Are We Still A Democracy?

The recent actions of the ECB and the Federal Reserve have driven the final nail in the coffin of Capitalism and Democracy. Both these cornerstones of our civilization have been on life support for years. Central bankers decided last week to 'pull the plug'. Capitalism and Democracy will be replaced with a hybrid economic system combining the attributes of the old Soviet Union's command economy, the Oligarchy's of South America and efficiency and integrity of today's of today's economic system [with a dose of fascism thrown in for good measure]. "Rubbish, you declare", "Poppycock", "More left wing ranting". Fair enough dear reader, at this point in history you are still allowed your own opinion, but before you click away you should consider the following realities. Capitalism, as defined by Wikipedia is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Let us consider the following realities. Only then can we understand how our central bankers performed the 'coup de grace'. Global spending on Weapons was 1.74 trillion in 2012. For many countries particularly the United States the largest employer in the 'private' industry is the weapons industry. In the United States, if one includes the postal service and the military over 3 million people work for the Federal Government. [Imagine if we included state and local government employees in this number] In every developed country in the world the civil service is by, far the largest employer in the country. The second largest employers are those industries or sectors such as weapons, health care or education that receive their revenue from the government. The developed world is no longer served by government. The developed world is dependent on government spending to maintain, not improve, their current lifestyle. Private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit exists only as curious anachronism in small pockets around the world. One could not possibly argue that worldwide, the automobile, banking, weapons and health care industries exist only at the pleasure of government spending. The survival of these industries is reliant on favorable government support, spending and regulation. In simple terms most societies in their current form only because our governments borrow money from future generations to keep civil servants employed and captive industries on life support. Competition and survival of the fittest, truisms of capitalism do not exist anymore. The concepts of entrepreneur, merit, hard work, pride, sacrifice, choices, work ethic, patience, effort, pay as you go, integrity, truth, risk reward, moral hazard fairness and equality are, of course, now obsolete. To survive going forward the key will be one's ability to ''get me some of that newly printed money". Now let us consider democracy. Once again let us use Wikipedia's definition that defines Democracy as 'a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally -- either directly or through elected representative.' Dear reader, surely the death of democracy is not something we need to debate. It is self evident. No, "you still believe in democracy, you still believe that your vote counts". Please consider the following words and phrases carefully. Create an image your mind as to what each word or phrase means the system of government known as democracy: Gerrymandering, Hanging Chad's, QE 1, QE 2, unlimited campaign spending by individuals and corporations, "corporations are people too" Bailout conditions, Operation Twist, QE 3, technocrat government, TARP, Wall Street bailout, lobbying, Greece, Spain Italy, ECB terms and conditions for bond buying campaign. There are more words to help paint this picture but I do not want these disturbing images, that I imagine you created in your mind, to cause you Post Traumatic Stress. These are not words that were spawned in the evolution of democracy. These words evolved as democracy evolved into a more sinister system that left the world with the 'illusion of democracy'. Let us now connect the dots that connect the death of capitalism and democracy to the recent actions of our central bankers. By announcing in tandem over the last couple of weeks that both federal reserve and the ECB, both led by unelected officials, that they would expand their asset purchasing [ Oh Please can we all just agree to call it money printing]. The central banks have irrevocably committed their respective governments to a course of action that is done without public consent, understanding or referendum. These have enacted fiscal policy disguised as monetary policy that will handcuff the "citizen taxpayer's" ability to manage government finances for, well, forever. This course of action will cause a mis-allocation capital of historic proportions. On 'Main Street' the theft [via artificially low interest rates] of retirement income from retirees, who diligently accumulated retirement capital during their working years to provide interest income in their retirement will continue unabated. [In some ways, you have to admire baby boomer's for their audacity and hubris to steal from their parents via artificially low rates as well as their children and grandchildren through absurd government borrowing. This is done to maintain the lifestyle boomer's have become accustomed to. The boomers are like a Robin Hood from an alternate bizarre dimension. The boomer Robin Hood steals from old and young and keeps the money for himself] 'Moral Hazard' has been removed from decision making process. It has been replaced with a modern version of "I'm all right Jack." Governments will be able to spend in an unlimited fashion, immorally with no fear of punishment by the bond market vigilantes. Dear reader, 'How could government spending be immoral?' you ask. When our governments spend money we don't have on goods and services we cannot afford or do not need, at prices that are not determined by a free market capitalist system only to leave the 'Butcher's Bill' to our children and grandchildren that is immoral, undemocratic and definitely not how capitalism works. By David S Hague

The oft-repeated explanation of democracy - (of the people, for the people, by the people) highlights the significance of "people" in the concept and practice of democracy. And who are people? General human beings! In democracy, power is supposed to be vested in people. And there comes the dichotomy. Democracy is all about general people who hold power. When they hold power, socially speaking, they should be responsible in exercising the power. Responsibility has to have in it elements like accountability, awareness wisdom and freedom of choice. If that be so, are all people involved in democratic process (like the voting, election etc.) responsible enough to hold the power (even of voting)?

A democratic theorist may bank on people's voting power as democratic power. It sounds good and is good to fantasize too. But when people apply their voting power, no one questions the factors like their responsibility towards the choice that they are making. Their choice or decision may be influenced, conditioned, bribed, threatened, biased, by proxy or out of a sick mind. Choices or decisions made under such circumstances may, in reality, render the process of democracy undemocratic!

Unless people are aware, informed and uninfluenced, the processes of decision-making, choosing, selecting, electing etc. will turn out to be farce in democracy. So, for the success of any democratic process, people need to make informed choices. The choices also have to be coming out of an aware mind. This is where technology, as it is available today and even beyond, can play a major role in ensuring greater credibility of democratic processes.

To begin with, today's need for a person to be at a particular place (like in the voting booth which may be far from her / his place of living) to exercise democratic choices can be eliminated. Ensuring bio-metric identification (like through scanned fingerprints and retinal imprint) of the individual at a remote place is very much possible, using technologies like that of cellular phones, scanners etc. Through the same, simple choices like "yes" or "no" can be communicated to any distant democratic choice processing center.

Television debates and video conferencing can be used for people's debates and consequent opinion formation at various centers and those opinions being gathered and processed centrally can eliminate the politically and personally motivated decision-making by people's representatives in the legislative bodies concerned. This will also ensure that the opinions of better informed and aware people are available for collective decision-making, as the debates / discussions are available for assessment of their quality even at a later stage.

Technology can ensure gathering people's choices on important matters instantly. With this, the need for depending directly on the politics, motives whims and fancies of the elected representatives on democratic decision-making can largely be eliminated.

Politics is often dirty. Political motives are often harmful to peoples' interests. In most democracies, politics is also corrupt, one way or the other. With this, use of technology directly in the democratic processes is unlikely to find support from the few power-wielding representatives of people who have to adopt it into the system. This may be the reason for many obvious advantages of technology being not available in many democratic nations world over. But the inherent strengths of technology itself will force them to embrace it, sooner or later. By Vijay Nambiar

All democracies have certain structural defects, which are related to the nature of democracy. Although all forms of government have defects, supporters of democracy are often reluctant to concede that it is less than perfect, which in turn may hinder its reform.

Probably the most quoted criticism of democracy is the fear that it will become a 'tyranny of the majority.' It can apply in both direct democracy and representative democracy. 'Tyranny of the majority' implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. It might decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly). This undermines the idea of democracy as an empowerment of the electorate as a whole.

Democracy necessarily assumes a sense of shared values in the demos (otherwise political legitimacy will fail). In other words, it assumes that the demos is in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition, also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy', which is especially visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism.

Another persistent critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were private liberties. Changing laws make it impossible for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. A legal system where any ordinary citizen can expect to be breaking some law in ignorance most of the time is an invitation for law-enforcement to misuse power. This continual complication of the law is also seen by some as contrary to the simple and eternal natural law- bringing the whole legal system into disrepute.

Democracies have also been criticized for slowness and complexity in their decision-making. Modern liberal democracies, by definition, allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short-term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits.

The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favors the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected.

Hence, we can see that democracy is not without some drawbacks. It of course has some merits for example, political stability, and effective response during wartime, etc. But we have to be aware of drawbacks stated above. By carefully analyzing the demerits and finding solutions we can expect a more perfect democracy. By Mahbub Hasan

A tongue-in-cheek warning is making the rounds: If an email offers you a functioning link to create an account on HealthCare.gov, it's a scam run by offshore con artists. Nothing on the legitimate HealthCare.gov website actually functions.

President Obama clearly senses that his signature policy achievement is on the verge of becoming a laughingstock. He responded yesterday, as is his habit, by staging a campaign-style appearance in the Rose Garden, complete with hand-picked ordinary citizens serving as silent witnesses to the Affordable Care Act's merits, while the president declared that "there's no excuse for the problems." (1)

One of those ordinary citizens, expectant mother Karmel Allison, provided a rare unscripted moment when she became woozy as she stood behind the president. Obama, who is much more likeable when he gets out of his near-constant campaign mode, quickly turned to help her as he quipped, "This happens when I talk too long." (2)

There was little else to smile about when the commander-in-chief, stating only the obvious, announced that HealthCare.gov is too slow, that "there's no excuse for the problems," and that "they are being fixed" by "some of the best IT talent in the country." (1) (That might be part of the problem. In the absence of immigration reform, maybe we should be recruiting the IT talent behind some of those fraudulent offshore websites.) At the same time, the president churlishly admonished Republicans who have opposed this law at every turn to stop "rooting for its failure." (1) He sounded like the manager of a losing ballclub who blames opposing fans for booing his players.

Obama's broad points, however, were perfectly fair - and perfectly irrelevant. Eventually, the federal website that provides an individual insurance market for 36 states will be fixed, after a fashion. Consumers will, someday, be able to go online, compare their insurance options, obtain a price that reflects any government subsidies for which they qualify, and sign up.

But it is going to take more than just speeding up the site before that can happen. Though the federal Health and Human Services department has imposed a virtual news blackout on the website's performance, word is leaking out from insurance companies that only a trickle of customers gets through, and that many of those who make it through the maze are being mishandled. Some of the information funneled to insurers is wildly inaccurate, including customers who are reported as having multiple spouses or who have signed up for multiple concurrent insurance policies.

Even after those more serious technical problems are ironed out, we will be left with a law whose fundamental architecture is flawed beyond redemption. The statute gives the sick an ironclad right to obtain insurance they are certain to buy, but healthy people have only a minimally enforced "mandate" to purchase coverage that is inherently overpriced in order to cover those who are already sick. Large employers have already received a one-year reprieve from their own mandate to offer coverage, and many are reducing their full-time headcount anyway, further diminishing the pool of people over whom risk is spread.

It gets worse. Though the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act's basic constitutionality last year, it sided with the roughly half the states that have chosen to opt out of the expansion of Medicaid, which was crucial to the law's goal of providing near-universal coverage. More litigation is underway on the question of whether the law even allows the government to offer, in the 36 states that do not offer their own exchanges, the planned subsidies for coverage for households with income between the poverty level and four times greater. A defeat on that point would mean that Obamacare would require millions of Americans to buy insurance that they simply could not afford, at least if they want to attend to matters such as paying rent or eating. The individual mandate would certainly fall at that point, leaving insurers forced to cover mainly the sick people who would still buy policies - policies whose prices would inevitably spiral upward.

The president faults Republicans for "rooting" for the law to fail. But if Obama and his party wanted GOP buy-in, the time to get it was when legislators were writing the law. It would have been a tedious, messy, uncertain process, and it might not have borne fruit. Yet had Obama asked lawmakers of both parties to help him draft a health care reform plan, he might well have gotten a sound blueprint, just as he did with the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction. (Obama did not ultimately support that deficit plan, but at least the process demonstrated that compromise is possible on difficult issues when the two parties actually work together.)

Right now neither side is being practical. Obama and other Democrats pretend that fixing Obamacare is just a matter of fixing a website. Republicans want to stop Obamacare by any means necessary - but they have no plan whatsoever for what would happen next. If the Affordable Care Act disappeared, we would still be left with serious issues of affordability and availability.

Most Americans wanted someone to do something about these issues. Somebody - namely Democrats - did. Getting what we wanted, and belatedly discovering that it isn't what we really wanted, is going to be the least funny joke of all.

Sources:

1) The Washington Post, "Obama on health-care site: 'There's no excuse for the problems, and they are being fixed.'"

2) The New York Daily News, "'This happens when I talk too long:' President Obama helps fainting audience member during long-winded speech"

A continuing lie from the Right is that Obama is a communist or a totalitarian.

I've lived under Communism, and I can tell these people right now that, if he had been any such thing, they would not be here to say what they are saying.

A Communist, or a totalitarian, would have put these people away in labor camps or had them shot. Instead they are free to spread their lies, using the government-built Internet of all places. And that shows just how far from reality the claims of this kind are.

A Communist would have nationalized the banks and the car manufacturing industry. Instead Obama bailed them out. And while that took a lot of outlays up front, the car manufacturing industry is recovering and is now posting strong gains. Obama has saved American capitalism from what would have been a much worse and much greater crisis. And American capitalism owes a lot to this president.

There are in fact totalitarian-minded people in America, and most of them are on the Right. These people claim that they are America and that the rest of America isn't. These people want to force everyone to be the same person and live the same way. These people want to do everything in their power to prevent Obama administration from being successful, then blame whatever problems there are on Obama and then come riding in proclaiming themselves saviors of America. And they think that the American people would be stupid enough to fall for their gag.

The people who howl wolf become not credible when a real wolf appears. And the real wolves are not on the left; they are on the Right. The Tea Party for one is a completely despicable organization. The problems they claim to address, such as the large deficits, started under Bush; but under Bush the Tea Partiers were nowhere to be seen. Obama had an excuse; he had an economy to rescue. Bush however had no such excuses even as he put America, completely unnecessarily, an additional 5 trillion dollars in debt after Clinton had the debt problem solved.

And that makes the Tea Party complete hypocrites.

Why does Obama get labeled with such ugly things by these people? Obviously because he is not one of them; and the thing that the conservative hates the most is to see someone who is not like himself be in a stronger position than is he. Clinton wasn't of them either, and he got maliciously attacked throughout his administration as well, even though by the standards of conservative "money talks BS walks" logic he was the best president that America has had - as by the standard of peace and prosperity. This is not a problem with Obama, and it is not a problem with Clinton. This is a problem with the American Right.

Not enough is being done to confront these people's lies and abuses; and there should be. When unchecked, conmen pull all sorts of tricks on the people. America's primary education system is so weak that many people fall for these conmen.

It's not enough to just reach the educated people. The rest of the population need to hear the truth as well.

By Ilya Shambat

There was a recent controversy because of a coke commercial in the super bowl. The commercial had people sing, "America the Beautiful" in different languages. The idea behind the commercial was that we are a melting pot. People from all different countries come here. The controversy becomes should you have to know English to live in this country? Well, here's the issue. Practically, there is no way we could have a sign in everyone's native language. I believe that we should cater to the majority on this issue, right now the majority is English. This isn't saying that you can't have alternative signs in different languages if it's feasible and practical. This also means that it doesn't always have to be English.

One of the most divisive things we can do as a country is have hyphenated Americans. What we say is, "Yeah we're all the same, but different groups." This sounds very much like a theory they tried in the 1950s... separate but equal. I will never refer to anyone as an African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American, or European-American. To be fair, I would love to live in a world where I didn't meet someone born in Nigeria and say, "Oh, you're an African." It would be a better experience to meet someone born in Tokyo and not automatically let Asian stereotypes flood my brain. I hate that some people are considered Americans simply because they are born here. Also, if you embrace the idea of America, I will call you American regardless of what color your skin is.

You see the problem with referring to people by nationality is that they have no choice. No one chose to be born in America. I don't think people should be punished because they were born in Mexico. There is a big push to fortify our borders in this country. Given our current setup I can agree, but only because we have a government that gives things to it's people simply for being born or living in this country. If you are against people coming into this nation because of government handouts then we can agree. If you are against people coming into this nation because they look and talk different than you then we cannot agree.

America should be an idea, not a piece of land. In a perfect world, I wish America was a place where all people who embraced the ideals of freedom could gather regardless of where they were born. I also wish that the people who were born in this country who don't embrace the ideals of taking care of yourself and your family, and living in as free of society as possible could relocate to other parts of the world. There they would find systems in place that would fit their plans for how a people should be governed.

No one is hyphenated. We are all Americans if we embrace the ideas. If I lived in a country that the majority spoke Spanish and I could be free. I would rejoice that I could be free, not that most of the people are speaking Spanish. I would rather fill this country up with immigrants of people that were born in other lands that embraced the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, than live in a place that sealed off it's borders and required working people to give 30-40% of their income to a bloated federal government that promised to solve all problems.

My message to people that didn't like the coke commercial. We need more immigrants. We need more people that appreciate the idea that they aren't forced into a religion. We need more people that can speak their mind and not worry about being jailed for saying the wrong things. We need more people that are asking for an opportunity, not a solution. We need to get rid of people who think they are owed something because they can speak English.

I don't believe in a government helping the world, but I also don't believe in a government giving things to it's people. If you look down upon people because they come to this country to work, and they aren't taking anything from the government, then shame on you. I would rather have 100 illegals come into this country willing to work, than 1 "American" who thinks a job is beneath them. America is an idea, and you should be able to be here if you share the idea, regardless of where you're born. You should also be asked to leave if you don't share the idea, regardless of where you're born.

By Paul Dickens

The goal of most citizens living in the United States and of our government is to have our country considered a democratic country. Most U.S. citizens would like to see the world governed by democratically elected governments.

What is a democracy? A good definition is: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." There are a few caveats, if this definition is accepted by those living in the United States.

Does the United States have a true democracy if it accepts less than 100% of the eligible voters voting? In fact, the U.S. usually gets just over half of the eligible voters voting. If the U.S. is a democracy, then those not voting are actually voting negatively. Nonvoting citizens are openly stating that they don't like the choices. Therefore, if the U.S. is to be a true democracy, more choices and probably mandatory voting laws are necessary.

What if an elected person acts illegally or gives false information to the population? Is not that person violating the trust of the people who elected him/her to hold those democratic powers? Democracy has to work on trust, the trust of the people in their representatives. Representatives, who accept money because of their position to make laws, destroy the trust the people need to have for true representatives. Accepting bribes from lobbyists also impairs the work turned out; for the results will naturally be slanted towards the positions of those providing the money.

It must be accepted that, on each level of government, a representative represents a specific group of people. A true representative might also see issues on the basis of the whole democracy (country). Still, representatives are required to represent those who elected them. The United States has representatives, known as senators, who are elected by the whole state. Senators should represent the people of their entire state, but should see beyond the state level to the national level.

This has not been the case. Individuals, such as our president, are elected at large, and should act differently. The president must assume a unique office in relation to other countries of the world. Almost every other country has a sovereign head as well as an executive head. Canada has both a prime minister and a sovereign head appointed by the Queen of England. The president of the U.S. holds both offices. The president needs to be nonpolitical in order to truly be a democratic head of state. Unfortunately, the U.S. presidents have been very political.

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover became head of the FBI. Under his leadership, which lasted until his death in 1972, the U.S. became sort of a police state. J. Edgar Hoover collected files on Americans from all levels of society. Members of the government were the most important for him. No politician would go against Hoover or the FBI, for he had the goods on most of them. That is why he died in office.

The United States is far from being a true democracy by allowing all these deviations and corruptions to continue. The U.S. has been able to get along over the course of its history. Those times of trouble have been when very political people try to advance their particular political principles upon the country. Usually these political positions have not been for the nations good or accepted by the general population. The United States has first need to champion democracy itself before it could successfully champion democracy to the world. We are currently in such times. "We the people" must work hard to obtain democratic principles if we want a true democracy. If we don't live with democratic principles, we will continue to have all the disgraceful actions of those in power and those who feel above the law. The United States will constantly experience swings in policies if the presidency continues to change parties and thus the policies. By Chester P. Soling

The recent actions of the ECB and the Federal Reserve have driven the final nail in the coffin of Capitalism and Democracy. Both these cornerstones of our civilization have been on life support for years. Central bankers decided last week to 'pull the plug'. Capitalism and Democracy will be replaced with a hybrid economic system combining the attributes of the old Soviet Union's command economy, the Oligarchy's of South America and efficiency and integrity of today's of today's economic system [with a dose of fascism thrown in for good measure].

"Rubbish, you declare", "Poppycock", "More left wing ranting". Fair enough dear reader, at this point in history you are still allowed your own opinion, but before you click away you should consider the following realities.

Capitalism, as defined by Wikipedia is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Let us consider the following realities. Only then can we understand how our central bankers performed the 'coup de grace'.

Global spending on Weapons was 1.74 trillion in 2012. For many countries particularly the United States the largest employer in the 'private' industry is the weapons industry. In the United States, if one includes the postal service and the military over 3 million people work for the Federal Government. [Imagine if we included state and local government employees in this number] In every developed country in the world the civil service is by, far the largest employer in the country. The second largest employers are those industries or sectors such as weapons, health care or education that receive their revenue from the government. The developed world is no longer served by government. The developed world is dependent on government spending to maintain, not improve, their current lifestyle. Private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit exists only as curious anachronism in small pockets around the world. One could not possibly argue that worldwide, the automobile, banking, weapons and health care industries exist only at the pleasure of government spending. The survival of these industries is reliant on favorable government support, spending and regulation.

In simple terms most societies in their current form only because our governments borrow money from future generations to keep civil servants employed and captive industries on life support. Competition and survival of the fittest, truisms of capitalism do not exist anymore. The concepts of entrepreneur, merit, hard work, pride, sacrifice, choices, work ethic, patience, effort, pay as you go, integrity, truth, risk reward, moral hazard fairness and equality are, of course, now obsolete. To survive going forward the key will be one's ability to ''get me some of that newly printed money".

Now let us consider democracy. Once again let us use Wikipedia's definition that defines Democracy as 'a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally -- either directly or through elected representative.' Dear reader, surely the death of democracy is not something we need to debate. It is self evident. No, "you still believe in democracy, you still believe that your vote counts". Please consider the following words and phrases carefully. Create an image your mind as to what each word or phrase means the system of government known as democracy: Gerrymandering, Hanging Chad's, QE 1, QE 2, unlimited campaign spending by individuals and corporations, "corporations are people too" Bailout conditions, Operation Twist, QE 3, technocrat government, TARP, Wall Street bailout, lobbying, Greece, Spain Italy, ECB terms and conditions for bond buying campaign. There are more words to help paint this picture but I do not want these disturbing images, that I imagine you created in your mind, to cause you Post Traumatic Stress. These are not words that were spawned in the evolution of democracy. These words evolved as democracy evolved into a more sinister system that left the world with the 'illusion of democracy'.

Let us now connect the dots that connect the death of capitalism and democracy to the recent actions of our central bankers. By announcing in tandem over the last couple of weeks that both federal reserve and the ECB, both led by unelected officials, that they would expand their asset purchasing [ Oh Please can we all just agree to call it money printing]. The central banks have irrevocably committed their respective governments to a course of action that is done without public consent, understanding or referendum. These have enacted fiscal policy disguised as monetary policy that will handcuff the "citizen taxpayer's" ability to manage government finances for, well, forever.

This course of action will cause a misallocation capital of historic proportions. On 'Main Street' the theft [via artificially low interest rates] of retirement income from retirees, who diligently accumulated retirement capital during their working years to provide interest income in their retirement will continue unabated. [In some ways, you have to admire baby boomers for their audacity and hubris to steal from their parents via artificially low rates as well as their children and grandchildren through absurd government borrowing. This is done to maintain the lifestyle boomers have become accustomed to. The boomers are like a Robin Hood from an alternate bizarre dimension. The boomer Robin Hood steals from old and young and keeps the money for himself] 'Moral Hazard' has been removed from decision making process. It has been replaced with a modern version of "I'm all right Jack."

Governments will be able to spend in an unlimited fashion, immorally with no fear of punishment by the bond market vigilantes. Dear reader, 'How could government spending be immoral?' you ask. When our governments spend money we don't have on goods and services we cannot afford or do not need, at prices that are not determined by a free market capitalist system only to leave the 'Butcher's Bill' to our children and grandchildren that is immoral, undemocratic and definitely not how capitalism works.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", or so said Winston Churchill. But democracy cannot be that bad, can it? To answer let's take a short walk through democracy in America.Who is eligible to vote?

In theory democracy is simple enough. One person, one vote and the majority wins. But politics make democracy hard in practice. Start with the fundamental question - who has the right to vote? Originally that was only adult white males (the Constitution didn't require property ownership). With time ex- slaves (15th amendment, 1870) and then women (19th, 1920) received the franchise. Our current voter profile was finally set when the residents of Washington DC gained Electoral College votes (23rd, 1961) and the franchise was guaranteed to 18 year-olds (26th, 1971).

Actually there is more. Ex-felons' right to vote depends on where they live. If you don't think that matters consider the 2000 Presidential election. It's possible that, if Florida had let ex-felons vote, Gore would have been the President.

If you have the right to vote, does that mean you will be able to?

A putative constitutional right to vote doesn't guarantee your ability to vote; states have and continue to put hurdles on the way to the ballot box. Before the Supreme Court struck them down, literacy tests and poll taxes disqualified the poor and uneducated. (In a cynical exercise, some states 'grandfathered' voters if they or an ancestor was eligible to vote in 1867 - before blacks got the franchise).

People in power will rarely cede any advantage. When one means of suppressing votes is barred another will spring up. In states dominated by one party, the primaries are the election. Some state political parties barred blacks from voting in these primaries arguing that as private entities their primaries weren't subject to federal election law. Today ID requirements and cumbersome registration practices serve to restrict the vote.
Physical impediments can lower turnout. Targeted precincts may have fewer voting machines or longer journeys to a voting site. Voting methods or the ballot itself can confuse the voter. (2000 introduced us to the now infamous 'butterfly ballot' and dangling, swinging and pregnant chads.)

When the fox guards the hen house

Independent management of voting would solve these problems, but voting conditions are controlled by politicians. It is hard to pretend that democracy is legitimate when the 'ins' have significant influence over the process that keeps them 'in'. Florida 2000 is once again an egregious example. Katherine Harris, who as Secretary of State was responsible for elections, called a halt to the recounts with George W. Bush 537 votes ahead. Fair enough. Except that in addition to her state position she was also co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign.

Populations increase and decrease, people move. Every ten years the census counts these changes and congressional seat allocation by state is adjusted. Congressional districts are redrawn to account for the adjustment and the movement of people within the state. Five states have independent or ad-hoc committees to redraw the boundaries; Florida (ironically) has some rules on redistricting. But, as long as the process doesn't impact minority rights, in 44 states the party in power has carte blanche to redraw the districts.

The election map is distorted to lump opposition voters together in a few districts while leaving allies a majority in the bulk of them. This political adventurism is as old as the Republic. Its name, gerrymandering, is a legacy of a Congressional district drawn by Elbridge Gerry's party in 1812 Massachusetts that reminded some of a salamander.

The process and how it renders many voters irrelevant

In the US representation is 'first past the post'. The make-up of Congress is based on a district by district result and not the overall vote. (In 'proportional representation' a party is awarded seats based on its percentage of the popular vote.) Voters who live in 'safe districts' are therefore irrelevant. It doesn't matter if their representative is elected with 62% or 92% of the vote, it still just one seat, with no additional national significance.

Our political system was created to balance the rights of small and large states which leaves voters from small states with a disproportionate amount of influence. 564,000 Wyomingites have the same clout in the Senate as 37 million Californians.

This disparity in influence is compounded in the general election. The President is elected, not directly, but by a vote of the Electoral College. And because each state's electoral votes is equal to its number of Representatives plus two Senators, voters in small states again profit. Each of Vermont's 3 Electoral College votes represents 208,000 Vermonters; each of Texas's 38 votes represents 661,000 Texans.

Adding to this disparity is the custom of giving all of a state's electoral votes to the winner. The citizens of states that consistently vote for the same party have no role in electing the President. Massachusetts last voted Republican in 1984. Kansas last voted Democrat in 1964.

Democracy in America

Democracy in America is compromised by disenfranchisement; it is compromised by political interference; it is compromised by the very design of our government. But the greatest damage to our democracy comes from a self-inflicted wound. Half of us don't vote. And of those that do, many don't pay much attention.
Winston Churchill was scathing: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter".

Jefferson however had a solution: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."Which might explain why many politicians are so strident in discrediting teachers and the media; if you cannot stop people voting then at least keep them uneducated and ill-informed. By Pitt Griffin

True democracy should be about unity at the core, and balance. Democracy is about the people determining what is best for their nation as a whole. The people have the power and they must insure the unity and balance is not taken from them... for this could happen unexpectedly.

Perhaps democracy is only a dream today, or more like an illusion; a ghost of what once was. We believe in democracy, in America, because we want to. In the same manner as a faithful person wants to believe in God. The idea of a loving creator is nice to imagine, just like the idea of a political system uniting humanity and bringing an end to tyranny may also be a pleasant thought. Seeking after philosophical ways of making logical sense in how a loving God governs a world like ours; people can debate for years on such an issue. Neither side can prove though, without a shadow of a doubt that there is, or is not, a loving God. How could people prove democracy is more than a dream today, more than an illusion?

Like America, Rome was a Republic with democratic values. The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers, and today's modern democracies imitate the Roman and Greek models. The major difference from the Roman Republic model, (and one of the primary reasons our modern day democracy may be so flawed), is the fact our present political leaders are paid millions of dollars for being in their positions. In ancient Rome the political leaders chose to serve their nation without payment. They earned their money by other means while viewing their job as senators to be an honor, since they were able to serve those less fortunate. In the days of the Republic, before Julius Caesar shook things up, the people knew the senators cared about helping to bring a balance to Rome.

The political, cultural, and economic forces which held the Roman Empire together were removed because of Economic fragmentation, eventually leading to the Dark Ages. Following the economical mistakes made in Rome the empire continued to digress because of the crumbling of political, military, and other social institutions, along with invasions from outside peoples, and usurpers from within the empire. The Roman Empire held onto their particular values in politics for a time, but eventually they allowed outside influences to change these values, and wash away the foundations of the Republic. Rome started to lose their identity as others came in from foreign lands and started to change the Roman individuality. In summary, the economy collapsed, outside influences started to change Rome, and eventually too many wars, attacks, and dependence on the crumbling government brought about the ultimate fall of Rome... The loss of democratic values was subtle at first, and then by the time the people depended unequivocally upon the power of their leader, or government, their leaders had little to offer. The damage from all the mistakes made in Rome drained the economy, and helped make the populace an ignorant people who depended too much on the "elite" for help. Soon the Dark Ages followed after what was left of the empire crumbled...

Today America is the great empire, or as the world believes, the great democratic nation. the march on Wall Street, the fact that more than six in ten Americans oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, (according to a new national poll), the protests against government spending, and our government officials being unable to unite so as to solve our present economical woes; these problems should not face a properly ran democracy. If the people want the issue resolved in a Democratic Nation, then the issue should be resolved, or else this is not a system of government based on the principle of majority decision making.

Instead of tyranny and a dictatorship, democracy provides opportunities for the people to control how their nation is ran. The political "leaders" should work for the people, and the people can oust them without need for violence, or any sort of revolution. Why are the people ignored today by their political leaders' in America? If the people declare, "we want to stop fighting. We want the war to end", then the soldiers' should be brought home. Despite the argument on whether something may be a good idea or a bad idea; the people determine what will be done. For better or worse, they should receive what they demand, or else face the truth that they no longer live in a truly democratic nation. If the leaders ignore what the majority want and they decide to do what they feel is best, (despite what the citizens want), then how can such a nation still be defined as democratic?

The idea of democracy and the importance of this political ideal can be summarized in the word "unity". Democracy is supposed to be about something bigger than one's self. Democracy is bigger than ones culture, ones past, one's personal desires. Democracy is supposed to be a balanced system where what is best for humanity as a whole is focused on instead what may be best for an individual or a group of a select privileged few. If our motive is love for something greater than ourselves, no ingratitude will hinder us from serving our fellow man. Democracy should be about love for humanity and equality. There is an idea that one's love for self is most important. Conclusively an individual will end up hurting themselves and those they love if they only depend on their selves. Every individual is flawed and their emotions lead to more trouble. Democracy was meant to unite a nation and preserve freedom and justice for all. It's quite clear in our nation's history that the founding fathers' wanted those in our democracy to believe in something greater than self. Sadly most live for themselves first in our nation today, and unity doesn't last... A house divided will fall.

The people believe in democracy in America, because we want to... Is this a democratic nation or a crumbling empire where the people place their allegiance in the leaders more than in the values their nation was founded upon? We are surely not united and balanced today. The political leaders cannot even unite to fix our economic crises. The people can't seem to unite and succeed in receiving what they ask for. Is democracy an illusion, a ghost of what once was? Ultimately if democracy has failed in our nation, this is because we, the people, have failed our nation.
By L. L Brunk

Democracy is not just a form of government but also a way of life for a very large section of the world's population. Democracy was developed as a form of government in ancient Greece and was based on a set of values, principles and ideals. Democracy was meant to be an institution for the people's welfare and not for the welfare of the state or those who run the state. These values and ideas have changed over the centuries and what we have today is democracy in its multifaceted forms. Today we have Liberal Democracy, People's Democracy, Basic Democracy, Guided Democracy and also Christian or Islamic Democracy. The term democracy has been changed and perverted beyond recognition. Democracy was meant to be an ideal form of government in which citizens were considered equal and opportunities for growth were not limited for just a chosen few. Democracy functions as a result of public opinion and it is this aspect of public opinion that makes democracy truly liberal.

In a liberal democracy public opinion forms the centre piece for all functions of the federal and state government. The people in a liberal democracy are the true sovereigns. It is the people who determine who forms the government or who becomes the chief executive of a nation state. But in a large population all cannot form the executive and make decisions and hence this responsibility is delegated to elected representatives. In a liberal democracy these elected representatives are truly answerable to the people. It is this sovereignty of the people that makes a liberal democracy unique. When elected representatives begin to misuse the sovereignty of the people for their personal gain then that is no longer a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy it is the will of the people that determines policy and the legislature legislates according to this will of the populace. If this were not the case then even dictators could cry out loudly that their dictatorship is a legitimate democracy.

In a liberal democracy like the United States, the representatives are responsible for fulfilling the aspirations of the people. It is through periodic elections that they can be held accountable to the electorate. There are checks and balances in a liberal democracy. Through periodic elections, the right to recall a representative and tabling of a no confidence vote, an elected representative is held to account.

Sadly, however these traits are now missing in the modern-day democracy. This is observed even in the United States. This country was founded on the principles of individual liberty and freedom. The founding fathers of America such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington desired that the federal government should play as small a role as possible and that individual freedom was above and beyond government control. The government was supposed to be small while individual enterprise was allowed to grow and prosper. This was the message that the framers of the constitution gave to the people of America and all those who were to form the government in times to follow. This is liberal democracy as it was meant to be and desired by the founding fathers. The federal government was not to intervene in all social and economic issues.

Today, in the United States, the concepts epitomized by the founding fathers are taking a back seat. The federal government is no longer a passive player in socio-economic affairs of various states and individuals but is beginning to play a greater role in the everyday lives of Americans. Democrats and Republicans are at logger heads over the role the federal government should play in the spheres of banking and finance. The Obama administration wants to play an ever-increasing role in health care and medi-care. Social security and pension funds are beginning to come under government control and the government net is widening every day. This is against the tenets of a liberal democracy.

Republicans are conservatives but they seem to simply oppose the Barack Obama administration for the sake of opposition. They do not seem to have an agenda that would really make the roots of liberal democracy stronger. The idea of the aspiring Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain, to introduce the new taxation code 9-9-9 is a joke. It is anti liberal and not in keeping with the principles of a liberal democracy. Under this new taxation code many poor and middle class Americans will end up paying more tax than they are doing so now! Is that how a liberal democracy works?

All over America there are signs that this great nation is no longer a fully functioning liberal democracy. Wall Street is far more important to the present set of politicians than "Main Street". Such non-liberal politicians exist on both sides of the aisle. The concepts of liberal democracy are being trampled on everyday and Americans feel helpless. The recent "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations are a sign that finally Americans are waking up to this bitter fact.

In a liberal democracy private enterprise is given a free hand but not at the cost of a vast majority of citizens. Private enterprise cannot be given a free reign by imposing stricter government regulations. All over the United States there are signs that small private businesses are on the decline. Why is this happening? This is because the government is beginning to control private enterprise by imposing more taxes, penalties and regulations that simply cannot be met. This should not be happening in a liberal democracy. The government must not exercise so much control in a liberal democracy.

On the other hand take a close hard look at how the American Government handles Wall Street and the "Big Banks". Sometimes one wonders whether the American Government is really in control of America's finances. Or is it the Federal Reserve? The government actually allows the Federal Reserve to behave as a completely independent institution without any government oversight. Has there ever been a complete audit of the Federal Reserve? The fact is that no one really knows who controls the Federal Reserve! The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, appears to do everything to please the big banks and the fat financiers on Wall Street. He talks of "quantitative easing" and doles out millions of dollars to big banks as bailouts but what about bailing out the common man on the streets of America.

Yes, once in a while he does report to the banking and finance oversight committee but it is merely a sham. It appears as if it is just a put up job! Most Americans do not even know that the Federal Reserve is a private bank and is not the official bank of the American Government. This is incredible! The biggest and most influential bank which carries the name "Federal Reserve" is a private bank! It is merely a tool for some big rich families with hereditary titles to become richer at the cost of the American middle class. This is absurd! Is this the idea of a "Liberal Democracy"? Did the founding fathers have this in mind and was this their idea of a liberal democracy?

For America to become a true liberal democracy, it must go back to the tenets laid down in the "Declaration of Independence". Therein Americans will find how far wrong they have gone. It clearly states that governments are instituted to uphold the inalienable rights of its citizens and that all men are created equal. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all should be the aim of every liberal democracy but the present situation in America is far from this desired goal. For a long while it has appeared that the government has always catered to the needs of the 1% rich Americans while the remaining 99% Americans are left to the mercy of fate. It is time for these remaining 99% to call for change and make sure that a true liberal democracy is established on Capitol Hill.

In about a year, fresh elections will take place and Americans should put aside their differences and ensure that a liberal democracy is put into the white house to ensure the prosperity of all Americans. Irrespective of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, it is essential that the "Greed of Wall Street" be replaced by the "Need of Main Street". This would be truly representative of a liberal democracy and a new and debt free America. And may God bless America.

By Abhinav GL

Americans hate Socialism. It is perhaps the worst insult that a Conservative can smear a Liberal with. But as with so many insults it is used inaccurately; in this case as a blanket condemnation of any Government presence in business.

If Government proposes a regulation - that is 'socialist'. If Government adds a worker safety law - that is 'socialist'. If Government proposes a consumer credit protection agency - that is 'socialist'. If Government proposes laws to protect the environment - that is 'socialist'. If Government tries to reduce the price of prescription drugs - that is 'socialist'.

Anything that the Government does that protects the average American from the rapaciousness of business is 'socialist'.

Who says so? Well the voices may be from the 'average Joe', but the money for the anti-government campaigns and the money to buy the politicians to parrot the company line comes from business.

Why should business do this? Do you have to ask? A corporation's fiduciary responsibility is to it shareholders; spending money to protect their workers, customers or the environment is seen as detracting from its mission.

Conservatives argue that it is in the Corporation's best interest to not cheat or poison its customers. But that contention is not supported by the facts.

Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, the housing bubble, the savings and loan crisis, Long Term Capital, industrial food, PCBs, Love Canal - do I have to go on? Business takes short cuts, usually with bad consequences to individual finances, personal health, the environment and the economy.

But despite this litany of abuse there are many who cling to the 'marketplace' as being the best guarantor of ethical behavior. As Franklin (or maybe Einstein) is supposed to have said "The definition of insanity is to do something over and expecting different results."

Back in the day when most business was local it made sense for businessmen to behave ethically, after all they lived in the community, their kids went to school with your kids and reputation was important. Now the chances of corporate executives living in your neighborhood and their children going to school with yours are remote (nonexistent?).

The only reputation that counts is how much you are worth. Nobody even knows who is responsible for anything anymore. Bank of America is America's largest bank; can you name its CEO?

Politicians are not usually the most talented of people, but unlike corporate executives they do have to go to the electorate periodically and ask to keep their job. Usually they do get to keep it, but at least we have the option to 'throw the bums out'.

I would rather have a say in the process (no matter how minor) than relying on American business to do the right thing.

I hope that American companies continue to prosper and start hiring again. I think that Capitalism (genuine capitalism - but that is a future post) is the best system for creating wealth and prosperity. I think that entrepreneurship, risk taking and hard work should be rewarded. It is obvious and apparent that it was American business and the American work ethic that drove the US to preeminence.

But to think that American business is capable or even willing to police itself is deluded. Let business generate money and jobs, but let our Government ("of the people, by the people, for the people") look out for our interests.

Umpires and referees are not called socialists, but they do the same thing for sports that our government should do for business. No one like the officials penalizing their team and all of us prefer that the officials' role should remain small and discrete. But we all realize that without them, you couldn't play the game.

By Pitt Griffin

American Flag Star Italian Charm	American Flag and Statue of Liberty Italian Charm	American Flag Black Laser Charm
American Flag Heart Italian Charm	Waving American Flag	America Italian Charm
Classic American Flag	American Flag State	American Flag with Yellow Ribbon

More patriotic Fourth of July Italian Charms and other Italian Charms

When it comes to the political parties many individuals choose either Republican or the Democrat side. If you are wondering which side you should choose and you have already read about the Republican Party then you will be happy to know that this article will be telling you all about the Democrat Party.

First we would like to start by telling you that Democrats have been around for a very long time now. In fact, the Democratic Party is known for being around the longest in the United States of America. You see the Democrat Party is pretty big because it just so happens to be one out of two of the major political parties to be found in the United States of America. The other party that follows behind the Democrat Party is known as the Republican Party.

If you try to trace the origins of the Democratic Party then you can trace it back to the Democratic-Republican Party. This party emerged in the year 1792. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by a number of Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. When the division of the Republican Party came out in the year 1912 the Democratic Party has been positioned to the left when it comes to the economic views along with the social matters. Since the year 1932 the one individual that has shaped the Democratic Party the most was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Then in the 1960's we had the civil rights movement and that seemed to make the Democratic Party stronger.

In the year 2004 the Democrats were more popular than the Republicans. This is because there was seventy two million individuals registered to vote under the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is currently known to be the majority party when it comes to the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party currently holds the majority when it comes to the House of Representatives along with the Democratic caucus. Also holding the majority when it comes to the state governorships is the Democratic Party. For the year 2008 we have a Democrat running for president and that is Senator Barack Obama. Barack Obama is from Illinois and it looking to be president of the United States of America on the Democrat side.

Have you ever wondered who is the one's responsible when it comes to promoting the champaign activities on the Democrat side? It is the Democratic National Committee or DNC. Currently the Democratic National Committee is being chaired by Howard Dean and he was the former Governor of Vermont. Have you ever noticed how we are being separated by political parties? The individuals who are Republicans are constantly downing the Democrats while the Democrats are downing the Republicans at the same time.

Ian Pennington is an accomplished niche website developer and author.
To learn more about democrats, please visit Conservatives and Liberals Today for current articles and discussions.

Politics are a mine field of comedy which will never run out. Those who want to go mining will always be assured. It is there when a country is peaceful and when a country is undergoing a crisis.

Just as Kenya emerged from political crisis after December 2007 general election, President Mwai Kibaki and Raila together arrived to grace International golf competition at Karen Country Club in Nairobi. This act was a sort of comedy. Just a few days ago such a scene could not be imagined. The Prime Minister designate arrive in a fleet of convoy with two guards in one car looking funny after they looked to have overdid their security stunts. Two soldiers, one on each side both quickly popped outside and stood at the door holding the top of the car doors as their support before they jump outside. One of them looked too huge to have a tiny door as his support.

Then several Days after, the Prime Minister designate, Raila Odinga and constitutional minister Martha Karua were together in what was termed as a luncheon. The two have for a long time been bitter rivals that when they meet in what was claimed to be a luncheon and appear in a television, they looked so unnatural. Each sat several feet from each other and look like theywere part og an audience. Each had a surprised and scared face. However, in the months they managed to sit close together and even managed a couple of smiles at each other.

And one of the most comical MPs in the Kenyan Ninth Parliament but who lost in the election has since attended state opening of parliament and appear in several political gatherings. Mr. Kalembe Ndile is a perfect comic in what would otherwise have become a boring Ukambani politics, (Ukambani meaning an area inhabited by the AKamba people of Kenya). When he was made an Assistant Minister for Tourism and Wildlife in the Previous Parliament, he promised to distribute elephants to all the districts in Kenya because it was becoming a menace in a few districts, destroying crops. He said that Kenya should share problems caused by elephants. No one would know when he is serious in what he says and does and when he is not.

By Samwel Kipsang

I have always prided myself on being an informed voter. I watch the primaries before and after voting has already taken place in my own state. It has always amazed me how a station can project a winner minutes after the polls have closed and with a few exceptions are correct.

I was watching the results of the Indiana and North Carolina elections last night and the victory speeches of both candidates. I have watched the pundits for what seems like years now saying it is impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama and asking why she keeps staying in. Neither one can win enough delegates to win the nomination so it is going to come down to the "super delegates". First of all, this is a totally ridiculous system to my thinking. I think the electoral college itself is a joke. Anyway, the Fox Channel is interviewing Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina who is an uncomfirmed super delegate asking him if he has decided. He says that he hasn't because he is going over the data from the precincts and counties in his state before he reaches a decision. At the time, Obama has already been declared the winner and is leading by over 25 points. He wound up winning by 14. Does anyone else look at Rep. Miller and question I wonder why our government doesn't work?

Another thing that made me go hmmm was watching the exit poll questions and percentages. Over 60% of both Indiana and North Carolina voters thought both Obama and Clinton were honest. I must have missed something somewhere. Less than a month ago, Hillary stated she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire which was proven visually that was wrong. Obama sat in the pew of his church listening to a minister spew hate rhetoric but never heard it. Yet, over 60% of the voters in these 2 states think they are honest. I realize none of us are perfect but how can any reasonably intelligent, rational, logical person think they are honest? Are they saying they are honest most of the time? I don't understand that premise.

I think it is great that record numbers of people are registering and subsequently voting in the primaries, but I wonder and yes question how truly informed they are. Are they making their choice based on a campaign worker knocking on their door giving them some signs and pins and driving them to the registration place? Based on the answers given in exit polls it sure does seem that way

http://www.randyblessingsemporium.com

Does Socialism work? To find out the answer to this question, all we have to do is visit the nearest Native American reservation. While it is fashionable to blame high unemployment rates, economic stagnation and ill-health on the effects of being a conquered peoples, I maintain that it is due to Native peoples adherence to the socialistic tribal structure, both culturally and economically.

I am always amazed with people who advocate socialism as a solution to the problems facing us. I would venture to say that those individuals have never lived or worked in a socialistic society. If they had, they would see that socialism only can work on a very limited and small scale.

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand tells a story about a motor company in which the credo, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need", was applied. In this story, it shows how the company deteriorates because people soon learn that the get what they want, they have to prove how needy they are. Each person has to show that "their" need is greater than another's, and those with ability end up working more and more to provide for the "needs" of others. In other words, they were slaves to the "collective".

Aguste Comte, in his Catechisme Positiviste, said that "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, who we are entirely."

"The social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights." This sentence needs to be burned into our souls.

Altruism also has been defined as, "serving others through placing their interests above one's own."

When the state decides to put altruism into practice the method used is socialism.

I was raised in what Indian's call the "dominant" society of the 1950's and 1960's in a small logging town in Oregon. At one time I asked my father why we did not live by the old reservation around other Indian's and he replied, "I didn't want you kids raised with the belief that somebody owed you something". He also was adamant that we work for whatever luxuries we wanted. At the time, I thought he was just mean and cheap.

The last 16 years I have lived on our small reservation. I have also visited and studied many other reservations in America. Most of them have attempted to use socialism as their economic remedy. If you want to see how socialism works all you have to do is look at Native American reservation's. They still have the highest un-employment. The poorest health, lowest standard of living and highest death rate pro rated.

What I have observed is people are grateful when some of their needs are being met via a socialistic entity; then people start expecting their needs too be met; and then they start demanding their needs be met. They not only expect what was already given, but demand even more benefits.

Intellectually, socialism sounds wonderful. In reality it creates slaves. Some individuals are slaves by providing the benefits to and for others, and some are slaves to their neediness.

Here is a quote by Frederic Bastiat...... (This was written in the 1840's, about 100 years before FDR. Since the 1940's, most of the problems Mr. Bastiat foresaw have occurred in the U.S.)

"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody;...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.

Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitical and voracious intermediary?...

Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged.

Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs."

Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." from Journal des Economistes

I have witnessed the harm done by socialism. I have seen it sap the integrity, motivation, honesty, and dreams of individuals. I have seen it create slaves. I have seen its seductive promises induce people to betray family members and friends.

I have seen socialism create the entitlement mentality. I have watched my sons accept the false premises that we are put on this earth to expend our lives, talents and ability to the "collective".

I have attempted to talk with them. I have tried to explain why they should not accept the fact that they will work over one half of their lives for the benefit of politicians and the government. However, as many of you know who have children, parents do not know much.

It saddens me. I told my oldest son that one of the reasons I sobered up 30 years ago, was because I was not going to be a bum on society or my family. I am not going to sit idly by and let our government institute programs and policies so my children will be slaves to me even "after" I am dead.

This issue is "not" just an interesting debate or intellectual exercise. Socialism kills, not just individuals but all the things that make an individuals life on this earth worthwhile.

Don't believe me?

As I suggested, just do a little research on the conditions on most reservations in this country.

http://rblacketer.ipower.com/

Senator Hillary Clinton is struggling to keep her democratic nomination alive today though she was the overwhelming favorite just three months back - in December 2007.

The reason for this is simple: Senator Clinton's almost-perfect certitude in December 2007 that she would prevail. That certitude was reasonable by most objective measures. Senator Clinton did not come to that conclusion lightly. She came to that conclusion after evaluating her competition -- Senator Barack Obama (lack of national exposure and party network) and former Vice-Presidential Candidate John Edwards (has been there already and not succeeded, not a fresh face, a bit too populist) -- and after assessing her own strengths (experience, knowledge, party network.)

Objectively, any external consultant would have agreed with Senator Clinton's assessment of the political landscape as it appeared in December 2007.

As anticipated, John Edwards put up a spirited fight, and then suspended his campaign. But Senator Barack Obama's surprising and resilient strength is just that -- most surprising.

However, in public life, every now and then a candidate who is in almost-complete sync with the public mood emerges, and he/she captures the imagination (e.g, Reagan in 1980 after failing to connect in 1968, and almost succeeding in 1976.) Usually, there are many institutional speed bumps to such a sweep (e.g., Gary Hart in 1984.)

That's what we find with Senator Obama's success this time -- he has captured the broad sweep of imagination of at least the Democratic Party voters, and he is running into many speed bumps but none of them has (yet) derailed him.

Senator Hillary Clinton, nor any one including Senator Obama, could have anticipated this. Nor could any poll have captured this -- it is like asking consumers about wine-coolers when they have no idea what it is.

That is the stuff of public mood and public life. There is a season for things, and quite often we don't control those flows. Senator Obama himself acknowledges and understands this ("fierece urgency of now" quoting Dr. King) -- he may not match the public sentiment in the next season, he does now.

In spite of Senator Barack Obama's surprising strength, Senator Clinton could have still, probably, won the Democratic Party nomination but her well-placed confidence and certitude led to two tactical misjudgments that are now costing her so dearly.

The two misjudgments are: (i) not competing in party caucuses vigorously (among the pledged delegates from the primaries, Senator Clinton trails only by about 20 pledged delegates but when you factor the caucus results, Senator Clinton trails by over 150 pledged delegates); and (ii) not doing enough due diligence about the Democratic Party rules, and absorbing and internalizing those rules for proper strategy execution [e.g., believing that victory in big states should provide the numbers (not so because of proportional representation rules), not absorbing the Texas dual system.]

That's the way life is sometimes. Timing (and some may call it luck or providence) is such a determinant in life. Just as Bill Clinton was wise (or lucky) in taking a pass at the 1988 Presidential elections and equally wise (or lucky) in joining the fray in 1992, Senator Hillary Clinton's time may have been 2004 or it may be 2012 or 2016.

It appears from all conventional metrics that the mood of the electorate favors the Democratic nominee in fall but who really knows? No poll can measure this.

© Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram (2007)
Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram is a management consultant and a professor. He can be reached at gurumurthy.kalyanaram(at)gmail.com