Does anyone see something wrong with this?

[exatreide]

Well a few Daisy cutter bombs didnt stop the VC now did they  ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Iran has pretty advanced technology compared to Iraq - including chinese Silkworm missiles that can be used against US ships. China is obviously backing Iran against the US' possible invasion.

It would be incredibly stupid to invade Iran and many americans would die.

well we obviously would do "shock and Awe" campaign first.....

[Andrew]

Yah the invasion went well in Iraq, but they are losing lots more people in the occupation.

[orlok]

lo all

thing is, we can't change a thing.

not unless we act.

write letters to government etc etc.

Until then, they gonna do what they like.

sorry to cast a downer but it is all politics, ie money and moving up that ladder within your peer group/political party.

If you feel strongly, get into politics and make the change, just don't get suck into the machine.

end of rant :)

sorry again

rgds

OrLoK

[nemafakei]

"USA knows how to do an invasion...... but as far an an occupation.... not so sure"

This has long been my problem. It's irresponsible to invade if you're not ready to deal with the consequences. It's no use being shockingly awful at a country's forces if you're still going to be shockingly awful at helping and protecting its people.

[GUNWOUNDS]

nice puns

[Caid Ivik]

lo all

thing is, we can't change a thing.

not unless we act.

write letters to government etc etc.

Until then, they gonna do what they like.

sorry to cast a downer but it is all politics, ie money and moving up that ladder within your peer group/political party.

If you feel strongly, get into politics and make the change, just don't get suck into the machine.

end of rant :)

sorry again

rgds

OrLoK

Actually, it's your will who you vote for. Tyranny of majority, metaphorically...

[orlok]

lo all,

re above.

iMHO, it doesnt matter who you vote for, as ultimatly, it all comes down to pressure from corporations and other copuntires, and political pressure to stay in office, rather than doing whats morally right.

but then again ive lost faith, but you may have noticed that :)

Rgds

OrLoK

[nemafakei]

And, especially on larger scales, the majority will always be swayed by those with greatest overall influence - the monied (usu. business) classes. When you vote, you're voting only to an approximation of what your views are. Everyone's ideas are different, and you're constantly choosing from a small and almost inevitably unrepresentative list of options.

[Caid Ivik]

You are wrong. We can say that true power is concentrated inside political parties, which are strongly influenced by sponsorship and other lobbing subjects from what we call business sector, while these parties manipulate media (what is in fact recurrent process) to maintain contact (or you say "control") with voters, which aren't members of party. However, the decision on who finally gets the seat is on voters, let they are inside or outside parties. Fact that their will is same as party's sponsor does not truly matter.

[nemafakei]

"However, the decision on who finally gets the seat is on voters, let they are inside or outside parties."

A theoretical ideal that cannot work unless every individual is making a well-educated decision. Just because a candidate is the choice of the majority doesn't mean that candidate's views are representative of that majority. And the fact is that the candidates about which the public is best informed are (bar some exceptions) the candidates of the main (best-funded) parties.

"Fact that their will is same as party's sponsor does not truly matter"

Their votes are defined by the sponsors, not their will.

And in any case, the elected representatives of one country may yet be subjected to the whims of the unelected owners of a company in another or even the same country, simply through threat of damaging the country's economy (and/or the officials' re-electability).

[Caid Ivik]

Here we are more on problem of free will than on politics. It's like that alibism, when we sway our sins to influence of Satan... This is no ideal, ideal was that this system would be absolutely rightful and maximally effective. That everybody would be satisfied; that's an ideal which is not in human power to fulfill, however. People vote usually the oldest, mostly exponed and richest parties. They see a base there, concrete foundation. When for example Bulgars voted for former emperor Simeon, you could see this in practice.

But this is just a torso of what could once be a sociologic analysis. Play with it longer, have experts on propaganda or memetics and you can build a ruling party from scratch, capital is only a side thing, which will come later with strengthening preferences. What do you think that commies have strength due to backing of business here?

[nemafakei]

You appear to be saying that an effective democracy is one which is not representative of the people, but representative of corporate interests.

Other than that, I can't actually find a way to view your statements as connected.

[Caid Ivik]

What I try to say is that effectivity is irrelevant term here. Corporate interests have no direct influence on election process, so this IS democracy.

[nemafakei]

Why is it irrelevant? Why does only direct influence count? Just because a corporation is not coming round to ballot boxes and removing votes for every candidate they don't like from the list, doesn't mean they're not biasing the system.

If I were a large employer threatening to fire anyone who didn't vote for my preferred candidate, the employees would still have a choice: this IS democracy.

Yes, it's still democratic to a certain degree. So was Rome. But only slightly democratic.

And it's not just that companies can subvert democracy at the ballot box. A transnational company can practically dictate a small country's policies, if that company has a monopoly on employment. Such a country cannot introduce (certainly not enforce) a minimum wage, because the copmpany will simply move to somewhere where people can work for nothing.

[orlok]

Remember also that corporations do "sponsor" political parties.

And i don't believe they do this out of the kindness of their heart.

"you scratch my back and ill scratch yours" springs to mind.

rgds

OrLoK

[nemafakei]

That's the basic view I'm pointing out. Only parties with enough money (i.e. those sponsored by business) have a chance of mattering on a level beyond the local (and only those friendly to owners of the media). And parties who get sponsored by businesses need to develop business friendly policies in order to keep the cash flowing in.

[orlok]

lo all,

well i must admit i agree whole heartedly with Nema Fakei, but am not eloqunt enough to put my views over as sucsinclty (spelling?) as him/her.

rgds

LoK

[Caid Ivik]

Why is it irrelevant? Why does only direct influence count? Just because a corporation is not coming round to ballot boxes and removing votes for every candidate they don't like from the list, doesn't mean they're not biasing the system.

If I were a large employer threatening to fire anyone who didn't vote for my preferred candidate, the employees would still have a choice: this IS democracy.

Yes, it's still democratic to a certain degree. So was Rome. But only slightly democratic.

And it's not just that companies can subvert democracy at the ballot box. A transnational company can practically dictate a small country's policies, if that company has a monopoly on employment. Such a country cannot introduce (certainly not enforce) a minimum wage, because the copmpany will simply move to somewhere where people can work for nothing.

We cannot talk about effectivity of democracy. For example you cannot talk about effectivity of "+" sign, either it simply is inside the problem or there is "-" or "x" or whatever. If your employer fires you for your voting, it is still your choice. I see no difference when you vote for a right party, because you think you will lose money on taxes if socdems would win. I call this motivation. Some (like you, I expect) are motivated by deep politological analysis, others by expectations and trust, and for another ones is gratis beer at meetings enough.

That's why we removed democracy from courts, you know. If you understand, motivation factor is a natural thing. If there is no external motivation (memetic influence, economical background etc), then motivations emerge from inside. People become a tyran as one composed of many; many becomes a lord, but not every single personally, but as whole, a wise man says. In the end (of act), not everyone is satisfied. And that was a goal of democracy, I suppose?

[nemafakei]

"For example you cannot talk about effectivity of "+" sign, either it simply is inside the problem or there is "-" or "x" or whatever"

No, that's a very misplaced comparison. Democracy is not an absolute concept of 'democratic' or 'undemocrtatic'. Countries are somwehat democratic, very democratic, or barely democratic at all, and so forth. Otherwise, you could simply say "99% of people voted for Saddam in his most recent election: he was a democratically elected leader". And that's rubbish.

"People become a tyran as one composed of many; many becomes a lord, but not every single personally, but as whole, a wise man says. In the end (of act), not everyone is satisfied. And that was a goal of democracy, I suppose?"

I'm simply unable to understand your sentences, Caid. It's English, yes, but in the same way that Saddam was democratically elected. It has no meaning.

I say again: Why does only direct influence count?

[Caid Ivik]

Actually with Hussain it wasn't same, as he was the only candidate. Well, you can say we had also three parties to vote during communist era, but they were in coalition as National Front, so it wasn't a democracy as well. Not talking that Hussain or National Front had no need for elections, they took power by force anyway, and everything else was just a theater, until they were replaced by another force. Which in our case was enough chaotic to spawn a democracy then. Perhaps my grammatic isn't best, but terms which I use have straight meaning. I think talking about difference between self-proclaimed democracy and actual democracy has no need for "scales", as both have enough accurate applicability.

That next sentence in italics was from Aristoteles' Politics, head 1292, I tried to translate it from slovak version so it may seem weirdly. To set the discussion on correct level, my view at (actual) democracy is based on that book, to be sure, tough not everything I agree with him on.

[nemafakei]

"Well, you can say we had also three parties to vote during communist era, but they were in coalition as National Front, so it wasn't a democracy as well."

Actually, it's your will who you vote for...

At what point, Caid, does voting system become democratic? Where does something cease to be a redundant election and become a democratic election?

"That next sentence in italics was from Aristoteles' Politics, head 1292, I tried to translate it from slovak version so it may seem weirdly. To set the discussion on correct level, my view at (actual) democracy is based on that book, to be sure, tough not everything I agree with him on"

I'll try to look it up tomorrow. None of the texts I can find at a glance online have headers in that format.

I say yet again: Why does only direct influence count?

[Caid Ivik]

Will is relevant only when we have choice. When I can choose between National Front and National Front there is no choice, I think I have no need to explain why. But that wasn't the point, those powers have taken the rule undemocratically, trough physical elimination of opposition, other choices. I have no idea why these guys continued with that theater, altough it was pure oligarchy. Then you aren't swayed to one choice by motivation; you simply have no choice, no political power. There simply is something you cannot reach, let it be directly or by representation. In democratic structure, such element doesn't exist.

It was in chapter "Eight ranks, five types of democracy".

[nemafakei]

Why is it any difference that there were (by a process of politically hedging out other parties) three virtually identical political parties in Slovakia and it was not democracy, and (by a process of economically hedging out of other parties) two virtually identical parties in the US and it is a democracy?

You simply have no choice, no political power.

Besides all which, there's still the overreaching problem that TNCs can force even governments honestly opposed to them (es. in smaller countries) to accede to their demands because it's a choice of either exploiting the populace or impoverishing them entirely.

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, there is big difference. For example presidential votes are only at the end of long process inside the parties ending up with primaries. You may say, that we live in special form of oligarchy, I would vulgarily name it partocracy. Then low choice on the top level is measured by higher inside the parties. In communism, not only there was no choice on the top level, but absolutely oligarchical system inside the parties as well.

A state, which is not able to exist without foreign capital, is not an independent state (with independent politics), but a colony. If a foreign company has control over government, dh when government cannot make a decision without agreement of that company, than I agree, we can't talk about democracy here. Ruler is the one, who has the greatest power over citizens; democracy is a state when citizens have same power to change the ruler. In your example there are two conclusions: either government uses force (legal or military) to turn the power on its side, and thus risk intervention by colonist state behind the company (like in case of ie 19th century China, or even Slovakia during WW2), or subdue to foreigners and accept dictates. However, you would have to show me a right example. I know no company, which would have enough force for such exploitation...

About that indirect biasing of elections, I already try to explain it by counting another motivation factors, which have same weight, while choice is always on us. Actually, you have already showed a more accurate form of the problem, as companies leave democracy in elections, but then persuade government itself. Well, I hope my previous paragraph about it is clear.