The Dream America

[Forelli_Boy]

A recent lecture in my History class explained how many of the "ideals" people have about the American "Dream" were actually the legacy of unscrupulous industrialists since the turn of the 20th century, eager to exploit immigrants seeking freedom and capital in this 'Land of Opportunity'. Indeed Grand Theft Auto's radio talk shows (notably, "I Say You Say" on WCTR and "Pressing Issues" on VCPR) have provided scathing satire on this so-called dream, and especially how many people put capitalism over democracy. The country, however, is also famous for the First Amendment, which defends our beliefs from government intervention.

 

The question I would like to pose is:

How can the democratic government of the United States provide, or rather, how can we as a democracy, ruled by the people provide a decent (i.e. First World) standard of living for its citizens? Try to think about how we can do this and at the same time preserve both the freedoms of the people AND our globally powerful economy, as well as the principles of capitalism (is it the fault of the principle or people's misinterpretations?)

 

Members from other countries are also welcome to participate. This is a free forum, at the least.

 

At the risk of killing off this debate before it's even born I would also recommend thinking about cause and effect. It's not too realistic to think we can, for example, withdraw all our troops out from foreign countries and expect lasting world peace.

Edited September 1, 2005 by Forelli_Boy

[Antinark]

We can't... a philosopher named Thomas Hobbes stated that in order for a society to have security to have to porportionally give up your rights.

 

And there's no such thing as true democracy for such a huge industrial nation. We elect people to make decisions FOR us and we can't contest against their final decisions. No individual is ever fully represented in congress, rather, our freedoms are magnified down to a small grouping of people who call all the shots.

 

In canada we don't even directly vote for our prime minister, we vote for a party to represent our riding in parliament and the leader of the party that wins the most ridings gets to be prime minister.

 

And capitalism and government are contradictory. Capitalism is free enterprise and that's it, no taxes, no government regulations etc etc.

[Forelli_Boy]

Adam Smith wrote in his "Inquiry into the Causes of Wealth in Nations" that as a principle of economics, that a supervisory force must be there to ensure the existence of cooperation. It seems that the industrialists took it to mean no regulations and formed monopolies, etc.

 

Also, probably the only reason the corporations keep ruling is their manipulation of the ignorance of the masses and the new correlation of regulations against the economy with forces against 'democracy.'

 

Granted of course, we can't really have a real 'democracy' in which everyone is represented as it would be too horribly slow (much slower than the ones we have now!) for its own good.

[Swarz]

The example I like to choose is the NHS (National Health Service) in the UK. The Labour party, broadly left-wing, advocate a greater public role in the provision of the NHS, with higher spending and such. The Conservatives, broadly right-wing, declare that the NHS should be less Govt. controlled and privatised more... which is more democratic?

 

Ultimately, it's a case of balance.

 

The definition of democracy is 'rule by the people'... whilst, as Atinark has said, conflicts with capitalism. Capitalism is, essentially, provision of every product/service by the economy.

 

The problem is that there is so much 'bluring-of-lines' in modern day America (and other developed nations). In our Democratic systems, essentially only those with wealth are capable of running for office. One reason why the Liberal Democrats struggle in the UK is lack of funds - the Labour party have their Unions, whilst the Conservatives have their private companies for backing.

 

At the end of the day though, an elected Govt / Individual will be more loyal to those who supported and funded them through their election than to those who elected them. In places like America, this means corporations essentially have a greater influence over the country.

 

Is this democratic? Is this capitalist? Is it not a blend of both?

 

In our democratic society, we give companies the freedom to make money, which they then use to exert influence on the political system, which is ultimately undemocratic.

 

Truth be told, there is no perfect system... meh, I've read so much on this I could ramble on for hours... but I'll stop here... for now.

[ISuck]

 

A recent lecture in my History class explained how many of the "ideals" people have about the American "Dream" were actually the legacy of unscrupulous industrialists since the turn of the 20th century, eager to exploit immigrants seeking freedom and capital in this 'Land of Opportunity'. Indeed Grand Theft Auto's radio talk shows (notably, "I Say You Say" on WCTR and "Pressing Issues" on VCPR) have provided scathing satire on this so-called dream, and especially how many people put capitalism over democracy. The country, however, is also famous for the First Amendment, which defends our beliefs from government intervention.

 

The question I would like to pose is:

How can the democratic government of the United States provide, or rather, how can we as a democracy, ruled by the people provide a decent (i.e. First World) standard of living for its citizens? Try to think about how we can do this and at the same time preserve both the freedoms of the people AND our globally powerful economy, as well as the principles of capitalism (is it the fault of the principle or people's misinterpretations?)

 

Members from other countries are also welcome to participate.  This is a free forum, at the least.

 

At the risk of killing off this debate before it's even born I would also recommend thinking about cause and effect. It's not too realistic to think we can, for example, withdraw all our troops out from foreign countries and expect lasting world peace.

Good post.

 

First of all, I'd like to say that America is not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Democracy was intended to have a smaller role in the American Government than it does today. Many of our founding fathers despised democracy, and for a good reason. James Madison said this about Democracy:

 

 

Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

 

He repeated his sentiments in the famous Federalist Paper #10

 

 

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

 

An anti-federalist had the same view of democracy, Thomas Jefferson said that "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Someone once said that, in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper, whereas in a republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper and the sheep are well armed. It annoys me today when we hear people who call themselves Christians praise democracy. Was it not the will of the people over the will of the representatve that killed Jesus? Or how we say that democracy will bring peace to the middle east, was it not Adolf Hitler who was democratically elected? Since our Constitution was written, we have plunged further into mob rule by creating the direct election of Senators(which goes against the very idea behind our bicameral system) and other powers given away to the voter.

 

However, we are also not a capitalist state(if such a thing exists). The Constitution gives powers to Congress that would be left up to the private sector in a "capitalist state", such as powers to create roads and a post office. Although we should closely resemble a capitalist economy and society as our liberty loving founding fathers intended, we have squandered that by giving enumerous powers to the state. Our founding fathers intended for the ports of America to be free trade zones, free from the sick ideal of mercantilism.

 

I can safely say, therefor, that the problems we are enduring today are not the faults of Capitalism, but people's misinterpretation of capitalism. People believe that our highly regulated economy is "capitalism", but it is not at all.

 

 

[spoof]

 

a philosopher named Thomas Hobbes stated that in order for a society to have security to have to porportionally give up your rights

 

 

Adam Smith wrote in his "Inquiry into the Causes of Wealth in Nations" that as a principle of economics, that a supervisory force must be there to ensure the existence of cooperation

 

It's not really surprising that the guys who wrote such words are regarded as influential in their respective chosen fields - there's an element of common sense beyond the mere ideological.

 

 

The problem is that there is so much 'bluring-of-lines' in modern day America (and other developed nations)

Perhaps what is needed is a re-defining of the existing governmental typology. Chances are, there's a PhD thesis out there doing exactly this (if there isn't, then there should be).

 

It is obvious from the input of various members (over several D&D threads), that existing definitions (in real terms) do not suffice in describing the essence of various existing governmental types. I would posit that this is even more so outside of this particular forum and indeed the rest of the intraweb.

 

 

Swarz rightly pointed out that there is no "perfect system". Maybe we need a re-think on the types of modern political governance we see in the world today - a new typology.

 

Perhaps such a modern typology would seek to include such notions as espoused by both Hobbes and Smith - i.e. common sense

 

Wouldn't that be something

 

[ISuck]

Perhaps what is needed is a re-defining of the existing governmental typology. Chances are, there's a PhD thesis out there doing exactly this (if there isn't, then there should be).

Now you got me thinking, and I can't think of what that would be. It could be political science or it could be some form of law study such as constitutional law(but more broad).

[Swarz]

Perhaps what is needed is a re-defining of the existing governmental typology. Chances are, there's a PhD thesis out there doing exactly this (if there isn't, then there should be).

 

I was studying this very thing just a few days ago in my reading... Behold, the study of New Institutionalism.

 

Over the past century, there have been a range of theories used in the study of political science. Behaviouralism, Rational choice, Critical theory, Traditional Institutionalism... but the past decade or so has seen the rise of a new, and most widely accepted theorem... that of New Institutionalism.

 

-----------

 

Traditional institutionalists believed that Government institutions were seperate, autonomous entities. You had your leader... your legislature, judiciary, bureacracy... then you had your think-tanks, interest groups, etc etc etc.

 

It believed in formal institutions. Seperate, solid, unchanging, coherent bodies acting in the political environment.

 

-----------

 

Needless to say, this is outdated. New Institutionalism is virtually the inverse of the traditional standpoint. In this theory, institutions are not just formal, but informal too. They can change, adapt, grow and develop as requirements grow and time passes. Their roles can change. Their influence overlaps boundaries with other institutions, and can come into conflict. There are different levels of institutions, as the EU with its various levels of Governance illustrates wonderfully. etc etc etc.

 

-----------

 

The Political environment of developed nations has grown and developed so much over the past half-century that to take any view other than that presented in New Institutionalism is ridiculous. The Governments of modern day America (and the UK), are subject to a range of informal institutions whose influence and power ultimately breaks into their sphere.

 

Studying the extent of their influence however, requires a much more detailed understanding of the variety of forces at play, and is far too complex to use any of the theories listed above to help define.

 

----------

 

Oh, and if anyone want reading on New Institutionalism I'm sure I can refer you to some texts or send you some PDF files.

[spoof]

@Isuck

 

Political Science

Political Philosophy

Sociology

Economics

Legal studies / Law

 

Such a reworking of typology could easily be part of any / all of the above (and I'm sure there are several more mainstay academic disciplines that could argue such things as encroaching into their area).

 

Whatever academic area such endeavours are claimed as part of, I would still posit that it would be a worthwhile exercise for any of them.

 

The lines are often blurred beyond analysis. Ideology is necessary, but so is a more realistic approach to things.

 

 

 

 

@Swarz - hazarh! (made up word)

 

 

Studying the extent of their influence however, requires a much more detailed understanding of the variety of forces at play, and is far too complex to use any of the theories listed above to help define

 

The problem is that it is greatly complex per se. That's not to say some very smart person can never achieve a new realistic typology; or at least a less unrealistic typology than we currently have.

 

 

Never say never

 

[Antinark]

All great arguments guys, well represented.

 

I have to agree that america is not a capitalist state. In fact, i don't think a truly capitalist society CAN exist in human social groups. I tend to agree with Nietzsche in his statement about the "right to power".

 

The weak and the jealous naturally fear free enterprise. The impose rules, regulations and theological principles to the state in order to maintain a hold of control over individual entities.

 

For me, true capitalism only exists in nature outside of human society. It's a dog-eat-dog world where morals and social norms are dictated by the top carnivores, always susceptible to being overthrown (as is often the case between alpha dominant males in a species).

 

Now you could argue that since humans are a product of nature, and thusly ARE nature, everything we do IS withing the boundaries of naturalism. And that the powerful may not be the ones who are most cunning and apt to survive, but beaurocrats who make the restrictions, but somehow i don't think that is what Nietzsche invisioned.

 

In Canada, a proletariot can become the bourgeoisie in the blink of an eye. Jack Layton, the leader of Canada's New Democratic Party, was nought but a city councellor less than two years ago. People like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky would thrive in our nation. However, Often times our leaders ARE the ones that hold monopolies (for example, Paul Martin runs a huge international shipping agency).

 

And this is where the lines begin to get blurred. When a capitalist becomes an agent of the state. Capitalists by definition should not serve the state. In fact, a true capitalist in office would only be using it to manipulate his/her personal gain.

 

In fact, a true capitalist might not even BELEIVE in the principles of capitalism. Free Enterpise = absolute economic freedom. And the best way to acheive that is to supress your competitors using an entity SUCH AS the state.

 

@Spoof - Agreed. Common sense and rationalism do prevail over all our senses. I beleive it was the socratic method that was so sucessfully used to enlighten the people of the acropolis on a daily basis. When you box each society away and then judge it as an absolute entity, you deny evolution.

 

A good society will ALWAYS differ and grow from it's original constitution.

 

There are many situations where it seems ludicrous that common sense or naturalistic ethics DON'T prevail over state policy/beurocracy. An incident in canada where one serial killer Karla Homolka was promised freedom if she sold her husband Paul Bernardo down the river, but evidence later revealed that she played an equal part in the murders. She was still only sentenced to 12 years.

 

Unfortunately, common sense is not a prominent theme in the history of our species.

 

HOWEVER, i do recall a certain nomadic species dubbed the Neanderthal, our ancestors. They were completely "uncivilized" and yet they were intelligent, peaceful, and humble beings. They were eventually exterminated by our race over a competition for food. This species seemed to exercise perfect common sense. The man or woman that gathered the most food was the one in power, they could only be usurped should another man/woman prove more apt and beneficial to the society. Humanity got rid of this simple principle fairly early on in it's society when the ideals of monarchies, kings and queens were first adopted. Now it wasn't the one that provides the most food that is in power, but the direct descendants of the first well-provider that took sucession. Power was handed down through blood and not to the best provider. This still has a strong hold on modern society, even after napolean. I mean... look at the BLATANT nepotism in the bush administration...

 

The nomadic society has always seemed romantic to me. It is a world that is governed by the most balanced and supreme entity we know: Earth.

[ISuck]

 

And this is where the lines begin to get blurred. When a capitalist becomes an agent of the state. Capitalists by definition should not serve the state. In fact, a true capitalist in office would only be using it to manipulate his/her personal gain.

 

In fact, a true capitalist might not even BELEIVE in the principles of capitalism. Free Enterpise = absolute economic freedom. And the best way to acheive that is to supress your competitors using an entity SUCH AS the state.

 

A good reason to hate the Libertarian Party right there.

 

I see the essence of capitalist politicians as not only state vs anti-state, but centralism vs. decentralism. The goal of a capitalist politician would be to give power back to the individual, as well as fulfill the goal of federalism by giving power to local governments. The idea of federalism would take power from the central government, and give it to state governments, which would give it to county/city governments, etc etc and voila, we are bringing the rights and the powers to the individual, not taking them away.

 

Free enterprise does not mean absolute economic freedom. The "freedom" to infringe on others' rights is not granted and thus a capitalist using such a liberty sucker as a state would be paradoxical.

[reticulatingsplines]

I see the essence of capitalist politicians as not only state vs anti-state, but centralism vs. decentralism. The goal of a capitalist politician would be to give power back to the individual, as well as fulfill the goal of federalism by giving power to local governments. The idea of federalism would take power from the central government, and give it to state governments, which would give it to county/city governments, etc etc and voila, we are bringing the rights and the powers to the individual, not taking them away.

This, as an ideal, I agree with.

 

But then again 'Too many cooks spoil the broth.'

 

How would you get any kind of consensus or direction in a federalised nation? Sure, if you follow the ancient Greek model of city-states, it could certainly work, but if you're giving the whole shebang a name and a constitution, there has to be some sort of power that can bring these disparate groups together. And therein lies the hook, because once you've got that kind of power, the people don't particularly want him to be a dictator, so he has to have his own set of cheques and balances. Who watches the watcher, and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Swarz]

I see the essence of capitalist politicians as not only state vs anti-state, but centralism vs. decentralism. The goal of a capitalist politician would be to give power back to the individual, as well as fulfill the goal of federalism by giving power to local governments. The idea of federalism would take power from the central government, and give it to state governments, which would give it to county/city governments, etc etc and voila, we are bringing the rights and the powers to the individual, not taking them away.

All good in theory, but perhaps not in practice - as you said, the essence, but not the reality.

 

A capitalist politician (or any politician for that matter) may follow the economic 'profit-maximising' theory, but in the context of politics. In order to maximise power/influence/control for himself, he may not necessarily support the devolution of powers to lower authorities. One can't ignore the politicians potentially selfish interests.

 

As I've said above, in the sphere of New Institutionalism, which we are studying, it's difficult to draw any solid conclusions given the complex nature of what we're trying to analyse.

 

What we can do however, is plug the equation into a rational choice model, which predicts individuals will make the choice that will present them with the greatest benefits. That said, some individuals act on behalf of the state (Robin Cooks resignation), whilst others are prepared to 'brown-nose' in order to improve their personal prospects (ahem... my constituent MP, Barry Gardner - Blairite til the end).

 

 

And therein lies the hook, because once you've got that kind of power, the people don't particularly want him to be a dictator, so he has to have his own set of cheques and balances. Who watches the watcher, and so on.

 

Hence the nature of a democratic society, where you have checks and balances on the power of the leader of the nation.

 

I mean, Blair may be able to do virtually what he wishes with such a large majority in Parliament, but at the end of the day, he can still be voted out with a 2/3 majority vote... so long as a body of power ultimately holds power over the leader of a nation, he cannot behave too 'out-of-bounds'.

[ISuck]

I see the essence of capitalist politicians as not only state vs anti-state, but centralism vs. decentralism. The goal of a capitalist politician would be to give power back to the individual, as well as fulfill the goal of federalism by giving power to local governments. The idea of federalism would take power from the central government, and give it to state governments, which would give it to county/city governments, etc etc and voila, we are bringing the rights and the powers to the individual, not taking them away.

This, as an ideal, I agree with.

 

But then again 'Too many cooks spoil the broth.'

 

How would you get any kind of consensus or direction in a federalised nation? Sure, if you follow the ancient Greek model of city-states, it could certainly work, but if you're giving the whole shebang a name and a constitution, there has to be some sort of power that can bring these disparate groups together. And therein lies the hook, because once you've got that kind of power, the people don't particularly want him to be a dictator, so he has to have his own set of cheques and balances. Who watches the watcher, and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, a confederation is really a form of federalism, and it has shown to be an effective governing body.

 

 

All good in theory, but perhaps not in practice - as you said, the essence, but not the reality.

 

A capitalist politician (or any politician for that matter) may follow the economic 'profit-maximising' theory, but in the context of politics. In order to maximise power/influence/control for himself, he may not necessarily support the devolution of powers to lower authorities. One can't ignore the politicians potentially selfish interests.

 

That's why people check the government.

 

 

As I've said above, in the sphere of New Institutionalism, which we are studying, it's difficult to draw any solid conclusions given the complex nature of what we're trying to analyse.

 

What we can do however, is plug the equation into a rational choice model, which predicts individuals will make the choice that will present them with the greatest benefits. That said, some individuals act on behalf of the state (Robin Cooks resignation), whilst others are prepared to 'brown-nose' in order to improve their personal prospects (ahem... my constituent MP, Barry Gardner - Blairite til the end).

 

 

The theory that everybody is an individual and will do what benefits themselves is really the sole concept of capitalism. Those who attempt to benefit themselves by trampling on the rights of others is the only reasonable time when power should be exerted, or so says the initiation of power axiom(or the non aggression principle) written and basically defined by Rothbard.