Do we live in an oligarchy?

[Rogue Valley]

In many European countries, France for instance, only a specified amount can be spent on political campaigns and all donations/expenditures must be transparent.

Corporations, businesses, and private/public organizations are forbidden from contributing.

French elections: Who finances the candidates?

 

[Carjosse]

That darned free speech thing was never meant to apply to political speech.

I am much more concerned about money influencing the already elected than about influencing the elections.

That is usually what the money is for, they are not literally slipping thousands of dollars into the pockets of politicians they are contributing to parties and campaign funds.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oligarchies have the interesting habit of stomping down hard on anyone who even notes the fact.

The very clear fact that nothing will happen to the OP despite his claims badly weakens the claims themselves.

There is no need to do so under the present "just us" system. Peons pointing out that the 1% run the show does not make the 1% no longer as rich or any less free to have their pet politicians still running the show.

 

[Tigerace117]

There is no need to do so under the present "just us" system. Peons pointing out that the 1% run the show does not make the 1% no longer as rich or any less free to have their pet politicians still running the show.

Except actual oligarchies have repeatedly shown that it doesn't matter what their justice system says, they won't tolerate dissent. The situation is very different in a country where people only fantasize they live in an oligarchy.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Even "Fair" CA stops getting as progressive with their state income tax rates after about $50K - I wonder why that is? They start out bumping the rate for about each $10K of additional income and then those bracket amounts get much bigger in a hurry.

Probably because oligarchs make the laws here, too.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is usually what the money is for, they are not literally slipping thousands of dollars into the pockets of politicians they are contributing to parties and campaign funds.

Are you sure about that?

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_...ors_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)

At any rate, congress critters do enjoy a re-election rate of over 90%.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Probably because oligarchs make the laws here, too.

Yet another clue that will be ignored by the voters perhaps out of fear that any replacement politician that they are offered could be worse.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Are you sure about that?

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_...ors_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)

At any rate, congress critters do enjoy a re-election rate of over 90%.

Yep. Congress as a whole has an approval rating some where below that of the flu, but people still think their congresscritter is great.

 

[The Lurker]

Except actual oligarchies have repeatedly shown that it doesn't matter what their justice system says, they won't tolerate dissent. The situation is very different in a country where people only fantasize they live in an oligarchy.

I think that just makes the oligarchy that we live under more effective. Basically, why rock the boat too much? Best not to antagonize the population as much as possible.

Either way, if I'm correct, under the Obama administration, the NDAA was passed that allowed people to be arrested without a trial on the charges of being a terrorist. People could be disappearing and we wouldn't even know it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yep. Congress as a whole has an approval rating some where below that of the flu, but people still think their congresscritter is great.

That may be a bit of a fib. More apt to be that they like the current pork, believe the BS that those other congress critters stopped the wonderful improvement plans (promises?) of their congress critters and fear that the other party might benefit if their congress critters were primaried out.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That may be a bit of a fib. More apt to be that they like the current pork, believe the BS that those other congress critters stopped the wonderful improvement plans (promises?) of their congress critters and fear that the other party might benefit if their congress critters were primaried out.

"and if elected, I promise to bring home the pork, cut taxes, balance the budget, and cut every program except the ones you like. Those I'll expand."

 

[Tigerace117]

I think that just makes the oligarchy that we live under more effective. Basically, why rock the boat too much? Best not to antagonize the population as much as possible.

Either way, if I'm correct, under the Obama administration, the NDAA was passed that allowed people to be arrested without a trial on the charges of being a terrorist. People could be disappearing and we wouldn't even know it.

That's not how oligarchies or governments work. The US government couldn't even cover up a hotel burglary-- do you actually think they could cover up "people disappearing"?

 

[The Lurker]

That's not how oligarchies or governments work. The US government couldn't even cover up a hotel burglary-- do you actually think they could cover up "people disappearing"?

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"and if re-elected, I promise to bring home the pork, cut taxes, balance the budget, and cut every program except the ones you like. Those I'll expand."

Yep, those are the wise words of a truly great congress critter - gotta keep that one. Sure, their opponent may try to say that too but they lack experience - best to stay with the known leader.

 

[Perotista]

I believe that we do. I think that America as a democracy and/or a republic is just propaganda.

Please watch this:



Got it from this article right here:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...eginning-learn-that-we-live-dictatorship.html

Democrats and Republicans are the same.

America has always been ruled by the elite. The moneyed folks be they Virginia aristocrats, Northeast financial kings, to generals. We've had the Adams, then the Bushes, the Roosevelt's, cousins, the Harrison's as far as political families goes and just came short of the Clinton's. We've had senate seats passed from father to son, Al Gore Sr. to Al Gore Jr. comes right to mind. We've had those in power pick their successors which their hand picked successor usually wins. I'd say there is no doubt.

 

[washunut]

It basically established that corporations and the wealthy have right to influence elections as much as they please. It basically prevents any hope of reform.

I agree about corporations,not sure about wealthy individuals. Are you saying that the L.A. crowd never had those $25K per plate dinners for the likes of Obama prior to citizens united. Are you saying that Soros or the Koch brothers did not donate prior to citizens united.

Why do you think the folks on this site are so stupid as to believe something like that?

 

[Mach]

Noting that legal bribery exists and actually doing something about stopping it are two very different things.

I think the issues you raise have clear solutions by themselves.
Obviously to implement them into law as policy, etc., would required tailoring them in ways that work for the system, but generally, I think they are understood at some level.

1. Heading towards an oligarchy
2. improving the increasing wage gap/wealth disparity
3. combating bribery

- implement ways to prevent ever-increasing consolidation of wealth and power
- take money from the ultra-wealthy and invest it in the less wealthy to achieve that, along with reducing wealth/wage gaps
- take money from the ultra-wealthy and invest in government checks on ethics/criminal laws to combat bribery (theft, extortion, murder, etc)

The issue is that some people have been told by the corporations via right wing media, that all of these well known, well used, and well evidenced ways to obviously solve those issues, are "evil" and destructive.

That's it, in a nutshell.
Notice that's today. There is a risk of flipping too far either way. If big labor became too powerful, the exact same thing applies, and *has applied* in history. Identical.
If big pharma...if big finance...it's all the same. In every case they will use that power/money/influence to sway political opinion away removing their power.

Most people live their persona lives this way...you share with your family and friends, and you may think it's unethical or disgusting for someone to hoard way beyond what's necessary while watching others do without. But today, there seems to be a large chunk of American's that believe in the economy, this is proper and ideal.

This is not about how great the poor in the developed world has it. they have cell phones and cable, washing machines, etc. This is true.
This was not the issue though, see above. It was consolidation of real power, that has real negative effects and has destroyed nations and populations historically. The poor having a cell phone has not destroyed any nation I'm aware of.

There is no risk of bankrupting the nation by providing cell phones, unless you buy into the wealthy/powerful's decree that taxes/redistribution is evil.
(as they redistribute your labor to them, and tax you for your rent, etc.)

 

[MSgt]

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?

 

[The Lurker]

America has always been ruled by the elite. The moneyed folks be they Virginia aristocrats, Northeast financial kings, to generals. We've had the Adams, then the Bushes, the Roosevelt's, cousins, the Harrison's as far as political families goes and just came short of the Clinton's. We've had senate seats passed from father to son, Al Gore Sr. to Al Gore Jr. comes right to mind. We've had those in power pick their successors which their hand picked successor usually wins. I'd say there is no doubt.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think the issues you raise have clear solutions by themselves.
Obviously to implement them into law as policy, etc., would required tailoring them in ways that work for the system, but generally, I think they are understood at some level.

1. Heading towards an oligarchy
2. improving the increasing wage gap/wealth disparity
3. combating bribery

- implement ways to prevent ever-increasing consolidation of wealth and power
- take money from the ultra-wealthy and invest it in the less wealthy to achieve that, along with reducing wealth/wage gaps
- take money from the ultra-wealthy and invest in government checks on ethics/criminal laws to combat bribery (theft, extortion, murder, etc)

The issue is that some people have been told by the corporations via right wing media, that all of these well known, well used, and well evidenced ways to obviously solve those issues, are "evil" and destructive.

That's it, in a nutshell.
Notice that's today. There is a risk of flipping too far either way. If big labor became too powerful, the exact same thing applies, and *has applied* in history. Identical.
If big pharma...if big finance...it's all the same. In every case they will use that power/money/influence to sway political opinion away removing their power.

Most people live their persona lives this way...you share with your family and friends, and you may think it's unethical or disgusting for someone to hoard way beyond what's necessary while watching others do without. But today, there seems to be a large chunk of American's that believe in the economy, this is proper and ideal.

This is not about how great the poor in the developed world has it. they have cell phones and cable, washing machines, etc. This is true.
This was not the issue though, see above. It was consolidation of real power, that has real negative effects and has destroyed nations and populations historically. The poor having a cell phone has not destroyed any nation I'm aware of.

There is no risk of bankrupting the nation by providing cell phones, unless you buy into the wealthy/powerful's decree that taxes/redistribution is evil.
(as they redistribute your labor to them, and tax you for your rent, etc.)

Yep, but step one is to elect congress critters who agree that their power should be limited to pass such "reforms".

 

[<alt>doxygen]

We are there or will soon be there. Trump is giving everything to them (him? he's a wanna-be that never will be).

 

[The Lurker]

Yep, but step one is to elect congress critters who agree that their power should be limited to pass such "reforms".

Curious.

You call yourself libertarian.

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

 

[AlbqOwl]

I believe that we do. I think that America as a democracy and/or a republic is just propaganda.

Please watch this:



Got it from this article right here:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...eginning-learn-that-we-live-dictatorship.html

Democrats and Republicans are the same.

Consider this.

The Founders intended to prevent any form of oligarchy and create a constitutional republic in which the people would govern.

--the electoral college would prevent any one group from stacking the ballot box(es) to the point it could control who got elected. All the people would have opportunity to participate in the process.

--the people were intended to govern themselves with the central government strictly limited in what it was authorized to do and specific roles assigned to the three branches of government that were intended to be a check and balance on each other.

The way it was intended to be:

1. The President was given no authority to make laws of any kind. He was to be CEO over the various government departments, all bound by the Constitution, and give final approval to the bills passed by Congress and thereby make them the law. He also had the responsibility to make various appointments and negotiate various treaties and arrangements with other countries all of which would be ratified by Congress before they would be in force.

2. The Congress, constituting the people's chosen representatives, was given authority to raise revenue necessary for its assigned responsibility and given sole responsibility to write and submit to the President for approval all laws, rules, and regulations that the people were required to honor.

3. The courts were given authority to mediate disputes when there was disagreement re what the law required or would be interpreted. The courts were given no authority to make laws or any kind or change existing law in any way.

What we have is:

--Presidents who issue executive orders that are treated as the law of the land, as well as changing existing laws which the Constitution in no way authorizes him to do.

--A Congress that operates behind closed doors more than it does in the open, and that passes general laws, policies, and/or authorizes programs with no instructions or oversight in how those will be implemented.

--An unelected, unregulated, and accountable to nobody court that routinely overthrows laws, changes laws, issues rulings that are treated as laws and are treated as if they are a monarchy with unlimited power that cannot be challenged. (You have a very small oligarchy right there.)

--An unelected, unregulated, and apparently unaccountable to nobody faceless bureaucracy that writes tens of thousands of rules and regulations as it chooses and which are treated as law including fines, penalties, confiscation of property, and/or incarceration of any who choose to defy them.

So how is it that we are a constitutional republic again instead of increasingly an oligarchy approaching totalitarianism?

 

[Mach]

Yep, but step one is to elect congress critters who agree that their power should be limited to pass such "reforms".

I think that's passing the buck.
We actually have near unlimited power as voters/the public. We could remove a president from office, we can put one into office, we can make laws and remove them, all through massive public support and action.
We have to be more concerned about it. So I guess what will happen is it will continue until it reaches crisis. :/

Fearandloathing was remarking on another thread that Canadian politicians fear the public...no matter the party (of either the official or the demographic). Whether that's the case or not, I don't know, but it certainly sounds good. An elected official should behave, and make good choices. If they don't, **** the 4 year term limit, we should walk them out by their ear, and replace them. That simple.

If it's good enough for business, it's good enough for politicians.

The only hurdle with this from my perspective is right wing media. It can call black, white, and 35% of people will support it. So they settle for calling black "mostly white", and they pick up some confused independents, and with luck they sometimes get a majority....
(black/white did not imply race, although sadly it may look that way given I'm talking about the right).

 

[Carjosse]

I agree about corporations,not sure about wealthy individuals. Are you saying that the L.A. crowd never had those $25K per plate dinners for the likes of Obama prior to citizens united. Are you saying that Soros or the Koch brothers did not donate prior to citizens united.

Why do you think the folks on this site are so stupid as to believe something like that?

It just established the right o do so, it was legal, Citizens United just established the right to do it. I believe corporations, unions, interest groups, etc. should all be banned form contributing and individuals should be capped at $100.