, the bombings, the postwar starvations, the homelessness. They have had enough war to last for generations and they see us as fools for seemingly seeking it out.
This is my sig.
The USA buys more from Europe than the other way around. If that's not respect, then I do not know what is. That's supply and demand. Respect involves listening to your allies when they tell you with the authority of thousands of years of experience that marching into the middle east with a "we'll bring civilization to these barbarians" attitude ends in loss of life and nothing gained. That kind of respect involves getting your anger and ego in check and paying attention to someone who's been there before. But no... the mistakes of the past must be repeated. If I were a European, I'd be well past the stage that "I told you so" gave me any solace, and I'd be rapidly re-assessing my warmth toward US. If the dumbest thing you can think of is to appease the largest economic power outside of North America, then you clearly haven't watched American politics for the last 50 years.
Again, if Europe is so powerful, why does the USA need to have bases in Germany? You're joking, right? 1) Their military has limits placed on them by us after WWII, though they have a "defense force" which is roughly a standard military, if small 2) We depend on our bases in Germany far more than they do. For them, the bases are an economic boon. For us, they are key to our global reach.
Side point: you quoted me saying that appeasing Europe isn't, by far, the dumbest thing the US can (and does) do. You responded with what seems to be a non sequitur about the strength of Europe. You do understand that you didn't actually respond to my point, right? Do you think that "appeasing Europe" (whatever that means) is a worse idea than Viet Nam or relaxing banking regulation? Seriously? Europeans ARE fighting with Americans in Iraq.
America has roughly 150,000 men in Iraq, the UK has what, 3,000? Maybe we should have 3,000 soldiers to defend Europe and call it a day? You can do that, but again, it's strategic suicide for our foreign interests. We're in danger of losing our support in Pakistan and a regime change in Saudi Arabia would remove us from that country, which is likely. And you're suggesting that we just decide to eliminate our European beachhead?! Are you insane?! That said, Germany is a staunch US ally, host to US bases that are key in moving troops and equipment around the world, and a key member of NATO that helped us during the cold war. Discount such an ally at your own peril....
My question is, why is the USA so bent on moving troops all over the world. I don't want this job for America any more. America was better off as a trading superpower that it was before it became a military superpower. Well, that's fair enough. I don't argue with you at all, here (I might, but it's off-topic). *IF*, however, we're to extend our influence to other nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq then we must be able to stage and supply that operation. That means we need Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey (FWIW) and Germany quite a lot. If you're saying that we should just pull out of the Middle East, then that's a separate debate, but saying that Europe isn't supporting us in Iraq because of the number of bodies they've placed there is naive at best.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I've never heard of such a country as Us. Do you mean the Mexican United States? Or are you referring to the former United States of Venezuala? You know, Brazil was a "United States" before 1968. 'Cause other folks use the word "United States", but only one country uses the word "America" in its official name (Dutch townships excepted), so doesn't it make more sense to use... you know... the correct term? The term "American" is not ambiguous, and it's not silly like "USian."
What's a mountain of nukes and a missile defense system (which barely works) going to do for us, when we're gun shy to pull the trigger when a plane full of citizens flies into a tower? (I know, this is almost invoking a type of Godwin on my argument)
No matter how you look at it, the USA has become a major player in global defense. And, particularly now, if we pull troops home, the only place we will be attacked is at home (which is exactly what happened, see above, and note other attempts in the 90's to attack structures in the USA). I prefer to keep the enemies fighting on their own turf, blowing up their stuff, and not on ours.
Hate for america is not based on hate for it's citizens, but on american symbols. The capitalism. The military-industrial complex. The space program. The huge cities. The freedom. It is NOT based on any foreign policy that the US implements. Yes Iraq didn't help, but to say it's the cause of anti-americanism anywhere (except perhaps amongst the baathists of iraq) is not just delusional but outright danguerous deception.
Sorry, but you really think they hate our "freedom" and not our meddling (i.e., causing wars and installing dictators when it suited the US)? Sorry, I don't think that's it. Its our foreign policy, which exploits other nations much like the corporations exploited people here in the 1900s before regulations stopped it.
I am sorry but the support for the war was incredibly high in the US both before and after it happened---it has waned since, of course, but at a glacial pace which is itself a matter of wonder given the circumstances. Years after the war was launched and quite some time after the claims that `supported' it were (more) obviously proved unbased on anything real, the support for the leaders that drove the US into sucha situation was remarkably high, and the country reelected the team that came up with the whole idea.
I do not know what most USians want, and maybe they really do not want an Empire, but they should very carefully consider what it is they want and what consequences carrying out their wishes bring: whatever they wanted that resulted in such massive support for the `liberation' of Iraq, even if it was not the desire for an Empire, did very much have consequences for which they have to take responsability.
Well, that's fair enough. I don't argue with you at all, here (I might, but it's off-topic). *IF*, however, we're to extend our influence to other nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq then we must be able to stage and supply that operation. That means we need Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey (FWIW) and Germany quite a lot. If you're saying that we should just pull out of the Middle East, then that's a separate debate, but saying that Europe isn't supporting us in Iraq because of the number of bodies they've placed there is naive at best
Ok, my point of view is that a large part of the reason for the American Empire is that it also benefits European interests as well.
Historically, the USA produces roughly 1/4-1/2 domestically the oil and ALl of the food that it needs, and so, its imaginable, if horrific, to think of a world where the USA could forgo imported oil at all. However, Europe lacks both food and energy, although it contributes a talented people. So, when the USA invades Iraq, it isn't just to take the oil for the USA, it is to get that oil onto world markets so that everyone in the NATO can buy it. In that sense, the European contribution is in fact quite small.
However, in the long haul : Americans are terrible emperors, because we're too damned bipolar to run an empire in any enlightened way.
But the world has changed. Newer energy technologies are on the horizon such that if the USA and Europe collaborated on them through trade, there would be no need to project power in the middle east. There is plenty of coal in the USA (and in Germany for that matter), that can be cleanly converted to liquids for those allies that need it, and electric cars and alternative energy systems are getting better all the time.
This is my sig.
So then maybe Europe should remove US troops by force.
|If Mexico or Canada invaded[1] the USA, would you expect support from your European allies?
Interesting idea.
| And how would you feel about them deciding that you need liberating from your current president and invading?
Sounds great. When can you guys get started?
Funny, "conservatives" like most Republicans these days have a terrible idea of capitalism when they're spending left and right and consider tax cuts a good idea. I also admire their appreciation for "limited" government when they want to expand government power in the domestic sphere. A lot of hate for America is unfounded, but some of it is deserved. Americans are often rude or ill-mannered abroad, and often perceived as arrogant because they don't understand how to respect the differences of a foreign country. There is a difference between politely disagreeing and loudly enumerating the faults of France or whichever country is the popular one to make one of these days. Europe is anti-america because it's the devil. It shows that, while lefty politics are failing all over the globe, policies to the extreme right, and extreme liberty amongst citizens largely holding the Christian faith is a working, stable state structure. I can't even begin to address the rhetorical devices you so intelligently employ. "It's the devil?" A lot of the people who disagree with you and your ideological compatriots do so because you do not state your points intelligently or factually, not because of the actual content of those beliefs (although those are sadly misguided as well). "Policies to the extreme right" happen to be fascism, a growing (yeah, for the last 30 years, I'd say) concern among those who don't want expansive government power, which is exactly what extreme rightism or leftism entails. I'd make the argument that religion has not much to do with the economic system of a country, but it's usually more detrimental than beneficial, especially when certain "faith-based" interest groups are endowed with my tax money. Unconstitutional to say the least; America is not a Christian nation, it is a federal republic. It's laws are derived from philosophy, not religion. I would encourage you to look up your history, on both the founders of America and the deleterious effects of religion on both economy and government when it is given free reign. Finally, the last thing we need to worry about is Europe. It is a comparatively weak "enemy" (I say this without much gusto) compared to, oh I don't know, religious fundamentalism.
"Worse, why should a corporation be able to be a copyright holder at all, and in that case, maintain their rights for even longer than an individual who has descendents to support?"
The phrase is "work for hire". Don't like it? Then either negotiate a contract that allows copyright to revert back to you (some authors have done this) or simply don't do "work for hire", or sign a contract that gives your work away (even if you get money in return). Contract law is always going to have the greater weight than copyright. Use it.
The Allegedly Fair Sales Tax And Double-Whammy On Retired People would have no impact on the power of politicians and very little on lobbyists for business. It doesn't eliminate business taxes; it just pretends to replace the income tax (though in practice it would be introduced as a transitional thing and the income side would never get transitioned out.) Lobbyists who currently want the personal income taxes tweaked in ways that affect their customers' spending would have to switch to lobbying to get things exempted from the National Sales Tax instead - and if you don't think so, imagine how the Realtors would react once they understand the implications of a 30% tax on sales of houses.
In theory, if you have an income tax, taxes on businesses are a bad idea economically; better to let the businesses make all the money they want, pay their stockholders and/or employees more, and get the money as income tax from the stockholders and employees. That way you're not artificially interfering with the business decisions, forcing them to operate less efficiently to reduce their taxes, and you still get the money. You lose a little on dividends paid to foreign stockholders, but because they've invested their money in businesses in your country, you're getting more of your people working.
But that wouldn't let you write lots of tax laws to mess around with businesses, forcing them to lobby you and give you campaign funds.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The thing that disappoints me the most is the apathy of voters toward campaign contributions. It should be political death to fund a campaign with dubious sources. There shouldn't have to be laws like McCain-Feingold.
People should think it's bad for a candidate to owe favors and not vote for him. The media should follow this stuff carefully instead of endlessly speculating on who will win.
It's sad.
-Dave
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
And possibly convert the lower house into a parliament-style chamber.
It's great that he has a mission, but he does not determine the agenda of Congress single-handedly. He will be presented with myriad bills and be asked to vote one way or the other. Before anyone gets too excited, we need to learn more of the politics of Mr. Lessig. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Ron Paul contingent will not like where Mr. Lessig stands on the other issues, not one bit, but I'm ready for Mr. Lessig to surprise me by enumerating his position on the major political issues that face our nation.
The only reason we are in Iraq is oil.
Actually, the reason we are in Iraq is that for over a decade, Saddam Hussein flaunted and refused to comply with the terms of an armistice he himself had signed.
And then he added to that by doing far too good a job blustering and trying to convince people that he had an active WMD program - so good a job that the Russians, French, Germans, Spanish, Chinese, and even the Swiss thought he did still have it going. Why was he doing it? Because it was the only thing keeping Iran off his ass. Problem? He fooled everyone else too, and his history scared the crap out of people that he'd lob a nuke towards someone (Turkey, Israel, Kuwait, Iran) that he considered an "enemy" and touch off even more crap.
We're in Iraq today because the Middle East is ruled by a bunch of fucktards who use a 7th-century religion to justify barbarity and evil, towards each other just as much as towards the "dar al-harb" they profess to hate.
no, we'll just make up for the GDP loss by pushing for economic sanctions of some sort on those countries for their cross-border pollution.
If the main or only reason we went to war with Iraq is for the oil then how come it still costs so much? why have we not put a pipe directly into their oil and pump it to the us for cheaper gas??? this has been the longest running lie about why we went to war with Iraq. Do I agree with the reasons the president gave us as the reason to goto war? no. has it helped curtail some of the violence that would be happening on non Iraq soil yes. it has cut down on the focus of attacking foreign countries including the us / Britain / etc... and has put the focus of the attacks on Iraq soil.... while this may not be the best solution i do find it has made an impact.
love the taste, hate the texture
Again, good points, but they don't bear on the fundamental point I was responding to: that there's something wrong with treating Europe as an ally, a point which is often coupled with the term "appeasement" as if to indicate that having allies makes one weak (typically the sort of thinking that declining powers engage in). Treating Europe as an ally and with respect doesn't weaken the US, and in fact, has worked to our benefit for the past 50 years.
I actually didn't go into secular or scientific groups since I was focused on the religious aspects of the argument, but I completely agree. I don't think the government should fund them either. I really don't like that my post suggests otherwise, but thanks for clearing that up.
Want to find out the real deal about congress and the political process? Check out: http://www.goldenagora.com/
Who said we went to war with Iraq for CHEAP oil? Why spend trillions of dollars to make only a fraction of that back from oil sales? The more oil you control, the more you control the price, and they've already learned that Americans will pay practically any price per gallon and will not cut consumption. As for your second point, please explain your level of expertise that lets you know the impact fighting in Iraq has made to lessen violence on non-Iraqi soil. Before we were in Iraq, al-Qaeda wasn't either. Afghanistan has been out of the news for years now, but if you can find articles it's not super sunny news. And now, the drums are beating to enter Iran. Please work this into your equation and let me know how this will make me, my family, my country, or the rest of the world safer in any way.
I watched the Lessig video and he made 3 points, 2 of which I agree with.
(1) Campaign Contributions should only come from individuals. Not from Corps or PACs. (Totally agree)
(2) Earmarks should be eliminated. (Awesome, totally with you.)
(3) Political Campaigns should be publicly funded by the government. (Ok, you lost me on this one.)
You will never eliminate money from political campaigns. If campaign funding only comes from the government, that only limits what the candidates can spend. It doesn't limit how much money their friends, groups of friends, or groups of supporters can spend. Campaign's would just shift to organizing 3rd party groups to run ads, etc... Unless of course you want to limit the ability of 3rd parties to run ads, which is an attack on free speech in my opinion.
The problem is not the money, its the lack of openness. People can pour huge sums of money into PACs, 507s, you name it. This makes it very difficult to figure out where the money is coming from and who is pulling the strings. Elections need to be open, like software. The rules should be simple.
(1) Only individuals can make contributions.
(2) All contributions must be in the public record and freely available.
(3) No limit on contributions or very high limits (e.g., $1 Million per person)
At least this way if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Rupert Murdoch is funding a candidate, you know that up front. Its up to you to decide if that is groovy or bovine feces.
Actually, this is the real reason Europe hates us. Especially the French.
When you talk about free speech on the Internet, people tell you "oh, no, the First Amendment isn't about protecting pornography and bad art, it's about protecting political speech", but when you talk about the First Amendment protecting political speech, they say "oh, no, elections are *far* too important to let just anybody spend their own money expressing political opinions, especially on Television where people might see it!" Bullshit. The First Amendment means that if you've got something you want to say, you should be able to use any resources you've got trying to say it.
You're asserting that limiting my spending doesn't limit my ability to speak freely, ignoring that it limits my ability to publish freely. If I can't contribute to spending money on political advertising that reflects what I want and the candidates I like, then only the Official Sources of opinions are allowed to be on television, and we're stuck with Fixed Noise, the Capitalist Broadcasting System, and Nationalized Public Radio. (And no, I didn't contribute to Ron Paul this election, though I did back in 1988.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So, why would they feel the need to attack? Because they hate us for our freedoms? In that case, it's a good thing the current US government is taking that away a bit at a time. Combine the removal of freedoms with the removal of US troops from the Middle East, and they don't seem to have any reason to come and fight us on our turf, do they?
*sigh*
My less facetious point is, if all American soldiers came home (or, to be fair, had the option to settle as immigrants under proper visas in the countries they have so far lived their lives and raised their families in, in some cases), why would anyone want to attack? The US is far away. It would be better defended. And, it wouldn't be mucking about as the aggressors in foreign wars...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Duverger's Law
A successful third party will (in all likelihood) kill off one of the two large parties. Now, you are the big ticket, and in order to win elections, you will need the votes of a number of voters you have previously disenfranchised, who may have mostly unshared or even contradictory views to yours. You compromise, becoming a part of the system you sought to end, or you lose elections. Your plan for reform is self-limiting.
"You can't see a difference between defending a country from a foreign aggressor and 'liberating' it from an oppressive ruler?
The only difference is the point of view you look at it from. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Lessig in congress could do wonders for slashdot-type causes. This is a key way to stop bad laws being made and for us to have an influence. Though I don't agree with everything he says, he is closer on the issues I care about than any other viable candidate. I am making a donation.
Lessig's pledge gives movement progressives sensible glue to hold the movement together. I have always felt that Norquist's pledge made one unfit for public office. Lessig's pledge is about how one will campaign and spend money. Norquist's is about how one will bankrupt the Republic.
Actually we ARE being invaded by Mexico and other south American countries. They just aren't doing it overtly in an armed manner...it is much more slow and subtle, but, the effects are already being felt. Drains on our school and health dollars, not to mention I actually saw a commercial on normal, local network TV that was in fscking spanish with English subtitles?!?!?! WTF?!?!
Am I doing to be forced to learn a new language other than my native one, to learn to live in my own country??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I got a laugh out of that, thank you!
Appeasing Europe is the dumbest thing any American President can do. Europeans are not American allies, or they would be fighting with Americans in Iraq.
--
I apologize for the shortness of digital temper, I just quit smoking. Score 0, Flamebait
"Hey bud, got a light?"
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Note to self: Don't put tjstork in charge of anything larger then a water pistol. With no water in it.
Legislation to keep money out of politics has been tried for 100 years in this country, it doesn't work, ever, at all, not even a little bit.
It may divert the stream from outright bribes into jobs for kids and scholarships for them, or into low-cost property (Obama's recent problem), etc.
Prohibitions of economic flows doesn't work, e.g. drugs, prostitution, FDA regulations (OK, these sort of work, but kill 100s of 1000s in the process),
If you want $ out of gov, you have to get the gov on a starvation diet, as the gov's spending is the reason for all of the campaign cash.
How hard is this? Does nobody pay attention to ANY history in the modern world?
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
If Mexico or Canada invaded[1] the USA
Canada has a navy! and Mexico has an army!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
> The only reason we are in Iraq is oil.
I beg to differ. IMHO, the primary reason we're in Iraq is so we can have a "sufficiently major and long-lasting" war. After all, you can't be a "wartime President" without a war, and it's really hard to make executive power grabs without using war and national security as a pretext. So we're at war in Iraq, in order to be at war, in order to "enhance" executive power.
Beyond that, Iraq was just too attractive:
Afghanistan was (incorrectly) perceived as not being major enough or long-lasting enough.
Iraq has oil, always a selling point for Texans. (I didn't say oil wasn't A reason, just not THE reason.)
Iraq has been a thorn in various peoples' sides ever since Gulf War I.
An Iraq war redresses "sins of the father" - ie GHWB not finishing the job.
An Iraq war demonstrates "America Unbound", (As the book says, unbound by agreements with enemies and allies, alike.) willing and capable to go it alone, while pretending to head a coalition.
> the President's job is to kiss as much ass as possible.
Seems to me that this President's efforts have been to reverse that statement.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Treating Europe as an ally and with respect doesn't weaken the US, and in fact, has worked to our benefit for the past 50 years.
The fundamental point is, what is to ally about? You only have a defensive alliance when there is a common threat, and there isn't one. So, the USA wanted NATO to be an offensive alliance, first in Kosovo and then in Iraq. Oh well, the Europeans don't. Its nothing to hate them for, but at the same, we can't say they are allies, because, there's no need for a defensive alliance and there's no agreement on an offensive one.
seriously, forget about attacking the USA, who, could actually attack Germany?
This is my sig.
You know, while I don't agree 100% with the parent....I do have to wonder if there is 'some' truth in there. I mean, even before the Iraq war, etc....it isn't like EU had a love fest for the US. I think they've always in some manner looked at us as the ill-mannered, un-sophisticated bastard step child. I think for the most part, the people in the US are the opposite. We are mostly fairly indifferent to EU or the other countries or are slightly interested and fascinated by them. I know it is a real head turner to hear someone speak up with an AU or UK accent...it always generates great interest for me to try to go meet them and find out where they're from...especially if they're a good looking girl.
But, from what I can tell, if an American opens his mouth in EU, he is immediately assumed to be a boorish, loud mouthed American. Ok, I'll give it that most stereo-types ARE based on some fact....but, when I hear a UK accent, I don't automatically start looking for bad teeth, or if French, I don't immediately think unwashed or smelly....I'm just interested in meeting and seeing the differences as well as the commonality.
But, like I said, I don't think this attitude is reciprocal, the US was never looked upon that favorably even before the foreign policy conflicts of late.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And once the radioactive cloud drifts over your midwest and destroyes the agriculture there, you'll feel really stupid for doing so.
I'm 55. I've lived through radioactive clouds drifting over the midwest before. I particularly remember one winter when we had a thundersnowstorm and we got about two feet of snow in St Louis, and the government told everyone to keep the kids inside as the snow was radioactive.
Good luck keeping the kids inside when there's two feet of snow.
I also remember them asking us to send in our baby teeth to test them for strontuim-90. And that they blame all cancers on cigarettes and second hand smoke (hmmmm....)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
... counter the last 8 years of corporate dominance in government.
Look, guys, history didn't start when Bush was elected. You want to look at corporate dominance, violations of civil liberties, warrantless wiretapping and spying, legal suppression of dissent, all that stuff, look into, eg, the Woodrow Wilson administration.
Oh, and you want to keep money from being used in elections? Well, here's a hint: money is speech. If you keep someone from using money to buy ads, you're effectively using prior restraint on their speech. Where are your civil liberties then?
My extended family lives in the "heartland" of America, but I've been resident in Europe for many years. From my experience, I can tell you that the average American outside the big cities doesn't have any interest in foreign cultures at all. If I go to a village in Eastern Europe, the locals take the time to ask me where I'm from, what my culture is like, what language I speak, and so forth. Go to a village in the U.S., and people will not be curious about you at all. The problem is worse than mere lack of interest, because the people in my family's small town think it's morally objectionable that I date foreigners (who all seem somewhat suspicious and untrustworthy) instead of American girls.
RECOMMENDATION: Campaign button/slogan, "Giv'em Hell, Double-LL"
... are now under the control of the CSA Corporate States Axis of evil power.
... the grass-root movement should be never vote for an incumbent or prior office holder. In a Democracy one term is always to much for the good of US. So, who do we line up after the Double-L, maybe RHS, Phill Zimmerman ....
!HAVEFUN!
"We need to counter the last 8 more years of corporate dominance and welfare in government."
Overt hostile sedition and treason by corpUSatist is now global even russia, china, iran, israel, saudi, germany, scotland, france
Survival of freedoms' light is dimming globally, soon intelligent (won't include GWB) people concentration camps will be controlled by criminally insane sexual deviants, Abu Ghraib provided proof that only lowly gate-guards will suffer any consequences, which will provide more high-pay government nepotism jobs like DoubleRedCross management positions.
The victorious corpUSatist plutocrats now rule the slovishly-slavishly proletariats. Corporate-Welfare institutionalized by law has now defeated with bait&switch spin-fishing any capitalist competition or democracy threat.
Atypical humans always fail at accepting their inevitable defeat at their height of power. Power is always the fools' fading fleeting phallic fallacy fantasy.
I do hope he wins. Until then
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
My less facetious point is, if all American soldiers came home (or, to be fair, had the option to settle as immigrants under proper visas in the countries they have so far lived their lives and raised their families in, in some cases), why would anyone want to attack? The US is far away. It would be better defended. And, it wouldn't be mucking about as the aggressors in foreign wars...
It's a long swim from New York to Saudi Arabia, I'll tell ya that much. I'm thinking, big oceans still work wonders.
This is my sig.
Our bases in Germany constitute a very large carrot that we can dangle whenever we want Germany to do something for us either on their own or as a member of the EU. That's really why we have bases with so many troops there, now.
Our entire military spending in Germany is fraction of what trade is between the two countries. Germany gets more out of BMW sales to the USA in one month or even Braun shavers than it will see out of US military bases in a year.
If we want to wave a carrot to Germany, we could change the regulation on diesel engines in the USA to make it better for their cars to be exported to the USA.
This is my sig.
You can't see a difference between defending a country from a foreign aggressor and 'liberating' it from an oppressive ruler? If Mexico or Canada invaded[1] the USA, would you expect support from your European allies? And how would you feel about them deciding that you need liberating from your current president and invading?
I'm so tired of see this crap. Citing it only proves ignorance of history. As you loaded the question, of course it would be highly resented. Let's relight this in a more realistic tone rather than the absurd picture you paint above. If the American population was murdered in large scale by its own government on a fairly regular basis, your women and children were raped on a fairly regular basis by both police and government members, and 80+% of the population **actively** wanted the government overthrown, and attempted coups were the order of the day, then absolutely the populus would welcome the "invaders", so long as their intentions were clear. Perhaps you can look back as historical events, such as the American Revolutionary War as a reference. The US would not exist if it were not for the French and Canadians.
I'd bet if one were to look, it would not be hard to find other such scenarios where "invaders" were welcomed. I'm sure several examples also exist within Roman history.
i thought Lessig more or less described himself as a free market advocate? that being the case, how will he solve the problem? not that the corporatist government we have is the fault of free markets, but i don't see him necessarily making moves to reign in all the rampant cronyism/corruption.
"To stop the terrorists."
"All that is vanishing increasingly with more and more" of our manufacturing base offshored to China and other low-wage countries. There, fixed that for you.
Just curious, what Socialist policies are you talking about? I honestly can't think of any Federal policy implemented since Reagan was elected that I would describe as socialist. Unless you want to count No Child Left Behind. As for your point about the military spread to the four corners, I agree, it's ridiculous.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Money follows the power, not the other way around.
If Congress didn't have the power to extend copyrights indefinitely, do you think Disney would hire as many lobbyists? Microsoft only started spending money on lobbyists once the government threatened them with anti-trust lawsuits. GM, Ford, Chrysler all sought to have the government bail them out with the medicare/aid Rx plan.
As long as the government has a basically infinite power to regulate, harass, tax and reward companies, those companies will continue to influence that power to help them and hurt their competitors. We need a drastic reduction in power in Washington and the money will then magically disappear since it would buy these companies nothing.
Given Lessig's knowledge of the Constitution I find it amazing that he supports passing laws restricting both the freedom of speech and of the press.
And once the radioactive cloud drifts over your midwest and destroyes the agriculture there, you'll feel really stupid for doing so.
It doesn't work that way. The US has had massive radioactive clouds drift all over the US from its own, numerous above ground tests conducted in NM and elsewhere (NV and AZ?). Large portions of the US population were irradiated, and especially so those living in Vegas. This is well documented and came to light as the result of freedom of information requests. It seems large portions of the mid west were also irradiated; which is prime farm land for the US. It's also worth noting that most of the bombs tested in that era were much dirtier than current generation of bombs (which are obviously still a far cry from "clean").
It's obvious you have strong feelings but perhaps you should base those feelings on facts. Hopefully your statements will follow suite.
What's a mountain of nukes and a missile defense system (which barely works) going to do for us, when we're gun shy to pull the trigger when a plane full of citizens flies into a tower? (I know, this is almost invoking a type of Godwin on my argument)
Well, we could still always nuke someone. Heck, we invaded Iraq and they had nothing to do with 9/11.
This is my sig.
In truth, the constitution gave the President the unilateral authority of war and peace.
:)
This was only changed after Vietnam. The War Powers Act only allows the President to engage in armed conflict for 60 days without the consent of Congress.
Of course, indirectly, the Congress has always had a lot of authority over war since they're the only ones that can sign the checks.
In practice, though, "you must support the troops" has been a meme that's worked like a charm going all the way back to the War of 1812, when some 'real men of genius' decided that Napoleon was kicking so much dirt in the faces of the British that we could just, oh, CONQUEROR CANADA and the wouldn't hardly notice. You'd think the way we got our asses handed to us (the White House was torched by the Red Coats) would've made us rethink unilateral war powers back then, but it wasn't in the cards.
On a complete side-note, whenever people say that "We've never lost a war" or "We've never lost a war until Vietnam," they always seem to forget about that time that, ya know, OUR CAPITOL WAS CONQUERED BY A FOREIGN ARMY
The idea of a Lessig run gets some love on the National Review Online.
Though I'm generally suspicious of radical go-all-the-way solutions like not being military allies with anyone, I understand where you are coming from, and don't entirely disagree.
But...
"Iraq is the least of our military perception problems."
Actually, I'm pretty convinced Iraq is our number one biggest military problem, both perceptual and actual, bar none. If we're going to talk about how we should be pulling back from the rest of the world militarily, there is one completely obvious place to start.
Were I an idealist, I might support someone who says they want to pull out of everywhere, but has no chance of actually getting it done. As a pragmatist, I'm going to support someone who will actually get us out of Iraq.
http://www.actblue.com/page/lessig08
Like they say: early money is like yeast. If you can kick down $20 right now, it allows him to solicit more donations (mail, phones, net connection) so your $20 in effect becomes like $2000.
The real problem with all these people demanding change is that they hold some seat in the next incarnation of whatever it is they are trying to change. It's like saying "Damn this guy has no idea what he is doing, but I do, so let's overthrow him and I'll run it." How am I suppose to trust anyone who is making a grab for the same power they despise?
This isolationist attitude would eventually lead to our demise.
If Mexico or Canada invaded[1] the USA
Shhhhh. You're giving away the plan.
Didn't mean you personally, but this is a winning game-changing line of attack to undertake. The big government socialists are vehemently anti-religious Separation of Church and State. Unveiling their government programs, think tanks, and political caste positions, as fundamentalist religion should deservedly discredit them. Funding a mission to Mars is no less a religious endeavor than funding an excavation for Noah's Ark. Funding Government Medicare is no less a religious endeavor than funding the KKK Soup Kitchen. These leftists sorely need to be exposed as the religious zealots they are.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
If the ultimate measure of who we're willing to fight for is whether or not they have "fought for us" there'd be a lot of military contractors looking for honest employment.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Last time I checked, it was the US government which tried to convince those countries that Iraq had WMD, and they used a significant amount of fake or exaggerated 'evidence' to do so. Look up Colin Powell's address to the UN, for example.
Europeans opposed the invasion of Iraq because they didn't let themselves be fooled by that. If the US had had a case, most Europeans would have supported the invasion.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't think framing it as "religious" would do anything more than confuse people who are trying to understand the problem. Obsessive, narcissistic, hypocritical, and misguided are more accurate descriptors. I don't consider a mission to Mars to be any of those words, but I don't think it belongs in the realm of the government either. Besides, a lot of "leftists" oppose NASA space programs because they regard it as wasted money that could be used to feed the poor or other nanny-state social programs. Medicare was expanded monumentally under George Bush by $400 billion, so I see it as a pretty bipartisan endeavor to get the government to be our third parent, Big Brother, or God, depending on how you want to frame it.
That actually makes me feel pretty good...being that I'm from and live in the deep south of the US. We usually get portrayed as bumpkins, rednecks and generally lower class people. While I know that that is not generally the case, I do think that the stereotype that we're generally nicer and more polite down here does seem to be factual for the most part. Maybe that's why I and others I know from down here are the same with regards to foreigners we meet.
At least in my experience.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Have you ever thought about the fact, that people want to attack you because you are blowing up their stuff left and right?
Lessig compliments McCain for campaign finance reform but fails to mention that McCain has more "K-Street 'Fixers'" on his committee than any other candidate. Is this a trivial detail or a sign that Lessig has an even bigger fight on his hands than he (or his supporters, maybe including me) knows?
FWIW, the state I was speaking of was Alabama.
That's a rather revisionist view of things. Our government at the time (under FDR) was far more socialistic in nature and philosophy than anything you see, or could concievably see, in the USA today. Labor unions were far more powerful, and the government had and exercised way more control over industry than it imagines itself to have these days. Price controls, manditory rationing, you name it.
If you want to argue that we've lost something in our ability to respond quickly to existential threats since the 40's, you'd have to base it on our current *lack* of socialistic values. I'm guessing you don't want to make that argument though.
Its not the ideals and morals of an individual, but instead the price they can be bought at.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
What state did Tom Lantos represent? More specifically, what part of what state did Tom Lantos represent? I've heard of Larry Lessig, but before the news of his death, I had never heard of Tom Lantos.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I do not know what most USians want, and maybe they really do not want an Empire, but they should very carefully consider what it is they want and what consequences carrying out their wishes bring: whatever they wanted that resulted in such massive support for the `liberation' of Iraq, even if it was not the desire for an Empire, did very much have consequences for which they have to take responsability.
I'll be completely honest. What happened is that Americans were a bit shocked at how fast things unfolded in Afghanistan and it seemed like what had taken the Soviet Union a decade to fail at, the USA had achieved in a matter of weeks. So, there was still a lot of anger over 9/11, and Saddam had been a long time annoyance. So really, it was all about 9/11 rage at the arab world in general and the idea was to just go kick ass in as many arab countries as possible. I'm quite sure that if the USA had not been bogged down in Iraq, then, it would have no doubt moved on into Syria and Iran.
You are right about taking responsibility for Iraq. My wife, a long time liberal, was dead set against the war from the get go, but, to echo Colin Powell, we broke it, so now we have to fix it. The civil war in Iraq may have been decades, if not centuries in the making, but you honestly can't say that we were not warned - every European country with a deep experience in former colonial affairs in the Islamic world warned us that we were making a tremendous mistake. One has to wonder if the French saw Iraq as America's Algeria....
So, the USA -has- to stay in Iraq, and stay until the country is governed in a democracy, under the rule of law and with peace for all. If that takes 100 years and trillions of dollars, that sucks, but the USA made its decision when the bombing campaign opened so long ago in March 2003.
Also, I have had to rethink on the way home my stance with Europe and NATO. I listened to a very moving discussion of the state of affairs about Russia, by a British broadcaster on American public radio. Now, I don't know you much you know about the BBC as presented in the USA, but its a pretty liberal institution, and generally against any sort of confrontation or militarism of any kind. In short, you would say that they are radically left wing. However, I heard about lurid tales about how Russia is trying to bully Europe about with its gas pipelines, has squelched NATO efforts to run other gas pipelines for Europe, has basically reverted to cleptocratic rule, has reverted to state run media, squelched all political dissent, and is once again, and most despicably, resumed putting its political dissidents into psychiatric hospitals. It's "the Gulag Archipeligo" all over again, and it is wrong, it is wrong, and it is wrong. This Putin is a thug.
So yeah, I do not want to be in any military alliance with anyone, but Russia is threatening the peace and freedom of hundreds of millions of people, again.... and so, yeah, we can't abandon Europe to them. Europeans are a bunch of peacenik woosies that wouldn't attack anyone, and the idea of the Russian Bear bullying them around, really, picking on them, is completely and morally offensive to me, that, yeah, if we have to get back to another bloody cold war, and put American cities back on the nuclear firing line to stand against Russia, then, yes, that's just what we have to do.
This is my sig.
This isolationist attitude would eventually lead to our demise.
I would love to be an isolationist militarily, but be global in trade. However, it seems as if Putin's up to Russia's old tricks again, and the USA will have to stand behind Europe, and be firm against him. So, we have to stay in NATO and get those radars up in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Georgia... and, when Russian jets once again buzz European airspace, we need to have our F-22s, F-35s and EF-2000s ready to escort them back to where they belong.
This is my sig.
It only takes a few nukes to so seriously damage the cities of an invading country that it will surrender. The wind-distributed fallout would not destroy U. S. agriculture. The level of radioactivity in some foods might require special care (such as strontium-90 in milk), but it would not be a disaster.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Oh...when you say 'heartland' of the US.....that usually means the middle of the country....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Europe is not the enemy of the US, at the moment the biggest threat the US faces is itself. Empires and superpowers always collapse from the centre out. I hold Rome and the Soviet union as prime examples of this.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Good idea. What are you going to do about the millions of people who will no longer have a job due to the elimination of federal income taxes? You know, people working at your local H&R Block and most everyone with the IRS. Plus the scads of temporary labor that is no longer needed during tax season .....
That's easy - we'll set them to work making buggy whips.
Or participating in the massive new economy that results from the inflood of corporate headquarters from all over the world.
Whichever.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Hmm. You state a lot of things in your post as facts, yet they appear to be not more than your own opinion. Some of your reasoning I agree with, most I disagree with.
I am a European. I seriously dislike the current foreign policy of the US as well as its administration in general. Your "facts" are not actually facts, overall. I have the following specific comments to selected parts of your post, for your consideration in future posts you may be planning to make (your quotes after -, my comments after ->):
- "Hate for america is not based on hate for it's citizens, but on american symbols."
-> Correct. I have the utmost respect for the vast majority of the citizens of the US.
- "The capitalism."
-> Not really. When it's too blatantly disregarding anything resembling even a minimum of concern regarding the society as a whole, then yes.
- "The military-industrial complex."
-> Definitely. Unholy alliance, and a cause for a whole lot of problems, inside and outside of the country.
- "The space program."
-> Incorrect. No problem whatsoever with the space program. No idea why you might think so.
- "The huge cities."
-> Incorrect. See the space program.
- "The freedom."
-> Incorrect. Why you would even think this is actually hard to comprehend. Been listening too much to the propaganda (yes, indeed) of your administration, perhaps? This is very, very wrong, just so you know.
- "Yes Iraq didn't help, but to say it's the cause of anti-americanism anywhere (except perhaps amongst the baathists of iraq) is not just delusional but outright danguerous deception."
-> You are mostly wrong here. You are correct in saying that Iraq didn't help, but it would seem that you vastly underestimate the extent to which it didn't, and doesn't. It also seems to be the case that you vastly misunderstand exactly how much the majority of the world (including large parts of the US population itself) is actually outraged by the way in which the whole Iraqi ordeal is, and has been, handled by the US.
- "Therefore the mere EXISTENCE of America is the enemy" etc.
-> Wrong. Utterly wrong.
To sum this post up:
- The problem the rest of the world (and again, even large parts of the US population itself) has with the US, is not with its values, its cities, its economy and definitely not with its people.
- The problem is solely with the current administration and its foreign policies as of late.
- The US of course has large (even huge) internal problems as well, but the rest of the world thinks that's a US problem.
- The rest of the world however does not think that the rest of the world is a US problem.
You might want to consider learning more about and then following your own advise, as it is a wise one, and you appear to not fully understand it yet.
I hope this helps in allowing you to acquire a more nuanced mental image of what the world thinks, about the US as well as other things.
All 100 Senators and 435 House Members with votes in Congress vote on issues that impact me. They all vote on military, taxes, social programs, regulations, and the like. Why shouldn't I, as an American citizen who is directly impacted by all 435, be able to contribute to any of them? Furthermore, would people be allowed to volunteer for campaigns outside of their district? How about work for them for a salary? Could I slap a bumper sticker on my car for the candidate in the next district over, where I happen to drive to every day for work?
You can't limit what people can do for national elections based on where they live. It's arbitrary and full of loop-holes, but more importantly it ignores the very fact that there are 535 Members of Congress working for me and 300 million other Americans, ostensibly equally. Why shouldn't we, the Americans, be able to get involved in all of their campaigns equally?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Imagine you are a soldier of an invading army. You hear that your homeland has been nuked. There is nothing to go back to but radiactive wasteland. Will you surrender, in which case your best hope for future is to return and die in said wasteland, or will you redouble your efforts to capture as much land as you can for yourself ?
There is a reson why Cortez burned his ships.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So we shouldn't fund religious groups ... and we shouldn't fund secular groups ... nice.
... Total : $0 (no religious and/or secular groups funded)
That should make next year's budget really simple
Do you even see the complete and utter inconsistency in your own thoughts ?
- The problem is solely with the current administration and its foreign policies as of late.
Really ? Have you read a few 1935 papers ? There you will find some SERIOUS hate-america articles. You actually acknowledge that the hate for america didn't start with the current administration, yet you lay blame squarely at it's feet.
I truly hope that pointing out this idiocy will cause you to think about it. You (as a person) merely hate america because it's popular to do so. That brings the question to : "WHY is it popular to do so". And you will find that it's the symbols and the freedom, I'm afraid. That America is a living, breathing abomination to every leftist theory that ever existed. According to Europeans, Americans should be rioting in the street and killing their leaders.
And they're not. That means marx (and all so-called "moderate" lefties with him) are wrong. America doesn't conform to the European view of the world, and it doesn't conform so badly as that it is living proof that worldview is wrong, so it must die.
By advocating one side of the political spectrum? No thanks. How is that any different than any other partisan attack?
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
But, here's my nightmare scenario: Iran's leadership gets just a bit more aggressive and attempts to annex southeastern Iraq and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. oppose them. That drags on for a little bit until Turkey gets into the mix, backing the U.S. This drives the radicals in Pakistan over the edge who overthrow the government with military support, and immediately annex Afghanistan, creating a war on two fronts for the U.S. In response, India takes the opportunity to attack a distracted Pakistan and claim Kashmir and a chunk of southeastern Pakistan. This leads to outright war between Pakistan and India, which China decides to capitalize on by expanding westward into northeaster India.
And from there you can see any number of ripples taking out the stability of just about any part of the world... if you thought that World War III was no longer a threat, perhaps you want to think again.
Do you even see the complete and utter inconsistency in your own thoughts ?
No, but I'm sure you're going to try to point them out for me. Let's see...
- The problem is solely with the current administration and its foreign policies as of late.
Really ? Have you read a few 1935 papers ? There you will find some SERIOUS hate-america articles. You actually acknowledge that the hate for america didn't start with the current administration, yet you lay blame squarely at it's feet.
Yes, really.
I have read some 1930-ish papers in history classes way back.
But that's beside the point. I was at no time talking about historic reasons for any US hate. I was referring to current trends.
I apologize if that wasn't clear.
And yes, I lay the blame for the current trends squarely at the feet of the current administration and its policies. Correct.
I truly hope that pointing out this idiocy will cause you to think about it.
You haven't pointed out any idiocy.
You (as a person) merely hate america because it's popular to do so.
Incorrect:
- I do not hate the US because it's popular to do so.
- In fact, I do not hate the US at all.
- I most definitely do not hate the people of the US.
However:
- I do seriously dislike the current administration of the US and its policies.
- But not because it's popular to do so, but because I have thought about it.
And would you please stop trying to tell me why I do things you think I do? First, you are wrong. Second, you have no idea what I think, nor why. Focus on your own thoughts and beliefs, instead.
Oh. Another thing you're wrong about: It's not "america". It's not even "America". It's the USA. America is comprised of South America and North America, consisting of many different countries. You're not even the only country in North America, you know.
That brings the question to : "WHY is it popular to do so". And you will find that it's the symbols and the freedom, I'm afraid. That America is a living, breathing abomination to every leftist theory that ever existed. According to Europeans, Americans should be rioting in the street and killing their leaders.
Laughable.
Not only since it's based on an incorrect assumption (the "why" for the hate part), but also since you repeat the mistake of again assuming that the rest of the world somehow hate your so-called freedom. I am much more free in my own country (Sweden) than I would be in the US of today. Free free to read up on actual facts and discover interesting things about the real freedoms of countries other than the US. You also appear to have a somewhat irrational relation to the concepts of leftist, rightist, or whatever, typical of the polarized "either-or" political climate of the US.
Perhaps not surprising. Are you by any chance, in fact, from the US? Normally I don't care from where anyone comes or where they live. I care about the person. In this case, it might explain some of your reasoning, though, so it may be relevant for me in understanding why you say the things you do.
(Oh, btw: In case you're planning to start another tirade in which you go on about how Sweden is some kind of leftist socialist country, think again, and get some facts straight first. Hint: You would be wrong to assume so.)
And they're not.
Indeed they're not. And that's a good thing. Having to revolt in the streets and kill people isn't a good thing. I definitely hope it will never get that far.
That means marx (and all so-called "moderate" lefties with him) are wrong. America doesn't conform to the European view of the world, and it doesn't conform so badly as that it is living proof that worldview is wrong, so it must die.
No, no. I think you misunderstand.
I, and most with me, except for some fundamental religious nuts (of which
No, it isn't, for the simple reason that it isn't capitalist. Public funds getting channeled into various corporations in exchange for financial aid in political campaigning is not capitalist. Victory in courts being handed to the party with the biggest warchest may or may not be capitalist, but if it is, it certainly doesn't speak against the leftist theories. And the constant complaints posted here about the lack of competition in the broadband market due to local monopolies speak on their own.
I don't think that a purely capitalist economic can logically exist, because it turns into aristocracy - or plutocracy, if you prefer - very fast. Historically, aristocrats were simply wealthy landowners who, since they controlled this vital resource, were able to boss everyone else around and equip personal armies. It was the rise of strong central government which crushed the feudal system and limited the power of aristocracy; without such government, whoever happens to control the local production of food, water or some other important resource can pretty much rule as a despot over his little serfdom. And of course he is going to crush all competition, out of simple self-interest.
How many US presidents out of how many have been killed by their own subjects ? And how does the percentage compare to leaders in general ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The problem, then, is that the tax is too high. That guy looks at the tax he's paying, thinks about the government services he's receiving, and thinks, "This isn't worth it. I would opt out, if I were allowed to." So, of course it's not fair. Solution: vote to lower government's expenditures.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Why is it that the US flips between muscular domination and extreme isolationism?
For fucks sake, lead the world. You're the only ones who can do it, if you would just make the effort to rally the free world to you there is nothing on Earth that can stand in the way of America and the ideals in represents.
In other words, vote Obama '08. Please...
This sig all sigs devours
God that's depressing. Do you not have any greater ambitions for your country than to emulate nineteenth century Britain?
This sig all sigs devours
Have you ever worked outside America ? While I agree that america is not a pure capitalist society you should compare it a few times to "equally free" european nations.
Why don't you try starting a company in France. Just for kicks. Or in any European country really. I've actually heard believeable claims, in econmic terms, China is more free market than Europe (and *much* less free in any other department obviously).
And that's comparing America to the supposedly other free market nations. If one starts comparing with northern afrika or the middle east (excepting Israel), you will really find a few rules that will make you think (such as s.a.'s rule that all managers must be saudi nationals to give one relevant example). Or the fact that all property from a number of peoples (e.g. palestinians) is fair game to Jordan's justice system. In Jordan, you can steal from a palestinian, and even kill one in the attempt, and the police will not charge you for anything. You see, in Jordan, Palestinians are not considered humans. Or that large areas of the country are of limits to certain ethnicities.
I'm not claiming the us is 100% capitalistic. I'm saying it leads the pack, and, due to being mostly a federation, large areas in America are at least 10% more capitalistic than the second place.
Ideally, in Libertopia, taxpayer dollars would not support what the taxpayer does not want. I think this is somewhat contradictory to the idea of a republic in the sense that even when the people choose, they don't always get what they want if another side wins. Also, the "secular" groups I'm referring to are those that are driven by ideology but are not essential to the workings of a limited government, stem-cell research, for example.
God that's depressing. Do you not have any greater ambitions for your country than to emulate nineteenth century Britain?
I want the USA to build spaceships and leave the rest of the world behind.
I am a total Isolationist.
Trying to be an empire isn't just costing us militarily, it also costs us trade concessions everywhere on the globe. I'm sick of the bases and the bribes, and really, don't care about the rest of the world any more. It's all just another place that's somehow important that we might have to fight for, or need to respect, and I just don't care any more. We have a whole continent to ourselves, and will have almost 500 million people within 20 years, and yet, we need to be mucking all over the planet.
This is my sig.
All I can say is that I hope you are a minority in your country. I don't want you to be an Empire; far from it, but (unlike you it seems) I have a lot of hope for this world and these hopes coming to fruition *requires* the active involvement of the US.
This sig all sigs devours
I'll chip in with you. I live in TX, the heartless state that makes a hobby out of executing minors and retards, hating science, and worshipping Dubya (/sarcasm). However, most people I know care about foreign cultures (and not everyone I know are college-educated) and are generally very nice. There are a few homophobic, xenophobic people who give us a bad name, but the loud minorities always do everywhere (see "all Frenchmen are assholes" when it's really "all Parisians are assholes" hehe).
Even the most right-wing, "universal healthcare will be the downfall of American society" members of my family have absolutely no problem with my Venezuelan girlfriend (the country of Chavez for crying out loud!), and they like her a lot (they've told me this on a regular basis). There may be an occasional confusion between Japanese and Chinese cultures, but how many people outside of Continental Europe could be so accurate with respect to Dutch and German cultures, languages, and faces.