According to the "centrist" "founding father" James Madison - the principle task of government is economic regulation, FP #10 Principle Task of Government.
AC wrote:
".. they are pushing for their members to not run multiple candidates, but to have the party select them."
---
Uniquely, I think that has been effectively illegal in the U.S. for many, many, years. In the U.S. political parties are different - by law!
Done by "private" funding of U.S. campaigns?? Yea maybe, but among other things, it's also done by "outlawing," private member based political parties. This tends to leave money as the primary organizing force in politics.
Uniquely, U.S. parties have few powers other than raising $$ - by law! SEE: What is a Political Party? http://bit.ly/117M0o
ALSO: The U.S.:Pathetic Democracy or Failed Constitutional Republic? http://bit.ly/ftukH
I am not claiming that forming a new political party in the U.S. is necessarily a bad idea. However, people should be aware of, what I believe, since the early 1900's, is the "exceptional" nature of political parties in the U.S.. Can You Define What a Political Party is?
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile! Political Power in the U.S.
A Work in Progress
----
I get Verizon 1 Gbps for $22/month with two years commitment. Not even the best U.S. deal around. I think that Bright House is the only cable in my area. Anyone want to speculate how Time Warner expects to compete with DSL or FIOS?
Samschnooks wrote:
Strippers or any other woman in the sex industry basically thinks men are "suckers" and "losers". All women in the sex industry are head cases.
---------
Is the distance provided by an internet connection far enough away?
Also this could just be their natural response to men who believe in "free love."
AC wrote:
"This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply."
perryizgr8 responded:
and what exactly do you mean by that, sir?
------
While I can't claim to know what the AC was thinking, my best documented example relating to his statement would be the original and fairly central U.S. Constitutional function of trial by Jury. (see below)
IMO: While our original constitutional republic was not very democratic, except for a few gains such as the extension of the franchise, the people have lost much of the power, defensive or otherwise, that they originally had.
kick6 wrote:
What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"
----
Rhetorical question: Would you describe SCOTUS as of the people, or by the people, or for the people?
However let us not blame SCOTUS for everything. I think that the following relatively unknown "amendment," of the U.S. citizen's right to organize politically, was done fully in accord with the U.S. Constitution. It was done by wealth and politicians working together after 1880.
QUOTE FROM 1927 Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
SOURCE:
American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from:
The tyranny of the two-party system,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
It is an ongoing process and some issues like jury nullification had original constitutional protection, and others are simply state laws. Some like the Senate filibuster are purely administrative. Almost all were started after 1880.
I would only include issues that I believe weaken the traditional political power of the average U.S. citizen. It is not something that everyone would agree on. One exception that should be memtioned is that the history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. does show an ever increasing franchise, although with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the franchised citizenry as a group has far less political power relative to the government today than they would have had prior to in say 1880 or earlier.
If it had been dramatic change it would be better known. It's not something that has a specific date.
The following web site contains some additional information. Other issues like effective "corporate personhood," or judicial interpretations of "money as freedom of speech" I am less familiar with.
Anonymous Brave Guy wrote: Laws are what are supposed to protect your rights....
----
True! You could also mention that compared to the nature of U.S. government, Ireland's form of government is relatively democratic. For one thing, they don't equate money with freedom of speech.
In my experience there is a small, but significant, number of people in the U.S.that are naive enough to look to the U.S. Supreme court to defend the peoples "rights." That is not all that different from believing that the Communist party in the USSR would create a workers paradise.
I_Voter
When U.S. "republicans" claim that the U.S. is not a democracy they make a good point, but they always fail to mention that our people's "republic" apparently died about a 100 years ago!
DamnStupidElf wrote:
No more ridiculous than the artificial limit of supply imposed on things that have a nearly zero cost of reproduction.
----------
Who do you think you are? Adam Smith? Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
Everybody knows Adam Smith was a damm Socialist. Neo-Liberalism is in!
End Sarcasm
DoofusOfDeath wrote:
These guys are more likable when not in power, I guess.
-----
Competition is great! Now if we only had a multi-party system, think how many more likable politicians we could have. When U.S. voters purchase their political power, they have limited product availability and that of a very low quality indeed!
But I guess government.... can favor different companies...., based on vested interests of their members.
-----------
The following quote is from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 - "A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest,
with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them
into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of
these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation,
and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation
of government." [ Federalist paper #10 ]
Wage interests are not mentioned, because, to use the common phrase of the time,
"people who earn their bread from their employer," did not have the vote. Working
white males didn't fully gain the right to vote until around 1830.
From Summary
"Civil liberties groups argue that the FCC would overstep its authority and violate the Constitution."
----
Hey, everybody violates the U.S. Constitution. Even SCOTUS. I say go for it!
A little polemical documentation
The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law http://tinyurl.com/3du9ec
roguetrick wrote:
Classifieds and ads constituted of the majority of newspaper revenue, not subscriptions.
-------
I have heard the same thing. If you still get your newspapers out of a newsbox, that money just pays for the delivery to the box. The distributors get the papers for free, or close to it. I guess they also have bonding and or liability insurance requirements. Also somebody has to pay for the boxes, but, in my experience the boxes are often branded.
I would guess that the Corporate advertisers provide the greatest share of the newspapers income and therefore have the greatest influence over the newspapers content. When I tried to do a informal survey in my neighborhood on this subject, I could never complete the long explanation before they would shout out something like "them media's is crooks," or "they hate decent people."
Finally, one old retired guy, on a bus stop, after overhearing my spiel for a second time got it! He provided me with a great quote." "Now I get it. Your not tellin us them crooks is crooks, because everybody already knows that. Your tellin us how them crooks manage to work together, without slitting each others throats."
I don't think everyone would be bothered by the disappearance of corporate newsprint.
Nursie wrote: .. given up any thoughts that most people even have a clue about any political issue beyond which candidate has the best hair, given up on the populace showing any sign of intelligence at all...
----
In the U.S. at least, you might want to blame the political system. I work to change the political system by explaining our political system. If you blame the people, blame them if they knowingly accept our political system.
I would guess that most slashdoters are aware of the benefits to political choice provided by many other voting systems. However; in addition, most U.S. voters don't know what a political party is! They confuse a ballot label such as Green, Democrat, or Republican with membership in a political party! Political parties are private member based organizations that organize politicians under one ballot label. Political parties also write political platforms that make deals with different interest groups. Since most voters are moderate or neutral about the majority of political issues they are willing to accept some issue, such as liberalization of drug laws, if they get something in return.
Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. About the only things that organizes politicians are wealth and previously elected (incumbent) politicians!
A couple of polemical articles on the subject.
Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do? http://tinyurl.com/3ay7wk
Can You Define What a Political Party is? http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8
I_Voter
Much like Alice's Cheshire cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very independent, entrepreneur politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Government is not charity, it's legalized theft.
According to the "centrist" "founding father" James Madison - the principle task of government is economic regulation,
FP #10 Principle Task of Government.
The U.S. has solved this problem by removing the significance of honesty from party politics.
Understanding the relationship between political parties, and political rhetoric
in the U.S. What is a Political Party?
I_Voter
My very amateur Web Site:
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
AC wrote:
".. they are pushing for their members to not run multiple candidates, but to have the party select them."
---
Uniquely, I think that has been effectively illegal in the U.S. for many, many, years. In the U.S. political parties are different - by law!
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
I favor "big" citizenry.
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
In Spain you have the right to "at least 1 Mbp/sec," in the U.S. we have the right to 'up to 1 Mbp/sec."
I_Voter
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
Done by "private" funding of U.S. campaigns?? Yea maybe, but among other things, it's also done by "outlawing," private member based political parties. This tends to leave money as the primary organizing force in politics.
Uniquely, U.S. parties have few powers other than raising $$ - by law! SEE: What is a Political Party? http://bit.ly/117M0o
ALSO: The U.S.:Pathetic Democracy or Failed Constitutional Republic? http://bit.ly/ftukH
I_Voter
I am not claiming that forming a new political party in the U.S. is necessarily a bad idea. However, people should be aware of, what I believe, since the early 1900's, is the "exceptional" nature of political parties in the U.S..
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
I_Voter
Wld U vote 4 a candidate that fails to mention if any other candidate agrees w/ them on a single (specific) issue!
See some: Modern U.S. attempts at realistic party platforms.
Who will select the Judge?
... and will it be a jury trial?
I_Voter
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
The U.S.: A Pathetic Democracy or a Failed Republic?
Hmmm Eight POINT five percent. Very precise. Must not be any subjectivity in this study.
I_Voter
A work in progress Political Power in the U.S.
WOW!! I sure am glad that I live in an apartment.
I_Voter
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
Political Power in the U.S.
A Work in Progress
correction: Verizon DSL 1 Mbps
100 GB / month = 304 kbits/s
----
I get Verizon 1 Gbps for $22/month with two years commitment. Not even the best U.S. deal around. I think that Bright House is the only cable in my area. Anyone want to speculate how Time Warner expects to compete with DSL or FIOS?
Samschnooks wrote:
Strippers or any other woman in the sex industry basically thinks men are "suckers" and "losers". All women in the sex industry are head cases.
---------
Is the distance provided by an internet connection far enough away?
Also this could just be their natural response to men who believe in "free love."
I_Voter
Work in Proggress
Political Power in the U.S.
AC wrote:
"This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply."
perryizgr8 responded:
and what exactly do you mean by that, sir?
------
While I can't claim to know what the AC was thinking, my best documented example relating to his statement would be the original and fairly central U.S. Constitutional function of trial by Jury. (see below)
The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law
IMO: While our original constitutional republic was not very democratic, except for a few gains such as the extension of the franchise, the people have lost much of the power, defensive or otherwise, that they originally had.
Onaga wrote: .. set 1000x higher as a punishment for being successful?
[should bail be]
----
Is it a Freudian slip that you used the word successful as opposed to the word productive?
I_Voter
Can an invisible hand pick your pocket?
kick6 wrote:
What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"
----
Rhetorical question: Would you describe SCOTUS as of the people, or by the people, or for the people?
However let us not blame SCOTUS for everything. I think that the following relatively unknown "amendment," of the U.S. citizen's right to organize politically, was done fully in accord with the U.S. Constitution. It was done by wealth and politicians working together after 1880.
QUOTE FROM 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
SOURCE:
American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from:
The tyranny of the two-party system,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
I_Voter
My unfinished Web Site:
(Under Construction)
Political Power in the U.S.
It is an ongoing process and some issues like jury nullification had original constitutional protection, and others are simply state laws. Some like the Senate filibuster are purely administrative. Almost all were started after 1880.
I would only include issues that I believe weaken the traditional political power of the average U.S. citizen. It is not something that everyone would agree on. One exception that should be memtioned is that the history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. does show an ever increasing franchise, although with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the franchised citizenry as a group has far less political power relative to the government today than they would have had prior to in say 1880 or earlier.
If it had been dramatic change it would be better known. It's not something that has a specific date.
The following web site contains some additional information. Other issues like effective "corporate personhood," or judicial interpretations of "money as freedom of speech" I am less familiar with.
Political Power in the U.S.
Anonymous Brave Guy wrote: ....
Laws are what are supposed to protect your rights
----
True! You could also mention that compared to the nature of U.S. government, Ireland's form of government is relatively democratic. For one thing, they don't equate money with freedom of speech.
In my experience there is a small, but significant, number of people in the U.S.that are naive enough to look to the U.S. Supreme court to defend the peoples "rights." That is not all that different from believing that the Communist party in the USSR would create a workers paradise.
I_Voter
When U.S. "republicans" claim that the U.S. is not a democracy they make a good point, but they always fail to mention that our people's "republic" apparently died about a 100 years ago!
The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law
DamnStupidElf wrote:
No more ridiculous than the artificial limit of supply imposed on things that have a nearly zero cost of reproduction.
----------
Who do you think you are? Adam Smith?
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
Everybody knows Adam Smith was a damm Socialist. Neo-Liberalism is in!
End Sarcasm
I_Voter
My incomplete and depressing web site.
Political Power in the U.S.
DoofusOfDeath wrote:
These guys are more likable when not in power, I guess.
-----
Competition is great! Now if we only had a multi-party system, think how many more likable politicians we could have. When U.S. voters purchase their political power, they have limited product availability and that of a very low quality indeed!
I_Voter
My New Web Site:(Under Construction)
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
CannonballHead wrote:
.... can favor different companies ...., based on vested interests of their members.
But I guess government
-----------
The following quote is from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 -
"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation of government." [ Federalist paper #10 ]
Wage interests are not mentioned, because, to use the common phrase of the time, "people who earn their bread from their employer," did not have the vote. Working white males didn't fully gain the right to vote until around 1830.
I_Voter
My New Web Site:(Under Construction)
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
From Summary
"Civil liberties groups argue that the FCC would overstep its authority and violate the Constitution."
----
Hey, everybody violates the U.S. Constitution. Even SCOTUS. I say go for it!
A little polemical documentation
The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law
http://tinyurl.com/3du9ec
I_Voter
My New Web Site:
(Under Construction)
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
Classifieds and ads constituted of the majority of newspaper revenue, not subscriptions.
-------
I have heard the same thing. If you still get your newspapers out of a newsbox, that money just pays for the delivery to the box. The distributors get the papers for free, or close to it. I guess they also have bonding and or liability insurance requirements. Also somebody has to pay for the boxes, but, in my experience the boxes are often branded.
I would guess that the Corporate advertisers provide the greatest share of the newspapers income and therefore have the greatest influence over the newspapers content. When I tried to do a informal survey in my neighborhood on this subject, I could never complete the long explanation before they would shout out something like "them media's is crooks," or "they hate decent people."
Finally, one old retired guy, on a bus stop, after overhearing my spiel for a second time got it! He provided me with a great quote." "Now I get it. Your not tellin us them crooks is crooks, because everybody already knows that. Your tellin us how them crooks manage to work together, without slitting each others throats."
I don't think everyone would be bothered by the disappearance of corporate newsprint.
I_Voter
WEB SITE:(under construction)
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
----
In the U.S. at least, you might want to blame the political system. I work to change the political system by explaining our political system. If you blame the people, blame them if they knowingly accept our political system.
I would guess that most slashdoters are aware of the benefits to political choice provided by many other voting systems. However; in addition, most U.S. voters don't know what a political party is! They confuse a ballot label such as Green, Democrat, or Republican with membership in a political party! Political parties are private member based organizations that organize politicians under one ballot label. Political parties also write political platforms that make deals with different interest groups. Since most voters are moderate or neutral about the majority of political issues they are willing to accept some issue, such as liberalization of drug laws, if they get something in return.
Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. About the only things that organizes politicians are wealth and previously elected (incumbent) politicians!
A couple of polemical articles on the subject.
Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?
http://tinyurl.com/3ay7wk
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8
I_Voter
Much like Alice's Cheshire cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very independent, entrepreneur politicians.