and, you just make personal assaults and accusations on the opponent's character, aiming to achieve what ? definitely not a discussion.
let me wake you up to a simple fact : if i own majority of the goods, resources and services where you live, i rule your life. it wont matter zit, if im a 'private' citizen. you wont have ANY kind of rights, because they will be my property, my rights. you will have to either love it, or leave it. and if a country is entirely like that, then it means you have to choose whose yoke you want to live under, as a citizen.
i personally prefer that yoke to be the government's yoke, because it is at least something i have legal RIGHTS to it, naturally. noone else will be able to come up and say 'no, its mine'.
The points you raise are hardly insightful. Those problems have existed in literally every system of government from feudal monarchies, to Communism, to whatever-it-is-we-have-today. The establishment always plays hardball, no matter what form the establishment takes.
the points i raise are very insightful. because, the dominance of publishing, mass media, election-donations by private interests, exactly the things which create the 'we are a democrat/republican family' situation you complain of.
One of the interesting things our founders realized, like the Romans and others before them, is that a limited government with minorly democratic features is the closest thing to an ideal.
one thing that annoys me while discussing with americans, is ignorance. no really, no offense. you people really talk about things you dont know, and give examples from them to support your points, DESPITE what you are referencing actually are contrary to your points. just like the dude who showed current european union as an example of "constitutional small government 1700s usa", despite the fact that even former ussr bureaucrats have expressed their surprise as what they expressed as european union having established the socialist revolution they were wanting to effect in europe for decades, from inside.
roman empire wasnt a 'small government' or 'limited government' society. government in rome was not only big and had regulations extending to EVERY aspect of life including family life, but also it was not democratic at all. it was the precise aristocratic 'republic' your private interests want usa to be. and actually it is. patricians ruling plebs. economically outside of government, and politically through their wealth in politics.
please, next time you make a comment, make a comment by providing references to things you actually know.
sentences like 'youre pretty retarted'. sweeping generalizations like 'they are stupid and lazy'. prioritizing form over substance, like 'capitalization' woes.
you have lost the right to get a decent reply. have a nice day.
first, it wont do ANY thing in regard to domination of the economic aspect of life (basically everything from food to internet) by minority groups. second, all it would make the corporations become more hard handed, secretive and extreme in their filthy dealings. just like how it happens when alcohol, or drugs are banned.
I want to see the central government exercise few powers, while the States hold most of the power, similar to how the modern EU operates.
eu has much more federal regulation and control over members than u.s. had at any point in time. to the extent of regulatory boards doing so much regulation that, they had made an april fools' joke at one year, publishing a regulation regulating the standards of the thickness of upper and lower chicken eggs.
the standards europe is living, is due to that regulation.
im appalled that, even eu, which is TOTALLY the opposite of what the right wing nutjobs in united states want, is being used to propagate the 'no government' bullshit. either ignorance, or outright lying.
False. A limited government is one that does not exercise any powers except those granted to it by the Constitution. That style of government worked just fine from 1776 to 1900 (approximately). There were a few excursions where the US Congress overstepped its bounds, such as the Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act, but for the most part it worked.
constitution, 1776, 1900. the self indulgement of you americans is really sickening. its as if nothing happened outside your country, its as if there was no other experiments that were done and succeeded, you are taking your own history and trying to apply lessons from that to entire planet.
and you dont even know your own history. nothing worked fine from 1776 until 1900. until 1800, your country was a colonization ground, rushing to colonize lands in its west, totally isolated from the world. and, trade and business wasnt as big as it was now. regulation and government was not needed at all. after all people moved, and settled on distant lands if they wanted to, in land rushes. if you didnt like the situation in an area, you would migrate. it was as simple as that.
come 1850, things changed. colonization matured, it didnt become easy to just go to a distant land with a gun, make a log cabin, plow a piece of land and then live there. business grew big, companies and corporations became big, and by 1880, almost all america risked being owned by 4 people, and everyone had to live by THEIR rules. it was the failure of the free market bullshit - something devised for 1700s standards and world, in which businesses were 'whitteley&co' level, 5-10 people enterprises, and had only power to do stuff in their locale. it was the time of globe spanning corporations bigger than countries.
if it wasnt for 'big government' that manifested itself in the form of theodore roosevelt, you americans would be probably owned by at most 2, or even 1 person in 100 years' time, living however those 1-2 people wanted you to live, for their own benefit. and no, no competition happened. no other corporation came and undid them. there was no 'choice'. ALL the choice, competition you have there today have come with the antitrust regulations and laws. even they were offset a lot, by invention of proxy corporations, big holdings, and conglomerates that span 100s of companies and brands.
yet you come and STILL advocate the same bullshit that brought your country to that point.
moreover, you say that, eu is operating like united states in 1800s. despite the fact that, before ussr had disintegrated, the ussr external affairs had to retort that, they were trying to effect a socialist revolution in europe for that long, but, european union has basically done it themselves, from the inside, and it was a curious situation.
sorry, but you dont know shit. at least dont make that stupid retort saying 'eu is like u.s. in 1700s' anywhere else, like a moron.
you may not know about it. but, its my hobby. ranging from 9800 BC to the first ever place of worship of mankind (and subsequent domestication of wheat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe to the events in recent political history, i have spent a lot of time reading in my spare time.
house of representatives is the general term that is used in political literature/science to denote an assembly of representatives elected by the people in order to make legislation.
the only country in the world is not united states, the only house of representatives in the world is not u.s. congress. and the only place where this term is used, is not united states daily speech.
i cant believe how u.s. centric many americans are. as if nothing exists or happens outside united states. now, house of representatives apparently is a term that is very endemic and specific to usa, and its daily political jargon... judging from the way you talk.
vast swaths of the society do not have the means and the time to work on a high level of political awareness through culture and digesting heaps of information. they have to survive, they have to take care of their family.
the situation changes from country to country. in the one im in, international treaties signed are binding without house approval. the government is legislated to be the tool of the house. the house takes place in negotiations through committees.
you havent read ayn fucking rand, and you dont have to. yet, you are advocating her bullshit. you dont even know that, you are advocating her bullshit. you dont know what medieval feudalism is, yet you are still talking on it.
'house' here means house of representatives. it means any kind of legislative body acting in any given country. the only country is not united states you know.
Yeah sure. Only guys who have read Ayn Rand and have 'researched' medieval economics can talk. Nobody else is allowed to comment.
of course everyone is allowed to comment. but, commenting without information, is BULLSHIT.
you are discussing the merits of the current system over any others, while it is basically a system identical to medieval feudal system. and, in the process, you are saying that you dont care. your non-caring does not make up for your lack of information. because the VERY thing we are discussing, is how similar current system is to medieval feudalism. if you dont even know how medieval feudalism is, what the fuck are you doing discussing it ?
I'm pretty sure sure that limited implies some government. Some is more than none. Therefore, your statement makes no sense.
let me put it this way : a 9 year old is as strong as a bodybuilder.
incorrect ? yeah. incorrect. the capability of a 9 year old to do things, is much less than a bodybuilder. same goes for any social construct, including government. small government would be equally powerless.
And I could choose not to do business with them. Whew! That was tough solving that sticky situation.
oh yeah. just like you can choose not to buy procter&gamble, or unilever made cleaning products. you can buy BRANDA, BRANDB, BRANDC -> but wait, they are ALL produced by, or buying their raw materials from p&g or unilever, or 2 other mega corporations !!!
same goes for all other sectors. dont get fooled with the complicated proxy corporate schemes and branding megacorporations use. they were invented to circumvent antitrust laws.
Yeah, thank goodness that private corporations don't control the distribution of our food, fuel, shelter, transportation and other critical facets of life! I can't image how that would turn out!!!
it would turn out great. because, you, as a citizen, would directly decide, what would happen, and how.
charters are not relevant to this. even if there was no corporate charter, a band getting together, calling themselves a company, or a brigade, or, 'supervillains' would be able to gain more power and dominate the society through the wealth they would amass.
the only thing standing against them would be other groups, fighting against them. and that would basically end up as feudalism, when the dust settled and stronger established a hierarchy.
its not a contemporary issue. it is an issue of social dynamics -> if groups are allowed to acquire more power than others, they dominate others. this was so in 5000 Bc, this is as such now. it wont be different in future.
big business is not corrupting elected representatives. big business is making sure that their candidate gets elected, through the mechanics of capitalist system.
big business owns big media. big business has big bucks to spend. even if your candidate has money to spend, if big business owning the big media doesnt want him to get elected, they wont just give airtime to him/her in their media outlets. and, your candidate wont win.
its as simple as that.
that is of course leaving aside the fact that big business can easily brainwash entire swaths of society, or, outright lie to them, if need be, through their media.
acta proceedings were prepared during bush years, with republican senate and house. it was well underway in 2006 when democrats got the houses. and it was already being negotiated in 2008. not that it would matter much, since democrats are too in the pockets of the private interests. but, the head of the snake, were republicans.
talk about democracy. we were just discussing how capitalism easily corrupts and dominates a democratic storefront, in the u.s. senate internet censor bill discussion, and now there is this. this doesnt even involve any democratic proceedings. elected governments just sign a treaty, out of one person's hand, and it binds all signatory countries. in most of them, it wont even need to be ratified, because international treaties are binding.
and, any fool who believes their house of representatives wont ratify it, in ratification required countries, should think again - if it wouldnt pass, your government wouldnt have got elected and sign it. you have a government that signs it, signifying enough seats in the house, so chances are very high that it will pass. all its needed would be lobbies spending a bit more money than you. which, they have, and you, as people dont.
enjoy capitalist democracy. the one with the gold makes the rules.
Also don't need to read medieval history to make logical conclusions based off observations about a system that works, most of the time.
medieval feudal system also worked. fascism also works. dictatorships also work. what matters is, how they work.
So you hate Ayn Rand. I get it. Never read her stuff. Don't care.
you didnt read ayn rand, you dont know medieval history, yet, you comment about this system, which is IDENTICAL to medieval system in all respects, saying that it works. justifying its acceptability.
B
excuse me, but, arent you talking on shit you dont know ?
And it presents far more opportunity to increase your place in the world than any number of ideological systems which are just as prone to corruption, specifically government-centric models.
--
capitalism with democratic storefront is the one most susceptible to corruption and manipulation. even in a communist dictatorship, you will legally have the right to claim anything against the government, even if you are oppressed and killed.
with capitalist system with a democratic storefront, the wealthy elite will make the laws, you will object them, and you will be prosecuted with peripheral charges and excuses, all under the guise of freedom, with a democratic storefront.
moreover, you wont even have a practical vote in the process, because the wealthy will make sure their candidate gets much more visibility and money than your candidate, getting theirs elected. which is basically the summary of the system in usa.
apparently you dont know shit about how people live outside usa. it is appalling to see that someone who is able to use slashdot, have actually fallen for 'america is the place to be' indoctrination that is propagated by the established order...
You should give me half of your income each year so that we don't allow you to gain more money then others.
i happily would. actually, i DO want to do that. as long as everyone does it. i dont even care who spends the money i give, for what. all i need, is others not to be able to make huge heaps of money, enough to be my or others' rulers.
Slashdot Mirror
and, you just make personal assaults and accusations on the opponent's character, aiming to achieve what ? definitely not a discussion.
let me wake you up to a simple fact : if i own majority of the goods, resources and services where you live, i rule your life. it wont matter zit, if im a 'private' citizen. you wont have ANY kind of rights, because they will be my property, my rights. you will have to either love it, or leave it. and if a country is entirely like that, then it means you have to choose whose yoke you want to live under, as a citizen.
i personally prefer that yoke to be the government's yoke, because it is at least something i have legal RIGHTS to it, naturally. noone else will be able to come up and say 'no, its mine'.
The points you raise are hardly insightful. Those problems have existed in literally every system of government from feudal monarchies, to Communism, to whatever-it-is-we-have-today. The establishment always plays hardball, no matter what form the establishment takes.
the points i raise are very insightful. because, the dominance of publishing, mass media, election-donations by private interests, exactly the things which create the 'we are a democrat/republican family' situation you complain of.
One of the interesting things our founders realized, like the Romans and others before them, is that a limited government with minorly democratic features is the closest thing to an ideal.
one thing that annoys me while discussing with americans, is ignorance. no really, no offense. you people really talk about things you dont know, and give examples from them to support your points, DESPITE what you are referencing actually are contrary to your points. just like the dude who showed current european union as an example of "constitutional small government 1700s usa", despite the fact that even former ussr bureaucrats have expressed their surprise as what they expressed as european union having established the socialist revolution they were wanting to effect in europe for decades, from inside.
roman empire wasnt a 'small government' or 'limited government' society. government in rome was not only big and had regulations extending to EVERY aspect of life including family life, but also it was not democratic at all. it was the precise aristocratic 'republic' your private interests want usa to be. and actually it is. patricians ruling plebs. economically outside of government, and politically through their wealth in politics.
please, next time you make a comment, make a comment by providing references to things you actually know.
sentences like 'youre pretty retarted'. sweeping generalizations like 'they are stupid and lazy'. prioritizing form over substance, like 'capitalization' woes.
you have lost the right to get a decent reply. have a nice day.
disappear ?
first, it wont do ANY thing in regard to domination of the economic aspect of life (basically everything from food to internet) by minority groups. second, all it would make the corporations become more hard handed, secretive and extreme in their filthy dealings. just like how it happens when alcohol, or drugs are banned.
I want to see the central government exercise few powers, while the States hold most of the power, similar to how the modern EU operates.
eu has much more federal regulation and control over members than u.s. had at any point in time. to the extent of regulatory boards doing so much regulation that, they had made an april fools' joke at one year, publishing a regulation regulating the standards of the thickness of upper and lower chicken eggs.
the standards europe is living, is due to that regulation.
im appalled that, even eu, which is TOTALLY the opposite of what the right wing nutjobs in united states want, is being used to propagate the 'no government' bullshit. either ignorance, or outright lying.
False. A limited government is one that does not exercise any powers except those granted to it by the Constitution. That style of government worked just fine from 1776 to 1900 (approximately). There were a few excursions where the US Congress overstepped its bounds, such as the Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act, but for the most part it worked.
constitution, 1776, 1900. the self indulgement of you americans is really sickening. its as if nothing happened outside your country, its as if there was no other experiments that were done and succeeded, you are taking your own history and trying to apply lessons from that to entire planet.
and you dont even know your own history. nothing worked fine from 1776 until 1900. until 1800, your country was a colonization ground, rushing to colonize lands in its west, totally isolated from the world. and, trade and business wasnt as big as it was now. regulation and government was not needed at all. after all people moved, and settled on distant lands if they wanted to, in land rushes. if you didnt like the situation in an area, you would migrate. it was as simple as that.
come 1850, things changed. colonization matured, it didnt become easy to just go to a distant land with a gun, make a log cabin, plow a piece of land and then live there. business grew big, companies and corporations became big, and by 1880, almost all america risked being owned by 4 people, and everyone had to live by THEIR rules. it was the failure of the free market bullshit - something devised for 1700s standards and world, in which businesses were 'whitteley&co' level, 5-10 people enterprises, and had only power to do stuff in their locale. it was the time of globe spanning corporations bigger than countries.
if it wasnt for 'big government' that manifested itself in the form of theodore roosevelt, you americans would be probably owned by at most 2, or even 1 person in 100 years' time, living however those 1-2 people wanted you to live, for their own benefit. and no, no competition happened. no other corporation came and undid them. there was no 'choice'. ALL the choice, competition you have there today have come with the antitrust regulations and laws. even they were offset a lot, by invention of proxy corporations, big holdings, and conglomerates that span 100s of companies and brands.
yet you come and STILL advocate the same bullshit that brought your country to that point.
moreover, you say that, eu is operating like united states in 1800s. despite the fact that, before ussr had disintegrated, the ussr external affairs had to retort that, they were trying to effect a socialist revolution in europe for that long, but, european union has basically done it themselves, from the inside, and it was a curious situation.
sorry, but you dont know shit. at least dont make that stupid retort saying 'eu is like u.s. in 1700s' anywhere else, like a moron.
have you or have you not comprehended the parent you have replied to ?
have a nice day. and do more reading.
arguing with anonymous cowards are you?
why not. arent they human beings ?
Name one country where international treaties are binding without ratification.
turkey.
your point ?
you may not know about it. but, its my hobby. ranging from 9800 BC to the first ever place of worship of mankind (and subsequent domestication of wheat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe to the events in recent political history, i have spent a lot of time reading in my spare time.
i would advise you to do the same.
house of representatives is the general term that is used in political literature/science to denote an assembly of representatives elected by the people in order to make legislation.
... judging from the way you talk.
the only country in the world is not united states, the only house of representatives in the world is not u.s. congress. and the only place where this term is used, is not united states daily speech.
i cant believe how u.s. centric many americans are. as if nothing exists or happens outside united states. now, house of representatives apparently is a term that is very endemic and specific to usa, and its daily political jargon
vast swaths of the society do not have the means and the time to work on a high level of political awareness through culture and digesting heaps of information. they have to survive, they have to take care of their family.
the situation changes from country to country. in the one im in, international treaties signed are binding without house approval. the government is legislated to be the tool of the house. the house takes place in negotiations through committees.
you havent read ayn fucking rand, and you dont have to. yet, you are advocating her bullshit. you dont even know that, you are advocating her bullshit. you dont know what medieval feudalism is, yet you are still talking on it.
i think we are done discussing. have a nice day.
'house' here means house of representatives. it means any kind of legislative body acting in any given country. the only country is not united states you know.
Yeah sure. Only guys who have read Ayn Rand and have 'researched' medieval economics can talk. Nobody else is allowed to comment.
of course everyone is allowed to comment. but, commenting without information, is BULLSHIT.
you are discussing the merits of the current system over any others, while it is basically a system identical to medieval feudal system. and, in the process, you are saying that you dont care. your non-caring does not make up for your lack of information. because the VERY thing we are discussing, is how similar current system is to medieval feudalism. if you dont even know how medieval feudalism is, what the fuck are you doing discussing it ?
I'm pretty sure sure that limited implies some government. Some is more than none. Therefore, your statement makes no sense.
let me put it this way : a 9 year old is as strong as a bodybuilder.
incorrect ? yeah. incorrect. the capability of a 9 year old to do things, is much less than a bodybuilder. same goes for any social construct, including government. small government would be equally powerless.
And I could choose not to do business with them. Whew! That was tough solving that sticky situation.
oh yeah. just like you can choose not to buy procter&gamble, or unilever made cleaning products. you can buy BRANDA, BRANDB, BRANDC -> but wait, they are ALL produced by, or buying their raw materials from p&g or unilever, or 2 other mega corporations !!!
same goes for all other sectors. dont get fooled with the complicated proxy corporate schemes and branding megacorporations use. they were invented to circumvent antitrust laws.
Yeah, thank goodness that private corporations don't control the distribution of our food, fuel, shelter, transportation and other critical facets of life! I can't image how that would turn out!!!
it would turn out great. because, you, as a citizen, would directly decide, what would happen, and how.
boy.
charters are not relevant to this. even if there was no corporate charter, a band getting together, calling themselves a company, or a brigade, or, 'supervillains' would be able to gain more power and dominate the society through the wealth they would amass.
the only thing standing against them would be other groups, fighting against them. and that would basically end up as feudalism, when the dust settled and stronger established a hierarchy.
its not a contemporary issue. it is an issue of social dynamics -> if groups are allowed to acquire more power than others, they dominate others. this was so in 5000 Bc, this is as such now. it wont be different in future.
big business is not corrupting elected representatives. big business is making sure that their candidate gets elected, through the mechanics of capitalist system.
big business owns big media. big business has big bucks to spend. even if your candidate has money to spend, if big business owning the big media doesnt want him to get elected, they wont just give airtime to him/her in their media outlets. and, your candidate wont win.
its as simple as that.
that is of course leaving aside the fact that big business can easily brainwash entire swaths of society, or, outright lie to them, if need be, through their media.
yeah. and individual liberty gets trampled by the capital of minority wealthy. your logic = bullshit.
acta proceedings were prepared during bush years, with republican senate and house. it was well underway in 2006 when democrats got the houses. and it was already being negotiated in 2008. not that it would matter much, since democrats are too in the pockets of the private interests. but, the head of the snake, were republicans.
they shaped this.
talk about democracy. we were just discussing how capitalism easily corrupts and dominates a democratic storefront, in the u.s. senate internet censor bill discussion, and now there is this. this doesnt even involve any democratic proceedings. elected governments just sign a treaty, out of one person's hand, and it binds all signatory countries. in most of them, it wont even need to be ratified, because international treaties are binding.
and, any fool who believes their house of representatives wont ratify it, in ratification required countries, should think again - if it wouldnt pass, your government wouldnt have got elected and sign it. you have a government that signs it, signifying enough seats in the house, so chances are very high that it will pass. all its needed would be lobbies spending a bit more money than you. which, they have, and you, as people dont.
enjoy capitalist democracy. the one with the gold makes the rules.
Also don't need to read medieval history to make logical conclusions based off observations about a system that works, most of the time.
medieval feudal system also worked. fascism also works. dictatorships also work. what matters is, how they work.
So you hate Ayn Rand. I get it. Never read her stuff. Don't care.
you didnt read ayn rand, you dont know medieval history, yet, you comment about this system, which is IDENTICAL to medieval system in all respects, saying that it works. justifying its acceptability.
B excuse me, but, arent you talking on shit you dont know ?
And it presents far more opportunity to increase your place in the world than any number of ideological systems which are just as prone to corruption, specifically government-centric models. --
capitalism with democratic storefront is the one most susceptible to corruption and manipulation. even in a communist dictatorship, you will legally have the right to claim anything against the government, even if you are oppressed and killed.
with capitalist system with a democratic storefront, the wealthy elite will make the laws, you will object them, and you will be prosecuted with peripheral charges and excuses, all under the guise of freedom, with a democratic storefront.
moreover, you wont even have a practical vote in the process, because the wealthy will make sure their candidate gets much more visibility and money than your candidate, getting theirs elected. which is basically the summary of the system in usa.
a charade.
'raped' european countries ?
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
thats the kind of rape anyone would dream of.
apparently you dont know shit about how people live outside usa. it is appalling to see that someone who is able to use slashdot, have actually fallen for 'america is the place to be' indoctrination that is propagated by the established order
You should give me half of your income each year so that we don't allow you to gain more money then others.
i happily would. actually, i DO want to do that. as long as everyone does it. i dont even care who spends the money i give, for what. all i need, is others not to be able to make huge heaps of money, enough to be my or others' rulers.