[awcopus]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.PHOTOS.ROOM1.HTM

Ouch.

Maybe it's time to consider that the incentives associated with striving to attain and to keep power as part of a government are so powerful and ultimately perverse that we as human beings- not Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or Green Party people- should be seeking ways of checking the concentration and expansion of power in governments in general.

Perhaps a couple of centuries from now people will marvel that there was a time when so many people were willing to cede so much control (regulation, taxation) over their lives to so few.

[awcopus]

Yeah, the pictures are horrible, but the numbers are breathtaking, overwhelming. This was the link I meant to post above.

20th Century Democide

[Chuckit]

There really ought to be a country founded on the idea that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There really ought to be a country founded on the idea that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

Sadly that's not the US government anymore. The US government has become "We know more than you do, so you're not in any position to dictate to us."

All in the name of national security. Reminds me of another country 70 years ago that did a lot in the name of national security.

[awcopus]

I find it ironic that so many Eastern European countries are implementing low flat income taxes, that Sweden and Canada are taking steps to privatize their health care systems, and, at the same time, the U.S., whether the administration and Congress are Republican or Democrat, the federal government here is intervening more in the economy and in the personal lives of citizens.

Don't think we need a new political party. Think we need an electorate that won't tolerate this government's myriad abuse of people's time, money, lives, and that directly holds elected officials accountable for conferring advantages on some (individuals/groups/businesses/unions) at the involuntary expense of others.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by awcopus

I find it ironic that so many Eastern European countries are implementing low flat income taxes, that Sweden and Canada are taking steps to privatize their health care systems, and, at the same time, the U.S., whether the administration and Congress are Republican or Democrat, the federal government here is intervening more in the economy and in the personal lives of citizens.

Don't think we need a new political party. Think we need an electorate that won't tolerate this government's myriad abuse of people's time, money, lives, and that directly holds elected officials accountable for conferring advantages on some (individuals/groups/businesses/unions) at the involuntary expense of others.

I don't think we have a government that is broken per say. I think we have a government filled with people who don't think they should be held accountable to the people of this country. They don't understand the offices they are filling really. The problem with this country is we have people, like George Bush, who when they are elected think they have been given the power to do whatever they want without consulting the people who elected them and pay them. This has just been made worse by Bush being given additional powers after 9/11 because now the President doesn't even have to go through Congress to dictate foreign policy, bypassing the one final step which kept the office of the President connected to the will of this country.

For the most part, the people of this country are to blame. People have stopped thinking, and allowed themselves to belief whatever their parties line is. If the right says George Bush is doing the will of god, the voters in the right belief George Bush was put into the office by god. It used to be that politicians had to listen to the will of the people. Now it seems that the will of the people if given to them by politicians.

People call the left fractured, but I don't think that's a bad thing, I think that's a good thing. The left is thinking, not always accepting the party line, constantly looking for new ways to deal with things. We're not simply listening to one persons opinion, but constantly forming our own, even if they sometimes don't agree. But we're all trying to fix this country and make it better. It would be nice to have a party mouthpiece, but I'm fine with waiting until we get one that's going to listen to what people in this country want rather than telling liberals what they should want.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

Sadly that's not the US government anymore. The US government has become "We know more than you do, so you're not in any position to dictate to us."

All in the name of national security. Reminds me of another country 70 years ago that did a lot in the name of national security.

That really began with FDR. Packing the Supreme Court, buddying up to Stalin, and using government to punish people he didn't like. Sure, we hear about Joe McCarthy and Nixon, but the schoolbooks gloss over FDR as the pioneer of this behavior.

When the Paulist radio station of poor Fr. James Gillis in Chicago criticized FDR' s court-packing scheme, the FCC took its license away. As early as 1935, FDR requested that the FBI initiate a series of investigations into a variety of right-wing organizations, and later in the decade secretly sought proof (which, of course, never came) that prominent members of the America First Committee were receiving Nazi money. America Firsters were routinely smeared as Nazis and traitors.

And consider Roosevelt's quote on managing farm production in order to raise prices (which would benefit farmers, but of course starve everyone else.)

"Are we going to take the hands of the federal government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?" This grave peril was wisely averted.

Nevermind that the old principle was that a farmer was free do with his property as he pleased. so much for freedom, FDR's government knew best.

Which is exactly what goMac is complaining about.

[goMac]

The problem with your FDR example is that he was correcting the imbalance in this country of a few controller resources that were needed to improve the lives of many. That's the opposite end of the spectrum from where this country is now. People only thinking of themselves instead of others.

To quote Steve Jobs on a relevant quote on the Mac:

"We went to the clonemakers and told them: 'If we go down the shitter, the whole [Macintosh] ecosystem goes down the shitter... We're not happy about how it came out, but our primary system is to make Mac ecosystem prosper and return the Mac to health. We did what we had to do."

I know the farmers in this country had their own personal interests but the problem was that they were destroying the economy for the many. FDR did have quite a few things that were eventually shot down by the courts, but he was appointed by the people of this country and was generally acting out their will. People wanted change and he gave it to them. You can't blame FDR for trying to change the situation at home. His predecessor did nothing and the situation got worse. There never was a 12 step process to saving the country from economic decline. People like to give FDR a lot of crap without remembering he was the guy who actually tried to do things.

I suppose someone could try and argue George Bush is doing the same thing. But I think the rational of the power given to FDR was of a different nature. The people of that time gave FDR that power because they knew they were in trouble, not because they were told they were in trouble. As I said, the government of today talks different and speaks different.

As for his censorship, I won't debate that was wrong, if it happened. Your source seems less than trustworthy and I can't find any other source that mentions this event.

If you are going to quote things please cite the URL you pulled it from. Don't represent them as your own writing.

[Wiskedjak]

Democracy is dangerous when the electorate becomes complacent and is unwilling to criticize those they voted for. The result is leaders who begin to act like dictators because they have full confidence they will win the next election.

This has happened in Canada with the (late) federal Liberal party and also the (current) Alberta (Provincial) Progressive Conservative party. The Liberal party required massive public scandles to be pulled from power; the Conservative party is still going strong.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Democracy is dangerous when the electorate becomes complacent and is unwilling to criticize those they voted for.

The reason this happens though is that life is fairly comfortable for most Americans. If nothing's wrong (as far as they are concerned), then what motivation do they have to get involved with politics (of course ignoring putting a bumper sticker on your car)

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

The reason this happens though is that life is fairly comfortable for most Americans. If nothing's wrong (as far as they are concerned), then what motivation do they have to get involved with politics (of course ignoring putting a bumper sticker on your car)

Very good point, most of the normal people won't become interested in politics until their very own life and property are at risk of being restricted or threatened.

Since most of the local policies are decided in the respective states and not in Washington, people are naturally more interested in the governments of these respective states or even in the governments of their respective cities...

On the other hand most of people's rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the constitution and the supreme court is acting as an important protector of the constitution and therefore people's lifes are not at risk to fall prey that easy to dictators..

When most local policies are pretty set and secure what is left for Washington to influence people's normal lifes? That leaves only taxes, military drafts (if someday it is reinstituted) and abortions, and maybe, I'm not sure on that one: school curriculums.

So as long as the federal government is not drastically raising taxes, not suddenly reinstituting military drafts and not changing school curriculums drastically to teach children things that most people would be against, the federal government can be pretty sure not to raise the interest of the normal peoples and espescially not the suspiscion and resistance and has therefore pretty much free hand to act like it wants in areas that are not tangling the way of life of the normal people in the US, for example in foreign policy.

Through taxes the federal government has been able to finance a military and spy-agency able to control the planet. Satellites are watching, alliances are signed, military bases around the world , fleets are securing the important sea-routes... and can therefore arrange economic deals as well as securing a stable influx of ressources, benifitting the US-economy, which is important to keep the normal people happy and the economic machine growing. That's one of two justifications for a federal government, ie. to ensure that the economy is growing be it through legislation, intervention or through foreign adventures, the other justification for a federal government is to organize the protection of the US as a whole against other federal governments, regimes and interests.

What all that means is that the federal government has pretty much free hand in the area of foreign policy, it can act with its military and espescially with its secret agencies anyway it wants in the world and push its current agenda through... as long as that acting doesn't hurt the own economy too much and as long as it doesn't lead to a loss of home-protection.

A normal federal government would have to fear the UN-security-council , ie. sanctions or even military intervention, but the US-government just like the other four security-council-members have the vetoe-right, and can therefore act nearly fearless.

Taliesin