BREAKING: The US is an Oligarchy

[kuwisdelu]

Volunteer activities attract larger crowds of participants than political rallies, and the response to problems is to get together with neighbors and hash them out rather than calling somebody half-a-state or half-a-country away and begging them to fix it, then turning the TV back on.

The community with which I identify is scattered across all 50 states and doesn't exactly possess all of the resources to "fix" its issues. I'm sorry if it offends you when we try to extract those resources from the federal government.

 

[Don]

I think if people quit crawling to the oligarchs, demanding they fix anything we perceive as a problem in society, expecting them to punish anybody who doesn't want to do what we say and expecting them to kiss our boo-boo every time we scrape our knee it might be a start.

I don't know any real people who act like that. Though I know that's how conservatives imagine poor people must act, and I guess how libertarians imagine non-libertarians act.

But I've never met these political unicorns.

The community with which I identify is scattered across all 50 states and doesn't exactly possess all of the resources to "fix" its issues. I'm sorry if it offends you when we try to extract those resources from the federal government.

Huh? How is trying to extract resources from (individuals using the power of) the federal government (which has done everything possible to strip your community of assets for the last couple hundred years) not an example of demanding the oligarchs fix what you perceive as a problem with society... a problem the oligarchy created in the first place?

Your second statement seems to me to be in direct contradiction with the first.

I'm sorry the government broke your leg; demanding they rob me to buy you crutches doesn't seem like an equitable solution.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Huh? How is trying to extract resources from (individuals using the power of) the federal government (which has done everything possible to strip your community of assets for the last couple hundred years) not an example of demanding the oligarchs fix what you perceive as a problem with society... a problem the oligarchy created in the first place?

Wow. I almost edited my post to add a joke about seeing how one could conflate these two things, but figured it unnecessary, not imagining one would actually engage in that flawed logic.

 

[clintl]

It's been an oligarchy since since 1789, and was designed to be one.

 

[Teinz]

Don, I think I understand how you think about government, and nation states in general. And I don't dispute the fact there are a myriad of things wrong with those concepts, or how they are being implemented

But somehow I don't see those benevolent and friendly communities you talk about, being capable of providing people with the level of comfort, healthcare and general security and wellbeing they've become accustomed to in the past centuries.

An example; no penicilline produced in your community? I'm sorry, but that cut on your arm is going to be fatal. Just bad luck? I thought stamping out these kinds of bad luck is what civilisation is all about. We should be proud of that.

Trade could solve that, I hear you say, Don. Sure, but who's going to build the infrastructure to make that possible. Communities who only think and care about the land they can see from the highest tree in the village?

What about global problems, say global warming. How are localised communities going to solve that problem without an authority that compels them to adhere to certain principles that make everyone better.

Don, the US probably is an olicharchy. The Netherlands probably are, too. But to assert the idea of a nation is to blame is to throw out the child with the filthy bathwater.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I'd say the fact that the US isn't a nation-state is something that makes these issues more difficult to navigate, but I remember how people reacted the last time I suggested the US isn't a nation-state.

 

[jeffo]

That's interesting. Apparently it's geographic. I see lots and lots of people adopting that attitude, and more every day. The community I live in is very focused on civil society, while the political system is relatively stunted. Volunteer activities attract larger crowds of participants than political rallies, and the response to problems is to get together with neighbors and hash them out rather than calling somebody half-a-state or half-a-country away and begging them to fix it, then turning the TV back on.

...

YMMV, particularly if you live in a big city where it's easy to be treated as a number rather than a real person. The nearest "city" to me is 10 miles away and less than 10,000 people.

I can certainly see that happening in very rural areas -- however, as you sort of point out, those people are still funding all the activities of Those Who Demand Everything. I do, at times, see more people trying to "disengage," but as long you continue to fund it, how disengaged can you get? And if you don't fund it, well, we all know how that works out, every time.

 

[Hapax Legomenon]

I'd say the fact that the US isn't a nation-state is something that makes these issues more difficult to navigate, but I remember how people reacted the last time I suggested the US isn't a nation-state.

The US isn't really a nation-state, or if it is it's only weakly. I'm not sure where people get the idea that it is?

 

[robeiae]

I'd say the fact that the US isn't a nation-state is something that makes these issues more difficult to navigate, but I remember how people reacted the last time I suggested the US isn't a nation-state.

The US isn't really a nation-state, or if it is it's only weakly. I'm not sure where people get the idea that it is?

The concept of nation-state isn't understood to mean exactly the same thing by everyone who uses it. It's easy enough to fashion a definition that includes the United States. It's also easy to fashion one where it is not included. And to fashion one where no modern states meet the requirements.

Regardless, I don't see how this impacts anything, how it makes any of these issues more or less difficult to navigate in the least, apart from arguments over the "proper" use of the term.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Regardless, I don't see how this impacts anything, how it makes any of these issues more or less difficult to navigate in the least, apart from arguments over the "proper" use of the term.

You don't see how having a population of hundreds of different cultures, ethnicities, and religions — many of which have historically been on opposite sides of political conflicts, many of which have historically ruled over and oppressed others — might make governing a little bit harder?

Yes, this occurs to an extent in most modern states, and certainly in any that were or are colonizing empires, but it's kind of our thing.

 

[Maze Runner]

All it takes to solve the problem is for the citizenry to remember a simple equation:

Government <> Society

Then be honest enough to recognize the truth of the OP, that government isn't designed to help the little guy and local communities. It's designed to give the perception of caring while shifting wealth as rapidly as possible from the productive class to the political class.

I think if people quit crawling to the oligarchs, demanding they fix anything we perceive as a problem in society, expecting them to punish anybody who doesn't want to do what we say and expecting them to kiss our boo-boo every time we scrape our knee it might be a start.

We might even stop taking the talking heads word for things, get outside and look around, and perform our own interpretation of what's actually going on in the world. We need to get past our fear of the world and start taking responsibility for our own actions.

And then we might work together locally with others who have the same concerns, finding cooperative, non-coercive ways to tackle those problems we used to expect Uncle Sam to handle by writing long lists of regulations that end up favoring the One Percent, or forcibly taking stuff from some people and giving it to others.

As long as the vast majority of people (present company excepted, of course) sit every night before the boob tube and limit their civic involvement to pulling a lever every couple of years, we'll keep mooing in our pens like so many cattle, and be sent to the sheering house and finally the slaughterhouse with the same regularity, and with the same lack of true concern from the sheepherders and wranglers that we experience today.

In short, we need to stop expecting the government to be our parents and start acting like adults. Then maybe we'd have the chops to demand they stop treating us like children.

Given that the same group of oligarchs control the educational system, I'm not holding my breath.

Government is not your protector; politicians are not your friends, they are predators. It really is that simple.

But all of this takes time. And ignores the repair that is yet to be done to even the playing field for those on the losing side over the past couple of hundred years. I agree that our system is so broken I question whether it is repairable, but before we break it down and start from scratch don't you think it's worth a try? How 'bout publicly funded elections? How that could become a reality I have no idea. But, speaking of empowerment of the people, the internet has the potential to not only give people a voice but to spark the kind of grassroots action that you would like to see, not just in your town or small town USA, but everywhere.

 

[Hapax Legomenon]

You don't see how having a population of hundreds of different cultures, ethnicities, and religions — many of which have historically been on opposite sides of political conflicts, many of which have historically ruled over and oppressed others — might make governing a little bit harder?

Yes, this occurs to an extent in most modern states, and certainly in any that were or are colonizing empires, but it's kind of our thing.

Right. There seems to be this wide thread in the "big government" idea is that it's not that someone is being taxed unfairly but that the taxes are going to the "wrong" people, and "wrong" means "other" and "not like us." In contrast there is a lot of support for church groups and charities because when you give to them, there's the expectation that the money will go to the "right" people. I think if the US were a "nation-state" there would not be this problem to this extent.

 

[Gregg]

Good Advice from Bubba & Leroy

Limit all politicians to two terms:
One in office,
One in prison.
Chicago and Detroit already do this.


http://sothislife.com/2014/01/21/advice-from-bubba-and-leroy/

 

[kuwisdelu]

When I hear about the evils of taxation, I can't help but feel like someone is trying to sell me gilded bootstraps.

 

[Don]

I can certainly see that happening in very rural areas -- however, as you sort of point out, those people are still funding all the activities of Those Who Demand Everything. I do, at times, see more people trying to "disengage," but as long you continue to fund it, how disengaged can you get? And if you don't fund it, well, we all know how that works out, every time.

You'd probably be amazed at how much commerce takes place with cash or barter out here in the hinterlands.

But all of this takes time. And ignores the repair that is yet to be done to even the playing field for those on the losing side over the past couple of hundred years. I agree that our system is so broken I question whether it is repairable, but before we break it down and start from scratch don't you think it's worth a try? How 'bout publicly funded elections? How that could become a reality I have no idea. But, speaking of empowerment of the people, the internet has the potential to not only give people a voice but to spark the kind of grassroots action that you would like to see, not just in your town or small town USA, but everywhere.

Okay, how about publically-funded elections? Who decides who qualifies for those funds? How does Brilliant Joe, who's got more brains than the entire population of D.C., get past the gatekeepers and convince that governing body that he should make the cut?

Finance elections with public funds and the current hurdles erected by the Republican and Democratic parties will look like molehills. Anybody who's not in line with the status quo will never be heard of.

The only way I can see for government to work is for it to be charged with the minimal possible responsibilities. Some people consider that to be national defense, courts, and police (and some folks add firemen), while others would like to see FedGov reduced to the tasks it was assigned in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. They're not currently doing a very good job with even those three basics, yet they continually want to handle more and more of our lives. It's crazy.

 

[raburrell]

They're not currently doing a very good job with even those three basics, yet they continually want to handle more and more of our lives. It's crazy.

The only thing that's crazier is expecting they'd magically get done by some of the same 300 million of us who (apparently) aren't doing it right in the first place.

 

[Maze Runner]

The only thing that's crazier is expecting they'd magically get done by some of the same 300 million of us who (apparently) aren't doing it right in the first place.

I think this is on-point. Part of human nature is greed, for money, for power, control. Some of the descendants of the people who wanted to relinquish the government of its power would see a need for some governing body, some laws to keep those greedy instincts in check. Some others would start grabbing for themselves. Neither of us, Don, have all that much faith in the government, but you seem to have more faith in human nature than I do.

 

[kuwisdelu]

The fact is government is also made of humans.

Whether we organize locally and don't call it government, or organize across a distance and don't call it government, or do either and call it government...

These all ultimately yield power and control and potential for its abuse.

It's ridiculous to say there is no abuse of power in local government or community organizations.

Yet I would agree that the potential for abuse and the harm it can do scales with accountability and visibility and the measure of power.

But we are also limited by what we can do locally when there are problems that span communities that are not confined to "local".

Not all communities have the resources for members helping other members internally to be effective in achieving socioeconomic parity and equality of opportunity compared to other communities in the same country.

It's easier to opt out when you start from a privileged position.

 

[Don]

The only thing that's crazier is expecting they'd magically get done by some of the same 300 million of us who (apparently) aren't doing it right in the first place.

Which is why a lot of people (generally called minarchists) support having those basic services of national defense, courts and police handled by some form of government. I learned long ago not to argue that people can survive without some form of government around here, so that's why I stick mostly with minarchism, although it gets equated with anarchy and chaos anyway, so why bother?

I think this is on-point. Part of human nature is greed, for money, for power, control. Some of the descendants of the people who wanted to relinquish the government of its power would see a need for some governing body, some laws to keep those greedy instincts in check. Some others would start grabbing for themselves. Neither of us, Don, have all that much faith in the government, but you seem to have more faith in human nature than I do.

Like I said, a lot of people see government as necessary for those three basics. Until they can prove they can do a good job with those, I'm not sure why anyone would want them meddling anywhere else. Given their track record with those three, I'd propose looking for alternatives there as well.

Of course, that's already happening. It's my understanding there are more people employed by private protection agencies than police departments, for example, and last time I looked private arbitration is becoming more and more popular, and we all know the court systems are an overloaded mess.

I have faith in human nature, true, but I'm also realistic enough to recognize that centralized power doesn't attract the kind of angels we need to exercise it, so I think the best thing we can do is reduce that centralization as much as possible.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I learned long ago not to argue that people can survive without some form of government around here

When did you leave the US?

 

[kuwisdelu]

Don't get me wrong. I think libertarianism, minarchism, anarchism, etc., can all work.

But not here without dramatically changing the shape of the US first.

They would work under the same circumstances under which I think communism can work.

Of course, your definition of "work" may be different than mine.

 

[raburrell]

Which is why a lot of people (generally called minarchists) support having those basic services of national defense, courts and police handled by some form of government. I learned long ago not to argue that people can survive without some form of government around here, so that's why I stick mostly with minarchism, although it gets equated with anarchy and chaos anyway, so why bother?

When those people are far spread out, come from a homogeneous background and have a surfeit of resources, sure. This, however, is not representative of the US as a whole. (eta: fwiw, this is why say, Swedish or Finnish-style socialism works so well where it is - people get far less pissy about sharing resources, taxes, etc, when they're not doing it with people who look different from themselves)

Like I said, a lot of people see government as necessary for those three basics. Until they can prove they can do a good job with those, I'm not sure why anyone would want them meddling anywhere else. Given their track record with those three, I'd propose looking for alternatives there as well.

Again, if the people doing it are incompetent, and presuming hypothetical that we stick to those three things for starters, where are the competent ones going to come from?

Of course, that's already happening. It's my understanding there are more people employed by private protection agencies than police departments, for example, and last time I looked private arbitration is becoming more and more popular, and we all know the court systems are an overloaded mess.

This is at least somewhat because contracts are written to require it, usually in a language which favors corporate interests. I may be missing your point however.

Also, a big part of the reason courts are overloaded is because judges aren't getting confirmed.

I have faith in human nature, true, but I'm also realistic enough to recognize that centralized power doesn't attract the kind of angels we need to exercise it, so I think the best thing we can do is reduce that centralization as much as possible.

Having dealt with my share of local officials, I find no comfort in the idea of de-centralized power either. Just gets harder to shine a light on the abuses they perpetrate.

 

[robeiae]

You don't see how having a population of hundreds of different cultures, ethnicities, and religions — many of which have historically been on opposite sides of political conflicts, many of which have historically ruled over and oppressed others — might make governing a little bit harder?

Yes, this occurs to an extent in most modern states, and certainly in any that were or are colonizing empires, but it's kind of our thing.

Well again, you're proceeding from the assumption that "the U.S. isn't a nation-state" is a fact. It's not. And as you note, modern states in general are hardly immune from the conflicts caused by differences among groups within a given state.

So it's such conflicts that have an impact, not the characterization of the U.S. as a nation-state or not as a nation-state.

 

[Xelebes]

It's easier to opt out when you start from a privileged position.

Opting out in an unprivileged position is usually called suicide, slow or not.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Well again, you're proceeding from the assumption that "the U.S. isn't a nation-state" is a fact. It's not.
...
So it's such conflicts that have an impact, not the characterization of the U.S. as a nation-state or not as a nation-state.

It's not easy for me to separate these matters out, considering how it impacts my identity.

And as you note, modern states in general are hardly immune from the conflicts caused by differences among groups within a given state.

I assume you also noted the last part of what I noted.