Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[Jester]

Yes, but the other part is that we are closer today than we were 10, 20 or 200 years ago. Incrementally, we are surrendering the concept upon which our Constitution was founded, based on individual liberty and the assumption that the common man would look after their own problems and prosperity and the State would get the heck out of the way. The Bill of Rights was a promise by the confederation of States that these topics would never be intruded upon by the federation. Now, to look at how they are treated, you'd think that they were a boon given us by the Federal government and when extraordinary times (which seem to be quite often) roll around the central government feels they can also reel in our constitutional rights. Do you think the founders imagined a day when federal agents would whisk away a US or foreign citizens (e.g. Khalid El-Masri) in the dark of night to a prison in another country without any trace of where that person went? Rendition to black sites where prisoners are kept as "ghosts" and torture by proxy are not the kind of nation envisioned by the founders. The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995.

Rendition scares the hell out of me, too. I wouldn't disagree that this one is a checkmark on Mr. Eco's list. It's the rest of them, the things that give Fascism its political character, rather than its state powers, that I don't see as being as severe as you suggest.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm reminded of the legacy that was Rome;

Minor point: Rome was first a monarchy. Then it became a republic (i.e., a representative democracy) with the option of being a dictatorship in times of necessity (mainly when losing a war;)). Admittedly, only the patrician class was permitted to vote at first. The expansion of the vote to the plebeian class (and the addition of those born in Roman controlled territories to that class) led to the excesses of the first century BCE. In response to those excesses, concerned people like Julius Caius Caesar (need full name because there were almost as many 'Caesar' in Roman politics as there are 'Kennedy' in American) and Pompey tried to force their solution. The result was a period of civil wars ending with the triumph of Octavius Caesar (more commonly known as 'Augustus') and his relatively long reign. Although a dictator and an emperor, Augustus was probably the best leader Rome had had in two centuries and better than all those who followed him.

The drawback to a monarchy, a dictatorship, or an empire is finding capable people to take over in each generation. From William to Victoria, the British averaged about one in three -- much better than others have. A main advantage of a democracy is that it circumvents this problem.

And, as a last non sequitor: any comparisons between Rome and the USA fall apart past the point that they were (are) both nations and were (are) both powerful. Beyond that, it is more religious propaganda and Cecil B DeMille than anything based on reason or history.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Please tell me what you know about the liberties of people in Denmark and compare them to what you know about the liberties in the US.

Actually, according to some research done a few years ago, the USA has fallen behind many European countries in terms of liberties. Even though the study was subjective and biased (the right to be armed was discounted completely, the right to distill liquor for personal use was rated highly, as was the right to smoke in public places and to use recreational drugs), still it was valid in two senses. First, it was valid in that the USA is no longer the sole, or even the principle, bastion of liberty. And, second, it was valid in that one has to 'shop' for the country that grants the liberties most desirable to the individual (if you want to collect guns, come here; if you'd rather smoke dope, try Holland.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

That is to say, he (and many others, of course) diverted the course of US government from a Jeffersonian experiment to the nation you see before you.

You really should edit that to read, "from a failed Jeffersonian experiment". The state of the States under the Articles of Confederation is yet another part of American history which is glossed over in American classrooms.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Edited: not worth the energy cost to play

Think of it as a catharsis with the act being its own reward. :D

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

The "cyclical interpretation" you refer to does indeed have both a begining and an end (multiple beginings and ends actually), each begining and end marking the coming of a new "age" (or world).

December 21st, 2012 is the "end" of this "age" (and perhaps the begining of another).

And Saturday is the end of this week. But the world won't end on Sunday -- that usually happens on Monday.:whistling:

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Second, if FDR broke the back of the US economy, he did a piss poor job of it. The years following FDR were the best the US has ever had. During his time in office, the great depression turned around, the largest war in history was won, and the groundwork was laid for the postwar boom.

To be fair, it was primarily WW II that broke the (global) depression and, because of the immense manufacturing surge it forced, brought about the postwar boom. Though FDR's policies did help hold the country together during a critical decade.

If Obama is the new FDR, then I don't think you have much to worry about.

Maybe. Time will tell.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

That assumes that we elect qualified people to make these decisions, and not movie stars, pro-wrestlers, and anyone else with the money to run a campaign.

Overall, the "movie stars, pro-wrestlers, and anyone else with the money" seem to have a better track record than do the politicians. Just who are your "qualified people"?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

He is. He's a stock-owning socialist. ;)

That's not bi-polar, that's bisected;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I heard about the new energy plan today. The government will substantially increase taxes on energy consumption, pollution emitters, and green house gas emitters, then use a large portion of the revenue raised to compensate poor people who can no longer afford to pay for their heat or gasoline. Does this make sense?

"The president wants to use a portion of the funds generated from emissions trading, which the administration projects would reach a total of $645.7 billion by 2019, to finance a tax credit for some workers as well as invest in clean energy initiatives and help offset higher electric bills for some lower- and middle-income families."

"White House budget director Peter Orszag said yesterday that the administration linked the cap-and-trade program to the tax credits because the system “will have some effects on households."

So far I see higher taxes, higher costs of energy, higher costs of goods and services, lower corporate profits and fewer jobs.

[eppie]

So far I see higher taxes, higher costs of energy, higher costs of goods and services, lower corporate profits and fewer jobs.

Might be true, although a healthy country can succesfully try to do something about this loss of jobs and profits. And, this is not a choice it is a neccesity, even though the US will not likely be the country hardest hit by climate change.

[eppie]

Hi,
Actually, according to some research done a few years ago, the USA has fallen behind many European countries in terms of liberties. Even though the study was subjective and biased (the right to be armed was discounted completely, the right to distill liquor for personal use was rated highly, as was the right to smoke in public places and to use recreational drugs), still it was valid in two senses. First, it was valid in that the USA is no longer the sole, or even the principle, bastion of liberty. And, second, it was valid in that one has to 'shop' for the country that grants the liberties most desirable to the individual (if you want to collect guns, come here; if you'd rather smoke dope, try Holland.

--Pete

Indeed this is what I tried to say. By the way *** the USA is no longer the sole, or even the principle, bastion of liberty*** I wonder if this no longer is a correct statement. It would indicate that it once was. Of course political times change, and the US has never been invaded since somewhere in the 18th century, but e.g. Holland had already religious freedom in the beginning of the 17th century.(I mean the pilgrim fathers came to Holland before the sailed to the americas.....maybe we had too much freedom for them here so tghey decided to move on:) ) The Prince-Bishopric of Liège got universal suffrage in 1792. In the Netherlands this was around 1920, however at that time there was the Tulsa-riot (I just read a book about that) indicating no real freedom for all.
Anyway I don't want to make this into a contest, but just as I reacted on meat I don't find the 'no longer' in that sentence fair. I think the US has just done a better job advertising.

[kandrathe]

Holland had already religious freedom in the beginning of the 17th century.(I mean the pilgrim fathers came to Holland before the sailed to the americas.....maybe we had too much freedom for them here so they decided to move on:) ) The Prince-Bishopric of Liège got universal suffrage in 1792. In the Netherlands this was around 1920, however at that time there was the Tulsa-riot (I just read a book about that) indicating no real freedom for all.
Anyway I don't want to make this into a contest, but just as I reacted on meat I don't find the 'no longer' in that sentence fair. I think the US has just done a better job advertising.

I'm curious now. It seems that the Netherlands is a very secular country, in that only about 20% of the people worship anywhere regularly. Does that minority feel that their rights are preserved, and how is this religious minorities freedom protected?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Indeed this is what I tried to say. By the way *** the USA is no longer the sole, or even the principle, bastion of liberty*** I wonder if this no longer is a correct statement. It would indicate that it once was. Of course political times change, and the US has never been invaded since somewhere in the 18th century, but e.g. Holland had already religious freedom in the beginning of the 17th century.(I mean the pilgrim fathers came to Holland before the sailed to the americas.....maybe we had too much freedom for them here so tghey decided to move on:) ) The Prince-Bishopric of Liège got universal suffrage in 1792. In the Netherlands this was around 1920, however at that time there was the Tulsa-riot (I just read a book about that) indicating no real freedom for all.
Anyway I don't want to make this into a contest, but just as I reacted on meat I don't find the 'no longer' in that sentence fair. I think the US has just done a better job advertising.

Of course there are other freedoms than religious. Also, I'm not sure how one measures freedom, what the 'unit' of freedom is, how it is assigned and how it is weighed for different 'applications' (how many units is the vote compared to a free press?). Finally, how much freedom was there in most of Europe during the Napoleonic wars?

So, your point is well taken, but (I think) not really debatable or even realistically discussable. We lack the information, the actual application of laws, and an objective measure for meaningful discourse. However, there is some indication in that, while many Europeans emigrated to the USA (admittedly, for many reasons), few went the other way.

Finally, as to the Pilgrims and other religious groups that helped found the colonies, I think they were looking more for a place where they would not have to put up with those that disagreed with them than they were looking for religious freedom. In every case, more members of all those groups stayed in Europe than moved to America. It was only, I think, the most intolerant that actually moved. But, of course, that opinion is held heretical by most Americans.

--Pete

[eppie]

I'm curious now. It seems that the Netherlands is a very secular country, in that only about 20% of the people worship anywhere regularly. Does that minority feel that their rights are preserved, and how is this religious minorities freedom protected?

Well the majority considers themselves religious eventhough they are not going to church.
Lately it seems atheists are getting worried that their voice is not heard, this is all going hand in hand with anti-muslim sentiment. (although probably there are more christians here as well).
There are no real issues and as I said more people are worried that people 'can get away with anyhting' as long as theyt say they do it because of their religion.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I'm curious now. It seems that the Netherlands is a very secular country, in that only about 20% of the people worship anywhere regularly. Does that minority feel that their rights are preserved, and how is this religious minorities freedom protected?

Which freedoms?

[kandrathe]

Which freedoms?

Well, eppie said they have had freedom of religion for hundreds of years. Yet, religion seems to be a dying social group. How are religious freedoms protected, and this would be pretty remarkable when they compromise about 1/5th of the population (a clear minority). I wonder how that 1/5th feel about how well their freedoms are protected.

[kandrathe]

Might be true, although a healthy country can successfully try to do something about this loss of jobs and profits. And, this is not a choice it is a necessity, even though the US will not likely be the country hardest hit by climate change.

Do you really believe that anything in the 3 trillion dollars spent in the past 3 months will do anything about climate change? Here is a scenario for you; People become so desperate around the world that they cannot afford heating fuel, and thus they begin to burn garbage and the forests to stay warm.

[eppie]

Well, eppie said they have had freedom of religion for hundreds of years. Yet, religion seems to be a dying social group. How are religious freedoms protected, and this would be pretty remarkable when they compromise about 1/5th of the population (a clear minority). I wonder how that 1/5th feel about how well their freedoms are protected.

I think more like 80 % considers themselves religious in Holland.

[Jester]

Well, eppie said they have had freedom of religion for hundreds of years. Yet, religion seems to be a dying social group. How are religious freedoms protected, and this would be pretty remarkable when they compromise about 1/5th of the population (a clear minority). I wonder how that 1/5th feel about how well their freedoms are protected.

Have you considered that increased religious freedom, over time, leads to declining religiosity? It seems abundantly clear looking at a world map coloured by religious belief that the freest countries are the least religious, and contrariwise, that the least free are the most religious.

That seems overwhelmingly more likely than the implication you seem to be dancing around, which is that declining religiosity must be due to (or, more charitably, leads to) increased intolerance of religious freedom.

-Jester