2011-06-27, 21:00 | Link #14461 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
basically this is what needs to happen for society to function. Voters ----watches---> Government --- Watches ----> Corporation The voters need make sure government is run efficiently and the government needs to make sure the corporation run legally. When the voters sleep on the job, everything go bonkers. Remember Government is suppose to reflect the public/voters, if Government isn't working. The public/voters need to start looking in the mirror.
__________________
|
|
2011-06-27, 21:03 | Link #14462 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
One (the US govt) has at least a bit of a control knob (voting booth, recalls, etc). The other (large corp.) has no knobs at all reachable from the community. In fact, history shows us they'd just as soon gun down troublemakers be they consumers or employees. Corporate rule is like the worst facets of feudalism without any of the "social contract" real feudalism had. The more eyeballs pointed in all directions and the more "balance" the better... frankly, "gridlock" is, under normal conditions, a good idea.
__________________
|
2011-06-27, 21:09 | Link #14463 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
And how much control do we really have over our Government? The system is extremely corrupt, and even politicians with good intentions, either don't last long, or they become part of the system over-time. |
|
2011-06-27, 21:20 | Link #14464 | |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Quote:
Bachmann launches 2012 presidential bid http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75P1G320110627 She is barely less incoherent ( some would say a flake) than Palin, no ?
__________________
|
|
2011-06-27, 21:24 | Link #14465 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I think all this is why I proposed a fourth balance on the Governement back in college. The People. Basically as techology increases, more and more people have access to the internet, which means more and more people can watch the government, which means more and more people can have a say in the government. Basically altering the Representative Democracy (A Republic) into a something like a Full Democracy, where the people can vote directly on what the Governement does. Not a complete Democracy, since the representatives would still be in place, but after they try to pass something, it goes to the People before it becomes law. The President can still Veto it, but with the Public on him as well he might not do it...then it would have t go back to Congress for the 2/3 majority to pass over his Veto...and possibly pass the Public vote as well. The Supreme Court can still tell off the Public if the law is unconstitutional (They've done that plenty of times to California Propositions).
Just one more check...something that We the People can do to keep an eye on our repressentative and perhaps the corperations as well via that eye in the government...since they would have to deal with us all on a different level if the majority could stop Congress cold. It might be a poor idea...but it was something I though of in a Political Science class when were were talking about the differences between a Republic and a Democracy. At the time we figured a Democracy on the scale of the United States was not possible, but considered the Internet to be a way to make it possible.
__________________
|
2011-06-27, 21:29 | Link #14466 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Naturally, the corporations are doing all they can to eviscerate/hijack/pwn the government - and frankly, I think they succeeded.
__________________
|
|
2011-06-27, 21:37 | Link #14467 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Well to be fair, they didn't really need to try...we elected them to office in the past so they just too their business with them into the Government. (Think of all the old time tycoons that have been elected to public office since the 1800s. Or how many corperate headman's children have been elected to office.)
__________________
|
2011-06-27, 21:39 | Link #14468 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
There's been a quiet "class war" since the 1850s... and simple historical observation shows that every time these 'tycoons' have gotten what they want - it breaks the country.
__________________
|
2011-06-27, 22:18 | Link #14469 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-06-27, 22:40 | Link #14470 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
I wonder how much further things have to go, before third parties actually have a chance... |
|
2011-06-27, 22:57 | Link #14471 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-06-27, 23:37 | Link #14475 | ||||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
this one has the actual video. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2011-06-28, 00:21 | Link #14476 |
This was meaningless
Scanlator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Not on this site no more.
Age: 36
|
@corporations n'd government,
I think it's easier to blackmail or shame a politician out of office than it is to dismantle a multinational's executives and board of directors. That's silly. She's supposed to shoot for that Fox News contributor position after the elections are over. |
2011-06-28, 00:56 | Link #14477 |
Senior Member
|
Can't say I'm against his idea. Part of the problem with our Government, is things have gotten far too complicated, and filled with loop-holes for all of the special interests. Hell our entire Founding Documents for this country don't even make a dent on that 2700 page monstrosity that is Obama's Healthcare Reform.
|
2011-06-28, 02:39 | Link #14478 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
That being said, I do agree that the current form of US government is unnecessarily complicated...I do believe part of that is simply due to the size of the country and its desired place in the world, but it is still painfully obvious that there is less transparency than there should be (and there is no clear cut solution to fixing the problem). |
|
2011-06-28, 02:45 | Link #14479 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
I think John Huntsman, and Fred Karger are the most interesting candidates myself.
But they're from the moderate wing of the republican party, and with the rightward shift they've been having lately, I don't their chances are too high. But I only think a moderate candidate will have any chance of challenging Barrack Obama. Of course Obama will have some difficulties considering not much has changed, and there isn't much hope either... My own view on democracy is, echoing Synaesthetic that it's very important for society to be in continuous struggle with itself, no side should ever come out on top. While we know why we don't want government or Corporations to come out on top, it's equally important that the people don't come out on top either. Just read a bit about the mob rule that was endemic in many greek democracies, and that mob rule tends to devolve into dictatorships and persecution of minorities way too easily... If any group grows too secure it stops striving to do anything. Humanity thrives in the face of adversity. It's interesting to note that the US government was founded with this sort of thing in mind. The "founding fathers" intended that the various instruments of government be in continuous deadlock so that it would be difficult to make radical changes. The US has had a long history of the kind of deadlock we're seeing right now, and you could say this has been very successful. Most of the greatest successes of the state have taken place when the governments were least secure. |
2011-06-28, 02:53 | Link #14480 | |
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
As for control over corporations, the only people who have any real say over what goes on with the board of directors are the shareholders. The thing is, only people who own over a certain percentage of a company's shares can take part in voting and board meetings, so in the end, it's still the rich who decide who else is going to be more rich and powerful, and the people themselves, the customers, have little to no control over the decision making. The most people can do is boycott a company, but that's rarely feasible when companies are so big that people can't do without them out of habit. |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|