• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charles Koch Op-Ed: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

"Im fighting for a society where money literally buys and influences everything"
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
then you must be fighting for democracy.

because that is what democracy is about, full of many factious combinations.
Click to expand...

Not true. You can be a democracy with limited monetary interest in elections.
 
Thom Paine said:
Admirable This country needs all that type of person, and exampled purpose, it can find.

Thanks for the post Rocket

Enjoy life

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

I'm not "Rocket", you must have me confused with someone. I think you called me that yesterday too.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not true. You can be a democracy with limited monetary interest in elections.
Click to expand...

sorry no, faction operates easily in democratic forms of government because all faction has the do is seduce or persuade 1 source of power.

in a republican form of the founders, faction has to seduce/ persuade 2 sources of power who have ......different interest.

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter"

the reason the founders did not create a representative democracy, but a classical republic.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
"Im fighting for a society where money literally buys and influences everything"
Click to expand...

:sarcasticclap Good luck with that

.... "It's the average Joe" that always has held the power in this country....if he will but use it.... It does seem though, there is a need for persons with money, no matter their politics, to get "messages" out to "Joe" ..... Too often, no matter the politics, "Joe" is not listening to other than the same people he's complaining over.

Common sense, where art thou?

Thom Paine
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no, faction operates easily in democratic forms of government because all faction has the do is seduce or persuade 1 source of power.
Click to expand...
Just because you have factions(parties) it does not mean that they have to use unlimited money supply to influence politicians and influence elections...
You can have proper safeguards and regulations to make sure that this does not happen.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I'm not "Rocket", you must have me confused with someone. I think you called me that yesterday too.
Click to expand...

Apologies... noted and edited in previous post..... no excuses.... a personal mess up on my part.... I very humbly beseech your forgiveness.

Embarrassed oaf

Thom Paine
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Just because you have factions(parties) it does not mean that they have to use unlimited money supply to influence politicians and influence elections...
You can have proper safeguards and regulations to make sure that this does not happen.
Click to expand...

faction /special interest

since faction only has to persuade 1 power under democracy, faction can prevent safeguards and regulations from being imposed on them by lobbying....buying officials.

under 2 power system of republican government, politicians in Washington cannot be lobbied with ease as they are now because senators are not allowed to cast their own personal vote, they vote has directed by their state.

democratic forms of government fail, because faction takes it over and controls it a the expense of rights, and money of the people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
faction /special interest

since faction only has to persuade 1 power under democracy, faction can prevent safeguards and regulations from being imposed on them by lobbying....buying officials.
Click to expand...
Also not true. We had safeguards for many years until certain ideologues took power.

under 2 power system of republican government, politicians in Washington cannot be lobbied with ease as they are now because senators are not allowed to cast their own personal vote, they vote has directed by their state.
Click to expand...
Uhhh we never had that. And uhhh we are a republic. Even if Senators casted their vote "as direct by their state" what would happen to the house? And also even if your system was true wouldnt factions just move down to the state level?

democratic forms of government fail, because faction takes it over and controls it a the expense of rights, and money of the people.
Click to expand...
This is not just about factions. Under any system of governance factions will exist. Its just the power to curtail those factions and their influence. Right now facionts (this faction is the rich and the elite) are influenceing our democracy and buying it via the power of the $$. We need safeguards to minimize that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Also not true. We had safeguards for many years until certain ideologues took power.
Click to expand...

faction in government lobbies politicians, it buys laws and has policies created to benefit themselves at the expense of the people.

we have had faction, grow tremendously, in the last 100 years, because the system of government created by the founders, has been changed by the politicians to benefit themselves,by allowing faction, to bribe, influence ............with money and promises to help polticians get elected.


TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhh we never had that. And uhhh we are a republic. Even if Senators casted their vote "as direct by their state" what would happen to the house? And also even if your system was true wouldnt factions just move down to the state level?
Click to expand...


the u.s. was created as a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.........democracy is a democratic form of government

it was created as a classical republic based on the roman republic, not the modern day interpenetration of a republic.

senators were appointed by state legislatures in the days of the founders, not by the people....its not a democratic vote.

the house is elected by the people, to represent their interest, it is a democratic vote.

the republic of the founders is "mixed government" power is divided between the states and the people.....so for any legislation to pass congress, the interest of the states and the interest of the people must both be presented.......[2 powers]

yes faction can move, but it does not much power on the federal level, which is what we are discussing the federal government...but faction on a state level is easier to solve, since state government is closer to the people.

faction is never going to go away, what you have to do is limit its effects on government.

TheDemSocialist said:
This is not just about factions. Under any system of governance factions will exist. Its just the power to curtail those factions and their influence. Right now facionts (this faction is the rich and the elite) are influenceing our democracy and buying it via the power of the $$. We need safeguards to minimize that.
Click to expand...

this is true, but democracy allows faction, based on its structure of that type of government, a true republic, limits the effects of faction by dividing power, so factions have to try to influence and bribe, two separate powers who have two separate interest, making it harder for faction to get what they want out of government
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not true. You can be a democracy with limited monetary interest in elections.
Click to expand...

I've always felt that the people who know how to build businesses and create wealth should have more say that those who have their hands out for free stuff. For most of the history of America it was land owners that had the franchise. The growth and prosperity of those years is the stuff of legend, and everyone benefitted from the prosperity. And here we are now, reconciling ourselves to a larger and larger lower class, the proles already having voted themselves all the money the nation has or will ever borrow.
 
ernst barkmann said:
faction in government lobbies politicians, it buys laws and has policies created to benefit themselves at the expense of the people.

we have had faction, grow tremendously, in the last 100 years, because the system of government created by the founders, has been changed by the politicians to benefit themselves,by allowing faction, to bribe, influence ............with money and promises to help polticians get elected.
Click to expand...
The only thing that has been changed was direct election of senators. Other than that its remained pretty much the same. The founders were no gods. They were not perfect. The people wanted direct election of senators they called for that and god that. Even if we left senators at the hands of the state governments interest groups would just move down to the state level. Hell they are there now anyways!




the u.s. was created as a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.........democracy is a democratic form of government
Click to expand...
And it still is. Republic and representative government are not mutually exclusive.

it was created as a classical republic based on the roman republic, not the modern day interpenetration of a republic.
Click to expand...
No. It was influenced. But it was not based on the roman republic. We still had a form of representative democracy.


senators were appointed by state legislatures in the days of the founders, not by the people....its not a democratic vote.

the house is elected by the people, to represent their interest, it is a democratic vote.
Click to expand...
So we did have a form of representative democracy. Again republic and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive.

the republic of the founders is "mixed government" power is divided between the states and the people.....so for any legislation to pass congress, the interest of the states and the interest of the people must both be presented.......[2 powers]
Click to expand...
Ok.... I know this... This still doesnt explain how this would curtail factions and interest groups.

yes faction can move, but it does not much power on the federal level, which is what we are discussing the federal government...but faction on a state level is easier to solve, since state government is closer to the people.
Click to expand...
Still this does not explain anything when it comes to your explanation of the republic.


faction is never going to go away, what you have to do is limit its effects on government.
Click to expand...
Exactly... Which is a shame because laws like this that the Koch brothers are promoting increase interest groups and factions influence on the government.

this is true, but democracy allows faction, based on its structure of that type of government, a true republic, limits the effects of faction by dividing power, so factions have to try to influence and bribe, two separate powers who have two separate interest, making it harder for faction to get what they want out of government
Click to expand...
Even a republic would allow factions. All governments allow factions and special interests.
 
I don't think I've ever seen Soros whine about getting attacked and demogogued by the right. So what makes the Koch's so special?
 
Moot said:
I don't think I've ever seen Soros whine about getting attacked and demogogued by the right. So what makes the Koch's so special?
Click to expand...

I don't think I recall any Republican Senate Majority Leader ever referring to Soros as "unAmerican" and comparing Soros' name to an illegal drug either. Actually, I never recall any Republican Congressperson attacking Soros. When did that happen?
 
Moot said:
I don't think I've ever seen Soros whine about getting attacked and demogogued by the right. So what makes the Koch's so special?
Click to expand...

Soros is working to expand government which invariably enslaves/enmeshes citizens into its maw. Koch is working to reduce government which invariably gets government out of people's hair. This makes Soros a good guy to people who want more government and a bad guy who want less government. The reverse for Koch.

Where we see the really important dividing line is in how the harmed parties can react. The parties harmed by Soros, those who don't want more government intrusion have no escape - when government comes knocking, you can't say "I don't want to play or pay" so they're enslaved. The parties harmed by Koch, those who do want more government do have an escape from being deprived of government - they can find other people of like mind, collectivists, and join together and enslave themselves voluntarily.

Koch tries to free people from slavery, even if they don't want to be freed, and allows them the freedom to enslave themselves. Soros tries to enslave people, even those who don't want to be enslaved and he doesn't support any mechanism for them to escape slavery.

Now do you understand why Sores is a piece of **** and how Koch fights for freedom?
 
As to the plight of the Koch Brothers, here's some wise words from Machiavelli:

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."​
 
RiverDad said:
Soros is working to expand government which invariably enslaves/enmeshes citizens into its maw. Koch is working to reduce government which invariably gets government out of people's hair. This makes Soros a good guy to people who want more government and a bad guy who want less government. The reverse for Koch.

Where we see the really important dividing line is in how the harmed parties can react. The parties harmed by Soros, those who don't want more government intrusion have no escape - when government comes knocking, you can't say "I don't want to play or pay" so they're enslaved. The parties harmed by Koch, those who do want more government do have an escape from being deprived of government - they can find other people of like mind, collectivists, and join together and enslave themselves voluntarily.

Koch tries to free people from slavery, even if they don't want to be freed, and allows them the freedom to enslave themselves. Soros tries to enslave people, even those who don't want to be enslaved and he doesn't support any mechanism for them to escape slavery.

Now do you understand why Sores is a piece of **** and how Koch fights for freedom?
Click to expand...

Baloney. The Koch's don't give a flying fig about this country, they only want to exploit it unhindered and not pay for it. Soros only cares about civil rights, the environment and legalizing pot. That kinda makes him more libertarian than the Koch's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom