Emperor Trump Has No Clothes...

They want uninformed consumers making irrational choices. I mean, just turn on your television set.

Yes, Ben there are some dim people out there who get all their info from tv; but I think these days consumers are not only better informed than ever before, they have access to more information and opinion than before -Microsoft doesnt get very far with its products before geeks the world over are posting complaints and criticisms of this or that software package; Apple generates reams of critical notices within 24 hours of new products appearing on the market; Wal-Mart is not a myserious corporation -you are really referring, I think to laziness by consumers as a plus-factor for some businesses. In fact in the UK the worst offenders are not corporations but small scale 'dodgy builders' plumbers and the like -some elderly people, having been told there is a 'serious problem' in their plumbing have paid £800 for a £200 job.

But there must be other factors at work: a book called 'The McDonaldisation of Society' by George Ritzer published in 1993 asks why McD has been so successful when the 'eating experience' is so far removed from a 'restaurant' -eating with your hands with no cutlery, on hard seats designed to get you in and out as soon as possible, the same food globally, etc -McD is a global phenomenon, but nobody says you have to eat there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Everybody knows the difference & nobody's advocating Athenian democracy. It's a bullshit claim. What makes this a democracy is that everything uses the democratic process, from choosing our representative government to what shows up in the grocery store. There's a lot more to it than cookie cutter ancient simplistic definitions that try to put everything in some kind of political or ideological context. Democracy isn't necessary for the existence of a republic, but the process is necessary for a free society.

---

The poster to whom I was responding to did in fact advocate Athenian democracy with regard to corporate governance. He also clearly operates under the belief that this country is a democracy, as he labeled it such at least twice in his previous posts. Thus, and with all due respect, when you say "everybody" knows the difference between a democracy and a republic, you're quite obviously incorrect, to say nothing of the fact you undermine your own argument by acknowledging that we have a "representative government" (which is to say a republic).

Now perhaps you think I'm being pedantic, but as it is defined "democracy" is not what we have in the United States. Ancient, simplistic or whatever else you may consider it, the actual definition of the word is clear, personal definitions not withstanding. We have people here who use communism and fascism interchangeably; that is their prerogative, but it doesn't change the literal definitions of those words, even if the personal belief of these individuals is that they are the same thing. So pardon me if I use the literal definition, but if we are going to start using our own definitions of various words, conversation will quickly become impossible altogether.

Actual definitions, personal definitions..wtf are you on about??? Sounds like you have a few "personal definitions" yourself. Words take their meaning from their use, not from dictionaries. Dictionaries do not define language, they codify the language in daily use, written and spoken. Everybody knows the U.S. is a republic and everybody knows it is also a democratic nation. Corporations are neither. They are oligarchies ruled by those with in possession of the controlling shares.

Another one empowered with the ability to speak as to what "everybody" knows...

A republic is not a democracy going by literal definition of either word. If you wish to ignore the dictionary definition, which is to say the literal definition, then you are defining democracy as you see fit, which would be a personal definition. Feel free to do that all day long, but don't tell me that I have to accept your personal definition. Depending on its usage, the word "bad" can mean good, but that we accept that as common knowledge doesn't change the literal definition of the word.

Isn't this all so very exciting? We're now splitting hairs as to what the meaning of "is" is... Way to show your intellectual superiority.

Your the one who decided to get hoity-toity and split hairs. Did you ever see fit to draw this line between a republic and a democracy when W was spreading democracy throughout the Middle East? When someone uses "bad" to mean "good" and everyone understands him because he's using the common vernacular for that venue, it would be pedantic and wrong to insist that he align his usage with your dictionary. That's what you're doing with "democracy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ347

The poster to whom I was responding to did in fact advocate Athenian democracy with regard to corporate governance. He also clearly operates under the belief that this country is a democracy, as he labeled it such at least twice in his previous posts. Thus, and with all due respect, when you say "everybody" knows the difference between a democracy and a republic, you're quite obviously incorrect, to say nothing of the fact you undermine your own argument by acknowledging that we have a "representative government" (which is to say a republic).

Now perhaps you think I'm being pedantic, but as it is defined "democracy" is not what we have in the United States. Ancient, simplistic or whatever else you may consider it, the actual definition of the word is clear, personal definitions not withstanding. We have people here who use communism and fascism interchangeably; that is their prerogative, but it doesn't change the literal definitions of those words, even if the personal belief of these individuals is that they are the same thing. So pardon me if I use the literal definition, but if we are going to start using our own definitions of various words, conversation will quickly become impossible altogether.

---

Just another brief moment of pedantry. I live in a country with a constitutional monarchy, in which government functions according to democratic principles and is entirely representative. But it isn't a republic.

A free market is democracy in action. A free society is democracy in action. With all due respect to Trish, even corporations are democracies. They bend to the collective wills of both the consumer & the shareholder. It ain't necessarily about which pot you drop your stone into. It's not necessarily about governance at all. We vote with our feet, our wallets, our remote control, etc... Democracy is a process that permeates everything we do.

You're trying to define the term by formal ritual. That's the dictionary definition of pedantic. You're not leaving me much room for any kind of "perhaps" here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Your the one who decided to get hoity-toity and split hairs. Did you ever see fit to draw this line between a republic and a democracy when W was spreading democracy throughout the Middle East? When someone uses "bad" to mean "good" and everyone understands him because he's using the common vernacular for that venue, it would be pedantic and wrong to insist that he align his usage with your dictionary. That's what you're doing with "democracy".

---

If I was defining "democracy" using my personal interpretation as to its meaning, then you wouldn't find the same definition when you researched its meaning. Of course, if you did research the meaning of the word, you would quickly find that it does not match the interpretation you have decided is the only one you will accept. That is not my issue, nor is whether I held the same opinion during Bush's presidency even remotely relevant to this discussion. However, yes, during the Bush years, as during the Clinton years, I have had the same understanding of the meaning of the word "democracy".

I think that one problem here is that the definitions, when taken beyond their literal meaning, change over time. Athenian democracy is said to have worked, but did not include the total adult population of Athens, because slaves, for example, were not considered people and therefore were excluded from the process. Aristotle, whose rational and pragmatic way of thinking has -and probably still does- inspire many people, had no problem not just disenfranchising people, but de-humanizing them too.

But as TJ implies, if you begin to analyse the theory and practice, all sorts of spirits come out of the mixture. On Thursday we vote in the UK on a referendum that asks if we want to keep our 'first past the post' system or change to a form of proportional representation called 'AV' (Alternative Vote). Both systems can be said to be democratic, whereas supporters of PR claim it produces a 'fairer' result than 'first past the post' where, if you have three four or even five parties trying to win, the first past the post may have won less than 50% of the overall vote. One therefore goes from a debate about the reality of democracy, to the quality of it: and on that I can't see how one system can ever be claimed to be superior to another. In the US Presidential elections are ultimately decided by an Electoral College -I wonder what would happen if there were three candidates who each got 33% of the vote. The point would be, how to you satisfy the 'will of the people' expressed at the ballot box, if the result is inconclusive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

In the US Presidential elections are ultimately decided by an Electoral College

---

More proof that we are not, in fact, a democracy.

You make a number of great points, Stavros. I'm reminded of the saying "People get the government they deserve". So many people are convinced that they know what's going on, but here we can't even agree as to the type of governmental system we have, proving that belief a lie.