http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14797234?source=rss
QuoteSome Utah County parents are calling on the Alpine School District to stop spreading "false educational ideas." First and foremost, the parents say, the district needs to clamp down on its use of the D-word: "democracy."
This week, a spokeswoman for Utah's Republic, a group that advocates for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, asked the Alpine Board of Education to scrap its democracy-centered mission statement. The issue has sparked a dust-up over the past month, garnering petition signatures from hundreds of Alpine parents and a rebuke of the school board by the Provo Daily Herald's editorial board.
Alpine's mission statement is "Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy."
But this nation is a republic, not a democracy, said Oak Norton, a Highland father of five and the founder of Utah's Republic. The Constitution guarantees every state a "republican form of government." "Karl Marx said, 'Democracy is the road to socialism,' " Norton said. A true democracy, he said, relies solely on majority rule and inevitably devolves into anarchy, which then sprouts socialist dictators.
The term "democracy" is commonly used to refer to American society and the power of the people to participate in government, including through votes on ballot measures and representatives, said Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics..
"Technically the United States is a constitutional republic," he said. "However, leaders from both [political] parties have often referred to us as a democracy."
Jowers said he received some of the same criticism about the D-word as chairman of the Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy.
"There seems to be a segment of the population who is worried not just about being technically precise on these words ... but somehow interprets a move to democracy as some type of a progressive movement that needs to be stopped," Jowers said. "For the most part, when people talk about strengthening democracy, they're talking about getting more people in the United States involved in our politics and government and more nations in the world being subject to elections instead of dictators."
Two things to note:
Yes, the USA is a constitutional republic on paper, but one with a distinct democratic flavour. A democratic republic is not a contradiction in terms.
Democracy is now socialism, apparently. While socialism in theory certainly seems to support democratic ideals (though of course there are, as always, exceptions), it is entirely possible to have forms of democracy without appeal to socialist ideology.
This is exactly what the Siftung Leo Strauss (http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=2065) is talking about when he mentioned the anti-Enlightenment agenda that the current crop of Republicans and Tea-baggers have.
QuotePriorities are to control the zeitgeist, frame 'acceptable' discourse, expand its perceived existential comfort zone from challenge. This state of being is true both for movements in the Old World after 1789 and ours in the New....The Continent's rejectionist horror at liberté, égalité, fraternité from the 1790s onwards is reflected in many examples of similar socio-political phenomena. Like everything else, almost all of the American Movement's animating impulses are imports. Albeit, often unknowingly. Often misunderstood. Americans today can learn alot from the Continent's experience....The Movement doesn't even bother masking disavowal of liberal democracy. It's not a bug, it's a feature! Divorce from consensual American politics, once a private matter, is now a public court filing. They will still play the liberal democratic game to retake power eventually, but as always as a means, not an end. And the morons and dupes that comprise the media and Democratic Party will — like a poorly scripted battered spouse — ignore the divorce and agree to re-marry. Everyone knows it makes good ratings.
So watch as the democracy = socialism meme is picked up and used to destroy what little say you have left over your government.
There's got to be a way to leverage this to convince the wackjobs that voting makes them communists, and to stay home on election day.
Utah. :lulz:
Arizona's next.
The pedant in me has to agree somewhat with these guys. I've had long arguments with people who insist that 'democracy' and 'republic' are synonymous terms (this is the result, I think, of an educational system that largely conflates them). I have never heard the democracy <--> socialism angle, but given the move to conflate socialism with facism (alarmingly common, unfortunately), this might be quite unfortunate. That said, in order to make such conflations one must be almost entirely unaware of the distinctions -- which means that it won't be democracy that's conflated with socialism but 'democracy' that's conflated with 'socialism' -- in practice, the usage has no bearing on otherwise accepted meanings in these situations, otherwise it wouldn't work.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 07:31:50 PM
The pedant in me has to agree somewhat with these guys.
We know, Enki. AND THAT IS NOT A POSITIVE THING.
Jesus fucking H Christ, do you know what a colloquialism is? Goddammit, Enki, this is why nobody takes you any more seriously than the fucktards on the Utah school board.
IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU LOOK SMART, ENKI. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN ASSHOLE. A STUPID FUCKING ASSHOLE.
Well its about time someone said it.
If democracy = socialism then
Forgetting it is vote day because you were too high/lazy = libertarianism
Quote from: Faust on April 03, 2010, 08:28:18 PM
Well its about time someone said it.
If democracy = socialism then
Forgetting it is vote day because you were too high/lazy = libertarianism
THIS.
Forgive me if this has been said before. Being cavalier about language has great repercussions, particularly when the new colloquial usages are coherent enough to constitute a fundamentally new accepted meaning, and particularly when such a new meaning would change the typical reading of already existent documents. Someone reading about ancient rome may not be aware that roman slavery was fundamentally different from the type of slavery that existed in the americas, and this warps their idea of rome. Likewise, someone who has internal models of the meanings of words like "democracy", "republic", "socialism", and "facism" that are modeled after colloquial usage moreso than the proper technical meanings in the context of politics will fundamentally misunderstand any given history. The management of colloquial meanings can be used to change the perception of historical documents without changing their contents -- rewriting history by editing the dictionary rather than the history book. The standard example of this is presumably more accidental: the ceiling of the sistine chapel was lauded as "awful and artificial" -- but we today would phrase the same meaning as "awesome and artistic". The other standard cited example is the misuse of the term 'theory' in evolution vs creationism debates.
There is an upside to having pedants, since it puts an upper limit on the speed at which language can be forced to mutate. For this to be effective, one must be aware of the colloquial usage and of the 'proper' usage (technical meaning in the context, older meanings, denotation, social ramifications of the word in the setting in which it was written rather than the setting in which it is read, etc.). This is not a skill to be useful in propaganda, persuasion, or poetry -- those domains benefit from creative use of language and their effects are often lessened by an appeal to rationality or effective communication. However, in the analysis of the above, it is indispensible -- if you don't know the difference between socialism and naziism, you can't analyze the purpose behind any piece of material that conflates them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 03, 2010, 07:05:25 PM
Utah. :lulz:
I should start collecting the idiocy that comes out of PTA meetings here. This one might actually top the woman who was convinced that letting high schoolers give blood was evil, because they had to answer questions about sex to do so.
For fucks sake Enki, I wrote those 6 sentences in my OP precisely so I wouldn't have to put up with pedantry from idiots looking to score cheap points by going "BUT TEH TEABAGGERS R TECHNICALLY CORRECT!" Yes, I know they are, but they're using their technically correct viewpoint to push a dangerous fallacy as part of a deeply authoritarian agenda.
And that is what we should be concerned about. I mean, unless you're only posting ITT in order to look smart and show off your awesome vocab, in which case you should just probably fuck off.
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
For fucks sake Enki, I wrote those 6 sentences in my OP precisely so I wouldn't have to put up with pedantry from idiots looking to score cheap points by going "BUT TEH TEABAGGERS R TECHNICALLY CORRECT!" Yes, I know they are, but they're using their technically correct viewpoint to push a dangerous fallacy as part of a deeply authoritarian agenda.
One that only functions by association with another totally incorrect conflation. If the proper denotations were used all around, there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
For fucks sake Enki, I wrote those 6 sentences in my OP precisely so I wouldn't have to put up with pedantry from idiots looking to score cheap points by going "BUT TEH TEABAGGERS R TECHNICALLY CORRECT!" Yes, I know they are, but they're using their technically correct viewpoint to push a dangerous fallacy as part of a deeply authoritarian agenda.
One that only functions by association with another totally incorrect conflation. If the proper denotations were used all around, there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?
You are a fucking retard. Thanks for fucking the thread up to show how smart you think you are. Asshole.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 03, 2010, 09:08:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 03, 2010, 07:05:25 PM
Utah. :lulz:
I should start collecting the idiocy that comes out of PTA meetings here. This one might actually top the woman who was convinced that letting high schoolers give blood was evil, because they had to answer questions about sex to do so.
Nothing can beat Gayle Ruzicka's entire career.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
For fucks sake Enki, I wrote those 6 sentences in my OP precisely so I wouldn't have to put up with pedantry from idiots looking to score cheap points by going "BUT TEH TEABAGGERS R TECHNICALLY CORRECT!" Yes, I know they are, but they're using their technically correct viewpoint to push a dangerous fallacy as part of a deeply authoritarian agenda.
One that only functions by association with another totally incorrect conflation. If the proper denotations were used all around, there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?
Jesus christ is your aspbergers flaring up especially badly today or what.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 08:51:08 PM
There is an upside to having pedants,
Yes, there is. It gives me someone to hate, guilt-free. That would be you.
This is why nobody likes you. You can't stop being an asshole, and you don't even try.
Fuck it. I don't even know why I bother posting any more.
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 10:00:19 PM
Fuck it. I don't even know why I bother posting any more.
For those of us who make an effort to understand you without feeling the need to pick?
I liked this thread until it became a "let's complain about enki" thread. If you continue in that vein, I promise not to post responses.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 10:07:06 PM
I liked this thread until it became a "let's complain about enki" thread. If you continue in that vein, I promise not to post responses.
Music to my ears, shitneck. You wreck everything you touch here.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 10:07:06 PM
I liked this thread until it became a "let's complain about enki" thread. If you continue in that vein, I promise not to post responses.
So you'll only continue to attempt to jack this thread once it goes back on topic? Oh, I got it alright.
You and me. We're going to have a lot of fun from now on.
WHAT?
Its not like Rome was built in a day
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
For fucks sake Enki, I wrote those 6 sentences in my OP precisely so I wouldn't have to put up with pedantry from idiots looking to score cheap points by going "BUT TEH TEABAGGERS R TECHNICALLY CORRECT!" Yes, I know they are, but they're using their technically correct viewpoint to push a dangerous fallacy as part of a deeply authoritarian agenda.
This.
Quote from: the article"We all have our own ideas of politics. That's fine," Schnell said. "What was not fine is that I think this district is putting too much emphasis on politicizing and not enough on academics.
The most disturbing thing about this is how perfectly reasonable it
sounds. Except that the US. already. IS. a. democratic. republic.
Quote from: the articleParents also were troubled by other works by the essay's author, William P. Meyers, including "Vampires or Gods," a satire about the possibility that Jesus and other deities were really vampires.
Just so we know who we're dealing with here :horrormirth:
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 10:07:06 PM
I liked this thread until it became a "let's complain about enki" thread. If you continue in that vein, I promise not to post responses.
You mean, you liked this thread as long as you ignored the OP were able to use it as a platform from which to pretend that everyone else is ignorant of the pedantic, irrelevant points you desired to spout in order to make yourself feel clever.
Once again, the Kruger-Dunning effect rears its head, this time accompanied by the kind of dreary condescention that can only come from someone who is not only unaware that they are incompetent, but is smugly secure in a sense that everyone else is actually less competent than they are.
Try actually reading
and understanding the OP.
For what it's worth, I am always interested in what Cain has to say about politics (among other things, but I'll stick to the point), especially about the kinds of strategic moves one side is making, and how something innocuous sounding as apparent pedantry can be masking a deeper intention of rebranding.
That is, in order to change the meaning of the word "democracy" (to mean "socialist"), they are stressing the pedantic classification of our political system.
By pretending towards precision, they mean to skew definitions. You have to admit, it's pretty clever.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 03, 2010, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
For fucks sake Enki, I wrote those 6 sentences in my OP precisely so I wouldn't have to put up with pedantry from idiots looking to score cheap points by going "BUT TEH TEABAGGERS R TECHNICALLY CORRECT!" Yes, I know they are, but they're using their technically correct viewpoint to push a dangerous fallacy as part of a deeply authoritarian agenda.
One that only functions by association with another totally incorrect conflation. If the proper denotations were used all around, there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?
You just implied that the Solution™ to all of this is if everyone involved was properly educated and intellectually honest.
And by "everyone involved," we're talking about
human beings.
Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
OK, if there's going to be any pedantry in this thread, it's gonna be by your Papa Brainwash, and it's going to have a point other than showing off.
First of all, "republic" has more than one possible meaning, and "democracy"? Forget about it. People use it for whatever the hell they want. So when we talk about this, let's not pretend we have the authority to tell everyone else exactly how they're allowed to use them.
Republic has taken on the meaning of representative democracy through years of casual usage. But to look at its historical meaning, and the one that people have in mind when they demand a republic, it's really something quite different. It means that the affairs of state are "res publica", a public affair. That public may be narrowly defined as a small oligarchy or broadly defined as all adult citizens, but the essence is that it's not a personal affair- not a king or an emperor or the like.
TL;DR: Republic = No More Kings!
Everything from here to the next TLDR is a bunch of wank and may be safely skipped:
A republic doesn't have to be a democracy- lots of Italian city-states were ruled by merchants and suchlike, with no input from "the people".
A democracy doesn't have to be a republic- the UK is certainly a liberal democracy, but it has a Queen who still serves as head of state. It's actually against the law to advocate a republic.
At the time of the Constitution, "democracy" was still a dirty word in many circles, including the Founding Fathers. They thought that suffrage should be limited to those who had a certain type of stake in the new republic, generally defined by race, gender and the ownership of property. Letting the rabble vote would be irresponsible, because they had nothing to lose by voting for bread and circuses.
It only took until Andrew Jackson to establish that we would be a democratic republic. This version of democracy was still pretty narrow compared to today, but it established a direction that we would continue in until at least 1964- broadening suffrage first to all adult white men, and eventually to all adults 18 and over.
It's quite possible to say that the founding fathers didn't mean us to be a democracy, but in order to hold that position today, you have to undo bedrock American principles and 200 years of history. More specifically, you need to tell me who's going to lose the vote. Because if we're not a democracy, why are all these people voting?
If teabaggers are going to insist that we're a republic and not a democracy, then let's call them on it. Whose vote are they going to take away? More importantly, which class of oligarchs would they like to put in charge? Anyone who tries the republic-not-a-democracy line should be challenged on these questions. I don't expect them to have good answers, because my experience is that this argument is typically used by people who are more contrarian than they are informed. But it would be lots of fun to watch them try to explain why they don't support democracy.
TL;DR: WHY DO YOU HATE DEMOCRACY, TEABAGGER?
The no-democracy thing won't keep the teabaggers from voting- they don't expect themselves to be the ones excluded. But it is a good way to make them look bad and drag them further down.
I suspect you posted this in the wrong thread.
Props to the Howl.
Quote from: johnnybrainwash on April 05, 2010, 07:40:40 PM
OK, if there's going to be any pedantry in this thread, it's gonna be by your Papa Brainwash,
Dirty Old Uncle Dok agrees with this assbaggery.
Yeah, I was just noticing that.
I had already merged it, with responses, into this thread (look back a page).
OOH GAWD I'M SO CONFUSED
I mean, thanks.
Quote from: johnnybrainwash on April 05, 2010, 07:51:31 PM
OOH GAWD I'M SO CONFUSED
I mean, thanks.
No sweat, though you may find yourself in trouble for making a post that actually imparts relevant information. Enki is the shop steward for Pretentious Pedantic Pricks Local 155, and he's probably gonna file a grievance.
Yes, but I believe that the "IN THE NADS" rule applies here.
Quote from: LMNO on April 05, 2010, 07:58:39 PM
Yes, but I believe that the "IN THE NADS" rule applies here.
He's gonna need some good targeting software.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 07:57:34 PM
No sweat, though you may find yourself in trouble for making a post that actually imparts relevant information. Enki is the shop steward for Pretentious Pedantic Pricks Local 155, and he's probably gonna file a grievance.
He can't grieve me- I'm not management.
Quote from: johnnybrainwash on April 05, 2010, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 07:57:34 PM
No sweat, though you may find yourself in trouble for making a post that actually imparts relevant information. Enki is the shop steward for Pretentious Pedantic Pricks Local 155, and he's probably gonna file a grievance.
He can't grieve me- I'm not management.
Point. This gives you a degree of latitude in dealing with him that I envy.
Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing. They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice. (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group... (at least the ones that i have listened to...)
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group... (at least the ones that i have listened to...)
Half the libertariantards want to restrict the franchise to land owners.
Note that most libertarians don't actually own any land (the majority of them are in college).
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing. They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice. (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group... (at least the ones that i have listened to...)
I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2010, 09:36:40 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing. They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice. (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group... (at least the ones that i have listened to...)
I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.
Pointing out that we've had that (Jim Crow) does no good. It's a fucking religion to some, and a means to disenfranchize smudgy-skinned people to others.
Another favorite of the "minarchist" crowd is restricting voting to people who pay taxes. Anyone who can't see the problem with that is either being deliberately obtuse, or would probably fair better in a monarchy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2010, 09:36:40 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing. They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice. (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group... (at least the ones that i have listened to...)
I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.
Pointing out that we've had that (Jim Crow) does no good. It's a fucking religion to some, and a means to disenfranchize smudgy-skinned people to others.
Another favorite of the "minarchist" crowd is restricting voting to people who pay taxes. Anyone who can't see the problem with that is either being deliberately obtuse, or would probably fair better in a monarchy.
They'll also turn it around and try to claim they shouldn't have to pay taxes if they don't vote. Sort of a twisted version of no taxation without representation.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2010, 09:36:40 PM
I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.
Oh, i have, too. i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:48:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2010, 09:36:40 PM
I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.
Oh, i have, too. i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...
Um, except poor & working class folks, who don't own land.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:48:55 PM
Oh, i have, too. i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...
Oh, I don't say they advocate this for the most part, just that if you're against democracy, it's sort of implied. I don't expect most of these folks to get that without being backed into a corner, however.
I'm not offering an academic analysis of their political philosophy. I'm suggesting an angle to attack them that involves backing them into that corner and watching them screw it up.
I would also suggest that for populists to speak out against popular rule creates another weakness to be exploited.
Quote from: johnnybrainwash on April 05, 2010, 10:02:44 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 05, 2010, 09:48:55 PM
Oh, i have, too. i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...
Oh, I don't say they advocate this for the most part, just that if you're against democracy, it's sort of implied. I don't expect most of these folks to get that without being backed into a corner, however.
I'm not offering an academic analysis of their political philosophy. I'm suggesting an angle to attack them that involves backing them into that corner and watching them screw it up.
I would also suggest that for populists to speak out against popular rule creates another weakness to be exploited.
Nah, they want you to be able to vote for whichever of the privileged class you would like.
QuoteI would also suggest that for populists to speak out against popular rule creates another weakness to be exploited.
This is magnificently put.
If everyone gets a vote on something its a democracy. State issues, city issues, county issues ALL are democratically decided 1 citizen = 1 vote = majority wins. The ONLY area in which we are a Republic is in National issues, where representatives to the Republic are Democratically elected!
So, ENKI's pedantic rant is wrong. The Teabaggers are wrong. The United States of America is a democracy AND a republic (and depending on which conspiracy you subscribe to, an oligarchy, a puppet of the Illuminati etc).
However, I'm still not following the democracy->anarchy->socialism line of thinking since democracy and socialism are part of most "anarchy" models. Further it seems that exactly the same argument could be made for republic->socialism without the stop at scare word anarchy.... in fact, if a few more Democrats held seats in the Senate and House, there would likely be several 'socialist' programs put in place.
I'm also confused by how "tyranny of the majority" leads to socialism, but I'm still from the reality where "white Christians, who tend to be anti-socialism" ARE the majority. Apparently this has changed in the minds of the white christian anti-socialists.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2010, 06:43:06 PM
If everyone gets a vote on something its a democracy. State issues, city issues, county issues ALL are democratically decided 1 citizen = 1 vote = majority wins. The ONLY area in which we are a Republic is in National issues, where representatives to the Republic are Democratically elected!
So, ENKI's pedantic rant is wrong. The Teabaggers are wrong. The United States of America is a democracy AND a republic (and depending on which conspiracy you subscribe to, an oligarchy, a puppet of the Illuminati etc).
However, I'm still not following the democracy->anarchy->socialism line of thinking since democracy and socialism are part of most "anarchy" models. Further it seems that exactly the same argument could be made for republic->socialism without the stop at scare word anarchy.... in fact, if a few more Democrats held seats in the Senate and House, there would likely be several 'socialist' programs put in place.
I'm also confused by how "tyranny of the majority" leads to socialism, but I'm still from the reality where "white Christians, who tend to be anti-socialism" ARE the majority. Apparently this has changed in the minds of the white christian anti-socialists.
Most state laws are made in a republican manner (that is, by the elected officials) and not all states even have a referendum and initiative process.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2010, 07:49:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2010, 06:43:06 PM
If everyone gets a vote on something its a democracy. State issues, city issues, county issues ALL are democratically decided 1 citizen = 1 vote = majority wins. The ONLY area in which we are a Republic is in National issues, where representatives to the Republic are Democratically elected!
So, ENKI's pedantic rant is wrong. The Teabaggers are wrong. The United States of America is a democracy AND a republic (and depending on which conspiracy you subscribe to, an oligarchy, a puppet of the Illuminati etc).
However, I'm still not following the democracy->anarchy->socialism line of thinking since democracy and socialism are part of most "anarchy" models. Further it seems that exactly the same argument could be made for republic->socialism without the stop at scare word anarchy.... in fact, if a few more Democrats held seats in the Senate and House, there would likely be several 'socialist' programs put in place.
I'm also confused by how "tyranny of the majority" leads to socialism, but I'm still from the reality where "white Christians, who tend to be anti-socialism" ARE the majority. Apparently this has changed in the minds of the white christian anti-socialists.
Most state laws are made in a republican manner (that is, by the elected officials) and not all states even have a referendum and initiative process.
Fair point.
One of the hardest things to do when speaking to, with or about legislators and their punditry is dealing with the disconnect between the politician and reality. The Teabaggers and their dogged acceptance of a partyline that's consistently flawed, fallible and just ridiculously revisionist are a prime example of people who've accepted this wholesale attempt to rewrite what's been going on the last decade or so.
There's NO acceptance on the behalf of the Conservative leaders, NATIONWIDE, of the extremist mistakes the GOP took part in governing the US throughout the '00's. They don't see their defeat in 2008 as a signal that they are out of touch and guilty of crashing our country into disaster after disaster...more likely that they see the larger coastal states as simply "bedazzled" by a slick kid from the Windy City.
Add to that the now-seemlingly-accepted ingrained bigotry of a White America that's feeling displaced culturally but is truly just simply held back like some 10 year old in 3rd grade, and we're now dealing with the fallout in their misdirected efforts to dial back disappointment with initiative. Initiative that is starting to be epicly frightening in its efforts to realign a very broken and disjointed party.
Their so-called "unity of thought" and direction is actually no longer a truism. I think they've realiably splintered off from some of their greatest and largest supporters and movers/shakers during their heydey. Witness the ousting of more centrist (har!) players like Frum, throwing under the bus their Obama-doppleganger-Steele, and then the fallout of their Christian-Reich-leaders like Tony "family research council" Perkins calling for an old-fashioned financial lynching...
there's blood in the water.
Even more chilling...the Democrats won't take this as a go-ahead to do anything worthwhile but will instead just watch as the media sharks out the territory, and more likely the GOP will end up just using this as a time to regroup and give more weight to the scarier, wilder aspects to the "Don't Tread on Me" KKK-esque Teabag'd movement.
So, with a weak-kneed, more right-of-center than any Liberal has a right to be and yet still using the L-word, Democratic majority that has timidly moved forward with the litany of really-too-good-to-be-true campaign promises, together with a GOP that resembles one of those dirty-nun costumes the chicks wear on Halloween...it'll be interesting to see what else can be wrought from this chunky decade of spendthrift neediness. I expect Revisionism is the new Purism...and we'll see more and more of it as the pendulum, which I thought was swinging a bit more centrally with the rejection of the GOP's candidacy and the embracing of Obamites in the start of '09...seems to be locked in a right-of-center position for the duration.
Where's the anger? Where's the disappointment? Heh...it's in the smashed window of a Democratic Congressperson, broken at the hand of an out-of-work 50-year-old with no education or prospects, who thinks it's all those health care mongrels that's distroying his double-wide fantasies of Cadillac proportions...
Quote from: Jenne on April 06, 2010, 08:35:41 PM
One of the hardest things to do when speaking to, with or about legislators and their punditry is dealing with the disconnect between the politician and reality. The Teabaggers and their dogged acceptance of a partyline that's consistently flawed, fallible and just ridiculously revisionist are a prime example of people who've accepted this wholesale attempt to rewrite what's been going on the last decade or so.
There's NO acceptance on the behalf of the Conservative leaders, NATIONWIDE, of the extremist mistakes the GOP took part in governing the US throughout the '00's. They don't see their defeat in 2008 as a signal that they are out of touch and guilty of crashing our country into disaster after disaster...more likely that they see the larger coastal states as simply "bedazzled" by a slick kid from the Windy City.
That's the problem, Jenne. They have this deeply ingrained belief that conservatism can't fail, it can only be failed by people. If their policies don't work in reality that just means that it's reality's fault for not trying hard enough.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2010, 06:43:06 PM
However, I'm still not following the democracy->anarchy->socialism line of thinking since democracy and socialism are part of most "anarchy" models.
In the time the Constitution was written, the word "democracy" was often uttered in the same breath as "anarchy." These were sometimes associated with "atheism" as well. I fail to see the problem, but others apparently differ.
Realistically, the worry has always been that the poor are going to vote themselves the rich's money.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2010, 07:49:23 PM
Most state laws are made in a republican manner (that is, by the elected officials) and not all states even have a referendum and initiative process.
Representative democracy is still democracy.
I've got to say that living in a state that's big on initiatives and referendums, and watching the state to the south that practically defines them, I can see much more of an argument against direct democracy than I like to admit. It's not even the tyranny of the majority thing, although that rears its head now and then. It's the inability of the average citizen without a staff and special training to balance or even understand a state budget or how governments have to operate.
Anyway, just to take it beyond the representative vs direct democracy divide, check out the SDS talking about participatory democracy. And come to think of it, the SDS was descended from the SLID, Student League for Industrial Democracy. Back in the 30s, "industrial democracy" was a polite phrase for an American form of socialism. Which brings us right back to the democracy=socialism thing again.
There IS a thing to be said for democracy fucking up the works. I think the citizens of CA, USA fucked themsevles with a spike when they voted for term limits. At the time, in the 90's, "vote the bastards out" seemed like a good idea. Hegemony + oligarchy's always a risk you take with the process we have to get elected, and more and more "career politicians" were coming down the pike. We have one of its Boy Wonders Now Decrepit running alone on the Dem ticket for Governator pretty soon: Jerry Brown. (...but I digress)
The CAn voters voted for the term limits with the "hopey-changey" thing (thank YOU, Sarah Palin!) in mind all those years ago: that the same old bidness would be swept aside in favor of Reform! Improvement! and we got a big fat dick instead.
The junior members of Congress in Sacramento had to hit the ground RUNNING. They had to know what programs were their pets before their aides had brewed their first pot of coffee. This was problematic. Back then, CA was the world's 5th largest economy--there were myriads of issues to be put to bed and solved! And with the ever-present partisan politics running the capitol, fuck getting anything done the easy way.
So the term limits, while "throwing the bums out" on their cans when they'd been there for a while as projected, also had the added effect of putting people in places of power where they could do more harm than good in many instances. With this hugeass economy and a dot-com bubble that burst all over their faces like morning dew, Sacramento legislators only got half-assed legislation through. The research was relatively undone. It's been a most disgusting display all throughout the 00's. I suspect the 10's will be no better.
So, in the hands of the people, the good will of the leadership is lost, really. It's a race to get elected to a higher, "better" office now. The career piece in "career politician" is now set...because there's not enough time to do anything else but run your next campaign.
Quote from: johnnybrainwash on April 07, 2010, 01:49:13 AM
Realistically, the worry has always been that the poor are going to vote themselves the rich's money.
Our founding fathers should have written for Popular Mechanics back in the 1950s.
KITCHEN OF THE FUTURE <--- Got everything wrong.