It is time to replace Capitalism with Democracy!

Interesting take on the state of our nation.

Hi astep above, I thank you!

equality and freedom? you can not be equal and free....free and equal means equality under the law not in life..

and the united states was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy

republic - a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights.

democracy - system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights

Thank you. You said it all.

This post was meant for the other individual that actually knows what our system of government actually is.

Mr. Joiner, when did you quit your day job, anyway?

capitalism run amok i will agree with

lecia
Capitalism has definitely run amok but seeing your comment and thinking about it we have a system that can be very convoluted hidden and controlled and is!

No, it ran amok with the Supreme Court (a "liberal" one once again) simply created another party to it and amended the Constitution when it had no authority to do so within the provisions of the Constitution itself. It created another "person" in the form of "corporate person-hood" and so instead of effectively "regulating" the commercial corporate interests in this country, the government has "progressively" given them more and more privileges and immunities which flies in the fact our intended form of government and Constitution, which is meant to protect the citizens and people, not corporate interests.

And also made up campaign election laws that made our intended "representative" provisions null and void, since you cannot have a representative government when those representatives are "sponsored" and placed in office by corporate interests that are legally outside their legislative districts.

And the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve Act actually handed over our government to the British bankers who own the Federal Reserve System, the Rothchilds. So we are ARE under the British capitalistic system, but it has been due to the progressive treason of both political parties.

Who were to have no loyalties or oaths over and above defending and protecting that Constitution, and not THEIR corporate political parties interests.

And is that so very hard for the "progressives" to understand, or is it just that they wish to also spin and avoid responsibility once again as also part of the problem. Since you liberally use the word again to describe our form of government, which was NEVER intended to be one based on "democracy," but "representative" and at the will and consent of the governed, not special interests, nor "town halls" as the method for addressing constituents concerns if they are extra-Constitutional functions, but the formal amendment and voting process.

Human greed is the biggest obstacle to proper functioning of a democracy. It is always the privileged top tier section of society who are bailed out with lucrative packages while the common folks get axed. This is true everywhere from the US to Haiti. This is absolutely contrary to the pristine concept of democracy.

Yes

our government is the biggest capitalist amok(er)

Having read the definitions that lecia posted, I have to ask...what is the definition of a "liberal democratic" society, or a "liberal democratic capitalistic" society?

Those terms are meant European in definition and nature, so are you from Europe?

Ross, obviously these terms are european since the enlightenment and renaissance took place in Europe and the evolution of political science took place there. Please stop being foolish.

Amalgam: these particular terms are quite specific and apply to a variety of societies and countries that apply the principles in some form or another. A 'liberal democratic' society can be one where there is a process of debate and election in some form based on certain limits and rights derived from consensus or historical precedent. France or Sweden would be good examples, where a culture of personal liberty and liberality with regard to social issues is strong (like gay marriage or divorce) and where the mechanism for government relies on democratic principles of elections and representation.

A liberal democratic capitalistic society would specifically refer to one where the means of production are held in private hands rather than cooperative, communal or state hands. Private entities can include individuals and often mean corporate groups of individuals as well.

A Lib. Dem socialist society would see more public or state ownership of some of the means of production and distribution. Sweden is a good example, where the state provides a large number of services to the public instead of private companies.

i agree,,,thx

javaice
I really was surprised to see that the top 1% own more than the bottom 95% combined. I know many of the 1% are Jews and we are supposed to be a christian society or so they say but JC or God would not approve of this!

lecia
Our Government and our two party system are our biggest problem today. They only care about themselves and their party we are on our own!

good

Great point, lecia. Something else of note:

"There are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom."

I think this assertion is ludicrous. Concurrent equality and freedom are impossible bedfellows. If you are completely free, some will be more able than others, and as such some will rise while others fall. If you opt for equality instead, you cannot be free, because equality necessarily takes from some to give to others. I think you need to rethink your definiton of Democracy...

These totally depend on your definition of equality and freedom. With the correct definitions agreed upon by the stakeholders involved both are perfectly achievable. The US constitution is a good example of this. Freedom within the law, and equality before the law. The fact that those principles are being overturned because of the great wealth and power or fame of certain individuals in society does not mean those principles are not valid. Just unregarded.

(e.g. winona ryder and chris brown get off with probation for being - famous just a small example).

amalgam80
Reading everything it is plain to see everyone has a different understanding. Thomas Jefferson felt as soon as you became a member of a society you did the right thing for that society and not yourself. Today it is hurray for me the hell with you! Anyway to me you treat everyone as equals regardless of party or anything else.

excellent point
im with ya

The United States was never created as a democracy, or are you unaware of that, Mr. Joiner? How long has it actually been since you read or pulled out the Constitution and true Law of this country, and actually wrote anything that has anything at all to do with our intended system of government.

Democracies die, and always have because they are nothing but "gang rule." Have you ever read the founder's quotes on democracy? Our government is intended to be a representative republican form of government, or a Constitutinal Republic. It takes a "supermajority" in order to both enact legislation, and to also rescind it, and the "consent of the governed" itself to amend it - not public opinion.

And we haven't had capitalism in this country in over 75 years, since the globalists, such as yourself, started valuing "human rights" over "American rights," and also since the Supreme Court created another party unconstitutionally to our Constitution "corporate person-hood."

AIG, was a global corporation that your Congress (Democratic one at that) bailed out on the AMERICAN citizen's dime for Mr. Rothchild's investment holdings, since he (the British) now own our bank.

So open your eyes. Or start printing the truth. For once.

Ross, I need explaination on this:

"since the globalists, such as yourself, started valuing "human rights" over "American rights," "

Why is human rights a bad thing and American rights a good thing?I don't get it, aren't both part of the Constitution?

Also don't understand your stance against a simple majority and how you think a simple majority is unconstitutional. Doesn't the Constitution condone a simple majority? I know it's been a while since the Constitution exam I took in high school and elementary school(and got a hundred on both), but I could have sworn a simple majority is all it takes to get a law passed. The minority can filibuster, but legislation can pass with just a simple majority.

But I totally agree with you on the stupid @$$ "corporate person-hood" bull$#!+.

Good point.

And I guess you haven't read the Bible lately. Apparently simply attend Michael Moore movies, who is one that truly has no grip at all, and is most likely in that top 1%. I wonder, why doesn't he simply hold a benefit for the State of California, instead of making another one of his propaganda pieces?

True democracy is nothing but the imposition of tyranny of 51% of the population, on the other 49%.

Ross you better go back and think! I do not know if you can but give it a try you may learn something. You can not be as stupid as you appear!

While Ross is very conservative, I think I'd think twice myself before suggesting somebody else rethink something, especially since you're comparing a political system with an economic one... you can't replace Capitalism with Democracy... because neither has anything to do with the other; they're as different as catfish and crawdads...

Aww. Quite a similarity here! Catfish eat dead crawdads and crawdads would love to eat catfish if they were only big enough!

and I eat em' both... MWAHAHA...

We need to remove the money - factor from our elections.
If we do this, the American people will rule this country.
Today, corporations have our politicans in their pockets.
How sad is that?
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Wow, lots of democracy haters here. I wonder how many of these democracy haters were praising Bush's decision to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yeah we live in a Republic, where the representatives are elected democratically, where laws are established democratically.

From wikipedia: "In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy."

"A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term, representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[50]

"The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic. The opinion of the court from In re Duncan[51] (1891) held that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition. Due to the 1875 and 1891 court decisions establishing basic definition, in the first version (1892) of the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the word republic, and like Article IV which refers to a Republican form of government, the basic definition of republic is implied and continues to do so in all subsequent versions, including the present edition, by virtue of its consistent inclusion.

"Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[52] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe."

Found these passages from wikipedia interesting, in regards to what people have been saying here.

"Wow, lots of democracy haters here. I wonder how many of these democracy haters were praising Bush's decision to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Just for the record, certainly not me. I've never felt the United States had any right or responsibility to be a nation builder, especially in the Middle East.

The United States was established as a democratic constitutional republic, but that is as much democracy as the founders could tolerate, since many of them were also no fans of true democracy(non-representative). The idea that capitalism in any way hinders or enhances a constitutional republic(democratic or otherwise) would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of either.

Again, capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system. You can't replace one with the other, because they are mutually exclusive. A democracy isn't defined by either freedom or equality, and neither are necessary for a democratic form of government, and indeed neither, in a pure form, can exist concurrently, because one precludes the other.

Firesisle:

Democracy's don't last, per our founders. It is nothing more than "gang rule." And you should see what is occuring in most democracies throughout the world right now. Gang rule at the cost of individual liberties and rights.

Just how old are you, and did you attend a U.S. public school that is failing our youth with respect to government and education classes insofar as our actual form of government, and the history behind it?

The words "democracy" are nowhere in our founding documents, or our intended form of government. So you are spinning again. It is not a "democratic Constitutional Republic," it is merely a "Constitutional republican" form of government, since it does take a supermajority to even amend the Constitution.

So where did you get your education, and how old are you?

Ross,
I'm 58 years old, and got my education in very good public schools, which still taught US Government, US History, State History, etc. I'm educated well enough to know that the authors of the Constitution eschewed democracy, and why.

I understand that we have a Constitutional Republic. Members of Congress are elected democratically; as our representatives, they use a democratic method within the houses of Congress to approve or disapprove legislation.

While we don't practice a true direct democracy, we do use principles of democracy within our Constitutional Republic.

I'm as familiar with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as anyone, including you. I know that neither document mentions "democracy" by name, but a vote that is determined by a majority rule, is, in essence a democratic principle.

I also understand than no true, direct democracy has lasted more than 200 years and all have eventually dissolved into totalitarianism, do to the corruption that is created when people discover they can vote themselves the largess of the treasury, and choose to do so.

Now it's your turn; I've been reasonably candid with you, so I'd expect the same in return. How old are you, and where did you get your education. In asking, I at least, recognize the fact that the answers for either of us are absolutely irrelavent.

From what i've read, at least in wikipedia, a republic is a type of democracy, so if jmsjoin is calling the Republic of America a democracy he is not wrong.

Again, from wikipedia: "Democracy is a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy)."

"In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power. Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution." Interesting.

"There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.

"The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests."

"A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities."

hmm. So what are we? Sounds like liberal democratic to me.

From what I can make out here, Our nation is a republic. A nation without a monarch. Our form of governing is a Democarcy, particularly a representative or a liberal, democracy.

So I now fully agree with jmsjoin in stating that we need to remember that we are suppose to be a democracy and that we have let capitalism run amok.

Very good definitions! We're kind of a Republic ran in a democratic way. True majority-rules would result in inequality against the minorities, so it's tempered by laws designed to protect the rights of all the people.

Exactly correct!

Jerry you know you are right! I know it iis naive but I don't see why they can not just end lobbyists and donations over $100 everyone would then be on equal footing!

If we can put a man on the moon, we can figure out how to remove the money - factor from our elections. We need the WILL to do it.
[:-)
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Yeah, how about the fact that a company or a corporation is not like a human or a citizen, and therefore does not have the same rights as humans and citizens, and therefore do not have the right to influence democracy and or elections. And therfore can not donate anything to a politician.

From what I've read it is a mistake that everyone thinks that a corporation has the same rights as a citizen. Meaning a company, a business, a store, a non-human, has more rights than an (legal)immigrant.

From what I've read a clerk at the Supreme court messed up and that's tehreason why many think corporations have the same rights as a citizen.

Just what I've read. And even if it is wrong, I still can't find any reason to continue treating a non-human as if it were human. My dog doesn't get to vote, my dog can't buy commercial time in support of a political view, my dog isn't allowed to give donations to a political party. But for some reason companies can. Why?

Why does a CEO and execs of a company get to have a double voice? Why can they support a political party as private individuals and as a company? Just seems wrong morally, and legally(constitutionally).

interesting take on it

Amalgam Including myself I do not think forcing Democracy anywhere is a good idea certainly not Iraq and Afghanistan. Like all the other Democracies Bush forced those too will fail. Even the East Germans want the wall back up because to them Democracy is too hard, too competitive!

If Obama will continue to deny the cry of the American people, the whole country will suffer and will eventually go down.

hmmm i just don't know

Amalgam80 : I agree with you but we also have to stop the wealthy from stealing an election. Bloomberg should not be allowed to spend $100 million or more to get reelected. We need to totally remove the money - factor.
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

spike breaker I think at least with health care where 75% of average Americans want health care reform he is listening to them. Thousands join the ranks of those without every day. I do think if we were listened to though wall street would not have been bailed out. Capitalism has been saved I would like to see Democracy and average Americans saved!

I posted an article on Allvoices just four days ago called "Capitalism: Unprecedented and Substantive Change on the Way". If I was right at all on anything concerning this subject, capitalism is in the process of being supplanted by something entirely different. Hint: And it's not a democracy...

Vernon,
I wrote a response to your article, called "On the Moral Foundation of Capitalism"...

"Capitalism : A Love Story," by Michael Moore. [:-)
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Jerry I would have to disagree about stopping people from using their own money to run their election. I really don't see that much of a problem with that. Unless of course you can point out some really big ones.

Look around. Today we have very wealthy folks in office, spending their own money to get reelected. Sorry, but I have a BIG problem with that. [:-[
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Maybe people above a certain income level shouldn't be allowed to run for public office. That would be interesting.

So you want a campaign purely funded by citizen contributions. No businesses, no personal wealth, just private supporters, or are the elections government funded?

i don't know what this article is about.. the only thing i know - i'm addicted to zynga poker :S
somebody help me :|

vernon I'm afraid you are right!

Jerry I was catching bits and pieces of MM on Larry King early in the morning and after a week I had to add my own 2 cents. Like Moore or not he is on our side and I find him right!

I want the elections government funded. [:-)
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Jerry, that's really not a bad idea. I, for one, would also like to see corporate money, PACs, and lobbyists taken out of the mix. I'd also like to see a ceiling on contributions from private individuals, and limits on paid political announcements.

Firesisle : I agree 100% with your post.
Today, to get elected or reelected you need to spend millions of dollars. This is not healthy ; it breeds corruption. [:-[
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Yep; it's exactly the types of corruption that the authors of the Constitution hoped to avoid.

I want the elections government funded. [:-)
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

I believe Michael Moore is a great American patriot. Someone once said ;
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Go Mike!!!
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

I agree with that I really do not understand why we just can't put the elections back on to a decent scale. The whole process isout of sync! Mike Moore is great! The more I listen to him the more I respect him. He is a patriot and he is on our side!

Watch the movie Zeitgeist

.

trapstar
How odd! Conspiracies hmm I was just taking notes on what I have been hearing about conspiracy accusations coming from Clinton in regard to him and Obama. Blood thirsty ferver call it what you will but it does exist and it is getting worse! Thanks for that!

My dear friend jmsjoin,
Nice and very interesting report.
You are wel come.
Thanks once again.
Yours,
Anilbhai.

hiiii pplz

no more CAPTITALISM!!!!

capitalism is not fair and should be eliminated thany you michal more!!! now hoppfully the government see's the movie

Unbridled capitalism destroys the essence of democracy. Nevertheless, capitalism is the seedbed of creativity. Otherwise the US would not have been where it is today. All other systems have failed. Democracy has in many ways acted in one way or another as a rein on human vices that thrive on unchained capitalism.

Exactly how does unbridled capitalism destroy the essence of democracy?

capitalism is one of the worst things ever

There is still hope for the preservation of democratic ideas.

no

i don't know what this article is about.. the only thing i know - i'm addicted to zynga poker :S
somebody help me :|

I enjoyed reading your article. I also agree with many of the people that commented Michael Moore is fricking amazing and opens people to things they were never aware of. Ignorance is a bliss to too many people in our society just don't give a damn and the main reason is because its not happening to them.

The problem with Capitalism is, and always has been, a question of when the simple human desire, and right, to try to better oneself turns into greed. The desire to better oneself results in energy, creativity and innovation, while once that desire to "get ahead" crosses that line and becomes "greed" it means getting ahead despite all costs to fellow human beings. It means stealing, cheating, lying, abuse and murder.

It's always been this way. The plantation owners of the Old South could have hired people to work their fields and still made a profit, but they chose to work slaves because that choice resulted in more profit.

The American Indians were driven from their land granted by every treaty ever signed because people wanted that land, too. The Cherokee were abiding by the rules of their treaty and acclimating themselves to the White way of life until gold was discovered on their land, then off they're marched to Oklahoma, men, women and children dying every step of the way.

The railroads got their right-of-way through private land by any means necessary. The farmers moved west taking land from the Indians. The cattle barons took land from the farmers, the sheep-ranchers and the smaller cattle ranches, all done by the gun when forceful persuasion failed.

If gold had been discovered in Yellowstone there wouldn't be a geyser left today.

The buffalo. I doubt if Ben Franklin would've been proud of that.

Walmart. Driving out small businesses by offering lower prices than they can compete with, then raising their prices when they no longer have any competition.

Health insurance companies. Creating monopolies to deliver a service that all people need, and being able to set their own rules and prices that people are virtually helpless to say no to.

The banks.

All driven by greed.

Although Capitalism is good in the sense that it drives people to innovation and invention, it fails the people that get trampled-on during the process. It needs to be tempered with morality.

We need regulation. And to the people that think that the free-market should be unregulated, I just gave a few examples of thousands that I can think of as to why it has to be regulated. Because not enough people are morally responsible enough to be given free reign to run wild without regulation.

The government is a tool. It belongs to us to use as we see fit in order to make our lives better. Not just the lives of the rich, but the lives of everyone! It belongs to us!

Winds7seas : Your post is excellent. Thank you. Hope you keep writing. Greed is the most infamous disease of Earth, always has been. Capitalism is good but must be regulated. The movie, "The Twelve Chairs," a Mel Brooks comedy is about GREED. [:-0
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

Love Mel Brooks' movies but don't remember ever having seen that one. Thanks. I'll hunt it up.

yeah yeah right...agreed...

yeah...you have a point..

nice..

There is still hope for the preservation of democratic ideas.

Thanks for you insight

you cant find a better system then capytalisem , we in israel try the kibutz's for a 100 years, today most of them moved to a capytalist system , only the reachest kibutz's r socialist's today. the problem is that u r looking for an ideal system and u'll never find it. capytalisem have its downsides but thay can b deminished by regulation. the other systems have nothing but downsides and have been all proven wrong in the last century.

Such a radical notion--who do you think your are, Thomas Jefferson? (Who, for those who don't know, opposed monopolies and consolidation of wealth.)

These are just words and ideas or notions; people need to come up with creative solutions for their particular governance problems in the world of states we live in today. Otherwise we can continue to debate what a democracy is supposed to look like, how many different kinds of republics and republican systems there are as well as economic models that can be modified to fit different systems etc. In the US you have a republican system that was always open to being manipulated by those with wealth since it placed no limits on private property; but there's a basic historical lesson that doesn't change i.e. those with wealth generally have greater access to power; in a representative democratic republic that is also, if not more, true. The fact that now major corporate interests can supersede the will of a particular constituency is because of the money involved in running for office and personal wealth. I get what you're trying to say, that it is money that buys power, but this has always been the case in every human society in history. If you want to stop it then it's just a matter of looking at the money trail.

Hi aarana thank you and good to hear from you, hope all is well with you!

Thanks everyone for an interesting dialogue!

Hi changez, we fundamentally have a good system but at this point it is backwards and used for personal financial gain at the majorities expense not for their benefit and under the increasingly dire conditions of today it is unacceptable and too destructive to continue tolerating.

:O

Ross, obviously these terms are european since the enlightenment and renaissance took place in Europe and the evolution of political science took place there. Please stop being foolish.

Amalgam: these particular terms are quite specific and apply to a variety of societies and countries that apply the principles in some form or another. A 'liberal democratic' society can be one where there is a process of debate and election in some form based on certain limits and rights derived from consensus or historical precedent. France or Sweden would be good examples, where a culture of personal liberty and liberality with regard to social issues is strong (like gay marriage or divorce) and where the mechanism for government relies on democratic principles of elections and representation.

A liberal democratic capitalistic society would specifically refer to one where the means of production are held in private hands rather than cooperative, communal or state hands. Private entities can include individuals and often mean corporate groups of individuals as well.

A Lib. Dem socialist society would see more public or state ownership of some of the means of production and distribution. Sweden is a good example, where the state provides a large number of services to the public instead of private companies.

Cool Changez, thanks for the info. I kind of knew most of that already, I was trying to get people that thought that the American republic is not a democracy to question themselves. But I don't think they ever do that.

And I appreciate the added LDS explanation too, I forgot about that.

Changez and Amalgam it just kills me that Republicans get away with calling Obama a socialist and a fascist when even our social security is and a healthy dose of socialism or Government intervention whatever you want to call it is needed to save us from the mess Bush made out of our Democracy!

There is a neo fascist agenda apparent in parts of DC but Obama seem less amenable to them than bush did.