Conservative view of government.

[Skipjack]

I will say unequivocally that I don't want Democracy.

Funny that you are the guys starting wars to bring just that to others (e.g. Iraq war).
Anyway, I see where you guys are going. I am just saying that I dont like it. My country had a monarchy before. It had its merrits (my family were barons), but I prefer a democracy and I believe that it is the fairest way to do things. Noone prevents the rich from moving to Monaco (a monarchy), or some other tax heaven. I guess though that there are some merrits to living on the US besides the "high" taxes for the rich...
So, I am out of this discussion now. I cant have a reasonable political discussion with people that want to be absolute rulers.

[MSimon]

When people voted for slavery it turned out to be a single group of people who did that. White people.

And when people fought against slavery it was white people again (the vast majority). In fact the anti-slavery party in America was (you are never going to believe this) the Republican Party. And who was its leader? (You are never going to believe this) Abraham Lincoln. And what American President championed the Jim Crow laws? (You are never going to believe this) Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

It was kind of a mixed bag though. You had Blacks fighting slavery and Blacks fighting for it.

Maybe this explains it:

"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."-- Booker T Washington

The Race Cartel is doing fine in America.

[MSimon]

So, I am out of this discussion now. I cant have a reasonable political discussion with people that want to be absolute rulers.

Democracy these days is short hand for Republican (limited powers) government.

What is being discussed is the original concept of Democracy: everything is up for a vote. i.e. mob rule. The mob as autocrat. The mob as the absolute ruler. The concept that anything that gets 50.00001% of the vote or more should be authorized.

Of course all this gets murky when the legislature is for sale.

[Skipjack]

everything is up for a vote

Yeah that is very much my understanding of a real democracy. Half of the shit we have to take from the EU would not have been possible that way.

[Jccarlton]

When people voted for slavery it turned out to be a single group of people who did that. White people.

And when people fought against slavery it was white people again (the vast majority). In fact the anti-slavery party in America was (you are never going to believe this) the Republican Party. And who was its leader? (You are never going to believe this) Abraham Lincoln. And what American President championed the Jim Crow laws? (You are never going to believe this) Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

It was kind of a mixed bag though. You had Blacks fighting slavery and Blacks fighting for it.

Maybe this explains it:

"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."-- Booker T Washington

The Race Cartel is doing fine in America.

History is never as clear cut and simple as the Progressive school teachers would have us believe. It wasn't "white people" who perpetrated the slave trade. It was the tribal chiefs in Africa who sold their neighbors, the Muslim slave traders, the various Europeans who maintained the slave depots, the plantation owners in the Americas who used the labor. Any of the people involved could be any race or color. I haven't seen any references to black plantation owners, but I have seen references to black slave ship captains and certainly many of the Muslim slave traders to this day are black. And many of the slaves they trade come from places like Bosnia and are white. Haven't you seen those pictures of the child camel riders. Or the laborers in Dubai.

[seedload]

I will say unequivocally that I don't want Democracy.

Funny that you are the guys starting wars to bring just that to others (e.g. Iraq war).
Anyway, I see where you guys are going. I am just saying that I dont like it. My country had a monarchy before. It had its merrits (my family were barons), but I prefer a democracy and I believe that it is the fairest way to do things. Noone prevents the rich from moving to Monaco (a monarchy), or some other tax heaven. I guess though that there are some merrits to living on the US besides the "high" taxes for the rich...
So, I am out of this discussion now. I cant have a reasonable political discussion with people that want to be absolute rulers.

Hold on. "You guys are going"???? Only one guy here talked about not having an equal vote for everyone. ONE GUY. Not you guys, one guy.

Why do you think that people who argue for less government, more individual responsibility and against re-distributive justice are looking to control things in a monarchy. Seems quite the opposite to me.

[Diogenes]

Do you really think that the taxes paid by 1% of the population will be equal to that of the other 99% ?

Also, did any of you give this idea serious thought, or did you just blurt out the first thing that came to your mind?

In 2004, the top 1% of the population paid 37% of federal income tax.

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes

The top 5% paid 55%. Under your scheme that would give them a majority...

And they would use it to immediately expand the voting roles by shifting more of the tax burden back to exactly where it belongs. On everyone.

You don't want them having all the power? Stop making them pay all the bills!

This would have the added benefit of bringing to a screeching halt idiotic government spending. One of the reason we have so much of it is because too many people who AREN'T paying the bills keep voting for it.

The idea would solve a huge assortment of problems.

Apart from that, i'm not sure I buy the numbers that people have been putting out alleging that 5% of the taxpayers pay 55% of the costs of Government. It Seems counter intuitive. I think a more in depth analysis would yield a more comprehensive answer. For example. EVERYONE pays a substantial chunk of their pay into Social Security. People say that doesn't count as a Federal Income Tax, and I say those are mere words. There is no real boundary between Federal Dollars collected for one thing, and Federal Dollars collected for another. Congress has been raiding the Social Security funds for years, and spending it just exactly like Income tax dollars. Put those numbers into the mix and I bet the ratio is completely different.

In any case, I have a simple Idea. People should pull their own weight unless they cannot. If they want to ride in the wagon they should stop telling everyone else how hard to pull.

[JoeOh]

I will say unequivocally that I don't want Democracy.

Funny that you are the guys starting wars to bring just that to others (e.g. Iraq war).
Anyway, I see where you guys are going. I am just saying that I dont like it. My country had a monarchy before. It had its merrits (my family were barons), but I prefer a democracy and I believe that it is the fairest way to do things. Noone prevents the rich from moving to Monaco (a monarchy), or some other tax heaven. I guess though that there are some merrits to living on the US besides the "high" taxes for the rich...
So, I am out of this discussion now. I cant have a reasonable political discussion with people that want to be absolute rulers.

Hold on. "You guys are going"???? Only one guy here talked about not having an equal vote for everyone. ONE GUY. Not you guys, one guy.

Why do you think that people who argue for less government, more individual responsibility and against re-distributive justice are looking to control things in a monarchy. Seems quite the opposite to me.

Yea, I think I'm done here too. The views mostly expressed here on the right are too extreme to reason with.

The rugged-individualists talk about less gov't and more personal responsibility. When you shrink the gov't to the point of just being a feeble institution and not much use when you DO need the gov't when the a rugged individual screws you over.

I guess you are just going to shoot the person who screwed you without recourse when the re-emaciated constitution doesn't do you squat??

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, sure I'll tell ya how I'm getting along. Right now for the past 9 months I've been filling out applications just to find ANY job with no success. I did get a couple of "interviews" but nothing came from them.

I am right now house sitting for some friends who are out of the country on family business. They are taking care of the bills. I would help but I can't find a job. I've tried fast food joints, gas stations, and even temp services whom I update my info every 6 months to stay in their rolls so I can be reached when they do have something for me.

And as far as fair-load vote tax representation is just bunk. In that case those with the most "load" will control everyone else. Sounds like feudalistic hogwashery to me.

This is going to sound weird, but the minimum wage may be just why you can't find a job:
http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/Mar%2007.pdf
Frankly if I were a business owner I would risk the possibility of getting a slap on the wrist and hire Mexicans over the current crop of American teenagers. They are more honest and work harder. Minimum wage increases just price teenagers out of the market.

No, I can't find a job b/c the previous administration and his buddies sent countless jobs overseas and now even college grads are having to fight over the "Mcjobs" with the teenagers you obviously despise.

Also, are you advocating hiring illegal immigrants to save the boss money???? I hope not, that would be against the law and anti-american.

I am slowly evolving the opinion that it is pointless to talk to you.


Let me tell you the story about Johnson Controls. (A Big Evil Corporation.)

Johnson Controls, among other things, manufactured Batteries. (of the Lead Acid Variety.) The company had a policy. No Females capable of child birth could work in their battery factory due to the possibility of high level of lead exposure leading to birth defects. They would hire women who were fixed, or above child bearing age, but they would not hire women who could still have children.

A group of these women who worked in another branch of Johnson Controls decided to sue for what they regarded as discrimination for not being allowed to work at a higher paying job in the battery factory. Johnson Controls was sued in Federal court, and the Court sided with the women. Johnson Controls had to pay the women a settlement for all the money they would have made had they been hired originally, plus punitive damages. The Company was also ordered to allow women to work in the battery factory.

The Company accepted the ruling of the court, but asked the court if the judgment requiring the company to allow child bearing women to work in their battery factory would grant them immunity to future lawsuits on behalf of these women who might have children with lead induced birth defects. The Court said "No." If any women have children with birth defects resulting from lead exposure at the factory, the company will be responsible for liability and damages.

The company responded by shutting down the factory, Firing everyone, and moving all battery production out of the country.

Yeah, I know. In your mind, Johnson Controls are the bad guys.

[Diogenes]

Taxes are either voted in or defeated at the polls by the people.

So if there is a vote it is not theft?

If I can get the votes to murder you it is not murder?

And yeah. I like my Lunch Naked.

In the US slavery was voted on. I guess that it was then perfectly all right. As long as we had a vote.

Don't get me wrong. I think taxation has its place. But it is extorted at the point of a gun.

Mao was correct: Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Our George Washington expressed it in a more genteel manner:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Geo. Washington

I almost missed this post, glad I didn't.

When people voted for slavery it turned out to be a single group of people who did that. White people.

When you allow every legal citizen to vote you reduce the risk of allowing such atrocities to occur. Our system isn't perfect but we can do our best as a collective whole to make it as good as possible.

Also, that getting the votes to "murder" me line here's my response. If 51% of the nation wants to kill me, it must be for a good reason. I mean what did I do to have put on the ballot to kill my ass??

But seriously, murder is illegal and the constitution that you hold so dear protects my right to life as a citizen so their cant be a "murder ballot".

Nice try-

Nobody voted to enact slavery. It started in Africa, and was a common practice there. (and still is today.) It simply got transplanted into the new world and took root. What we are moving towards is a different form of slavery where we fool the slaves into thinking they are free by letting them keep a portion of what they earn.

In 1930s Germany, they did vote into power people who decided it was in the Best interest of the country to murder people. (It did result in a short term economic benefit as the victims property was seized and sold.) Here in the United States of America, that Liberal Icon, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt ordered the incarceration of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II. Interestingly enough, that Hero of Liberalism was opposed by that HATED Facist J.Edgar Hoover who didn't believe the Japanese Americans were a threat. Needless to say, the President's decision won out.

[Diogenes]

Joe,

My advice to you is to get a government job. As long as there is money to steal you will do fine.

Until:

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" Margret Thatcher

I was going to advise him to join a government service union. With his attitude, I can't see ANY company wanting him. No doubt he'll likely keep that a secret from his employers if he gets hired at anything but a government job.

[Diogenes]

I will say unequivocally that I don't want Democracy.

Funny that you are the guys starting wars to bring just that to others (e.g. Iraq war).
Anyway, I see where you guys are going. I am just saying that I dont like it. My country had a monarchy before. It had its merrits (my family were barons), but I prefer a democracy and I believe that it is the fairest way to do things. Noone prevents the rich from moving to Monaco (a monarchy), or some other tax heaven. I guess though that there are some merrits to living on the US besides the "high" taxes for the rich...
So, I am out of this discussion now. I cant have a reasonable political discussion with people that want to be absolute rulers.

Democracy is a term which is often used in ore than one sense. It often means just the opposition to Monarchy or Autocracy. Often when people use the term "Democracy" they don't specifically mean Democracy, they mean the opposition to Dictatorship. Even with that caveat, it is the opinion of many that a Democracy is better than a Dictatorship, and so therefore is an improvement, but it is not the best form of government.

The founders of this country were quite specific that they were creating a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. What is the difference? In a Democracy everyone has a say in how the government functions. In a Republic the standards are tighter. In this nation, the initial requirements for voting were that you had to be Male, above a certain age, and you must own land and pay taxes.

The thinking of the time was that those people who owned land had a vested interest in the well being and well running of their country, and so would have more at stake to lose, and therefore better judgment than penniless vagabonds.

In other words, they restricted the vote to productive citizens.

The modern representation of this should simply restrict voting to taxpayers which was the norm UNTIL 1963 !

Obviously our government has functioned much better since we added idiots, criminals, and ne're do wells to the voting rolls.

[Jccarlton]

This is going to sound weird, but the minimum wage may be just why you can't find a job:
http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/Mar%2007.pdf
Frankly if I were a business owner I would risk the possibility of getting a slap on the wrist and hire Mexicans over the current crop of American teenagers. They are more honest and work harder. Minimum wage increases just price teenagers out of the market.

No, I can't find a job b/c the previous administration and his buddies sent countless jobs overseas and now even college grads are having to fight over the "Mcjobs" with the teenagers you obviously despise.

Also, are you advocating hiring illegal immigrants to save the boss money???? I hope not, that would be against the law and anti-american.

I am slowly evolving the opinion that it is pointless to talk to you.


Let me tell you the story about Johnson Controls. (A Big Evil Corporation.)

Johnson Controls, among other things, manufactured Batteries. (of the Lead Acid Variety.) The company had a policy. No Females capable of child birth could work in their battery factory due to the possibility of high level of lead exposure leading to birth defects. They would hire women who were fixed, or above child bearing age, but they would not hire women who could still have children.

A group of these women who worked in another branch of Johnson Controls decided to sue for what they regarded as discrimination for not being allowed to work at a higher paying job in the battery factory. Johnson Controls was sued in Federal court, and the Court sided with the women. Johnson Controls had to pay the women a settlement for all the money they would have made had they been hired originally, plus punitive damages. The Company was also ordered to allow women to work in the battery factory.

The Company accepted the ruling of the court, but asked the court if the judgment requiring the company to allow child bearing women to work in their battery factory would grant them immunity to future lawsuits on behalf of these women who might have children with lead induced birth defects. The Court said "No." If any women have children with birth defects resulting from lead exposure at the factory, the company will be responsible for liability and damages.

The company responded by shutting down the factory, Firing everyone, and moving all battery production out of the country.

Yeah, I know. In your mind, Johnson Controls are the bad guys.

Here's another case of the same thing:
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/0 ... ctric.html

[Diogenes]

everything is up for a vote

Yeah that is very much my understanding of a real democracy. Half of the shit we have to take from the EU would not have been possible that way.

Methinks thou dost began to see the light.

[seedload]

When people voted for slavery it turned out to be a single group of people who did that. White people.

And when people fought against slavery it was white people again (the vast majority). In fact the anti-slavery party in America was (you are never going to believe this) the Republican Party. And who was its leader? (You are never going to believe this) Abraham Lincoln. And what American President championed the Jim Crow laws? (You are never going to believe this) Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Dont forget...

The Republican Party was created in 1854 in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. The party opposed expansion of slavery and also opposed "slave power" - the political power imposed on the national government by southern slave owneres.

John C. Fremont ran first. His slogan? "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont" He lost, but got 33% of the vote.

Four years later, Lincohn won, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Republicans are responsible for the 13th (slavery illegal), 14th(equal protection), and 15th (voting rights) amendments to the constitution.

Republicans were the first party to favor womens sufferage in 1896.

The 19th amendment (women can vote), 26 of the 36 state legislatures to ratify were under Republican Control.

Andrew Johnson (Democrat) vetoed a bill that supported the Freedmen's Bureau, a Civil Rights Bill to protect freed blacks against Southern laws, and a bill that offered readmission of southern states into only after they ratified the 14 Amendment. Congress repassed the last bill the same day he vetoed it.

The KKK was a wing of the Democratic Party for a long time.

Ulysses S Grant (Republican) was responsible for bills for voting rights and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. He was responsible for the ratification of the 15th amendment. He fought the KKK wil legislation and federal prosecution of KKK members. 1000 prosecutions and 550 convictions in his first year in office. He also supported Native American rights. A Republican, imagine that.

But wait, it doesn't end there.

Did you know:

First black Senator - Hiram Rhodes Revels - Republican
First black member of the House - Joseph H Rainey - Republican
First female member of the House - Republican

How about this. Since 1933, there have been 26 major civil rights votes in congress. A majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of those votes. A majority of Republicans favored civil rights in over 96 percent of those votes.

For example, we know that Kennedy supported and Johnson eventually signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, right? But, did you know that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats? Republican votes were 138-34 in congress to Democrat votes of 152-96. When it made it to the Senate, the vote was 73-27 with only six Republicans voting against it. 21 Democrats voted against. A Republican, Senator Dirksen from Illinois, was largely responsible for the bills passage.

Some other stuff. First black delagate to a national convention? 1866 to the Republican convention. Democrats didn't seat a black delagate until 1936! First woman delagate 1900 (Republican) Eight years later (Democrat)

How about the anti lynching laws proposed by Republican's in the 20's and shot down by Democrats?

Jim Crow laws as mentioned by MSimon.

In fact, the only leg that the Democratic Party really has to stand on against Republicans is on the issue of affirmative action. Opposition to it is apparently racist. Most concervative republicans would disagree, instead saying just the opposite, that affirmative action is racist, not the opposition to it.

Anyway, I am getting off in the weeds quite a bit.