What to do when democracy fails.

[MorkandMindy]

Arts types see censorship as the lack of freedom of expression; humanities are produced by humans so humans are the source of whatever you want to find out.


I'm a science type and information comes from outside. Questions arise because a comet is seen in the 'perfect unchangeable heavens'.


To many 'freedom of speech' is the ability to get something published in a newspaper, or to speak to others on the telephone or an internet site like this. But to me that is futile if there if the input is corrupted.


The real truth about pretty much everything is secret, not to keep it from 'the enemy' because 'the enemy' is usually on the other end of the communication or because the information came from 'the enemy'.


The US is effectively an oligarchy because the public are fed incorrect information and think and vote on the basis of it.

I don't really buy that, information is "spun" however most information out there is available. When you turn on the news, you need to understand it's going through a corperate filter... when you read a newspaper, you need to understand that it has been edited and that it probably reflects the bias of the papers owners, ect...

It is a two-stage process. Hard facts are removed at the government level for example on Nov 1, 2001 President Bush issued an executive order to seal all Presidential records since 1980.


A parallel 'history' is produced by speech writers. Keeping the two versions straight, the true one and the 'official version' requires teamwork. A speech writer who doesn't know the truth produces something to please the public and W can get by if he reads it out and can only hold a press conference with selected press and prepared questions.


And the second stage is when the media mutilate it some more.

 

[ACougar]

I believe you'll see Executive Order 13233 rescinded next month. It'll be interesting to see what dirty laundry Bush and the Republicans have been trying to suppress.

No doubt there is a lot of interference in the information we use to make political decisions, still... dissent is not squashed, freedom of speech exists, and if you really want to know you can usually find out.


Learn French or German or Spanish and read thier newspapers for a differant perspective on the news, it's not too hard to fine tune your filters when you expose yourself to everything from Der Spiegel to Fox News and Al Jazera.

It is a two-stage process. Hard facts are removed at the government level for example on Nov 1, 2001 President Bush issued an executive order to seal all Presidential records since 1980.


A parallel 'history' is produced by speech writers. Keeping the two versions straight, the true one and the 'official version' requires teamwork. A speech writer who doesn't know the truth produces something to please the public and W can get by if he reads it out and can only hold a press conference with selected press and prepared questions.


And the second stage is when the media mutilate it some more.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

The Constitution of the United States...

The constitution of the United States is not a valid authority for declaring the source of ALL government legitimacy. At best it defines the legitimacy for the united states according to its own laws. Is scope certainly doesn't go beyond that.

That's why a solid constitution is so important, one that protects minorities from the tyrany of the majority. I don't like the parent/child anology between citizen and government... people who work in government are public servents. Government doesn't exist to make sure we brush our teeth or wipe our behinds. It exists to provide for the common defense, establish justice, insure the the public tranquility... at the local level to help coordinate fire and police services, ect...

IMHO government exists to foster an environment in which man can develop and demonstrate virtue. We all (and indeed the electorate who you trust to make your laws) believe the government has different functions. Ultimately it is true that government developed out of the protection racket on one end, but it also developed out of the attempts of groups of people to control their environment in much more controlling ways, both on the local and higher levels. Just look at the variety of types of society that people created for themselves using primitive forms of government prior to more recent standardisation.

 

[ACougar]

The constitution of the United States is not a valid authority for declaring the source of ALL government legitimacy. At best it defines the legitimacy for the united states according to its own laws. Is scope certainly doesn't go beyond that.

We could start with Enlightenment thinking, which has heavily influenced many nation states since the American Revolution. We saw it practiced among the Iroquois Confederacy, and knew that both the Romans and the Greeks had practiced variations long ago. It could be argued that it is the natural state of things until the size of a group or tribe makes it impractical... why would a reasonable person support a government over which he had no control unless that government held coercive power over him?

IMHO government exists to foster an environment in which man can develop and demonstrate virtue. We all (and indeed the electorate who you trust to make your laws) believe the government has different functions. Ultimately it is true that government developed out of the protection racket on one end, but it also developed out of the attempts of groups of people to control their environment in much more controlling ways, both on the local and higher levels. Just look at the variety of types of society that people created for themselves using primitive forms of government prior to more recent standardisation.

Government can do lot's of things better than individuals, however there are many things individuals, communities and churches can do better than government. Government should do what government can do best and churches, community groups, families and individuals should be able to do what they do best with minimal interference from government.

 

[billwald]

>people who work in government are public servents (sic)

That phrase gags me. I was a public employee, not a servant. Are you a servant of your employer? Only if you are (also) a maid or butler.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

We could start with Enlightenment thinking, which has heavily influenced many nation states since the American Revolution. We saw it practiced among the Iroquois Confederacy, and knew that both the Romans and the Greeks had practiced variations long ago. It could be argued that it is the natural state of things until the size of a group or tribe makes it impractical

Enlightenment thinking is not an authority, it doesn't prove anything, its just a particular ideology amid many. Sure lots of peoples have practiced democracy, that doesn't make it the only way to legitimise government, lots of peoples have practiced monarchy, feudalism, dictatorship, communism etc.

... why would a reasonable person support a government over which he had no control unless that government held coercive power over him?

Because it works?

Government can do lot's of things better than individuals, however there are many things individuals, communities and churches can do better than government. I'll add to this later.

Communities, churches etc when organised are governments as far as I am concerned, just on a smaller scale (as is the family) - I am fully in favour of this kind of decentralisation and subsidiarity. This is an entirely different issue to the idea of "democracy".

 

[ACougar]

Public empoyees are hired to serve the public, if your hired to help perform a government service and work directly for the government you are a public servent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service

>people who work in government are public servents (sic)

That phrase gags me. I was a public employee, not a servant. Are you a servant of your employer? Only if you are (also) a maid or butler.

 

[ACougar]

Enlightenment thinking is not an authority, it doesn't prove anything, its just a particular ideology amid many.

The ideals found in Enlightenment thinking and previous democracies gave birth to many nations... Thier authority comes from the consent of the governed.

Sure lots of peoples have practiced democracy, that doesn't make it the only way to legitimise government, lots of peoples have practiced monarchy, feudalism, dictatorship, communism etc.

If someone attempted to convert my democracy into a monarchy, feudalism or dictatorship (communism is an economic system, not a system of government and could be democratic, run by an oliarchy or despot) many (including myself) would engage in violent struggle to prevent it. Those systems do not have my consent or the consent of most Americans and are therefor not legitimate.

Because it works?

It wouldn't work here, they only work in places where people have never tasted liberty. Sure, the other systems have some advantages... however the big disadvantage is that we become servents of a crown, or a lord, or a dictator instead of government being our servent.

Communities, churches etc when organised are governments as far as I am concerned, just on a smaller scale (as is the family) - I am fully in favour of this kind of decentralisation and subsidiarity. This is an entirely different issue to the idea of "democracy".

I'm a big fan of decentrilization as well... however I'm not comfortable with the merger of government and family or government and church. Power corrupts, I don't want to see that kind of power or corruption in the hands of churches, community organizations, even families.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I'm not trying to change your government into anything. I just find it irritating you state that democraticness is the source of government legitimacy when neither global politics nor history bears that out.

 

[ACougar]

We can disagree on what makes a government legitimate, I would argue that all forms of government that do not derive thier authority from the governed are not really legitimate. Yes, there are a whole lot of illegitimate governments out there... the fact that I don't believe thier legitimate doesn't change the reality that thier in power.

I'm not trying to change your government into anything. I just find it irritating you state that democraticness is the source of government legitimacy when neither global politics nor history bears that out.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I believe you'll see Executive Order 13233 rescinded next month. It'll be interesting to see what dirty laundry Bush and the Republicans have been trying to suppress.

In 1994 it was revealed that in August 1974, the Joint Chiefs of Staff destroyed all the minutes and transcripts of their meetings going back to 1947, and in 1978 essentially stopped keeping any such records.




Nixon was caught out by his own system of record keeping when the Watergate investigation started. My guess is most officials now keep their private records on a flash or mini HD rather than leave it around for the next administration to publish. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[ACougar]

Your probably right about internal stuff that never leaves thier office, however most of the stuff that matters will have had to leave thier office in an official capacity at some point.

[/font][/color]
[/font][/color]

In 1994 it was revealed that in August 1974, the Joint Chiefs of Staff destroyed all the minutes and transcripts of their meetings going back to 1947, and in 1978 essentially stopped keeping any such records.




Nixon was caught out by his own system of record keeping when the Watergate investigation started. My guess is most officials now keep their private records on a flash or mini HD rather than leave it around for the next administration to publish. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[bob135]

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

Also, what do you count as "functioning?" Despite the financial crisis, GDP hasn't dropped 30%, so we must be doing something that isn't completely wrong.

I'll throw in a Churchill quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Saying "we can't function in a democracy" is sort of an empty statement unless you offer a solution.