• 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!

Do we live in an oligarchy?

Is the US an oligarchy?

  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
joG said:
I cannot follow that argument. Why should citizen not be allowed to have someone that writes or speaks better than she not express her opinion for her? Why shouldn’t she pay him?
And why should Constitutional freedom of speach mean that a private citizen should have to give you a platform?
Click to expand...

You're asking me to justify opinions I don't hold.

1. I didn't say that paid speech shouldn't be allowed. I said it's not protected (addressed) by the 1st amendment.
2. As I stated previously, paid speech isn't protected by the 1st amendment. In this case, you're asking me to defend the polar opposite of my opinion.
 
MSgt said:
Just about.

How many people here know that Muhammad created Islam within an oligarchy and used it as a vehicle for rebellion against the paganistic system and leading merchants?
Click to expand...

That's actually a rather interesting story.

I did not know that.

Thank you for bringing that up.
 
Soopairik said:
Do you think he's being sarcastic?
Click to expand...

Many genuinely believe that Trump will "drain the swamp" but I personally don't buy it.

I think he's no different from Obama.
 
The Lurker said:
You certainly raise an interesting subject. Still, I keep reading that the wealth inequality in this country has only gotten worse. It may be more dire now than it was in the past.
Click to expand...

It might reverting to where this country was at prior to the depression and WWII. After WWII, Europe, Japan, other countries lay in ruins. The U.S. was unscathed with all it industry, manufacturing intact. The boom of the 1950's and 60's can be directly related to WWII. The American middle class expanded big time after WWII. We were basically supplying the world with whatever they needed.

Since then, I would say beginning in the 70's the middle class started to shrink. Manufacturing jobs, heavy industry, assembly jobs moved overseas. Along with what was left of manufacturing, industry etc. all started to become automated, robots appeared, technology advanced. We became a service economy instead of a manufacturing one. The boom is now a bust. At least for the middle class. Once good paying jobs aren't there anymore. Of course the middle class is going to shrink. They are joining the ranks of the poor and the gap between rich and poor is growing to pre-WWII levels. No more world lying in ruin for us to supply.

I would say the huge middle class once in America was an anomaly. Brought on by war, sustained by war, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. Now we revert to a more normal level of income distribution. My opinion anyway.
 
Carjosse said:
Those are probably indirect political contributions which are much harder to regulate but regulating contributions to candidates and parties directly is the first step.
Click to expand...

Only it is impossible to do with any integrity when you have the people who receive those contributions making the rules about what is and is not regulated and/or making the decision about who or what is or is not scrutinized and/or regulated.

Just as who gets to vote and how the vote is done is no more important than who gets to count the votes and/or decide what votes will be counted.

The ONLY way to take money out of the political system is to pass a constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for the lawmakers to vote themselves raises and benefits--that should be the prerogative of the people--and it should be illegal for any person in government whether elected, appointed, or hired, to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit all. When there is no benefit to be had by money exchanging hands, there isn't much incentive to exchange it.
 
The Lurker said:
Curious.

You call yourself libertarian.

Do you believe the problem stems from the large power that corporations wield now or Big Government or both?
Click to expand...

Most of the problems stem from elevating ever more to a federal power (responsibility?). Much of the power that business gives (buys for?) itself is via tinkering with the, ever growing, federal income tax (FIT) code. FIT bracket rates are progressive for wage/salary income only but, of course, the very rich receive little via that highly taxed method of acquiring income - the rich are growing their wealth in "special" ways.

We are told that the rocket surgeon must pay a higher FIT rate than the fry cook yet, somehow, blindly accept that Walmart should pay exactly the same FIT rate as a mom & pop restaurant (taco truck?). That does not even begin to address how such such mysteries as "carried interest" entered the FIT code.
 
Carjosse said:
Those are probably indirect political contributions which are much harder to regulate but regulating contributions to candidates and parties directly is the first step.
Click to expand...

It still boils down to getting politicians to make laws regulating themselves and their donors. We often refer to the exceptions noted in laws as loopholes, implying some benign accident or mistake, yet these are precisely what that cash buys.
 
The Lurker said:
I don't believe there's any set of rules that dictate how an oligarchy is "supposed to work." And the US is a big country of 320 million people. They could easily pull it off. They don't even have to do it a lot.
Click to expand...

Except we have repeated and constant examples from actual oligarchies to compare what happens in the US to, and your theory just doesn't match up.
 
Not an oligarchy, but a plutocracy. The plutocrats rule us indirectly.
 
Oligarchy is a consequence of centralization of power.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not sure if it's funny or sad that you think Trump will improve the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if its funny or sad that you do not understand that President Trump is an enemy of the well-entrenched US establishment.
 
The Lurker said:
That's actually a rather interesting story.

I did not know that.

Thank you for bringing that up.
Click to expand...

It sure is. Even more interesting is how he used the Bible to convince people (even Christians and Jews) that Islam was a legitimate part of the Abrahamic family.
 
Gaea said:
You're asking me to justify opinions I don't hold.

1. I didn't say that paid speech shouldn't be allowed. I said it's not protected (addressed) by the 1st amendment.
2. As I stated previously, paid speech isn't protected by the 1st amendment. In this case, you're asking me to defend the polar opposite of my opinion.
Click to expand...

I believe it is and probably should be protected. I don't really see how else you would want to arrange free speech.
 
joG said:
I believe it is and probably should be protected. I don't really see how else you would want to arrange free speech.
Click to expand...

So you believe that it's unconstitutional for a media company to refuse to play an advertisement if they disagree with the content of the ad?

That's how protected speech works.
 
Waddy said:
Oligarchy is a consequence of centralization of power.
Click to expand...

The causal relationship goes both directions. An oligarchy will create a centralization of power, which will create an oligarchy. It's a self-propelling machine.
 
Gaea said:
So you believe that it's unconstitutional for a media company to refuse to play an advertisement if they disagree with the content of the ad?

That's how protected speech works.
Click to expand...

If the private media company is not a quasi monopoly and it is not acting under governmental or judicial coercion? Of course it should be allowed to advertise positions it wants to and refuse publication of alternative opinions.
 
joG said:
If the private media company is not a quasi monopoly and it is not acting under governmental or judicial coercion? Of course it should be allowed to advertise positions it wants to and refuse publication of alternative opinions.
Click to expand...

That's directly contradictory to your statement saying that paid speech should be protected.

joG said:
I believe it is and probably should be protected. I don't really see how else you would want to arrange free speech.
Click to expand...
 
The powerful can be oligarchs, but they by no means have to be, so I dislike the term but will use it for this thread.

The Lurker said:
Is the US an oligarchy?.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but on a oligarchy-nonoligarchy scale, you are trending towards oligarchy, as are most countries I'm familiar with.

It's not exactly a new phenomenon.
Hammurabi's Law was game changing because it made laws legible for the common man, and made it more difficult for the powerful to manipulate the system.
Ancient Rome was a game changer because it introduced (in theory at least) equality before the law, making it more difficult for the powerful to manipulate the system.
Protestantism was a game changer because it insisted on preaching God's word in the local tongue rather than Latin, making it more difficult for the powerful to manipulate the system.

On the other hand, all the various forms of tyranny have special privilege for the powerful.
"This law applies to you, but not to me. This tax applies to you, but not to me. This obligation exists for you, but not for me. This exemption applies to me, but not to you. This right of veto applies to me, but not to you."

Generally, transparency and the abolition of special privilege is associated with human progress and the opposite with it's regress.
The problem for most countries in the Western world is that one can buy special privilege via (legal) contributions. It is not a problem I have a solution for, because contributions are necessary for popular rule to exist.
Abolish them and only the rich can afford to run for office. Regulate them and you have a class of bureaucrats deciding who gets to contribute what. Do not regulate them and the rich can afford to buy more privilege than the common man.

There is no easy solution. I guess the best we can do is to make contributions and privilege as transparent and accessible as possible.
I would like being able to ask my representatives why they voted for tax breaks to someone who contributed to their interests without having to give up my day job to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom