Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > The Modern Democracy      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 3
view profile
History
The Modern DemocracyPage 1 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken

You sound like your hinting around at Libertarianism.
As long as 2 people live within sight of each other they are going to have some sort of Government. What form that Government takes is the question.
One way or the other the majority always gets what it wants, or what it thinks it wants. Call it Libertarianism, Natural Freedom, Anarchy, or whatever you will.

How to temper the oppression of the majority is a classic question which has been pondered for thousands of years. I'd rather bear the oppression of the majority than the oppression of the few.

Everybody's dissatisfied with Democracy because it never gives anyone everything they want.
But, no ones ever been able to come up with a fairer way of doing things.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 6
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/12/2007 11:39:34 AM
What democracy are you exactly talking about?

1. The democracy that you are controlled by the government?
2. The democracy that your phone is wired so that they hear everything you say?
3. The democracy that you are in debt with your credit cards because you pay too much for the government and they want you controlled by these credit cards?
4. The democracy that the media is all controlled by the government?
5. The democracy that you read a book in library and next day you got FBI agents asking you why you were reading that book?
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 8
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/12/2007 2:16:05 PM
The big problem everyone complains about is those parts of the government which are not within the realm of the electoral system.
No one elects any of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the military, or the mutual military/corporate system.
No one elects any of the news media. Rush Limbaugh will have a radio show no matter what happens, as long as he preaches the party line of his corporate pimps.
All of the Civil Service is non-elected.
You do make a valid point, if you are complaining about that part of government which is outside of the Democratic process.
 Flyers_Phan
Joined: 1/16/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/14/2007 5:54:51 AM
whats this democracy you speak of?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 17
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/17/2007 2:29:16 AM

I would go as far as to say that not only are "free societies ... an incredibly rare thing in human history", but so far none have truly ever existed.


Many native American tribes had true freedom however they were offed, absorbed or decimated to such low numbers people hardly notice they exist unless they purposely go look for them.

If what a lot of the great minds said about this subject is true it will be a matter of survival of our species that we find freedom and get control of our environmental practices and soon.



There is also libertarian socialism, anarchy and the like which are all viable forms of government seldom tried on a large scale. All of which would bring true freedom if given a chance.. It is difficult however when the current mindset has been in power for such a long time, the effects on the minds of the people is powerful. People are too used to being sheeple. Wage slavery has been acceptable for far too long. I hope in the future they will talk about how backwards we were selling ourselves to make a living.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 20
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/18/2007 2:21:41 AM


Self-Ownership being the primary Right, if one can not sell themselves then they can not own themselves either. A future that denies this Right will jail people for peacful exchange of goods and services, just as ours does now.





Wage slavery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wage slavery is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person is legally (de jure) voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave. It is used to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled to work in return for payment of a wage....

....In terms used by critics of capitalism, wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer merely to subsist.


The problem is not ownership of self or not here. The issue is many people (not all just like in every other form of slavery) are submitting to wage slavery to subsist. I have no problem with someone choosing to do so because they like it. I do have a problem with setting up a system where certain groups MUST do so to subsist. They no longer have a real choice its do it or the persons family suffers. You call this freedom from wage slavery? I think not.

The problem is we never really overhauled the system after "abolishing" slavery. We merely traded it for another more slick version of it. Yet make no mistake it is still just as insidious and has its own form of cruelty that is hardly benign.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/18/2007 2:48:23 PM


Still none of this is, neccessarily, relevent to the inherent flaws in democracy in its modern form. It just so happens that America's, and most other democracies are also forms of Capitalism.


Exactly but, so many these days people do not often question capitalism in a democratic society. It is not democracy that is the problem it is capitalism. Capitalism is what is putting democracy in jeopardy. This clip speaks quite a bit on this topic. Put MUCH more eloquently than I could.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SuG89IRCQaY

Fact is we hardly have anything that resembles a democracy. With the staging of elections, the limited choices, the electoral college, insane amounts of lobby(due to money) who have direct access to officials, where the common man is hardly listened to, and the lack of information given to the public to be even remotely educated on the issues. We hardly even have a representative republic much less a democracy. It sounds pretty when said in a speech or written on paper but, fact is we are not given the choice of candidates that would represent us as common people. This thereby negates the thought of us having a democracy where the people would have to vote on everything.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 27
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/19/2007 1:13:44 PM
God no imperialism would not be any better than this. It would end up much the same. The best forms of government I have seen to try after this mess, is libertarian socialism, or some forms of anarchy such as Anarcho-syndicalism.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/19/2007 4:49:08 PM


The reason Democracy doesnt work is ignorance and apathy of the majority, who are supposed to be ruling, as required by the ideal of 'Democracy'

so that's my 2 cents, forgive my generalized approach; and if anyone disagrees, awesome, but please try to refrain from nitpicking at my post. All driveways look like shit when you scrutinize them rock by rock.


I agree with most of your post as far as the responsibility of the public. Much of the apathy however, I believe is due to the fact that most people do not feel they live in a democracy (which to me seems quite justified for we do not.)

We have something closer to a representative republic, problem even here is there are not enough candidates/parties to make a proper election that would represent the people involved in voting them. If we lived in a true democracy we would have to vote on EVERYTHING. When a new law is to be put into effect we would have to vote on it. In our system we vote people in to do this. Only thing is we don't really have much of a variety of choices to make. Making the thought of this being a representative democracy ludicrous a best. Fact is most of the candidates do not represent the majority of people, they represent most often the smallest richest portion of our demographic. So now in definition we are heading much more closer to autocracy instead of democracy.

The word democracy is used for our system, I think, because it's the ideal that has been sold to the public for so many generations. That is what is expected but, the definition of what a democracy is and the responsiblity the public has to such form of government often is covered up and or been changed so much in recent history, that the average persons idea of what a democracy is, and what it historically was is at such odds it's hard to even compare the two. It has become very difficult to even explain to people why we do not really live in a democracy without getting into a severe arguement, due to the severe brainwashing people get and the repitition of people in power saying we support democracy etc... When in most cases our government supports dictators and despots of the worst kind. Most of the talk about democracy is just lip service.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/20/2007 3:31:32 AM


Libertarian socialism includes a group of political philosophies that aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. This would be achieved through giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes. Additionally, its advocates have expressed the notion that libertarian socialism is a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly they believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalised form -- whether economic, political or sexual -- brutalises both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised."[1]

While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting liberty and social justice, libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action. Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.





Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement. Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:

1. Workers' solidarity
2. Direct action
3. Workers' self-management

Workers' solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers—no matter their race, gender, or ethnic group—are in a similar situation in regard to their boss (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action—that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position—will allow workers to liberate themselves.

Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers' organizations (the organizations that struggle against the wage system, which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society) should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or “business agents”; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.

Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labor in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.




Response to Criticism

Libertarian socialists typically see the alleged conflict between freedom and equality as a red herring. Radical egalitarians such as Noam Chomsky note that, "human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight rather than a condition to be abhorred." (Chomsky Reader, 199) The thrust of the work of another egalitarian, Karl Marx, was never to make human beings identical, but "the development of rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption", and "the absolute working out of (her or his) creative potentalities." [7] Libertarian socialists believe that the libertarian capitalist conception of 'freedom' as such, often amounts to little more than apologetics for the right of the powerful to do as they please often at the expense of the freedoms of the less powerful. As libertarian socialist Robin Hahnel has explained,
“ It is, of course, a good thing for people to be free to do what they please- as long as what they choose does not impinge on more important freedoms or rights of others...I should not be free to employ you because my freedom of enterprise robs you of a more fundamental freedom to manage your own labouring capacities. I should not be free to bequeath substantial inheritance to my children because that robs the children of less wealthy parents of their more fundamental right to an equal opportunity in life. Although advocates of capitalism would not agree, there is little disagreement about any of this among those who believe we must go beyond capitalism if we are to achieve the economics of equitable cooperation. But are there additional freedoms and rights that others should not be free to violate in choosing to do what they please?...We think self-management is the only way to interpret what "economic freedom" means without having one person's freedom conflict with freedoms of others.(p.289)...I define self-management as decision making input in proportion to the degree one is affected..[6] ”

In addition, while Libertarian Socialists do not agree with every aspect of the Israeli kibbutz, these provide plentiful examples of social arrangements which have been stable for over half a century in their inclusion of personal property being private, alongside commonly owned productive property. Intentional Communities more broadly have been cited as examples of the compatibility of these two forms of property.




Anarchism is necessarily anticapitalist in that it "opposes the exploitation of man by man." But anarchism also opposes "the dominion of man over man." It insists that "socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism."14 From this point of view, anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian (in the old sense not the US version which is opposite of it original meaning) wing of socialism. It is in this spirit that Daniel Guérin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.15 Guérin quotes Adolph Fischer, who said that "every anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist."

A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer. As Marx put it, socialists look forward to a society in which labor will "become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life,"16 an impossibility when the worker is driven by external authority or need rather than inner impulse: "no form of wage-labor, even though one may be less obnoxious that another, can do away with the misery of wage-labor itself."17 A consistent anarchist must oppose not only alienated labor but also the stupefying specialization of labor that takes place when the means for developing production

In his attack on the right of private or bureaucratic control over the means of production,, the anarchist takes his stand with those who struggle to bring about "the third and last emancipatory phase of history," the first having made serfs out of slaves, the second having made wage earners out of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and voluntary associations of producers

The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat. He will, in short, oppose

the organization of production by the Government. It means State-socialism, the command of the State officials over production and the command of managers, scientists, shop-officials in the shop....The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production....



A bit from chomsky on this that cuts to the core of it.



The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can't prove it, then it should be dismantled.

Can you ever prove it? Well, it's a heavy burden of proof to bear, but I think sometimes you can bear it. So to take a homely example, if I'm walking down the street with my four-year-old granddaughter, and she starts to run into the street, and I grab her arm and pull her back, that's an exercise of power and authority, but I can give a justification for it, and it's obvious what the justification would be. And maybe there are other cases where you can justify it. But the question that always should be asked uppermost in our mind is, "Why should I accept it?" It's the responsibility of those who exercise power to show that somehow it's legitimate. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to show that it's illegitimate. It's illegitimate by assumption, if it's a relation of authority among human beings which places some above others. That's illegitimate by assumption. Unless you can give a strong argument to show that it's right, you've lost.




Sorry to hit you with all that info but, these writers are FAR more eloquent writers than I am. Now for me to sum it up. This is a unique form of democracy that does not allow for illegitimate powers to control the masses. Its first and primary objective is to let the producers control their own destinies by establishing voluntary groups. By challenging every form of authority and making sure that it has a true and valid need to exist. Chomsky's example is simple but, effective in explaining how this would work. It is based in logic and a true desire for a more true form of freedom. Much of the advances in rights of workers were granted through the efforts of anarchist movements. It is a form of self government that has been done with great success. The Israelis before forming the state of Israel used this and still have many elements if it in their current system. (Israeli kibbutz)

here is another example of it working well even in the midst of civil war it only ended in Spain due to the hostile re-take over of the people by the authoritarian ruling class.



"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state."


It is something that should be thought over. Many people are scared of a democracy such as this with socialist roots, because they have been told it cannot work and people point to places like the former soviet union. Yet we are talking about WAY different systems. In the Former soviet union was a movement that was hijacked by the same authoritarians who they were trying to be rid of. In the end they only half ass attempted to make the system and did not question authority of needless forms of control, this led to authoritarian domination.

In the anarchist version of this there would be no such group to dominate the people they are not needed so they will not exist. In other words things would not be state controlled but, control by the people. More the true meaning of for the people by the people.

I hope this helps people to understand this form of democracy better. I am not sure if the USA is quite ready for this, but it is something that should be looked at as an option for evolution from the current situation and oppressive form of government that exists now.







 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 38
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/21/2007 3:18:52 AM


Through initiation of force against business and government? 1st premise is violent revolution, or use of violence through an existing government means, but then, that would go against use of any formal authority to achieve societal goals of the libertarian-socialists. Or am I missing something here? And I‘m not asking that sarcastically, I really would like to know.


This of course is an area where most Anarchists believe the best method for change is to follow Ghandi's example of civil disobedience. There are some Anarchists who believe violence is the solution. I believe Ghandi's example mixed with people just doing it and organizing without any formal knowledge given to the employer acting in unison can turn over the situation at any time. Theoretically this can be done bloodlessly. I say theoretically because it depends on the reaction of the rulers once they figure out their time is up and if anyone continues to follow them or not. Almost like the labor unions which were originally started by anarchists and which were eventually taken over and are now part of the system and corrupted in many cases.



I guess the symbiotic concept of this means I should not be free to seek employment with you, if my freedom of enterprise robs me of a freedom to manage my own laboring capacities. Seems a strange concept ripe for the majority, at least of that industry, to use to determine who is fit to be employed or not.



I see your point but, what would there be to gain from doing that if the system of capitalism is no longer? It would no longer be monetarily better to do such. Everyones work together benefits everyone not just one person and remember it is purely volountary that you join such a group. If you dont like this one go join another.



Does this imply that, in the new sense “US version” libertarians, that libertarians are socialist, but not anarchists? ***Chk Libertarian entomology



Nope this implies that libertarian in the old sense was a liberal movement. Libertarians in the USA are FAR more conservative in their movement.





I know I keep bringing this up, but what is there to protect the individual minority voter from the potential tyranny of the majority voters, of even a small group/syndicate/union?


Unlike formal government where there is no escape, these groups are voluntary. If you don't like the way things are going in your particular group say at factory A for example go to another one where they are more like yourself. Much of what is wrong with groups trying to rule over another group is greed and envy. Take that out of the equation by what happens with the company effects all equally this part of the equation is near not existing anymore. So what would the tyranny be if the person can leave the group and go join another at any time? Remember the key here is VOLUNTARY! There would no longer be any overseer or someone lording over you. People are cooperating for the betterment of all. The only problem I foresee at this point is that the mentality of this country is not quite ready for the kind of thought process. It may take a few generations to evolve from the diseased thought patterns we have thanks to such a long time of slavery, serfdom, kingdoms, empires, and capitalism. If things were planned out properly there could be safeguards made to keep tyranny from rising.



I won’t say that this in itself would be a worse or better system than America now has. But there is nothing to make me believe that this form of governmental system has any inborn protection from the corruption of democracy. Unless the individual alone can break all ties with the syndicate, without fear of the syndicate, then it can not be said to be a freer system than any other.



Under this system as I said it is voluntary as to which syndicate you work with. So, yes of course a person would be able to leave if they felt they were opposed to the actions of that particular "syndicate" or that this particular group was not beneficial to them. I understand your concern here especially seeing how many other movements with some similarities as far as the socialist part goes, have gone totalitarian. Even our current system has taken major steps in this direction. In the end no system is completely safe from corruption, but the tyranny part cannot exist in an atmosphere of anarchy, for they have no power to rule over large masses. People will just leave them and go elsewhere where they have no power thus making them weaker. The power lies with the people not the rulers. The people leave and it is just a fat spoiled head screaming orders to people who do not listen. They have no real power if we no longer acknowledge it. The people just need to wake up and REALize what the rulers already know and fear.

 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/21/2007 6:52:56 AM

There seems to be a problem of the civil disobedience, alone, gaining the complete means of production, because although the original state may or may not disintegrate, even if it grants citizens to break from it, this does not mean that the controllers of business will give up the reins or assets of the company to society as a whole. I still have difficulty seeing a business rightfully either being dismantled or taken over unless it can be proven that its profits were somehow stolen or that it had maintained employment of any one by force, or threat of force.


This is the same situation that the people who started the labor movement ran into in Chicago. People even died over it, that is where the original labor day comes from which should be celebrated on may 1st! If you noticed in this country celebrates it on a day that has nothing to do with the history of what every other country in the world celebrates the anarchists movement to get labor rights. This is something that as you have stated they will probably not give in willingly. What I am saying to you is that if the overwhelming majority of workers decided to stick together all the want in the world cannot stop them. They are the base of the pyramid they call all the shots if they so choose. The only thing that is stopping them from running this country is their mentality that they are in the position of weakness and the state of disorganization.



May 1st, International Workers' Day, commemorates the historic struggle of working people throughout the world, and is recognized in most countries. The United States of America and Canada are among the exceptions. This despite the fact that the holiday began in the 1880s in the USA, linked to the battle for the eight-hour day, and the Chicago anarchists.

The struggle for the eight-hour day began in the 1860s. In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, organized in 1881 (and changing its name in 1886 to American Federation of Labor ) passed a resolution which asserted that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labor organizations throughout this district that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution". The following year the Federation repeated the declaration that an eight-hour system was to go into effect on May 1, 1886. With workers being forced to work ten, twelve, and fourteen hours a day, support for the eight-hour movement grew rapidly. In the months prior to May 1, 1886, thousands of workers, organized and unorganized, members of the organization Knights of Labor and of the federation, were drawn into the struggle. Chicago was the main center of the agitation for a shorter day. The anarchists were in the forefront of the Central Labor Union of Chicago , which consisted of 22 unions in 1886, among them the seven largest in the city.

During the Railroad strikes of 1877, the workers had been violently attacked by the police and the United States Army. A similar tactic of state terrorism was prepared by the bureaucracy to fight the eight-hour movement. The police and National Guard were increased in size and received new and powerful weapons financed by local business leaders. Chicago's Commercial Club purchased a $2000 machine gun for the Illinois National Guard to be used against strikers. Nevertheless, by May 1st, the movement had already won gains for many Chicago workers. But on May 3, 1886, police fired into a crowd of strikers at the McCormick Harvester Machine Company, killing at least one striker, seriously wounding five or six others, and injuring an undetermined number. Anarchists called for a mass meeting the next day in Haymarket Square to protest the brutality.

The meeting proceeded without incident, and by the time the last speaker was on the platform, the rainy gathering was already breaking up, with only about two hundred people remaining. It was then a police column of 180 men marched into the square and ordered the meeting to disperse. At the end of the meeting a bomb was thrown at the police, killing one instantly, six others died later. About seventy police officers were wounded. Police responded by firing into the crowd. How many civilians were wounded or killed from police bullits never was ascertained exactly. Although it was never determined who threw the bomb, the incident was used as an excuse to attack anarchists and the labor movement in general. Police ransacked the homes and offices of suspected radicals, and hundreds were arrested without charge. A reign of police terror swept over Chicago. Staging "raids" in the working-class districts, the police rounded up all known anarchists and other socialists. "Make the raids first and look up the law afterward!" publicly counseled the state's attorney.

Anarchists in particular were harassed, and eight of Chicago's most active were charged with conspiracy to murder in connection with the Haymarket bombing. A kangaroo court found all eight guilty, despite a lack of evidence connecting any of them to the bomb-thrower, and they were sentenced to die. In October 9, 1886, the weekly journal Knights of Labor published in Chicago, carried on page 1 the following announcement: "Next week we begin the publication of the lives of the anarchists advertised in another column." The advertisement, carried on page 14, read: "The story of the anarchists, told by themselves; Parsons, Spies, Fielden, Schwab, Fischer, Lingg, Engle, Neebe. The only true history of the men who claim that they are condemned to suffer death for exercising the right of Free Speech: Their association with Labor, Socialistic and Anarchistic Societies, their views as to the aims and objects of these organizations, and how they expect to accomplish them; also their connection with the Chicago Haymarket Affair. Each man is the author of his own story, which will appear only in the "Knights of Labor" during the next three months, - the great labor paper of the United States, a 16-page weekly paper, containing all the latest foreign and domestic labor news of the day, stories, household hints, etc. A co-operative paper owned and controlled by members of the Knights of Labor, and furnished for the small sum of $1.00 per annum . Adress all communications to Knights of Labor Publishing Company, 163 Washington St., Chicago, Ill." Later this journal and the paper Alarm published the autobiographies of the Haymarket men.

Albert Parsons, August Spies, Adolf Fischer and George Engel were hanged on November 11, 1887. Louis Lingg committed suicide in prison. The authorities turned over the bodies to friends for burial, and one of the largest funeral processions in Chicago history was held. It was estimated that between 150,000 to 500,000 persons lined the route taken by the funeral cortege of the Haymarket martyrs. A monument to the executed men was unveiled June 25, 1893 at Waldheim Cemetery in Chicago. The remaining three, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe and Michael Schwab, were finally pardoned in 1893.

On June 26, 1893, the governor of Illinois, John Peter Altgeld, issued the pardon message in which he made it clear that he was not granting the pardon because he believed that the men had suffered enough, but because they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried, and that they and the hanged men had been the victims of hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge. He noted that the defendants were not proven guilty because the state "has never discovered who it was that threw the bomb which killed the policeman, and the evidence does not show any connection whatsoever between the defendants and the man who threw it."

It is not surprising that the state, business leaders, mainstream union officials, and the media would want to hide the true history of May Day. In its attempt to erase the history and significance of May Day, the United States government declared May 1st to be "Law Day", and gave the workers instead Labor Day, the first Monday of September - a holiday devoid of any historical significance.

Nevertheless, rather than suppressing the labor and anarchist movements, the events of 1886 and the execution of the Chicago anarchists, spokesmen of the movement for the eight-hour day, mobilized many generations of radicals. Emma Goldman, a young immigrant at the time, later pointed to the Haymarket affair as her political birth. Instead of disappearing, the anarchist movement only grew in the wake of Haymarket.

As workers, we must recognize and commemorate May Day not only for it's historical significance, but also as a time to organize around issues of vital importance to the working-class, i.e. the people, of today.


Amazing things can happen if we organize and stick together. The power is in our hands not theirs and they know it and fear the day we figure it out again. Education is essential at this stage!
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/21/2007 5:37:37 PM


"I still have difficulty seeing a business rightfully either being dismantled or taken over unless it can be proven that its profits were somehow stolen or that it had maintained employment of any one by force, or threat of force."


In theory the profits are stolen by nature of the new system those profits always belonged equally to all who worked in the company. The fruits do not belong to the overseer with the whip they are for the good of all.



"Wow, I‘m sorry that I can not agree with you on this. To forcibly take the wealth that ones family has acquired, because it was acquired in a capitalist system is still in my view robbing the grave. If it can be proven that that money was received by theft then it is right to take any assets and distribute them to their rightful owners or their heirs. But, contrary to what this ideal would have us believe, that all monetary gains beyond mere sustenance are inherently evil if not immediately shared with the rest of society, I personally feel differently and see this as positive proof of the oppression of this proposed system."


No one said they should be taken by force or even at all. This is another hot topic for disagreement amongst anarchists/socialists. Some (few) opt for forcible removal of property, but many find a middle ground on this.

Fact is there are many different forms of this system there are even some that pay people based on their job different rates. The difference between this and capitalism is the gap between the pay rates is not so dramatic. More like 50 years ago rates ( As a completely theoretical example: no more than say 10-30 times for the highest position to the lowest which could be based on whatever the particular group decided would be the factor for the wages.) as opposed to now a days (300-500 time gap between highest and lowest.) This is something that can be worked out in a group by group basis, Fact is with the anarchist part in there any group could make their individual group however they all agreed to make it. The thing that will tend to happen though is that groups will quickly learn it is the groups who pool wealth will be FAR more successful! The main thing that is important after pay the profits of the company get divided among ALL in the company and don't go to some form of "nobility" or privileged class. This could theoretically vary group by group as well. There are even some who would see the advantage of pooling wealth and giving up that family hoard. The business would not be dismantled it would just operate differently when it comes to profit and there would be no more I am your overseer you are my slave.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 44
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/23/2007 2:22:45 PM
^^^^Hook it up man! Drop it here this is right on topic if you feel you can prove what you are saying. (which isnt too hard.) Do so in this thread! The thread is modern democracy this is on topic they cant delete you because they dont like your message. Only if it breaks the rules which are not being broken since you are on topic. You are just making your case that modern democracy is a cover for fascist police state. GO FOR IT!
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 47
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/23/2007 11:45:15 PM
Hey Kabio or NF,

Are either of you familiar with the founder of this quote:

"Democracy only works until the public realizes it can vote it's own hands into the public treasury"

Whoever it was, it's also a great argument against the opression which we are harbouring.

I have an idea that I would love to play out if only I had more money. I'd send my own "Declaration of Independence" to my rule makers. One for my county Member of Parliament, one for my municipal mayor, one for my provincial premier, and one of course to the feds, my Prime Minister. I will declare that I am no longer in need of their property taxation ritual and therfore I respectfully decline to continue paying taxes on the land that I "own". Shortly thereafter, I'd build a strong, impenetrable steel welded wall around my land, and a dome to blanket that wall from the top. I'd have a sign on the outside of my wall offering the tax collectors and law enforcers the gentle reminder that I have declared independence from their services, and that any attempts to force me into submission to the old ways will be met with brutal and desperate force.

You think that would work?.....it would only take one person to get it right to kickstart the overdue revolution for actual freedom.


Great thread NF....I agree with you completely.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 49
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/24/2007 5:46:56 PM

Are either of you familiar with the founder of this quote:

"Democracy only works until the public realizes it can vote it's own hands into the public treasury"



Yep here is the whole quote and who it is by.



A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.
- Alexander Fraser Tyler,'The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic'.


Lets add a few more to the mix eh?



"If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at the point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you."
-William E Simon




There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other... how few aim at the good of the whole, without aiming too much at the prosperity of parts.
- John Adams, Second US President






A society is not "free" merely because the freedoms the people are doing away with are those they voted at the last election to do without.

- William F. Buckley, Jr.







It would be a healthy exercise for every politician to look in the mirror every morning and remind himself that he holds office only because, in a two-man race against another mediocrity, a modest majority of those half-informed people who imagined that their votes mattered reckoned that he was the lesser evil. And they weren't too sure about that.
- Joseph Sobran





"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

- Alexis de Tocqueville:





An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods.
- Ambrose Bierce






Take our politicians: they're a bunch of yo-yos. The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.

- Saul Bellow







We once worried that democracy could not survive if an undereducated populace knew too little. Now we worry if it can survive us knowing too much.
- Robert Bianco, Radio-TV editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.




"Most of the presidential candidates' economic packages involve 'tax breaks,' which is when the government, amid great fanfare, generously decides not to take quite so much of your income. In other words, these candidates are trying to buy your votes with your own money."
- Dave Barry





A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
- Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)




"Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce (Roman coin): and then everybody would shamelessly cry, 'Long live the King!' The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."
- Éttiene de la Boétie







"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible."

- Friedrich A. Hayek


to address this



People have been feed the Freedom and equality line over and over all their lives and never understand how untrue it is. The rich elitist do not see us, The People, as their equals. They see us as meal tickets, sheeple to be fleeced. Throw a few crumbs, put on a cowboy hat and tell us that they are just like us and that they know what's best.

And for Thousands of years we have believed the BS that some are more deserving then others


So true, Repetition is one form of mind control just ask any teacher, we do it with kids every day over and over again.

Enjoy!!!
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 52
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 1/24/2007 11:07:16 PM


You are a strange beast, kabiosile, approximatly an anarchist/socialist, yet spews out quote's by Friedrich A. Hayek, certainly an economist that could be considered a capitalist.


The quote is a good one no matter what system he believes in. Not so strange really part of waking up is getting the whole picture if you listen to the other side, they will often boldly tell you what they think. Especially in recent history they seem to feel the common man is either too busy or too dumb. Often times unfortunately they tend to be correct in one or both.

PS there are anarchists who believe in capitalism can be modified to achieve their ends, you are correct in assuming I am not one of them.. I also never claimed to subscribe 100% to any of the things I have listed. Just felt that the information should be known and thought over at the very least since our education system is quite senselessly cruel to anarchy making it seem to have a completely negative thing and always followed by chaos. Wonder why that is.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 57
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:00:03 PM
Unless there have been billion dollar inheritances, or their is a state lottery that pays over 1 billion...did not the rest of the billionaires earn their money by setting themselves up for it? In the process of becoming billionaires they would have created jobs that were obviously paying an acceptable wage for the labour exerted, since if it were otherwise no one would have worked for them? I hardly see that as riding on someone elses back, I see it as ingenious if anything.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 62
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/8/2007 2:48:08 PM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421


Won't someone just start the revolution already!?! Let's take back what's ours! I'd do it but I'm busy right now, so someone else....c'mon already!
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 75
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/12/2007 12:50:38 PM
^^ A new government system could auction off it's roads and sidewalks to the highest bidder, that bidder would then privatize the roads and some sort of toll system would be implemented. That may sound dismal to some, but consider the amount of gasoline and property taxes we pay, both of which should solely contribute to the transportation facilities in our country. No private sector toll operation would charge nearly as much for the use of their roads/walks etc as we pay in those accumulated taxations.

I do wish to pay to someone who offers me a service I require, I do not wish to pay forced taxes of which we see very little return.

I am not advocating anarchy, but anarchistic behaviour is what is required to counterbalance our current system, which we could then "compromise" to institute a small government, republic style rule (libertarianism). I am however in favour of anarchy when compared to our current anti-freedomist, fiscally crippling style of rule.

I invite other examples of occurences where you think it would be impossible to dodge the taxman as his service is "necessary", like the example of walking down the sidewalk that you proposed, because I think all things we are told are "necessary" for us are just big brother trying to get his thumb on your head, and there are always viable alternatives.
 bob0colo
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 77
view profile
History
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 12:41:13 AM
^^ A new government system could auction off it's roads and sidewalks to the highest bidder, that bidder would then privatize the roads and some sort of toll system would be implemented. That may sound dismal to some, but consider the amount of gasoline and property taxes we pay, both of which should solely contribute to the transportation facilities in our country. No private sector toll operation would charge nearly as much for the use of their roads/walks etc as we pay in those accumulated taxations.
----------------------------------------------

You left out parks, and all open space.
DMV.
Police protection.

Vicroy Bremer did this in Iraq, it seems to be working very well.

Dump all Goverment ownership and let the money men take over. Yes they will take over. We have that in the health care system in the US. Banking, and Corp America.

You dont what to pay Taxes you dont get any service.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 78
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 4:36:30 AM
Etoiles:

I see where you are coming from but, and you have the right idea about how money should be spent and spread, but, in my opinion you have one fundamental misconception about economics that is crucial to your misunderstading of the simplicity of libertarianism, and anti-taxation theory. Actually, this misconception is shared with you by many, big government advocators and more...please let me explain...



What you have not mentioned, is the inpracticality of the libertarian system, by asking the populus of their opinions on just about everything, it slows the process down,


First of all, libertarianism and absolute democracy are two very different things. Libertarianism would be ruled by strictly adhering to the guidelines of the American Constitution, or in our case the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All, if any, govermental decisions would be decided and implemented based on the principles and rules laid out in these documents, and big government would not be allowed to manipulate this document in favour of it's own gain the way it currently does. In an absolute democracy, I agree, that would be impractical, but that is not the case with lib.


Now to the issue at hand:



But what I must ask you is why would a Public owned industry charge more for the use of a road then the private sector?




Don't forget the private sector is looking to pay for the cost of running the road AND must make a profit as well, whereas the public realm does not need to do either.


I know that was the same paragraph but I intentionally seperated the two. Firstly, what do you think you pay for, say, ambulance protection? Is it covered by health care (Canada)? Have you had to use their services before? I did once, and let me tell you it was an expensive ride. About 30km (20miles) and a sedative to knock me out cause I was in shock. Later that month I got a bill for the ride in my mailbox to the tune of about $450 smackers. Where's the sedative when you really need it, lol, since that one put me right back into shock. If I'd have known that I would have found the nearest Jamaican cabbie, flagged him down, and given him a tip for some of his green sedatives, lol....would have been around the tune of $60 bucks, and he would have made a profit.

So, I guess in a way our ambulance service is already privatized, and boy is it expensive. But wait! What about life insurance services, banking health plans, red cross/blue cross, and don't they cover emergencies like the one I had in their plans for things you should sign up for anyway? And blue/red cross cover any drugs I would need, usually around 80% of the cost for a basic plan, for like $35/year. If I was signed up for it when my accident happened 6 years ago, I could still be signed up now and still be ahead of the game (if I actually paid my ambulance bill, which I refused to do). Furthermore, these are all private companies, so they must be profiting, and charging way less than the pre-supposed "free" health care we are supposed to be getting here in Canada. That's because they are more efficiently run, you just have to take an hour of your time every few years to renew your subscriptions. Oh ya, and by the way, that "free" health care that we get now still comes with a bill of about $160/quarter here in Alberta, it's called the Alberta health care plan. What do you pay in your province for our public service called health care that we pay tax into, and should be free to all citizens? Isn't Canada known for having "free" health care?

Now to consider what you said about the public sector not having to concern itself with profits, well, I submit that it does. Where do you suppose it's money would keep coming from? Profits would be necessary to keep a smooth operation of any particular service, and funds are required for : wages, buildings, power, water, heat (the gas/water companies don't give free ressources away to a civil building just because it's a civil service building (unless ofcourse there is a tax break involved, either way they maintain a profit), ressources, departments etc.etc.etc. So, if one civil service runs in the red, they will ofcourse request more funds out of the collective tax pool, and in turn your taxes will go up somewhere along the confusing labyrinth of tax collection. So while you don't directly pay extra for these services, you pay dearly for them and you aren't even aware of it.

The real problem comes when what you described happens. The reason that public services don't concern themselves with profits is the same reason that public services don't profit. The minute any institution loses it's ability to pay the bills, is (should be) the minute it should not be allowed to pay the bills, since clearly it's services are no longer required. When these institutions fail to concern themselves with profits they become poorly managed, and therefore become even more of a leetch on my tax dollar, whereas a private industry has a vested interest in itself, and will do whatever it takes to remain accessible to the public. This makes the private industry more efficient in it's spending, management etc. until ultimately the service actually costs less. The mistake you are making is in assuming that if one of our public services became private, and the new private industry found itself struggling to profit, that immediately they would raise their prices and force gains by "gouging". This is not always true, and I would go so far as to say that it would more likely be false. The new private service would make itself more efficient, perhaps even lower prices to increase sales, find new and better systems for itself and implement them. Unfortunately, when you have the big fat cushion of tax dollars funding you, the only way to get more money in times of despair is to simply ask for more of my tax money, and things like efficiency, labour costs, systems and sales tactics all become irrelevant, and ultimately cost us, the taxpayers, more $.




For example a better example then a road lets use the steel industry (it's a little easier to explain) a public steal factory could intentionally run at a loss in order to provide cheap steal for the rest of the society.


Why would I want it to do that? Someone still has to pay for that steel, and guess who that payer is going to be if the public steel factory is under cutting itself? You and me, the taxpayer.

If we, in the country of Canada, can't privately produce steel at a rate that is cheaper than importing it, than shouldn't we be importing it? If I was aware of the Canadian gov. publicly "funding" (our tax money) a steel plant that is more costly than importing it from somewhere that steel is made cheaper...I would get my gun and march straight to parliament hill. (joking of course) but that would be a system of governance that would emmulate that of the 1980's U.S.S.R.....very bad!

If a car maker needs steel, it should only have one of two options. Raise it's prices (if the plant cannot be made more efficient/labour smart etc.) or find alternative materials. Fiberglass is used to make the body of Corvettes and many other vehicles, it doesn't rust, it's lighter so more fuel economical........But if it gets federally funded steel for next to nothing, why should it try and find alternatives. So our cars become a little cheaper, and our taxes become significantly higher since we have to pay for a poorly run steel plant, wages for union workers, management, materials, property etc etc etc....all for an inefficient factory. :(



This allows cars and boats and what have you, to be produced by the private sector cheaper then its competitors over seas, giving the econmy a huge boost.


In fact, every time big government steps in and toys/funds with the economy it hurts us and costs us more. This is a more advanced fact of economics, but I'll try to explain anyway.

First of all, if a car importer can offer a car cheaper than we can than it should be allowed to do so. We will still need people to manage those vehicles, salesmen, reception, a car lot, builders to make that lot, people to pave that car lot, electricians to wire up that car lot etc. So for every "lost" job that wouldn't be there for a north american car factory, just as many jobs are created by the new import lots' construction, shipping of new cars etc.

Secondly, and more importantly, imagine what happens when the economy is funded by unnatural means (i.e. the under cutting of steel prices). This is where inflation comes from. Let us assume that you, and everybody else in your country goes to bed tonight and has a total of one dollar. Overnight, our federal goverment has thrown more money into the system by means of under cutting itself on the price of steel with the help of your tax money. That essentially means that they put more money into circulation. So, let's say they put the equivalent of 1 cent more into circulation for every person that is sleeping in your country tonight. This un-natural surplus is a short-term relief on one part of the economy that was struggling, but what you didn't notice was that the $1 you went to sleep with is now worth 99 cents. You still have $1, but you only have the buying power of 99 cents now, as compared to yesterday before you went to sleep. I am not the best at explaining this, and it is difficult to grasp, but once the proper person explains it to you it becomes very obvious. The goverment does this quite often and tries to repair it's damage to the economy by eliminating some of the tax money you pay. Yes, it's true, some of the tax money you pay gets burnt, or taken out of circulation somehow, just to compensate for the unnatural stimulation of the economy that was done by the gov in the first place. This makes that steel plant cost us double!



The public sector has an indispensible roll in its ability to keep an econmy going.


Just the opposite, it has a duty to not interfere.



As for seeing little return on you taxes, well your alive arnt you? There are police you can call if your in danger, ambulances you can call if you get hurt, and a fire deparntment you can call if your house in on fire. And yes roads to carry the crews to you, street lamps to guild them, and training to make them function right.


Do you believe that these things would not exist if their hands were tied out of the public treasury?



imagine a privatized police force! They would only helping you if you can pay for it, the Nation would split into fractured spheres of influence!


As opposed to what it is now?


If policing was privatized, there would most likely be a flat rate insurance card you would have to purchase, and the private police would come to help you in times of need, much like the system in Chicago with the fire. Than, you see, each individual's protection would cost the same as the next individuals regardless of salary or influence, so where would this division you hypothesize come from?

If I'm a minimum wage earner that wants police protection for, let's say, $100/year, I'll be paying the same as the CEO of Wal-Mart, who also wants his personal protection plan for $100/year....no spheres of influence there, quite the opposite.



(ever wounder why they couldn't stop the great Chicargo fire? Now you know.)


No, not it at all. It wasn't just in houses and barns that it started, it also jumped to streets, forestry and other places that were insured. The fire was unable to be contained by current firefighting technology, and conditions were right to make it go out of control.



So you see there are certain things that you cannot place in the private realm of else risk much more then you could possibly hope to gain and there are certanly reasons to keep particual industies in the public domain


You would still have the ability to purchase an emergency fire extinguishing by professionals, it might cost you a little more than insurance would have though. They won't deny you service simply because you aren't insured, lol, they are still a business and they still want money.



After if things like roads were privatized you would have to pay more for everything you wanted to buy, becuase shipping companies would have to charge more to use the private roads to cover the increase incost and then the cycle come right back to you the consumer.


Shipping companies would be paying no taxes, thus rendering their service more affordable for them and all of their competition, thus rendering competition between it's competition and ultimately lowering prices.



At least with the publicly owned sector the money that is poured into the system is placed into the hands of those that you elect and not some private business owner.


Ya, that's been working out really good for us for the last couple of centuries lol. I trust ANY businessman, who is clear about his intentions on earning a profit for himself while providing the best service that he can than I trust some lying politician that maybe 30% of the country voted for (natural freedom explained why 50% of the population would never vote for one leader party, thus rendering him chosen by the minority). The businessman is way more honest.



So wheater is as a tax payer or as a consumer of goodsyour still footing the bill of the cost of roads.


At least I get to decide where I spend my money.



Most importantly once you build up a state/public trust like this to provide certian servies to your citizens, it is extremly important to maintain that trust with your public.


Name one incidence where that has happened and I will be made a believer. The theory is good, the reality/history tells a different story.



So just remember this, is will never be cheaper to privatize something because the private sector is in it for profit whereas the public sector is consernd with providing a service to those that need it.


The poorly run public service will always need to pay it's bills, and with a running cost of double that of a self-interested private service, it will cost me more.


Government should truly only be responsible for one thing, the freedom of the people by the adherence to the constitution/charter of rights. The first time government stepped in and made a decision based on ethics, money or it's version of right and wrong was the first time we began our downhill descent.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 79
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 5:17:11 AM

You left out parks, and all open space.
DMV.
Police protection.


What about parks? There are plenty of them that charge admission and do fine.

Open space is up for grabs by auction as well, and the highest bidder shall use the land as he pleases.

DMV for what? Don't I have an inalienable right to travel according to the constitution? What do I need a licence for?

Police, I admit, would be a little more difficult, but still privatizable as explained in previous post.

Military defense would be a bigger challenge, and on that one I admit that I am a little bit stumped. Perhaps charitable donation, likely bigger donations given by bigger corporations to protect their own investments?

I myself am in favour of the elimination of borders anyway. If there is no such thing as a political border, there is no such thing as immigration, customs etc and therefore no need for defense other than a global one. Hopefully one day that will be the case.



Vicroy Bremer did this in Iraq, it seems to be working very well.


U.S.S.R. eliminated it's communistic ways, it didn't seem to be working well for them either. Do you believe that they should've resorted back to their old ways? Or do you belive it was a matter of time for them to rebuild and become more prosperous than ever?



Dump all Goverment ownership and let the money men take over. Yes they will take over.


This will cease to be a national threat/problem when the money men have no political ties to lawmakers to win their favour.



We have that in the health care system in the US. Banking, and Corp America.


And you will continue to have that, but under the guidelines of the constitution that guarantees your freedom above all, and you WILL have a choice with which "money men" you choose to invest in.



You dont what to pay Taxes you dont get any service.


God I wish I had that option!
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 81
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/13/2007 10:06:33 PM

you were upset about paying for an ambulence service, but you want it to be privateized, as I said that will make you have to pay more.


Well, if we assume that a private industry would charge more (which is hypothetical anyway)for the ambulance ride in an emergency, let's say $1000 for argument sakes, instead of $450, than yes, I would directly be paying more for that ride. But would I really be paying more if there was no health care tax? $1000, $550 more than the public ride, but meanwhile I've never had to pay a dime to A.H.C., G.S.T., liquor tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, income tax, C.P.P., property tax, airline, tire tax, R.R.S.P. overpayment tax, enviro fees, E.I. tax, and then a final end of fiscal year tax if you're deemed to have not paid enough taxes after all of this.......all making a collective tax burden of about HALF of my total income at least. I submit that the more expensive ambulance ride is quite favourable when compared to the crippling costs of all those taxes, if the ride really was more expensive at all.


A list of "needs", some of which MAY OR MAY NOT get more expensive to use if there was no government involvement:

-roads -health care -policing -fire protection -ambulance

-co-op housing -hydro -passport and travel documents -child care

...I'm sure there are a small handful more that I can't think of.

Many of these things are not absolutely mandatory, and the poorer population would not be directly paying for most of these services. For example, fire, hydro, and possibly home police protection would be covered by the homeowner since we can assume that the majority of the poor are home renters. This will not be reflected in the cost of rent since the homeowner can now allocate the existing funds paid on property tax and all other taxes to offset the new expense. Roads may or may not be required by the poor since we can assume that buses are taken by the majority of really poor people, students etc.. and it would be the busing system that foots the bill for that. This will not increase travel costs by bus since the bus operator can now allocate the existing expense paid from gas tax and all other taxes to offset the new road expense. If anything, these services will now have a lower overhead and that will reflect positively in the pricing of these services. Travel only if they are rich enough to leave the country, child care only if they have a child.

Now consider this; if all of these things were privatized, would the bottom line cost of these services equate to a higher price than HALF of your income, like the government is charging now? I think it would be foolish to believe that it would, especially with the advent of insurance programs that are optional to buy into in which case my ambulance ride would have costed me nothing more than my yearly subscription to the program.

Also, with the abolishment of taxes, everyone will have at least 30% more buying power, since the poorest minimum wagers in our country pay about 30% of their earnings to taxation, therefore stimulating the economy naturally by purchasing more goods, some of which will get recirculated into wages and naturally increasing them since the business owner is profiting more, therefore giving the minimum wage earner even more buying power. When the economy is allowed to grow this way naturally we see an economic boom that will be unstoppable. The government has different plans though, to increase minimum wage. They do it unnaturally which further hurts the economy. They decide to make it unlawful to pay less than X amount of dollars. The struggling businessman can't keep up with the new demands on his wage cost sheet and is forced to fold....this takes buying power AWAY from the economy, thus increasing the pool of struggling businessmen. The businessman who is not struggling simply raises the prices on his goods/services for sale, or is forced yet again to make cutbacks to offset the new wage expense, thus decreasing our buying power.


As for your arguement on undercutting of the steel argument although you are quite right that it COULD caues a drop in the value of the canadian dollar, we are not talking about 1 cent of every dollar. If we were i would agree with you in a second. But we are not, the differnce would be so small there would be little to know real impact on our econmy.


Sure, one little thing like steel might even go unnoticed. But it also creates a snowball effect. What happens when steel becomes even more costly to manufacture, since it will certainly do so under the supervision of the poorly managed government company? Will they re-raise taxes, or will they abort the program? What about all other things that are "unfairly" expensive to produce? If they can fund a steel program, why can they not fund my "insert other element here" program? That would only be fair, no? And then how many of these programs does it take for us to notice the effect on the dollar? And will the government yet again make the wrong decision in trying to compensate for the unnatural stimulation of these sectors' influence on the economy by raising taxes, burning money etc.? Eventually the economy will come crashing down on it's foundation, unable to support it's own structure, and it's this tinkering that causes depressions/recessions.


Not everyone can afford to pay for privatized roads and health care. So do we simply make them go with out?


Again, refer to top. Would they not be able to afford these things if they weren't so burndened by taxation? At least taking away tax would offer them the option to plan for themselves, and if they refused to buy for the things they need and managed their money poorly, than yes, unfortunately they are S.O.L. I imagine though that charities will still exist to help the truly needy, and these charities will have never before seen giving power when they and their donators are not burdened by the oppressive taxes they pay.


because if a nation allows there to be private police it may as well allow it to have private militaries as well.


Please clarify/elaborate, I don't understand...or I fail to see the problem.


I welcome your arguemnts and your critsims I am enjoying this:)


Me too.


P.S. try to shorten them up I have homework to do


Sorry, I tried, really I did, but you don't have to answer until you're done your studies.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 88
The Modern Democracy
Posted: 2/21/2007 4:19:53 PM
etoiles:


This situation is ripe for corruption and what I meant about fracturing spheres of influence was by eleiminaeing the government in place of the private sector the nation breaks down and becomes indivdual kindoms, instead of one greater nation.


Is there not a monumental amount of corruption within our current system of law and it's enforcement now?

I should have also clarified something. In the free society I'm attempting to proselytize to you, a land owner would only have the jurisdiction to make law within his own property, and that law must be in coherence with the simple constitutional golden rule that reads: " A person has the right to do whatever they wish to do, as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's right to the same". So, as a private property owner, you would have the right to enforce your own constitutionally obedient rules, or in your words, one's own kingdom. Why do you see this as a negative? You would have the right to not allow tresspassers one day (door-to-door salesmen come to mind), and host a party the next, all without the interference of a gov. funded self-interested police force. If people wanted to attend your party, you should have the right to charge whatever you feel, and they should have the choice to attend or not, all exempt from the sniffing nose of those who would seek to take a portion of that income (tax collectors). So please explain how it would be "unfair" if someone were to enter another's property boundary knowing full well what that property owners' ground rules were, yet entering regardless?

So you see that the property owner should be the one to make the "law of the land", and this would work both in private property (home) and private property that is used commercially. If the commercial property owner has strange restrictions in place for the use of his land, then many will chose not to use his land for their commercial needs. Once that happens, a potential competitor will emerge since clearly there will be a market to fill the void of the other tyrannical commercial property owner. This is basic supply and demand, and this rule will force commercial property owners into being reasonable and "playing fair". Besides, why would a businessman want to repel customers?


Then of course the compition would do the same, at which point we have a very tense environment, it would not take much for a shot to be fired and then we would be in the deadly grips of a civil war! A war no longer between corperations but between warlords!


You see, the problem with granting universal power to any one man or institution or organization (i.e. a police force that is funded by a self-interested government) is exactly what you fear would be the problem with my ideal society. Tell me how our current law force isn't strongly influenced by corporations already? Tell me how a book of laws, that is enforced with violence if one attempts to evade a potentially unfair capture, can determine what's right in EVERY situation? Examples off of the top of my head?...

1. One day you drink too much and attempt to walk home instead of drive: You get slapped with a hefty fine and possibly the night in jail, despite whether or not you were a threat to the population.

2. You drank too much and need to wait for a cab in the freezing cold...you decide to wait in your vehicle and turn on the heat...you get a criminal record D.U.I. if caught doing that.

3. You try to protect your family from a late-night home invader by knocking him out with a baseball bat...you get an assault charge/attempted murder etc...

If you try to challenge the law in these circumstances you can expect to be answered with a billy club.

These corruptions won't exist in my society. In my society, corporate influence on the law will only be as big as the size of that particular corporations property, since that is all that the corporation needs to supervise for profit interests in a free market society. The corp will not have to resort to politics to give itself an edge in the fiscal world, in fact it wouldn't have that option in my society since politics wouldn't exist to determine social behaviour the way it does now, it would only at most revise constitutional teachings, based or stronlgy influenced by public demand.



This is one thing that democracy does very well is allows for national stability because it governs by majority, and as im sure you are aware, corperate owners are not in the majority.


What do you think would happen if C.E.O.'s and corporation owners were the majority of people in a democracy rule society? Think about that seriously, I am interested to know what your answer would be.


As for your argument on an increase in spending power without a strong cental athority to keep wages high and uphold emplyee rights then corperatations will use there strong ecnomic influence to create an instutionalised unempleyment rate (i know we already have one) but the difference is without the proper government protection of labour laws then your opinion on the 30% increase in spending power will become a moot point, when there is a significant drop in wages of the working class.


That would only be true if there was little or no demand for employment. I submit to you that in a free market society with increased spending power there would in fact be a higher demand for competent employment. In a society with a high demand for employment, employee wages/treatment standards raise naturally, and no employer will want to lose it's competent staff, therfore staff will be treated better than before there were laws regulating their treatment from employers. Certainly at least this logic is flawless, no?


As for your comment about building owners would use their money to provide securtiy for the low income families, I know from experience that they really dont care about their tenants. Slum lords often use intimidation and threats to force their tenants to comply with their demands.


Agreed, the building owner will provide security for the building, protecting his investment. This provides the tenants with building security by default. As far as using underhanded tactics, well, increased buying power again will offer the victimized tenant a better chance to move elsewhere. If the bad landlords' tenants keep moving out, he'll change his ways pretty quickly if he wants to make a return on his property.


This means that individual companies BECOME the centralized athorithy in the form of a monarchy or oligarchy system which must answer to no one.


They'll have to answer to themselves when profits drop due to mistreatment of their customers. That will be reason enough to invoke change.

Here's an example: Wal-Mart, undoubtedly the biggest department store corporation, doesn't even require a receipt if you want to return something which you claim you bought there. There is no state law that requires them to do that. So, in the interest of profits, Wal-Mart has extended credit to it's customers based on good faith, knowing full well that they will get burnt from time to time. This doesn't sound like a menacing corporate agenda to me.


whereas a system like you are discribing would be controlled by only the company owners


Constitutionally speaking, not on my land, only on theirs. I'm fine with that.


For example lets say we have (i shudder to think) but the "soverign state of Wal-mart" then doing as coreprations do it would continue to buy up small related bisnesses.


It's only possible to force ownership to a larger company in the current system we have now. In my system, it would be completely up to the small business entrepreneur.


Just as an example for the reason privatized police force couldn't work with as you say with the land lords paying for it. An old friend of mine from high school lived in a low income apartment for several months up till late last year. During that time she was being forced by the manager to have sex with him or else she would be evicted on trumped up charges.
She certanly could not afford to pay for a private secrutiy company to came and protect her from her building manager.


An unfortunate story to say the least. In my system, how long do you suppose the landlord could keep that up? Another part of property ownership is your own flesh, you own your body, and you would have the right to defend yourself, or leave. You do not always have that right in our current system. Situations like that almost never end up in convictions in our current system, and it's only "my word against yours". So you see, her options are still grimm, but certainly more plentiful in my society than in the one she lives in now. Another downfall in our current system is that he has the extra blackmail leverage of the "trumped up charges" against her, as you said. Would those charges hold weight in my society? No, she might have more options in my society.

I'm not claiming to be able to fix everything. If someone does something to hurt someone else, that isn't going to change. But our current system doesn't seem to be getting the job done either, you know?


so dosen't it make more sence to make people who can afford to pay help them rahter then rely on personal generosity?


No! Who are we to decide if Joe Blow can afford to pay or not? Forcing his hard earned pay only sucks every ounce of generosity right out of him, making him more susceptible to a life of crime. The system of tax kicks itself in the behind this way.


I mean after all, we have all passed the homeless guy on the streets and not given him a peny at least once in our lives. So cutting off the social safty net places even greater strain on already overused charities. So unless we all decide to change our ways and give to these people everytime we see them, they would starve. Corperations woundn't even get tax breaks for charitable donations so they would make little if any contrbutions. So its vital to have taxes as a leveling mechinism.


More buying power in my society = more employment = lowered standards of hiring = easier for homeless guy to get a job. He has to want to get that job, if he does not, and has no family to take care of him, and no charity will put him up, and no one cares for him....he dies. Sorry, that might sound cold, but more people are dying in our current system as they anticipate the next handout that they might or might not get. The problem with tax funded welfare programs is the sense of entitlement that it's receipients harbour. This false sense of entitlement (which is encouraged by our government to buy more votes) kills far more people than would the odd guy who slips through the crack in my system. Not working to earn your money, then expecting to be taken care of leads to things as bad or worse than death. I.E. Alchoholism..leads to drugs...leads to crime....leads to violence....death. I'd rather they just die before it gets to that point. Actually, I'd rather they have a fighting chance in my society where they can actually receive every penny of what they earned with their labour, get a sense of pride for themselves, buy some things that they like and care about, and become responsible contributing members of society.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > The Modern Democracy