Operating inside of the false, accepting the false as a valid concept, creates only more confusion

originally posted by: MOMof3
Now I am really confused. I am a child from WW2 and Nam, democracy was an every day buzz word from adults and fallout shelters. Ok. I did some study and accept that we are a republic. That point was there, but not pushed by the adults, and now I have to wonder why.

That's a really good point. My dad was a huge history buff, especially colonialism and WWII, and a product of military boarding school, and he was real big on lecturing us kids... so I knew we were a Constitutional Republic. But you're right that the whole democracy thing is what was (and still is) pushed on us -- politicians, media, all of it. Why?

So, what about this sovereign for states issue, like the Bundy's, where does that fit in. I mean, we need to figure this out so we can teach the kids the truth.

Again, a very good point/question, and goes right to the heart of the OP: Operating inside of the false, accepting the false as a valid concept, creates only more confusion.

Thank you for giving me something new to think about!

a reply to: Boadicea

And it is not an idea so much as it is an illustration of the flaws in a democracy or democratic process, in which the majority rules the minority, with no thought or consideration for the minority's equal rights. As opposed to a Constitutional Republic, which is what the USA has, which is Constitutionally mandated to protect the rights of all -- regardless of what the majority wants or says.

Okay, I guess I get your point here. But is it the case, in us-america, right now, that minority's are properly represented by a two party political system, in such a big country, with so many different people of different ethics and ideas?

Reality in what sense? In the sense that these words/principles/rights have in fact been written down and declared the guiding principles and legal foundation for the USA government, yes, it is a reality. But all systems can be corrupted, so in another sense, no, it is not reality.

There you go. How comes, in your eyes, that the concept, idea behind the us-american constition, is not reality? What's the flaw in it, in your opinion?

When the corrupt don't corrupt it, of course it delivers what it promises.

So...in other words, the corrupt people corrupted a perfect concept? How can that be?

Hahahahaha!!!!! Okay... But I gotta tell ya... this anti-democrat is standing up for your rights against that same mob rule, even knowing that you would throw me to the wolves.

Haven'd you read what I wrote in this OP? Seems as if not. Why do you assume I would feed you to the wolfes but you are brave and would defend me, defending my mop-rule idea of democrasy? Strange.

Actually, technically, ALL economic systems are capitalist, since "capital" is generally defined (at least for financial purposes) as the assets, resources and means of production. All economic systems determine how assets, resources and means of production will be directed, controlled and distributed. I am one who has long maintained that our "free-market" system is now anything but "free." Call it corporatism, crony capitalism, oligarchy, whatever you wish -- plenty of names for it. But please don't assume I don't know the difference.

Good to know! And now what? Knowing that capitalism is not interested in a free-market economy is one thing. What to do about it is another.

Fundamental inalienable natural rights for all; specifically, in the USA, in accordance with the natural law philosophy of John Locke, going back to Cicero and even Plato, described in the Declaration of Independence as "self-evident." In other words, if you can do it for your self and by your self, then it is a natural right. If you have to force others to do something for you, then it is not your right.

I was trying to keep it simple. So...what's your point exactly?

a reply to: Klassified

If I wasn't willing to discuss it, I wouldn't have bothered posting to start with. The quotes were used because they said it more eloquently than I could. I have studied our form of government, and I see it the way I do, because of that, not because I believe everything I read, no matter how eloquent it may be.

Okay, but what is your point? Everything turned out the way it was supposed to be in the us-american way of life, supported by its constitution? Or not? And if not, why not?

originally posted by: intrptr
The word democracy is a twist they placed on us a long time ago. Voting by democratic means is what is meant in a Democratic Republic. Meaning the peoples (all the peoples) vote should be what counts, of voting age (btw). Children aren't mature enough.

They divided that into two parties… Democrat and Republican, everyone has been confused ever since.

it sort of seems to me that democrat/republican is a dichotomy intended to undermine the democratic voting process. give the people their voices, but then make their voices so loud they drown out the voices worth listening to. influence without discipline is worthless, and thats what these parties are doing.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Klassified

If I wasn't willing to discuss it, I wouldn't have bothered posting to start with. The quotes were used because they said it more eloquently than I could. I have studied our form of government, and I see it the way I do, because of that, not because I believe everything I read, no matter how eloquent it may be.

Okay, but what is your point? Everything turned out the way it was supposed to be in the us-american way of life, supported by its constitution? Or not? And if not, why not?

My point was simply to define and make sure democracy is seen for what it is. Too many people, foreigners especially think the U.S. is a democracy, and we are not.

Has everything turned out the way it was supposed to? No. But that has less to do with our republic, and more to do with a citizenry that chooses to remain ignorant to the level of corruption within our government. Our form of government works when it is adhered to by both leadership and citizens. It isn't perfect, but no form of government is.

a reply to: TzarChasm

it sort of seems to me that democrat/republican is a dichotomy intended to undermine the democratic voting process.

Yes. And how can just two political parties represent the whole us-american nation? What's the problem with having a few more political parties for the sake of keeping it more simple to decern for the citizens. In the sense that people don't have to figure out who is who in those two party-system, but can vote for a party itself that represents the topic a citizen is most concerned about or interested in.

give the people their voices, but then make their voices so loud they drown out the voices worth listening to. influence without discipline is worthless, and thats what these parties are doing.

If I would be a us-american citizen, I would not think my political take on certain issues is properly covert by ANY of the offical parties and their currant candidates. Two partys can not represent a variety, a big spectrum of topics and concepts.

My impression of that kind of political system, the us-american two party system, is that it is supposed to focus on the canditates, the people, who seem to stand for some political idea, and not about a party-line, a party itself, that is the one party one feels represented by.

I wonder why that is. I wonder why people are supposed to look at a particular representative more than to a group of people, who alltogether represent a certain political concept.

And I actually do not wonnder too much.I think I know why that is the case. A single person can be controlled much easier than a whole party. That's why. And in two big partys one can install certain "wolfes" better, who are puppets of the ones who are in charge in a financial way.

Like: It is more easy to bribe a particular person than the whole party-members. Nice trick.

Keep it comming.

a reply to: Klassified

My point was simply to define and make sure democracy is seen for what it is. Too many people, foreigners especially think the U.S. is a democracy, and we are not.

Unfortunatly. And why would it be a contradiction to be both at the same time? A republic AND a democrasy? What's the problem?

By the way, the DDR, the former eastern german part, also called itself a republic. Deutsche Demokratische Republik, it called itself and as we all know by now, it was neither a republic, nor a democrasy.

a reply to: Willingly

We are touching on many different factors here, so forgive me if I seem to be repeating myself as I reply; I'm just trying to tie everything together. That said...

Okay, I guess I get your point here. But is it the case, in us-america, right now, that minority's are properly represented by a two party political system, in such a big country, with so many different people of different ethics and ideas?

Hmmmm... I would say that right now, no one is properly represented, which would include minorities of course. And to be honest, no, the two-party system has never really properly represented the people, and especially minorities -- there has always and will always be room for improvement. This two-party system -- what I call the left/right paradigm -- is a problem, but we the people give them the power to be a problem. There are more political parties; we just don't hear about them much -- and no doubt, that's intentional to keep the two-party system relevant -- and therefore, few people vote for the other parties' candidates. It is often considered a wasted vote, because most people don't believe a third party candidate can win.

However, that might be changing. Gary Johnson, the projected Liberatarian Party candidate, is getting quite a bit of attention from both the people and the media this election. Given the voter dissatisfaction with the status quo, I'm hopeful that this third party run will make a huge, long-lasting difference in the political future. If Gary Johnson can get just 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian party will be given the same ballot access and federal funding as the Democrat and Republican parties, effectively breaking their stranglehold on the electoral process.

There you go. How comes, in your eyes, that the concept, idea behind the us-american constition, is not reality? What's the flaw in it, in your opinion?

People are the problem -- not the concepts or principles. People are not perfect and never will be; therefore, our efforts will never be perfect. There will always be those high-minded people who try anyway; but there will always be those people who will fight them and work against them every step of the way. People will make honest mistakes as well. It is an ongoing process.

So...in other words, the corrupt people corrupted a perfect concept? How can that be?

I would not call it a "perfect" concept, since nothing and no one is perfect. That's just life. And one of the many factors/variables that we must recognize and deal with in life. There are a jillion ways we could organize society... but there will always be those who refuse to be "organized" and will cause problems.

Haven'd you read what I wrote in this OP? Seems as if not. Why do you assume I would feed you to the wolfes but you are brave and would defend me, defending my mop-rule idea of democrasy? Strange.

Of course I did. I also read what you said about "anti-democrats" and their "lies" about "mob rule." Since you invoked my exact words, I could not help but notice that I resembled your remark... did you not notice that?

And now what? Knowing that capitalism is not interested in a free-market economy is one thing. What to do about it is another.

It's not the capital that doesn't care... it's the people running the show that don't care. The answer is to once again return to free-market principles, which would require repealing/rescinding all laws and regulations that create unfair market advantages to the few over the many. Again, the concept is sound... it's the people who corrupt the system.

I was trying to keep it simple. So...what's your point exactly?

As was I, but you asked for specifics and I tried to give it to you. If you don't get the point, then I failed miserably. Natural rights are the heart and soul of our Constitutional Republic. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for your long reply. Now I understand better where you're comming from.

Hmmmm... I would say that right now, no one is properly represented, which would include minorities of course. And to be honest, no, the two-party system has never really properly represented the people, and especially minorities -- there has always and will always be room for improvement. This two-party system -- what I call the left/right paradigm -- is a problem, but we the people give them the power to be a problem.

Well...we seem to argue about what was first, the egg or the hen. And my point is, once again: If people are corrupt, who are in major political positions, which they un-doubtfully are, how comes that such people can be in such positions? Is the the right direction to blame the corrupt individual for being corrupt, or would it make more sense to look at the system that allows such corrupt people to come into such positions?

And of course, people create systems, not the other way around. But once a flawed system is created, it, the system, starts creating flawed members. "There is nothing right in the wrong", said Theodor Adorno.

However, that might be changing. Gary Johnson, the projected Liberatarian Party candidate, is getting quite a bit of attention from both the people and the media this election. Given the voter dissatisfaction with the status quo, I'm hopeful that this third party run will make a huge, long-lasting difference in the political future. If Gary Johnson can get just 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian party will be given the same ballot access and federal funding as the Democrat and Republican parties, effectively breaking their stranglehold on the electoral process.

That, in my eyes, would be good, if a third party would get over 5%. It would make the whole ...well...mess a tiny little bit less dirty.

People are the problem -- not the concepts or principles. People are not perfect and never will be; therefore, our efforts will never be perfect. There will always be those high-minded people who try anyway; but there will always be those people who will fight them and work against them every step of the way. People will make honest mistakes as well. It is an ongoing process.

And here we deviate. I think that not just people are the problem. I think an already existing flawed, if not downright evil system, once created by people, who may have not known better, is the cause and the source of making people corrupt, because without being corrupt, they would not get up in such system.

We always have to look at the flaws of the system also, not just pointing fingers at corrupt politicians. Pointing out both problems is what I think would and could solve the problem by adressing it the right way.

a reply to: Boadicea

I would not call it a "perfect" concept, since nothing and no one is perfect. That's just life. And one of the many factors/variables that we must recognize and deal with in life. There are a jillion ways we could organize society... but there will always be those who refuse to be "organized" and will cause problems.

Yes, perfection exsits as something to archive constantly. Like a big goal-post on the horizon we can look forward to. But I also don't believe that we humans are naturally flawed and greedy beings. We are perfectly imperfect.

And of course some refuse to be organized, I for example, by people who are less intellegent, less caring, and less creative (a problem-solving skill) than I am. Why would I let less developed people run the city I live in or even the country I have a passport of? But that is the case, unfortunately. I'm in no way a Angela Merkel fan.

Of course I did. I also read what you said about "anti-democrats" and their "lies" about "mob rule." Since you invoked my exact words, I could not help but notice that I resembled your remark... did you not notice that?

Now we both almost insulted each other and therefore we're equal. I apollogize for expressing myself vague and also for miss-interpretating your words.

It's not the capital that doesn't care... it's the people running the show that don't care. The answer is to once again return to free-market principles, which would require repealing/rescinding all laws and regulations that create unfair market advantages to the few over the many. Again, the concept is sound... it's the people who corrupt the system.

First part YES. Second part, it's the people INSIDE a corrupt and flawed system who are responsible for the mess. It's a flawed system that by being flawed creates flawed people. And it seem to multiply each other in the long run. It is getting worse, if not all aspects of the problem are adressed and then corrected.

As was I, but you asked for specifics and I tried to give it to you. If you don't get the point, then I failed miserably. Natural rights are the heart and soul of our Constitutional Republic. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

I do get the point. I hope you get mine also. My point includes your point. Can you include mine also?

a reply to: Willingly

Well...we seem to argue about what was first, the egg or the hen.

Ah, yes... the chicken or the egg... the eternal question. I don't think we will ever know the answer to that. What we do know is that corruption is inevitable and requires constant vigilence to protect and defend against.

And my point is, once again: If people are corrupt, who are in major political positions, which they un-doubtfully are, how comes that such people can be in such positions? Is the the right direction to blame the corrupt individual for being corrupt, or would it make more sense to look at the system that allows such corrupt people to come into such positions?

I would replace "if people are corrupt" with "because some people are corrupt" how do we keep/remove corrupt people from positions of power? So instead of blaming one person, or the entire system, we look at how the corrupt person/people corrupted the system.

For example, let's say you and I both own a market. Mine is on the southeast corner... yours is on the southwest corner... I have friends in positions of power, and I bribe them into passing a law that all businesses on southwest corners can only be open from 9 am to noon in the afternoon because by golly gee your business gets too much sun in the afternoon. Since your market shades my market, my market can be open more hours than yours and I obviously now have an unfair advantage. Now, some will say that's fair because it's not just your store it's every store on southwest corners, so no one is discriminating against you. Others will say if you don't like it, just move your store... but what if I also get my friend(s) to pass a law saying that only people whose names start with "B" and end in "a" and have eight letters can open a store on southeast corners... well, now I really have an advantage... but it's still "fair" because it applies to everyone whose name doesn't start with "B" and end in "a" and have eight letters...

I would say the answer is to not allow any such laws or regulations. If consumers don't want to shop at your market because it gets too much sun, then they'll go elsewhere. No need for any laws/regulations to control/direct where folks do their shopping. Maybe your market has a more international selection that mine doesn't offer, so folks are happy to shop in your sunny market because you supply what they demand... and I don't.

And of course, people create systems, not the other way around. But once a flawed system is created, it, the system, starts creating flawed members. "There is nothing right in the wrong", said Theodor Adorno.

That's a very important point: People create systems. And, yes, a flawed system will create flawed results. But that goes back to the fact that nothing is perfect -- including people -- and all systems can be corrupted. So the answer is constant vigilence against corruption... and a willingness to learn from our mistakes and make improvements, because there will always be room for improvement. When we know better, we can do better. And sometimes we have to learn the hard way -- by our mistakes.

a reply to: Willingly

Why would only age matter in being allowed to vote?

Well then why not let twelve year kids drive or own guns too? I think an age requirement is the fairest solution.

Kids don't know from or care abut history much anyway. My nephew is twelve, could care less about the wider world at that age. Purely wrapped in self.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yah, we get to pick a side, their side, not ours.

a reply to: intrptr

Well then why not let twelve year kids drive or own guns too? I think an age requirement is the fairest solution.

I already explained under what conditions that could be a possibility that children could vote. Haven'd you read it yet?

Kids don't know from or care abut history much anyway. My nephew is twelve, could care less about the wider world at that age. Purely wrapped in self.

As my niece was twelve, she fullfilled all requirements I would expect from someone to be able to make a proper and evaluated deceicions.

Kids are different. Some are intelligent and socially mature, some are not. Just like adults are.

a reply to: Willingly

Yes, perfection exsits as something to archive constantly. Like a big goal-post on the horizon we can look forward to.

Exactly!

But I also don't believe that we humans are naturally flawed and greedy beings. We are perfectly imperfect.

I like that. It reminds me of an ongoing debate I have with my son -- do we live in a universe of order or chaos? He says chaos because people cannot be ordered and organized... I say order because humans are simply a variable in the order of the universe. And in that sense, yes, we are perfectly imperfect!

And of course some refuse to be organized, I for example, by people who are less intellegent, less caring, and less creative (a problem-solving skill) than I am. Why would I let less developed people run the city I live in or even the country I have a passport of? But that is the case, unfortunately. I'm in no way a Angela Merkel fan.

Again -- exactly! And it's just as true on a societal level as it is on a personal level. Just as living down to someone else's standards negatively impacts your life, your growth, your creativity, and your personal evolution, so too does living down to other's standards negatively impacts society's life, growth, creativity and evolution. Every great discovery/invention came from folks who broke from the norm.

Which brings us back to natural rights. If you can do it for yourself and by yourself -- which means not hurting anyone else and not forcing anyone else to do anything -- than no one should have to power to stop you.

Now we both almost insulted each other and therefore we're equal. I apollogize for expressing myself vague and also for miss-interpretating your words.

I apologize as well.... but I'm glad we had the exchange because now we better understand each other.

a reply to: Boadicea

What we do know is that corruption is inevitable and requires constant vigilence to protect and defend against.

Agreed. But by what means? What method, what criteria would we have to apply?

I would replace "if people are corrupt" with "because some people are corrupt" how do we keep/remove corrupt people from positions of power? So instead of blaming one person, or the entire system, we look at how the corrupt person/people corrupted the system.

I don't agree. That is like saying some people in the nsdap, the german nazi-party, haven'd killed people. Yes, but they have been a part of something that, as a whole, was a perverted and unjust system. What you are asking for is, in my eyes: How can we make the nsdap a better party (system) in which people don't kill? ...To make a strong example. And I say, "that is impossible. The whole thing is rotten to the core."

For example, let's say you and I both own a market. Mine is on the southeast corner... yours is on the southwest corner... I have friends in positions of power, and I bribe them into passing a law that all businesses on southwest corners can only be open from 9 am to noon in the afternoon because by golly gee your business gets too much sun in the afternoon. Since your market shades my market, my market can be open more hours than yours and I obviously now have an unfair advantage. Now, some will say that's fair because it's not just your store it's every store on southwest corners, so no one is discriminating against you. Others will say if you don't like it, just move your store... but what if I also get my friend(s) to pass a law saying that only people whose names start with "B" and end in "a" and have eight letters can open a store on southeast corners... well, now I really have an advantage... but it's still "fair" because it applies to everyone whose name doesn't start with "B" and end in "a" and have eight letters...

I see what you're getting at. But that is still thinking inside of the box. A free-market would be like this:

Everybody has the right to sell their stuff directely out of their windows infront of their houses. Market-place are free of charge (only a fee for cleaning the place). Everybody can come there and can sell their products.

I would say the answer is to not allow any such laws or regulations. If consumers don't want to shop at your market because it gets too much sun, then they'll go elsewhere. No need for any laws/regulations to control/direct where folks do their shopping. Maybe your market has a more international selection that mine doesn't offer, so folks are happy to shop in your sunny market because you supply what they demand... and I don't.

Yes, I'm also against too much regulation. But think there will not be any kind of regulation needed, IF there are no share-holder, billionares and the like anymore. Indeed, the market will regulate itself mostely.

That's a very important point: People create systems. And, yes, a flawed system will create flawed results. But that goes back to the fact that nothing is perfect -- including people -- and all systems can be corrupted. So the answer is constant vigilence against corruption... and a willingness to learn from our mistakes and make improvements, because there will always be room for improvement. When we know better, we can do better. And sometimes we have to learn the hard way -- by our mistakes.

Agreed, but the capitalistic economical system is not a free-market system and it can not made into such. Just like a dog is not a cat and never will be. Capitalism and a free-market economy don't go together, ever. They contradict each other. And no amount of being willing to reform the capitalistic system will remove its flaws ever, because that flaws, the un-justice it create, is the very basis, the foundation, it operates on.

I respect your view. But we will not agree on the premise that a system, that is rotten to the core, can be reformed. It can not. That is my point.

a reply to: Boadicea

It reminds me of an ongoing debate I have with my son -- do we live in a universe of order or chaos? He says chaos because people cannot be ordered and organized... I say order because humans are simply a variable in the order of the universe. And in that sense, yes, we are perfectly imperfect!

That's interesting, and because we're in philosphie forum here, I hope we can side-track a little bit to further discuss this topic: The youth has the duty to deny their parents way of life as teenagers, at least to a certain degree, no matter how good, loving and well-meaning the parents are. Teenagers need to seperate themself from their parents to find their own way. And to do so, they have to negate lots of stuff their parents do and say. That can be painfull for both parties at times, right? I did it as I was young and now I can see why that was neccessary. I honor my mothers way of life very much now, but I life a different life-style, have a different path. We get along pretty nicely nowerdays.

And I would say the universe is both and neither. To a certain degree, we can choose in what kind of movie we want to be the actor, what kind of genre we prefer to be a part of.

Again -- exactly! And it's just as true on a societal level as it is on a personal level. Just as living down to someone else's standards negatively impacts your life, your growth, your creativity, and your personal evolution, so too does living down to other's standards negatively impacts society's life, growth, creativity and evolution. Every great discovery/invention came from folks who broke from the norm.

Spot on!

Which brings us back to natural rights. If you can do it for yourself and by yourself -- which means not hurting anyone else and not forcing anyone else to do anything -- than no one should have to power to stop you.

The important term here is: should. But unfortunatly it isn't always like that. The more one opposes what is wrong, the more the wrong fights back. And there can only be ONE winner. Because something either is true and right or it isn't. We're no Schröderingers cats.

I apologize as well.... but I'm glad we had the exchange because now we better understand each other.

It is/was a pleasure to have a conversation with you.

a reply to: Willingly

I want to continue our conversation, but my husband just came home early and wants to take me to dinner for our anniversary and what can I say? That's an offer I just can't refuse!!!

So I'll be back. I'm very much enjoying our conversation. You're really making me think!

a reply to: Boadicea

I want to continue our conversation, but my husband just came home early and wants to take me to dinner for our anniversary and what can I say? That's an offer I just can't refuse!!!

So I'll be back. I'm very much enjoying our conversation. You're really making me think!

Cool, I would like to continue also.

Have a relaxed evening and Guten Appetit (that's german for enjoy your meal).