h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There`s such a difference between the concept of democracy,& democracy-in-action.Much as the difference between the concept of socialism & socialism -in- action.Concepts are not actions,& vice versa..

Alas, Bigeyes, you are so right.

The one constant is that, in terms of being able to support, nurture and protect it's civilian population from poverty, crime and poor health, neither democratic or socialist governments have so far succeeded. People are still living in squalor and poverty in the US, UK, Cuba, Russia etc etc etc etc etc.

Maybe we need a new politik?

Private privledges and decadence vs very little middle class and public squalor are still a problem........sigh

Democracy has not worked as intended, if it does not protect the more vulnerable ones. The records here for the numbers of poor children is awful.

I think if we got back to Democracy as it was intended to be, it would work better. I can hope and vote. I know, I know...the voting process has become questionable. In a Democracy it would NOT be.

The pledge phrase "The Republic for which it stands"
I have never had that phrase explained to me
Any takers? Is a Republic different/same as a Democracy?

We all keep making the mistake of confusing governmental systems with economic systems.

The US is both a representative democracy and a republic. The republic is the gathering of semi-sovereign states into a union (Hence, United States). A strict republican is interested in promoting the minimal amount of federal government so as to preserve the maximal state governmental rights.

A democracy is a government run by the people of the state. A representatative democracy is a government run by representatives of the people acting for their constituencies. A strict democrat is interested in seeing the maximum power vested in the individual voter.

Please note: there is a difference between a republican and a Republican, a democrat and a Democrat.

The economy of the US, vacillates between capitalism and various hybrid socialist structures. Typically, the Republicans favor capitalism where the economic decisision are made by those with the capital. Typically, the Democrats favor some form of socialism where those institutions most necessary to the functioning of the society are owned and controled by the society for the good of the society without concern for issues of profit.

Commmunism is a form of economics which maintains that individual ownership of property or capital is detrimental to society and must ultimately result in inequities in distribution. Capitalism seeks to emphasize inequities so that the entities that make money are rewarded for their efforts -- the understanding here being that if things become too inequitable that there will be no available capital to purchase product and thus the situatation will be self-correcting.

Barter economy is a form of economics that maintains that if someone has an excess of something, shi may search about for someone else with an excess of hir product and the two may reach an agreement as to how much of each is worth how much of the other.

Feudalism is a form of economy whereby the vast amount of everything and everyone belongs to a relatively small number of property holders who are responsible for the well being of their own holdings and people for their own sakes as well as answering to the rulers. (The word 'lord', for instance, seems to be based on an early word which is equivalent to 'the owner or master of the baking ovens'. Of course, it took power to maintain peaceful access to such a facility. Whomever could get such power would then delegate the appropriate land and people to work it as lieutenants -- tenants in lieu of the ruler -- who were responsible for the husbandry of such grants as well as providing manpower at time of war and other forms of support.)

Hunter/Gather is a form of economy whereby the people subsist on what they can catch or find as maintained by nature.

Each of these economies can be supported and maintained by various forms of politcial systems but the two are not interchangeable.

Democracy has no obligation to provide everyone with minimal or maximal economic equality. If you will recall the Declaration of Independence asserted that every 'man' is entitled to the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three 'rights' were truly revolutionary concepts in the light of what had gone before in European history. And none of them apparently meant then, what we take them to mean now.

While our current values may lead us to believe that we have no right to be comfortable while others lack the basic 'needs' for life, the needs for life are not the same as the 'right' to life. That issue is more religious than political or economic. Though, were we to incorporate those needs into our Constitution, they would become both politically and economically necessary for this country to continue; politically, because it would necessarily supercede anyone's right to vote for anything that did not provide those needs first and, economically, because any form of economic system we might choose must be grounded in providing those needs before any other considerations.

Of course, the vast majority of our national institutions are based on similar religious beliefs which we have chosen to embody in our laws.

Barton

Thank you very much Barton!
You answered more than one question I had



3 mini rants about the US democracy

Seems like we are headed towards a sort of Corporate Feudalism unless things change. Utilities and Basic Resources are privately owned. Water, Gas ,Oil, Electric, Public Safety,Transportation

The homeless have a sort of a hunter/gather - barter system.
Unoffically there are barter systems for the rich and poor. Charities and lobbyist often look like them with the large contributors getting something in return.

The Federal Government is ignoring or overiding laws the states have passed by way of their voters. They interfere with private life medical decisions. End of life rights, abortion, medicating the mentally ill, to mention a few. These are basiclife decisions in the pursuit of happiness and should be the individual right to decide.

Here is a rather dry post from the World Book Enc which has much more to say on all things mentioned. It points out what WAS meant and how it has changed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In stating this principle of equality;
The signers of the Declaration did not mean to deny all the inequalities of their own time. Americans had already rejected the idea of a legal aristocracy, but many still approved of or tolerated slavery. Most also assumed that the rights and duties of free men differed from those of free women. But over the years, this section has inspired the struggle against unequal treatment of the races and the sexes. The rights to "Life" included the right to defend oneself against physical attack and against unjust government. The right to "Liberty" included the right to criticize the government, to worship freely, and to form a government that protects liberty. The "pursuit of Happiness" meant the right to own property and to have it safeguarded. It also meant the right to strive for the good of all people, not only for one's personal happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

For Rockefellah and a new form of Governing It is stated when and how to do that, also included.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—
World Book Enc.

Correction;
Utilities and Basic Resources are increasinly *becoming privately owned*

I find it extremely interesting to see how often abstractions are substituted for the actualities of life ways in justifying the inequities perpetrated by the ruling classes.

Feudalism is but one form of coercive government popular in some parts of Europe during the middle ages. Corporations grew directly out of the feudal system of land tenure in fee or fief. This system was consolidated into the nationstate sometime during the 15th or 16th centuries with the corporate structure first created or chartered by the state then actively sponsored and protected by the state and finally assuming significant control over the state.

This is what we have now, so the resemblance to feudalism is not accidental.

Oh.
grrrrr

I think "Steve the Fool" is a misnomer.
Unless of course, you are a fool for love ~ like most of us.

One of the main things that we must remember is that WE are responsible for voting in our politicians and governments. WE pay THEIR wages. THEY are supposed to be working for US.

The only thing that stops this ideal situation from working is the general ambivalence of the voting aged public. If EVERYONE used their vote, then if the government continued to work in conflict with its citizens, they would be voted out. (Maybe they should introduce computer or 100% postal voting if people won't get up off their fat asses to exercise their rights). For the sake of their own careers, politicians would have to take note.

It is the apathetic attitude of the populace which enables Bush and Blair etc etc to continue their wrong doings. It is also the same apathetic people who seem to moan the most about how tough their lives are.
I feel, to exercise the right to complain about your governers, you must first clearly illustrate where 'the line must be drawn' (ie. by voting) and then doing something about it.
Doing anything else is just blowing a whole load of hot air into the cloud that already exists spouted by our windbag leaders.

I vote

My vote is rarely for the winner in the end.

I dont think any ones vote counts in the end Abbi, when you consider the the Tories won back power here in the UK some years ago now, with 30% of the vote??????????that means 70% didnt want them, but we still got them, how does Democricy work again??????????????
Smudger.

I did not know of that smudger.
Voting and smooth elections are a problem there too?

Hi Abbi, It seems to be the same all over in so called democratic countries? Its the one parson one vote thing, but what it should be is proportional representation (Spelling?)That means who ever got the most votes in that state or area! That way, we would never have what happened to us again
Smudger.

I agree!

"I dont think any ones vote counts in the end"

I agree Smudger IF "only 30%" of the population votes. It is the people who don't vote that lower the value of everyone else's vote. If they introduced a method where people could vote easily and legitimately from home then hopefully we would have a more representative result. I suspect it is more laziness rather than not having a spokesman for their lifestyle and beliefs which keeps most people from voting.

I do think it's a bit silly though to say that voting doesn't count. In Britain we are lucky enough to have a lot of smaller parties who represent many of the minorities who claim "it's not worthwhile voting". Well, if people voted for them and backed up their moans with some action then firstly, the parties wouldn't be so small anymore and secondly, the populace would be more even represented. Saying voting doesn't count, (in my opinion), is a bit of a cop-out.

What happened in Britin hapened in the us when the popular majority voted for Al Gore,then Dubya announced HE was president because the electorial college voted him in.That`s not supposed to happen.It shouldn`t have happened.Look at what that did to the world!

Hi JT & Lady N, What I meant by the 30% was that the other 70% voted for other parties, (not a 30% turn out) The point is still the fact that even though 70% of the voters didnt want the Tories in power, but still they got in? I maintain the point that for a true democracy to exist it should be done by proportional representational,IE. who ever gets the most votes for that state or area, should win. This present system of one person one vote doesnt allow that
Smudger. Ps. BTW Abbi, Ive added more poems to my list

I suggestion would be to do it like all us brothers did in bygone days. If you don't vote that means you say NO to whatever it is the leaders want to do. That's what's wrong with representative democracy. It's neither representative enough nor democratic enough because it doesn't recognize the NO vote.

Why should people be compelled to choose between too evils when if they had a NO vote, they could send the buggers back to the nominating conventions to do it right, every single time if recent history is any indication?

Parliaments provide for pluralities, but they don't recognize the NO vote either. The easiest way to prevent the tyranny of the majority is with the NO vote. The easiest way to stop the revolution of the wealthy minority is with the NO vote.

Some might object that the NO vote could effectively paralyze government. That's possible I suppose but then the question arises, "What's wrong with that?" Government probably could use some good healthy paralysis. I don't recall much ill coming from things governments didn't do unless it was failing to discharge their constitutional duties. Given that not many heads roll for that sort of thing, I doubt in practice it makes much difference.

So please join me in voting YES for the NO vote.

That is an intersting idea!

Many that cannot get behnd some one candidate enough to vote are not neccesarily apathetic. There is so much talk of apathy, often it's that there IS NO legitiment choice.

Hmmm worth thinking about and looking into.
Is that an idea used in tribal councils?

If every vote counted as one (popular vote )and no response was "counted as a no" we just might get somewhere.
That would represent a truer choice in government and the rediculous way that polling is now done at great expense!

Now for election reform......