Democracy

[broncofan]

Hi an8150,
I will get to the rest of those points when I have a chance. But in the cyanide powder paragraph I was saying what would happen sans regulation. This is the world I deduced you prefered from some of your posts. I consider all of those things not to be the present state of affairs but the state of affairs if you had your way. In short, one part chaos, one part misery.

As for disability, it is fairly well-known that people have stereotyped views of the extent to which disability bears on an individual's other capacities. Surely an amputee should not operate manual machinery but a man who is blind can answer telephones. Private employers would not hire these individuals without some push from the government. People with HIV can work in all sorts of jobs but there was a point in time when such individuals were stigmatized to the extent they could not be hired for jobs where they posed no direct (or indirect) threat. Employers have legal defenses to the government's mandate against discrimination and do not have to hire people who cannot in fact do the job. They are just barred from irrationally stigmatizing such folks and systematically excluding them from the workforce.

A great deal of crony capitalism results from a lack of regulation. Without regulators what is to prevent anti-competitive acts such as price fixing? What is to prevent insurers from not holding enough money in their reserves? What is to prevent banks from lending more than they can afford to lend? Surely you're not going to tell me a bank would never do something so stupid or make an imprudent investment decision unless the government encouraged them to?

The problem you cite with not being able to identify the exact number saved from such policies is a problem faced in all the social sciences. You can only get empirical numbers for the policy you enact and when comparing previous numbers with more recent figures to compare policy alternatives you don't have anything like ceteris paribus. However, studies do attempt to address these problems and take a serious approach to developing a methodology to overcome them. For instance, when you force employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation" to their disabled employees, and the number of disabled people with income below the poverty line falls in a ten year period there could be causes other than the enacted policy.

But such studies attempt to account for those differences and certainly requiring employers to make some attempt not to stigmatize the disabled does bear a logical relationship to increased welfare for such people. The inability to control all extraneous factors and re-design the world in the form of a controlled experiment is hardly an excuse for ignoring the evidence we do have.

Also, you don't have to prove you are philanthropic. I am just somewhat skeptical that those demanding to opt out of a system of taxation will help address the unavoidable problems that less fortunate people in society face.

[broncofan]

You place me in a heads you win, tails I lose position.

.

Living in any society is necessarily a take it or leave it proposition. I don't know how it is administratively possible to have anything else in an indirect democracy. If enough other people felt the way you do then I would have to live in the hellhole you envision and call utopia

Cheers. As you chaps say over there

[Stavros]

trish, in my experience, respect for human life among libertarians and objectivists exceeds by far that of any other political creed. Nor is my experience unique. The political creed most deliberately and successfully destructive of human life is that of totalitarian communism, which is an extreme variant of the state mandated altruism apparently so popular here.
.

If you watch this clip from Donahue you may for once admit that Ms Rand does not show much respect for human life when she chooses not to, an extreme form of individualism which is also, as Donahue points out, not very objective from the apostle of objectivism.

[broncofan]

I know it may sound like I've been living in a cave but I don't know much about Donohue (Phil I think) except that I think he had a talk show. But I thought he presented himself extremely well there. That was nearly a perfect rebuttal to Crazypants' racist diatribe. You make a broad generalization like that and say a group of people are barbarians undeserving of dignity and you cannot expect them to not hold a grudge.

[robertlouis]

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and it's a tribute to all the contributors that the debate has been conducted not only intelligently but with a degree of constraint and courtesy that is usually sadly lacking in this place. Keep up the good work ladies and gentlemen. There is a place for civilised discourse after all.

[Ben]

I've been criticised by some - almost invariably on the right - for "sticking my limey nose" into American politics.

I do not regret that at all.

I post stuff here about US politics at this crucial time because I care - about America, about democracy and about the future.

Okay.

So this will be my last post before America votes tomorrow. Votes in an election which is clearly one of the most important for a long time.

It matters for many reasons. And these go beyond America's national boundaries.

The US is the most powerful nation in the world. How it is governed affects us all.

So why is it an important election?

!. Because the future of democracy is in the balance here.

There have already been attempts by the Republican party to tamper with the electoral process. It was a Republican initiative which enabled corporations to our millions into the process via super pacs.

The furore over IDs for voters. This is being stirred up almost exclusively in place here poor people from the black and Hispanic communities vote. The Republicans want to stop them. Because they vote, in large part, for the Democrats. Everyone has a right to vote - whether they vote for Communists or the Nazi party!

Now the Supreme court is set to consider - and perhaps pass - a change which will remove safeguards from States with historically bad records on voting for ethnic minorities. These safeguards were put in place in the late 1960s to prevent any State from arbitrarily changing the voting rules. (See the powerful arguments on this from the Professor of Jurisprudence at Harvard, Ronald Dworkin posted here some days ago for a fuller explanation of this)

2. Climate change. A crucial issue and though Obama has a thin record on this, the GOP is hostile to the whole notion of climate change. They will take away from all kinds of initiatives designed to do something to fight the process of climate change. They are hostile to the science which has virtually proved that climate change is underway.

In many respects they are hostile to science itself.

3. Help for the poorer and weaker US citizens. You'e seen the real Romney in that leaked speech earlier this year. You've seen how Romney operates as a business man in his savage years with bain - throwing thousands out of work to enrich himself.

We know about Ryan's philosophy - inspired by that mediocre Ultra-Conservative thinker Ayn Rand. (I have amended this after it was rightly pointed out that the use of the word fascist was lazy)

They say they will fix the economy but won't say how. But they do plan tax cuts for the wealthy.

A Romney administration will scrap affordable health care if they can. It was a move designed to make health care available to more Americans.

They will cut spending on all manner of other social programs. The behaviour of the tea-party infested Congress since 2010 with its zealous efforts to cut spending on everything (at one point voting for moves that would lead to thousands of public employees in the US losing their jobs). This will be accelerated under an incoming GOP administration.

The gridlock in Washington over the past two years - which the GOP has ignored when accusing Obama of failing to fix the economy - is of GOP making. The new Tea Party congressmen are immune to reasoned argument. They are implacable in their hatred of Government. Romney will discover this if he becomes president. Unless he bows to the will of big business - people like the Koch Brothers.

Romney reckons he can fix the US economy. But refuses to spell out how this work - aside from tax cuts across the board.

4. Women's rights. We've seen the attitude of some of the more extreme Republicans to Rape. Any pregnancy that results is a gift from God. Women's bodies will resist pregnancy from rape. etc etc....They are a lunatic fringe. But a vocal one representing a wider body of belief among like-minded bigots. And they have not been disowned. Women's rights are threatened. In all probability a new and Conservative dominated supreme court will throw out the right to abortion. (Roe v Wade) And contraception issues.

5. The rights of the gay and the transgendered. Would these be safe under a Romney administration. Not if he listens to the religious right - a powerful part of the machine that might put him into office. Under Obama there has been real progress. Expect that to be at least stalled under a GOP administration. if not reversed.


8. Foreign policy. Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place.

Look at Obama's record. Troops out of iraq. A plan to pull Americans out of the Afghanistan muddle (a muddle because Bush dropped his eyes from the issues there for the fallacious invasion of iraq). Libya. Stupid accusations and smears by the Romney campaign - oft repeated here - about the lack of foresight by the US Government in protecting your ambassador. Wrongful accusations as if in the disorder that is Libya effective intelligence can work. This is a bigger subject than i plan to unpack here.

The Arab spring. Should the US have NOT supported the notion of real democracy among the oppressed Arab populations?

Israel. Liberal Israelis recognise that Obama has been a good friend to israel. Romney's principle support there is inspired by the nation's largest circulation paper - a free sheet owned by the Vegas casino magnate from the radical right winger Sheldon Edelson (whose influence on both US and Israeli politics is increasingly pernicious) a man who is in favour of the expansion of Israeli settlements and a supporter of Netanyahu. As will a Romney administration. (A huge part of his campaign funding comes from Edelson). Romney has already publicly said he believes the palestinians have NO INTEREST in peace,

And Iran. The sabre ratting by Romney suggests they'd launch a pre-emptive strike again Iran - or support an Israeli one. The result would be a regional conflagration. Iran is an issue that calls for clear heads and clear thinking.

9. The Supreme Court. Three justice are likely to retire during the life of the next administration. If they are appointed by Romney you can be sure they will be young Conservatives - enabling the sort of constitutional changes that a balanced Supreme Court is a hedge against. So expect women's rights to be curtailed. perhaps civil rights.(in voting terms) And perhaps a breach of the wall between church and state.

10. The influence of the Tea party. it isn't a party no - but it has a broadly united vision. it is against "big Government." It is against much Government at all. It has already gridlocked Congress and prevented Obama from taking significant action to help the economy. The Tea party (funded via big business through think tanks, foundations and other networks) is a tool of big business which smokescreens of disinformation try to hide. it has corrupted the Republican party - leading to the ousting of many long serving and conviction politicians and their replacement by extremist zealots. A Romney administration will either kow tow to them or face a fight for the soul of the party.

11. Romney himself. This man is a shape shifter. He serves only his own self interest - shrugging off previously held positions as and when he perceives he needs to alter to succeed. His father had convictions. Romney junior appeared to have convictions when he introduced his health care reforms in Massachusetts. Now he had disowned them and has embraced the Right in his will to power. Convictions are simply another piece of clothing he puts on and takes off as his own ambitions require.

12. The media. Will PBS be started of funding under a Romney administration. That looks likely. So Fox News with its lies and distortions for all? Yep the propaganda machine is in full flow.

13. Ryan would be President if Romney were removed. Do you really want this?

So there we are. I am sure i've missed many issues here.

In the end the issues are for America to decide. we sit on the sidelines. We hope and pray the US will make the right decision.

In the view of most of the world that should be another four years for Obama and the Congress back in Democrat control.

We should note the stark difference between elections and, say, meaningful democracy. (And, too, the core of democracy is to bring about equality. And this happens by creating a strong and burgeoning middle class. Is this happening? I mean, wages for 99 percent of the population have been STAGNANT since 1973. Even the top 1 percent have seen a slight gain. It's really the top 0.01 percent who've seen staggering gains. I mean, this is the antithesis of democracy.
It's like the difference between nations and states. A nation is a group of people who are brought together by a common language and a common culture. And culture is not Wal-Mart, it isn't McDonald's. It's a set of values. And a state is a top-down political structure.)
50 percent of Americans will not vote. For good reason. Namely it's two rich males. Both went to the same school. Both are bought and paid for -- and serve -- the same corporations and the same oppressive system. (I mean, how will a lower-class black single mother be served by either Romney or Obama? How will her interests be served? And can she in any way participate in the decision-making process? And can she INFLUENCE public policy? And, too, does she have as much influence as, say, Lloyd Blankfein?)
I mean, yeah, it makes a slight difference who wins. Very slight. But as Chris Hedges pointed out: who do you want to take your poison from.
There will be another financial crash. It's merely a question of when. Will a president Romney prevent it? No. Obama? No. Banks are bigger. And up to their prior shenanigans.
I mean, we're led to believe that there's a stark difference between Dems and Republicans. Is there?
Both support harmful free trade agreements. Harmful to the general population and the overall environment. But great for the top tier of the populace. (I mean, Obama and Romney pretty much agree on foreign policy, too. Romney, however, might be more willing to attack Iran.) Both support policies that are creating further inequality. Both serve destructive oil companies. They won't do anything about global warming. Nor can they. They serve their masters. Who can't care about global warming. And that's very rational from a business perspective. Remember corporations, ultimately, can't care about the planet. Corporations are designed to grow and grow and grow and grow. What will that, ultimately, do to the natural world. I mean, think 7 generations into the future. What impact will very rational corporate interest have on them?
And, too, I think the plundering of the world is really an attack on our spirit as human beings.
Anyway, at the heart of the global warming problem is consumption. We all need to look in the mirror. We all need to take personal responsibility.
But Americans, who consume a quarter of the world's energy resources, won't stop....
I mean, oil companies do create pollution. What's the consequence of that? Cancer. 1,000 Americans die every single day from cancer. But, again, oil companies can't think about that. Industry can't think about that. They think: quarterly profits. Not cancer rates.
I mean, we should all guffaw... when we say: this is a democracy. (Yes! We've, again, elections. We have a great deal of freedom. We've a lot of stuff. We can consume. We can consume a lot of corporate junk.
I think they want us to equate consumption with freedom, with democracy. I mean, Milton Friedman pointed out: if you can create a free market, well, you've freedom. Ya know, you've the "democratic" freedom to choose -- in a democratic fashion -- between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Thereya go: there's your democracy.)
Again, the policies of both parties, of both candidates are pretty much the same. Because both parties simply serve the super-rich. Republicans, if they are even a political
party anymore, simply serve a very tiny sliver of the populace. And Dems, especially under Obama, are rapidly moving in that direction.
Inequality is getting worse. And as Paul Krugman pointed out: Wall Street does better under Democrats than Republicans.
A President Romney will simply cut taxes for the super-rich. The deficit will explode. But who cares. It ain't his money.
Anyway, the notion of a profound democracy is a joke.
I think, really, it has lost all meaning.
Yep!, the word "democracy" has pretty much been rendered meaningless.

[danthepoetman]

Final choice in a few hours...

[martin48]

All I can add, from this side of the pond, is "Don't fuck it up, America."

[an8150]

Stavros, "If you watch this clip from Donahue you may for once admit that Ms Rand does not show much respect for human life when she chooses not to, an extreme form of individualism which is also, as Donahue points out, not very objective from the apostle of objectivism."

I've watched the clip, Stavros. I see nothing in it which demonstrates or implies lack of respect for human life, although Rand is certainly not respectful towards middle eastern arabs. In fact she is disdainful of their societies.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the last three sub clauses of your comment mean. FWIW I had the sense that the youtube clip had been edited. I've heard of this Donoghue bloke, but never seen him in action. If his conduct in this clip is normal for him, then it follows a pattern familiar to the persecuted minority of libertarians: a witchfinder-general tone of voice, sentences constructed to hector an interlocutor rather than elicit information and comprehension and an indifference either to rational trains of thought or constructive debate. Or maybe the editing of the clip did him a disservice.

I'm happy to disagree with Rand as and when I choose, btw. Honest.

[an8150]

broncofan,"Living in any society is necessarily a take it or leave it proposition. I don't know how it is administratively possible to have anything else in an indirect democracy. If enough other people felt the way you do then I would have to live in the hellhole you envision and call utopia"

I thought you said I couldn't opt out? If it's a take it or leave it proposition, how do I leave it? where do I go? Serious question. As it happens, I agree that there's no leaving it (I've just remembered that the title of this thread is "Democracy"). From the point of view of people like me, the social democratic hell created by people like you is one I just have to put up with. Which rather gives the lie to the suggestion that all our ills are caused by evil free market capitalists because, as you go on to imply, you don't have to live in my hellhole. Although I have no idea how you know it would be a hellhole, since you've never experienced it. Nor have I. Why don't we give it a try, see what happens?