Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Very few countries in the west truly qualify as democracies. Neither America or my own country, Britain, is a real democracy. To me democracy isn't just electing someone every few years who then has the right to do whatever the hell they like. To qualify as a true democracy, I believe there should be the right to hold recall votes to remove elected representatives before their term is completed, along with referenda, at least on the most important areas of national policy and particularly on anything that has constitutional implications.

Though despite all this it's still a lot more democratic here in the west than in most places. Better to elect our leaders than not be able to vote on anything!

At 9/25/08 06:23 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 9/22/08 07:01 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Actually, I find that more democratic, since instead of having to choose between two different opinions, there are seven. If you're conservative and christian, go with Christian democrats. If you're conservative and not christian, go with moderates. If you want low taxes and care about the environment, Center party. If you care about the environment and equality between the sexes and less racism, go with the Environmental Party. And so on.

I would tend once again to think that this is somewhat better, but i'd be more interested in who owns and controls your media and how politicians run their campaigns, what the voting turnout is, ect.

At 9/25/08 08:55 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It's not, because 95% oppose the Wall Street bailout, and they're going ahead with it anyway.

I've found numbers of about 65% oppose 28% support, and yea I agree that it's a travesty when our government makes these big moves against the will of the people. Of course you could also say that the government doesn't keep us in the loop enough to understand thse issues so the support numbers become disconnected artifacts of the obfuscation(political) process. A month ago bush is reassuring "The economy is essentially sound" and now he's screaming: The sky is falling give me all the money to build a latticework over the entire country to protect it! I'm personally unsure about the bailout, though I'm certian I dislike it's current form, they aught to be taking the trickle up approach. Infuse the real estate market with value by helping out struggling homeowners, and then these "toxic assets" become not so toxic anymore and the bankers can write up some balance sheets for a change. This economy isn't about helping the 99% though it's about helping the 1%.

At 9/25/08 11:11 AM, Loch-Ness-Monster wrote: Very few countries in the west truly qualify as democracies. Neither America or my own country, Britain, is a real democracy. To me democracy isn't just electing someone every few years who then has the right to do whatever the hell they like. To qualify as a true democracy, I believe there should be the right to hold recall votes to remove elected representatives before their term is completed, along with referenda, at least on the most important areas of national policy and particularly on anything that has constitutional implications.

I basically agree with all this but again as the metronome tick tocks so will I repeat that I believe at the heart of the validity of a democracy is it's media, its education system and the funding of it's political endeavors.

Though despite all this it's still a lot more democratic here in the west than in most places. Better to elect our leaders than not be able to vote on anything!

Clearly there are worse places, but I don't take political stances because I think hey it's better than it could be I think of what I believe would create the best system and constantly argue on it's behalf, or on the behalf of facts and logic: the tools people need to see more clearly and come up with good solutions.

At 9/22/08 04:56 PM, XaosLegend wrote: Well written and not what I expected when I opened the topic.

This economic system is much like the royal systems of old, and not connected to the will of the population or give them liberty to achieve a portion of prosperity equal to their talent or will, but instead based on a caste system of priveledge combined with a lottery sytem that rewards the truely devout incarnations that embody the greed and selfishness at teh heart of the societies principles.

This is the core of your argument methinks. This is very much in line with Mills' elitism theory (are you a sociologist? lol). However, I disagree that the US is a caste system.

My grandfathers grew up on the farm; one became an auto-worker and the other Chief Master Sergeant in the Air Force (highest enlisted rank). Neither went to college. My parents on the other hand, got married before going to college and they got tired of working at factories and retail and decided (after having me) to go back to college. Dad became a municipal accountant and mom a teacher in a rural school. Not really poor but not really rich either. As for me, I dropped out of college. Got married. Had a kid. Joined the Air Force. Finished my BS. Finished my MS. Got divorced. And now I'm in school getting my PhD while working part-time at Barnes & Noble and in the Air Guard.

My ex-wife is even more of an example. Growing up she had just about every disadvantage possible. Her parents seperated when she was 7 or 8 and she went with her mother (and three siblings) to her grandparent's farm. Here the poverty was so bad that the family did not have indoor plumbing and grew or hunted a majority of their food. Her mother is also bat-shit crazy (multiple personality disorder), a drug addict and abusive. So my ex came from a childhood of abuse, neglect and poverty. She is the first in her family to graduate from college. She is also the first in her family to graduate from a terminal degree program. She is now a MD.

These "rags to riches" stories are not as rare as you'd think. If we actually lived in a caste system, I doubt that 90% of the students in my department would be there.

Also in terms of elites, Mills argued that power is concentrated in a political, industrial and military elite in this country. However, I do not believe that access to this elite is restricted (as you argue). In a seminar I'm taking on Interest Groups I argued that the military elite is accessible to all classes. The reason: WWII. Before WWII when we went to war the military expanded and if you were poor you enlisted. On the other hand if you had money and/or political pull you became an officer. After WWII this changed to the base requirement being holding a four year degree to become an officer. The GI Bill, Pell Grants and Federal Student Loans opened up college to people of all classes. Then there are ROTC programs on most campuses across the country. Thus the farmer or factory worker's son can become a general.

One of my classmates argued that this may be true, but the generals making the decisions and bending the president's ear are service academy graduates...which means they had to have had significant political pull to enter because you have to be appointed by a Senator or Congressman. While I disagree that getting into an academy means you have significant pull (not all Congressional slots are filled), I measured the educational background of the Chiefs of Staff of the four armed services and the JCS Chairman (going back to 1978).

Dividing the General's educational path into Academy, Public and Private I found that no single path lead to a Chief of Staff or Chairmanship over 50% of the time. In the Army and Marines I found that about as many graduates from public school became Chief of Staff/Commandant or JCS Chairman as those who graduated from West Point or Annapolis. It is a different story for the Air Force and Navy. 60% of the Air Force officers sampled graduated from public universities compared to 30% having graduated from the Academy. Now for the Chief of Naval Operations, 80% are Academy Grads.

So while there appears to be a traditional bias in the Navy towards Academy "elites", the other services appear to largely blind to this elitism.

Furthermore, I found that the least common path to becoming a military elite is through private university. Of those who graduated from a private school, most were small liberal arts colleges rather than Ivy League schools. In fact, only one graduated from a well-known school: Duke.

What these early results show is that while elites exist, their ranks are not closed to the rest of society. This is the question that is most important in terms of what is good for a free society. We are not aristocratic in that you have to be of noble birth to attend university or become a General or Admiral. People like my parent's and ex-wife can rise above their class to achieve whatever their drive and talents allow.

So then why do we have poverty? Why did my ex live on a farm without running water? The answer: personal choice. Her grandparents choose to eschew a certain lifestyle. They liked the old way of living, the self-reliance. While I was on active duty in the USAF (enlisted) I finished my Masters. However, there were plenty of young, single Airmen who claimed that they could not afford to take classes because while the Air Force offered 100% tuition assistance the Air Force did not pay for books. This is simply an excuse for not having the desire to go to school. In the end this was not an elite imposing a certain caste on the individual...but the individual choosing to remain within his caste.

So in sum, our system is not similar to the monarchies and aristocracies of old. We have people who will achieve, we have people who want the status quo and then we have the parasites who want equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity.

This is the core of your argument methinks. This is very much in line with Mills' elitism theory (are you a sociologist? lol). However, I disagree that the US is a caste system.

I'm not a sociologist, though I often think like one.

I used "caste system" broadly as a way of saying that in the US the greatest determining factor to do with how you will end up economically and influencially is based on where you start out.

Without spending too much time getting hard facts to rebut your rebuttal I went looking for the hard numbers which I've seen before and which generally support my points.

"Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%"

1% is pretty bad, but the 1% is important, it is the exception so often touted and looked for by economic apoligists and those who do well, are happy and want to dismiss strong criticism of a system that they have pride in. The exception does not disprove the major trend, no social system works absolutely. The interesting thing here to note is that people such as youself, and your wife who have moved up so well in our society are probably possesed of such strength of will and talent of qualities that in a system of true "equality of opportunity" you should have ascended to far greater heights of economic accomplishment, and yet you defend so vigourously the system which has undoubtably held you back.

My grandfathers grew up on the farm; one became an auto-worker and the other Chief Master ... And now I'm in school getting my PhD while working part-time at Barnes & Noble and in the Air Guard.

My ex-wife is even more of an example. Growing up she ... She is now a MD.

These "rags to riches" stories are not as rare as you'd think. If we actually lived in a caste system, I doubt that 90% of the students in my department would be there.

I'm happy for you and your ex-wife, and I'm sure you worked hard and honestly to achieve your economic progress. I do not dispute the rags to riches story exists I dispute that it validates the economy and that it exists in the numbers you propose

the vast majority of those who move up dramatically from one class to another move up one quintile in US society with their counterparts moving down one quintile in a generation. There is a realtively small percentile that move out more.
It is not that there are not esceptions, nor is it that those who achieve are not hardworking and talented that bothers me. It's the stronger trend of wealth maintenence (without continued exceptional performance) of the ultra wealthy through connections and inheritance, and the poverty maintenence of the poor through a variety of social mechanisms, and the grossly unjustified extremes within each generation of disparity of reward of one group of hard working people vs another.

In 2001 the top 1% held about 40% of the nation's wealth. This must mean that this 1% produces as a factor of their personally superior talent and efforts about 60x as much as the avg person in the bottom 99%. Now on paper within the confines of the particular economy (game) we play you would not even be able to show that as the majority of this wealth is inherited, but even for what is not inherited is it really justified, or desirable or neccessary to motivate people? (the numbers of the top .1% are radically more aggregious.)

Consider that we create a reward paradigm not in a natural, given way but in a particular way that might function in any number of different ways in which completely different results would be output, in many of which the top would become bottom and vice versa (in the very least we can think of social economies in the world who do not reward and even punish those that we would celebrate.) Also consider that the top positions in our society, the captians of industry cannot exist without the rest of society and teh grand scale of their personal accomplishments cannot be seperated from the whole, the two being indivisible and it being merely opinion as to how strong a contribution that individual made, and how much someone of a lower rank could have done a similarly effective job.

Also in terms of elites, Mills argued that power is concentrated in a political, industrial and military elite in this country. However, I do not believe that access to this elite ... Thus the farmer or factory worker's son can become a general.

Once again it seems to be the crux of your position and beef with mine that because some can achieve this higher level of position from humble means it validates the system. I say that it makes a convenient political idea that allows for the justification of the exploitation of most of the people most of the time.

One of my classmates argued that this may be true, but the generals making the decisions and bending the president's ear are service academy graduates...which means they had to have had significant political pull to enter because you have to be appointed by a Senator or Congressman. While I disagree that getting into an academy means you have significant pull (not all Congressional slots are filled), I measured the educational background of the Chiefs of Staff of the four armed services and the JCS Chairman (going back to 1978).

Once again I find the majority of the trend to be more true than the exception, I lean toward your friend's observations.

Dividing the General's educational path into Academy, Public and Private I found that no single path lead to a Chief of Staff or Chairmanship over 50% of the time. In the Army and Marines I found that about as many graduates from public school became Chief of Staff/Commandant or JCS Chairman as those who graduated from West Point or Annapolis. It is a different story for the Air Force and Navy. 60% of the Air Force officers sampled graduated from public universities compared to 30% having graduated from the Academy. Now for the Chief of Naval Operations, 80% are Academy Grads.

So while there appears to be a traditional bias in the Navy towards Academy "elites", the other services appear to largely blind to this elitism.

Considering that a tiny group of enlisted men are college grads at all and that among college grads agian a tiny percentage would be academy grads that a significant portion and by your accounting often a majority are from the academy seems wildly out of proportion to what must be thier innate work ethic and talent I see your numbers once agian as leaning against your arguement and not for it.

At 9/26/08 12:35 PM, TheMason wrote: So in sum, our system is not similar to the monarchies and aristocracies of old. We have people who will achieve, we have people who want the status quo and then we have the parasites who want equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity.

I think I do agree with you generally that there is no caste system in the United States, or at least nothing comparable to countries where there truly is no upward mobility.

I do think it's a bit misleading to talk about equality of opportunity, if what you're saying is that everybody has the same opportunities. If you're living in Central Appalachia of the South San Joaquin Valley, your opportunities for employment and education are a lot different than if you're living in San Francisco or New York City, for example.

If what you mean is that pretty much everybody has equality of opportunity in terms of being potentially successful, then I do agree with that. I really do think that if you're motivated to achieve some goal, then you have just as much chance of doing it as anybody else. Which is not to say that everybody is situated equally - obviously they're not - some people are going to have greater financial resources - some people are smarter - some people are going to have better social networks. But, we don't live in a country where you're told that because you're from a certain socio-economic class that you can't do something.

Furthermore, I found that the least common path to becoming a military elite is through private university. Of those who graduated from a private school, most were small liberal arts colleges rather than Ivy League schools. In fact, only one graduated from a well-known school: Duke.

What these early results show is that while elites exist, their ranks are not closed to the rest of society. This is the question that is most important in terms of what is good for a free society. We are not aristocratic in that you have to be of noble birth to attend university or become a General or Admiral. People like my parent's and ex-wife can rise above their class to achieve whatever their drive and talents allow.

Here you distill your position clearly, your belief is that: What makes a society free and good is that it's upper positions are not exclusive to the progeny of the upper positions.

While this is quite a side-track still from the main point of my thread I enjoy the twists and turns the rabbit hole leads me on and I'll continue the discussion.

What makes a society "free" is difficult to define, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, access to information, education, freedom of enterprise, freedom to accumulate power and personal wealth at a level of 100,000x the avg person?

what is "good" for society is also difficult because it is subjective. A theologist might say that it is the society which allows all people to reach the religious ideal and achieve nirvana or ascend to heaven on dying.

I believe what is good for a free society (and that being free is good for society) is that our resources be spread more generally, and that the most valueble resource, human beings be most highly invested in. You talk about how people complaining about the cost of books was just an exuse, though I imagine if the books were paid for more of the enlisted would wind up achieving more, and if that were the result would it all be exuses, or another tiny component among a multitude that maintain the economic imbalances beyond the efforts and talents of individuals?

I don't believe that no economic disparity should exist, but I also don't think people living in our home, the US, should go untreated for medical care, think about not going to college because of the cost, or have to pay for information at any time, or go hungry, or whithout shelter or the dignity of a clean set of clothing. It is in all our best interests that these things be universal I believe, and without the pressure of economic hardship on the population I believe more political liberty would result. As Mills says "the middle class has come to be dependent on the state and replaced by a new middle class (white-collar employees), whose jobs cannot provide them with tools (political freedom and economic security) to be independent"

So then why do we have poverty? Why did my ex live on a farm without running water? The answer: personal choice. Her grandparents choose to eschew a certain lifestyle. They liked the old way of living, the self-reliance. While I was on active duty in the USAF (enlisted) I finished my Masters. However, there were plenty of young, single Airmen who claimed that they could not afford to take classes because while the Air Force offered 100% tuition assistance the Air Force did not pay for books. This is simply an excuse for not having the desire to go to school. In the end this was not an elite imposing a certain caste on the individual...but the individual choosing to remain within his caste.

And so it comes to the real source of all these points of view that argue to justify the current free market economy: Free will

Free will is an arguement that seems to take the air out of the room isn' it? Unbeatable, because it's founded in unprovable, and undisprovable faith. I think it's what these arguements are founded on precisely because of it's unresolvability. But why argue at all if free will gives each man the results in life that he chooses? And why is it in different environments that different patterns of economic and social patterns emerge if all are governed by the unoppressible free will? Should not the citizens in other societies create then the same economic disparities as we so long as there is any exception to their trends of descendency? Or do some groups of people make poorer choices in masse, and the poor especially must pass this poor free will from parent to child, a free will that is as poor as they are penniless, and so they deserve the choice they make, the life they lead, and the rich do likewise passing free will down as rich as they are wealthy, and so too their children deserve the great bounty of success they choose to have.

I'm afraid I find things more complicated than this, or maybe simpler, whichever you prefer. I accept that a person's influences and genes effect their decisions, and by that simple belief it follows that each society is not the result of mere free will let loose on generations, but but it's particular structure, produces particular results, with exceptions and dominant trends defining for each of us our results.

So in sum, our system is not similar to the monarchies and aristocracies of old. We have people who will achieve, we have people who want the status quo and then we have the parasites who want equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity.

Once agian I'll apologize for my hyperbole in using the idea of caste system. This I found to be quite beneath the initial politeness of your rebuttal. "parasites who want equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity." I suppose you think me one of these parasites, well I the cockroach will waggle my antennae in defense of my worthless life. I never said that I wanted equality of outcome, only that I contended that there was not in truth in existance equality of opportunity. Here you seem at least on this topic to be of the former two categories in regard.

Consider your position and how it influences your thinking, you have achieved within the status quo, do do you not think it biases you to defend that accomplishment, and to define it's context as being wholly fair? If you let yourself think that perhaps we are all merely artifacts of our particular social structures you might not regard yourself so highly, and that perhaps you fear more than most things, and that fear pits you agianst a lowly poster like me on the newgrounds bbs boards because you cannot accept the undisputed contradiction of your narrative.

Our whole lives socialize us to define what has meaning, what gives our lives integrity. In the US above all else economic accomplishment is proposed to fill this space in our hearts. This is why it makes us so angry to have that challenged, just as for the religious person it angers them to have their God denied.

At 9/26/08 03:31 PM, XaosLegend wrote: "Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%"

...The interesting thing here to note is that people such as youself, and your wife who have moved up so well in our society are probably possesed of such strength of will and talent of qualities that in a system of true "equality of opportunity" you should have ascended to far greater heights of economic accomplishment, and yet you defend so vigourously the system which has undoubtably held you back.

This does not support your argument either. While on the surface it appears to demonstrate that we do live an a caste system...it is weak because you are talking about one extreme moving to the other extreme. You talk (later) about people moving from quintile to the next higher/lower...but you do not present numbers.

Furthermore, your main concern here is material wealth and prosperity. People have priorities other than money. I have not prospered financially, nor do I blame any one or any system for my lack of wealth. I could find a job that pays very well with my education and background. However, I kinda like being in grad school. The point is, how do you measure people who make career decisions based upon non-monetary calculus?

Finally, in a system of equality of opportunity the emphasis on being able to pursue your path. Why should all paths lead to riches?

In 2001 the top 1% held about 40% of the nation's wealth. This must mean that this 1% produces as a factor of their personally superior talent and efforts about 60x as much as the avg person in the bottom 99%. Now on paper within the confines of the particular economy (game) we play you would not even be able to show that as the majority of this wealth is inherited, but even for what is not inherited is it really justified, or desirable or neccessary to motivate people? (the numbers of the top .1% are radically more aggregious.)

So? The top 1% also pay about 40% of the taxes that funds the military (where part of my monthly income comes from), pays the interest on my subsidized student loans, funded my Pell grants in undergrad, paves my road, and on and on and on...

The bottom 40% of taxpayers pay less than 10% of the overall tax bill in this country. And yet where are all the social entitlements directed to? Obama and Reagan both believe in trickle down economics. The difference is Obama sees it trickling through government while Reagan sees it trickling through the market.

Consider that we create a reward paradigm not in a natural, given way but in a particular way that might function in any number of different ways in which completely different results would be output, in many of which the top would become bottom and vice versa (in the very least we can think of social economies in the world who do not reward and even punish those that we would celebrate.) Also consider that the top positions in our society, the captians of industry cannot exist without the rest of society and teh grand scale of their personal accomplishments cannot be seperated from the whole, the two being indivisible and it being merely opinion as to how strong a contribution that individual made, and how much someone of a lower rank could have done a similarly effective job.

Why would it be good to put the people on bottom on top? Why is it assumed that these people are somehow "good" while the ones on top are somehow "bad"? And is this enough justification for people to be parasitic robbers and introduce such a system?

Once again it seems to be the crux of your position and beef with mine that because some can achieve this higher level of position from humble means it validates the system. I say that it makes a convenient political idea that allows for the justification of the exploitation of most of the people most of the time.

The core of my attack on Mills is my research into the military...not rags to riches stories (though they do help).

Once again I find the majority of the trend to be more true than the exception, I lean toward your friend's observations.

Too bad that this does not jive with real-world observations.

Considering that a tiny group of enlisted men are college grads at all and that among college grads agian a tiny percentage would be academy grads that a significant portion and by your accounting often a majority are from the academy seems wildly out of proportion to what must be thier innate work ethic and talent I see your numbers once agian as leaning against your arguement and not for it.

* The USAF operates a Community College where, if Airmen choose to attend general ed classes, they earn an Associates Degree free of charge. (The USAF offers 100% TA up to $750/3hr class through Masters.) The CCAF graduates about 20,000 airmen a year.
* The service academies offer "prep schools" to enlisted persons who have demonstrated exceptional leadership ability as well as the aptitude to complete the program.
* Many people who choose to join the military (be they officer or enlisted) for the educational benefits do not plan on making the military a career, but only do the amount of time required to get the GI Bill and some classes in under Tuition Assistance and other military educational benefits...and then get out.

Thus your argument about enlisted folk...really fails to capture what you wish it to.

Your criticism about academy grads being "wildly out of proportion" is based upon an erroneous assumption. First of all you start with the claim: "...among college grads agian a tiny percentage would be academy grads..." This is a claim made about college grads as an entire population...not specific to military service. Therefore if you took a random sample of 1,400 college grads from all US college grads then yes graduating from a service academy would be a rare find. However, the reason the three Academies exist is to provide training and education specifically for military officers. So what would be methodologically correct would be to analyze only those members of the group we are talking about. Therefore my numbers are not supporting your argument...but do appear to (thus far) confirm mine.

America = Hey states! Why don't you, get in the way of fucking everything!

i agree him himm only the high senents vote counts bush shouldent have won all his oppents vote disapperd his oppenit should off won but no i waas a cheat we can vote all we want its the people in the hight up decide what happens its not a choice their tricking us in what to beleave were being tricked in beleiveing that its an democrocy im behind Obama all the way but he will not win becuse amrica is racist

This does not support your argument either. While on the surface it appears to demonstrate that we do live an a caste system...it is weak because you are talking about one extreme moving to the other extreme. You talk (later) about people moving from quintile to the next higher/lower...but you do not present numbers.

I presented plenty of numbers, and i already conceded that "caste system" was an extreme phrase to describe the way it operates, I was using hyperbole, so stop torturing the issue.

Furthermore, your main concern here is material wealth and prosperity. People have priorities other than money. I have not prospered financially, nor do I blame any one or any system for my lack of wealth. I could find a job that pays very well with my education and background. However, I kinda like being in grad school. The point is, how do you measure people who make career decisions based upon non-monetary calculus?

I base their position of privilage to be based on the liberty of their economic options and future. Most people don't have such an option making their share access to " liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be far restricted from others beyond their innate talents and work ethic. Differences in the IQ of the wealthy vs the poor can be easlily argued to be the effect of lack of proper nutrition and stimulation of the poorer groups, as these environmental elements have been shown to drastically effect a person's later development. (much the way that if born into a bilingual environment it becomes natural to know the second language and that later it becomes an uphill battle to learn one.)

Finally, in a system of equality of opportunity the emphasis on being able to pursue your path. Why should all paths lead to riches?

I didn't say all paths, I said that the difference of degree should be less, somehow you seem to think economic proportionment should be black and white, with all wealth going to the "worth" and none to the rest. (the huge majority) I find it hard to understand this love of hyper-hierarchy other than knowing that that's all you've ever known.

So? The top 1% also pay about 40% of the taxes that funds the military (where part of my monthly income comes from), pays the interest on my subsidized student loans, funded my Pell grants in undergrad, paves my road, and on and on and on...

This is the most tired and paperthin arguement that is generally used by the wealthy. Ok tell you what since you hate paying taxes so much just send me all your money as you make it and I'll pay it for you. I'd love to take any tax burden you have now or will have in the future off your hands, honsetly I don't mind. In fact if Bill gates wanted to give me his 37 billion I'd be more than happy to be martyr enough to pay all the taxes on that as well, I know I'm a generous guy.

This is such a dumb arguement but it describes very well the scewed perspective you have about how an economy works. You assume because it's a "free market" that people make what they deserve so are personally responsible for all their wealth, As though their individual effots could be worth 1000000000x the the avg worker's in their company. You assume that in general the economy rewards justly, even though the wealth of the top 1% is only 1/3 money made in their lifetime and the other 2/3 is made from inheritance and investments. Meaning they were born well and gambled well, great benifit to society. Of course the other 1/3 is from the 10000000x earnings that im sure their starting social status had nothing to do with helping them earn.

The bottom 40% of taxpayers pay less than 10% of the overall tax bill in this country. And yet where are all the social entitlements directed to? Obama and Reagan both believe in trickle down economics. The difference is Obama sees it trickling through government while Reagan sees it trickling through the market.

Yea i figured you were a Reagan lover. Under reagan the wealth of the country increased anemically at best and that most of the gains of the wealthy were merely the redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. The numbers generally being toyed with by the misuse of after the fact inflation based weath being compared with the preinflation numbers. Use "real" numbers and the growth is pathetic, and following a recession as president can be mostly attributed to a natural economic cycle

Why would it be good to put the people on bottom on top? Why is it assumed that these people are somehow "good" while the ones on top are somehow "bad"? And is this enough justification for people to be parasitic robbers and introduce such a system?

I didn't say this, you clearly don't understand that I was attempting to describe the oftentimes arbitrary nature of reward paradigms of a given economy. I also didn't say it would be neccessarily good. Though some at the top today are outright criminals who break and bend the law as they can (take the mob for instance) and should be at the bottom based on their sociopathic behavior.

The core of my attack on Mills is my research into the military...not rags to riches stories (though they do help).

So the core of your arguement is not rags to riches but how hierarchy operates so well inside a government run institution, dare I say a "socialist" institution? doesn't any virtue of your research support my arguement and not yours because of the nature of the institution you're so strongly promoting?

Too bad that this does not jive with real-world observations.

I'm not sure which "real world" you've been observing so omnisciently but mine is not so divine

Thus your argument about enlisted folk...really fails to capture what you wish it to.

Your criticism about academy grads being "wildly out of proportion" is based upon an erroneous assumption. First of all you start with the claim: "...among college grads agian a tiny percentage would be academy grads..." This is a claim made about college grads as an entire population...not specific to military service. Therefore if you took a random sample of 1,400 college grads from all US college grads then yes graduating from a service academy would be a rare find. However, the reason the three Academies exist is to provide training and education specifically for military officers. So what would be methodologically correct would be to analyze only those members of the group we are talking about. Therefore my numbers are not supporting your argument...but do appear to

I would hope it was clear that I wasn't referring to all college grad in the US, but the pool who are in the military, it would be useless to use the data otherwise, you seem to be looking for literal contradictions that are inherent in any writing other than scientific journal writing. I would suppose that among the elite of the military the amount that come from the academy (and with strong economic backgrounds) vs the non military college would be grossly disproportionate, even if you took into account people who weren't hoping to get into military leadership as a career. I could be wrong, but if the military is the one place in our society that bucks these hierarchies once again it supports my arguement even more, as the military is a government run, publically funded institution what is considered by most to be a socialist structure.

No.

The people we previously vote, use propaganda and lies to manipulate the people. Is a Puppet an individual or the puppet master? I think the puppet master. Without adequate political education in our schools, "the People branch" in government is powerless for they are swindled, tricked, and duped into what the other systems of government want. Its like This is a huge Case and the we're the jury, only we don't know how the hell the court system works.

At 9/29/08 12:18 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: America = Hey states! Why don't you, get in the way of fucking everything!

I guess here you're taking issue with states rights or something? Not sure if I see the relevancy

Does anyone need to watch this?

The Political Spectrum Explained

At 10/10/08 09:47 AM, Frattochino wrote: No.

The people we previously vote, use propaganda and lies to manipulate the people. Is a Puppet an individual or the puppet master? I think the puppet master. Without adequate political education in our schools, "the People branch" in government is powerless for they are swindled, tricked, and duped into what the other systems of government want. Its like This is a huge Case and the we're the jury, only we don't know how the hell the court system works.

I completely agree. A true democracy must have a media system independent of all those who would benefit from elections, from the politicians and business most notably, right now we have media owned by the government, (check out the US governments Media expenditures some times it's amazing what you don't realize.) and by private business interests who have no interest in seeing a more populist society with less concentration of political and capital power.

At 10/11/08 04:21 AM, JonH2O wrote: Does anyone need to watch this?

The Political Spectrum Explained

This is great lol, I like how the narrator invents a new political spectrum and presents it as "the real political spectrum" Anarchism on the far right lol, which is probably the most liberal of political groups. (though I suppose the commentator doesn't understand anrchy as a political group only as a websters dictionary explitave, and says that "anarchy" means to be "without government" when what it really means is to be without a ruler, and most anarchist political blueprints involve high levels of organization at the grassroots level, merely decentralizing decisions and instead intending to create the most robust kind of democracy while being focused on local control, then he goes on to show anarchist protesters, most of whom probably understand what anarchism is and portrays them as wanting chaos, maybe the narrator really thinks this just because he's an ignorant simpleton, or perhaps it's deliberate I'm not sure. It's funny how he then defines the greek meaning of demo-cracy "rule by the people" but failed to translate correctly for an-archy which anyone who had taken both a science course and a politics course (or was just decent about picking these things up casually) could tell him must mean "without rule" being without rule does not mean to be without government or law, it means not being inferior or lesser to anyone else in terms of political power.

Once again any country that votes and that vote is meaningful (not merely staged and a fraud) is a type of democracy, our republic is a type of democracy.

Fiscal (greedy) conservatives love the idea of a republic because it allows them to set up a game that we all must play and then when lo and behold a few people become multi billionaires playing that game they can be assured that no popular opposition to the gross inequality will rebalance the ownership of capital, and that political power is dependent on capital power (money) Which allows them to tweak the economic game to ensure that a high level of security of position is maintained by the ultrawealthy. They create a stock market (casino) which allows them to pay skillful investors to grow their money through investing or loaning that money out and making a profit on the proceeds, or setting up companies that pay them a very high divedend from being owners. They make sure that money can be passed from parent to child with little or no penalty, that a social network is set up to keep their progeny involved in the capiatal and political elite circles of the country giving them access to the best education and connections that give them incredibly higher odds of succeeding themselves in the little economc game that has been set up.

A true democracy wouldnt pollute it's decision making institutions with the money made privately, it would not allow elections to be run by contributions or personal assets. A true democracy would create it's own little game that might just not allow for such radical accumulations, and might require that people individually work hard to earn a high place in society, and that those that did work hard wouldnt have teh possibility of becoming homeless or die of untreated medical conditions just because they didnt start near the top. A true democracy would threaten their economic game that creates a profession out of shuffling assets instead of actually creating anything, actually building anything, actually helping anyone, and they could never allow that, because then you could only become a millionaire and not a billionaire, and then they wouldn't have people like all of you reading this to do their bidding and kiss their privledged royal asses, in gratitude for having "a good job".

A true democracy wouldnt pollute it's decision making institutions with the money made privately, it would not allow elections to be run by contributions or personal assets.

The "truest" democracy I can think of would be the founders, the Athenians. And they did exactly that. Course, they didn't have elections really, since like 95% of offices were chosen by lot.....

The US is supposed to be a democratic REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Not once in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution does the word "democracy" appear. The Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a republican form of government."

In the pledge of allegiance, we pledge "to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

I however stop pledging after the flag, because I don't believe in everything the "republic," as it is today, stands for. I'm not really sure how much of a "republic" we are today, but I can tell you that we are not a democracy.

Well I'd argue that it wasn't really a democracy as although you elect a government and the president, which has some influence a large chunk of it comes down to the very rich countries that have the large stakes in america; they are the real rulers in my humble opinion, the democracy is just an illusion.

At 10/14/08 05:45 PM, Wampbit wrote: a large chunk of it comes down to the very rich countries that have the large stakes in america; they are the real rulers in my humble opinion

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "stakes" in American.

The people should either have there government by the balls or not have one at all.

At 10/14/08 06:04 PM, NeverHundred wrote: The people should either have there government by the balls or not have one at all.

The people used to originally, but as time goes on, government realizes its true power and starts to act in the best interest of itself, not the people. That's how it goes for most nations. Not having one at all would be anarchy, however. Mass lack of satisfaction can bring about an overthrow, however, but in order to rework a new form of order.

At 10/14/08 06:14 PM, JudoJoe wrote:

At 10/14/08 06:04 PM, NeverHundred wrote: The people should either have there government by the balls or not have one at all.

The people used to originally, but as time goes on, government realizes its true power and starts to act in the best interest of itself, not the people. That's how it goes for most nations. Not having one at all would be anarchy, however. Mass lack of satisfaction can bring about an overthrow, however, but in order to rework a new form of order.

Actually I think usually you started with powerful tribal leaders that were pretty much warlords, who had the most loyal followers and strongest family to back them up. This "original" design I don't think we've gotten that far away from, with our power structures really being competition and cooperation between modern warlords. These warlords are the ultra wealthy, politically powerful, or institutionally powerful, often all three. They run the companies of this country as their own feifdoms with themselves as kings of the many small nations that control the whole. It's a plutocracy, an oligarchy whatever you want to call it, but joe shmoe working his 9-5 doesn't input any independant thought into that paradigm or have any efficacy. Joe shmoe is the product of that larger organization, a battery that keeps the hogs fat on his labors. They have to handle their cattle with care sometimes, but make no mistake that's all you are to the ones who really make the decisions.

At 10/15/08 04:06 PM, XaosLegend wrote: This "original" design I don't think we've gotten that far away from, with our power structures really being competition and cooperation between modern warlords. These warlords are the ultra wealthy, politically powerful, or institutionally powerful, often all three. They run the companies of this country as their own feifdoms with themselves as kings of the many small nations that control the whole. Joe shmoe is the product of that larger organization, a battery that keeps the hogs fat on his labors. They have to handle their cattle with care sometimes, but make no mistake that's all you are to the ones who really make the decisions.

"Warlords" -- what country are you talking about?

What Joe Schmoe needs to do is rise up. Kind of like Project Mayhem in Fight Club.

I don't know, but Switzerland has a far greater democracy than what the USA does.

At 10/15/08 10:14 PM, JudoJoe wrote:

At 10/15/08 04:06 PM, XaosLegend wrote: This "original" design I don't think we've gotten that far away from, with our power structures really being competition and cooperation between modern warlords. These warlords are the ultra wealthy, politically powerful, or institutionally powerful, often all three. They run the companies of this country as their own feifdoms with themselves as kings of the many small nations that control the whole. Joe shmoe is the product of that larger organization, a battery that keeps the hogs fat on his labors. They have to handle their cattle with care sometimes, but make no mistake that's all you are to the ones who really make the decisions.

"Warlords" -- what country are you talking about?

What Joe Schmoe needs to do is rise up. Kind of like Project Mayhem in Fight Club.

You ever hear of Chikita Banana hiring deathsquads to take out political dissedents and union leaders in their banana republic? Anyway I was using the term to show that it is very similar to the power structures we have today in modern companies, with highly Hierarchical control of large groups of people without any democracy for the workers who keep those companies running. (shareholders yes, but usually thats a tiny powerful group as well that holds all the power, an exception would be companies where the employees in a diffuse way own most of the company stock, but thats very rare, and usually is still undermined a great deal by a huge chunk still being owned by a few)

To be fair, a country that operates on the concept of pure majority-rule is in for some really rough times. The closest our country has been to that was when we were under the Articles of Confederation. It was a complete and total nightmare.

The problem is that people are capricious and easily swayed and kicked up into a fervor over things that aren't necessarily the best course of action. It's an incredibly unstable and dangerous form of government.

I'm less than favorable of our representatives, but the very fact that we can't seem to elect good representatives is the same reason I don't want the majority voting on policy. What's more, we can barely turn out to vote for the leader of our goddamn country much less our own city councils and MUCH less for propositions.

Seriously, how do any of you think a direct democracy would work?

What we need is better accountability from our representatives. To do that, people need to be more active. If there's one thing I've learned from working with lobby organizations and non-profits, it's that making phone calls, writing letters and actually showing up and talking to your representative makes an enormous difference. One handwritten letter is counted as being representative of several hundred people.

If you want to complain about what's wrong, then go right ahead. Just make sure some of those complaints go somewhere other than an internet forum.

America is a republic but what the Founding Fathers considered democracy, is in fact direct democracy. America is democratic, in the sense that it is a representative democracy, which would be synonymous with the republican definition of the 18th century.

At 10/16/08 02:02 PM, Gunter45 wrote: To be fair, a country that operates on the concept of pure majority-rule is in for some really rough times. The closest our country has been to that was when we were under the Articles of Confederation. It was a complete and total nightmare.

There wasn't much direct democracy during the articles of confederation if you consider that mostly only land owning men were allowed to vote in most states, so I don't really see that as an example that discredits direct democracy at all. Besides which much of the issues during that period had to do with the limitations set on government and not neccessarily a failure of democracy, they weren't allowed to tax the population for one thing and could only raise revenue through tariffs.

The problem is that people are capricious and easily swayed and kicked up into a fervor over things that aren't necessarily the best course of action. It's an incredibly unstable and dangerous form of government.

Once again you say that this is the case but if that's true than why even a republic, the idiotic emotions of the masses are likely to elect the wrong kinds of people then aren't they, that's a decision too isn't it? These Ideas about humanity being too dumb to rule itself stretch back to warlords and monarchies, the idea that the masses are just too stupid and needing to be guided by an educated elite who know what's really good for them. (when in reality that educated and privilaged elite merely knows what's good for itself)

I'm less than favorable of our representatives, but the very fact that we can't seem to elect good representatives is the same reason I don't want the majority voting on policy. What's more, we can barely turn out to vote for the leader of our goddamn country much less our own city councils and MUCH less for propositions.

There are limitations to humanity, but any representative sytem still relies on that flawed group. However the line "No taxation without representation" sums it up pretty well, there is no legitimacy of government without it being beholden to the people, otherwise it's just a protection racket, and I tend to favor more representation of the people's will than less. A good example is that the public have favored 2 to 1 a universal healthcare system for at least forty years and yet it has not happened, why? Because this is not a democracy it's a plutocracy and the powers that be don't see the angle in it. (hopefully we'll finally get something like it with Obama but I'm skeptical)

Seriously, how do any of you think a direct democracy would work?

Did I say I wanted a direct democracy?....... no I didn't. If you had read my posts (there's alot I know I forgive you) you would know that what I'm really criticizing here is the corruption of the political system through an economically partisan media (not leftist or rightist but elitist) and corrupted campaign financing. I do think the kinds of things we vote on would change a bit with a truer less corrupted democracy, but I don't think it would be any less sophisticated neccessarily. For example when something as big as NAFTA comes along we would be able to vote on it as a population instead of having a president and congressmen push it through during a period of overwhelming public opposition. (and continued opposition thereafter)

What we need is better accountability from our representatives. To do that, people need to be more active. If there's one thing I've learned from working with lobby organizations and non-profits, it's that making phone calls, writing letters and actually showing up and talking to your representative makes an enormous difference. One handwritten letter is counted as being representative of several hundred people.

How do you intend to squeeze blood out of that stone? People are as they are, and asserting that they don't do what theyre supposed to do as a mass group isn't going to change anything unless you can find a venue to inspire them in significant numbers, but such a venue would require alot of public funding and still be missing the point: People do as they do within a system because that's thier natural behavior in that system. If you want to change the outcome of a system you have to change the system, the people are going to remain the same starting medium regardless of how much you complain about them. (I do also assert that people should be more involved but I'm practical enough to realize that that's not where the real problem is, and that it's generally a convenient scapegoat trotted out to justify moving ahead with policy without the support of the population)

If you want to complain about what's wrong, then go right ahead. Just make sure some of those complaints go somewhere other than an internet forum.

I do write to my representatives, but this is also a valid venue for debate, a decent number of people come here to read and post, and I believe the section is called the "politics" section, so I don't see why you're exasperated that I would deign to speak of political matters here.