reply to post by endisnighe
I remember it, it is a great thread. I flagged it. I re-read parts of it now. It is an advance in legal philosophy to point out that the
constitutional republic should protect people against even the majority. America was set up so that various kinds of people could enjoy the maximum
freedom - and sometimes agree to disagree. Later all kinds of Americans were specifically lifted among the ranks of those affected by the Bill of
Rights and the Constitution - it is true that initially Native Americans or women or Black people were not supposed to have the same rights (this
points to namah's post as well.)
The Iroquis principles of tribal confederacy were even more that way than Rousseau. Keep in mind that in most American Indian nations, the majority
could never enforce their will upon the individual. As far as I know, the hardest punishment was ostracism from the tribe. No police went to your tent
to enforce tribal decisions. Everyone was heard, even if it took days to discuss an issue. A chief was mostly a chief because they had good
negotiating powers. And there was no one chief of any nation - the Europeans assumed that the military chief was THE chief. However, every nation had
several chiefs, for example the mediating or peacemaking chief was usually an older wise woman.
The philosophy of the US Constitution has certainly retained some elements of this, new to the rest of the world.
At the same time, it is difficult to say these days that there is no need for police - or even for giving basic health care. This is no longer a
frontier society. For hundreds of years, there was a psychological element in the US similar to a type of Native American experience, in that if you
absolutely do not agree with a group, you can go away and they will leave you alone. There were vast lands towards the West where you could live in
complete freedom - and danger, if you chose to do so.
What follows from your post - if government is assumed to be completely under the control of the corporate elite - is that we are hemmed between two
evils, which have one and the same root.
And that maybe it would be a time for a revolution to take back some of that power.
In that, many different kinds of people could cooperate. Leftists, rightists, truthers, environmentalists, spokespeople for natives, libertarians,
true (old-style) conservatives etc. Neo-conservatives would greatly dislike it as they are a Theocratic group. (They could do what they want as long
as they do not infringe upon the freedom of others. But that group is particularly disposed to do just that.)
The point is - we all dislike the power of Big Corporatocracy. I personally tend to support only small scale, sustainable capitalism, with social
provisions, and more and more limitations with size - enforced by the government of the people etc., while others may want something different. At
this point I have no choice, if I went back to live in America, I would have to deal with corporatocracy.
So: originally the US government was supposed to be a government scrutinized constantly by the people, a government by the people, of the people etc.
We no longer have this dream working. It could be resurrected though.
It still remains though that legal entities cannot vote. However, they circumvent this with their contributions. The whole point of a CR was that the
exercise of power would be removed from those who have power anyway.
Many so-called modern democracies modeled themselves after versions of this model - very few people make the difference you made in your thread. But
even democracy would be better than corporatocracy. It would still put some checks on unlimited power of some grups over the freedom of individuals.
Once government was really checked and scrutinized, in every way people want it (and I do think this is practicaly possible), government would be not
a principal evil by itself. In a true CR, it would actually be a good thing, serving the people as much as they want to be served.
Right now, in 2010 there are precious few legal battles where weakening the government would result in more individual freedom.
My point is that people are taught by the MSM and ther elders to think in anti-government ways because they automatically think it is an American
style. No, a well-scrutinized government maintained for the interests of all citizens would be the American way originally. It was the Royal
government that the FF disliked, and their experiment was whether any good government could be erected - one that contained and respected differences
(as a true CR would).
Also, in general, (this is no longer in answer to the very intelligent contribution I was addressing above), it shows with many people in the US there
had been a bit too much brainwashing on the topics of Socialism, Communism etc. for a number of generations. It cropped up in this thread too. I think
both Socailism and Communism have been progressive movements initially, by their founders intentions, trying to give more freedom to individuals. It
would be a welcome addition to separate Soviet Bolshevik dictatorship from the ideas of Marx and Engels, whose whole point was that you cannot be
truly free if you live in poverty imposed by an organized plutocracy. We cannot simply equate the ideas of the US Founding Fathers with the Iraq war,
for that matter. The Soviet Union did not experiment with any form of Socialism, only nominally. It was a brutal modern Theocracy. Marx and his
followers in the 19th century did not know everything, but they are certainly not the devils that the cold war propaganda painted. Sweden in the
twentieth century is a better example of a social democratic governance where differences are allowed. Capitalism seemed to work hand in hand with
socialistic measures there for a while.
Of course, that goes with much higher taxes for the well-to-do. (Not for the poor - they were better off.) But please do not equate freedom with
greed. The founding fathers of the US were concerned with freedom, not greed. The two have little to do with each other. For a poor person, more money
could mean more freedom. However, the freedom the think tanks of the corporatocracy want us to consider is more freedom for their collective greed.
Is that much better than other kinds of collective greed?