Posted in another thread by Hipstatic Hipstatic, just a few clarifications to get us started. It depends on what you mean by ‘intervene and encourage’? Are you saying that you think the media is already balanced or that it shouldn’t be balanced? Are you saying people are already educated to the level that they understand the US political system, its strengths and drawbacks? Or that you think people shouldn’t be educated about these issues? Do you think the present first passed the post system used in many elections in the US is better than any proportional representational system? If so why?
Your first 4 questions were answered by the original poster. His statement is perfectly clear and understandable. Your fifth question needs clarification, as it seems to make no sense, which makes your 6th question unanswerable.
Hip, Balance always goes a long way towards problem solving, and even tho we are TOLD we are a democracy, this democracy has a tendency to lean to the right, HARD. And it IS due to media slant, political slant, educational slant. I would think that the "cure" would lie in regular every day citizens with intelligence. Too many people have allowed this to go on for too long, letting the government, the media, and the educational system do their thinking for them, or at least allowing it all to make them feel like they can't do anything about it. That "victim mentality" is the real enemy. I fear that it all boils down to laziness, fear, and apathy. But those are not particularly the earmarks of intelligence. And I'm not talking about IQ or EGO either. I'm talking about ACTUAL smarts combined with the drive to do the right things. And the right thing would be to ALLOW the "other side" equal time without all the b.s. involved in trying to CONVINCE someone of something. These different "sides" of the issues should all be presented OBJECTIVELY, not placing more emphasis on one "side" than the other or labeling the "other" side as less than desirable. (fruit loops or nut jobs) In fact, the BEST way to cure the whole thing is to stop using labels and just take people for who they are and what they do, and not what "side" they are on.
Supposing in all future elections, "parties" are done away with. You might end up with 5 or 6 contenders, or even more, all running on their OWN values and ideals and nothing more. Then suppose the media simply promoted ALL the candidates the same, giving them unbiased equal time. People would then have the ability to choose, not based on parties or lables, not based on who are the two left standing after a money spending orgy, but based on WHO THEY REALLY ARE AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
Earthmother Not really, it’s all a bit open – for example you could ‘encourage’ someone by offering them cake or by shoving a red hot poker up their bum. Well this might highlight my point in question 3 - Are people already educated to a level that they understand the US political system, its strengths and drawbacks? Do you understand about first-passed-the-post electoral systems and proportional representation? Just Google them if you are unsure. * How would you start bringing about the system you describe?
Very obviously not. I did. I'm still unsure. I think that's the point. Confuse people enough and they are easier to manipulate. It would appear that you are talking about the way our election system works, with the primaries and the electoral college. * How would I start??????????? You mean I have figure out how to do this myself? Damn. .....Let's see, I think I'll steal the ingredients for a big bomb. Then I'll take over the white house with the help of GOD who I'm sure will tell me what to do from there...
Actually, I would start right here and now, at the place where things keep getting worse and worse. Then I would step back and watch as people get more and more frustrated until they finally revolt. Then I would watch as life as we know it falls apart and starts to rebuild over again with all the best of intentions. I would watch as humans make all the same mistakes they did the last time. And hope that this time a few more of them have some TRUE intelligence and are not just in it for the power trip. Other than that and trying to open a few eyes in the meantime, I can do nothing to bring these things about. They will happen all on their own.
I don't need to answer any of these questions, you do. I am trying to guess what you mean. If I didn't summarise your views correctly, then summarise them yourself. Try to do it as succintly as I did. My views are quite simple. I don't believe in social engineering. I think the left is losing because they can't sell their ideas, and they want to take power to force their ideas down peoples throats. Since you failed in a free system, you want to restrict freedom and force the desired result. Complaining about red scares from decades ago as an excuse for your current failures seems pretty unconvincing.
Hipstatic But what do you term social engineering? Influencing attitudes? That can come from government or the private sector. Take for instance the Mont Pelerin Society that did so much to promote the flawed neo-liberal ideas that came to dominate much of the thinking in the US in recent years. Its stated aim was to change people’s attitudes and since its ideas fitted in with the desires of the wealthy it spawned numerous wealth supported Think Tanks that have come to dominate US political and economic thinking. In my opinion that influence (in other word there ability conduct social engineering) has become too powerful and needs to be curtailed or opposed (in the US at least). Conspiracy or lobbying? http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393&f=36 If you are truly against all social engineering (rather than supporting just those that fit in with you own ideological bent) then you’d support what I’ve proposed. * This is it, for you politics or economics is a product, it is not about what might be best but about what can be sold. The problem is that a so-so or mediocre product can sell well just because of a well financed ad campaign, so people can be talked into buying something shiny like neo-liberal economic theory only to find out later that it’s an utter piece of crap. * Oh this just comes across like the ranting of a right wing bore in a pub, fine this is you opinion but just what are you basing it on beyond irrational political bias? * This from the man who keeps bringing up the soviets? You want history when it suits you and dismiss it when it doesn’t? Things need to be placed in context, there were red scares in Europe but they subsided while in the US it never quite went away. The pressure was virtually always kept up, so that the rising labour/socialist movement basically died in the US while elsewhere it continued to grow and gain power and influence. Can guns save you from suppression? http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=3658951&postcount=1 In the US there are many people that are irrationally opposed to left wing ideas while holding onto social and economic views they seem unable to defend or in some cases even explain. Look at your own views, you seem to think that all left wingers are in their hearts totalitarian communists whose only objective is to seize power, steal people’s freedoms and force their ideas down peoples throats. While you seem to be desperatly holding onto some flawed neo-liberal economic ideas that you’ve been unable to defend in thread after thread.
My Dear Balbus: .................................................................................................. Though I remain unfamiliar with the Mt. Pelerin Society It sounds like its not a goverment sponsored entity and would enjoy the freedom of speech. Plenty of people are seeking to constrict free speech via regulations like "Fairness in Broadcasting" proposals. I would hope that rather than acting to restrict the speech of private groups that you would offer rebuttals and ideas of your own contributing to a marketplace of ideas. Ideas posesses a sort of darwininsm of thier own where the discredited are left behind and the proven ideas move on . The system works. I would hardly say that Ideals representing rich people are dominant in the US. The most recent elections show how fluid concepts of economics and governance are. Would you be interested in the relative diversity of ideals presented within the education system in The US, which is tax supported?
Piney I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make? My point was that one persons ‘social engineering’ could be another persons much needed education. And the fact is that many groups and institutions are attempting to influence people’s attitudes and social behaviour, for good or bad depending on your viewpoint. So when someone seems to be claiming they’re against all ‘social engineering’ a wonder if they really are? Or are they just opposed to the ‘social engineering’ of their opponents while seeing nothing wrong with attempts at social engineering by people of a political or economic viewpoint similar to their own? * As to the ‘marketplace of ideas’ and the ‘Darwinism of ideas’ the problem is that market places can and are manipulated and are often distortions (over optimistic or over pessimistic) as well as subject to fads and misinformation. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that as soon as hominids began using tools they basically stopped being subject to ‘natural selection’ and it is the same with ideas, they are not subject to ‘natural selection’ because other influences distort any ‘natural selection’ taking place. Irrational beliefs, political bias, marketing, lobbying, self-interest, prejudice, etc, etc all can distort the ‘natural selection’ of a relevant and constructive idea ‘naturally’ winning out over an irrational or irrelevant idea that people cannot defend. For example the best way for the relevance of an idea to be tested is in the scrutiny of open and honest debate, yet there are many here that refuse to enter into such debates. * To me the problem is that marketing or lobbying can distort how people look at something and therefore the lessen they learn from it. For example the EU forced the mobile phone operators to reduce their roaming tariffs, because commercial competition had not done it and the operators wouldn’t do it voluntarily. When the law came in the operators began widely advertising that ‘they’ had brought down charges, giving the impression that it was out of concern for their customers or came out of commercial competition. Many people who don’t know anything about the unadvertised regulation will get the impression from the mobile operators well advertised claims that commercial competition works and that there is no need for regulation – especially when many wealth sponsored think tanks and lobby groups have money to disseminate that very same idea. *
Piney Oh I think the economic crisis that was going on at the time of the US presidential elections very much dented the influence of wealth, but the infrastructure is there and hasn’t gone away. I believe that there should be more of a level playing field when it comes to the dissemination of ideas and the list of ideas I proposed in an earlier thread would cover all groups not just those of the right. * To me the whole lobby business seems to have has become excessive and often seems detrimental to the political system and I feel it needs to be better regulated and monitored, but how and how do you stop throwing out the baby with the bath water? To me it would seem to be a matter of comparative influence and openness. Often people don’t know were the information has come from and so don’t know that it is being spun and for what reason. It also mean those with the most bucks get the biggest bangs, and although not all people of wealth are ultra-conservative in their philosophy I think it fair to say not many are committed left wingers. Here are some musings on what might be done – * All political bias should be out in the open and be reported as such when material from a lobby group is cited or a co-ed piece is written or presented by the media. For example ‘that is from a report by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute’ or ‘this is John Doe of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute’ or ‘said the environmental group Greenpeace’. *The status of think tanks as non-profit or tax exempt is linked to a formal declaration of being non partisan, this should be more rigorously policed. *A limit should be put on how much can be earned for working for such groups. Lobbying should be about doing something because you want to not because you’re being paid to do it. In the same way possibly the amount spent on lawyers or PR firms in the support of a cause should be regulated. *There must be a gap of at least five years between receiving money from or holding a position with a lobby group or think tank and seeking public office or being appointed to a political position. *There must be a gap of at least five years between holding a public office or holding an appointment to a political position and receiving money from or holding a position with a lobby group or think tank. *There must be a gap of at least five years between holding a public office or holding an appointment to a political position and receiving money from or holding a position with any corporation that receives government contracts. *A ban on the ability of lobbyists to make contributions to a politician’s electoral campaigns.
Isn't that done, already, with citations, quotes, identification of speaker, etc.? idk How? If they're looking for an answer, and the answer seems to be on this side of the political spectrum, they would be biased toward this side, eh? Sorry, you really can't tell folks that they are only allowed to make $ XXX amount from their job, because, in order to do that, you'd have to be telling the employers how much they would be allowed to pay. That's one of those ideas that sounds good, but once you start thinking about it, you see it for the slippery slope that it is. Uhhh... Again, that's a major stomp on the foot of freedom. And, please, don't get me wrong ~ It all SOUNDS great; but you can't do that to people.
Fy Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus Here are some musings on what might be done – * All political bias should be out in the open and be reported as such when material from a lobby group is cited or a co-ed piece is written or presented by the media. For example ‘that is from a report by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute’ or ‘this is John Doe of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute’ or ‘said the environmental group Greenpeace’. The political bias of a think tank or lobby group isn’t always identified and isn’t always obvious and many times they claim to be ‘independent’ or non-partisan. I mean many people know that the American Enterprise Institute is a neo-conservative organisation, but a hell of a lot of people don’t. As to Lewis H. Brown he was – The quotes are from http://www.sourcewatch.org/ (which is sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy, founded in 1993 by the environmentalist John Stauber.) * Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus *The status of think tanks as non-profit or tax exempt is linked to a formal declaration of being non partisan, this should be more rigorously policed. Then they would lose the non-partisan status and the tax exemption, it’s a simple matter of lying. If they are pushing a right wing (or left wing) agenda but claiming they are unbiased one way or the other then they’re lying. The American Enterprise Institute is very clearly a right wing organisation, but it claims to be non-partisan to get tax exemption. It’s the same with many others like the Cato institute which says it is – [my bold] Please note - libertarian – There mission? Which is - right wing libertarianism – And what do they call themselves? Again the very definition of right wing libertarianism. And it was founded by – And it receives a hell of a lot of corporate money and donations from right leaning foundations. * Your other objections are all in the ‘you can’t do that’ vein, but don’t actually explain why not beyond your personal dislike to them, which isn’t much of an argument.
I DO agree with this concept. If THIS would be an example of what happens if you DON'T do something like that. (This is something that has been all over our WV media for many months. Even John Grisham wrote a novel about it...) If corruption CAN exist, it WILL. Seems a little like trying to fight back mother nature....
Wouldn't that be grand? People would have to base their voting decisions on their own personal reasoning and research. I don't know why it wouldn't work, except that it might make it harder for special interests to influence those that govern.
I wonder why I can't just live my life in the way I want to without some government bureaucracy telling me I have to pay a fee or tax in order to do it? Why does my tax dollar have to go for things I do not want such as abortion. It is very offense to me that my money could fund this. I am not killing people or taking what does not belong to me so, why does the government get to tell me how to live my life. Why can they take my money or property? When will killing actually become illegal? I guess when people stop fighting wars we will know life is really respected. I am tired of fighting I just want to work in my garden and be left alone by the government. Now that Monsanto has fully infected our food supply with it's genetic engineering many more will die. I am for self government good personal boundaries. Government ought to build roads and protect their county's boarders. They should not be in the business of evangelizing other countries with doctrines that do not fit their society, education, health care, and telling its citizens what is legal and illegal to consume. IMO
Yeah they should protect the borders but then low wage workers wouldn't be available to the huge corporations that pay little or no taxes, yet lobby our government to keep their taxes and liabilities low and mandate market share through legislation that is supposed to keep us safer.
