It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

QUESTION To opponents of direct democracy. The Federal Reserve and governments own direct democracy

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I have a simple question. Its very straight forward so I wont complicate it too much.

Here it is:

To those that oppose direct democracy because of the fear that "the people" are irresponsible and would just vote themselves greater wealth; How do you feel about the Federal Reserve that is composed of "responsible men" who have consistently voted themselves greater portions of the nations wealth?

Would it not make sense for the people to vote themselves greater shares OF THEIR OWN WEALTH instead of people whos wealth it is not?

How are the people represented in this representative republic of the USA when in government most people in any official capacity are either lawyers or businessmen? Where are the scientists, engineers, laborers and other parts of life REPRESENTED in government?

Do you think that by visiting government as a scientist, engineer, farmer and so on when invited by these lawyers and businessmen for specific issues actually constitutes being represented in any meaningful way?

We have bankers and lawyers voting themselves greater wealth...OUR wealth. How is that not the same evil of direct democracy? They have direct democracy FOR THEMSELVES...It is a form of direct democracy in which the rest of the nation only gets some sparse "trickle down" consideration in the form of supposedly being "represented" by these REAL citizens of the nation.

These bankers, businessmen and lawyers are the real citizens who have the power to do with OUR WEALTH and prosperity as they will. All of this irresponsibility and greed is done under the guise of representative democracy and the farce of public good. What the law of the land actually is, is direct democracy for some who use that power to vote themselves into prosperity at the expense of the nation.

I say let Joe do with his buck as he would see fit instead of Larry deciding how much Joe should get from each of Joe´s dollars. It cant be worse. Have you seen our debt?

Thoughts?


edit on 10 6 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman


Thoughts?


It's well known what would happen: Chains ... or stupid.

There's no need to 'think' beyond the truth of it.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Hey,
Well maybe. Nothing is set in stone. The best laid out plans are usually the ones to turn out as one WOULD NOT expect.

I don't know if its Murphy´s law or just life in the form of fate....but things get complicated. Times change and SOMETIMES people do as well...or they die off with every change in the world that demands adaptation.

Even if the power elite of the world shut it all down now, the people of the world would not just unlearn the last couple hundred years and what has been revealed.

Have a good one.


edit on 10 6 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Snarl, you know I respect you, but what you said just then was an example of both the things you referenced. It was both an example of the chains around your mind, and the stupidity of relying on a small number of elected representatives, to do what ought to be the responsibility of every single person in a democratic nation.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Our current "direct democracy" is actually a "financially directed democracy".

Congress created the Federal Reserve and the President at the time signed off on it.

The massive national debt is a result.

Congress and the President still can repeal.

How? who knows.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Respect back at ya.

I've lived a long lot o' years. The one thing I've come to expect is a 'lack of responsibility' in others. My comment was extremely short ... and you may have overlooked the point I was making.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Hmmm... I understand.

Looked at another way though, would you not agree that rather than having a small number of people to blame for everything being drastically unfair, would it not be preferable to have folk be responsible for their own rise or fall, as individuals as well as part of wider society?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Would this direct democracy be on a national or local level?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The system we have right now has manageable accountability built into it.

You know there are people who will exploit or otherwise take advantage of the weak. Do _you_ really believe those people will just go quietly into the night when they make a mistake with their finances and their kids are hungry?

The OP purports to be about democracy, but it's focus is on the financial aspects of the foundation of such a society. Why do you suppose people have been so concerned about a global financial meltdown for the past decade. I think it's because the conservative values of the republic have given way to liberal/democrat (note the lowercase text) laxity, leading to massive (unsustainable) government-assumed debt ... and loss of confidence in the World's reserve currency.

In short, America's changing values destroyed what the world was relying on ... because of a changing ideology.

Throw everyone in the ocean and give them the option of sink or swim. It's not an option ... you swim or you die. Those heroes who want to save everyone, well, they might get one or two ... or they might drown trying. It's the folks who make it to shore who will live to tell the tale. But it's not a story ... it's just the perception of one.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join