|
Zonie63 -> RE: Living Under an Iron Curtain. (3/9/2015 11:03:10 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Another great post!
I agree with most of what you said. I attribute it to apathy. People like in the UK have become apathetic. They dont mind cancerous growth encroachment in their lives and the erosion of the ability to capture that illusive american dream which is now dominated by the corporations right along with government thanks to the fact that they own the supreme court.
I suppose its all to easy to draw a reasonable parallel between greed and crime and the creation of this country. I dont know how much anyone here is into law but the court system is set up so that should you wish to take something to court (especially against the gubmint) that the ability to do that effectively is completely out of reach to the average man and the average man does not have a law degree nor do they know how to the traverse and dodge the procedural labyrinth to even get a case past summary judgment. Speak of if you want to see a complete abortion in law that removes the law from the people for the convenience of the courts [power] that is it. It should be completely abolished.
True, although if the corporations own the courts, then wouldn't that mean that the courts are lower on the food chain? That may be why there is diminished respect for the courts, since they were supposedly set up to be independent and divorced from politics. And yet, many people see the courts as owned by big business just as the politicians and bureaucrats are owned.
I think that Americans have a somewhat contradictory love-hate attitude towards the law and government itself. On the one hand, we have the ultra-patriotic and very strict law-and-order types who constantly proclaim that "this is a country of laws" and take a very dim view of anyone who openly disrespects the law. But then, we're also a country with a long history of outlaws and rebels and an underlying belief that questions of "wrong and right" should take precedence over questions of "legal and illegal."
The "procedural labyrinth" to which you refer is also affectionately known as "the system," and this too becomes the be-all and end-all in many people's minds. While there may be apparent apathy about the country itself, I have found a great deal of the opposite attitude when it comes to zealous ideological fanaticism about our "system" - how great it is and how much better it is than other "systems."
This is why any kind of true change or reform is, at best, problematic and downright impossible in most cases, mainly due to these overzealous "defenders of the faith" that seem to abound among the hoi polloi.
quote:
Another problem is that people are vested. If you try to do anything to rock the gubs boat how did they respond? The first they do is threaten to shut down the gub and cut services to the public while theirs are running along just fine without so much as a hiccup! Compounding that bs I read a study that said 18% of those employed today that are the voting constituency are government employees, the majority of whom have spouses. Can we imagine they would vote for anything but more government?
Yes, although their voting choices might also be dependent upon which part of the government they're employed. Someone who works in the EPA might vote for a pro-environmentalist candidate who would put more money into the EPA, whereas someone in the Defense industry might vote for a hawkish pro-war candidate who would put more money into the Defense Department.
Neither party has much room to talk when it comes to complaining about government waste or overspending. As for voting for "more government" or "big government," I don't know if the issue is about size as much as it's more about what the government actually does and what role it should play in our lives. But again, neither party is terribly consistent in this regard, as their only real difference is one of emphasis, pushing for more government or less government in different areas of government, depending on their constituencies and political agendas.
quote:
Finally in regard to how this country was built though it raises a lot of flaq with flag wavers it is ridiculously easy to prove we live in a 'parallel' feudal society with a face lift, if you will, and I do mean ridiculously easy. Its right out in the open but no one today but since the labels have changed no one except those in the biz knows how to identify the [very fine line] characteristics. ....snd they wont tell you unless you pin their ears to the cross. lol The only people who are familiar with that kind of talk are legislative staff attorneys and if you have a slick tongue you and can out 'cite' them occasional you will run across a really sharp one who will '''sort of''' admit it. (but not really) LOL
I think that there are many commonalities one can derive from human political systems and how people have generally governed themselves over the ages. I don't think there's any magical words or perfect "system" one can devise, although I'd like to think that we've made some progress since the days of feudalism. At least when looking at the general quality of life for the peasantry, it's still better than it used to be.
Regardless of what anyone "in the know" might admit to, it's not anything new that there may be those in power who are corrupt and tend to use legal and bureaucratic trickery to get their way. The problem is that it eventually becomes structurally weakened, which makes government itself less effective. (Lawyers are not the only ones who know how to game the system, so the more people who do it, the greater strain there is.)
But there comes a question of whether it remains effective enough to still keep the masses "fat, dumb, and happy." That's the real tricky part, since the masses are not made up of "sheeple," as some people often say. The masses are more like a pack of barely-trained wolves who are loyal and obedient only because they're well-fed and understand the pecking order within the pack. They're not any smarter than sheep, but perhaps they can be duped into thinking that they're better than sheep.
|
|
|
|
