Private Interests vs Public Rights

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (129 posts)
  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders that government must have the power to control the governed, but that it must be obliged to control itself. The primary control on the government is its dependence on the people, but the founding fathers felt the necessity of auxiliary precautions, as well.
    Governmental offices are divided and arranged in such a manner that each may check the other. The system of checks and balances insured that governmental distribution of power could not be abused by individuals, since this system insured the subordination of private interests to public rights. The power which is surrendered by the people is given to governing powers which are then divided into distinct and separate departments. Theses departments include the executive, judiciary and legislative branches.
    This is just one way in which justice is insured for a nation of people who have been offered freedom from the tyranny of dictatorship.

    I hear that progressives do not revere the Constitution!
    That it should change with the times!
    That human nature is not something which endures!

    Well, I for one, disagree with them.

    1. psycheskinner profile image85
      psycheskinnerposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      So you oppose it being changed to let women vote?  because their human nature to think women are not fully human is right?

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        More "progressive" ideas related to discrimination:

        The 13th Amendment: Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

        The 15th: Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.

        The 26th: Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.

        It's interesting to think what kind of country we would have without progressives.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Sadly, "progressive" has fallen by the wayside, replaced by "socialism".  Should the liberal party turn the clock back to actually "progressing" towards a better country for Americans, all Americans including the rich, it would once more be of value.

          You examples are good ones from the past, but more modern ones include:

          Consistently demanding more money to support those that refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

          Demanding that America feed and care for the world at the expense of our own people.

          Demanding that America police the world, changing other cultures and concepts into something more in line with their own beliefs and goals.

          Prohibiting public displays of our history, displays that expose both the good and the bad from the past in order that we learn from them.

          Prohibiting millenia old cultural constants, demanding that our culture immediately accommodate that wish to change the foundations of it.  (Thinking of the trans-gender fiasco of demanding to use bathrooms of their choice.)

          So while the country needs progressives, and there are still pockets and areas of discrimination, the modern choice of where to "progress to" needs re-evaluated.

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            One definition of progress: "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level."

            I believe some people think "liberal" and "progressive" are the same thing. They are apples and oranges.

            A good progressive embraces old ideas that still work and new ideas that fix bad ones for the sake of a better society and not necessarily a liberal one.

            It's why we still have a Constitution and at the same time add amendments to it and new laws based on it. We have conservative progress.

            Even Republicans can be progressive but not liberal. Otherwise, they wouldn't change any law or pass any Amendment.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level."

              That is indeed one definition.  But that bolded portion is the sticking point, for no reasonable person can possibly find that it is true in some of the positions taken by "progressives" today.  And yes, I get that I'm declaring that at least some progressives (or even most progressives), in some areas, are not reasonable.

              I also take some exception that "progressives" are not liberals, that some conservatives are actually progressives.  I believe that is no more than spin to support the fallacious idea that all progressive concepts are good for the country. 

              I have never seen a conservative make the claim they are progressive, and I have never seen a progressive that didn't fall into the liberal camp.  They may have arguments over some specifics, but in general they fit very well there and do not fit at all well in conservative camps.

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                If conservatives aren't progressive, why do they pass laws and Constitutional Amendments and not stay entirely with the old ways?

                Maybe conservative politicians are afraid to say they are progressive because language-deficient extremists have smeared the word.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  You provided one example of a definition for "progressive".  It does not match very well with what I see those professing to belong in that category seem to promote.

                  Which should answer your question.

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't think we should support ignorant people who want to change the definition of words. I hope you agree with me.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  progressive conservatives are not true conservatives

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    A "true" or pure conservative opposes any and all progress.

                    A true, anti-progress conservative would oppose the right to vote for women and minorities among other improvements to society.

                    Progressive conservatives embrace good changes and oppose change just for the sake of change. But they defend old ideas that still work.

                    A true progressive simply wants to change everything.

          2. MizBejabbers profile image89
            MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Wilderness, you are confusing progressives with self interest groups. Just because you do not agree with them does not make them "liberal" or "socialist."

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Well, as I mentioned elsewhere, I use the definition garnered from statements from self-proclaimed "progressives" over considerable time.  On the whole, they follow the liberal agenda pretty well, and take exception to nearly anything associated with conservative.  And most of it is most definitely quite close to modern socialism, with an pronounced "govt. over self" responsibility attitude and a strong entitlement philosophy.

              Still, it is new enough that it's likely that every "progressive" has their own agenda, without any real unified platform.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        roll roll roll!

    2. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      KHL,

      Your "a basic premise of the founders that government must have the power to control the governed" isn't how the Constitution reads especially when you add the words of the Declaration of Independence that "the governors receive their power from 'the consent' of the governed". Add Art. 6.3's governors are "public Trust(ees)" along with Amendment 1 giving the people the right petition the governors and amendment 10 saying paraphrased, "when a decision is not constitutionally provided the governors nor prohibited the states then the states first and the people, if the states will not, have the right to enforce it.

      Now, go back to the Preamble' six objectives for the constitution, "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" why do we not have everyone in this nation clothed, fed and housed? Why is our military occupying foreign nations? Why is there such large gaps between salaries of equally united workers? Why are the governors "to big to jail" for the 120 years of foreign war treason and 71 years of the war against American citizens called a "war on drugs"? Why we have the multitude of hate crimes magnified by Trump's presidency eliminating multiple ethnics' Tranquility as Americans? In developing "a more perfect union" why are there parties in government?

      The people are supposed to send out "electors", which means people selecting people from another state for their state's congressman and both president and vice with at least one can't be from the "selectors' state" (Amen. 12). Why isn't that happening? Because the governors has prohibited We The People from studying the constitution and schooled us "we can't FIGHT CITY-HALL".

      With today's instant communication We The People are supposed to be asked by congress how do We People want them to vote on everything and obey our vote to pass the measure, so, why aren't those checks and balances in place? 

      You need to STUDY the constitution with a dictionary to explain its terms.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        "why do we not have everyone in this nation clothed, fed and housed?"

        Because it is the general welfare to be promoted, not that of every specific individual.  Individuals are responsible for themselves; the constitution is responsible for the entire country as a single gestalt.  This point seems to escape many people, but it is at the root of the concept of our country.  Notwithstanding the socialist ideas being pushed today, that the government is responsible for the individual, it was not a part of the original thought or constitution.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
          The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Then you have to ensure they have jobs to provide for themselves OR they must have the desire to do without as I had chosen until spirit told me to come to DC for an indefinite stay so I'm using my retirement from my working years.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            No, society is not responsible for the individual.  Not even for providing them with jobs that they find satisfactory, that they can handle and that pays what they wish to be paid.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
              Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              this is not progressive thinking, wilderness!

              1. MizBejabbers profile image89
                MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                But it is constitutional thinking. As I told Elijah, The pursuit of happiness is a "right". To have a job to aid in that pursuit is a "privilege" (not a right) under the Constitution.

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                  The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I did fail to address *The pursuit of happiness is a "right". To have a job to aid in that pursuit is a "privilege" (not a right) under the Constitution.* 

                  Because the government has made and taught "money" IS THE "means of obtaining happiness" - although it doesn't - their conditioning our minds to believe it makes it a "right" because they conditioned us to believe it. Had they not conditioned our parents' parents' to the umpteenth degree to be money dependent your statement would be correct. You should read my "Treason-USA-Style" - BE AWARE: it will make you treasonous to read it if you do nothing about it - you will see just how conditioned ou minds are.

            2. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I am speaking about how the constitution reads this nation is supposed to be, not how what money embracing societies do not do. The constitution was written for a society where everyone were equals with its leaders inquiring of the people before taking any action - it was provided to itty the natives this land - and not for a society where the producer of money is beyond being judged for miss-behavior as the US is to day.

          2. MizBejabbers profile image89
            MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Elijah, I worked as a legal editor for nearly 30 years. The lawyers told me that under the constitution there are certain "rights" and certain "privileges". A citizen has the constitutional right to pursue happiness, but certain things like jobs are privileges to help him in his pursuit of happiness. I didn't say that; legal minds did.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              MizB, Lawyers are not taught to even understand the constitution, according to everyone I've talk with, they have to study it, although most only read it, it independently. So saying they are "legal minds" doesn't say anything about how well they understand it after their researching it.

              I've studied it in depth because the words and the actions of government doesn't fit the wording I've found. I've used legal dictionaries when possible and older 'Websters' for word definitions, when I could find them, to be sure what I knew the words to mean were correct. If we had "progressive" politicians they would have brought the definitions I've found forward to this day and we would not be "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abomination of the Earth" she has become. BUT WE CAN'T CHANGE DESTINY!!!

              1. MizBejabbers profile image89
                MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Elijah, we must agree to disagree about this subject. I'm not talking about just any lawyers. I'm talking about the lawyers who review and publish the law. I think their knowledge takes precedence over anyone who is self-taught to interpret the law.

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                  The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  MizB, U.S. Constitution, Article 6 and paragraph "2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That also included anything in the constitution which includes the "three fifths of a person" clause in it, the 13th Amendment's "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States" and any laws mad by the U.S. government contrary to the Preamble's six intents the document is supposed to accomplish.

                  To differ with me is to differ with the Constitution, yet, you are allowed to.

    3. peterstreep profile image78
      peterstreepposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      How can a country calls itself democratic if it can have a President who wins with less votes then his opponent?
      In a true democracy every vote has the same value. And the party with the most votes wins.
      The US (and the UK too) does not have such systems and therefore are not really democratic countries.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        The US is a republic of states, not a "true democracy".  The founding fathers were smart enough to recognize at least some of the pitfalls of a "true democracy" and try to eliminate them where possible.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

          So, what would you consider the pitfalls of a "true democracy"?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            The single largest problem with a true democracy:

            "A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

            ‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”  Robert Heinlein

            The plebs of America have found out they can vote themselves 'bread and circuses' without end and are doing so in our country.  We either straighten it out or, eventually, we will bleed to death.

            There are others - honest people concerned and voting for the good of the country seldom make the time and effort to understand just what is "the good of the country" for example - but that is the biggest, deadliest problem of a pure democracy.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              That is true, Wilderness, because true democracy don't have parties not classes, the decisions of the greater number is accepted by all. Also, a democracy doesn't require a congress nor courts, just someone in the position to direct the voting for what the people prefer. That is why the founders said they had produced a republic.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Wait.  A democracy doesn't have any criminals, people that refuse to abide by the will of the majority, and thus does not need courts?

            2. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
              ---------------------------------------
              No, people vote for their particular interests, when has that ever been any different? There is nothing noble or altruistic about the electorate. Do you think wealthy conservatives like Trump are really interested in what is best for the rest of the country or are they not fixated to using their wealth to maintain their control and advantage through any means necessary? Truly hard core, as this "Bread and Circus" analogy seems to spread all though conservative circles.
              ---------------------------------------
              ‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”  Robert Heinlein
              ---------------------------------
              So, what is the alternative to extending the franchise to all "warm bodied" adults citizens over 18? Who do we have to disenfranchise to make you conservative types happy? What do you think has to be done and do you think that the rest of us all are going to buy it?
              ------------------------
              The plebs of America have found out they can vote themselves 'bread and circuses' without end and are doing so in our country.  We either straighten it out or, eventually, we will bleed to death.
              ---------------------------------
              So, when did this all start? The beginning of the 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt, conservatives are alarmists with the stark inequitable distribution of wealth in the country currently, how can anyone say what you are saying? So, tell me, how do we straighten this out?
              --------------------------
              There are others - honest people concerned and voting for the good of the country seldom make the time and effort to understand just what is "the good of the country" for example - but that is the biggest, deadliest problem of a pure democracy.
              ------------------------
              Everybody has a different idea of what is good for the country, and it is certainly not the property of conservatives as they are, here and now. And if it is not the people who decide and know best, who does then?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                "And if it is not the people who decide and know best, who does then?"

                God, the Creator. The laws of physics extend to the entire universe. The laws of nature must be known. These laws are how God Himself created everything that exists. If we don't cooperate consciously with these laws and ways of physics/nature, we will suffer, we will perish.


                We are intelligent beings, we are perceptive beings. Let us perceive the truth and let us accept what the founding fathers gave us.
                A way to live in harmony. A way to live in freedom. They gave us a form of government which will fail only if we do not understand it.


                ... and man, we just don't! Look at how many are beguiled by the likes of Bernie Air-Head Sanders. There is a man with a brain full of fluff! He understands NOTHING about good government. N O T H I N G!

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Alright, whose interpretation of the will of God the creator do we accept as gospel? The God of Trump and his fawning evangelicals certainly is not my God. There is Allah, Buddha, atheists, agnostics. Whose perception and whose truth? A tenet of Freedom is equal rights, that is a constant as far as I am concerned.

                  The last 230 years have provided evidence of the Constitution's longevity but also as to how it adapts to all manner of change that was inevitable over almost  2 and one half centuries since. I say that that flexibility is why this society remains in one piece today.

                  I will take Bernie any day over an authoritarian autocrat like Donald Trump.

                  1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                    The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Which ever God encourages us to live as some scripture say we were made, independent of anything we as an individual made for ourselves and eating and drinking the earth like the rest of the self-reproducing environment living beings. If you look inside of yourself you will find that one within yourself in this life or some future life. It all depends on what you destiny is.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                "No, people vote for their particular interests, when has that ever been any different?"

                'I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.'  'Give me liberty or give me death'.  'We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.' More recently, Elon Musk has sunk millions into research for his space machines, but has taken out zero patents, saying that his findings are free for anyone to use.  Soldiers throughout history have put the country above their very lives, and so do may others such as cops, fire fighters, etc.

                Lots of people throughout our history have expressed thoughts and actions that put the good of the country above their personal welfare. 

                "So, what is the alternative to extending the franchise to all "warm bodied" adults citizens over 18?"

                Really?  You can't think of a single alternative, liked or not, to that franchise?

                "So, tell me, how do we straighten this out?"

                Not sure, but most assuredly not by giving politicians near total control over our lives.  Not be removing personal responsibility for ourselves.  Not by guaranteeing total support for everyone, at someone else's expense.

                "And if it is not the people who decide and know best, who does then?"

                The point was not that there are disagreements over what the country needs.  The point was that so few people care what it needs any more; only what they themselves want or need.

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Understood, Wilderness there are many heroes, but is that the norm? We live in a capitalist system with its very foundation based on avariciousness and self interest. We have had our philanthropist Carnegies, Rockefellers, Musks, Gates or Buffets. But all of these men have long attained their perpetual wealth and comfort and could afford to be generous, the average man in the street not so much.

                  Is it possible that people interpret what it is they need as one in the same as what the "country needs"? This is characteristic of either side of the ideological divide.

                  The idea of "giving politicians control over our lives" is relative and depends on your point of view. A conservative point of view is not in itself a universal constant.

                  There are no alternatives to universal adult suffrage short of threatening the premise of one man, one vote as a principle of a democratic society. And, of course any suggestion that attempts to compromise those values, I am not going to like.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "Understood, Wilderness there are many heroes, but is that the norm?"

                    Actually, I think it used to be.  Maybe it's just rose colored glasses, but people do believe in our country and will give up their lives for it.  We bought war bonds, we made sacrifices.

                    But no more.  Now it's just complaints that we can't get as much as we want from the country.  There is almost no consideration of giving to the country...except that others aren't giving enough while we take more and more.

                    It is just as Heinlein said; the plebs are voting themselves bread and circuses while providing nothing and it will destroy us in the long run, for the givers will one day tire of being the goose and take their golden eggs elsewhere.  Or protect those eggs somehow, while is something the plebs cry about every day.

                    Then there are alternatives.  You just don't like them.  But Cred, you are refusing to actually address or even discuss the problem illustrated in the quotation, simply pretending that it doesn't exist or that it will go away if we ignore it.  If you truly believe that his scenario won't happen, that the poor won't vote themselves money to be paid for by the workers and producers, that's one thing.  Foolish, blind, putting ideology over reality, but it's one thing. 

                    Understanding what is happening and refusing to take steps to stop it is another, and it's difficult for me to think that any reasoning person cannot see it when half the nation provides nothing, leaving it to the other half to take care of.  That's blinders, not just foolishness.

                    I agree with you - one of our most precious concepts is "one person one vote", but it isn't working, and for the very reasons Heinlein articulated.  We either make changes (there or elsewhere) or we're going to die on the vine.  We may go down singing praises to the failed concept, but we WILL go down.

                  2. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                    The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    You said, Credencs, "We live in a capitalist system with its very foundation based on avariciousness and self interest."

                    That is not the system the Constitution's Preamble intended since it came from the native Americans. They had NO monetary system, their system was barter with would work well even in this industrialized system. We could put a chip on everyone's Social Security Card that shows where they work then the basic of "fresh grown foods, ground water, clear air and shelter of clothing and dwelling" would be provided. Everyone without them would be required to fend for themselves.

                2. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                  The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  You repeated the question *"So, tell me, how do we straighten this out?"*

                  I would say we should begin but reading the Constitution with a full understanding of the words' meanings and then applying the instructions it empowers We The People with for controlling the governors.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Unfortunately, the whole point of this mini-thread is that "the people" do not want the control needed.  That with the power of their vote they are (legally) demanding bread and circuses, paid for by others, and that means they will continue to control the governors and further their demands.

              3. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Hi there Credence2, you know, when I see a reasonable discussion I just have to jump.

                I am not surprised that I can agree with many of your points, and maybe I am mixing some of you subsequent responses with this one, but I have to ask: Do you really not agree with Wilderness' point, about Heinlein's statement, that the pleds will vote themselves "bread and circuses" once they realize they have that power?

                Of course we are talking about the power of pure democracy - one man, one vote - which is not our system, (except for presidential selection), but otherwise, do you not believe that folks will vote to benefit themselves before consideration of country?

                I agree with the start of your sentiment that it is a shared concept, but disagree when you lay it at the feet of Conservatives. All rich folks aren't Conservatives, yet I would guess that they too vote for self-interest.

                So as a  basic starting point, my question is; Do you believe the "circus" sentiment Wilderness brought up is wrong?"

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Always good to hear from you, GA.

                  Here is my opinion to address your question:

                  As part of a later excerpt of a reply I gave to Wilderness subsequently.

                  "As I said, conservatives exaggerate this all of the time. The GOP has turned the Supreme Court into a Right wing tribunal. The GOP dominates in most of the states legislature and their Governments. The GOP has had control of the Executive and Legislative branches since 2016. But that is not enough, you still want to silence everyone that do not subscribe to the reactionary view of Goverment, classic rightwing thinking and solutions. So, you would think that if this danger you present were real, Democrats would dominate throughout the Government, but that is not the case, so how is the sky falling?"

                  So, no, I don't agree with the Bread and Circuses analogy. The country is virtually infested with Republicans and their sort of reasoning which is more than a check on the concern expressed by Wilderness. If this were truly a danger, it would have made itself manifest long ago.

                  In other subsequent comments, I expressed the view that people generally vote for self interest, while at the same time saying that that interest corresponds to what is best for the country. You can bet that most everyone operates that way.

                  Not all rich people are conservative, but to maintain the status quo, which for the most part works to their advantage, more of the relatively affluent probably are.

                  So, to the answer of your basic question, I believe that Wilderness' view is an incorrect one.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "If this were truly a danger, it would have made itself manifest long ago."

                    You don't see the continual growth of the entitlement state as a danger, a danger produced by the "plebs" voting themselves things that they want but cannot afford so require others to pay for it? 

                    Which part is not a danger - the part where people are no longer required to support themselves, but can sit back and force someone else to do it, or the part where those people that don't have what they want force someone else to provide it FOR them, apparently without limit?

                    You truly don't see a danger with the ever increasing percentage of citizens that contribute nothing to the country's needs, but DO take from it?

        2. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          That's quite an 18th century view. It was a republic of states and quickly became a hybrid republic and democracy after they realized the serious flaws of a true republic.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            It always was a "hybrid republic", or a "hybrid democracy" if you choose.  It was always a mixture of a republic and a democracy, in an effort to minimize the flaws of both.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Then I misunderstood you when you said we have a republic.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                It really isn't either.  Rather it is a bastardized conglomeration of what the founders thought would work, taken from many sources and piled into one. 

                Overall, it seems they did a good job, but we are paying the price now with the extreme partisanship we're experiencing now and with the slow slide into modern socialism - the plebs are indeed voting themselves 'bread and circuses' at other's expense and we WILL pay a large price for that if we don't get it under control.

          2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I'll take a republic over the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

      2. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        In Presidential elections, we have a democracy at the state level and a republic at the national level.

        The Electoral College is a great example of our hybrid political system.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
          The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "The Electoral College" isn't in the constitution if you understood Amendments 12 & 24. In 12 they left out that "the electors and the people" vote in the primaries which are all done on the same date nation wide and it doesn't indicate that there would be a presidential and vice candidate from each state for November's general election when read correctly.

    4. RTalloni profile image90
      RTalloniposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      "...basic premise of the founders that government must have the power to control the governed..."  must have a typo in it since our Constitution was specifically designed to protect people from government and allow people to across the board use government for said protection. Degradation of what protection means and how the term is used today for selfish purposes that disregard decency, honor, and the common good of the majority in tandem with the protection of the weakest among us has worked with other issues to muddy the waters so much that people actually do seem to want to be taken care of (controlled) by the government.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    ...  the corporations should pay everyone. Then everyone will feed their money back to the corporations through shopping. Its all on the corporations.

    roll

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      You get a +1 from me with that one.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    Worth repeating:
    "I also take some exception that "progressives" are not liberals, that some conservatives are actually progressives.  I believe that is no more than spin to support the fallacious idea that all progressive concepts are good for the country. 

    I have never seen a conservative make the claim they are progressive, and I have never seen a progressive that didn't fall into the liberal camp.  They may have arguments over some specifics, but in general they fit very well there and do not fit at all well in conservative camps." wilderness

    1. MizBejabbers profile image89
      MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Kathryn, you never met my late father either. He was a conservative who thought nothing should stand in the way of progress. You young people know nothing of the "greatest generation". They are the ones who came back from WWII and built this country into the greatest nation in the world. It was their children, a product of Dr. Spock, who began tearing it down.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        On this we can agree.  It was my generation, the one born after WWII, that started the decline we see today whereby the govt. bureaucracy always knows better than the individual, and is all too happy to take control from the people.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
          The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          MizB and Wilderness, it was the post "European War 2" United Statesman who finally began to implement the NWO. That is why American politicians imported top German high level scientists here before an during the US entered the war. The US' NWO was meant to do that although I now believe it has being stopped under Trump who was actually to have manifested it.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            LOL  German scientists were welcomed into the US because it deprived Germany of their talents and because they were useful to the war effort.  Not to promote a NWO.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Germany was a "test run" to see if people could be so brainwashed that they would believe everything was alright under certain conditions. They proved they could so when the US saw that they "deprived Germany of their talents" so by fighting against them no one would believe the US' intentions was to implement the same order on the entire world to reduce earth's population to 500 million written on the "Georgia Stone".

        2. MizBejabbers profile image89
          MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, do you know what Dr. Spock said after he saw a 20-year result of a generation following his instructions on child-rearing in his book? He made this statement on TV, The best thing you can do with my book is to turn the kid over your knee and use my book on his backside. (paraphrasing him)

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    There are laws concerning monopolies. Yes, these can become a force of tyranny!
    We don't need to abolish The Constitution! We need to use it to establish justice by putting a stop to monopolies by following antitrust laws.

    For instance, Ronald Reagan took advantage of antitrust laws to break up the telecommunications power base of AT&T into several smaller companies.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Again a +1from me.

    2. MizBejabbers profile image89
      MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, Reagan did, and now they are regrouping in monopolies under a new type of Republican. However, his breaking up monopolies just looked good on the surface, like Obama care, the result was the sky-rocketing of our consumer telecommunications bills. Instead of a $30 a month phone bill, consumers just had to have the new technology. Until they started wising up, they had $40 a month landline bills and $100+ mo. bills for a single cell phone, and they had to buy their phones for both.

      An old joke was:  "We're the only phone company in town, but we try not to act like it" soon became "we're not the only phone company in town, but we act like it."

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Are you trying to blame the break up of monopolies for the actions of stupid, greedy consumers?  Because if not, it sure sounds like it!

  5. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 8 months ago

    That "bread and circuses" line isn't a partisan one, it is a concept.

    Although today's facts on the ground make it easy to view as a partisan statement - which is the way you supported your disagreement with it, let me ask again about the basic concept of the statement.

    In the context of both Heinlein and Wilderness' use, it addresses the concept of pure democratic rule. As in the majority gets to make the rules, or more bluntly, mob rule.

    Do you think there is a difference between majority rule and mob rule? (as a concept, not any particular political period)

    If you unconditionally support "one man one vote" in all circumstances, then you are supporting majority rule, right?

    And if you do support majority rule, and the "plebs" are the majority, then how can you deny that they have the power to vote themselves all the "bread and circuses" they want?

    The point of the quote isn't dependent on a particular party. It wouldn't matter if the "plebs" were Republican or Democrat.

    My point is that you may disagree with Wilderness' political beliefs, but I don't see how you can disagree with the truth, (as I see it to be so obviously so), in the context of its original Heinlein use:


    Doesn't our modern politics prove the quote?

    The party with the majority vote makes the rules and decisions in each component their majority controls.

    The Democrats did it with the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate, and they did it with Obamacare in both Houses. The Republicans did it with their gerrymandering after 2010, and, obstructionism after the Dems lost their majority in Pres. Obama's time.

    But you really don't agree with the "bread and circuses" concept?

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Funny, GA, the only folks fixated on the term are found in rightwing leaning circles.

      We don't really have pure democratic rule, there are the Courts, thank god for them, that limit the power of the majority to do what ever it wants. We also have a Bill of Rights that also protects against excesses from the majority. So, I guess my point is from the current American system of Government where the term "bread and circus" is an oxymoron.

      That Bill of Rights is explicit about under what circumstances people must be able to participate in the franchise. Wilderness seems to want to undercut that.

      yes, within the constraints that I alluded to earlier, I trumpet of idea of "one man, one vote.

      A majority does not necessarily have to imply "a mob". Can we really say that the preponderance of voters for a particular candidate or issue constitute a mob?

      Why not simply say "the people" rather than plebs?

      The reality is that the plebs are not monolithic in their views and support and because of that, the gloom and doom the Wilderness refers to is unlikely to actually occur. So, rather than all the plebs voting in unison, there is disagreement among them and that is what makes the current system work. All you have to do is look at all the damned Republicans in Washington, these days.  That is how I can disagree with Wilderness' premise.

      The party with the majority vote is not fixated in stone either, it changes with the mood of the people to move left or right or move closer to the center. I will keep the give and take over Wilderness' ideas of simply shutting down participation from the side that he opposes.

      Everybody votes for their own interest, but ying and yang are balanced to keep politics from tipping too far to one side or the other. For now, that is good enough to me, so I still resist the idea of "bread and circus"

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Well damn Cred, just can't address the concept without a partisan perspective can you?

        I see it in the opposite way. I don't think you can address the partisan politics of it without addressing the concept first.

        So you and Wilderness have at it. I'm going to get some popcorn ready.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

          What am I missing? I thought that I was clear....

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)