Reforming Democracy

I’m going to answer both of these at the same time because I think they touch on each other.

Thinking about this last night, I came up with something that I hope puts this into perspective. I prioritized my ideological allegiances as follows:

1. reality (science/objectivity)
2. freedom (conservatism)
3. socialism (liberalism)

That’s the order of my priorities. I think overall I’m more enamoured by the conservative view than the liberal view (remember back when I declared myself to be mildly left-leaning? Well, there’s been a change since then. ). But topping my list is my commitment to reality itself, and for that, I need to learn from reality, not cling to some ideology I pledged an oath to some time in the past, and I know no better way of learning from reality than to withhold judgement until I can gather enough solid scientific evidence of what reality holds in store. This is why I said to Eric (and I think he agreed) that any move towards the conservative social system must strictly follow only after scientific evidence has been amassed proving that it works (say by comparing more socialized states to less socialized states).

What this means, however, is that I hold no expectations that the right is totally correct in all its views nor that the left is totally correct, but that the science will bear out, in all probability, that on some points the right is correct but on other points the left is correct (that’s my expectation–though you could be right that, in this particular case, it will so happen to turn out that the right is overwhelmingly correct on 99% of the issues–but that hasn’t been confirmed in my mind yet). In other words, I expect to be somewhat dispersed across the spectrum, and the reason why I think (at least in my case) that this is not a matter of gut feeling is that, by sticking with a scientific/objective attitude in regards to these things, I have something with which to check my biases and prejudices–that is to say, if I allow the evidence to guide where I stand, then I have a “correctional tool” with which to adjust my biases.

Compare that with someone who takes a certain position because “well, I’m a conservative/liberal and that’s what conservatives/liberals are supposed to believe, so I’m going to believe it.” ← That is a clear example of bias in my opinion.

I should probably also point out the difference between stating where I stand and taking a stance. They’re different. When I say that I take various positions all over the spectrum, I am only stating where I currently stand, but that doesn’t mean I’m inflexible or that a refuse to be persuaded. Taking a stance, on the other hand, is more than just stating where you stand, but it is to defend where you stand and obstinately resist being persuaded. The latter, to me, is a clear indication of a bias (it means you’ve got some emotional investment in where you stand, something to lose if you’re wrong), whereas the former is simply a statement of fact about your current point of view (it doesn’t mean you’re emotionally tied to it and therefore it may not cloud your judgement as easily when thinking about alternative views).

I think what we’re talking about here is cognitive dissonance. There comes a point at which one finds one’s self resisting the temptation to create the us/them boundary between two groups in their mind because of the values and principles of egalitarianism and humanism that they’ve committed themselves to. However, I think such values and principles also prevent the temptation to arise in the first place. I think liberals, with their tendency to embrace egalitarianism and humanism, are less likely to see an us/them divide most of the time, and are therefore more prone to assume they can be open and cooperative with other groups. But then, when they do notice differences between groups–particularly themselves and others who don’t share their opinions and attitudes–that’s when they start resisting (sometimes to the point of going into denial) and when your point becomes valid.

In other words, our views make a difference. Viewing everyone as equals (or as humans first) will foster a more “globalized” perspective on people–i.e. that there is only an “us”, no “them”–though such views can only go so far before reality hits us with its occasional rude awakenings.

So for the conservative point of view, I speculate that it’s not so much the presence of some particular principle or value that makes them more prone to draw the us/them divide, but a lack of (or less emphasis on) egalitarianism and humanism. I also considered that maybe it has to do with the higher focus on freedom as a virtue, and through that the worry over those who would take away one’s freedom, thereby creating a mentality of suspicion and distrust for others, but I think that point probably wouldn’t pan out in the wash as much.

Now, in case you’re going to say that the Marxist point of view more or less hinges on a divide between “us” and “them”–that is, the bourgeois and the proletariate–I’ll spare you the trouble and agree with you now. Yes, the core of Marxism certainly would make you more prone to see this divide–and it’s a very particular divide, so it wouldn’t just be a general tendency to see divisions between people–but I guess when it comes to liberals in general–and now we’re talking about religious liberals–it depends on which aspect of the overall doctrine one liberal or another focuses on–if he focuses mainly on egalitarianism/humanism or if he focuses on class struggles. The point is to consider what follows rationally from the logical structure of the person’s beliefs and values.

If that’s the pivotal principle around which the conservative ideology spins, then fine, but the distinction I’m drawing here isn’t about the content or structure of the ideology, but of people’s psychology. If the position you take on this or that issue or event or policy or whatever hinges on the above principle, then you’re thinking rationally and I wouldn’t say you’ve crossed that psychological line, but if it hinges on your identity as a conservative, then you’ve crossed the line. This happens with a lot of people on a whole range of belief systems. People will defend religious beliefs without even knowing the logical structure of those beliefs. They’ll say homosexuality is a sin because, well, I was raised Christian, my family is Christian, my community is Christian, and dammit, that’s what Christians believe. The test, for me, is to see how readily they are willing to disagree with at least something in the traditional form of their ideology. There’s usually something in an ideology on which even adherents can bring themselves to disagree if their minds are free to think for themselves.

BTW, I’m a little confused by your quote above. As I understand it, conservatism is the view that government should not interfere in the market or in people’s lives (though it may still serve a function). Marxism is a form of government intervention but so is fascism and monarchy. Would you consider all of these to be variants of Marxism, or should we say that conservatism is at least the rejection of Marxism but also other forms of government intervention.

Ok, now is this counter to the conventional conservative doctrine? Because as I understand it, conservatives want the government out of people’s lives, and that includes making laws to control people’s lives and the market–unless you’re thinking of legislature as a body comprised of the people and not an extension of the government.

Also, I think if Eric were to pop in here, he’d say it depends very much on whether we’re talking about federal laws, state laws, municipal laws, etc. The farther removed the law makers from the local communities, the worse they are at making decisions on what’s actually good for the people.

I don’t disagree with any of that.

Right, and my only point is that “The truth of the matter is inevitably going to be somewhere between” is also a clear example of bias, depending on how it’s arrived at. I also think that the kind of bias you describe above can be logical. Imagine you think that Marxism is super clever and everything about him that you’ve taken the time to study shows that it is correct. Imagine further that you are presented with some facet of Marxism you haven’t previously considered. Taking the stance “Well, I’m going to take the Marxist position because it has been borne out as correct in so many other situations” is certainly a bias, but could be a justified one.

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that either.   Obviously people should be open to changing their minds in light of evidence and so on, sure... but the idea that we should be open to everything and not resist persuasion presumes we live in a world where everybody trying to convince us of things are being above board in their methods, and have our best interests (or at least the truth) at heart.  I think there are situations where, due to life experience, it would be wise for a person to resist what seems to be compelling evidence/argument out of pure obstinance, if they don't trust the overall situation in which it is being presented to them. 

This seems very counter-intuitive to me. You equated liberalism to socialism earlier in your post, so running with that theme, the entire [i]point[/i] of socalism is to break down history and justice into a comparison of in groups and out groups, classes, and so on.   That is precisely why they care concerned with egalitarianism- is because they have a list of groups in mind that they are comparing to see if they are equal or not.  It makes no sense to me that such a ideology would lead a person to being [i]less[/i] likely to notice an us/them divide.  
 What I think, instead, is that because liberals value egalitarianism and diversity, they feel a moral obligation to [i]act as though[/i] they are free from ideological constraints and viewing everything with an unbiased perspective.  "I'm a Catholic, and that's what Catholicism teaches, so therefore that's what I think" is an odious attitude to a liberal. Conservatives tend not to condemn each other for following a tradition with a lack of introspection. 

Yeah, I agree with that much.

I'm not seeing how those are different.  Egalitarianism is the desired outcome of class struggle.  The classes are struggling because there is a lack of equality. 

That resonates with me, but I see an irrationality in it.  I see myself making a laundry list of conservative viewpoints and finding a 'token' one to disgaree with so I can say "See? See!? I've thought this all through!"  My token view is the death penalty. If I'm not feeling open-minded enough, I'll remind myself that I'm against the death penalty and parade that around some to assure myself that I'm my own man and so on.  
Not a rational process. 

It’s say that resisting all forms of Government intervention in the markets is libertarianism, not conservatism, and resisting that intervention these days is something they have in common because these days that intervention is coming from Marxist. Edmund Burke is basically the father of conservatism, and he wasn’t against monarchy as such.

I want the government out of people's lives, and voicing that desire through a representative Government is the only way it's going to happen.  I'm talking about the people's (including liberal peoples) influence over Congress, not the other way around.  Political ideologues should have tons of influence over Congress, because they are us. 

Yeah, I would agree with that. It’s straight from de Tocqueville.

Sure. If it can be said that I come close to this, it would be, at best, a “preliminary best guess”–that is to say, given my lack of familiarity and epistemic limits on the subject, I think the most rational position to take would be to assume, as a first guess, that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but only when coupled with the expectation that that assumption is likely to change as one gets more familiar with the subject matter. How much it changes, and in what direction, is less predictable as far as I’m concerned.

I can see that. It would be like taking a stance on the next affirmative action proposal knowing full well that all such moves on the part of the government in past have been disasters. I wouldn’t expect one to be open minded and try it out before drawing any conclusions on whether or not it’s a good idea, as if the probability of it working was 50/50. I’d agree that it’s rational to stand against it.

My only precautionary note is to always understand your reasons for taking the stances that you take–to “know thyself”–and particularly to watch out for becoming defense because you feel your personal identity is being attacked when confronted with criticisms to your ideology.

I can see that too. I was just clarifying where I was coming from. I personally am trying to be flexible with my views while at the same time being honest and forthcoming with where I’m starting from, but to each his own.

I might be misusing the term “egalitarianism”–the way you’re using it sounds like it’s a prescription or a moral “ought”–everyone ought to be made equal–but I understand it to mean that everyone is equal, and usually with respect to a certain aspect or quality (I personally am egalitarian in that I think everyone is equally human). But if you mean something like: everyone ought to have equal wealth, or equal status, or equal treatment, or something along those lines, I can see that being tied more closely to Marxism (mind you, I can also see this usage of the term being connected with my usage: if everyone is equally human, one might take a step further and say everyone is equally deserving, and I think most liberals do take this extra step but not without certain qualification–for example, everyone is equally deserving of consideration of a job opening… so long as they have sufficient experience, education, good fit, etc.).

This coupled with the fact that I’m thinking mainly of lay liberals–people like UPF or Liz–as opposed to the “religious” liberals we talked about earlier–the ones who have a thorough understanding of the links between liberalism and Marxism.

No, not a rational process, but I’m not pushing this test as an obligation that others are required to meet, just a personal expectation of what one who is thinking for himself is likely to argue. Not saying that anyone who fails this test is indubitably a drone in the “borg collective”, but the person does become suspect in my mind.

Would it be fair to say that conservatism is the view that the government should not interfere in order to fix social injustices–because that’s roughly what I think Marxism aims to do.

Would you say, then, that while the legislature is an important part of government, you don’t like how it is misused by many liberals insofar as they use it to propose bills that only increase the extent to which the government has a hand in the market and people’s lives?

In a sense then, the legislature is like tool–neither good nor bad–and it depends on how people use it that determines whether it is harmful or helpful to the people. I see this as a real dilemma–I’m inclined to agree with you and Eric that getting the government out of people’s lives and the economy is the solution to the problem of political corruption, but there doesn’t seem to be a methodological way of making that happen–to enforce a law that says legislation must only be used to limit the government’s power, to serve the conservative agenda, would not only be a self-negating law as it would effectively give the government power to intrude into people’s lives, but it would limit the freedoms of liberals or anyone wishing to use legislation for any other purpose. In order to preserve the integrity, or the “purity”, of the conservative philosophy, you must allow people to exercise their freedom as they see fit, but that means allowing liberals to use legislation to push for their affirmative action plans and socialist agendas. The only real viable battle front on which conservatives can fight liberals would seem to be good ol’ fashion debate and argumentation, to attempt to persuade society towards the conservative point of view through things like media, science, education, philosophy, etc. The uncertainty of this is “discomforting” to say the least.

Regardless, you have to come to some new investagtion with some preconceptions. It’s good to know what they are, and that that’s what they are.

Yeah, I can go along with that.

Ah. If that’s what you mean, it’s not a quality that seperates conservatives from liberals, as far as I can tell.

I guess I’m the other way around- if I meet somebody who’s beliefs are too eclectic; some Marxist stuff, some libertarian stuff, some Catholic stuff, some Muslim stuff; my gut reaction is that they are believing according to personal taste and favorite sound-bytes without regard for a coherent system.

Well, libertarians deny that there is any such thing as social justice; they maintain that all justice is individual.  A conservative could believe in the government being used to maintain social justice; maybe they see restrictions on abortion as a sort of social justice, for example.  I think conservatives and libertarians would agree that the State should not be trying to fix 'economic injustice', and both would probably agree there is no such thing.  
  Conservatism is as root the view that as much as possible should he handled by the community instead of the State, and that the information required to solve major problems is revealed through tradition instead of through revolution. 

I don't like may of the bills that liberals propose for just the reason you say, but I wouldn't constitute that as [i]misuse[/i].   If a liberal wants to propose a bill that I think is a hideously bad idea in order for Congress to debate and vote on it, that is precisely the correct use of the legislature.   There may be bills a leftist proposes to the federal legislature that I think should be a state matter, but even then that's just a reason to vote the bill down, not an indication that the legislature has been 'misused'. 
This phenomonen you are discribing- where if a person with a contrary political opinion tries to use the political system, it must be characterized as 'misuse' or 'abuse' somehow- this is what liberals do, not conservatives. I have no problem with liberals participating in the political system, I simply think they are incorrect about most things. 

Well of course their isn't, not should their be, because we live in a free society where people can vote to ruin their own lives if they are sufficiently ignorant and determined.  All you can do is educate people, expose the shifty manipulators to the light of day so as many folks as possible know what's really going on, and pray.  Again, it is the left that will pass any law, restrict any behavior, reform any Constitution to bring about their utopia.  It is a part of being an adult conservative to accept that being right doesn't mean being entitled to have your way. 

 There is a concept in conservatism called "The tragic view of human nature". You can compare it to the Fall in Genesis.   Briefly, it is this:  There is no utopia, there is nothing that a man can do that another man can't fuck up, we are not all basically good at heart, the good guys will not always win, nor should they even always win.  So not only is it a given that some people will will fuck their lives up or ruin other people's lives, but in any kind of good society, this has to be permitted.

Yes, and you can extent this beyond legislature to how the left and the right view each other.  So for example, John Stewart of The Daily Show is viewed by conservatives as that foolish man who's ideas should be disagreed with.   Rush Limbaugh is viewed by liberals as a [i]problem[/i] that needs [i]fixing[/i]; they are always trying to find away not just to push their answers to his questions, but to ensure that he isn't allowed to present his ideas at all.  The idea that broadcast laws should be adjusted such that liberals don't get to have a say in the media is completely alien to a conservative way of thinking.  See sexism, racism, see homophobia, see this new transphobia word; attempts by the left to present ideas they disagree with as not just incorrect, but as social ills that measures need to be taken to stamp out.  That's why your rant a few days ago about how conservatives get all fearful when they hear another opinion and demand absolute adherence to their doctrines made me chuckle.   A conversation with a liberal is like walking through a minefield- it's only a matter of time before you say something that they have decided is a form of microaggression or is coming from a perspective of privilege, and then the conversation is over because you're Skeletor to them.  

That would be the libertarian view. Conservatives would add the mechanisms of civil society to that list.

Any preconceptions I may have take the status “up for questioning” in my mind–which is what allows me to be flexible. There’s very little I consider to be firm knowledge.

Well, that’s something worth thinking about.

Short of theft, I agree.

Ok, I think I’m started to see your point. I’m not really resistant to it, it’s just… unexpected. It kind of undermines the whole point of this thread. I started this thread thinking that the problem of political corruption could be “fixed”–that if enough clever people put their heads together, we could come up with something systematic that would be an improvement on the current political system most Western countries have. I was very impressed by the social system envisioned by Eric and I took it (still do) that it represents more or less what most conservatives want to establish. That being said, I called it the “solution” to the problem of political corruption. But what that meant, for me and my aspiration to come up with an improved political system, was that we need to find a way to prevent the government from having more of a reach in the economy and people’s lives than the original Constitution allows, a way to ensure that it sticks to what the original Constitution outlines as its proper function in society. So I started to question whether the right of liberals to use the legislature to do just the opposite–to give the government more power in the economy and people’s lives–was a problem needing to be fixed. I was serious when I said this was a dilemma–meaning that I don’t think the solution would simply be to bar them from the legislature or to prevent anyone from using the legislature to get bills passed to have the effect of giving the government more power in the economy and people’s lives.

But you think that conservatives trying their best to persuade the people (including liberals) of their views, or to use the legislature to lessen the government’s power over the economy and people’s lives (or strengthen it insofar as that serves the purpose of the original Constitution?), is the best approach? That we don’t need a systematic change in how the political process works?

But what happens if liberals manage to turn the state into an all out socialist country, or a communist one? Is this simply a possibility we have to live with?

What’s meant by “civil society”?

Well, prejudices are preconceptions too- types of people or sources you are more likely to trust than others, a preference for statistics over anecdotes, or arguments over statistics, etc.

Yeah, you could call theft economic injustice as long as you’re understanding it as a subject of personal justice and not social justice- in other words, all questions of justice come down to particular people’s interactions with other particular people’s, not the status of one ‘class’ with respect to another. Or at least, this is the conservative/liberterian line vs. what a liberal would say.

 Yeah, I guess I am undermining it because of a few central things:  I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of corruption.  Under my understanding of corruption, the U.S. and Canada just don't suffer from nearly as much of it as many other countries do, and, while I do think corruption is something that can and should be fixed when it is encountered, the examples of 'corruption' I saw when I came to this thread seemed to be "special interest groups I don't like getting their way some of the time", which is not corruption to me. That's what started the whole left vs. right thing, is when I saw things like "Sometimes people agree with the NRA" being cited as corruption. 

I haven’t read much of what Eric has said in the thread, or indeed, much of anything that directed to me. I have this irritating habit of skimming/ignoring things I suspect I will agree with. Adversarial of me, I suppose.

I agree with the spirit of that, but any solution has to take into account that the founders didn’t envision a world in which a person in Maine could buy stuff from a person in California, and have it in their posession the next day. Or a world in which a man could speak, and have people all over the planet hear his words in the moment he is saying them. There are a lot of things that bind us together, and create opportunities for us to affect each other economically, that the Government might have to have something to say about. But I am speaking out of my element there.

 It is a problem to be fixed in the sense that people need to be educated enough that their attempts are shot down through the vote most of the time. But it is not a problem to be fixed in that the legal system has to be adjusted in some way to keep their ideas from being able to participate, in my assessment. 

It is the best approach because it is the only just approach as far as I am aware. It may or may not work. Tragic view of human nature. Certainly there are any number of systematic reforms that would be more effective in keeping progressive/marxist changes out of politics than mere education- but I can’t think of any that wouldn’t also be unjust. In super hero parlance, it would make us no different from them.

I do. I’m old enough to have already seen the liberals turn the state into a place that hates God, thinks perversion is normal, and that a man is a woman simply if he decides he is. This, right now, is already the once-hard-to-imagine dystopia in which the bad guys won and ruined everything. And still I say, education and shining light on the people being sneaky is the only just way to procede.

The natural forces in society that people form without need for the State to enforce them with violence. So for example, people are pressured to do/not do things because of how their families will react. Or how their Church will react. Or how their neighbors will react. We shun people that misbehave- whether that’s the drunk, the philanderer, the pervert, or the greedy buisinessman. We pass our beliefs onto future generations, and teach newcomers to our society what is expected of them in any number of ways. Francis Bacon gives an excellent example of this in The New Atlantis. It’s been some time, but to paraphrase, a bunch of people shipwreck on a previously unknown island populated by a strange, advanced society. They are kept waiting in a hotel of sorts for a while, and their captain decides that they ought to behave like perfectly good Christians on the assumption that they are being monitored, and that how they behave will influence what the natives ultimately decide to do with them. So they behave themselves better than they did while on the ship, just to impress upon the natives what kind of people they were, based on a presumption of shared ethics. If you forget for a moment that the natives were a in a position to do violence to the crew, this mirrors how civil society keeps each of us in check all the time; and progressives have a thousand slogans and movements to undermine its effects.

Sure. Do you bring this up just as a point in fact, or are you implying something about my prejudices?

Ah, perfect juncture to bring this thread full circle. Let’s talk about “political corruption” using the NSA’s spy tactics on Americans as an example. The first question then is: is this an example of political corruption?

Earlier in this thread I defined political corruption as “the unwarranted violation of basic human rights on a mass scale and/or the phenomenon of politicians, or entire governments, failing to preform the job they were hired or elected to do by the people.” (I can see us quibbling over what a “human right” is but I want to somehow cover the case of unwarranted cruelty and butchery at the hands of the government). The cases you brought up–“special interest groups I don’t like getting their way some of the time” and “Sometimes people agree with the NRA”–aren’t even up for considerations under that definition.

But what about what the NSA is doing–spying on Americans without their consent? This wouldn’t be possible without the Patriot Act (am I correct?), and that got voted in favor of, so it went through the system as a usual order of business–so I don’t think we can call the PA an example of corruption (as an aside, however, I wonder what conservatives think of an act which permits what seems to be a blatant invasion of privacy, and therefore the government intruding into people’s private lives–an act proposed by the Republican party no less). What about the spying itself–or the extent to which it is done, or the misuse of it (in the sense that the NSA might be spying on Americans for purposes other than to weed out terrorists, though I have no basis to back that up)? The only sense I got from the video I posted in the OP that this was political corruption was William Benny calling it “unconstitutional”. Is it unconstitutional? And what about the martial law bill that Obama signed, the subject of one of the other videos. I assume this was put to a vote. Do the people have any say in a vote like this, or was it a matter exclusively for Congress to decide? (for some reason, I’m assuming the Patriot Act was voted on by the people–I think I heard this on TV when it was happening–but I should be asking the same question on this).

I tried to summarize Eric’s vision here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=185699&hilit=utopia&start=475#p2487664

This also marks the turning point when I stopped being left-leaning and started being right-leaning.

This almost sounds as if you have doubts that the Constitution ought to be revert back to its original form, which is signaling to me that you and Eric have very different visions of what it means to be conservative (though I think your statement of its central tenets–that “as much as possible should he handled by the community instead of the State, and that the information required to solve major problems is revealed through tradition instead of through revolution”–keeps you and him bound together, only the amount that the community ought to handle by itself distinguishing you two (I believe I remember Eric saying he borders almost on being libertarian, but he’ll have to jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong)).

Understood.

Understood and agreed.

Ok, but I think the point at which we’d have to say “they’ve won”, is when they’ve made it impossible (legally, through terrorism, by dissolving the legislature, etc.) for those who disagree with them to attempt to change the system. I don’t think it’s there yet, but do you think it will ever get to that point? The reason I ask is if they’ve been making strides towards this point despite the best (and honest) efforts of conservatives to fight it, it would not appear that the democratic system works, and it stands to question whether we ought to try to come up with a better system, one that’s no less fair and just, or do we just accept the tragic view of human nature? Or do you think it’s too early to tell?

This thread should be renamed reforming oligarchy.

Democracy is just another form of oligarchy. Quit kidding yourselves.

The world is a giant oligarchic police state.

Your idiotic politics and voting matters not.

Who’s kidding themselves? We were talking about how democracy is a barely-concealed oligarchy in the “Irony of Corruption” thread days ago.

All governments are oligarchies. What alternative do you support?

Oh, just pointing out that prejudices are unavoidable, and not necessarily bad things.

 At the very least it's against the NSA's charter to conduct any operations on U.S. citizens or on American soil, and it seems like some of their actions are illegal.  I don't think that makes them corrupt, though- to me, corruption implies a misuse for personal gain. If the NSA is doing what it's doing out of a sincere effort to protect us from terorrists or whatever, then I don't think what they are doing is corrupt- though it may be unethical and worthy of condemnation for some other reason. 

Wellll…it wouldn’t have the skin of a legal mandate without the Patriot Act. Whether or not the lack of such a mandate would have stopped them is another question entirely.

Reactions to the Patriot Act seem to be mixed from conservatives- some ar against it because it’s an example of Government being given greater freedoms to spy on people and so on, some are tacitly for it because being against it always seems to be bundled with a general attitude of not talking Islamic terrorism seriously as a threat. If there is a consensus, it seems to be that if the U.S. took border security seriously, was willing to admit that the problem was with Muslims specifically and stopped worrying about appearing insufficiently multicultural, the Patriot Act would be unnecessary. One could compare it to the increased airport security; conservatives are against the airlines patting down old ladies and refusing to let people bring bottled water on flights, but they consider these things symptoms of the irrational lengths people are going to appear non-racist and to refuse to admit that specific groups are the ones we have to watch out for.
So yeah, as long as the left insists that Islam is a religion of peace and to focus on Arabs as potential threats is intolerable, we have to have things like the Patriot Act that pretend all Americans are equally suspect.

Collecting data about people without due process could be considered illegal search and seizure I would think.

Patriot Act was voted on by Congress, like most anything federal is, it wasn’t a referendum. The only say people have in things like this is to elect different folks in November. At this point I’d wax political and point out that the President is basically making up the law as he goes anyway- if Congress didn’t approve the NDAA, he’d just go around them and put it in effect as an executive action, like the dozen or so times he’s changed the rules to Obamacare since it was passed.

Original form? Like without the Amendments to let blacks and women vote and so on? Keep in mind that the Constitution has a process by which it can be legally changed, so it wasn’t intended to stay the same for all eternity- but it wasn’t intended to be ignored to be ‘interpreted’ into saying things it clearly doesn’t say by the Supreme Court, either. I don’t mind if the Constitution changes as long as it changes via the legal process provided for it to happen which involves all the State legislatures voting on it. That’s the irony- no, the lie- behind all these liberals that claim that the Constitution is a living document to defend their radical interpretations. The Constitution CAN change, it WAS intended to change, but the process provided involves such a democratic level of involvment from the people that the libs know their radical reforms would never see the light of day if they were actually subjected to due process. So they use judges that nobody voted for and nobody can remove, instead.

We are very nearly there about the issues that matter to me.  It's practically illegal to express political opinions liberals don't want to hear, and people lose ther jobs for it all the time.  My point, though, wasn't to say that we're at some point of no return or that the left has everything they want.  My point is just to say that in order to talk about a world in which the left has done irreperable harm and twisted society in ways previously unthinkable, one doesn't have to look to the future. 

The democratic system works insofar as it keeps the State accountable to the people and it ensures the State gives the people what they want.  "What the people want", however, is manipulated by forces that don't have anything to do with the legal system- school and media and such.  I mean, if I convince everybody that you're a child murderer, and then we hold a democratic vote and decide to hang you, I don't think that demonstrates a flaw in the democratic system, does it?  It worked flawlessly within the limits of its scope. 

I still think the legal system is ok, and the left is doing it’s mischief through extra-legal means.

Can’t even answer a simple question it appears.

True dat.

That’s a different definition of corruption than the one I gave above. Not a bad definition, and it speaks more to the character of the corrupt individual, whereas mine speaks more to the function of individuals or the government (that’s what I was trying to get at anyway). According to mine, they certainly are corrupt (breaking the law or going against one’s own charter is an example of an agency failing to performing the function it is expected to perform). According to yours, they may not be, but you’ve gotta have a lot of faith in the good intentions of the NSA, as well as the Bush administration and Congress, to believe they only want to keep Americans safe from terrorists. I’d be more skeptical (one of the things William Benny said was that they had plans to spy on Americans long before 9/11, and that he believes their only agenda is just that–to spy on Americans), but I’m not in your shoes, and if I were an American citizen, I may see things differently.

So would you consider that a misuse of the system?

I’m not sure about those Amendments specifically. This is one of those conversations I had with Eric which I took to be representative of conservatives in general. I could be wrong. If I recall, he did say something close to: the proper function of government was laid out in the original Constitution and most conservatives feel it should stay that way (which, I gathered, is where the name “conservative” comes from–conserving the original forms of government and Constitution). But Eric did say (I believe) that he would want universal suffrage, so I take it he, like most conservatives I would assume, understand the importance of allowing for Amendments, but not just any old Amendment.

What I’m worried about is that these changes can potentially be the system’s own undoing. So long as your statement in bold holds true, it hasn’t done so yet. But with things like the ability to spy on Americans and the martial law bill, I can easily see the government making a move to take power and turn your country into an all out totalitarian regime (then we can talk about oligarchy). All Obama has to do is wait for some crisis, declare martial law, and never look back. The tools with which you now keep the government accountable–the legislature, voting every four years, appealing to the Constitution in order to hold politicians accountable to the law–all these will have crumbled away. And this need not be at the hands of the liberals either–what the liberals are doing, according to what you’ve been telling me, is one way in which those in power have gained, and are gaining, more power, but it could also happen through more Acts passed in Congress, ones that the people have no say in (liberals or conservatives).

I take it this is all old news to you–I would think most Americans have understood that these are the possibilities in a system such as yours–but the videos I see in the OP scare me: they tell me that it is not only a possibility, but very, very close to reality at this point. Do you agree? Do you think we’re coming dangerously close to another collapse–like Rome–or is this just the next scare? Like the countless scares Americans have been through for decades or centuries? And even if we’re not close, do you see these changes moving in that direction, or is the system built to handle that kind of scenario (in the sense that if it really does get that bad, the people will still be able to use the system to turn it around, and will want to)?

Shall we continue where we left off, Joker? Talking about oligarchies defined as governments that govern?

I, for one, think you still have a variety of different kinds of oligarchies. If all an oligarchy is is a government that governs, then I don’t see why you can’t have a republican oligarchy. It would simply be a system in which the rulers are drawn from the people and return to the people–a sort of cycling of citizens into government (in which they do indeed “control” things) and back again when their terms are up (or they die).

There are different strains of oligarchy but the end result of all of them always remain the same.

For instance, their inevitable transformation into authoritarian despots.

That’s exactly what all governments transform themselves into.

Yeah, that’s what I’m afraid of.

I think the people can have a good run for a while–revolutions and toppled governments usually precede new “golden eras” in which the people celebrate their new found freedom–sometimes it’s true freedom, sometimes it’s an illusion–I think even the people of the Soviet Union in the years after the Russian Revolution had high hopes that they were on the road to a bright and prosperous tomorrow. But all these “new world orders” eventually degrade over time–some of them more quickly than others.

My question in this thread is: if it’s happened before–if the people of various countries in various times in history were able to overthrow oppressive regimes and, for a while, take a breath of the fresh air of freedom–then couldn’t it happen again? And how was it done? What made it work? Does it only become possible after it has once again disappeared–in the sense that freedom can only be won at the cost of bloody and violent revolution against a panel of tyrannical overlords?

The answer in history is repetitive and clear.

In order to challenge centralized despots and authoritarian regimes they must be violently overthrown.

And that’s exactly the answer I was waiting for (why’d it take do long?).

How does one spark a violent revolution?

History books are full of answers that you may be looking for.

Well, they tell me that no one individual can do it alone. You have to have a movement.