Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not really, sheer profit drives companies overseas, it's the american onus to own more that keeps market capitalism flowin'.

Yeah and we all know that market capitalism has been so good for the world [/sarcasm]
Market capitalism saw the birth of the middle class and will bear witness to its demise.

ShumaGorath wrote:Cost is relative to what people are willing to pay. There is no price that something "Should cost". I'm also going to just assume that you've never been to either europe (in the last 30 years) or china (in the last 15). Neither one is particularly different in it's spending habits or shirt costs.

I'll admit that my information regarding European spending habits and attitudes towards consumer spending is anecdotal; however, I lived in South Korea for 4 1/2 years and in Japan for 2 1/2 years with frequent trips to China and various S.E. Asian countries and can say with a certain amount of confidence that I never witnessed the sheer volume of rampant consumerism as I see in the U.S. My wife, who is Japanese, often comments on magnitude of obvious waste here in the states and I suffered from a certain amount of reverse culture shock upon my return as well. Yes, a Japanese person (for example) may spend an obscene amount of money on a namebrand something or other but they will keep that item for much longer than an average American person who will most likely play with their new toy for a certain amount of time, tire of it, and then replace it with the latest doodad that they fall in love with.

agnosto wrote:I've lived in 2 countries with a form of public healthcare and cannot for the life of me understand why people are so disinclined to try it.

Because of the inalienable rule of Government: Once a program is implemented it will never, ever go away. The primary goal of any bureaucracy is to preserve it's existence. Our Federal government is too big and too powerful already.

agnosto wrote:But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.

I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:

1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.
2. Government can give you something only after it takes it away from someone else under threat of law.
3. The Founding Fathers of this country recognized government as a necessary evil and intentionally set up a system to keep it as small and limited in power as possible.
4. The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Fed in matters of Health Care.

So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.

I don't want a Nanny. I want Freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to choose, freedom to fail, freedom to be responsible for the consequences of my choices.

agnosto wrote:But, most americans are so indoctrinated in the "all socialism is evil" thing that they won't even consider it. Just think about all that money from your paycheck that goes to medicare and all the federal and state money that gets dumped into medicaid already. think about it.

I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:

1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.
2. Government can give you something only after it takes it away from someone else under threat of law.
3. The Founding Fathers of this country recognized government as a necessary evil and intentionally set up a system to keep it as small and limited in power as possible.
4. The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Fed in matters of Health Care.

So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.

I don't want a Nanny. I want Freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to choose, freedom to fail, freedom to be responsible for the consequences of my choices.

ShumaGorath wrote:Well this last one makes sense, though doctors probably don't shop at wallmart.

Eh, my dad (ER doctor), grandad (GP), and fiance (vet) shop pretty much exclusively at Wal-Mart, or the HEB.

I'm glad to see the health care bill faltering. We need to be cutting back on our entitlement spending, not ramping it up. I would much prefer to see a plan for how to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid viable pay-as-you-go programs. I don't understand how this spending and generational theft can continue without grave consequences for the public. I've been reading a lot of literature lately about the early American republic, stuff like The Federalist Papers and a lot of Jefferson's letters, and it just reinforces in my mind this idea that the US government isn't an evolution of a vassal state like the European powers. Your personal well being isn't in the purview of the government, because US citizens were never owned by nobles. This slide into a fuedal state where everyone is provided for and controlled by 'the government' concerns me. Also- it's funny to read these old papers and see that Congress was just as bitter, partisan, and acrimonius then as it is now.

I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:

Thats a pretty spurious argument. By that logic all laws are the opposite of liberty and freedom (which they are). Socialism is a meaningless strawman, and healthcare is no more an agent of control than taxation for military purposes or public education.

I'm glad to see the health care bill faltering. We need to be cutting back on our entitlement spending, not ramping it up. I would much prefer to see a plan for how to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid viable pay-as-you-go programs. I don't understand how this spending and generational theft can continue without grave consequences for the public. I've been reading a lot of literature lately about the early American republic, stuff like The Federalist Papers and a lot of Jefferson's letters, and it just reinforces in my mind this idea that the US government isn't an evolution of a vassal state like the European powers. Your personal well being isn't in the purview of the government, because US citizens were never owned by nobles. This slide into a fuedal state where everyone is provided for and controlled by 'the government' concerns me. Also- it's funny to read these old papers and see that Congress was just as bitter, partisan, and acrimonius then as it is now.

And when we go back to an economy based on fur trapping and tobacco and cotton plantations that will matter. It was also much less of a democracy back then.

quote]
And when we go back to an economy based on fur trapping and tobacco and cotton plantations that will matter. It was also much less of a democracy back then.

The Green Git wrote:
I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom.

Ok, so socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. That's not true by any means, as they aren't remotely comparable on a categorical level, but lets run with that notion for a bit.

The Green Git wrote:
So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.

I don't want a Nanny. I want Freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to choose, freedom to fail, freedom to be responsible for the consequences of my choices.

So, you don't think the issue is that people have been indoctrinated to believe that all socialism is evil, but your apparent value set squarely places socialism opposite good on your spectrum of value; the end which is nominally referred to as evil. That fact, in conjunction with your clear misunderstanding of socialism (a political-economic philosophy cannot be in direct opposition to metaphysical ideas; especially one so broad as socialism), seems to indicate that your analysis is faulty on grounds of self-deception.

Silverthorne wrote:
And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?

It was also a democracy (well, polity is probably a better word), as indicated by the presence of popular elections. All the word Republic indicates is that the state being described lacks a hereditary sovereign. However, since popular elections are stipulated in the Constitution that is also, effectively, permanent feature.

Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy. With Europe at war, the US made ridiculous amounts of money shipping to both sides as a neutral power.

Not as much as it made through agrarian farming and infrastructural buildup enabling it to tap the vast natural wealth of the continent (which it could then sell to all interested parties as a neutral power). As a part of gdp shipping exports overseas was never a major factor of the u.s. economy. Certainly profitable, but hardly the base of the national wealth.

The protection of the neutral Stars and Stripes was far more valuable than any product produced in the country then. At that time, cotton plantations were not as profitable as they would become in 40 years, right before they were eclipsed by Egyptian imports during the Civil

Their profitability or their impact? Being undercut is one thing, claiming that a foreign power (egypt no less) supplanted the u.s. cotton industry before the advent of mass freight shipping (Especially inland) is outright ridiculous.

However, aside from betraying your breathless lack of command of US history, you are esentially right-

Right. That.

we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being.

By... What?

Do you think Jim Bridger was on W.I.C? And I bet he was a bit more hard up for food occassionally than most people drawing it today..

What the hell are you talking about jim bridger for? What does he have to do with anything? Am I going to go outside and make my lifestyle mountaineering? Are you high?

Way to fail on knowing what the early US economy was like, dude. Awesome

Coming from someone with what appears to be a basic lack of understanding of how economics of any period worked I'll take that with a grain of salt.

And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

How the feth do you not know what the word republic means. The constitution lays out the basis of the American Republic as a democracy. A democracy is a republic, and virtually all republics in history have been democracies. Our republic is a democracy. A CAR IS ALSO A VEHICLE.

1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.

Only if the Govt. isn't answerable to the people.

And Govt.s, thusly far in the human experience, consist of humans too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being.

By... What?

Presumably by doing away with medicaid, and certain elements of social security. Though that alone won't do anything useful with respect to the budgetary future, or taxation. In fact, the money thereby saved would probably be required to prop up medicare; along requisite increases in the age necessary to claim benefits.

dogma wrote:
Presumably by doing away with medicaid, and certain elements of social security. Though that alone won't do anything useful with respect to the budgetary future, or taxation. In fact, the money thereby saved would probably be required to prop up medicare; along requisite increases in the age necessary to claim benefits.

That would be career suicide for any politician that even suggests it.

agnosto wrote:

dogma wrote:
Presumably by doing away with medicaid, and certain elements of social security. Though that alone won't do anything useful with respect to the budgetary future, or taxation. In fact, the money thereby saved would probably be required to prop up medicare; along requisite increases in the age necessary to claim benefits.

That would be career suicide for any politician that even suggests it.

The glories of democracy.

agnosto wrote:
That would be career suicide for any politician that even suggests it.

That's debatable. Quite a few politicians within the Republican Party are suggesting exactly that, and the political department certainly favors that particular brand of reform.

Then again, the mob is dumb, so its quite possible that many would oppose it on grounds of 'government intervention' or some other such nonsense.

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

Urgh....

ShumaGorath wrote:

Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy. With Europe at war, the US made ridiculous amounts of money shipping to both sides as a neutral power.

Not as much as it made through agrarian farming and infrastructural buildup enabling it to tap the vast natural wealth of the continent (which it could then sell to all interested parties as a neutral power). As a part of gdp shipping exports overseas was never a major factor of the u.s. economy. Certainly profitable, but hardly the base of the national wealth.

The protection of the neutral Stars and Stripes was far more valuable than any product produced in the country then. At that time, cotton plantations were not as profitable as they would become in 40 years, right before they were eclipsed by Egyptian imports during the Civil

Their profitability or their impact? Being undercut is one thing, claiming that a foreign power (egypt no less) supplanted the u.s. cotton industry before the advent of mass freight shipping (Especially inland) is outright ridiculous.

However, aside from betraying your breathless lack of command of US history, you are esentially right-

Right. That.

we need to return to a paradigm where the average worker is responsible for his own well being.

By... What?

Do you think Jim Bridger was on W.I.C? And I bet he was a bit more hard up for food occassionally than most people drawing it today..

What the hell are you talking about jim bridger for? What does he have to do with anything? Am I going to go outside and make my lifestyle mountaineering? Are you high?

Way to fail on knowing what the early US economy was like, dude. Awesome

Coming from someone with what appears to be a basic lack of understanding of how economics of any period worked I'll take that with a grain of salt.

And yes, it was less of a democracy because the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. How do you not know that?

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

How the feth do you not know what the word republic means. The constitution lays out the basis of the American Republic as a democracy. A democracy is a republic, and virtually all republics in history have been democracies. Our republic is a democracy. A CAR IS ALSO A VEHICLE.

No- the US primarily didn't ship its OWN goods. Sure, lots of US goods were shipped, especially naval stores and foodstuffs, but primarily merchant fleets registered in the US shipped France's goods from the colonies to other nations, and back to France. As the war intensified, there were various dodges that had to be put on this, most notably that the goods had to touch US soil before they could be resold. Still- the single most profitable sector of the US economy wasn't the export of 'agrarian goods' it was duties and fees on shipping. Let's look at US wars after the revolution-- Tripoli, Quasi War, War of 1812. See a trend? All fought to protect the neutrality of shipping. Because it was the most important sector of the US economy. We were not a nation that made money mostly off of food we sold to others. That's flat out wrong. How can you even have an economy based on 'infrastructural buildup'? Especially in a very low tax rate- extremely decentralized, very rural nation? And the 'continent' at that point was inaccessible. More than 200 miles inland was total wilderness. Shipping WAS the basis of national wealth. That's a matter of historical record.


I'm referring to Egypt becoming the primary exporter of cotton to England's textile mills, not supplying US demand. Again, just a slim grasp on history would have prevented you from making that misunderstanding.

When did I describe how any economic model worked? Are you high? I called you out on your false statement that the early US economy was agriculturally based. I never positied any theory on any economic model. Reading, try it sometime. Maybe start with a history book.


A republic is not equal to a democracy. That's like saying a truck and a motorcycle are the same because they are both vehicles. Get it? Lightbulb? A republic and a democracy are both representative governments, they are not interchangeable terms. Nice talking to you.

@Silverthorne: Your view on the early American republic is accurate. And yes Shuma, we are a republic, and have always been one. We are not a democracy, that is basic fact. You are pointing to a change in the basic usage and definition of the words democracy and republic, which is a modern phenomena. During the founding days of our republic the Founding Fathers made it quite clear that they had a great disdain for democracy. The Federalist Papers often rail against democracy and point out the superiority of Republicanism, this is most evident from James Madison's Federalist Papers No. 10. Ben Franklin, as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, when asked by a lady what he had done replied, "Given you a republic ma'am, if you can keep it." The basic point is that Republicanism and Democracy are not the same thing. Similar, but not nearly the same. That difference has been blurred in recent years, and this has led to much confusion and mislabeling.

Silverthorne wrote:
A republic and a democracy are both representative governments, they are not interchangeable terms. Nice talking to you.

No, that's wrong. All a nation must do in order to be a republic is possess a head of state who is not a monarch. That's it. Unless by 'representative' you only meant to indicate that a Republic must represent the interests of those who are invested in the state; ie. Senators, Congressmen, or...Representatives.

The US Constitution guarantees that the Federal government, and all states overseen by it, are republican in nature. It also, via the House, guarantees that the nation is democratically represented. We live in a democratic republic. There is no argument here, at all.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Silverthorne: Your view on the early American republic is accurate. And yes Shuma, we are a republic, and have always been one. We are not a democracy, that is basic fact.

We're most certainly a sort of democracy now. Unless you won't consider any state a democracy unless its character is Athenian; ie. all citizens cast their stones. If that's the case, it explains a great deal about this dispute.

dogma wrote:We're most certainly a sort of democracy now. Unless you won't consider any state a democracy unless its character is Athenian; ie. all citizens cast their stones. If that's the case, it explains a great deal about this dispute.

Please clarify why you would say we are a democracy? Where does supreme power lie? It isn't with the people, it is with the US Constitution. How is this authority changed? Not by the people, but by the states and the Federal government. As I said in my post the two terms have always been defined and categorized separately, that is until recent times. I noted that they were similar, but not at all the same.

Are you just being cheeky JEB?

Democratic republic = USA

Direct democracy = Athens

Where is the confusion here?

It would appear to me that although we live in a indirect democracy, the final say (at least to some degree), does indeed lie with the people. After all, we are the ones electing the officials to deal with any changes, no matter how slow that process is.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

No, I am being serious. I am just clarifying what the definitions of the words are, and how they have been accepted for quite some time. The term democratic republic is a new idea, our country definitely wasn't founded as one. As I noted, our Founding Fathers had a genuine dislike for a democracy, and saw Republicanism as a far superior model of government. In modern times we have carelessly juxtaposed the two words, and have developed this cult of democracy. It may be just semantics, but I view that as important. Does that clarify my position at all?

JEB wrote:It may be just semantics, but I view that as important. Does that clarify my position at all?

I get what you are poking at, but it is definitely semantics. We live in a Democratic Republic, in modern times.

Emphasizing the fact that we are a Republic makes sense, as long as you do so with consideration of other factors. We do not live in a simple Republic, as I generally feel that is an impractical term used to gloss over 'inconsistencies' within a political system.

As I understand it, the word "democracy" had become something of a pejorative at the time of the United States' founding, following Plato and Aristotle's criticisms of it.

However, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party quite early in our history, didn't he?

Orkeosaurus wrote:However, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party quite early in our history, didn't he?

He founded a party to oppose the Federalists, but he did not name it the Democratic-Republican Party. He referred to himself, as did the vast majority of the party, as Republicans, and is largely considered to be a member of the "Old Republicans" which were the staunch adversaries of the Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton. Madison and Jefferson continually referred to it as the Republican party to their deaths, and the term Democratic didn't start to appear in the name until 1802, and even then it was due only to local elements and was a gradual change.

Ah. I see.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Please clarify why you would say we are a democracy?

A democracy is a system of government under which authority, ultimate or otherwise, is derived from the populace.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Where does supreme power lie? It isn't with the people, it is with the US Constitution.

Documents can't possess anything, as they lack the requisite animation. People can use documents as a means of expressing power, but the document itself does nothing.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
How is this authority changed? Not by the people, but by the states and the Federal government.

Which are representatives of the people, from whence all authority originates. We live in a representative democracy.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
As I said in my post the two terms have always been defined and categorized separately, that is until recent times. I noted that they were similar, but not at all the same.

Yes, they have been. However, the fact that the two terms have distinct meanings does not indicate that they cannot together reference a single, real thing.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Please clarify why you would say we are a democracy?

A democracy is a system of government under which authority, ultimate or otherwise, is derived from the populace.

That's too vague of a definition to be serviceable. Afterall, a military junta gets it's authority from a part of the populace, namely thugs with guns. A monarch's authority is empowered by the martial strength of his vassals, who are a part of the populace. Any system of government dervives authority from some segment of the populace, and no government has a total franchise of all people living withing it's borders. With these two conditions in play, the definition you provide is too vague to be of any use. Of course authority is derived from the populace- otherwise there would be no authority because there would be no people to exert authority with or on.


A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote. In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.

Silverthorne wrote:A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote. In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.

33% of our federal government, plus the POTUS, and many of the other positions are picked by these two parts of our federal government. Speaking of this, in what other way would someone receive a high level government position, without the consent of our elected officials?

On top of this, we elect various state officials, mayors, and many other positions of power. The amount of involvement by the people, varies quite a bit from state to state as well. All of this combined puts us squarely within democratic terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn wrote:-the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

The issue of degree does not effect the core of this term, which is very flexible.

The Green Git wrote:I've thought long and hard about it. The problem is not indoctrination that "all socialism is evil" but that socialism is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Consider:

1. If the government is responsible for everyone's health care, then that responsibility (and decision making) is removed from you.

Unless its Medicare, at which point any possible reform to healthcare will take it away.

2. Government can give you something only after it takes it away from someone else under threat of law.

Only to the extent that society is a zero sum game, and given the advances in the material well-being of all citizens over the last few centuries that’s obviously not true. Instead we need to consider that the welfare of all can be improved and enhanced through mutually beneficial relations. We know that the market can be relied on to produce many of these relations, but outside of the wangrods at the Chicago school there is sound recognition that the market has blindsides.

The provision of healthcare is one such area.

3. The Founding Fathers of this country recognized government as a necessary evil and intentionally set up a system to keep it as small and limited in power as possible.

So when are you shutting down that standing army?

4. The Constitution of the United States does not empower the Fed in matters of Health Care.

What part of the constitution empowers the Federal Government to administer airline traffic?

So... government mandated and administered health care is beyond the scope of the charter documents of the country and counter to the ideals of freedom. Freedom is not just having a vote at the ballot box. Freedom is being able to chart the course for your life and being free to LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, good or bad.

The freedom to get sick, have your insurance cancelled on a technicality, and join the ranks of Americans declaring bankruptcy due to medical costs.

Silverthorne wrote:… it just reinforces in my mind this idea that the US government isn't an evolution of a vassal state like the European powers. Your personal well being isn't in the purview of the government, because US citizens were never owned by nobles. This slide into a fuedal state where everyone is provided for and controlled by 'the government' concerns me. Also- it's funny to read these old papers and see that Congress was just as bitter, partisan, and acrimonius then as it is now.

Dude, seriously, what? First up, in Europe you weren’t owned by your noble, you were each attached to the land. You might be thinking of serfs in Russia, who were directly owned by their lord. Even then, you couldn’t sell the serf as if he were a slave. Second up, if you think there was ever a meaningful duty of care of the nobility towards the peasantry you need to seriously reconsider your understanding of history, starting with enclosure. As soon as the nobility realised a system of production that could exclude a majority of the peasantry it did so.

Then you have to consider that the US was for much of the twentieth century a far more progressive state than much of Europe. The US, for instance, was a very early adopter of healthcare coverage, which is part of the reason the current system is so dysfunctional – your system is generations old and badly in need of reform.

Silverthorne wrote:Your ignorance about the early republic is APPALLING. It was primarily a shipping based economy.

While I haven’t read much on US economic history, I’ve read some interesting stuff arguing that shipping in general is exaggerated in economic history studies. The primary tool of all history is source documents, and shipping was heavily and consistently documented in a variety of logs much economic history tends to focus on that. The result, as argued in a few things I’ve read, is general bias towards shipping and similar trade, and a bias away from cottage industry.

Anyhow, I’m not disputing your central argument, which is an interesting one, just (hopefully) adding something else to consider.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Similar, but not nearly the same. That difference has been blurred in recent years, and this has led to much confusion and mislabeling.

Political definitions are slippery things, because they’re tools of the political debate. People will look to redefine terms on the fly to gather whatever ammunition for the political arguments. Look at how the left and right wings will argue for democracy or republicanism when the Republicans were in control, and how they’ll quickly change sides when the Democrats take over.

Personally, I think the issue is best resolved by avoiding the war of ever shifting definitions, and just talking about the actual substance of an issue.

Silverthorne wrote:A republic is a representative government were not all the leaders are chosen by popular vote. In our own system, only one branch of government, the legislature, is determined by a direct popular vote. Even within the legislature, the franchise of the private citizen is not very powerful compared to the influence of organizations with a lot of money. This is especially true in light of the recent overturn of campaign finance reform in the supreme court. Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.

Uh, Australia has two of its three branches of government, the judiciary and the Governor General, appointed by measures completely outside of election. Whereas the US presidency, while not a direct vote is still determined by election. So would we be more Republicanny than you?

It’s very odd that you’re arguing the appointment of the judiciary as evidence for the US being a distinctly Republican state. Direct election of citizens into public office is, in fact, a peculiarly American thing. The rest of us have our politicians elected and everyone else appointed by the politicians, the US system that allows for direct election of rubbish collectors and district attorneys is a real curiosity to the rest of us. If Republicanism is a measure of how much of you government is directly elected or not, then the US becomes the more Democratic and the least Republican nation on Earth, which is a bizarre result and very good grounds to re-examine your argument.

No- the US primarily didn't ship its OWN goods. Sure, lots of US goods were shipped, especially naval stores and foodstuffs, but primarily merchant fleets registered in the US shipped France's goods from the colonies to other nations, and back to France. As the war intensified, there were various dodges that had to be put on this, most notably that the goods had to touch US soil before they could be resold. Still- the single most profitable sector of the US economy wasn't the export of 'agrarian goods' it was duties and fees on shipping.

Firstly, an economy is not solely it's exports unless it's primarily an export driven economy. Those didn't even begin to exist until the advent of mass shipping (They were in fact virtually impossible without a very specific national model, primarily a colonial one). Differentiate the two. It's important when you're talking about economics, especially historically, to understand what an economy is. You apparently don't.

Let's look at US wars after the revolution-- Tripoli, Quasi War, War of 1812. See a trend? All fought to protect the neutrality of shipping. Because it was the most important sector of the US economy. We were not a nation that made money mostly off of food we sold to others. That's flat out wrong. How can you even have an economy based on 'infrastructural buildup'? Especially in a very low tax rate- extremely decentralized, very rural nation? And the 'continent' at that point was inaccessible. More than 200 miles inland was total wilderness. Shipping WAS the basis of national wealth. That's a matter of historical record.

We were primarily a nation that made money by exploiting natural resources that we then sold to ourselves. The most common jobs were agriculture. This is not rocket science, the vast majority of american wealth didn't come in on ships once the population of the continent stabilized. The majority of luxuries came from overseas for a period of years, but the real growth of American wealth was not generated via overseas shipping lanes. You'll note that I've never once given a date to any of my arguments, and you have not given one to yours. We didn't all live by the sea by the time the war of 1812 came around.

And when we go back to an economy based on fur trapping and tobacco and cotton plantations that will matter. It was also much less of a democracy back then.

How you can repeatedly assume I don't know American history off of this comment floors me.

I'm referring to Egypt becoming the primary exporter of cotton to England's textile mills, not supplying US demand. Again, just a slim grasp on history would have prevented you from making that misunderstanding.

Or maybe just maybe you could state something in coherent fashion, so that I don't have to assume you're piloting your computer drunk.

When did I describe how any economic model worked?

You didn't, and you still don't seem to know. I suspect you haven't attempted to describe the economic model of the early U.S. because you don't actually understand how it functioned, only knowing that shipping played an important role. You might also be under the assumption that I know how it works, and that you don't need to describe it; but were that the case you likely wouldn't constantly be implying that I lack education in the subject.

I called you out on your false statement that the early US economy was agriculturally based. I never positied any theory on any economic model. Reading, try it sometime. Maybe start with a history book.

Yes, and what percentage of u.s. citizens were farmers in the year 1812?

A republic is not equal to a democracy. That's like saying a truck and a motorcycle are the same because they are both vehicles. Get it? Lightbulb? A republic and a democracy are both representative governments.

Actually virtually all democracies historically have been republics, as the original meaning for republic was:

"state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica)

This nation has been a democratic republic since it's inception, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

they are not interchangeable terms.

No, but they can both be used to commonly cover the same political entities.

Nice talking to you.

Not really.

That's too vague of a definition to be serviceable. Afterall, a military junta gets it's authority from a part of the populace, namely thugs with guns. A monarch's authority is empowered by the martial strength of his vassals, who are a part of the populace. Any system of government dervives authority from some segment of the populace, and no government has a total franchise of all people living withing it's borders. With these two conditions in play, the definition you provide is too vague to be of any use. Of course authority is derived from the populace- otherwise there would be no authority because there would be no people to exert authority with or on.

Yes, thats why it's important to avoid being hyper literal when discussing political theory. By the same semantical logic all forms of governance are derived solely from the people because our nations are not being run by turtles. Republic has a vague meaning because it has and always will have a vague meaning. It had one from the start.

Since only 33% of our government is determined by popular vote, we don't meet the definition of a democracy.

Actually we do. We meet every single dictionary definition of one created in the last century and we fulfill the historical terminology which breaks the word down in "strength of the districts people" or power vested in and practiced by citizenry. What we don't meet is the silverthorne happy hour definition, in which essentially only "Direct Democracies" are democracies. So I guess switzerland.

sebster wrote:
Globalisation has allowed for more complex international production chains. It is a lot easier to put capital into a new electronics plant in Burma than it was thirty years ago.

More than that, though, the skill level across the world has grown markedly. Electronics and the manufacture of consumer goods used to be a high skill activity, it was done in the West despite our high salaries because no-one else was capable of doing it. But now most countries are capable of building and managing a plant that can produce such goods.

The trick to the whole issue is that all of that is actually a good thing. I understand it doesn’t feel like it during poor economic times, but the only way to sustain the standard of living we’re used to in the West is to focus on high skilled work – doing what the developing world cannot and charging a premium for it - R&D, high level manufacture (aircraft and the like), financial services – these are industries that are driven by technical expertise, not low wage levels.

Through trade we can get low skilled nations to do the low paying work, while a significant portion of our populations can move into high paying industries.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Increase job training for highly technical fields and encourage upper level education by providing better aid to applying students. The factories aren't coming back and we aren't a production economy. We are a service and technology economy that is too stupid to realize it. We should capitalize on what we have (more colleges than the rest of the world combined) and stop trying to breathe life into a dead body.

^These two are on the right track. I'm going to touch on some other points.

1. Healthcare. My perspective is that the sole purpose of government-funded healthcare should be to maximize worker productivity. If you take that position as a given, why provide healthcare for retirees, or working-age adults who are no longer collecting unemployment insurance (just using that as an indicator that they probably won't return to work anytime soon)? Cut them out and you could save billions.

2. Information Management. This is partly, but not solely, related to healthcare. Our record-keeping standards for personal health history, among other things, are in the frickin' Dark Ages. A standardized national system should have been started 10 years ago. Any law enforcement agency can tap into a database to keep track of felons, but I have to hand-carry a paper copy of my med docs when I move from base to base? Really? It's even worse for Joe the Plumber if he hasn't had a check-up in 10 years, and decides to switch hospitals. The old one probably lost his records in some archive, and now the new one doesn't know he reacts negatively to some crazy medication and he dies. Shoulda looked that up on a computer. The Department of Veterans Affairs is leading the way with this, as everything I've done with them seems to be a in a database that can be looked up, and some (but not all) information is accessible across multiple hospitals, whether I had a check-up in Philadelphia or X-rays in Gainesville. Imagine that, a government-run healthcare organization is a model of efficiency and cutting edge technology....

3. Urban Planning/Zoning. The layout of our country is massively inefficient. Just because we have available land, doesn't mean we should spread out to use it all. We have people who commute 45 minutes from housing developments to low-density industrial parks on the other side of the city. This induces:

90 minutes of wasted time per day
fuel & vehicular maintenance costs
road maintenance costs
environmental degradation

That all adds up to considerable economic and social inefficiencies. Part of this is a cultural affinity for owning a plot of land with a house on it, and that needs to change (not sure how). If we properly designed cities with decently spacious flats, access to considerable greenery/parks/public spaces, and work opportunities within walking distance (or other short commute), life in a comparatively high-density city would be more palatable. Properly insulated urban structures should also have a lower net energy drain on our national power infrastructure, with higher ambient winter temperatures reducing the need for heating while the insulation reduces the cubic-meter costs of summertime cooling.

All of this serves to reduce costs and by extension reduce the burdens on the economy that impair our productivity and competitiveness.

I've got other stuff I was going to rant about but it's late and I'm sleepy.