24 replies to this topic

[fib_1618]

Think about who controls media spending and power, in turn this shapes consumer spending. A lot of studies were done on this to prove it isn't the other way round.

And I would say to you that if you followed the money of these same "studies", you would probably find that most of what these studies eventually show had already been decided upon before the study even began, and may have been polluted to make sure of the desired results. Furthermore, many of these same studies are directly linked to the amount of stipend one would receive so that they may continue to "exploit" this particular bias. Because of this, for every study one can produce for one predictive outcome, there are still others that would counter that same study for these same purposes.

I can give many instances to counter your example, but let's try this: if the media is so powerful in that it can shape buying habits, how is it when something like gasoline goes to $3.00 a gallon, and we are told that it's going to go the $5.00, that it can go back to $2.00 in spite of the forecast? Where is the power in this example? Of course, the power lies with the consumers decision of reducing their demand of this same product, which increases supply, which then lowers the price. Now, if you're talking about a government run media outlet, I would have to agree with your assessment. But if you're talking a free market society, there isn't a day that goes by where this same logic would be vigorously challenged as to its degree of merit.

As for politics....again think about how much money is required to finance it. Genuine democracy doesn't work this way.

Actually, "genuine" democracy works exactly like this. If you read "Popeye's" contribution in this thread, you would realize that a "pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people" - which is another way to say that those who have the most toys, wins!

Other than that, you didn't give much else to go on in your reply. So I await any follow up you might have to my response.

One of the oldest democracy, England has house of Lords and house of Commons akin to our senate and house. The worlds largest democracy by population, India, also has upper and lower houses. The chief executive is the prime minister who has similar role as our president.

No, these are not Democracies or Republics. These are Parliamentary Governments. The main differences between this and our government are 1) Legislatures are responsible only to themselves (the body) and not the people and 2) the Parliament elects the Prime Minister to lead the Parliamentary body, by majority rule, and is not directly voted upon by the people themselves and 3) the "Lower House" proposes law, while the "Upper House" makes the decision to approve or decline the proposal as opposed to the Executive branch having this responsibility (the President).

Very different in all aspects to that of the United States (or any other country on the planet), with the separation of powers being the most important difference.

Fib

[pdx5]

Fib, inspite of the procedural differences in passing laws, my whole point was/is that the laws are made by representatives elected by people and therefore their decisions are not based on popular vote/ mob rule. No country operates on "mob rule" which is the basic requirement of a "true democracy".

[Tor]

Actually, "genuine" democracy works exactly like this. If you read "Popeye's" contribution in this thread, you would realize that a "pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people" - which is another way to say that those who have the most toys, wins! Other than that, you didn't give much else to go on in your reply. So I await any follow up you might have to my response. Fib, I personally think that democracy has gone wrong when the race can only be participated by those with deep pockets, and also bearing in mind where the funding for the race begins. Have you seen the recent figures on how much it costs to "run the race"? The question then turns to, how to get the funding, and that invariably comes down to connections, and then a payback in one way or another, however small, should they succeed. Maybe I am wrong, I do not say this to gain a point etc, but I do believe that true democracy cannot operate in this way. It is my conclusion and this is the basis of my reasoning. One only needs to go and visit European countries to see how far down the line the US has gone, and in my view too far away from populus representation, which is what democracy is all about. Did you know the distribution of wealth in the US at the current timeis an the same extreme point as it was just before the French revolution..I mean in terms of % distribution. Not in terms of living standards, which is why a revolution is not going to happen now.

[fib_1618]

my whole point was/is that the laws are made by representatives elected by people and therefore their decisions are not based on popular vote/mob rule.

I guess you've never seen a session of Parliament then.

I evidently didn't make myself clear in the difference. Let's take what many consider the "Mother" of Parliamentary Proceedings, the United Kingdom, as an example;

There you have 3 "branches" of government: The House of "Commons", The House of "Lords", and The Monarchy. It is only those who preside in the House of Commons that are elected by the people, those in the House of Lords are NOT elected by the people but are provided seats by feudal ancestry (by and large). The Monarch has the final say on all governmental proceedings, in fact, it is only by the Monarch's "permission" that Parliament can be convened.

Now, there are different variations of this model in many other countries. But the point here is that the people are basically overwhelmed when it comes to representation, where the perennial "mob" (The House of Lords) not only has the final say as it would apply to any or all legislation, but they also act as the "Supreme Court" of law which provides quite a bit of conflict in as they can not only approve law, but also decide law. And if that weren't enough, the Monarchy can overrule any or all proceedings that may come about regardless of this same judgment.

No country operates on "mob rule" which is the basic requirement of a "true democracy".

There are many great examples of "mob (democratic) rule" in today's world, but it would take a doctrine to write about the differences. Suffice it to say, the biggest difference between what we have here in the United States as a Republic, and that of a Democracy, is that there is no accountability of those who are once elected to office under democratic rule. And although one can come up with many instances where our elected officials would fall under the category of "breaking promises" after they've been elected, we do have the means of "recalling" or "impeaching" these same officials where in a "true Democracy" it would much harder to do.

I personally think that democracy has gone wrong when the race can only be participated by those with deep pockets, and also bearing in mind where the funding for the race begins. Have you seen the recent figures on how much it costs to "run the race"?

Nowhere does it say that you have to have "deep pockets" to declare yourself for candidate of any political office in the United States. In fact, we have seen many times in history where candidates for office had nothing but their passion to serve who have been elected. Today's world is no different than that of the past as it relates to having "deep pockets" which can possibility increase your chances of being elected, but at the same time, this is still never assured in a free and open society. The money it does take to run for office is all relative to the times and to any laws that are passed (by public proclamation) to keep things as fair as possible. Currently, one can only make a one time maximum political contribution to a Presidential candidate of $2300, and all donations must now be held accountable. This is very different than that of the past in which large organizations could tip the scales dramatically to one candidate or the other with unlimited funding (what used to be called "Political Machines").

But all this aside, it is the people of the United States that make the ultimate decision of who they wish to represent them in their government without being coerced to do so. This is our privilege to make such decisions. And though having a large "war chest" does have its advantages in getting the word out to the electorate, it is never a foregone conclusion until the votes are actually counted (the media polls of the last two Presidential elections are good examples of this).

One only needs to go and visit European countries to see how far down the line the US has gone, and in my view too far away from populous representation, which is what democracy is all about.

Here you are comparing a political viewpoint with that of political structure, and in which, seems to have become commingled together. Whether you or I agree with the way these same peoples have decided what's best for them is neither our business nor our right to tell them otherwise. Just like here in the United States, if they want change, they can and will do it either through political procedures, or by revolution, depending on the degree of change that's needed. However, if you have this same right to change, and don't get involved with the process to change, you have no one to blame but yourselves on how far away you allow a political viewpoint to go from your own personal set of standards.

Fib

[Tor]

But all this aside, it is the people of the United States that make the ultimate decision of who they wish to represent them in their government without being coerced to do so. This is our privilege to make such decisions. And though having a large "war chest" does have its advantages in getting the word out to the electorate, it is never a foregone conclusion until the votes are actually counted (the media polls of the last two Presidential elections are good examples of this).


Perhaps I am cynical, but in a world where showbizz and glamour are something we are brought up into and to look at and to admire, where the distribution of information is governed by ad spending and promotion, I think true independent choice is augmented in favour of the deep pocket winner. I know that is a controversial thing to say, but as i say i am cynical of the independant and informed decision making process. Please dont misunderstand me, I am not questioning democracy, I am just questionining its parameters and the true choice. For example how many black people run? I am not black, but I would have thought based on the % of population they could be represented, but like in the Uk there arent many. The fact is that power is controlled in a more covert manner in my view, which isnt my personal definition of democracy.