16 ms·

I would argue that this is the intended outcome. I do not believe we have enough control over our government. Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people i

I would argue that this is the intended outcome. I do not believe we have enough control over our government. Edit: I guess I should add that a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world, because they think it’s okay for “their side” to have absolute power over others. Often I think they associate “our side” to be the side of the “good guys” and thus find our grip on global hegemony acceptable. Except there are no “good guys” who always behave in a fair and even way, that is a childish fantasy used to keep us on board with the serious injustice perpetrated by governments the world over. The US government is responsible for oppression and murder the world over in addition to the good things we might do. We cannot blanket trust any government to behave appropriately in secrecy unless we want to simply abdicate our responsibility for the harm that governments then cause.

peterwwillis 7y ago
You have the power to get the elected representatives to write and change every single law of government. But the citizenry often lacks the coordination, direction, and will to ensure the majority of representatives does so. The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. If indeed there is some classified information that shouldn't be exposed, that is extremely serious and can't just be aired like a tabloid news story. There is no simple way to keep the public informed of classified information. It's likely that the most reasonable safeguard is to have elected representatives with a strong moral code to vet the situation and act to protect their constituents.
- perfmode 7y ago
  Coordination and direction are the means of power. Without these, one does not actually have power.
- post_below 7y ago
  According to an oft referenced Princeton study, the will of the population has almost exactly zero impact on congressional voting: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 According to a couple of other studies, states choose policies their citizens want only 59% of the time and politicians, overall, vote against the will of the people they represent 35% of the time: https://promarket.org/study-politicians-vote-will-constituents-35-percent-time/ https://promarket.org/study-politicians-vote-will-constituen... Unless you're using large scale money and influence to interact directly with politicians, neither your will or your direction have any meaning.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    That's just a statistical artifact caused by the fact that things generally get passed as soon as they get past 50% support in the legislature, which is about the same time they have around 50% support in the population, and then half the time it happens to be 51% in the legislature but 49% in the population or vice versa.
- zigzaggy 7y ago
  You’re being down voted but you’re spot on. It’s tough to have civil discussions when the subject matter is extremely sensitive. How do we verify the classification of certain programs is truly sensitive not simply politically motivated? To your first point, I believe we are screwed as long as Citizens United stands (0). We the people will always be out-coordinated by the oligarchs and their bureaucrats. Which leads to your second point. As long campaign spending of the super rich is protected as “free speech” (the result of Citizen’s United) we are stuck with politicians who can be bought and sold. Men and women with strong moral codes cannot be bought, and therefore will not win elections. Exceptions are few and far between. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Citizens United was a massive win for the people against the media companies. Without it the media companies get to decide everything people hear because nobody else is allowed to put forth anything like that level of resources toward political speech. That's why you always hear the media whinging about it -- it's the only way anybody else has any hope of challenging their narratives in front of more of an audience than an individual YouTube channel. Obviously the poor have no money to buy ads with, but we're not talking about the poor here. Nobody seriously running for office is poor. This is a battle between people who are rich enough to buy ads on a TV network and people who are rich enough to buy the TV network, and Citizens United is a win for the "little guy" in that situation. The big problem we have in elections isn't that someone can be heard too well, it's that some people can't be heard well enough. But the answer to that is public financing of elections, which doesn't require restricting private speech in any way.
    - zigzaggy 7y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. I strongly believe in public financing of elections. Also, I appreciate your alternate view on this case. I will definitely be revisiting the facts in the light of your comment to reconsider my position.
- eternalban 7y ago
  > The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. We are always spoon fed the Eisenhower's remarks regarding the "Military Industrial Complex" but I am quite curious as to how many of you (American or not) have even heard about, much less read in full, president Truman's op-ed in the Washington post, dated Dec. 22, 1963. https://archive.org/stream/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarrySTruman/Limit%20CIA%20Role%20To%20Intelligence%20by%20Harry%20S%20Truman_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarry... Quote: We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it. end quote. p.s. about that 12/22/1963. (See 11/22/1963) [p.s.s. do read it in full.]
mcv 7y ago
> I do not believe we have enough control over our government. And that's probably something that needs to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. It is vital in a democracy that a government can be held accountable. The government should not have a carte blanche to break the law in secret. There has to be some way to address this, and at the moment there clearly isn't. Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public by showing them what their government was doing.
- dpwm 7y ago
  > Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public by showing them what their government was doing. And swathes of the US public seem to be cheering as they go down. Strange times.
  - mcv 7y ago
    Swathes of the US public seem to be cheering as their own country is going down. Strange times indeed.
    - oreo83 7y ago
      ?
    - jolfdb 7y ago
      The source of your confusion is your conflation of a criminal government with the country itself.
      - codehalo 7y ago
        Somebody's voting them in.
        jdironman 7y ago
        Then we need more power voting out.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pablooliva 7y ago
Excellent-ly said.
spikels 7y ago
> a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world Seriously? Name one person making this argument? Perhaps you are just misusing the phrase "absolute power". Typically this is used to refer to the unrestricted power of a monarch or dictator. The US doesn't even have this power within the US. It's a childish fantasy (as you say) to think the US has this "in the world" generally.
- ta34729384 7y ago
  Really! People, quite rightly, do think that. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3492-kissinger-the-illegal-we-do-immediately-the-unconstitutional-takes-a-little-longer https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3492-kis...
sureaboutthis 7y ago
We have plenty of control over government. If you don't like who's in charge, you can vote them out. If you think that's a ridiculous statement, then consider that every major television network around the world covers our political elections here in the US and the focus is always voter turnout and who we vote for. The only reason for that is: we have all the power. Of course, if you don't like who gets elected all the time, perhaps you need to consider why your candidates never win because it seems far fewer people agree with your selections. Why is that?
- acct1771 7y ago
  Ron Paul was visibly blackballed by US media conglomerates/during "debates" - Donald Trump was given a spotlight. A "critical" spotlight - but a spotlight nonetheless. See the difference?
  - sureaboutthis 7y ago
    What does the media have to do with our control over government besides nothing?
    - harimau777 7y ago
      People don't make decisions in a vacuum. Their choices are dramatically controlled by the information that they receive and their culture. The media has a large influence on both of these factors, therefore they have a large amount of de facto control over the government even if they don't have direct control over government.
      - sureaboutthis 7y ago
        A lot of things influence your decisions but it is you that makes those decisions. The media, as an entity, cannot and does not vote.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's the case. Studies seem to suggest that average people have relatively little control over the government compared to corporations and interest groups. In terms of voter turnout: I think the problem is that voter turnout doesn't happen in a vacuums. We have the voter turnout that we do due to a combination of societal factors, practical factors, current events, etc. That's not to say that it cannot be effected, but I think there's sort of a catch 22: In order to have power people need to increase voter turnout, but in order to increase voter turnout people need to have power. In terms of your second point (i.e. "...need to consider why your candidates never win...). I think you make a good point, especially in situations where one side or the other refuses to engage in the diplomacy necessary to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, it also seems to me that a free society would require that people be able to find a situation where they can live in accordance with their views without having to make them acceptable to a plurality of society (I'm excluding "core" social norms such as not stealing and outlawing slavery which everyone would need to agree to). It seems to me that a combination of factors makes it so that is no longer the case: The increasing power of state and federal governments The increasing globalization of the issues that affect people's lives The fact that the United States has diverged into at least three different cultures (in a VERY broad sense coastal, southern, and everyone else) This seems especially true outside of the largest cities and states. California, Texas, New York City, etc. can have very distinct political/societal systems because they are so large, but I'm not sure I think that's the case for smaller cities and states. I'm not sure what the solution to this is other than that I don't think its fair to just say "The majority has spoken, if you don't like it leave" now that it's not really possible to leave. (I'm not saying that's what you are trying to communicate. I'm just speaking in general)
brightball 7y ago
> I do not believe we have enough control over our government. You're right. We don't and the reason for that is centralization. The way the country was originally designed, an all powerful behemoth of a federal government was never intended to be a thing. A combination of 2 things has allowed it to happen over time: Federal consolidation in the aftermath of the Civil War and the creation of Federal Reserve. Those two things set us down the path where we are today and it's why a more decentralized government is advantageous. You can personally influence things that are more local do you. You can get involved in city or county government. You can call your mayor or you councilmen. You can join a school board or run for Sheriff, city/county council. All of those things are possible. But an individual has almost no power to influence federal policy and when people disagree with federal policy, they have no escape. If you don't like a law in your city, you can work to change it or you can simply move to another city. Same thing with states, even though it's more of a task...but at this level you always have the ability to vote with your feet. It's not so easy to just leave a country and it's the reason that constitutional amendments are supposed to require 2/3 votes instead of 51%. The country need to be in significant agreement over federal policy...or we will be at each others throats about what is / isn't being imposed on people. That's where we are now.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  That might be an obsolete notion. It was possible 100 years ago as an agrarian society to talk about decentralization and local government. But with 450M people in the US for instance, and wages and work the way it is, admit that the vast majority of people don't live in some village or small town. They live in metropolitan cities. With about the same hope of affecting their 'local' govt as the federal one. And who has time in their life to go politicking at city hall? Average folks barely have room in their lives to go get an official ID so they can vote at their polling place. This is a middle-class argument that doesn't apply to most citizens in most places.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Not to mention that centralization makes it easier for the electorate to monitor the details. If you look for egregious corruption gone unpunished you find it in the most petty of places for lack of oversite. I suspect more centralization could help with accountability ironically but there are other issue there including harmonizing different needs and values by region and deciding "who is right". The three things to optimize and balance are "sensitive to local demands" (treating water by conservation needs in the desert or by great lakes or demands of road salt by road area regardless of climate would be a terrible idea), "ability to scale and administrate effectively" and "respectful of rights" - and all three may clash or agree.
codyb 7y ago
American hegemony certainly has its warts but it’s also prevailed over the most peaceful period of world history with staggering numbers of people being lifted from poverty. We shouldn’t blanket trust anybody of course, but it makes more sense to put your faith in the one advocating for free speech and democracy if you believe in human rights and equality. It’s really easy to point out where we’ve fucked up, but a lot harder to appreciate the regional conflicts that just plain didn’t happen because of the “big stick” as Teddy Roosevelt would call it. Just as an aside, I have no idea how I feel about this particular case against Assange. He doesn’t seem like a great guy, but the “helped Manning hack” charges seem pretty trumped up. I’m a little surprised the justice department is even pursuing it considering how much the current administration loved Wikileaks during the election. Any precedent which hampers the press’s ability to publish whistle blown information is, of course, a step back.

peterwwillis 7y ago

You have the power to get the elected representatives to write and change every single law of government. But the citizenry often lacks the coordination, direction, and will to ensure the majority of representatives does so. The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. If indeed there is some classified information that shouldn't be exposed, that is extremely serious and can't just be aired like a tabloid news story. There is no simple way to keep the public informed of classified information. It's likely that the most reasonable safeguard is to have elected representatives with a strong moral code to vet the situation and act to protect their constituents.

perfmode 7y ago
Coordination and direction are the means of power. Without these, one does not actually have power.
post_below 7y ago
According to an oft referenced Princeton study, the will of the population has almost exactly zero impact on congressional voting: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 According to a couple of other studies, states choose policies their citizens want only 59% of the time and politicians, overall, vote against the will of the people they represent 35% of the time: https://promarket.org/study-politicians-vote-will-constituents-35-percent-time/ https://promarket.org/study-politicians-vote-will-constituen... Unless you're using large scale money and influence to interact directly with politicians, neither your will or your direction have any meaning.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  That's just a statistical artifact caused by the fact that things generally get passed as soon as they get past 50% support in the legislature, which is about the same time they have around 50% support in the population, and then half the time it happens to be 51% in the legislature but 49% in the population or vice versa.
zigzaggy 7y ago
You’re being down voted but you’re spot on. It’s tough to have civil discussions when the subject matter is extremely sensitive. How do we verify the classification of certain programs is truly sensitive not simply politically motivated? To your first point, I believe we are screwed as long as Citizens United stands (0). We the people will always be out-coordinated by the oligarchs and their bureaucrats. Which leads to your second point. As long campaign spending of the super rich is protected as “free speech” (the result of Citizen’s United) we are stuck with politicians who can be bought and sold. Men and women with strong moral codes cannot be bought, and therefore will not win elections. Exceptions are few and far between. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Citizens United was a massive win for the people against the media companies. Without it the media companies get to decide everything people hear because nobody else is allowed to put forth anything like that level of resources toward political speech. That's why you always hear the media whinging about it -- it's the only way anybody else has any hope of challenging their narratives in front of more of an audience than an individual YouTube channel. Obviously the poor have no money to buy ads with, but we're not talking about the poor here. Nobody seriously running for office is poor. This is a battle between people who are rich enough to buy ads on a TV network and people who are rich enough to buy the TV network, and Citizens United is a win for the "little guy" in that situation. The big problem we have in elections isn't that someone can be heard too well, it's that some people can't be heard well enough. But the answer to that is public financing of elections, which doesn't require restricting private speech in any way.
  - zigzaggy 7y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. I strongly believe in public financing of elections. Also, I appreciate your alternate view on this case. I will definitely be revisiting the facts in the light of your comment to reconsider my position.
eternalban 7y ago
> The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear. We are always spoon fed the Eisenhower's remarks regarding the "Military Industrial Complex" but I am quite curious as to how many of you (American or not) have even heard about, much less read in full, president Truman's op-ed in the Washington post, dated Dec. 22, 1963. https://archive.org/stream/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarrySTruman/Limit%20CIA%20Role%20To%20Intelligence%20by%20Harry%20S%20Truman_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarry... Quote: We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it. end quote. p.s. about that 12/22/1963. (See 11/22/1963) [p.s.s. do read it in full.]

mcv 7y ago

> I do not believe we have enough control over our government. And that's probably something that needs to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. It is vital in a democracy that a government can be held accountable. The government should not have a carte blanche to break the law in secret. There has to be some way to address this, and at the moment there clearly isn't. Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public by showing them what their government was doing.

dpwm 7y ago
> Manning, Assange and Snowden provided a public service to the American public by showing them what their government was doing. And swathes of the US public seem to be cheering as they go down. Strange times.
- mcv 7y ago
  Swathes of the US public seem to be cheering as their own country is going down. Strange times indeed.
  - oreo83 7y ago
    ?
  - jolfdb 7y ago
    The source of your confusion is your conflation of a criminal government with the country itself.
    - codehalo 7y ago
      Somebody's voting them in.
      - jdironman 7y ago
        Then we need more power voting out.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pablooliva 7y ago

Excellent-ly said.

spikels 7y ago

> a lot of people in the US believe it is good for the US government to have absolute power in the world Seriously? Name one person making this argument? Perhaps you are just misusing the phrase "absolute power". Typically this is used to refer to the unrestricted power of a monarch or dictator. The US doesn't even have this power within the US. It's a childish fantasy (as you say) to think the US has this "in the world" generally.

ta34729384 7y ago
Really! People, quite rightly, do think that. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3492-kissinger-the-illegal-we-do-immediately-the-unconstitutional-takes-a-little-longer https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3492-kis...

sureaboutthis 7y ago

We have plenty of control over government. If you don't like who's in charge, you can vote them out. If you think that's a ridiculous statement, then consider that every major television network around the world covers our political elections here in the US and the focus is always voter turnout and who we vote for. The only reason for that is: we have all the power. Of course, if you don't like who gets elected all the time, perhaps you need to consider why your candidates never win because it seems far fewer people agree with your selections. Why is that?

acct1771 7y ago
Ron Paul was visibly blackballed by US media conglomerates/during "debates" - Donald Trump was given a spotlight. A "critical" spotlight - but a spotlight nonetheless. See the difference?
- sureaboutthis 7y ago
  What does the media have to do with our control over government besides nothing?
  - harimau777 7y ago
    People don't make decisions in a vacuum. Their choices are dramatically controlled by the information that they receive and their culture. The media has a large influence on both of these factors, therefore they have a large amount of de facto control over the government even if they don't have direct control over government.
    - sureaboutthis 7y ago
      A lot of things influence your decisions but it is you that makes those decisions. The media, as an entity, cannot and does not vote.
harimau777 7y ago
I'm not sure that's the case. Studies seem to suggest that average people have relatively little control over the government compared to corporations and interest groups. In terms of voter turnout: I think the problem is that voter turnout doesn't happen in a vacuums. We have the voter turnout that we do due to a combination of societal factors, practical factors, current events, etc. That's not to say that it cannot be effected, but I think there's sort of a catch 22: In order to have power people need to increase voter turnout, but in order to increase voter turnout people need to have power. In terms of your second point (i.e. "...need to consider why your candidates never win...). I think you make a good point, especially in situations where one side or the other refuses to engage in the diplomacy necessary to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, it also seems to me that a free society would require that people be able to find a situation where they can live in accordance with their views without having to make them acceptable to a plurality of society (I'm excluding "core" social norms such as not stealing and outlawing slavery which everyone would need to agree to). It seems to me that a combination of factors makes it so that is no longer the case: The increasing power of state and federal governments The increasing globalization of the issues that affect people's lives The fact that the United States has diverged into at least three different cultures (in a VERY broad sense coastal, southern, and everyone else) This seems especially true outside of the largest cities and states. California, Texas, New York City, etc. can have very distinct political/societal systems because they are so large, but I'm not sure I think that's the case for smaller cities and states. I'm not sure what the solution to this is other than that I don't think its fair to just say "The majority has spoken, if you don't like it leave" now that it's not really possible to leave. (I'm not saying that's what you are trying to communicate. I'm just speaking in general)

brightball 7y ago

> I do not believe we have enough control over our government. You're right. We don't and the reason for that is centralization. The way the country was originally designed, an all powerful behemoth of a federal government was never intended to be a thing. A combination of 2 things has allowed it to happen over time: Federal consolidation in the aftermath of the Civil War and the creation of Federal Reserve. Those two things set us down the path where we are today and it's why a more decentralized government is advantageous. You can personally influence things that are more local do you. You can get involved in city or county government. You can call your mayor or you councilmen. You can join a school board or run for Sheriff, city/county council. All of those things are possible. But an individual has almost no power to influence federal policy and when people disagree with federal policy, they have no escape. If you don't like a law in your city, you can work to change it or you can simply move to another city. Same thing with states, even though it's more of a task...but at this level you always have the ability to vote with your feet. It's not so easy to just leave a country and it's the reason that constitutional amendments are supposed to require 2/3 votes instead of 51%. The country need to be in significant agreement over federal policy...or we will be at each others throats about what is / isn't being imposed on people. That's where we are now.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
That might be an obsolete notion. It was possible 100 years ago as an agrarian society to talk about decentralization and local government. But with 450M people in the US for instance, and wages and work the way it is, admit that the vast majority of people don't live in some village or small town. They live in metropolitan cities. With about the same hope of affecting their 'local' govt as the federal one. And who has time in their life to go politicking at city hall? Average folks barely have room in their lives to go get an official ID so they can vote at their polling place. This is a middle-class argument that doesn't apply to most citizens in most places.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Not to mention that centralization makes it easier for the electorate to monitor the details. If you look for egregious corruption gone unpunished you find it in the most petty of places for lack of oversite. I suspect more centralization could help with accountability ironically but there are other issue there including harmonizing different needs and values by region and deciding "who is right". The three things to optimize and balance are "sensitive to local demands" (treating water by conservation needs in the desert or by great lakes or demands of road salt by road area regardless of climate would be a terrible idea), "ability to scale and administrate effectively" and "respectful of rights" - and all three may clash or agree.

codyb 7y ago

American hegemony certainly has its warts but it’s also prevailed over the most peaceful period of world history with staggering numbers of people being lifted from poverty. We shouldn’t blanket trust anybody of course, but it makes more sense to put your faith in the one advocating for free speech and democracy if you believe in human rights and equality. It’s really easy to point out where we’ve fucked up, but a lot harder to appreciate the regional conflicts that just plain didn’t happen because of the “big stick” as Teddy Roosevelt would call it. Just as an aside, I have no idea how I feel about this particular case against Assange. He doesn’t seem like a great guy, but the “helped Manning hack” charges seem pretty trumped up. I’m a little surprised the justice department is even pursuing it considering how much the current administration loved Wikileaks during the election. Any precedent which hampers the press’s ability to publish whistle blown information is, of course, a step back.