Forms of Government
-
A well-done primer. But I think it goes off course, about half way through: The Founding Fathers set up a 'Republic' where the vote was limited to land-owning, white, males. So did the Romans (substitute 'Roman-born' for 'white'). The Athenians set up a 'Democracy' where the vote was limited to land-owning, Athens-born, males. There have, of course, been plenty of one-man government where only land-owners, born of the right parents and able to stand up when they pee, got to select the one man. Membership in the Roman Senate was further limited to a small set of families - like the House of Lords after which the U.S. Senate is modeled. Until 1913, U.S. Senators were chosen by the State legislatures. I lived for a time in a small town that was run by a modified town meeting (Town Meeting Members each represented 10 voters.) Like every other government I have ever dealt with, the real power rested with a small group of those members who were appointed, year after year to sit on the standing committees and oversee the Town Manager. The full Town Meeting got to decide everything - that wasn't important. My thinking is that regardless of what the name of the government is, or how it actually works, the nature of power - the right to force other people to do what you want them to do - means that the government ends up being controlled by a small group of men who feel it incumbent upon them to arrange the comings and goings of others - always, of course, for the others' good, but for their own profit and ease. It appears to me that we were an Oligarchy masquerading as a Republic; we are an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy, and someday soon will switch to being an Oligarchy masquerading as some form of Dictatorship. That day may be coming sooner than we think. The helluvamess that we've gotten into by debasing our currency; voting bread and circuses welfare and freebies; eliminating a large standing citizen army in favor of mercenaries; and suckering the Chinese into giving us goods in return for our fiat paper may be the beginning of the end for our 'Democracy.' (The Romans, by the way, did all of the same things, except screw over the Chinese. They screwed over the Egyptians instead.) By the way, I don't mean to imply that there's something necessarily wrong with an Oligarchy. As Heinlein said: "Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate." My reading of history is that the original Oligarchs are usually ready to accept r
Oakman wrote:
It appears to me that we were an Oligarchy masquerading as a Republic; we are an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy, and someday soon will switch to being an Oligarchy masquerading as some form of Dictatorship.
Sounds about right to me. And I see an awful lot of people in a huff wanting to know where their government provided mai-tais are.
Oakman wrote:
It appears to me that we were an Oligarchy masquerading as a Republic; we are an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy, and someday soon will switch to being an Oligarchy masquerading as some form of Dictatorship. That day may be coming sooner than we think.
I never would have imagined it before, but it's looking more and more certain as the days wear on.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
A well-done primer. But I think it goes off course, about half way through: The Founding Fathers set up a 'Republic' where the vote was limited to land-owning, white, males. So did the Romans (substitute 'Roman-born' for 'white'). The Athenians set up a 'Democracy' where the vote was limited to land-owning, Athens-born, males. There have, of course, been plenty of one-man government where only land-owners, born of the right parents and able to stand up when they pee, got to select the one man. Membership in the Roman Senate was further limited to a small set of families - like the House of Lords after which the U.S. Senate is modeled. Until 1913, U.S. Senators were chosen by the State legislatures. I lived for a time in a small town that was run by a modified town meeting (Town Meeting Members each represented 10 voters.) Like every other government I have ever dealt with, the real power rested with a small group of those members who were appointed, year after year to sit on the standing committees and oversee the Town Manager. The full Town Meeting got to decide everything - that wasn't important. My thinking is that regardless of what the name of the government is, or how it actually works, the nature of power - the right to force other people to do what you want them to do - means that the government ends up being controlled by a small group of men who feel it incumbent upon them to arrange the comings and goings of others - always, of course, for the others' good, but for their own profit and ease. It appears to me that we were an Oligarchy masquerading as a Republic; we are an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy, and someday soon will switch to being an Oligarchy masquerading as some form of Dictatorship. That day may be coming sooner than we think. The helluvamess that we've gotten into by debasing our currency; voting bread and circuses welfare and freebies; eliminating a large standing citizen army in favor of mercenaries; and suckering the Chinese into giving us goods in return for our fiat paper may be the beginning of the end for our 'Democracy.' (The Romans, by the way, did all of the same things, except screw over the Chinese. They screwed over the Egyptians instead.) By the way, I don't mean to imply that there's something necessarily wrong with an Oligarchy. As Heinlein said: "Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate." My reading of history is that the original Oligarchs are usually ready to accept r
Is there anything do be done about this? What about wikipedia's entry "Capitalism as a social system is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Socialists argue that in a capitalist society, power - economic, cultural and political - rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states have also been seen as oligarchies, being ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura." under "Examples of oligarchies" on oligarchy? Do you agree or see any of that?
-
Is there anything do be done about this? What about wikipedia's entry "Capitalism as a social system is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Socialists argue that in a capitalist society, power - economic, cultural and political - rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states have also been seen as oligarchies, being ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura." under "Examples of oligarchies" on oligarchy? Do you agree or see any of that?
My personal view is than an Oligarchy is the inevitable outcome of a representative based democracy. I imagine you could impose some controls that would avoid a roman style dynast for some time. But, I don't see how it is possible in a large country. I used to think that free and equal media time would go a long way but then the cynic in me reminds me that ultimately you have to trust the media to be beyond reproach and apolitical in these matters.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
My personal view is than an Oligarchy is the inevitable outcome of a representative based democracy. I imagine you could impose some controls that would avoid a roman style dynast for some time. But, I don't see how it is possible in a large country. I used to think that free and equal media time would go a long way but then the cynic in me reminds me that ultimately you have to trust the media to be beyond reproach and apolitical in these matters.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
My personal view is than an Oligarchy is the inevitable outcome of a representative based democracy.
So much for power to the people then. Didn't we let it get this way as a society? These people didn't float to the top of the toilet bowl without us.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
My personal view is than an Oligarchy is the inevitable outcome of a representative based democracy.
So much for power to the people then. Didn't we let it get this way as a society? These people didn't float to the top of the toilet bowl without us.
My opinion is not to different than Jon's in that we may have always been an Oligarchy. My quick opinion is that along the way the electorate became apathetic to more and more egregious violations of sensible governance. I can't pretend to know why or how.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
A well-done primer. But I think it goes off course, about half way through: The Founding Fathers set up a 'Republic' where the vote was limited to land-owning, white, males. So did the Romans (substitute 'Roman-born' for 'white'). The Athenians set up a 'Democracy' where the vote was limited to land-owning, Athens-born, males. There have, of course, been plenty of one-man government where only land-owners, born of the right parents and able to stand up when they pee, got to select the one man. Membership in the Roman Senate was further limited to a small set of families - like the House of Lords after which the U.S. Senate is modeled. Until 1913, U.S. Senators were chosen by the State legislatures. I lived for a time in a small town that was run by a modified town meeting (Town Meeting Members each represented 10 voters.) Like every other government I have ever dealt with, the real power rested with a small group of those members who were appointed, year after year to sit on the standing committees and oversee the Town Manager. The full Town Meeting got to decide everything - that wasn't important. My thinking is that regardless of what the name of the government is, or how it actually works, the nature of power - the right to force other people to do what you want them to do - means that the government ends up being controlled by a small group of men who feel it incumbent upon them to arrange the comings and goings of others - always, of course, for the others' good, but for their own profit and ease. It appears to me that we were an Oligarchy masquerading as a Republic; we are an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy, and someday soon will switch to being an Oligarchy masquerading as some form of Dictatorship. That day may be coming sooner than we think. The helluvamess that we've gotten into by debasing our currency; voting bread and circuses welfare and freebies; eliminating a large standing citizen army in favor of mercenaries; and suckering the Chinese into giving us goods in return for our fiat paper may be the beginning of the end for our 'Democracy.' (The Romans, by the way, did all of the same things, except screw over the Chinese. They screwed over the Egyptians instead.) By the way, I don't mean to imply that there's something necessarily wrong with an Oligarchy. As Heinlein said: "Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate." My reading of history is that the original Oligarchs are usually ready to accept r
Oakman wrote:
(The Romans, by the way, did all of the same things, except screw over the Chinese. They screwed over the Egyptians instead.)
I read a book recently that compared the US with Rome and suggested the end was nigh. I take such books with a grain of salt, but it made for interesting reading.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Is there anything do be done about this? What about wikipedia's entry "Capitalism as a social system is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Socialists argue that in a capitalist society, power - economic, cultural and political - rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states have also been seen as oligarchies, being ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura." under "Examples of oligarchies" on oligarchy? Do you agree or see any of that?
wolfbinary wrote:
"Capitalism as a social system is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Socialists argue that in a capitalist society, power - economic, cultural and political - rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states have also been seen as oligarchies, being ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura." under "Examples of oligarchies" on oligarchy?
Fascinating. I don't think I have ever thought of Capitalism as a social system. It's a financial system of course, but one that can support kings and princes, and dictators, presidents, popes, and even Exalted Leaders quite well. It's not surprising, I suppose, that true-blue socialists would recognize that oligarchies ruled societies that practiced some form of capitalism and never see that oligarchies were just as much in power in countries that espoused some form of socialism. Social system, to me, means the social ordering of the people that determine who the in crowd is. i.e. the Aristocracy, or the Cardinals, or the Brahmin, or the Titans of Industry, or the Generals. Usually (again to me, maybe no-one else) names like Matriarchy, Aristocracy, Technocracy, Theocracy, and Meritocracy come to mind as types of social systems.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
modified on Thursday, February 5, 2009 7:24 PM
-
Chris Austin wrote:
My personal view is than an Oligarchy is the inevitable outcome of a representative based democracy.
So much for power to the people then. Didn't we let it get this way as a society? These people didn't float to the top of the toilet bowl without us.
wolfbinary wrote:
Didn't we let it get this way as a society? These people didn't float to the top of the toilet bowl without us.
Robert A. Heinlein: What are the marks of a sick culture? It is a bad sign when the people of a country stop identifying themselves with the country and start identifying with a group. A racial group. Or a religion. Or a language. Anything, as long as it isn't the whole population. A very bad sign. Particularism. It was once considered a Spanish vice but any country can fall sick with it. Dominance of males over females seems to be one of the symptoms. Before a revolution can take place, the population must loose faith in both the police and the courts. High taxation is important and so is inflation of the currency and the ratio of the productive to those on the public payroll. But that's old hat; everybody knows that a country is on the skids when its income and outgo get out of balance and stay that way - even though there are always endless attempts to wish it way by legislation. But I started looking for little signs and what some call silly-season symptoms. I want to mention one of the obvious symptoms: Violence. Muggings. Sniping. Arson. Bombing. Terrorism of any sort. Riots of course - but I suspect that little incidents of violence, pecking way at people day after day, damage a culture even more than riots that flare up and then die down. Oh, conscription and slavery and arbitrary compulsion of all sorts and imprisonment without bail and without speedy trial - but those things are obvious; all the histories list them. I think you have missed the most alarming symptom of all. This one I shall tell you. But go back and search for it. Examine it. Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms as you have named... But a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot. This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. Look for it. Study it. It is too late to save this culture - this worldwide culture, not just the freak show here in California. Therefore we must now prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too fragile; we must again have books, of stable inks and resistant paper. --- Friday and Dr. Baldwin in "Friday"
-
The American Form of Government[^] I'm sure most of you already know about what's presented here. But the video presents an interesting take pretty concisely. Pay particular attention to the description of Rome at the end. What does that sound like?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
That is pretty much right on target. A very accurate assessment which should be obvious to every American, with the obvious exception of liberals and libertarians. The only exception I would make is that a republic is a form of democracy. If a government is elected by any means, than it is a democracy to that extent. The US has never been an Oligarchy. Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy. That those who are productive and have a vested interest in the stability of the over all system should constitute the voting public is a good idea and should not be so readily dismissed regardless of how distasteful the forms it took in the past might be to modern sensibilities. If our current vote was similarly limited in some way (those who pay more in taxes than they recieve in welfare, for example) we would probably not be in the situation we are now. The point that is missed by most is that government necessarily has a monopoly on force, regardless of how the government is designed to function. The importance of our particular form of government is that is tries to keep things separated from the monompoly on force. Free markets are important not because they are perfect and provide wealth for everyone, they are important precisely because they can function quite well completely independently of government control. They rise and fall and rise again based upon their own rules and standards, but cannot of their own accord compel anyone by any direct application of force to do anything they do not wish to do. Religion, especially christianity, posessess precisely the same capability. And it is for that reason that moral restraint should rise from the people to control the government rather than being imposed by the government upon the people. Separation of church and state is not important because the government can use force to prevent people from being compelled to follow laws somehow influenced by religious principles, but for precisely the opposite reason - it empowers the people to apply their own moral principles to compel the government to adher to the moral tenants of the society itself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
That is pretty much right on target. A very accurate assessment which should be obvious to every American, with the obvious exception of liberals and libertarians. The only exception I would make is that a republic is a form of democracy. If a government is elected by any means, than it is a democracy to that extent. The US has never been an Oligarchy. Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy. That those who are productive and have a vested interest in the stability of the over all system should constitute the voting public is a good idea and should not be so readily dismissed regardless of how distasteful the forms it took in the past might be to modern sensibilities. If our current vote was similarly limited in some way (those who pay more in taxes than they recieve in welfare, for example) we would probably not be in the situation we are now. The point that is missed by most is that government necessarily has a monopoly on force, regardless of how the government is designed to function. The importance of our particular form of government is that is tries to keep things separated from the monompoly on force. Free markets are important not because they are perfect and provide wealth for everyone, they are important precisely because they can function quite well completely independently of government control. They rise and fall and rise again based upon their own rules and standards, but cannot of their own accord compel anyone by any direct application of force to do anything they do not wish to do. Religion, especially christianity, posessess precisely the same capability. And it is for that reason that moral restraint should rise from the people to control the government rather than being imposed by the government upon the people. Separation of church and state is not important because the government can use force to prevent people from being compelled to follow laws somehow influenced by religious principles, but for precisely the opposite reason - it empowers the people to apply their own moral principles to compel the government to adher to the moral tenants of the society itself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If our current vote was similarly limited in some way (those who pay more in taxes than they recieve in welfare, for example) we would probably not be in the situation we are now.
I tend to agree. Letting people vote for the one who gives them more welfare, only creates a welfare state. I am not against welfare, but I am against it's abuse.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
"Capitalism as a social system is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Socialists argue that in a capitalist society, power - economic, cultural and political - rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states have also been seen as oligarchies, being ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura." under "Examples of oligarchies" on oligarchy?
Fascinating. I don't think I have ever thought of Capitalism as a social system. It's a financial system of course, but one that can support kings and princes, and dictators, presidents, popes, and even Exalted Leaders quite well. It's not surprising, I suppose, that true-blue socialists would recognize that oligarchies ruled societies that practiced some form of capitalism and never see that oligarchies were just as much in power in countries that espoused some form of socialism. Social system, to me, means the social ordering of the people that determine who the in crowd is. i.e. the Aristocracy, or the Cardinals, or the Brahmin, or the Titans of Industry, or the Generals. Usually (again to me, maybe no-one else) names like Matriarchy, Aristocracy, Technocracy, Theocracy, and Meritocracy come to mind as types of social systems.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
modified on Thursday, February 5, 2009 7:24 PM
I'm very interested in your views on capitalism here Jon, so much so I'd ask you to expand on them. When I think of a business (any business) I see this: At the top you have the CEO/MD, below that you have the board, below that you have various layers of middle/lower management and then you get down to the shop floor. That to me suggests not only a business structure, but a clear social hierarchy. In a sense the CEO is the king, his board the princes, the management the barons and the workers the (for wont of a better word) the peasants. The one does not talk directly to the other. Where does capitalism differ from, say, feudalism or another social structure?
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
-
That is pretty much right on target. A very accurate assessment which should be obvious to every American, with the obvious exception of liberals and libertarians. The only exception I would make is that a republic is a form of democracy. If a government is elected by any means, than it is a democracy to that extent. The US has never been an Oligarchy. Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy. That those who are productive and have a vested interest in the stability of the over all system should constitute the voting public is a good idea and should not be so readily dismissed regardless of how distasteful the forms it took in the past might be to modern sensibilities. If our current vote was similarly limited in some way (those who pay more in taxes than they recieve in welfare, for example) we would probably not be in the situation we are now. The point that is missed by most is that government necessarily has a monopoly on force, regardless of how the government is designed to function. The importance of our particular form of government is that is tries to keep things separated from the monompoly on force. Free markets are important not because they are perfect and provide wealth for everyone, they are important precisely because they can function quite well completely independently of government control. They rise and fall and rise again based upon their own rules and standards, but cannot of their own accord compel anyone by any direct application of force to do anything they do not wish to do. Religion, especially christianity, posessess precisely the same capability. And it is for that reason that moral restraint should rise from the people to control the government rather than being imposed by the government upon the people. Separation of church and state is not important because the government can use force to prevent people from being compelled to follow laws somehow influenced by religious principles, but for precisely the opposite reason - it empowers the people to apply their own moral principles to compel the government to adher to the moral tenants of the society itself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy
Actually, it's pretty close to the definition of an Oligarchy. :-D
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point that is missed by most is that government necessarily has a monopoly on force, regardless of how the government is designed to function.
Of course. If they couldn't make you do what they wanted, they wouldn't be a government.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it empowers the people
There is no such thing as "the people." There are only individuals who take responsibility and individuals who don't. The latter often hide behind artificial constructs like "the people." Obama was doing it all day long today, talking about "the People" who have decided that we need to become energy efficient, and "the People" who spoke out in Novemeber in favor of the pork project he and Pelosi crafted this week. I confess, I do admire your ability to believe in the saving grace of Capitalism. Where do you stand on the infallibility of the Pope - and on Tarot cards?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
That is pretty much right on target. A very accurate assessment which should be obvious to every American, with the obvious exception of liberals and libertarians. The only exception I would make is that a republic is a form of democracy. If a government is elected by any means, than it is a democracy to that extent. The US has never been an Oligarchy. Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy. That those who are productive and have a vested interest in the stability of the over all system should constitute the voting public is a good idea and should not be so readily dismissed regardless of how distasteful the forms it took in the past might be to modern sensibilities. If our current vote was similarly limited in some way (those who pay more in taxes than they recieve in welfare, for example) we would probably not be in the situation we are now. The point that is missed by most is that government necessarily has a monopoly on force, regardless of how the government is designed to function. The importance of our particular form of government is that is tries to keep things separated from the monompoly on force. Free markets are important not because they are perfect and provide wealth for everyone, they are important precisely because they can function quite well completely independently of government control. They rise and fall and rise again based upon their own rules and standards, but cannot of their own accord compel anyone by any direct application of force to do anything they do not wish to do. Religion, especially christianity, posessess precisely the same capability. And it is for that reason that moral restraint should rise from the people to control the government rather than being imposed by the government upon the people. Separation of church and state is not important because the government can use force to prevent people from being compelled to follow laws somehow influenced by religious principles, but for precisely the opposite reason - it empowers the people to apply their own moral principles to compel the government to adher to the moral tenants of the society itself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The US has never been an Oligarchy.
I find this an interesting statement. Do you not find that the inordinate influence large corporations have on our lawmakers via lobbying indicates an oligarchy? I don't think oligarchies are inherently evil or abominations but rather a result of our systems.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy.
Are you sure you are not confusing an oligarchy with a plutocracy. I am honestly not trying to argue but rather have a healthy conversation.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If our current vote was similarly limited in some way (those who pay more in taxes than they recieve in welfare, for example) we would probably not be in the situation we are now.
I tend to agree. Letting people vote for the one who gives them more welfare, only creates a welfare state. I am not against welfare, but I am against it's abuse.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Letting people vote for the one who gives them more welfare, only creates a welfare state.
Well, in the US, before people can vote for you, you have to raise a few (hundred) million to run. Which means - unless you are Bill Gates - that you are, at least in part, given your office by the rich and powerful. And I note that there has been a great deal of corporate welfare being handed out, pretty much since the days of Reagan. In Oz, if I understand correctly, the deal is pretty much the same, but with a smaller population and a shorter election cycle the money involved is less. And I right? Stan seems to identify all to hell and gone with Titans of Wall Street (I think it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome) so he's all in favor, I imagine, of giving Bank of America half of his life savings to help pay for their new corporate jet - but are you? Of course, being a Heinleinian, I think the right to vote should be made available to everyone - who does a tour in the Armed Services, but only once they've become a civilian again so they can't vote themselves a bigger and better GI bill.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I'm very interested in your views on capitalism here Jon, so much so I'd ask you to expand on them. When I think of a business (any business) I see this: At the top you have the CEO/MD, below that you have the board, below that you have various layers of middle/lower management and then you get down to the shop floor. That to me suggests not only a business structure, but a clear social hierarchy. In a sense the CEO is the king, his board the princes, the management the barons and the workers the (for wont of a better word) the peasants. The one does not talk directly to the other. Where does capitalism differ from, say, feudalism or another social structure?
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
martin_hughes wrote:
When I think of a business (any business) I see this: At the top you have the CEO/MD, below that you have the board, below that you have various layers of middle/lower management and then you get down to the shop floor. . .Where does capitalism differ from, say, feudalism or another social structure?
I humbly suggest that a business, even the tiny one I ran with 4 employees, is an example of capitalism in action, but the management structure you describe is simply one that has been proven to work (sometimes, even well.) The largest corporation I ever worked for (11 billion @ year profit, 60,000 employees) had an extremely feudal structure much like the one you described with a king and barons and peons. So did the largest organization I ever worked for which was the U.S. Army. The advantage of the Army over the corporation was that every-one's uniform told you right off the bat where he-she belonged the the hierarchy. Speaking of hierarchy, I'm also relatively familiar with another large organization - the Episcopal Church, because I dated a priest for a while. She had a couple of monks and a deacon working for her so I guess she was low-level management, and she reported to a Bishop who reported to a Presiding Bishop. My little company, by the way, always seemed to me to resemble the Jesse James Gang more than a better regulated social structure. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The US has never been an Oligarchy.
I find this an interesting statement. Do you not find that the inordinate influence large corporations have on our lawmakers via lobbying indicates an oligarchy? I don't think oligarchies are inherently evil or abominations but rather a result of our systems.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy.
Are you sure you are not confusing an oligarchy with a plutocracy. I am honestly not trying to argue but rather have a healthy conversation.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
Do you not find that the inordinate influence large corporations have on our lawmakers via lobbying indicates an oligarchy?
No. In an ideal world, corporations would pay no taxes and have no legal access to political power. But when government has assumed so much ability to control the free market I don't know how you completely disempower corporations from having some means of influenceing those who have bestowed upon themselves unlimited power to influence them. Government has corrupted business, not vice versa.
Chris Austin wrote:
Are you sure you are not confusing an oligarchy with a plutocracy.
I'll leave the finer distinctions to the political scientists among us, but I think the goal we should stive for is a meritocracy, that is an elite comprised of actual accomplishement and ability measured primarily by the ability to sustain a lifestyle stable enough to engender a society and government rather than depending upon it. If an oligarchy is defined as anything other than 100% equal involvment by everyone, than obviously any government can be called an oligarchy. But that is a rather stupid, meaningless definition. Even disallowing 3 years olds from voting could be called a oligarchy. Hell, even the notion that we restrict voting to human beings is an oligarchy.
Chris Austin wrote:
am honestly not trying to argue but rather have a healthy conversation.
I didn't realize there was a difference. :~
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Limiting the vote to some specified sector of the popoulation is certainly not an indication of oligarchy
Actually, it's pretty close to the definition of an Oligarchy. :-D
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point that is missed by most is that government necessarily has a monopoly on force, regardless of how the government is designed to function.
Of course. If they couldn't make you do what they wanted, they wouldn't be a government.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it empowers the people
There is no such thing as "the people." There are only individuals who take responsibility and individuals who don't. The latter often hide behind artificial constructs like "the people." Obama was doing it all day long today, talking about "the People" who have decided that we need to become energy efficient, and "the People" who spoke out in Novemeber in favor of the pork project he and Pelosi crafted this week. I confess, I do admire your ability to believe in the saving grace of Capitalism. Where do you stand on the infallibility of the Pope - and on Tarot cards?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
If they couldn't make you do what they wanted, they wouldn't be a government.
Precisely, which is why you want to keep as many things out of their reach as possible.
Oakman wrote:
There is no such thing as "the people." There are only individuals who take responsibility and individuals who don't. The latter often hide behind artificial constructs like "the people." Obama was doing it all day long today, talking about "the People" who have decided that we need to become energy efficient, and "the People" who spoke out in Novemeber in favor of the pork project he and Pelosi crafted this week.
"We, the people..." Whether you like it or not, thats the foundation of our government. And Obama is completely correct - the people did rather vocally call for just those things. And they should get them. All I want is someone to articulate an actual workable alternative and have it ready once the people come to their senses again.
Oakman wrote:
I confess, I do admire your ability to believe in the saving grace of Capitalism.
Capitalism is an imperfect, problematic, unstable, unpredictable, cruel, heartless, unjust system. It has only one saving grace - it works.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Do you not find that the inordinate influence large corporations have on our lawmakers via lobbying indicates an oligarchy?
No. In an ideal world, corporations would pay no taxes and have no legal access to political power. But when government has assumed so much ability to control the free market I don't know how you completely disempower corporations from having some means of influenceing those who have bestowed upon themselves unlimited power to influence them. Government has corrupted business, not vice versa.
Chris Austin wrote:
Are you sure you are not confusing an oligarchy with a plutocracy.
I'll leave the finer distinctions to the political scientists among us, but I think the goal we should stive for is a meritocracy, that is an elite comprised of actual accomplishement and ability measured primarily by the ability to sustain a lifestyle stable enough to engender a society and government rather than depending upon it. If an oligarchy is defined as anything other than 100% equal involvment by everyone, than obviously any government can be called an oligarchy. But that is a rather stupid, meaningless definition. Even disallowing 3 years olds from voting could be called a oligarchy. Hell, even the notion that we restrict voting to human beings is an oligarchy.
Chris Austin wrote:
am honestly not trying to argue but rather have a healthy conversation.
I didn't realize there was a difference. :~
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But when government has assumed so much ability to control the free market I don't know how you completely disempower corporations from having some means of influenceing those who have bestowed upon themselves unlimited power to influence them.
That's an interesting point. My thought is that government has exerted the same control over private citizens yet large corps have disproportional direct access to the law makers. Even the tax laws favor corporate lobby vs private lobby. Did you know that and individual contribution to a lobby is not tax deductible but corporations are able to write off most if not all of their lobby expenses. But I agree. In a perfect world the federal government would just leave us all the hell alone.
Stan Shannon wrote:
. If an oligarchy is defined as anything other than 100% equal involvment by everyone, than obviously any government can be called an oligarchy. But that is a rather stupid, meaningless definition. Even disallowing 3 years olds from voting could be called a oligarchy. Hell, even the notion that we restrict voting to human beings is an oligarchy.
It's been a long time since my poly sci classes but my understanding of an oligarchy in loose terms is a governance by a small elite group that is often is the guy behind the curtain. There is one theory out there; I think it's called "the iron law of oligarchy" or something like that; it's basic axiom is that all political systems evolve into an oligarchy and that modern republics and democracies are elected oligarchies.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't realize there was a difference
Good. Lately people seem to takes thing a bit too personally.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Oakman wrote:
If they couldn't make you do what they wanted, they wouldn't be a government.
Precisely, which is why you want to keep as many things out of their reach as possible.
Oakman wrote:
There is no such thing as "the people." There are only individuals who take responsibility and individuals who don't. The latter often hide behind artificial constructs like "the people." Obama was doing it all day long today, talking about "the People" who have decided that we need to become energy efficient, and "the People" who spoke out in Novemeber in favor of the pork project he and Pelosi crafted this week.
"We, the people..." Whether you like it or not, thats the foundation of our government. And Obama is completely correct - the people did rather vocally call for just those things. And they should get them. All I want is someone to articulate an actual workable alternative and have it ready once the people come to their senses again.
Oakman wrote:
I confess, I do admire your ability to believe in the saving grace of Capitalism.
Capitalism is an imperfect, problematic, unstable, unpredictable, cruel, heartless, unjust system. It has only one saving grace - it works.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely, which is why you want to keep as many things out of their reach as possible.
The only thing that is out of their reach is our minds. If it can be touched, tasted, seen, felt or heard, the government can - and does - reach out and control it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Whether you like it or not, thats the foundation of our government
Yes, it's the excuse the government hides behind to use it's police force to take my money and give it to people they think deserve it more - like the ne'er-do-wells that hang around the laudramat and the President of Citibank. "The People" have decided it. Not Obama. Not Pelosi. Not Reid and especially not all the bureacrats who will do whatever their masters want - as long as they, themselves, live comfortably. Of course the excuse is only useful sometimes. You have lauded Bush for saying "Fuck 'We the People,' I'm the Prez and I'm doing what I think is right."
Stan Shannon wrote:
Capitalism is an imperfect, problematic, unstable, unpredictable, cruel, heartless, unjust system. It has only one saving grace - it works.
As far as I can tell, Capitalism in any untainted form has never existed outside of the classroom. Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, began playing fast and loose with our economy before G. Washington got out of office. That's one of the things governments do. However, what I find fascinating about your genuflection in front of capitalism is that you seem to think it only serves democracies. And that either all democracies are Christian, or all Christians are democrats; I can't quite tell which.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Do you not find that the inordinate influence large corporations have on our lawmakers via lobbying indicates an oligarchy?
No. In an ideal world, corporations would pay no taxes and have no legal access to political power. But when government has assumed so much ability to control the free market I don't know how you completely disempower corporations from having some means of influenceing those who have bestowed upon themselves unlimited power to influence them. Government has corrupted business, not vice versa.
Chris Austin wrote:
Are you sure you are not confusing an oligarchy with a plutocracy.
I'll leave the finer distinctions to the political scientists among us, but I think the goal we should stive for is a meritocracy, that is an elite comprised of actual accomplishement and ability measured primarily by the ability to sustain a lifestyle stable enough to engender a society and government rather than depending upon it. If an oligarchy is defined as anything other than 100% equal involvment by everyone, than obviously any government can be called an oligarchy. But that is a rather stupid, meaningless definition. Even disallowing 3 years olds from voting could be called a oligarchy. Hell, even the notion that we restrict voting to human beings is an oligarchy.
Chris Austin wrote:
am honestly not trying to argue but rather have a healthy conversation.
I didn't realize there was a difference. :~
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If an oligarchy is defined as anything other than 100% equal involvment by everyone, than obviously any government can be called an oligarchy. But that is a rather stupid, meaningless definition.
Yes, it is. So why did you waste any time offering it up? Do you really hate strawmen so much? In Athens, the cradle of Democracy, at the height of it's independence, approximately 10% of the population could vote. That 10% would have told you that they were a meritocracy. Back when the Pope and his Cardinals ran the Papal States, they would have told you that they were a meritocracy. When the Bastard Duke of Normandy and his small band of knights conquered Britain and set themselves up as despots, they would have told you they were a meritocracy. According to legend, the Amazon tribes living in Sarmantia were ruled by women who cut their right breast off. They would have told you they were a meritocracy. Certainly all the movers and shakers in New York City and Washington DC consider themselves a meritocracy worthy of 20 million dollars @ year in compensation except when actually employed by the Feds which is a way, of course, of gaining more power to make other people do what you want them to do. That power can and will be traded for wonderful compensation like a driver and Limo (which sometimes they forget to pay taxes on.) What is true is that all of the above are Oligarchies which is, since you didn't look it up, defined as the rule of the many by the few. Now before you tell me about all the people who can vote, tell me whether you think Nancy Pelosi gives a shit that the majority of the people in this country are opposed to her spending bill.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.