re: Princeton study: U.S. is an oligarchy

quote:

---

I think a "representative republic" is better than a straight democracy.


Now, I despise the asshats. But, I am afraid of just how pathetic we would be IF the "policies aligned with the majority".

---

Exactly. You don't let majority rule dictate how to build a airplane, where to build a cancer research center or what movies to produce. You leave that to industry experts and market forces.

Straight majority rule would be a fricking disaster.

quote:

---

The only solution is to remove the impetus. De-centralized power is much harder to bribe yet we continue to expand the reach of fed.gov

---

Yep. Reduce the control of the controllers, and the control of those who control the controllers will be reduced.

quote:

---

I'm guessing you consider yourself one of those "experts" who should have a vote.

---

Where did I say anyone shouldn't have a vote? I was remarking upon the structure of government in relation to industry.

Unfortunately an intelligent and informed citizenry is needed to elect the proper authorities to manage and we're not so good in that regard right now.

I agree with you, but how do we reduce the control of the controllers when the controllers, themselves, decide things for themselves using such absurd specious rationale as speech = money and half of the controlled think it's a valid argument, just because their own political party made it? It's terribly dismaying.

quote:

---

"Wealth redistribution"

---

Is it wealth redistribution, or income redistribution?

Are the wealthy distributing their wealth or income? Are the poor getting wealthy, or just added income?

And, oh, by the way, on a somewhat related topic... Stephen Colbert to CBS Late Night is a disaster.

frick you, CBS, for stealing away one of America's most important voices (and maybe the ONLY voice Americans actually listen to) against such bullshite as Citizens United and McCutcheon.

quote:

---

how do we reduce the control of the controllers

---

Get the People to wake up to what's going on. We still have lower middle class people who don't see anything wrong with the rich controlling the government, and so consistently vote against their own interests in the misplaced belief of ideological purity.

Party loyalty is in the interests of both political parties, therefore they will work together towards maintaining the system.

Personally, I never vote for a major party candidate in federal elections. I always vote for independent candidates. It's not that I want them to win, but it's a protest vote against the party system.

This, imo, is a better protest than simply not voting. If only 20% of eligible voters cast a ballot, the majority parties wouldn't care as long as they, combined, took 90% of the votes. But if 90% of the People voted, and the major parties only got 20% between them, you'd better believe they would change their approach.

3rd party voters represent a segment of the population that is willing to get out and vote, but is discontented with the parties. They care enough to vote, but they don't care for party politics. If enough people out there started doing this, the parties would be forced to change in order to maintain control over a majority.

quote:

---

inasmuch as Republican commoners continuously and stupidly vote against their own interests it's very difficult for us to decide, on top of the problem highlighted by the linked study: this is not a democracy but a game rigged against us.

---

Seems like a good argument for less government. You know, the least of a necessary evil or something to that effect.

But instead you seem to prefer to enlarge the government by continuously moving things like healthcare, job creation, education, and even the amount of pay people should be allowed to receive under the enlightened and astute auspices of this magnificent oligarchy.

quote:

---

This isn't about Ds or Rs, or Ls or Cs. It's about $s.

---

A truly competitive market with zero government interference would fix that. You've put your finger on exactly what Libertarians have been trying to get across for decades now.

Go read some Mises or Rothbard if you haven't already. You may find that you are in agreement with more of what they say than you expect.

quote:

---

What does "transfer payment" even mean?

---

The programs are clearly labeled.

quote:

---

When this money is transferred from the rich to the government and then to the poor, does it suddenly evaporate and leave the economy?

---

I though you didn't believe in trickle down economics.

quote:

---

Is it ending up in the mattresses of the poor?

---

Nope. Most of it ends up being spend on consumer goods. Which have a poor effect on generating wealth.

quote:

---

Can you elaborate on why you think those who control the government aren't controlling it in their own interests?

---

I have no doubt in some circumstances they do.

No one goes to DC and becomes less wealthy.

But... to get that wealth they need to stay in office. The way to stay in office has become... give more stuff away. That's done to satisfy voters, not "rich" people.

I don't know how you can look at our budget, and the distribution of taxes and say that government is serving "the rich" disproportionately.

At this point almost 30% of our economy get's directly redistributed. Seemingly "the rich" would want to keep their money.