geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: vivalarevolución on Fri, 31 July 2015, 16:13:00
-
Thank god. Can we stop acting like we live in a democracy now?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
I thought it was a type of pickle!
-
hahahahahaha..
I think this probably comes as a shock to lower income people, that their votes don't matter..
But middle income and above, they're all quite aware of THE GAME...
-
this is news?
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5bEPrhu5a19-0MG7tBiir-_Qm58ZgNlzfoSfjHXFrW1Wd00He)
-
this is news?
Especially since it's Carter. Now if it was a Bush or the ghost of Reagan, that would be huge.
-
*distant snickering*
-
this is news?
I thought it was interesting that a former president openly admitted it, rather than the usual ra-ra patriotic nonsense we hear from the top politicians.
But now that I think about, anybody at the top of the pile knows this place is an oligarchy that to get to the top of the pile.
-
I thought it was interesting that a former president openly admitted it,
Jimmy Carter is the only president in my lifetime willing to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
That is why so many people have tried so hard, unsuccessfully, to denigrate him.
I would be hard-pressed to name a human being who I admire more, even though I think that his religious beliefs are ridiculous.
-
I would be hard-pressed to name a human being who I admire more, even though I think that his religious beliefs are ridiculous.
That funny. I would be hard pressed to name a human being who I admire more, even though I think his political beliefs are ridiculous!
-
Oligarchy is probably better anyways tbh.
-
Oligarchy is probably better anyways tbh.
Only if they were perfectly moral and ethical people. The problem is when an oligarchy is run by people trying to remain in power and retain and grow their wealth. I don't know of a single oligarchy that didn't devolve into a group of people trying to maintain their power at the expense of those they're over.
-
Oligarchy is probably better anyways tbh.
Only if they were perfectly moral and ethical people.
The same can be said about democracy. Scumbags voting for scumbags = scumbag gov't.
-
Oligarchy is probably better anyways tbh.
Only if they were perfectly moral and ethical people.
The same can be said about democracy. Scumbags voting for scumbags = scumbag gov't.
Vote for Trump!
-
We don't have ethical people at the head of the government plus they can be funded by other non-ethical big money guys. So you just end up with a bunch of jerks ruling the world and serving their own interests. That's why so many problems haven't found solution in multiple decades.
-
How to US capitalism:
- ****ty voting system. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k)
- Little to no regulations on big companies.
- Legally allowed bribes (known as lobbying).
With these three steps an oligarchy is inevitable.
Regarding the problem with people voting for ****ty candidates the explanation is simple: people are selfish and easily manipulated.
I can recommend watching the fantastic documentary series The Century of the Self (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432232/).
Episodes:
More
- "Happiness Machines" (https://vimeo.com/75776128)
About Edward Bernays who invented PR. - "The Engineering of Consent" (https://vimeo.com/75779119)
About how Freud's theories influenced both companies and politics. - "There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed" (https://vimeo.com/10245146)
About the counter culture and how they ironically became even better and more easily manipulated customers. - "Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering" (https://vimeo.com/75784765) This is the most relevant one to the topic.
About how/why politics in the US/UK became more and more like a business in which voters are seen more as customers and less as citizens.
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
-
Vote for Trump!
+1
Send all the Mexicans home....except Demik, he can stay.
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
Not necessarily true, and certainly not inevitable.
But citizens who do not vote are helping to ensure the worst possible outcomes for their countries.
Worse, they are squandering the precious votes that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people fought and gave their lives to win, over the course of nearly 2 and a half centuries.
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
Not necessarily true, and certainly not inevitable.
But citizens who do not vote are helping to ensure the worst possible outcomes for their countries.
Worse, they are squandering the precious votes that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people fought and gave their lives to win, over the course of nearly 2 and a half centuries.
Fohat.. They didn't win democracy, perhaps most of them FOUGHT for it.. but it has always been an oligarchy, regardless what any pieces of paper says.
As soon as Some guy gets cushy, and doesn't have to work as hard as his fellow man for greater pay.. THAT GUY becomes corrupt.
-
As soon as Some guy gets cushy, and doesn't have to work as hard as his fellow man for greater pay.. THAT GUY becomes corrupt.
I am getting really angry at the blind arrogant infantile stupidity of every post-Vietnam generation.
They pretend that they are so ****ing wise and insightful that they need to climb onto a pedestal of apathy to protest the ugliness of the world.
Your are an idiot and deserve whatever Republican you help to put into office by not supporting the true champions of the true citizens of this country.
-
Your are an idiot
A+
and deserve whatever Republican you help to put into office by not supporting the true champions of the true citizens of this country.
You mean those two 70+ year old, white douchebags running on the dem side? The ones that took $27 million from Goldman Sachs and $44 million from Soros Fund Management?
And if Plugs Biden enters the race, among him, Clinton and Sanders, they will have been in Washington a combined total of 94 years as of January 2017.
-
You mean those two 70+ year old, white douchebags running on the dem side? The ones that took $27 million from Goldman Sachs and $44 million from Soros Fund Management?
And if Plugs Biden enters the race, among him, Clinton and Sanders, they will have been in Washington a combined total of 94 years as of January 2017.
How dare you call Bernie Sanders a douchebag.
But, to answer your unwritten question, yes, absolutely anything is better than the alternative.
-
Your are an idiot
A+
and deserve whatever Republican you help to put into office by not supporting the true champions of the true citizens of this country.
You mean those two 70+ year old, white douchebags running on the dem side? The ones that took $27 million from Goldman Sachs and $44 million from Soros Fund Management?
And if Plugs Biden enters the race, among him, Clinton and Sanders, they will have been in Washington a combined total of 94 years as of January 2017.
Sanders practices what he preaches and doesn't take corporate sponsors. I don't agree with him on some things, but he is worlds better than the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul.
Also, I strongly dislike Clinton. She'll change her tune based on the political climate and her corporate sponsors. If it was between her and one of the crazy Republicans, I'd probably vote Green Party or Libertarian because they're all terrible options.
-
As soon as Some guy gets cushy, and doesn't have to work as hard as his fellow man for greater pay.. THAT GUY becomes corrupt.
I am getting really angry at the blind arrogant infantile stupidity of every post-Vietnam generation.
They pretend that they are so ****ing wise and insightful that they need to climb onto a pedestal of apathy to protest the ugliness of the world.
Your are an idiot and deserve whatever Republican you help to put into office by not supporting the true champions of the true citizens of this country.
But fohat.. You're part of the corruption.. you've silently accepted the general exploitation of lesser nations by bathing in American abundance..
Whatever your beliefs, whatever you say, is at best an attempt to ameliorate your own guilt.
Because in truth, your actions are Aligned with the Pyramid down agenda..
-
If it was between her and one of the crazy Republicans, I'd probably vote Green Party or Libertarian because they're all terrible options.
Whatever you do, don't do that!
Locked in a 2-party system, you must ALWAYS choose the lesser of the 2 evils!
And I totally agree with you, Hillary Clinton is personally repugnant and this country really needs at least 2 more viable parties.
But as I said earlier, people MUST stop voting for people and start voting for ideas.
-
As soon as Some guy gets cushy, and doesn't have to work as hard as his fellow man for greater pay.. THAT GUY becomes corrupt.
I am getting really angry at the blind arrogant infantile stupidity of every post-Vietnam generation.
They pretend that they are so ****ing wise and insightful that they need to climb onto a pedestal of apathy to protest the ugliness of the world.
Your are an idiot and deserve whatever Republican you help to put into office by not supporting the true champions of the true citizens of this country.
Huh. So stereotyping an entire generation or two is somehow not a similarly stupid thing to do? Got it. :thumb:
-
As soon as Some guy gets cushy, and doesn't have to work as hard as his fellow man for greater pay.. THAT GUY becomes corrupt.
I am getting really angry at the blind arrogant infantile stupidity of every post-Vietnam generation.
They pretend that they are so ****ing wise and insightful that they need to climb onto a pedestal of apathy to protest the ugliness of the world.
Your are an idiot and deserve whatever Republican you help to put into office by not supporting the true champions of the true citizens of this country.
Huh. So stereotyping an entire generation or two is somehow not a similarly stupid thing to do? Got it. :thumb:
It is general practice to wait for the incumbent power holders to DIE..
But, TBH, the world doesn't really change, once a human is in a position of power, he behaves quite predictably..
This is a shortcoming of man, not really the fault of choice.... it will happen regardless of who we put in the hot seat.
Except Tp4... Tp4 guarantees rights... and Ergodoxes for all.. covered under Tp4 Cares.
-
Jed Blush, Ted Snooze, Don't Trump/Dankald Mememp, ****e ****abee, Flobby Kenndal, Frick Perry, Tick Sanpoorum, Marco Doobieo, Snott Walker, and Bland Pul.
i have taken this oppurtunity to make poorly thought out not funny names
-
While it is not a pure democracy, the representative republic that we in the US enjoy is probably a good compromise and one worth protecting while trying to improve it. I agree with fohat that we must resist apathy and instead, participate in the system that we have. Part of our responsibilities as citizens is to become well informed about the candidates and issues so that our voting decisions are based on thoughtful analysis and not just clever slogans, which way the winds are blowing, or which celebrity is endorsing them.
To become well informed means more than watching your favorite news show or reading a certain political blogster. I would recommend spending at least 2 hours following sources that differ from your present position for every hour among "allies". Make yourself a little uncomfortable. You may find that the so called other side has some good points that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. The worst indoctrination comes from an exclusive diet from sources you already agree with. They reinforce possible misconceptions you may have and probably mischaracterize the opposing position. This exercise will also give you a broader base to understand the positions you finally adopt.
-
But, TBH, the world doesn't really change, once a human is in a position of power, he behaves quite predictably..
This is a shortcoming of man, not really the fault of choice.... it will happen regardless of who we put in the hot seat.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln
-
While it is not a pure democracy, the representative republic that we in the US enjoy is probably a good compromise and one worth protecting while trying to improve it. I agree with fohat that we must resist apathy and instead, participate in the system that we have. Part of our responsibilities as citizens is to become well informed about the candidates and issues so that our voting decisions are based on thoughtful analysis and not just clever slogans, which way the winds are blowing, or which celebrity is endorsing them.
To become well informed means more than watching your favorite news show or reading a certain political blogster. I would recommend spending at least 2 hours following sources that differ from your present position for every hour among "allies". Make yourself a little uncomfortable. You may find that the so called other side has some good points that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. The worst indoctrination comes from an exclusive diet from sources you already agree with. They reinforce possible misconceptions you may have and probably mischaracterize the opposing position. This exercise will also give you a broader base to understand the positions you finally adopt.
Until you get drafted, and they send you to fight for the pride of the rich men that care not for your death.
-
But, TBH, the world doesn't really change, once a human is in a position of power, he behaves quite predictably..
This is a shortcoming of man, not really the fault of choice.... it will happen regardless of who we put in the hot seat.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln
(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/th_053_XD.gif)
-
Until you get drafted, and they send you to fight for the pride of the rich men that care not for your death.
I guess I was misinformed. I thought the draft ended in 1971.
-
So stereotyping an entire generation or two is somehow not a similarly stupid thing to do?
-
Until you get drafted, and they send you to fight for the pride of the rich men that care not for your death.
I guess I was misinformed. I thought the draft ended in 1971.
They don't call it a draft no more.. They call it poverty stricken lower class.. What choice do these people have.
-
Part of our responsibilities as citizens is to become well informed about the candidates and issues so that our voting decisions are based on thoughtful analysis and not just clever slogans, which way the winds are blowing, or which celebrity is endorsing them.
To become well informed means more than watching your favorite news show or reading a certain political blogster. I would recommend spending at least 2 hours following sources that differ from your present position for every hour among "allies". Make yourself a little uncomfortable. You may find that the so called other side has some good points that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. The worst indoctrination comes from an exclusive diet from sources you already agree with. They reinforce possible misconceptions you may have and probably mischaracterize the opposing position. This exercise will also give you a broader base to understand the positions you finally adopt.
Well said. I know I've said it here before, but informed voting is far more important than voting for the sake of voting.
So stereotyping an entire generation or two is somehow not a similarly stupid thing to do?
Now show me the percentages of each age range that actually did their research and knew what they were voting for. It very well might prove your point, and I hope it does, but again - voting for the sake of voting is not better than not voting! You don't prove anything by telling me that the older generations took the time to get in their cars and go fill out a form. :rolleyes: The thought that that would mean anything is just absurd, and frankly devalues your other arguments.
-
Until you get drafted, and they send you to fight for the pride of the rich men that care not for your death.
I guess I was misinformed. I thought the draft ended in 1971.
They don't call it a draft no more.. They call it poverty stricken lower class.. What choice do these people have.
Draft them to war or draft them to jail
-
this is news?
I thought it was interesting that a former president openly admitted it, rather than the usual ra-ra patriotic nonsense we hear from the top politicians.
But now that I think about, anybody at the top of the pile knows this place is an oligarchy that to get to the top of the pile.
Why hasn't he been assassinated yet?
-
and frankly devalues your other arguments.
Your responses continue to perplex me.
My "argument" is that my great country is going to hell because millions of people (and disproportionally more younger people) are, for whatever reasons, refusing to participate in the process of steering their own civil government, and thereby allowing it to be steered, by those who do not have their best interests at heart, in directions that do them great harm.
The voter turnout for the last election was 36% which means that 19% of eligible voters selected the people who actually rule our society.
Yet time and again, the responses put forth to my pleas for engagement are the most stupid and pathetic variations of "it doesn't matter anyway"
-
Hey, I voted for the black guy....the white guy sucked.
-
Until you get drafted, and they send you to fight for the pride of the rich men that care not for your death.
I guess I was misinformed. I thought the draft ended in 1971.
They don't call it a draft no more.. They call it poverty stricken lower class.. What choice do these people have.
Draft them to war or draft them to jail
I don't question that the best option for many young people is to join the military, although many join for reasons other than that they lacked other opportunities.
I admit (confess) that I'm an Orange County resident and because of that, some have a prejudice against me and my opinions. In spite of that, I've known a quite a few young guys who have joined the military and it turned out to be a good career move for them. These were people who did have other options.
Be careful with your flippant generalization. Someone may take you seriously.
-
We don't have ethical people at the head of the government plus they can be funded by other non-ethical big money guys. So you just end up with a bunch of jerks ruling the world and serving their own interests. That's why so many problems haven't found solution in multiple decades.
The desire to run for office should be the first disqualifier to run for office.
-
and frankly devalues your other arguments.
Your responses continue to perplex me.
My "argument" is that my great country is going to hell because millions of people (and disproportionally more younger people) are, for whatever reasons, refusing to participate in the process of steering their own civil government, and thereby allowing it to be steered, by those who do not have their best interests at heart, in directions that do them great harm.
The voter turnout for the last election was 36% which means that 19% of eligible voters selected the people who actually rule our society.
Yet time and again, the responses put forth to my pleas for engagement are the most stupid and pathetic variations of "it doesn't matter anyway"
But if all those people who voted only voted the way they did because of the little 'D' or 'R' next to the name, or because one ****ty attack ad was better than another, is that really what's best for the country? Quality over quantity is all I'm pushing for.
Quantity quality would be best, of course, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm just arguing against the "civil duty to vote" point you seem to be making. If you don't know what you're voting for, stay home. Don't go and vote just to push a bar higher on a graph. That's all I'm saying.
-
I'm just arguing against the "civil duty to vote" point you seem to be making.
Well, I did say:
"refusing to participate in the process of steering their own civil government"
-
Note that there has been a very deliberate attempt by Republicans to depress voter turnout by young people and minorities, and substantial erosion of voter rights over the last 50 years. Charts showing low turnout aren’t just about “the apathy of those lazy kids”.
People involved in the political system deserve much of the blame for failing to deliver on their promises, redrawing congressional districts to make them completely uncompetitive, turning the congress into a do-nothing gridlock, and passing laws handed to them by campaign donors without even reading the damn things, much less considering their other constituents.
If young people are drowning in debt, working ****ty jobs and have zero savings, are unable to afford to buy houses or raise families, or are disgusted and disempowered by a political process that doesn’t give a damn about them, blaming them for low turnout is futile or even counterproductive.
As far as I can tell, most the ills of this country are caused by the rapacious greed, entitlement and self indulgence, missing critical thinking, and lack of empathy of folks older than 50, and especially the so-called baby boomers, the “**** you, I got mine” generation. (Not speaking of anyone in specific here, just the general trend.)
Maybe if everyone over 55 stopped voting, this country would have a chance.
-
Note that there has been a very deliberate attempt by Republicans to depress voter turnout by young people and minorities, and substantial erosion of voter rights over the last 50 years. Charts showing low turnout aren’t just about “the apathy of those lazy kids”.
People involved in the political system deserve much of the blame for failing to deliver on their promises, redrawing congressional districts to make them completely uncompetitive, turning the congress into a do-nothing gridlock, and passing laws handed to them by campaign donors without even reading the damn things.
If young people are drowning in debt, working ****ty jobs and have zero savings, are unable to afford to buy houses or raise families, or are disgusted and disempowered by a political process that doesn’t give a damn about them, blaming them for low turnout is futile or even counterproductive.
I agree with all of that except for the last sentence.
Why are they in denial about the efficacy of using their one simple fundamental tool that takes an hour or less, on rare occasions, and costs nothing?
And unless they were asleep during history and civics classes, they should remember that a whole lot of people fought and died to give them that right.
It is an insult to those ancestors who made those gargantuan sacrifices to squander their basic civil responsibilities.
And, anyway, it was set up to be "us" not "them"
Take it Back!
-
I’m mostly just trolling you. I think making sweeping generalizations and trying to blame people for their social circumstances without actually knowing what their experience is like is counterproductive, whether or not the criticism is valid.
Better would be to get out there and do some voter recruitment drives, throw time and money behind attempts to get money out of politics, and agitate to return the tax system to what it looked like in the 70s before Saint Reagan sold us out to the billionaires.
-
Locked in a 2-party system, you must ALWAYS choose the lesser of the 2 evils!
But as I said earlier, people MUST stop voting for people and start voting for ideas.
Not saying you are jaded, fohat, but it's easy to become jaded and cynical on the issue of politics and voting. There are more effective solutions than complaining about it, however. I will admit that it's hard to feel like you are doing anything to improve the system.
We are locked in a two party system because a plurality, winner-take-all voting system doesn't lend towards an actual diverse debate. Given the choice between two uninspiring candidates, I can understand why many of us don't even bother, especially in places like my state which essentially is a one party state at this point.
There are more effective voting systems that don't make people feel like they are wasting their vote by voting for a smaller party. The key is to allow your voters to ranking candidates or parties on the ballet, so you can actually put the guy or gal you really want to win at the top of the ballot. Maybe your 2nd or 3rd choice wins the election, but you can vote without feeling like your vote is "wasted" on a smaller party. (No vote is wasted, by the way).
A friend from college runs this organization: http://www.electology.org
The voting system is only one of the deeply embedded problems, but plurality voting benefits the current parties in power, so we will not see the largest government entities making a change towards different voting systems. It starts from the bottom. Don't expect those in power to change a system that benefits them.
And don't forget your sense of humor, the people in power need a reminder of how ridiculous they can be sometimes.
-
And don't forget your sense of humor, the people in power need a reminder of how ridiculous they can be sometimes.
I hope that the intelligent people in Florida who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 are still kicking themselves in the ass, very hard, every day.
-
Note that there has been a very deliberate attempt by Republicans to depress voter turnout by young people and minorities, and substantial erosion of voter rights over the last 50 years. Charts showing low turnout aren’t just about “the apathy of those lazy kids”.
Could you further elaborate on this. I am seriously interested in understanding this perspective. If you are referring to the voter ID actions, I'm not sure that is an unreasonable request. If there is a fee attached to securing one, I would think loyal party members would be more than willing to cover such an expense to secure a party vote. It is less than what is spent in ads per vote.
The reason this is important to me is because of something I witnessed the last time I went to the polls. As I signed my name I noticed that my 3 daughters were still on the roster at my address, which is surprising since they were also registered at their new residences as well. What shocked me more was seeing my neighbors name on the list is spite of the fact that she had been dead for 10 years prior. Without ID, an unscrupulous voter could easily double dip with little effort. I'm sure the partisans have their obvious calculations for enacting or fighting such a law but I see requiring ID to be akin to the need for drivers ID.
People involved in the political system deserve much of the blame for failing to deliver on their promises, redrawing congressional districts to make them completely uncompetitive, turning the congress into a do-nothing gridlock, and passing laws handed to them by campaign donors without even reading the damn things, much less considering their other constituents.
Agreed. There is plenty of evidence for gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle
As far as I can tell, most the ills of this country are caused by the rapacious greed, entitlement and self indulgence, missing critical thinking, and lack of empathy of folks older than 50, and especially the so-called baby boomers, the “**** you, I got mine” generation. (Not speaking of anyone in specific here, just the general trend.)
Maybe if everyone over 55 stopped voting, this country would have a chance.
I'm guessing this was the joke but there are indeed selfish people of all ages and the seniors represent their share of it. I think it often comes down to fear. They see their finances dwindling and with no means for making more it can bring out the worst in them, much like the young worker entering the work force with little prospects. It's easy for all of us to judge the severity of a problem by how it affects us personally. No excuse, just an explanation.
One thing to mention however. All ages have something to contribute. The youthful idealism and energy along with fresh perspectives of a changing world, make the younger voter invaluable. At the same time it is important to recognize that the older voter has already walked through the life stages that are still before his juniors and the benefit of their experience has great value as well.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States)
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time prentending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005), only to see it being done anyway 2years later. And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
Someone spoke about the sacrifice our ancestors made to obtain democracy, and how it's disrespectful not to vote.
People have fought and died for a lot of things in history but not all of those fights were right.
American settlers killing the idians wasn't right, Khmer Rouge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge) wasn't either so were a lot of other fights (please notice how I'm trying to avoid the Godwin point).
I'm kind of losing what I'm trying to say, but people had ideas they fought for, some were right, some weren't, and some other didn't end up working.
I believe democracy is part of the non working things, on paper it's nice, just like Communism, yet I'm not aware of a Communism government that worked.
Just to say I won't be shamed into voting because people died for it centuries ago.
And I go to vote at every election, but I vote NOTA since none of the options represent me, sadly here, NOTA is counted as Spoilt vote so I'm not voting.
Voting is a right, not a duty. It's up to each to chose how to use this right, and no one should be guilted/forced into using his rights.
-
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?
Since the beginning of civilization there have been conflicts over many disputes, both between societies and within them.
Internal struggles, in particular, generally revolve around money and power (different but inter-related), and whether it is "right" to allow them to concentrate in ever-tightening spirals of control, or whether they should be distributed equitably.
Every person has his own thoughts and feelings on this subject, but I must point out that all major religions and philosophies teach that compassion and generosity are virtues while arrogance and greed are faults.
Furthermore, no society has ever survived, long-term, with a system that allowed ever-increasing concentration of wealth and power (with the possible exception of England, with its medieval class system still partially intact).
With instantaneous worldwide communication and rapid intercontinental travel, the Earth has become so "small" that it is ridiculous and bizarre that there is not a viable governing body to oversee the planet and the interactions of its citizen nations, if even in the most basic ways.
PS - many of my ancestors were Indian killers and slave owners, but that does not mean that I am required to have the same opinions as they did
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.
True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...
-
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?
That was just one concrete exemple to discuss my point
Since the beginning of civilization there have been conflicts over many disputes, both between societies and within them.
Internal struggles, in particular, generally revolve around money and power (different but inter-related), and whether it is "right" to allow them to concentrate in ever-tightening spirals of control, or whether they should be distributed equitably.
Every person has his own thoughts and feelings on this subject, but I must point out that all major religions and philosophies teach that compassion and generosity are virtues while arrogance and greed are faults.
Furthermore, no society has ever survived, long-term, with a system that allowed ever-increasing concentration of wealth and power (with the possible exception of England, with its medieval class system still partially intact).
With instantaneous worldwide communication and rapid intercontinental travel, the Earth has become so "small" that it is ridiculous and bizarre that there is not a viable governing body to oversee the planet and the interactions of its citizen nations, if even in the most basic ways.
How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.
PS - many of my ancestors were Indian killers and slave owners, but that does not mean that I am required to have the same opinions as they did
There's a word to qualify someone who judge a person on his ancestor but I can't find it back. And I'm not part of those peoples anyway, having resentment for someone is never good, but having it for something the person isn't responsible is beyond stupid.
And my ancestors probably took part of terrible things too.
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.
True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...
It's not because something is demonized by occidental television that it's bad.
Irak and Syria,Lybia were working before USA invasion, also Venezuela.
I'M NOT SAYING DICTATORSHIP IS GREAT.
EDIT:added Lybia.
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.
True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...
It's not because something is demonized by occidental television that it's bad.
Irak and Syria were working before USA invasion, also Venezuela.
I'M NOT SAYING DICTATORSHIP IS GREAT.
lmao
dees examples, why did you miss off North Korea tho?
-
How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/)
A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt (a very wealthy man from a very wealthy old family) took on this problem and made huge strides to rectify it. No other American has ever been remotely as successful, but that does not mean that it is not possible, or that it not worth attempting.
-
How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/)
A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt (a very wealthy man from a very wealthy old family) took on this problem and made huge strides to rectify it. No other American has ever been remotely as successful, but that does not mean that it is not possible, or that it not worth attempting.
Indeed it is not, but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.
-
How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/)
A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt (a very wealthy man from a very wealthy old family) took on this problem and made huge strides to rectify it. No other American has ever been remotely as successful, but that does not mean that it is not possible, or that it not worth attempting.
Indeed it is not, but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.
The only solution is a planet wide dictatorship.
-
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.
Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
-
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.
Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
I'll have look them up, I don't follow america politics closely.
-
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.
Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
Quick googling of these people didn't show much... Bernie Sanders doesn't seem that special
-
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?
Oh don’t worry, the French are out there protesting. Protesting is a favorite pastime of young Parisians, much more than in the US.
Not sure it accomplishes much, but it’s kind of fun to march around shouting slogans.
-
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.
Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
Quick googling of these people didn't show much... Bernie Sanders doesn't seem that special
he's basically said he's gonna do what every other politician says, same "clean up government" ****.
-
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?
*insert french surrender joke
-
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?
Oh don’t worry, the French are out there protesting. Protesting is a favorite pastime of young Parisians, much more than in the US.
Not sure it accomplishes much, but it’s kind of fun to march around shouting slogans.
And by protesting, you mean set **** on fire? huehue
-
Protesting never achieved anything. It just allow some idiots to break stuff, and other idiots to think they achieved something, just like living the charity **** on Facebook.
I remember High School, some dumbass blocked the school entrance for a stupidity they had no interest in beside an opportunity not to go to school, we had to fukin jump other fences on the side of the school to reach classroom.
-
Protesting never achieved anything.
This is my feeling.
A vote is a tool. Perhaps it is a small tool, but that is no reason not to join together and use it.
It would have been impossible for 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000 men to build the Pyramids. But 10,000 or 100,000? Different story.
It is just a matter or scale.
The evil ones know that "divide and conquer" is a winning strategy. They stick together and achieve their ends.
People of principle are generally independent, and therefore hard to co-ordinate.
-
Protesting never achieved anything.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -Mitch Hedberg
-
It would have been impossible for 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000 men to build the Pyramids. But 10,000 or 100,000? Different story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8)
-
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.
This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.
True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...
It's not because something is demonized by occidental television that it's bad.
Irak and Syria,Lybia were working before USA invasion, also Venezuela.
I'M NOT SAYING DICTATORSHIP IS GREAT.
EDIT:added Lybia.
http://panampost.com/fergus-hodgson/2015/08/04/venezuelan-inflation-soars-to-800/
:)
-
Singapore is a great example of a functioning dictatorship.
-
Singapore is a great example of a functioning dictatorship.
In what way?
-
It's rich, has a diversified economy and is very safe.
-
...no... in what way is it a dictatorship?
-
...no... in what way is it a dictatorship?
Well, it had a single leader for 30 years, is ruled by a single political party (there weren’t even any opposition members of parliament for about 20 years; currently there are 6 opposition MPs out of about 90 total), cracks down hard on dissidents and has a history of imprisoning opposition politicians, strictly limits free speech, and has all kinds of draconian laws including a very high per capita use of the death penalty, with e.g. execution for drug trafficking offenses. There are no jury trials in Singapore, and judges have strong links to the ruling party.
The classic William Gibson Wired essay is here: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html
-
...no... in what way is it a dictatorship?
Well, it had a single leader for 30 years, is ruled by a single political party (there weren’t even any opposition members of parliament for about 20 years; currently there are 6 opposition MPs out of about 90 total), cracks down hard on dissidents and has a history of imprisoning opposition politicians, strictly limits free speech, and has all kinds of draconian laws including a very high per capita use of the death penalty, with e.g. execution for drug trafficking offenses.
The classic William Gibson Wired essay is here: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html
I'll have to have a read on my lunch break, but that article is over 20 years old. And from what I've read up, the single leader is the President, and doesn't he act more like the British Queen, with a more ceremonial role than dictating policies?
-
The prime minister is the more powerful figure than the president, though for a while I think the president has officially had the power to appoint the prime minister. I dunno, I’m not an expert on Singapore’s government.
Do note that the current prime minister (since 2004) Lee Hsien Loong is the son of Lee Kuan Yew, who was the prime minister from 1959–1990. So in the past 56 years, Singapore has had a total of 3 prime ministers, with a pair of them being father/son.
I’m not sure I’d call it a “dictatorship”; however, it’s also nowhere close to democratic.
-
The prime minister is the more powerful figure than the president, though for a while I think the president has officially had the power to appoint the prime minister. I dunno, I’m not an expert on Singapore’s government.
Do note that the current prime minister (since 2004) Lee Hsien Loong is the son of Lee Kuan Yew, who was the prime minister from 1959–1990. So in the past 56 years, Singapore has had a total of 3 prime ministers, with a pair of them being father/son.
I’m not sure I’d call it a “dictatorship”; however, it’s also nowhere close to democratic.
Yeah, reading up a bit more on it now, it only gained independence in 1965 so it's lack of leaders isn't that shocking. While it might have been fair to call it a dictatorship at one point, from what I can see, that's not really the case anymore.... but I could be wrong, I'm no expert.