Will of the People, DWILAWYER

[Jim Naseum]

Dwilawyer,

 

For some reason, the other thread is closed and I couldn't answer your question, which was very important. 

 

When I say "more democracy" I mean the principle of more "will of the people." It's not really just elections, it is well beyond that. As C. Wright Mills and Wm.Domhoff showed, the entirety of America is ruled by elites on strictly elite values and interests. This affects all aspects of our life. 

 

It has always been this way, and as far as I can see, will always be this way. I want to use a firm example to demonstrate this: for over 50 years grass roots America has favored by 6 to 4 a universal style health care program, as they have in many rich countries. And yet, they can never achieve this. There are many, many other examples, such as corporate personhood, wars, progressive taxes and so on. Elites give lip service through their political proxies, but never acquiesce to such popular values.  

[Jeff Matthews]

Dwilawyer,

 

For some reason, the other thread is closed and I couldn't answer your question, which was very important. 

 

When I say "more democracy" I mean the principle of more "will of the people." It's not really just elections, it is well beyond that. As C. Wright Mills and Wm.Domhoff showed, the entirety of America is ruled by elites on strictly elite values and interests. This affects all aspects of our life. 

 

It has always been this way, and as far as I can see, will always be this way. I want to use a firm example to demonstrate this: for over 50 years grass roots America has favored by 6 to 4 a universal style health care program, as they have in many rich countries. And yet, they can never achieve this. There are many, many other examples, such as corporate personhood, wars, progressive taxes and so on. Elites give lip service through their political proxies, but never acquiesce to such popular values.  

 

You are right, and let me chime in on this.

 

All government are run by elites and upon elite values and interests.  Take, for example, the concept of ownership of land by way of titles and deeds/conveyances.  This concept was unknown in the Western Hemisphere until Europeans brought it here.  Not all of the elite are callous sociopaths, and so they will acquiesce to some "popular" values.  But naturally, they will run the government in a manner which serves their interests.  That's what governments are for. If you could write the laws, would you write one which says, "Jo56 can't have Klipsch speakers?"  Of course, not!

[jimjimbo]

And, I will say what has been said many, many times in the past, but it just doesn't seem to get through....If you don't exercise your right to vote, you have no excuses.  You will be governed and many choices will be made that directly affect you and your family, by the persons that do exercise that right choose in the ballot box.

[Jeff Matthews]

If you don't exercise your right to vote, you have no excuses.

 

To borrow from George Carlin:

 

If you vote, it's your fault.  You voted for them.  Not me. 

[jimjimbo]

 

If you don't exercise your right to vote, you have no excuses.

 

To borrow from George Carlin:

 

If you vote, it's your fault.  You voted for them.  Not me. 

 

That too.

[Jim Naseum]

I wasn't really referring to voting, which is an end of the line process that occurs way down the line after all the interesting choices of ethics, values and philosophy have already been made by the extra-governmental institutions run by and for elites.

As it functions in the US, and most other countries with elections, voting is a public confidence builder providing the appearance of control by allowing the choice of pre-vetted representatives. "Hey, you had the chance to vote- live with it!"

This is not secret information, or conspiracy theory, it's just information that takes a little digging to uncover. The CFR, Hoover, Brookings, Rand do not hide. Boards of directors of the elite universities are public information. Influence trees can be drawn by anyone with a little initiative.

My comment that we need "more democracy" wasn't intended to mean more voting. It means more influence from the common and less from the elite. A shift.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[fuzzydog]

Good thing we're a constitutional republic...

A pure democracy doesn't protect the rights of the minority.

[jimjimbo]

I wasn't really referring to voting, which is an end of the line process that occurs way down the line after all the interesting choices of ethics, values and philosophy have already been made by the extra-governmental institutions run by and for elites.

As it functions in the US, and most other countries with elections, voting is a public confidence builder providing the appearance of control by allowing the choice of pre-vetted representatives. "Hey, you had the chance to vote- live with it!"

This is not secret information, or conspiracy theory, it's just information that takes a little digging to uncover. The CFR, Hoover, Brookings, Rand do not hide. Boards of directors of the elite universities are public information. Influence trees can be drawn by anyone with a little initiative.

My comment that we need "more democracy" wasn't intended to mean more voting. It means more influence from the common and less from the elite. A shift.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I can only surmise from your statements above that you feel it is a waste of time to vote, and you do not.  Would that be correct?

Edited October 8, 2015 by jimjimbo

[Jim Naseum]

Good thing we're a constitutional republic...

A pure democracy doesn't protect the rights of the minority.

Minority interests are always difficult to resolve in any society, regardless of what form of government is chosen. There are branches of anarchy philosophy that are well suited to protecting the interests of minorities.

Decentralized societies are the best bet.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[red1302]

I'm borrowing words from Robert Heinlein-

 

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.

 

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.

 

Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

 

 

My own thought.If we were todo what we should in the betterment  of our neighbors (next door) or globally, the need for "great" and powerful governments would not be  needed. However, that seldom happens.

[Mallette]

There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against.

 

Love Heinlein.  But he was SO wrong about that as I finally learned.  I'd be pushing limits if I said why here, but let's just say when you are choosing between candidates who all carry on essentially the same policies except for red herrings that make them appear different, there is no one to vote against or for. 

 

Dave

[T2K]

If we live long enough you will see that you are so wrong Dave.

Keith

[garyrc]

Decentralized societies are the best bet.

 

I think decentralized functioning is good for some tasks, and centralized government is better for others.  Face to face (or skype to skype, now) decision making is appropriate for issues that are truly local.  Some tasks, like dealing with ISIS, or the environment, may require world wide action ... but we are getting close to making that possible skype to skype, too ... world wide plebiscite, donations, organizations ... specific coalitions for specific purposes ... If Bono and Pat Robertson can pool their efforts, then anything's possible!

Edited October 8, 2015 by garyrc

[Travis In Austin]

Dwilawyer,

For some reason, the other thread is closed and I couldn't answer your question, which was very important.

When I say "more democracy" I mean the principle of more "will of the people." It's not really just elections, it is well beyond that. As C. Wright Mills and Wm.Domhoff showed, the entirety of America is ruled by elites on strictly elite values and interests. This affects all aspects of our life.

It has always been this way, and as far as I can see, will always be this way. I want to use a firm example to demonstrate this: for over 50 years grass roots America has favored by 6 to 4 a universal style health care program, as they have in many rich countries. And yet, they can never achieve this. There are many, many other examples, such as corporate personhood, wars, progressive taxes and so on. Elites give lip service through their political proxies, but never acquiesce to such popular values.

I agree with you, as I mentioned in the previous thread. But I am an optomist and believe that if it get to the point where we don't vote, they have won.

Hopefully we can keep this thread from being locked by remaining historical and philosophical.

I am familar with Bill, I met him several times growing up in Santa Cruz. I am also familar with Dr. Mills. He went to UT and his papers are at the Briscoe Center. I personally looked at some of his papers there for an article I was writing. I am a labor lawyer, and Dr. Mills wrote an excellent book on how labor leaders shifted the labor movement.

As I stated in that other thread, special interests and the way they can exert influence is the problem in my view.

You have come up with a great example with universal health care. Who is the most powerful lobby in Washington? The AMA.

A well organized and funded special interest can defeat legislation that the minority are in favor of unfortunately. The brakes on mob rule is the Court.

I believe history has shown that the non-elite can prevail over the elite when they want to.

This is a serious question I have pondered, was the civil war the elite vs. the elite, or the non-elite vs. the elite?

I think civil rights was a loss for the elite.

The voting rights act of '65.

The New Deal.

Taft-Hartley.

I think their were Presidents who may have been from the elite but who have vwry non-elite agendas.

LBJ wasnt from the elite and pissed them off, but also courted then and knew how to make a buck.

FDR, and Teddy too. Progressives.

[Wolfbane]

 

Dwilawyer,

 

For some reason, the other thread is closed and I couldn't answer your question, which was very important. 

 

When I say "more democracy" I mean the principle of more "will of the people." It's not really just elections, it is well beyond that. As C. Wright Mills and Wm.Domhoff showed, the entirety of America is ruled by elites on strictly elite values and interests. This affects all aspects of our life. 

 

It has always been this way, and as far as I can see, will always be this way. I want to use a firm example to demonstrate this: for over 50 years grass roots America has favored by 6 to 4 a universal style health care program, as they have in many rich countries. And yet, they can never achieve this. There are many, many other examples, such as corporate personhood, wars, progressive taxes and so on. Elites give lip service through their political proxies, but never acquiesce to such popular values.  

 

You are right, and let me chime in on this.

 

All government are run by elites and upon elite values and interests.  Take, for example, the concept of ownership of land by way of titles and deeds/conveyances.  This concept was unknown in the Western Hemisphere until Europeans brought it here.  Not all of the elite are callous sociopaths, and so they will acquiesce to some "popular" values.  But naturally, they will run the government in a manner which serves their interests.  That's what governments are for. If you could write the laws, would you write one which says, "Jo56 can't have Klipsch speakers?"  Of course, not!

 

Where I'm living there may have been no titles or deeds to persons occupying the land 150 years ago but what there were in abundance was thousands of Blackfoot Indians who were not inclined to share their land with the Cree, Sioux or Northern Cheyenne. Ever. They were not real willing to have white homesteaders either until after they (the natives) cut a Treaty deal with the Crown enforced by the North West Mounted Police. Prior to the treaty, Hudson's Bay Trappers could trap safely only with the then land occupant's prior-permission.

[Jim Naseum]

Dwilawyer,

For some reason, the other thread is closed and I couldn't answer your question, which was very important.

When I say "more democracy" I mean the principle of more "will of the people." It's not really just elections, it is well beyond that. As C. Wright Mills and Wm.Domhoff showed, the entirety of America is ruled by elites on strictly elite values and interests. This affects all aspects of our life.

It has always been this way, and as far as I can see, will always be this way. I want to use a firm example to demonstrate this: for over 50 years grass roots America has favored by 6 to 4 a universal style health care program, as they have in many rich countries. And yet, they can never achieve this. There are many, many other examples, such as corporate personhood, wars, progressive taxes and so on. Elites give lip service through their political proxies, but never acquiesce to such popular values.

I agree with you, as I mentioned in the previous thread. But I am an optomist and believe that if it get to the point where we don't vote, they have won.

Hopefully we can keep this thread from being locked by remaining historical and philosophical.

I am familar with Bill, I met him several times growing up in Santa Cruz. I am also familar with Dr. Mills. He went to UT and his papers are at the Briscoe Center. I personally looked at some of his papers there for an article I was writing. I am a labor lawyer, and Dr. Mills wrote an excellent book on how labor leaders shifted the labor movement.

As I stated in that other thread, special interests and the way they can exert influence is the problem in my view.

You have come up with a great example with universal health care. Who is the most powerful lobby in Washington? The AMA.

A well organized and funded special interest can defeat legislation that the minority are in favor of unfortunately. The brakes on mob rule is the Court.

I believe history has shown that the non-elite can prevail over the elite when they want to.

This is a serious question I have pondered, was the civil war the elite vs. the elite, or the non-elite vs. the elite?

I think civil rights was a loss for the elite.

The voting rights act of '65.

The New Deal.

Taft-Hartley.

I think their were Presidents who may have been from the elite but who have vwry non-elite agendas.

LBJ wasnt from the elite and pissed them off, but also courted then and knew how to make a buck.

FDR, and Teddy too. Progressives.

That's very interesting that you have personal interaction with BD. I'm jealous.

Yes, there are times the elites must give. It's usually on social rather than economic issues, but in all cases effective rulers have to know when to give just enough.

I think we have to recognize the paradox of advocating voting while decrying too much government, as we see in many conservative and libertarian strains of politics. "Vote for me, and I'll reduce government!" Riiiight.

Other political concepts are simply incompatible with our ever growing hierarchy-style elite rule. And then, we must consider carefully the moral imperatives. Is it morally acceptable to one to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils? For a known liar? For a corrupt official? For a corrupt system? What does it mean morally to endorse, legitimize and condone a government that is killing people, if you believe in nonviolence? (For instance)

Morality is always individual, which means you can't justify a wrong by saying, "my country required it of me." There's nowhere to hide. Now, of course I'm not telling you anything new. You know better than I that this is the entire historical problem of trying to govern on a large scale. There is just no accountability possible. Accountability is inversely proportional to the size of government.

Each person must align their priority between mind, body and spirit. Am I first after physical comfort? Spiritual purity? Or intellectual engagement? Who do I honor? Where is my truth? My allegiance?

The anarchists of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s has some wonderful writing about how noon authoritarian community works, while being spiritually pure. Sadly, the fascists won, as they usually do. But the idea did not die.

Much of the literature about voting is just mechanical, or at best intellectual and void of moral rigor.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited October 9, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jeff Matthews]

You know better than I that this is the entire historical problem of trying to govern on a large scale. There is just no accountability possible. Accountability is inversely proportional to the size of government.

 

Naturally, this is so.  Think about it from two other directions, though.

 

1.  Too small a government.  If it's you and me, what kind of accountability would there be for you if you could just beat me up to get what you want?  Let's add another person.  Now, we have 3.  2 can easily conspire, and probably, that's what would happen.  Where is the accountability there?  Eventually, the governed begin to consist of so many competing factions (not red and blue, but aligned in many small groups due to geography and special interests).  When there is a lot of competition in politics, then, you have accountability.  It's only when the game is rigged, that accountability diminishes.  The biggest problem is getting people to agree on what is "rigged."  It's an endless task, and I don't see it happening anytime real soon.

 

2.  Too big a government.  The more remote dictators are, the more they might be resented, but what can you do?  Only one thing, of course.  Vote for a different remote dictator.   The bigger an empire becomes, the more remote our rulers become. Once we concede all our national sovereignty to the UN, or whatever world organization fits the bill, your rulers will be all over the world.  Your Congress will bind itself to treaties and sell its own self out along the way.  At some point, our Congress will be the mere talking heads for dictators all over the world.  Well, actually, it's largely that way already.

 

We obviously will not retreat to having too small a government.  The impetus is clearly going the other way.  In a sense, though, that's often the way you want it to go when you are the most powerful empire in the world.  Presumably, the empire with the most power will tend to get the better deals.  Now, I don't know why some recent deals seemed on their face to be absurdly not in our favor (such as trading 5 jihadists for 1 deserter), so I won't go there.  But as far as moneyed-interests go, I am thinking that our big money is making very sure that we get the better parts of world-wide economic deals.  This is good for us.  It is better to be the parasite than the host.  That's not to say the dispersion of the benefit is equitable among classes of citizens, but that's a different issue, too. The point is that even crumbs are better than nothing.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

Obviously you have given that a lot of thought Mr. Jeff Matthews Band Man. I agree.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk