6 ms·

If you want to see authoritarianism, you don't have far to look. Various western agencies have already 'secured' the populations in most western countries, and

by Mikeb85 12y ago

If you want to see authoritarianism, you don't have far to look. Various western agencies have already 'secured' the populations in most western countries, and in some (USA), the 'ruling' class is very narrow, representing a single set of interests. In the USA's particular case, you have 2 parties which, despite the claimed differences, wind up representing the exact same interests. Obama, far from being a reversal of Bush's policies, continued and expanded all of them. And no matter who comes into power, will likely expand on every repressive law and strategy that's in effect right now.

happyscrappy 12y ago
And how do you explain the legalization of marijuana. No politicians or mustache twirlers want it to happen and yet it keeps occurring.
- baddox 12y ago
  I doubt that most politicians or mustache twirlers are terribly concerned that marijuana legalization distracts people from, say, domestic spying or military interventions.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  I think they just realized that the legalization of it will keep people distracted, whereas the continued prohibition of it would cause social unrest. What we're 'allowed' to do is basically anything that keeps us too occupied to overthrow the ruling class...
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Guns, encryption, alternate political parties, at some point you have too many people that would have to be in on your conspiracy.
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    Wouldn't "they" get more mileage from an outright endorsement of drug use? Get the people on their side? You're just rationalizing.
    - Mikeb85 12y ago
      You're ignoring the history of prohibition (of alcohol and drugs) and the 'war on drugs'. Not to mention the 70's, the connection between recreational drugs and 'hippies' (a subversive anti-war class). Not to mention the fact that up to now the 'war on drugs' has also been used to restrict the rights of certain social classes (it's been well documented how the laws are designed to criminalize certain classes/ethnicities disproportionately).
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Or a million other things the monied interests fight and have lost like the ACA, EPA regulations, OSHA, privatizing social security, invading Syria and Iran, etc. When it comes to politics HN is conspiracy kiddie central. The US has a real two party system on top of dozens of state and local jurisdictions, all part of a larger checks and balance system. Sadly, I see a lot of criticism from Chinese and Russians who want to badly equate their broken autocratic system with our system, and that just isn't correct.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    If you want to see democracy look at western countries that have more than 2 parties, where minority governments are viable, and where there's actual representation. Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:EIU... The US is NOT the paragon of democracy.
    - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
      Just because you have more than two parties doesn't mean you have more "freedom" or more "democracy." Most of those nations fall into a two party system with marginal 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties often on the very far extremist end. So we have politics like one of the larger parties courting white supremacists and fascists to get the votes they need, with some terrible concessions involved. In a two party system, the small extremists can't win enough seats to be of note. That's a feature, not a bug. As we have seen many times before in the US's history, small movements move up through the party primary process. So you have the best of both worlds: a lack of easy access to government by extremists and a path to changing one of the larger parties via the very democratic primary system. I don't think the US system is perfect, but its good; it solves a lot of problems of governing very nicely. The framers did their homework. The idea that Euro-style parliamentary systems are unequivocal better is a questionable premise, especially since it did nothing to stop the rise of Nazism in Germany (or even protect the lives of the Jewish minority) and other lesser but significant social failures (Greece's white supremacist Golden Dawn winning 22 seats in parliament recently for example.) Not to mention, the States are fairly autonomous by Euro standards, so the state level legislature/courts/constitution are actually important and not just the bureaucratic/administrative arm of the national government. That gives a lot more local representation than the generally top-down decrees of Euro states - and that's on top of whatever the hell the EU is and all of its trans-national top-down decrees.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In the USA's particular case, you have 2 parties which, despite the claimed differences, wind up representing the exact same interests. They aren't exactly the same interests. Because real preferences are multidimensional and the US electoral system has strong structural features which promote a two-party system (with differences that lie on a single dimension), for people whose most important issues don't lie on the axis of variation between the parties, they can seem similar, but they don't represent the exact same interests.
- xnull6guest 12y ago
  The Washington Consensus cast a long shadow. With regard to high finance, international politics and military activity the parties are effectively the same (though the GOP may have closer ties to OPEC). Most American voters feel very strongly about these issues.

by Mikeb85 12y ago

happyscrappy 12y ago

And how do you explain the legalization of marijuana. No politicians or mustache twirlers want it to happen and yet it keeps occurring.

baddox 12y ago
I doubt that most politicians or mustache twirlers are terribly concerned that marijuana legalization distracts people from, say, domestic spying or military interventions.
Mikeb85 12y ago
I think they just realized that the legalization of it will keep people distracted, whereas the continued prohibition of it would cause social unrest. What we're 'allowed' to do is basically anything that keeps us too occupied to overthrow the ruling class...
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Guns, encryption, alternate political parties, at some point you have too many people that would have to be in on your conspiracy.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Wouldn't "they" get more mileage from an outright endorsement of drug use? Get the people on their side? You're just rationalizing.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    You're ignoring the history of prohibition (of alcohol and drugs) and the 'war on drugs'. Not to mention the 70's, the connection between recreational drugs and 'hippies' (a subversive anti-war class). Not to mention the fact that up to now the 'war on drugs' has also been used to restrict the rights of certain social classes (it's been well documented how the laws are designed to criminalize certain classes/ethnicities disproportionately).
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Or a million other things the monied interests fight and have lost like the ACA, EPA regulations, OSHA, privatizing social security, invading Syria and Iran, etc. When it comes to politics HN is conspiracy kiddie central. The US has a real two party system on top of dozens of state and local jurisdictions, all part of a larger checks and balance system. Sadly, I see a lot of criticism from Chinese and Russians who want to badly equate their broken autocratic system with our system, and that just isn't correct.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  If you want to see democracy look at western countries that have more than 2 parties, where minority governments are viable, and where there's actual representation. Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:EIU... The US is NOT the paragon of democracy.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    Just because you have more than two parties doesn't mean you have more "freedom" or more "democracy." Most of those nations fall into a two party system with marginal 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties often on the very far extremist end. So we have politics like one of the larger parties courting white supremacists and fascists to get the votes they need, with some terrible concessions involved. In a two party system, the small extremists can't win enough seats to be of note. That's a feature, not a bug. As we have seen many times before in the US's history, small movements move up through the party primary process. So you have the best of both worlds: a lack of easy access to government by extremists and a path to changing one of the larger parties via the very democratic primary system. I don't think the US system is perfect, but its good; it solves a lot of problems of governing very nicely. The framers did their homework. The idea that Euro-style parliamentary systems are unequivocal better is a questionable premise, especially since it did nothing to stop the rise of Nazism in Germany (or even protect the lives of the Jewish minority) and other lesser but significant social failures (Greece's white supremacist Golden Dawn winning 22 seats in parliament recently for example.) Not to mention, the States are fairly autonomous by Euro standards, so the state level legislature/courts/constitution are actually important and not just the bureaucratic/administrative arm of the national government. That gives a lot more local representation than the generally top-down decrees of Euro states - and that's on top of whatever the hell the EU is and all of its trans-national top-down decrees.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> In the USA's particular case, you have 2 parties which, despite the claimed differences, wind up representing the exact same interests. They aren't exactly the same interests. Because real preferences are multidimensional and the US electoral system has strong structural features which promote a two-party system (with differences that lie on a single dimension), for people whose most important issues don't lie on the axis of variation between the parties, they can seem similar, but they don't represent the exact same interests.

xnull6guest 12y ago
The Washington Consensus cast a long shadow. With regard to high finance, international politics and military activity the parties are effectively the same (though the GOP may have closer ties to OPEC). Most American voters feel very strongly about these issues.