BF2S Forums Democracy Versus Republic Versus Mobocracy

CameronPoe wrote:

One of these busts is going to result in a social revolution at some point. Globalisation is a headlong march towards destruction. Mankind isn't responsible enough to look past next tuesday never mind next year and the larger the monster gets the more uncontrollable it gets. Strong responsible leadership is what is required, leadership with a cynical and wary eye of market liberalisation, leadership capable of taking unpopular decisions.

Also - currency/property/stock market speculation should be punishable by death, as should incompetence and brazen gluttony. All economic activity should be productive. Money should not be used for anything other than the exchanging of commodities or the addition of value to existing commodities.

A few questions.

Who is to decide who is being gluttonous or greedy or "unfair"?   What standard of "fairness" do you wish to impose? How do you suggest the incentive to produce, take risks, invest time and money in order to grow is maintained?


Sounds like an awful big govt. to me Cam, with little room for individuality, accomplishment or inventivness. No thanks, I will just as soon let the rich keep what they have worked for and invest in growth for hte rest of us to earn a living. All without your style of govt. getting in the way.

Last edited by lowing (2009-02-09 09:18:21)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

A few questions.

Who is to decide who is being gluttonous or greedy or "unfair"?   What standard of "fairness" do you wish to impose? How do you suggest the incentive to produce, take risks, invest time and money in order to grow is maintained?

Sounds like an awful big govt. to me Cam, with little room for individuality, accomplishment or inventivness. No thanks, I will just as soon let the rich keep what they have worked for and invest in growth for hte rest of us to earn a living. All without your style of govt. getting in the way.

The incentive to produce is in the fact that the more you work, the more money you accumulate and the more luxuries you can afford.

Humans, en masse, are far far too short-sighted and ignorant to engage in the free market as a logical person would engage in the free market. Their individual greed and the big dollar signs that greet their lustful eyes throws all logic out the window and the free market, a fine idea in idealistic theory, is then ruled by confidence, lack thereof or even blind panic as people seek to multiply their money on whims rather than productive activity. Money does not 'do work for you' - you must do work for money. Betting on markets, property, currencies, etc. is not part of a functioning free market as would logically be intended. I don't know how big the government needs to be but it certainly needs to be big enough to stamp this out through regulation. The system as it stands is destined to fail through social unrest. Free market globalised capitalism is being torn asunder in every corner of the world with calls for 'American Jobs for Americans' or ''British Jobs for Brits'. People who want to work, demand to work and who are at risk of having their jobs taken from them through no fault of their own - simply because the fluctuations of free market capitalism demand that there be a fluctuating pool of labour/unemployed people to satisfy those very fluctuations - are marching now with placards and loudspeakers. When the downturn period in some upcoming boom/bust cycle lasts too long to bear and when the social assistance in such a depression has run dry, people will simply revolt or elect a government that will carry out their will. You can see yourself lowing the response from your own electorate. They have democratically voted in politicians in big numbers who will forcibly redress imbalances, whether you like it or not. You could of course implement feudalism or monarchy again but you'll probably need quite a lot of soldiers in a country where every man is armed.

We already have this and it is deemed "unfair" by those who do not put forth the effort. ---------------->"The incentive to produce is in the fact that the more you work, the more money you accumulate and the more luxuries you can afford. "

The have not will always scream how they got fucked at no fault of their own.



This election was not about a revolt, the issues were never a consideration for those that elected Obama in office. The media made him out to be savior, and the fact he was black is what got him elected. If he were republican, he still woulda been elected. Issued had nothing to do with it.

This is pretty much a given since now that the Obamamaniacs have come down off of their high, they are wondering what the fuck they did.

They voted against a Bush like president ( conveniently labeled by the media) The people did not vote for socialism.

lowing wrote:

This election was not about a revolt, the issues were never a consideration for those that elected Obama in office. The media made him out to be savior, and the fact he was black is what got him elected. If he were republican, he still woulda been elected. Issued had nothing to do with it.

This is pretty much a given since now that the Obamamaniacs have come down off of their high, they are wondering what the fuck they did.

They voted against a Bush like president ( conveniently labeled by the media) The people did not vote for socialism.

Bush instituted socialism. Corporate socialism that privatized profits and make debts public.

Please kindly get that through your head sir.

The people saw that a new perverted form of socialism had been ushered in under bush, they voted for the promise of socialism for the people, not the banks and corporations.

That's an issue bud.

Of course, either way we are fucked. The government has become a Medusa. with many heads and arms, consuming fortunes and laying waste to peoples lives and livlihood.

Sooner or later you will see that george created a new and terrible kind of government. obama inherited the most powerful presidency since George Washington.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

We already have this and it is deemed "unfair" by those who do not put forth the effort. ---------------->"The incentive to produce is in the fact that the more you work, the more money you accumulate and the more luxuries you can afford. "

The have not will always scream how they got fucked at no fault of their own.

This election was not about a revolt, the issues were never a consideration for those that elected Obama in office. The media made him out to be savior, and the fact he was black is what got him elected. If he were republican, he still woulda been elected. Issued had nothing to do with it.

This is pretty much a given since now that the Obamamaniacs have come down off of their high, they are wondering what the fuck they did.

They voted against a Bush like president ( conveniently labeled by the media) The people did not vote for socialism.

You're off your rocker lowing and seemingly always have been. 95%+ of the population of almost every country in the modern world want to work for money, to build a life for themselves and a family. You can keep harping on about 'have nots' screaming but it's all a load of shit at the end of the day. All I see right now is people expressing ire at NOT HAVING JOBS - i.e., NOT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FOR MONEY. Perhaps it is not so in America but I highly doubt it given that it is the most right wing country on earth at the moment. Those at the absolute cold front of the poverty line may scream a bit because they are prisoner to the fluctuations in unemployment that capitalism requires to satisfy fluctuations in supply and demand. Those who don't want to work have no right to scream jackshit at anyone.

If you think the economy didn't swing it for Obama then you are in fact a moron, simple as that. Everyone who voted for him knew that they would be getting what passes as 'left wing' in America. They got scared because the right had no plan and the left had something (which may turn out to be misguided, but the decision is made now).

I will take your word for the 95% want to work. That is not the problem. The problem is what those 95% think their compensation should be for mindless thoughtless unskilled work. They think they are owned a life of luxury for their menial efforts. They are not. They see the company's owner as getting rich, well, he should get fucking rich, it was HIS investment, HIS risk, HIS strategy for success. etc.....IF those that think the rich do not deserve it or didn't work for it, then it should be easy for everyone else to do it. Go get educated, go put forth an effort go take risks, and go get rich. If not shut up about those that do.

The voters did not vote on the issues, the ones that elected Obama have no idea what the issues were. They voted for the first black president who was gunna pay their mortgage, they voted for Oprah said to vote for, and they voted for a rock star. The approval polls are already falling based on his ineptness, incompetence and inexperience to lead. If you think otherwise you are naive beyond belief.

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

Who is to decide who is being gluttonous or greedy or "unfair"?

This is exactly why in the end true democracy is just another form of opression. It are always the less wealthy that decide the more wealthy are too wealthy and could share. It are always the many less wealthy that decide how much the few more wealthy can miss. Compared to a class based society democracy doesn't solve the issue of opression of minorities, it merely turns it around. Democracy also employs the method of self legitimization; after all has not the majority decided it is ultimately fair to hand power to the majority?

I won't suggest forsaking democracy, I'm just very much aware its just another of the possible systems. Perhaps one that might be more stable, but also one that has severe limitations compared to others. What greatnesses were ever achieved by a democracy? Rome only flourished after having abandonned the more democratic republic and ancient Greece never was a democracy, contrary to common thought.

an honest answer, one I do not like. I do not want the "less fortunate" telling me that I am not being "fair" for not working for them. Or that I have too much and I should share it with them. I earned mine, go fuckin' earn yours.

Did ya notice that Cam never really answered the questions posed to him?

Varegg wrote:

Problem is you cant do anything about it, if you choose to run for office yourself you will soon enough be corrupted by power and money and become the very thing you meant to battle ...

Get one dirty politician out of office and the line of people to take his place is endless ... using your vote is often just to choose the lesser of evils

You are correct, there is not much I can do about it. So please at least understand and allow me the right to bitch piss and moan about the liberal and illegal infestation that is trying to take over my paycheck.

lowing wrote:

I will take your word for the 95% want to work. That is not the problem. The problem is what those 95% think their compensation should be for mindless thoughtless unskilled work. They think they are owned a life of luxury for their menial efforts. They are not. They see the company's owner as getting rich, well, he should get fucking rich, it was HIS investment, HIS risk, HIS strategy for success. etc.....IF those that think the rich do not deserve it or didn't work for it, then it should be easy for everyone else to do it. Go get educated, go put forth an effort go take risks, and go get rich. If not shut up about those that do.

The voters did not vote on the issues, the ones that elected Obama have no idea what the issues were. They voted for the first black president who was gunna pay their mortgage, they voted for Oprah said to vote for, and they voted for a rock star. The approval polls are already falling based on his ineptness, incompetence and inexperience to lead. If you think otherwise you are naive beyond belief.

It's irrelevant what they do or do not think. They get paid the market rate for the level of skill they have in a particular activity, the scarcity of like-skilled people and the level of demand for the products they produce/services they provide, mindful of the fact that a certain minimum threshold be set such that said person is able to a) subsist, b) progress and c) spawn another generation of workers. They engage in work in order to get cash in order to a) feed themselves and their family, b) clothe themselves and their family, c) shelter themselves and their family and d), if there's anything left over, to have some comfort in life. It is human nature to want more. That is the problem with humankind and is at the heart of this current economic debacle - at private individual level, at corporate level, at political level, at every level. Whether or not you recognise that just as many poor people are lazy spongers many rich people are manipulative unscrupulous gluttons who played the system through speculation and didn't do a tap of work. Many people made hundreds of thousands, some millions out of recent commodity, housing and market booms without engaging in anything resembling work or productivity. They merely speculated and spawned massive bubbles that impinge on far more than themselves but on faultless people across the length and breadth of the world. Companies that focussed on quarterly results rather than 10 year outlook. Short-sighted individuals who pumped the bubble up higher with credit that irresponsible and equally short-sighted banks were salivating at the chance to foist on them.

When the system breaks down for a lengthy period and people get made redundant the nation as a whole has to pick up the bill. Simple as that. No getting away from it. Otherwise society breaks down. Some say this will last 10-15 years. Can the US sustain an unemployment level of 8% or above for that long? Perhaps 2% of that 8% might lazy cunts. What of the other 6%? Eat their children?

As for Obama - the moment the banks collapsed McCain went from being ahead in the polls to being behind. McCain himself once said that 'economics wasn't' his 'strong point'. People lost faith in the status quo, in the entire economic system. Americans elected an idiot last time and the time before that and perhaps they have done so here. Time will tell. Ultimately part of the blame for failure will fall on those who voted Democrat just as part of the blame for failure last time around fell on those who voted Republican - the rest of the blame falling on the two-party system. 

PS He has been in power about 2 weeks. If you think anyone can draw a considered opinion on a man upon two weeks of public service when answering a poll then well I have to laugh. I also have to laugh at the pointless prematureness of polling at this point. Let's wait until his stimulus plan takes effect and watch the polls then. He will live by the sword or die by it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-02-09 15:21:26)

Perhaps if people viewed the 9th and 10th Amendments with the importance 1st, 5th, etc...
The Constitution was originally a very strict list of things the federal government could do, but it has been twisted into a small list of things it can't do (which half the time, it does anyway).  I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd venture a guess that we wouldn't have these problems if the federal government ONLY used the powers given to it via the Constitution (and left the rest to the states and the people).

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington

lowing wrote:

It is human nature to want more, I agree. It is not in the liberal mindset to EARN it, however. It is their notion that they are entitled to more.

The Liberal mindset is to earn things, however it is also that others who have been unable to, deserve the same entitlements that you do. It's helping those around you who have been not so fortunate. Call it, having a heart. The purely Capitalist approach is just a rat race and if you can't keep up nobody will ever throw you a bone.

Which one do you think is more suited to a society and which is more suited to an economy?

lowing wrote:

It is human nature to want more, I agree. It is not in the liberal mindset to EARN it, however. It is their notion that they are entitled to more. I give unions and their artificial inflation of worth to a company as an example. This is my problem with the liberal socialist ideology. Also if you agree that the market should set the worth, why can not a CEO get paid what obviously the market bares? You speak  as if this crisis is the fault of CEO's and their compensation. It is not.

Obama had this election in the bag from the get go, his media indused rock star status, and Oprah endorsement, and God like image and being black is all he needed . Issues didn't matter. Or do honestly believe the black community would have voted for Biden over a Republican Obama? Be honest, and you will prove to yourself issues meant jack shit.

Patent nonsense. You are suggesting that over 50% of the American voting public don't agree that to get more you have to earn it. Ludicrous. I am what you would term a liberal and my work ethic is just fine.  True liberalism seeks to strike a mutually agreeable and beneficial balance between employer and employee based on shared goals - prosperity and stability. A responsible union should seek to ensure that employees justly share in the success of a company and the capital put behind it, but also justly share and take responsibility for its failures. Where that doesn't occur you get collapse. Everything in life is a battle of ying versus yang - everything. It is in the nature around us. One element pushes the other, the other resists or pushes back, a dynamic equilibirum is attained. Where there is an imbalance that imbalance ultimately gets redressed because it cannot be sustained. The only danger is when the imbalances swing too wildly and you get instability. These same things are observed in nature and in control theory. If a company allows a union to skew matters with an unsustainable imbalance then they will fall on their own sword. Nature in action. The company has failed and the employees have been short-sighted. As for the CEO matter: that is simply a case of scapegoating. The public are angry at Wall St. for their excesses and politicians realise that they need a scapegoat to sate the public anger. As such, CEOs of banks that have FAILED and that have come cap in hand to the public bourse have been told to take a symbolic hit. They failed in a spectacular fashion, as such they do not deserve their rewards until they prove they have redeemed themselves by repaying the taxpayer. If they choose to go elsewhere then it is simply shirking responsibility. In the grand scheme of things their compensation is a drop in the ocean of shit, capping their salaries is merely symbolic.

One thing you missed: the previous Republican administration paved the golden path for Obama. It was beginning to become evident in the Democrat mid-term landslide. Whether it was Hillary up there or Obama either would have won when the banking sector hit the rails.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-02-10 02:45:26)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is human nature to want more, I agree. It is not in the liberal mindset to EARN it, however. It is their notion that they are entitled to more. I give unions and their artificial inflation of worth to a company as an example. This is my problem with the liberal socialist ideology. Also if you agree that the market should set the worth, why can not a CEO get paid what obviously the market bares? You speak  as if this crisis is the fault of CEO's and their compensation. It is not.

Obama had this election in the bag from the get go, his media indused rock star status, and Oprah endorsement, and God like image and being black is all he needed . Issues didn't matter. Or do honestly believe the black community would have voted for Biden over a Republican Obama? Be honest, and you will prove to yourself issues meant jack shit.

Patent nonsense. You are suggesting that over 50% of the American voting public don't agree that to get more you have to earn it. Ludicrous. I am what you would term a liberal and my work ethic is just fine.  True liberalism seeks to strike a mutually agreeable and beneficial balance between employer and employee based on shared goals - prosperity and stability. A responsible union should seek to ensure that employees justly share in the success of a company and the capital put behind it, but also justly share and take responsibility for its failures. Where that doesn't occur you get collapse. Everything in life is a battle of ying versus yang - everything. It is in the nature around us. One element pushes the other, the other resists or pushes back, a dynamic equilibirum is attained. Where there is an imbalance that imbalance ultimately gets redressed because it cannot be sustained. The only danger is when the imbalances swing too wildly and you get instability. These same things are observed in nature and in control theory. If a company allows a union to skew matters with an unsustainable imbalance then they will fall on their own sword. Nature in action. The company has failed and the employees have been short-sighted. As for the CEO matter: that is simply a case of scapegoating. The public are angry at Wall St. for their excesses and politicians realise that they need a scapegoat to sate the public anger. As such, CEOs of banks that have FAILED and that have come cap in hand to the public bourse have been told to take a symbolic hit. They failed in a spectacular fashion, as such they do not deserve their rewards until they prove they have redeemed themselves by repaying the taxpayer. If they choose to go elsewhere then it is simply shirking responsibility. In the grand scheme of things their compensation is a drop in the ocean of shit, capping their salaries is merely symbolic.

One thing you missed: the previous Republican administration paved the golden path for Obama. It was beginning to become evident in the Democrat mid-term landslide. Whether it was Hillary up there or Obama either would have won when the banking sector hit the rails.

Nope, I believe that more than 50% of the voted public that voted for Obama do not agree that in order to get more you have to earn it. Other than that I pretty much agree with you except for one thing, YOU are not a liberal, AMERICAN. It is a different picture over here. Entitlement is all the rage, and AMERICAN liberals are the tip of the spear with such an ideology.

You did not answer my question regarding Obama and the issues. I said the people that voted for Obama did so for every reason other than the issues. I challenged you to answer honestly if you thought a republican Obama never have been elected over a democratic Biden, I will even throw in democratic Hillary as well. Issues were not the issue. OBAMA, the rock star, the GOD, the black man, was the issue. Or do you think people in the audiances were breaking down in tears at the sight of him because of his health care plan?

Lowing has a point there. American liberals are... a bit strange, sometimes. Obama won many independents because he didn't act like a Michael Moore.