We do not live in a true democracy or free market.
Skipper04 said 02/26, 07:58 AM
Not a lot of people seem to know this, but most of the laws that we live by are not passed by congress. Instead they are passed by government agencies, such as the EPA, the Fed, or the FTC. They don't call them laws, they call them rules, but in effect they are the exact same thing. The heads of these agencies are not voted into office by the people. The only check that legislators hold over them is the power of the purse, but they wouldn't even be able to use that effectively. We have seen W and his administration expand the powers of the executive to unimaginable proportions. In fact, he wasn't the first to do this, almost every president has. In the end, they are unsuccessful because most of the time the judicial system rules against them, but a lot of the times they are out of office by then, and don't care because they essentially got away with it and they face no criminal charges as a result. There is not a free market in america. rather we follow a predictable cycle. regulation, de-regulation, free market, re-regulation. We start with a free market, things get out of control, we regulate, regulations go too far, we de-regulate, and so forth. Can't just copy this.
FLIPSIDE said 02/26, 02:58 PM
Allow me to pare down your argument. Your position is not really about true democracy, and free markets. It is not even about democracy, and markets. It is about Truth and Freedom. Those are philosophical mumbo-jumbo terms with little logical positivity. The world doesn't on Truth, it runs on inertia. Either people are helping the motion or retarding the motion of worldly affairs. Those who retard the motion of worldly affairs should be swept aside. Some people should be free and others should not. That is the truth. We are now entering the time of obsolescence of the Enlightenment Era forms of governance. It is time for the resistance factors to pack up their Beauty, Truth, and Freedom and stop trying to make the worlds remaining superpower into an idealized greek mobstate. The present and future will be computerized and predicted. Congressmen should be replaced with slot machines. The President should be replaced with a NORAD computer. Bring on the Diebold! Increase the voting machines! Let's automate the government and stop all this pretentious voting and lobbying crap!
Skipper04 said 02/26, 03:05 PM
For someone who is attacking philosophy (Truth and Freedom) you seem to use incredibly little reason and rationale. No we will never achieve complete Truth or Freedom, but history shows that every significant movement and revolution has been aimed at finding greater truth and more freedom. Ultimately achieving the objectives may be impossible. Yet, just by searching we have come along way.
FLIPSIDE said 02/26, 03:40 PM
This is where the "Truth" comes out. You are using the Age of Reason to appeal for revolution. While one should have ideals, as a brief way-station to finding pleasure, one must remember that this is not the 1700's and we already live in a country. We have markets, and we have political systems. To some extent these can be changed, and to another extent, they are and always will be ad hoc adaptations to the change in population, weather, resources, and technology. Many of the things faulted by revolutionary idealists are the indispensable things by which we as Americans coin our own destiny in the modern age. Others are the indispensable things which we use to manage the unmanageable. The largest crisis facing the average America is potholes and high gasoline prices. Exhorting the great middlebrows of our universities to run naked in the streets is not going to bring Truth, or Freedom to a country which is already truly the world leader and already free. It will only bring a brief wallow in the mud which will fill no potholes or gas tanks. A real revolution would be for unqualified political activists to redirect their attention to the physical and medical sciences.
Skipper04 said 02/26, 04:01 PM
actually, i reverted to philosophy since you seemed to dismiss all my other point. anyone that has ever opened a history book should be able to understand what i am arguing. A lot of what you say is true. there is always going to be an element of society which contradicts the basic priniciples it supposedly stand on. Yet, when we really want to make progress, we use those principles to examine the current set up and move towards a more just way of living. I speak of revolution, not meaning that we should all overthrow our government, but that the revolution of our forefathers is still an ongoing struggle. you talk about the dangers of such thinking and its negative effects on our country. Yet you ignore the dangers of blindly accepting, without question, the status quo. I don't think one is less patriotic when he shows the hypocrisy of the current ruling elite. Philosophy helps define the human experience and us as a country. It is in everything. Fixing a pot hole and lowering the price of gasoline is going to have a minimal affect on American citizens. life may be a little more enjoyable. Giving them knowledge of truth and justice enables them to make a true differe
FLIPSIDE said 02/26, 04:09 PM
Anyone who has ever opened a history book has learned about The Civil War, WWII and Helen Keller and nothing else. You mention progress, which is part of that whole line of thought from Pilgrims' Progress, to O! Pioneers, to the Progressive Party. However the bulk of our progress as human beings has come from the Industrial Revolution, steel and railroad magnates, and the inventors of electricity. By the presence of these in our daily lives should we measure our status as happy human beings. Those and a good pharmacy where we can buy HGH, beer and Twinkies. There is of course the Franco-American tradition of the Permanent Revolution, which these days we mean largely to be social. I can think of nothing more socially improving than spreading Disneyland, Coca Cola and the English language to the far reaches of Africa and South America. And what about at home? Fear not. I too believe in challenging the elites of the United States, but challenging them with good old fashioned ingenuity, a bold word, and bold ideas. These resound better in a country that is cleanly paved and in which people can make good on their word and arrive with punctuality.
Comments
Add Your Comment
congress has very little power to actually regulate the agencies. It is almost impossible for them to remove the head of an agency after he has been appointed. they have to either (1) prove that he is incompetent (which legally means that they have to prove that he isn't doing his job in anyway whatsoever) or they have to catch him with a smoking gun. They offer no guidance whatsoever for the agencies. the "intelligible principle" argument which the supreme court uses to hold up the acts when questioned is a fairy tale. anyone who has read the act that actually established the EPA for example, knows that congress has left very little in the act to actually guide the agency, just a few very basic limitations. The constitution says that no one but congress shall pass the laws guiding this country. The executive is not supposed to have the power to appoint those that make laws. That is not a true democracy and it blurs the seperation of state. and i'm not arguing against regulation of the free market, just making the point that we don't truly have one since a lot of people seem to debate from the point of view that we do.
Skipper04 | 02/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
This debate makes my eyes hurt. No one's really debated anything substantive that pertains to the topic. And while I do believe the topic to be true, I'll discount it, voting for Skipper anyway. While his entire first argument is quite frankly a bunch of bull, Flipside called it a bunch of bull and then proceeded to dish out his own serving of bull. Bad argumentation is better than bad argumentation coupled with hypocrisy.
Accidental Democrat | 02/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
and how is it a bunch of bull. its all true buddy whether you like it or not.
Skipper04 | 02/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Like watching an eagle explain landscapes to a turtle....
CrispyCrew | 02/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Flipside - you're just raving here. There's no coherence. And I do agree w/ Skipper's basic premises, if not the arguments he's put forth to support them.
Junius Brutus | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
yeah, i realize i got pretty far off topic. it would have been almost impossible for me to stay on though, after his first post in which he pretty much took the debate in a whole different direction. My philosophical argument i could see how people might disagree with. As far as the points made in my first post, if anyone doubts their accuracy, as far as the actions and natures of independent regulatory commissions, i would encourage them to pick up a book on the basics of administrative law.
Skipper04 | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think I have done a good job arguing from Gaius' legal criteria. All statements require other supporting statements which can also be questioned. I think I did a good job destabilizing the various premises which Skipper hooked his argument to. What I believe your criticism to be is that you believe I should have counter-argued using some standard debating protocols to establish an opposite case to the one presented by Skipper. I elected instead to besmirch the various icons to which my opponent and his sympathizers refer, making them less suitable for references in the future. And I championed the cause of science and engineering before sociology. I got to make fun of schoolbooks, and exert catharsis about potholes at the same time. To my way of thinking, I have made an excellent sophistical argument which refrained from being insulting.
FLIPSIDE | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
you have done a good job flipside. i certainly was not insulted, and unlike a lot of our critics rather enjoyed our debate. The debate didn't take the form that i was hoping, i was hoping to actually be the cynic who was dispelling some of the naive notions some members of this board have about our democratic principles and free market economics. But i'll never shy from a philosophical debate as well and certainly enjoy myself championing sociology over science and engineering.
Skipper04 | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks! I found the debate stimulating, especially rhetorically and with regard to the precepts of perpetual revolution.
FLIPSIDE | 02/27/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
America is a representative democracy. This does not mean that it is not a true democracy. The fact is that while government agencies do have more power than in the past (now often referred to as the fourth branch of government) their power is dependent on Congress. Congress creates the agencies, the senate must confirm the heads of these agencies, and congress can limit the agencies power and control in any way that they wish. Furthermore, the President is elected by the people and he appoints the heads of these agencies. Now I don't agree with the choices of the Bush administration either. But he was elected. Therefore, the executive branch is controlled by Georgie Porgie. He will be out soon and America will select a new leader. That leader will choose the new heads of these agencies and the agencies will start to fulfill the agenda of the duely elected president. That is true democracy. As for the free market there is one thing that everyone needs to understand. Regulation is not necessarily the enemy of the free market. Often regulation strengthens the free market. If the government never got involved new companies could never join the market. Companies would gain a monopoly on thier sector and they would control the market. Goverments role in the free market should (and usually is) to keep the market free and to encourage competiion.
Mortarpkt | 02/26/08
Report Offensive Comment