“craigramblings has an odd view of both “government” and “socialism.” But its part of the amazing sales job of the right.”

With the amount of government subsidies for coroporations, government control on medicine, social security, welfare, and bureaucratic employment, it would be simply wrong to not call the American government socialist.  Look at the difference between now and before FDR.  How about before Teddy Roosevelt?  America is socialist.

I contend you have an odd view of government, which I will substantiate by responding to the following.

“Exactly what is government in a representative democracy (or really, most anywhere) except the way society functions.”

For many years (and to a lesser extent now), the mandate of government was that their is a ruling class of people entitled to control the rest of society in order that society can serve them.  Before John Locke, people were convinced kings came from a long line of Monarchs from the times of Adam and that the kings therefore had a mandate from God to rule.  One can have a democratic government, where that mandate to rule is derived by the will of society as a whole, not just elemtns of society with “established” lineage, which is usually the case.

So it is not a matter of how “society functions.”  The Incans building roads so they can assimilate their conquered foes and force them to pay taxes is not “democracy.”  It was the God/King (the Inca) using government to subdue a society for his gain.  You obviously are confused between the differences of government power and extent and that of democracy.  The more power government has in your life, the less power people have democratically in a society.  This can be good and bad.  A town builds roads, but of course this rids the power of individuals to make their own roads.  Their freedoms are inhibited, but would we all say that a organizing force for roads gives us more freedom in the end?  Yes.  However, social programs, which replace the individual’s need/desire to contribute to charity fulfill no such function of freedom and are inherently NOT democratic.

“I just wish people knew history: Who made the rules 6,000 years ago in Sumeria that debts must be forgiven every seventh year. Why, the government? In ancient Judea who said that you couldn’t harvest the corners of your fields (forced charity)? oh yeah, the government. In the Roman Republic who built the roads, water supply systems, sewer systems, bath-houses, and used those constructions as “make-work” projects? Oh, that would be the government too. In the Mayan Empire who built those gigantic stadia and constructed the way fields were irrigated? The government.”

You just named one highly stratified society where those laws only governerned on the msot part an elite land owning class, while much of society did not have the lineage to be protected by such laws, or they were slaves or women, and not even “people.”  Hammurabi’s Code, a government law system, excercised greater penalties on the poor and the rich.  Be realistic, who used roman public funds the most?  Senators and generals that plundered them.  If you want to return to the days where a rich overlord builds a giant stadium so the common man is entertained enough by an orgy of blood in order to be happy enough not to revolt, then I feel sorry for you.  Public works projects by most governments serve the needs of those who benefit from their work (roads benefit the Roman army and were used to keep the armies away from Rome so they would not grow bored and overthrow the emperor), and not the need of the peasants, who were tied to their land or poor housing and scratched together a living.

“In the Iroquois Conferacy who decided how communities were laid out and how crops were planted? Yes, indeed, the government.”

And they also decided that people have to hate and fight their enemies.  They did their best to maintain order in a society without a western concept of private property.  Again, I do not see the relation between increased government and democracy as you contend.

“The right believes government is an enemy, because they are, at heart, anarchists driven by pure greed. But government is us. And our society, just like those 2,000, 3,000 years ago, believes in taking care of people, even taking care of those who can’t care for themselves.”

This tops all the other laughable sentences .

Let’s see what you contend: Representative Democracy is how society functions.

For evidence, you use the existence of stratified, military societies that created such laws to perpetuate the ruling classes.  The government is not us, as you contend.  It is an instrument of power.  For the entire history of the planet besides a few exceptions (the way of life of Cossacks, Ancient Athens, steppe people, and anywhere lacking complete government rule), government was nothing more than a mandate for servants to serve the master.  John Locke is the man who developed the correct ideology that shapes our view of government today.  We are not servants to government, government serves us to better our lives.

Government should improve market outcomes, maintain defense, build roads, provide schooling, provide whatever it takes to protect the property of individuals (property in its broadest sense) while creating a maximum market outcome.  Social progrmas take an individual’s trait, charity, and put that in the hands of government.  This makes us servants to government and not the government a servant to us, which is what is right.

So, by your standards, Democracy is when we serve the government primarily.  I contend democracy is an elective system where the people are supposed to have the power in order to guarentee that government is OUR servant.  Therefore, the duty of every citizen is to vote in order to make sure this is so.  That’s why it is sad we are moving in the worng direction, to the point where people like you have no idea what democracy is, getting the role of citizen and government reversed.  It is a real shame.

“Such an odd series of statements by craigramblings: If a government is a democracy or even a representative democracy then people are making choices: craigramblings apparently doesn’t like the choices people make (including the choice to be minimally aware and minimally involved) and neither do I, but that’s not the question: Folks, outside of Empire the government is what people decide to accept and tolerate. True in Rome, true in ancient Judea, true in Sumeria, true in upstate New York 800 years ago. Most people will choose stability and comfort over abstract ideas of freedom: but that is, at best, educational failure, not government failure.”
I think a senator in maine during the race riots one said something to the effect of, “We have to do something about this, because the people will always choose tyranny over anarchy.”
 
Quite simply, you changed the meaning of democracy.  People can democratically ruin their government.  The fall of Athens shows what bad decision making can lead to.  However, all government systems fail in time and democracy, if conducted to the point where the government is the instrument of the people, is what is most important.
 
Even Sophocles realized the obvious when writing Antigone.  Creon’s downfall was that absolute power corrupted and he mismanaged the state.  Starting on line 823: “Am I to rule this land for others-or myself?  What?  The city is the king’s-that’s the law.”  Creon misinterpreted the point of the state.  The people are not servants to the state, but he happens to think so.  To him, what is good for him is what is good for the state, because the state exists for his benefit and being that the state is him and people must serve the state, people must be subserviant to it.
 
True democracy is impossible if people are the state’s servant.  If you disagree with me, I suggest you build a time machine and ask all of those from the days of Kiev Rus’ past the Mongol Yoke who VOLUNTEERILY enserfed themselves for the sake of protection.  A free society and in some ways democratic (the Novgorod veche bell for example) volunteerily turned itself into an autocracy.
 
Democracy can create autocracy, the point is to prevent that.
 
“Folks, outside of Empire the government is what people decide to accept and tolerate. True in Rome, true in ancient Judea, true in Sumeria, true in upstate New York 800 years ago”
 
If you are going to maintain such mistruths, that blue is green and that black is white, it is impossible to talk to you.  Because the people do no revolt, that does not mean the state is serving in the interest of the people.

“But craigramblings needs definitions:
“democracy” ? I suppose it means people have a substantial, direct, and relatively regularly scheduled way to advise on societal decision making. You can tell the strength of democracies by the level of choices offered, by the impact of voting on actual life, by participation. Thus, I’d say Germany, Scandanavia, France all contain stronger “democracies” than we do, but that is our choice (just like the Romans), built out of wealth and comfort. Not everyone on earth thinks voting is important, but that is a decision as well.”
 
It is not a matter of wealth and comfort.  It is a matter of having the power to control your own destiny.  If your livlihood is tied to that of the state’s in every aspect, you no longer can vote against it.  That does not seem very democratic to me.  That’s why only violent upheavels will reverse the trend of socialism.
 
“”socialist” ? By pretty universal agreement an economic system in which all public service industries, from health care to transportation to electrical power, are exclusively run by the government and financed broadly by a tax structure that has a leveling effect on incomes.”
What do you call the 12 percent of our gross national product that goes towards social programs and their regulatory agencies?  Life often comes in shades of grey.

“”fascist” ? In economics – a “corporate socialism” in which large corporations determine economic policy for the government, and government policy and corporate welfare become indistinguishable. It is this trend that craigrambling sees in America and mistakes for socialism, perhaps because he’s confused by the old Nazi Party name.”
That would only be true if we DID NOT have social security, medicare, medicaid, prescription drug coverage, and ect.  What you fail to realize is that there is a mix of both.

“”consent” ? The fact is, people consent to be governed, or they do not. I don’t like what most Americans consent to, but they’re making choices. Just across our northern border people almost exactly like ourselves are making radically different choices. It’s a conundrum.”
 
It is laughable you present definitions as if I defined them wrong while your basis of democracy is nothing more than the government providing public services.  Democracy is nothing more than the people deciding how they are governed.  A representative democracy is when the people vote for people to do that for them.
 
America, Canada, and many of the world’s socialist nations have with consent been duped into handing the government to much power.  Desperate times, like the great depression, world wars, and social trends led to this.  The people would choose tyranny over anarchy every time.  Just like the poor slavs who willingly submitted themselves to 300 years of slavery.  Desperate times in Russia led to 66% enslavement of the poipulation by 1850.  Consent can lead to having your ability to give consent taken away.  The people must therefore be wary to give their consent to government to control every aspect of their lives.

“America has a mix of socialism and capitalism in its government.  We are no likely to see a utopian socialist state, as we are to see the utopian state imagined by libertarians.”

However, we are far closer to the socialist state than the libertarian one.

“While the two major political parties both side with big-business on many affairs, they are both forced to deal with America as a social democracy, a socialist/capitalist mix.  The Democrats, in theory, have accepted that fact and are the party of a social democracy.  The republicans are supposedly a libertarian party, but to call Republicans libertarians is to call the Democrats socialists.  Neither is true. ”

The Republicans are no less socialist than the democrats.  The republicans are populists. 

“There has never been a period of time in US history when we have been anything but a mix of socialist/capitalist.”

Firstly, it is all in degrees.  Before FDR, the US had some regulations and some work programs, but they were very minimal, so minimal it is nothing close to what we have today.  So I would say America was NOT socialist before 1933.  Of course, there are exceptions, such as Wilson during world war I.

“The only difference has been to what degree.  How then, does the US state have too much power?  It is that power, the power to tax and use that money for social safety nets and other programs, that has allowed the US to prosper, that allows any country to grow.”

It is hard to navigate such a loaded statement, because you use a biased assertion as if it were fact, but I will attempt.  The US state has had too much power from there on in since the days of Roosevelt.  With Roosevelt, the income tax became a burden on every American citizen and with Roosevelt it was determined the government has the responsibility of charity for its citizens.  With Roosevelt began a peacetime mobilization which has given us our second biggest hinerance, the military industrial complex.  So that is when the US had too much power.

Social safety nets and other programs did not allow America to grow.  America started recovery from the depression before the programs and the depression was lengthened and a second one even occurred (lasting until WW2) because of such programs.  LEss income taxes were collected in Roosevelt’s era than Hoover’s (by average) because Roosevelt’s fiscally unsound policies fostered lack of investment and tax sheltering.  You hardly make a good point with that sort of historical conclusion.

“I don’t understand how the people have been duped into creating social programs.  Are social programs all the best programs, no, some are pretty inefficient, but, they are exactly as they’re defined, “social” programs, without which, a part of society, namely the poor, is left with nothing.”

This was a debate about democracy, alas, you show your true colors.  You choose tyranny as long as it follows your strict economy bias.  The poor are left with less as the social programs do nothing more than hinder the economy and add incentive for people to work less.  If people did not expect something to always pick them up, like their parents, they would be more responsible.  Government is not family.

“what complete nonsense.”
 
Yeah, that’s what you write.
 
“So America’s economy has not grown at all since Roosevelt (this is your essential claim), Germany’s has not grown since 1945? ”
 
I never said that and your literacy should be questioned if you believe that.  America’s economy did grow, but one, it was at its lowest possible point, two, it rode a war time boom, and three, advances in technologiesa and the petroleum economy after world war II made America an economic powerhouse regardless of government system.
 
“The way the right lies about economics is beyond outrageous. From “Reagan cut taxes” (a lie)”
 
You are simpyl wrong.  It has been substantiated that the laffer curve did play out, Reagan did indeed collect more tax dollars.  However, his military build up and transfering social programs and their costs to the state level increased the national debt tremendously.  Get your facts right.
 
 ”to “the New Deal disn’t work” (a lie)”
 
It did not, it is rather simple.  You will be hard pressed to find an enconomist that says that it did.  The argument in favor of the new deal is that of social justice, it is not economic.  You are so brainwashed, you do not even realize this.
 
Try some essential reading: http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/summer_2002_3.html
 
 ”to “The Great Society didn’t work” (a lie). ”
 
You mean the system that heralded on the end of America’s economic growth in the late 60s?  That system?  The system where all of the ghettos johnson built got burnt down by the people who lived in them?  The system where medicare is so expensive, it is nearly 25% of all our teax revenue?  The system where only project headstart has had any positive economic effects and bureaucratic effects?  That great society?  Be careful when you grab a bull, you get the horns.
 
“What’s so funny is they both claim none of this happened and that we’re socialist. It’s laughable.”
 
That makes absolutely no sense.  You are not only wrong about the above, you are wrong about the very government you live under.

“(2) Democracy means many things to many people. It has to do with fredom of choices. In order to have freedom you need relative economic equality. People without resources have no freedom.”
 
de·moc·ra·cy   (d-mkr-s)

<LI>Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
<LI>A political or social unit that has such a government.
<LI>The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
<LI>Majority rule.
<LI>The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Your definition of democracy is the last one there and there is a reason for that.  The point of democracy is that “the people” can rule for “the people” and by doing so there is no government perpetuating the exploition of “The people” for a select few.  This all deals with voting.  None of this is ECONOMIC EQUALITY.  That is not democracy, that is COMMUNISM, which is a political system that favors collectivism in a classless society.

The people have resources.  No one is perpetually poor unless they choose to be.  If America’s economy was that of much poorer democracies, that does not necessitate redistribution of wealth, which is inherently undemocratic, because it is literally exploition of those who have more than others.  This might surprise you, but there will always be people who have more than others.  More intelligence, more strength, more cunning, more “Screwing people over ability” no matter the system.

However, for a democracy to exist without overstepping the boundery of what is acceptable for government, it cannot steal from its citizens.  IF citizens want to volunteerily donate their money and time for others, that is fine.  Forcing people to do that is no better than stealing if it serves no other purpose than a redistribution of wealth.

Obviously, you have no idea what a democracy is.

“(3) “Libertarian Government” is an oxymoron. It has never existed because anarchy is not government.”

That is not really true.  A truly communist government never really existed, but we have had socialist nations, mostly communist nations, communist movements, and ect.  There have been heavily libertarian leaning scoieties and peoples for years.  America for many years was on the most part libertarian (aside from tariffs).  The Cossacks had a pure libertarian society in Russia that existed for over 200 years.  People living cooperatively without kings or empire essentially were libertarian.  Libertarianism has worked before, it has worked in the 20th century.

Will libertarianism in its pure form work like it did in ancient russia?  Probably not.  IT would have to be altered.  Roads have to be paved, schools must be built, kinds of regulations must be attained, because a government now has the power to increase economic output and technology is so great we do not want to plunder the landscape for short term economic gains.  However, Jefferson said it the best, “the government that governs the best governs the least.”  Regulatory agencies, social programs, and other things that are already in the private sector and or charities should be entirely there.  Would you buy a piece of electronics that was not UL certified?  There’s a regulatory agency WITHOUT the government.  The aim should be to rid inefficiencies so everyone can benefit.

It is undeniable that is Europe and America the time will come where the social programs go bankrupt.  IT scares me to live in those times, but we will if we do not stop the vicious cycle that has already begun.

People like you are the reason I plan to teach history.  Such misconceptions are so great and go uncorrected, people have no idea how many things in the world really are.  Only if you knew the actual effects measurably of the programs you favor and oppose.  Only if you knew of the success of libertarian government.  How about the failures of socialist and communist governments?  The most successful government ever is probably monarchy, should we return to that?

History my friend, history.