Someone in another thread said that the idea that the US is a dictatorship is "complete BS". While not a dictatorship in the strict sense (i.e. there is no dictator), is the USA a tyranny? Bob Black says in The Abolition of Work that "there is more freedom in any moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace", and raises an interesting point. If the USA is a tyranny, who are the tyrants? It appears that it is not the government but our employers who hold the greatest control over our lives (at least for most people). And while the government purposely creates artificial scarcity of capital in order to keep unemployment high, they do so at the bidding of capitalists who thus profit from lower wages and higher profit margins at the same time. American politicians are elected, but they do not stand a chance of winning a nomination in the republocrat party without being in the pocket of business who demands it, and those few who manage to be elected anyway (usually be misrepresenting their views) do not come to Congressional power. But political power in the hands of people is a dream -- obviously not everyone can control the government, because the same government has to control millions of people. So how much control does the average American individual have over his own life? Lots, compared to such an individual in the late 1800s or early 1900s -- yet practically none, compared to pre-colonization native Americans.

Your thoughts.

It depends.

On the one hand, we've got the whole free speech(hahaha) thing going for us, and I really don't think It's so much of an enforced dictatorship as much as a tyranny of the masses sort of thing. The united states has reached a size (population wise) that we really can't have a totally independent society, its like a aircraft carrier trying to have the manuverability of a zodiac, it's just too big.

Most of the tyrrany these days seems to be self inflicted these days though. I mean seriously, look at it. We have a sort of political apathy thats existed for god knows how long. over Half of this countries population doesn't vote for christs sake. It's the general apathy of the general population, not only the lack of voting, but the despair of thinking a third party canidate could win, that very generally keeps us down.

That, combined with the general idiocy of the media that pipes us our news and information keeps most everyone in a stupor of hoplessness and despair, not really caring or thinking they can change everything, because everything is too big...

Actually, both abstinence from voting and tactical voting (which includes ignoring third parties) have sound mathematical basis. The fatalism you describe also has a sound mathematical basis and, it appears, a "common sense" basis. It has been said that the state lottery is a "math tax", (i.e. a tax on those citizens lacking mathematical knowledge) -- I find great irony in the fact that those (sound) mathematical arguments which are the basis for ridicule of the lottery apply equally to the ballot.

Indeed, I would consider voter turn-out of late to be far too high. Suffrage is not a panacea, and historically it has been notably impotent to lift oppression. The birth control pill did (vastly) more for women's rights than the ballot. Was the condition of American blacks significantly changed by black suffrage?

The real problem, though, is not impotence, but that the ballot has kept people in a subserviant stupor, entrenched in the delusion that the ballot somehow grants them "equality" and power over their circumstances, despite the fact that their's is one vote among millions. It gives people a false sense of power, and political satisfaction. If people refused the ballot and required of themselves direct action before they were satisfied that they were doing good for society, the condition of the country and world would be greatly improved.

Of course, even direct action cannot guarantee control over society, as that is impossible -- society can have only one condition, and thus it is impossible for each individual to choose what that condition will be. But what it can give -- at least to an unspeakably greater degree than the ballot -- is control over the life of the individual. That is not enough, because an individual cannot function outside of society; but it is the best one can have, and further a society in which people act directly and as individuals will be one in which individuals can best function.

Let me get this straight, you'r advocating the destruction of any attempt at a democratic society, instead advocating one where there is no concencus needed. Thats an advocacy for anarchy as I see it, and I do support that to a certain degree, however, if you want that, and still expect (sticking with my metaphor of a ship) the carrier to go in any one direction, your psychotic. It would be akin to each bolt, screw, rail and every individual component of the ship wrenching off in their own direction. I don't understand how the vote can be too high.

Tactical voting? Is that what the ignorance of third party canidates is? What kind of boneheaded tactic is that? I have to disagree with you there, the reason that third parties don't get into the white house is because of the fact that the current republocrat party doesn't even acknowledge the third party as anything but a joke. Pat Buchanan succeeded wildly in his breakup of the one third party I thought actually had a chance of making a difference.

I know with a name like Jadedfool I should probably be siding with you, but then again, there is a difference between being Disillusioned and Jaded.....

> you're advocating the destruction of any attempt at a democratic society

Depends on what you mean by "democratic". If you mean democracy, then by all means you are correct, I do advocate its eradication (I would not say "destruction"). If you mean equality, then no, of course not!

> if you want that, and still expect (sticking with my metaphor of a ship) the carrier to go in any one direction, your psychotic. It would be akin to each bolt, screw, rail and every individual component of the ship wrenching off in their own direction.

Why does everyone need to go in the same direction? Do you think that otherwise society would sink, so to speak?

> Tactical voting? Is that what the ignorance of third party canidates is? What kind of boneheaded tactic is that?

Pick up an introductory text on game theory, man. "Tactical voting" is a technical term referring to those situations where voting contrary to your preferences actually provides you a greater probable outcome.

see the voting systems FAQ http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/pol/votefaq.txt for more info on tactical voting and how to avoid it. fairvote.org is another site that addresses the basic game theoretic flaws of the type of voting system implemented in the US.

Here's the voting systems FAQ entry on tactical voting

quote:

---

Tactical voting occurs when votes vote in any pattern other than their true preference, because doing this allows them to better influence the result of the election in their favour.

Consider a FPTP election with these votes cast:
A 10000
B 9500
C 2000

Most people voting for C happen to greatly prefer B over A. There is no way C can win the election, but if some of C's supporters switch to voting for B instead of C, then B can win instead of A. Obviously, C's supporters would prefer C to win, but if this cannot happen, then B is better than A.

If enough of C's supporters know that this is like likely result, they might decide to vote tactically for B.

---

> I don't understand how the vote can be too high.

Didn't I explain it? Voting accomplishes nothing and distracts people from effective tactics and actions.

Too cynical man, I have an iota or two of faith in the democratic system and sad to say, its the best viable system out there right now. The anarchy thread was good for bullshitting some stuff out, but the simple fact is, there are waaay too many people for a society of individuals to exist...

quote:

---

Too cynical man, I have an iota or two of faith in the democratic system and sad to say, its the best viable system out there right now.

---

You're right to use the word "faith", because there's certainly no rational basis.

quote:

---

The anarchy thread was good for bullshitting some stuff out, but the simple fact is, there are waaay too many people for a society of individuals to exist...

---

Then you really don't get it. *ALL* societies are societies of individuals. What is needed is a society where the individual is realized; where the individual does not submit his judgment to authority.

A fatal flaw in democracy is that there is no rational reason to vote. There's just no way around that fact. I think perhaps you do not believe this, but to be frank you are wrong, and I challenge you to provide a reason not based on statistical miracles. A system predicated on the irrationality of the majority of people raises some serious problems, especially when simultaneously those same people are expected to know how to govern a country.

I don't consider this cynicism, but hard mathematics. A harsh truth that reminds me of why upwards mobility in capitalism is necessarily myth: higher payed jobs are payed higher only because demand exceeds supply. Skilled employees are payed more because they are rare -- their aren't enough of them that they would need to compete among each other and sell theirselves at the lowest wage; rather employers must compete for them. But if everyone moved up at once by becoming skilled, skilled labor would no longer be rare and wages for it would go down, if demand remained the same. Cynical, you may say, but mathematical fact nonetheless.

And quite a tangent, so I bid you good night

I don't know if the word tyranny is the right way to describe the United States government. Instead of forcing the people to do what they want with punishments, they make sure the people choose to do what they want them to by encouraging peer pressure and keeping them happy with television and alcohol.

traditionaly a tyrant was a disposesd member of the aristocracy who would rally the peasants to revolt against a leader and install them into the office, when you think about it democracy and politics are just a way of doing that which causes less bloodshed.

couple of points quickly:


By society of individuals, I am referring to a society, like I think you envision, where it's perfectly acceptable to be an individual thinker and act on those individual thoughts insomuch as it doesn't infringe on others.

A big part of your argument rests on the idea that the united states is a nation of morons. and sadly, I have to find myself agreeing. Much as it pains me to say this, you may have swayed my mind, in the case of the us only though.

I'll hold on to my foolhardy illusion that a society of fairly intelligent people could make democracy work, doesn't have to be accurate, realistic, or even possible, but it helps me go to sleep at night ;-)...

Goverments are ment to represent and carry out the wishes of the people (sort of). Shame most people are greedy and in my opinion stupid too. (though that might just be a difference of opinions to me )