SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Maybe it's just me, but I've been getting this vibe (it's strong here, but I'm feeling it elsewhere too) that there are folks who would like to see our entire society come crashing down.
Perhaps they think we can build something better, and like the Phoenix, emerge from the ashes, strong and vibrant.
And I guess I can see the attraction. Our government has been co-opted by the monied interests, our waking lives seem to be either being tracked by corporations or one government agency or another, the same monied interests seem determined to depress wages to keep us docile and hungry for the resources we need to keep ourselves and our families alive. And on and on. It's as if our society has been taken over by greedy, corrupt and amoral scumbags.
And to an extent, all of this is true. Which begs the question: What can/should we do about it?
There is one thing most of us can agree upon: That those elected to administer our governmental systems aren't acting in the best interests of the greater populace. Rather, they seem to be taking their marching orders from those with the resources to command their attention, their wallets and their votes.
There's quite a bit of agreement about that. The problem is that there are large groups of people on various sides of this question with different prescriptions for solving these problems:
Some think we need to strip the Federal government of most of its power and leave things to the states/counties/municipalities.
Some think we need to reform our existing political systems to reduce the influence of money on our elected officials (at all levels of government).
Some think it's just a lost cause and we need to just tear it all down and start over.
The biggest issue, IMHO, is that those same folks who are controlling our political systems for their own benefit use these differences of opinion to divide us. This keeps us from putting aside our differences so we can work together to create the kind of society of which we can all be proud.
Which brings me to the folks who want to tear our system down. With what shall we replace it?
Destroying one of the bulwarks of our society seems like we're creating change. But what are the consequences of doing so, intended or otherwise?
History (cf. all the infighting and problems with the Articles of Confederation) tells us that a strong central government was necessary back in the late 18th century, and (again, IMHO) is even more important today.
Could government be more distributed than it is? Possibly. Should there be stronger controls on how the central government treats its citizens? Almost certainly.
But if we destroy the "beast in DC" to punish those who have so egregiously abused it, who will pay the price when chaos ensues.
Just some semi-random thoughts.
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday July 14 2016, @09:37PM
The are levels of anarchy to which we should not descend. One of them is grammar and logic.
Which begs the question: What can/should we do about it?
You have used the phrase, "begs the question" incorrectly! http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/begs-the-question-update [quickanddirtytips.com]
Even in a post-apocalyptic world, we should avoid mistakes like this. Or have I misunderestimated humanity?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:21AM
the bulwarks of our society
That's odd.
Growing up, they **weren't** telling me that Oligarchy was made the country great.
They said it was DEMOCRACY i.e. everybody gets a vote and the majority wins.
So, when supermajorities of USAians want things (e.g. single-payer healthcare; a smaller military), why aren't we getting that?
Simple answer: We don't have a Democracy.
SCOTUS (the Reactionary John Roberts court) said choice of gov't policy can now be sold to the highest bidder.
...and, of course, Ronnie Raygun and Mark Fowler[1] destroyed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and no president since then has put it back to right.
[1] What an appropriate name for someone who totally loused up the public's main information system.
Could government be more distributed?
How about "Democracy Everywhere"?
That's a definition of Socialism.
When you get to work, you don't leave all semblance of Democracy outside the door.
All decisions are made by democratic vote of the workers; every worker gets a vote; all votes are equal; majority wins.
Extrapolate from the workplace to every corner of society.
Margaret Thatcher said TINA (There is no alternative) to austerity, privatization of public services, and other forms of Neoliberalism.
Bullshit. SITA (Socialism is the alternative).
...and don't hand me that crap about "it will never work".
IT ALREADY DOES.
There are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of worker-owned cooperatives across northern Italy.
All we need is politicians that are as smart as the ones in Italy in 1985. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]