Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyB
Certainly, but how sure are you that "They" are not to blame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyB
Certainly, but how sure are you that "They" are not to blame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
We don't run a democracy though. We run a representational democracy that's really more of a republic than anything. Also, for what it's worth, I think democracy is one of the least efficient forms of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
A representational democracy is a form of democracy, just like the US definition of a republic, that is, the rule of the people(in the case of a representational democracy through elected officials).Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Republic comes from Res Publica which is just another word public affairs or "for from the people", aka democracy, the separation of terms might have meant something in greek/roman times when there were also absolute democracies where the people ruled directly but nowadays the difference is non-existent.
There is a whole ****load of nations claiming to be republics in the world and they mostly lack common denominators and the "Kingdom" of Sweden(or Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom etc.) is more democratic than most all of them, so the word is mostly meaningless today.
As for the last part I'll quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Technically a benevolent dictator or oligarchy could be better, it's just that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I'm quite aware of government types and all that. Others may not draw the distinction, but I do. If we ever get rid of the electoral college, I may consider dropping the distinction. Our government was designed to be slow and inefficient, for the sole reason of power corrupting. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. One of my favorite founding fathers' quotes :)
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
-Jefferson
It is funny that the Greeks and the Romans said the total opposite, they said Democracy is the worst form of government, and although Monarchy has flaws, it is the least bad. Furthermore to ignore the importance of what the Romans said or did, one must, if one desires to not be a hypocrite, equally ignore all governments based on civil and common law traditions. No matter what one may think, those governments who are built on common law and civil law, must always respect the Roman view, much more could be said about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
For profit prisons.
Yes the Romans and the Greeks said that, according to Plato Aristocracy > Timocracy > Oligarchy > Democracy > Tyranny. But one must also keep in mind that the Greek/Roman definition of democracy is very much different from most modern democracies which have much more in common with Plato's definition of an Aristocracy, with the difference that the "Aristocrats" are elected for a term, rather than appointed by some other mean. The Greek/Roman definition of a democracy would be the direct democracy and onlythe direct democracy, they would not consider our modern democracies a democracy at all. Their definition of democracy was the direct rule of the people in every matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronosschoty
The Romans also had legal slavery and many other things that are generally viewed as wrong or morally repugnant today so no, you must not necessarily respect the Roman view.
Sure, people should be aware of where the roots lie but just because something is old doesn't mean it's right. And nor does it mean that a system can't evolve over time.
Civil law originates from Roman law which I assume is the point you're trying to make. But Roman law also had a lot of oddities which we have done away with these days, for example if I remember correctly religion had supremacy over mundane law, something no sensible modern democracy would accept today.
This post ignores so much reality, because it is out of context, you cannot judge todays idea of slavery with the Roman one. In the Roman idea of Slavery you left with a total portion of your master's goods after a period of like 7 years, moreover he was obliged to not over work you. That is contrasted with the pseudo Roman slavery of the Germans, who were, as always, barbaric and cruel.
Maybe after the Christification of the Roman Empire but during it's height they were just as hard on slaves as the Greeks, sure some owners allowed their slaves a small "pay" with which they could eventually buy their freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronosschoty
It was a good way to insure obedience since the owner could withhold that pay or remove the possibility if the slave misbehaved. The owner could also conveniently set the pay so that the slave could buy his freedom roughly when he got too old to work, insuring that you didn't have to pay sustenance for a useless slave and you didn't incite your slaves into rebellion by just killing off those too old to work.
The only slaves who had any sort of rights where Roman citizens who sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt since once the debt was paid off they would eventually regain their freedom.
Because they were legal citizens they were also at least in theory exempt from corporal punishment(implying that other slaves weren't)
A slave could also be made(sold off) Damnati in metallum if they were too troublesome or for as a punishment for citizens(if you were a plebeian) for severe crimes, it essentially meant you were sent off to work yourself to death in a mine, you could not buy or otherwise earn your freedom, you would be worked hard in the mine until you died.
In the beginning the united states was 13 states. Over time more and more random territories became states. By the 1860s there were 33. Some suggested fixing this and making a separate country with 11 states. There was a big fight. The developers in Washington insisted that secession was not allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffi
Phbbbt :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
I'm curious to know how it would've went if they had.
We could go back earlier too. If they had stuck with the original charters the United States would look more like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000starrs
http://www.virginia1774.org/map_image-3.gif
That could have worked well except that Rhode Island and Delaware did not have access to the explorer pool. The developers thought growth would be too imbalanced.
So Elldallan, you're saying that if a company such as Apple benefits from something, the consumer loses? Lower taxes for the corporation and the price of the iPhone automatically goes up? I'm not sure what college economics class you took, but you can't merely take the oil & gas industry and make a generalization about all corporations or even a majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
Generally, what's good for a corporation is good for consumers...of that corporation. If Apple comes out with the iPhone 7 and laws regarding corporations are in favor of said corporation, you'll more than likely end up getting a lower price on said phone than if the laws were in opposition to the corporation's interests. If the corporation provided nothing for consumers, no one would consume, they would fail to make money, and could not pad anyone's pockets. Simply by being on this forum, you are likely using a computer that was made by a corporation (at a wholesale price that was marked up by a retailer, most likely linked to another corporation, to a market value that you were willing to pay for said computer, assuming you own it). The internet, without corporations...where would it be today? Still a concept of some guy (Al Gore? LOL) in his mom's basement?
If you choose not to be a consumer, then you're missing out. If you choose not to buy stock in a corporation that's profitable, you're missing out. Don't be mad at someone else's success because you failed to take advantage of an opportunity when it presented itself...you have as much opportunity as the next investor. Corporations are more than just big company names...they are people who had vision to make something bigger than themselves. People probably not unlike yourself at one point who wanted to see something change, or be a part of something larger.
Nothing's perfect. Corporations certainly have the potential to be crooked and scandalous. Just like the government (aka a huge political corporation that has the ability to create and enforce laws, whether or not they are "good" for the consumer).
But since we're talking about lining people's pockets, let's talk about welfare, shall we? We'll give you free cash and stuff, legally and out in the open, just vote for us, and you'll never have to work again.
The internet started as ARPANET. A United States government program funded by DARPA. It connected several universities and the first messages were sent between professors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fes
I think the facts suggest all inventions are made by humans. Many humans are employed at corporations and the corporations frequently own the patent. If you take the time to talk to people who create technology you will find that they did not take many economics classes. They would be in a lab trying to invent stuff regardless of the economic system they were born into. Proprietorships and partnerships have also contributed some technology. It is not the case that a lab worker is more likely to succeed in a corporate lab. It is the case that wealthy investors benefit from a corporation. The United States government also supports corporations and usually gives cash to corporations who bid on contracts instead of spending cash directly on the government's own labs. When the government labs (NASA, oak ridge etc) do invent new technologies or advance theories they give the technology away to corporations. Much of the nifty gadget you are using was in fact developed by governments and universities. Granted most universities have articles of incorporation. But universities existed 2000 years before this practice became normal.
Consider the atlatl, bow, ceramic cup, beer, wheel, sail, pyramids, cows/cheese, iron, thread, olive cuttings, writing, printing press, gun powder, sputnik, and the hydrogen bomb. Before the printing press and cheap paper you really did not have corporations and stocks. I throw in sputnik and the hydrogen bomb because they were prototyped in a country that exterminated its financiers. I am not in favor of nukes, rockets, or exterminating anyone. But you can not claim that publicly traded stocks are necessary to build an ICBM or a pyramid. The engineers will show up to do projects and they will do the big project that the big chief says needs to be done. In the USA the big chief is the guy with the most stocks and not the guy with nice plumage or the guy with party credentials.
Distributing money to stock holders may be doing nothing to advance technology. The corporate bureaucracy may build some labs benches and occasionally provide a workspace without distraction. Often much of a corporation's activity is just parasitic.
It is interesting that you picked Apple as an example. For all practical purposes Apple computers was a proprietorship created and run by Steve Jobs. Of course you could point out that massive capital was raised with IPO and stock sales. If corporate financing through stock was not the cultural norm and was not pushed by the government then Steve Jobs would have had capitalists offering money as loans instead.
Not really. People can be held responsible for their actions. It is people who are crooked and it is people who create scandals. The corporate charter and corporate laws allow people to redirect punishment away from themselves. With a corporation a fine imposed by a government causes financial loss to people saving for retirement, causes losses for uninvolved financial institutions, and it can cost workers their jobs. Often the crooks who are responsible for a crime are not effected by legal actions.Quote:
Nothing's perfect. Corporations certainly have the potential to be crooked and scandalous.
We used up our explore pool and keep getting hit by bottomfeeders, but we stay in aggressive stance.
haha, so accurate in game terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyguy
Our monarch doesn't appreciate our attackers at all. He cares more about random inactives that pop in, sends all aid to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedPanda
But LOOK AT SWEDEN! THANK GOD WERE NOT THERE!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nt-ghetto.html
I gangbanged this Swede for ****ing with me...
American - ME.
1. Forgive us for being the way we are. We are but mere babies and so should be looking up to other countries for advise on how to run things correctly. Perhaps one day our egos will lessen.
Yea lets be like all the rest of the starving broke countries.were almost there but not completely
America is the best country on earth. Haters gonna hate; we rock.
Is there now more guns in America than people? I've lost track! (post no.6)
Probably! I have more guns then I am people! Don't mess with the US!
There's easily more guns than people in any country with a military.
Oh yes lets all remember how the US is such a pinnacle of society, such a great role model, and so much better than the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyguy
Welcome to The United States, the "civilized democracy" where we send in the military to bring "order" after people get upset when the justice system fails to actually be a justice system.
It's funny that the Posse Comitatus Act, explicitly supposed to prevent the military from acting as law enforcement, conveniently has a loophole for just about any given situation where the police might actually require the support.
So yeah, the military is forbidden from acting as law enforcement... except where "neccessary".
We Americans have a very short memory. None of what you just posted is in my memory so it must be fiction;)
-------------
And it will forever be the big bad government VS us mere peasants. But you know if the police didn't have to deal with all the goofy people every day then maybe they would be nice to the rest of us:)
More simple than that. Even if people won't admit it, they all know that their individual votes are worthless. Might as well support the person that's the most entertaining, b/c that's all you're going to get out of it.
You all had your fun but there ain't no one got time to read this thread so I'll help you out - the correct answer is: oil.
There you go you can close the thread.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years."
The funny thing about that blurb is that it was invented in the mid-20th century out of whole cloth, and mis-attributed to a monarchist - it should be noted, around the time conservatives were doing anything they could to near apart the New Deal.
The failure of American democracy is happening largely because the very rich are bribing their way out of taxes or really any responsibility, and the corporate-state alliance has been fused together so tightly that it is difficult to remove. The people, by and large, are taught to blame themselves, and have been sold a false ideology rooted part in religion and part in appeal to humanity's base, animal instincts; when the government or charity hands out, the impoverished have no choice but to take.
Of course there are other factors, and democracies are pretty little lies from the start.
The psychology of people has been molded towards strict authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and I doubt anything can stop that now. It is impossible to argue with someone who believes that inequality and social hierarchy are ends unto themselves. Billions, if not trillions of dollars are spent explicitly to push inequality and hierarchy - ultimately, money spent purely for vanity, often destroying human productivity in the process.
You describe a small and very vocal part of Americans. The vast majority of the people are normal
Wow 40 pages about USA
Because we're awesome. Lots of haters.
Mmmmmmmmmurica!