42 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

If anything, as de Tocqueville pointed out, the danger in a democracy is there will be the tyranny of the majority. Specifically, the poor 50% will vote themselves the legal right to steal from the rich 50%.

If that were possible, it would have happened by now. Instead it's the exact opposite. The richest 1% have negotiated entitlements that stack the deck in their favour. We're not as bad in Canada yet, but if you look south of the border, they're given a false choice in their federal elections. Obama panders every bit as much to corporate interest and the richest Americans as Bush did before him.

[August1991]

The richest 1% have negotiated entitlements that stack the deck in their favour.

Cybercoma, you might have had a point in 1750 France or even 1820 America. Nowadays, you simply sound like an 1840 Communist.

The democratic revolution has occurred. The "poor/victim" majority can and does vote itself benefits taken from the "rich/dominant" minority.

Edited by August1991, 05 January 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[Moonlight Graham]

If you want to hijack the thread in that direction, let's go.

I didn't hijack your thread. The second part of your OP:

Life is not simple, not black and white; it's a shade of grey. But when push comes to shove, when you are forced to choose, what do you think? To make the world a better place:

Should we make trade, contacts between people, easier?

Or, should we take from some and help others?

Also, is it even possible to hijack a thread that had no new responses in the last week? I saved this sinking ship, not hijacked it!

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, you might have had a point in 1750 France or even 1820 America. Nowadays, you simply sound like an 1840 Communist.

The democratic revolution has occurred. The "poor/victim" majority can and does vote itself benefits taken from the "rich/dominant" minority.

Any "entitlements" that the poor have were only ever implemented as a way for the rich to secure their wealth and the earliest programs were started to keep the socialists from gaining popular favour.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... We're not as bad in Canada yet, but if you look south of the border, they're given a false choice in their federal elections. Obama panders every bit as much to corporate interest and the richest Americans as Bush did before him.

LOL! When do you ever not "look south of the border"? What about Alaska or Hawaii? Americans federal elections provide much more choice than in Canada.

[August1991]

I didn't hijack your thread....

Also, is it even possible to hijack a thread that had no new responses in the last week? I saved this sinking ship, not hijacked it!

First, it's not my thread. I may have started the thread but it's now part of MLW. Second, if you think a thread is a "sinking ship" because it has had no responses in the "last week", MG, you don't understand the Internet.

Whatever you post here, it will last forever. Anyone can bump a thread and remind us all of your thoughts several years ago. Believe me, to my occasional regret, I know.

Any "entitlements" that the poor have were only ever implemented as a way for the rich to secure their wealth and the earliest programs were started to keep the socialists from gaining popular favour.

Cybercoma, at least you admit that the poor (at least 50%) now have the right to vote.

Go back in time and imagine what Enlightened people of the 18th century would say about this.

Edited by August1991, 08 January 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[cybercoma]

So as long as people can vote, it doesn't matter at all what their conditions of life are? Even if the only people they can vote for are bought and paid for to pass the legislation that the "elite" want, at least they had a say?

[Michael Hardner]

So as long as people can vote, it doesn't matter at all what their conditions of life are? Even if the only people they can vote for are bought and paid for to pass the legislation that the "elite" want, at least they had a say?

Cyber, this may be a temporary problem. The costs of campaigning are tied to television advertising costs, and television advertising is a dinosaur. There are more Ron Pauls and Howard Deans out there ready to step in. One of them may have the foresight and strategy to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, since such reform would undercut the moneyed interests that have successfully managed populism over the past 40 years or so.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... One of them may have the foresight and strategy to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, since such reform would undercut the moneyed interests that have successfully managed populism over the past 40 years or so.

Sorry, they won't have the foresight and strategy to escape the US Constitution and Supreme Court.

[Michael Hardner]

Why not? It's been done before.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not? It's been done before.

Then why does it need to be done again?

[Michael Hardner]

Then why does it need to be done again?

Because it's time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because it's time.

Time for what? What's so special about now?

[Michael Hardner]

Time for what? What's so special about now?

Time for change.

[bush_cheney2004]

Time for change.

Oh, don't worry, change is constant. But it won't always be to your liking.