Hate to burst your bubble, but if your metric for a successful government is that it is tolerable to the overwhelming majority, then the government in Iraq must be considered "successful", since the people there are obviously tolerating it. Right? Indeed, the same can be said of every government that doesn't get overthrown from the inside in short order.
Stop being so obtuse. I quite obviously intended "tolerable" to convey a significantly higher standard than is achieved by any dictatorship.
[T]he government of the U.S. does not secure the blessings of liberty (most laws are restrictions on a person's freedom, and there are more of those every day), does not promote the general welfare (except for its corporations), and does not establish justice (unless you consider Dmitri Sklyarov's case, to take but one example, to be "justice").
The government of the US does in fact secure the blessings of liberty (we have the most generous and liberal protections of the essential freedoms of expression and worship in the world), does promote the general welfare (we have, by every significant measure, the wealthiest population in the world), and, although by no means perfect, we have a justice system which rivals that of any other country's in the rights it affords the accused.
That's fine, and I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that our government seems to listen only to the corporations, and pays attention to the people only in passing, if that.
Nonsense. I think your complaint is really that the government pays little attention to you and others who hold similar opinions. Why should they? Your opinions, as you've expressed them here, are in no manner representative of the opinions held by most Americans.
America may have been a spectacularly successful democracy at one time. It isn't anymore.
Really. I think you need to go back to history class. This once great America you allude to, is this the same democratic and freedom loving America of yore, which statutorily denied voting rights to women, blacks, Asians, and others? Do you refer to the same America that condoned and enforced slavery with the force of law? The same America which guaranteed no rights to individuals under its federal constitution? The same America which routinely and legally interfered in the expression of political ideas and even jailed people for their political beliefs?
Pardon me, if I thank my lucky stars that I was born into modern America and not its historical antecedent. We've come a long way, baby!
Why else do you think laws like the DMCA pass so quickly and with such a large support base, when such laws are against the interests of the people? How can such laws pass if the representatives are acting on behalf of the people such laws harm?
Oh please! Get a grip and some perspective. A stupid and ill considered piece of legislation that is particularly onerous to the geek contingency is hardly reason to declare democracy dead.
It is a huge mistake to believe that something which benefits the corporations will benefit those who work for the corporations. They are unrelated at best. In fact, if you work for a corporation, it is in that corporation's interest to pay you as little as possible, if not eliminate you entirely, and to make you as dependent on it as possible, all at the same time. In short, the best possible situation for the corporation is if you are a wage slave for it, such that you end up owing that corporation as much if not more than it's paying you.
You need some remedial lessons in very basic economics. Although an individual employer is motivated to reduce the cost of labor, among other expenses, one net effect of a healthy and competitive marketplace is to reduce unemployment, which raises the value of an individuals labor. I challenge you to present hard economic data for any historical period in the last century for which this basic precept has not held true in America's economy.
Further, as unemployment rises and real wages decrease, the consumer market necessarily contracts, exacerbating the overall downward trend. Real economic prosperity is a consequence of a strong consumer market as it has the potential to dwarf all other markets combined. Fully 2/3 of America's current economy is comprised by consumer spending, as measured by GDP, making it the most democratic and mature capitalist economy in the world.
What's needed is balance between the needs of the people and the needs of the corporations. That balance no longer exists, because the government no longer listens to the people (except perhaps in passing). And that is ultimately why we're having this discussion about terrorism to begin with...
When all you've got is a hammer, everything look like a nail. Listen, your little pet ideological gripe against corporations doesn't define the full spectrum of political reality.
hint: the people of the U.S. want freedom and democracy for the rest of the world. If they got their way, we wouldn't have overthrown democracies, set up and supported brutal dictatorships instead of democracies, and supported terrorists. And as a result we probably wouldn't be dealing with terrorists now.
Huh, Americans have historically sought freedom, democracy, and prosperity for themselves and, when possible or convenient, for their close allies as well, but this has quite often come at the expense of others. Sure, we all would to like to live in an ideal world were everybody is fat and happy, but reality often forces us to make more difficult choices; and when so confronted Americans have been consistent in choosing their own advantage over the advantage of others. Seems rather sensible to me.
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera
[ Parent ]