Ignorance of the voting masses

Its been a long time since I posted anything to this fine website but I've been thinking about this and I'm out of others to discuss it with in my personal life. Obviously, the notion that the masses of American voters are ignorant sheep isn't anyting earth shattering or original to those who visit this site so I'll try not to ramble too much. Here are some insights that are so obvious to myself that I don't understand how others can miss them, however, I'm sure there will be some on here who will jump at the opportunity to show me where I'm wrong. So, let us get to it, eh.

Capitalism vs loss of jobs

For me, this is a big one. There is all kinds of talk about how Obama is a socialist and how capitalism has made America heaven on earth and is the means by which all developing nations are able to well...develop themselves. There is some truth to this idea that developing nations use capitalism to develop, after all that is the true strength of the economic theory. Strangely enough though, for Americans (who live in a developed country) this really is not a benefit for us. How a person can praise capitalism and in the same breath complain about how "they took our jobs" and not realize that those things necessarily go hand-in-hand is totally perplexing. Don't they realize that capitalism requires that the capitalist produce his/her goods as cheaply as possible in order to maximize profit? I mean, that is THE central idea after all. Do those same people not realize that working for $0.10 an hour in any number of 3rd world countries will ALWAYS be cheaper than paying Americans to do the same work? What I'm pointing out here is that this is a cause-and-effect relationship; if you are pro capitalist then you are necessarily pro "send my job overseas", period. Oh yeah, and of course I realize that we do not actually practice capitalism in its true form but that really isn't relevant because 99.9% of voters couldn't tell you what capitalism or corporatism even is.

Get Out And Vote

Another thing that I find absolutely astounding is the sudden push every election cycle to "get out and vote" and more specifically what the motive behind these marketing campaigns really are. On the surface, it appears to be little more than a public service announcement to motivate people to vote, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself. However, I'd argue that this isn't the true intention of these advertisements. Pacification is the true motivation or intention of this campaign. All of the commercials have the same central theme, that YOU or your ETHNIC GROUP or your DEMOGRAPHIC is so vitally important to the government, your country, and your neighbor that they are waiting on pins and needles to finally get to see how you vote so that you may mold America into your vision of the future. This is a load of crap and couldn't be any further from the truth. The truth that, your vote is counted by an easily manipulated computer program if its counted at all and has little to no effect whatsoever on the politicians who are being voted for. We all know that money talks and votes are bullspit, or at least we should.

Camel vs. Marlboro

The last thing I'd like to point out is that the parties and candidates all represent the exact same thing, just in slightly altered packages, and it has been this way for a very long time already. I would equate voting for them to voting for your favorite brand of cigarette. Regardless of how you vote you will get the same thing, cancer. This cancer will continue to steadily grow and devestate your life by limiting your freedom and ability to do what you want while simultaneously consuming all of your money or assets until there is nothing left. We have become addicted to this way of thinking, and if we don't change ... we will all die from it.

P.S. No, I'm not a socialist, Marxist, leftist, terrorist, republican, democrat, or anything else. I'm only a concerned and educated American who is ready to see the public discourse move towards actual solutions and away from who is the most hansome or what our favorite color is.

A well-written observation of the phenomenon of ignorant Americans in the age of information.

I think that most Americans will automatically say they love capitalism, and hate any other form of economics, as a knee-jerk reaction, a sort of throw-back to the days of the cold war. Yet, they do not exactly understand capitalism in its true form. They imagine it as something from the 1940s and 50s, in which manufacturing jobs remained in the US and created the middle class. What they forget is, without things like labor unions, this would never have occurred. True capitalism is like true communism.....sounds good on paper, but doesn't last long in practice.

As far as the voting ignorant, its very true, and very sad. So many people are duped by the false paradigm of the two-party system. If you try to educate them, they get irate and assume that you are crazy for questioning it. Slowly, people are waking up, but some people are so comatose about these issues, unless their world crashes around them, they will never become aware of what is really going on.

The government and corporate corruption could never have gotten to the point it is at without ignorance of the masses.....they count on it in order to conduct business as usual.

Personally I subscribe to the Rothbard school of thought: free markets, sound money, lax government intervention.

Free markets are consumer friendly because if Company A makes a mistake (almost any mistake) Company B will annihilate their market share, because of the competitive advantage created by the mistake. This may be a harder concept to grasp but in our current system, regulation actually forces companies to become reactive instead of preemptive, which is why government then propagates it is needed to serve as a buffer between business and the public at large.

Government regulation does not “protect” the consumer, all it does is add transaction costs to the finished product, that are passed along to the consumer as non-value added price increases.

Sound money would never allow for our current situation approaching QE3 and banks wont give people say $20,000 or a new car loan unless your credit is750(ish). Tight credit and increasing money supply is called stagflation.

So “Capitalism” basically is government sponsored free markets because business does not have the stomach to subject themselves to staunch criticism on the part of the public at large. EXAMPLE: In lieu of the 2009 bailouts, smaller banks should have been allowed to invest revenue they received from making good decisions to acquire control of banks that made bad decisions previously, if they so chose. But instead select banks were forced to invest in other select banks so the power structures could remain the same, thanks to backroom deals.

/ramble

An educated person, is one who can systematically assess and research a situation and come up with a level of understanding, supported by the evidence. Educated people err on the side of slightly understating their case. Most people confuse their schooling with their education.

Capitalism is nothing but exploitation,anyone too stupid to realise that.......

We are the only easily attainable resource left to be exploited,yeah us people.

Don't get any deeper into the game than you have to in order to survive,the game will kill you.

The game is about to end,and the only way to distract us from that fact will be war.

Don't be afraid of freedom,figure out what it is (most people don't REALLY know),and relish it.

Take your dog on a 2000 mile walk,I did,it was more fun than I could have imagined.

Anyway.....

Thanks to everyone for the responses! I'm very proud of the fact that this has managed to go 4-5 posts deep without becoming an absolute train wreck. I'm not proud that I should be proud of something so unspectacular, but that is a symptom of the bigger problem isn't it.

I think its interesting to note that if it were possible, I'd vote for Ron Paul. I've always been a huge fan of his and was a big proponent of capitalism at one time, and in some cases I still am. There were some very good comment left above and I'd like to expand the discussion. How should we go about doing that?

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
An educated person, is one who can systematically assess and research a situation and come up with a level of understanding, supported by the evidence. Educated people err on the side of slightly understating their case. Most people confuse their schooling with their education.

Could you please elaborate some more? I'm not sure what you are eluding to in this post. Was it an insult, were you saying I don't know what I'm talking about, or am I completely off base. Please ... humor me and explain further.

It is a tad arrogant and patronising to label people ignorant and “sheep” just because they do not share your insightful worldview.

I am not an American and could not give a royal cucumber sandwich for US politics, but I do know many Americans (my sister in law is a Yank), and I think you are tarring too many people with a brush that says they are stupid and have an unsophisticated understanding of the world.

Regards

Originally posted by budaruskie
Regardless of how you vote you will get the same thing,

Nice post. I usually do not read long posts because of "circular repetition". You didn't do that. You were concise and to the point on each subject. Thanks.

I agree both candidates are similar - - - except on social issues. Romney pretty much agreed with Obama on all the base issues.

I feel dumb saying vote Religious or Equality. But that seems to be the real dividing line.

reply to post by budaruskie


Well like it or not and most people don’t these are our choices. Without pushing for either side I will say there are some fundamental differences and at this point in the game if you can’t tell the difference just flip a coin. The only alternative is to not participate but doing nothing has never affected anything in a historical sense. There are things I like and dislike about both sides but my experience and moral compass aligns me with one side more than the other. There is a third choice and I have voted that way many times but I always knew that the only thing I was doing was making sure I was heard by saying I didn’t like the other two.

Even if there were 5 choices that were viable candidates and each had a chance at becoming the next POTUS I am sure I would still wish there was a better choice available. Fact is there will always be someone better at least in our minds but like I said these are our choices and I will make the best choice I can from them.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Well like it or not and most people don’t these are our choices. Without pushing for either side I will say there are some fundamental differences and at this point in the game if you can’t tell the difference just flip a coin. The only alternative is to not participate but doing nothing has never affected anything in a historical sense. There are things I like and dislike about both sides but my experience and moral compass aligns me with one side more than the other. There is a third choice and I have voted that way many times but I always knew that the only thing I was doing was making sure I was heard by saying I didn’t like the other two.

Even if there were 5 choices that were viable candidates and each had a chance at becoming the next POTUS I am sure I would still wish there was a better choice available. Fact is there will always be someone better at least in our minds but like I said these are our choices and I will make the best choice I can from them.

edit on 28-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

What are the fundamental differences you are speaking of? Please understand that I'm not asking this from anything other than a curious perspective, bececause I really cannot tell the difference. Whatever your answer is, I will not try to tell you that you are wrong and I'm in no way trying to trick you. Its just that I hear people say that a lot, but no one ever explains it any further than that and as far as I can see, there really is no difference.

reply to post by budaruskie


I really didn’t want to get into this because I have chosen a side this time around. I am afraid no matter how hard I try my view will come across as pushing for that candidate. I liked how this thread seemed pretty neutral I didn’t want to ruin it.

I will try to just lay out the issues.

Woman’s right to choose

Contraception being offered by all health plans or not

How and who we view as our enemies in the world.

The acceleration of trickledown economics (whether or not there should be more tax cuts for corporations)

Equal rights for gays and the ability to serve openly in the military. (I once thought differently on this)

Investing in renewable energy or simply staying with oil and coal

I believe the ability for Unions to stay pertinent in our society

Religions influence on Govt

The amount of funding to our military.

Healthcare with all that goes along with it like preexisting conditions (it’s not perfect but it is better than before it definitely needs work)

Immigration

Public services and schools

Sorry but my brain is kind of frazzled. With a lot of things those two are alike but if you look into these topics you will see the different stances they have on them. It is up to you to decide which one represents you on these issues and make your choice. You will find the more you look into these things there will be other issues that differentiate them as well.

Edit to add

Good luck

reply to post by Grimpachi


And just to be clear about this, you believe that both of the candidates differ on these particular subjects, or the parties, or both?

reply to post by budaruskie


As parties yes definitely with a few odd ones out. As presidential candidates as well although with one I have a harder time figuring out exactly where he stands on a few of the issues but the POTUS will always align with their parties when it matters.

The POTUS is a front man for their special interest group and backers because as individuals we will never be heard this is remedied by people forming groups which back the candidates that will represent their interests the most the candidates need the groups to have financial backing for elections unfortunately corporations can now financially back candidates with more than citizen groups can which has taken its toll on our government infrastructure. That’s me basically laying it out. There is a lot more to it as I am sure you are aware. It would be so much better if the candidates just wore jackets with all the groups that endorse them because it would make things so much easier. But that’s just me dreaming again.

Hopefully some changes will be made one day where money will not play as much a factor in elections as they do now but this is the system we have and I can say from experience it is still better than many in the world today. Probably not the best anymore but it has the potential of becoming the best again someday.

You know you got me thinking about how you said you didn’t see a difference in these two. All I can say is you are lucky. I really wish these two were the same and it didn’t matter which one took office. Unfortunately there is a difference and I urge you to look up the issues they each stand for. I am not trying to tell you how to vote because if the democratic process is going to work it needs to be each individuals own choice and by that the majority will decide. In that matter I trust in the collective wisdom of the nation.

reply to post by budaruskie


All the world is a stage. Simple as. They create the illusion of votes and government where none exists. They set the stage for tragedies, illnesses, common beliefs and everything that 'is' our current civilization. They bind your eyes under a veil of delusion and make you believe its real.

None of it is real, just the suffering they incur.

"Capitalism", in its purest form, is all about profit.

If I own a business, I will try to get tasks done as EFFECTIVELY and CHEAPLY as possible. If i find someone who works for me for 1/10th of what someone else charges - I will of course take the one who charges less.

If then my business flourishes because of my effective spending of money and resources, and i get more work in, i can IN FACT hire more people. So..yes..I am a "job creator", as a capitalist.

But this is not the main purpose of my business.

My business does not exist for the purpose of creating more jobs. The jobs (eg. if I get more work than i can handle and need employees) are a RESULT of doing business smart and successful. My priority is my profit and my business - the created jobs are a "side-effect", if you will.

EVEN if I hire on a few people, I ONLY do this if i know each person AGAIN makes me PROFIT. I make money because the other person works for me (even if I pay the other person).

As a capitalist, i still will choose the "cheapest" worker - and i think it's an illusion if people assume that many US companies would all of a sudden start to hire only people from the US and create jobs in the US - why should they do that? This would only be possible if the economy is SO GOOD that companies can actually afford to hire expensive workers from the US (instead of outsourcing)..but what law would forbid them to do that?

In fact, it would be very "anti-capitalist" if all all companies would start to stop using cheap workers, it would be entirely against the philosophy to do "smart" business.

Therefore I don't believe all that politicians talk how "magically" jobs would be created..or how "pure" capitalism would create jobs. It's pure nonsense and in a global economy (I THINK) also entirely impossible...as long as there is someone working cheaper..there will always be someone at disadvantage because they are being forced to offer their own work cheaper and cheaper to stay competitive.