"Tragic Flaw" of Democracy

[creativedreams]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

 

[bhkad]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

A POSSIBLE situation?

It's been happening for years.

 

[creativedreams]

A POSSIBLE situation?

It's been happening for years.

Yes it has...but what I'm trying to say is that with todays internet and manipulating technology...damage can spread farther, faster, and greater.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

Sounds to me like a thought crime, and a violation of free speech. NO!

Who determines what a conspiracy theory is? The ones giving the official account? That's a bit like asking Pepsi to decide our Public Education beverage choices.

I know conspiracy theorists constantly reformulate their theories, as if the part they're omitting was never proven wrong or suggested. But they REALLY do believe in their theories, and aren't being intentionally deceptive.

There is no way you could legally enforce such a law.

 

[Jessica]

Yes it has...but what I'm trying to say is that with todays internet and manipulating technology...damage can spread farther, faster, and greater.

This is nothing new. This has been talked about for 500 years; since the invention of the printing press.

But we do not live in a democracy. Look at the definition - This is a one person one vote society? No. Our political system shows this. When you go to work and punch in, you've now entered a dictatorship. When you pay taxes, you are contributing to a basic socialist society, or marxist, or whatever you want to call it. Then so what is it to have a republican leadership party? A republic?

For the most part, it does not matter which political candidate you vote for. Follow the dollar. Who are the banks supporting? They do not want change. They want a candidate, no matter what his campaign might suggest, to keep things the same. As little change as possible.

If you believe that in 1913, we created another central banking system, which we have done (the first was abolished by Andrew Jackson), then you might understand we live in a corporocracy. Yes, a corporate-ran country. It's a monetary based system that preaches maximum profit above and beyond any concern for social or environmental concern.

 

[Rodney]

This is nothing new. This has been talked about for 500 years; since the invention of the printing press.

But we do not live in a democracy. Look at the definition - This is a one person one vote society? No. Our political system shows this. When you go to work and punch in, you've now entered a dictatorship. When you pay taxes, you are contributing to a basic socialist society, or marxist, or whatever you want to call it. Then so what is it to have a republican leadership party? A republic?

For the most part, it does not matter which political candidate you vote for. Follow the dollar. Who are the banks supporting? They do not want change. They want a candidate, no matter what his campaign might suggest, to keep things the same. As little change as possible.

If you believe that in 1913, we created another central banking system, which we have done (the first was abolished by Andrew Jackson), then you might understand we live in a corporocracy. Yes, a corporate-ran country. It's a monetary based system that preaches maximum profit above and beyond any concern for social or environmental concern.

`Corporocracy`. I like the word and your description is dead on for the wall-streeters and retailers who have all but destroyed labor class Americas opportunity to even survive at the most basic level of needs.Further they have enslaved most of the world for the profit motive alone. A bag of rice for a months wages,free houseing in a dangerously poluted area near the plant,the return of the company store in many forms.HOW LOW WILL WE GO?

 

[Orion]

The U.S. is actually a polyarchy. A small group actually rules and popular participation is limited to choosing leaders in elections managed by competing elites. There are other characteristics as well... but the U.S. is certainly not a democracy.

 

[Orion]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

Except that the internet also includes governmental powers and media influences... so conspiracy theory or subversive facts can both be easily brushed aside by the sheer immensity of popular propaganda. The internet is a tool that is just as useful to government as it is to the pundits and those who wish to subvert government.

 

[Jessica]

`Corporocracy`. I like the word and your description is dead on for the wall-streeters and retailers who have all but destroyed labor class Americas opportunity to even survive at the most basic level of needs.Further they have enslaved most of the world for the profit motive alone. A bag of rice for a months wages,free houseing in a dangerously poluted area near the plant,the return of the company store in many forms.HOW LOW WILL WE GO?

Thank you.
It will go until the control everything.
"Enslaved most of the world for profit" is exactly right.
They will not stop until we are all living in the street and starving.
Then they can rebuild.
We can live in box shelters they provide. Have no freedom. Live in the Gattaca universe, only worse. Eat... Soylent green. :shock:

 

[Lerxst]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

Well, the U.S. government itself is a fan of this type of subversion and has a history of committing the offense you describe. How exactly would you propose we convince our own leaders to surrender that tactic?

There is a word for what you describe...it's called propaganda. A factually inaccurate conspiracy theory used to deliberately undermine a person, organization, or government is at it's very core simply propaganda. It's ancient and it's never going away. What you have asked us to consider is a law that limits freedom of speech. Further, you would have to give broad powers of enforcement to the authorities because the lines get very muddy when it comes to determining what is fact and what is not.

 

[GRod]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory?

...Dude, it's the Federal Government, why would they lie?:lol:

 

[dudl]

This is nothing new. This has been talked about for 500 years; since the invention of the printing press.

But we do not live in a democracy. Look at the definition - This is a one person one vote society? No. Our political system shows this. When you go to work and punch in, you've now entered a dictatorship. When you pay taxes, you are contributing to a basic socialist society, or marxist, or whatever you want to call it. Then so what is it to have a republican leadership party? A republic?

For the most part, it does not matter which political candidate you vote for. Follow the dollar. Who are the banks supporting? They do not want change. They want a candidate, no matter what his campaign might suggest, to keep things the same. As little change as possible.

If you believe that in 1913, we created another central banking system, which we have done (the first was abolished by Andrew Jackson), then you might understand we live in a corporocracy. Yes, a corporate-ran country. It's a monetary based system that preaches maximum profit above and beyond any concern for social or environmental concern.

One problem with the Corporation-run country idea, and its not the first time that this has happened. According to the Constitution, corporations can have no military strength and so therefore they are dependant on the president (in American this is). I believe what you mean to refer to by "corporocracy" is a fundamental piece of mercantalist theory, that there is a mutual dependency between federal government (In those days the king, in these days our entire three branched government) and the merchant class in their companies. Therefore the federal government protects the companies and facilitates their prosperity with law (e.g. the trade retrictions on the thirteen colonies saying that the colonial merchants could only trade with the East India Trading Company) and in return, the government would benefit greatly from tax revenue and negotiated earmarks. Now, there are many misunderstandings about mercantalism but I'm not going to address that now; rather, I would say that though your observations do point to a mercantalist-type relation, there are a few key differences between the American president and Louis XIV (French king seventeenth century). First, in the old mercantalist economies of seventeenth century European states, corporations (especially trade corporations) generally held monopolies and in the United States there are countless corporations each competing with others. Monopolies are forbidden by law, though there are some slips. Each corporation is an organization indepentdent from its rivals so no corporation could rule because no corporation is dominant in the big picture. Second, money from older mercantalist economies was used much differently by the federal government than it is today. Seventeenth century kings would use money to raise armies, fund expensive wars, and to dominate because the poorest country in those days could not afford war and therefore would be beaten (imagine a giant cold war between all the European nations minus the nukes). In these days money is used by the government for perhaps a few wars (no comment on these), but much of it is used for improvements upon our society (this is debatable I'll admit but in general, it helps). Though I am no fan of the idea of giant corporations, I do NOT believe that they pose much of a threat with the exception of a select few (e.g. gazprom: no further comment on this corporation). In a way, governments are like corporations, the only difference is the law which is only paper (this is an intellectual picture of it, not entirely realistic). If our government has some mercantalist policies I do not think much bad of it (don't scream at me just yet). Though mercantalism has some more oppressive qualities, it has some good points. I don't mean to sound like I'm all for it, but mercantalism is a broad concept and is not confined to what we learn in American history textbooks.

 

[dudl]

The U.S. is actually a polyarchy. A small group actually rules and popular participation is limited to choosing leaders in elections managed by competing elites. There are other characteristics as well... but the U.S. is certainly not a democracy.

Very true, in fact I doubt that a pure democracy would end up as being neither oppressive, bankrupt, or overthrown.

 

[scourge99]

But we do not live in a democracy. Look at the definition - This is a one person one vote society? No. Our political system shows this.

Absolutely correct. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, we are not a democracy per se.

When you go to work and punch in, you've now entered a dictatorship.

Except this "dictator" must respect your rights or face the consequences.

When you pay taxes, you are contributing to a basic socialist society, or marxist, or whatever you want to call it.

a nominal amount of central gov't is required to protect the rights of citizens. Such requires manpower and infrastructure which isn't free, hence, taxes. Dems like massive gov't which is an inefficient, expesnive, and slow means of making things "fair". Reps like minimal gov't which often times leads to corproate irresponsibility and the little guy being taken advantage of. A balance somewhere in the middle is optimal.

Then so what is it to have a republican leadership party? A republic?

Now your are catching on.... constitutional republic.

For the most part, it does not matter which political candidate you vote for. Follow the dollar. Who are the banks supporting? They do not want change. They want a candidate, no matter what his campaign might suggest, to keep things the same. As little change as possible.

Its naïve to think that money and power should not be taken into consideration. Once again its a balance between keeping the employer happyn employing more people, and paying wage and the employee happy, working, and productive for the employer.

If you believe that in 1913, we created another central banking system, which we have done (the first was abolished by Andrew Jackson), then you might understand we live in a corporocracy. Yes, a corporate-ran country. It's a monetary based system that preaches maximum profit above and beyond any concern for social or environmental concern.

Successful "maximum profit" businesses are the reason you enjoy the many benefits you receive from this country. Don't you forget it.

 

[American]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

I get it, the US could be a victim of identity fraud. Get LifeLock! :mrgreen:

 

[BulletWounD]

Should there be a law that prohibits intentionally changing facts to promote a conspiracy theory? I can envision where a possible situation may come up in the future where conspiracy theorists may actually convince another nation that we are something we're not. With todays tech and the internet combined this may actually create a disasterous situation for the USA!

Facts cannot be changed. They can be misrepresented and refuted but they cannot be changed. It's up to each of us to exercise our critical minds, check references, verify credibility, and determine what is truth. Lying is already illegal in some contexts (perjury, fraud, obstruction of justice, slander (tort law), libel(tort law)). There is nobody qualified to determine what is the truth objectively except God and obviously he cannot be called as a witness.

 

[Pinu7]

Many members here believe in some kind conspiracy theory.

An attribute of conservatism is all about trying to avoid large corrupt government.

Also: what would any of you define "facts" in a usable way.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Many members here believe in some kind conspiracy theory.

An attribute of conservatism is all about trying to avoid large corrupt government.

Also: what would any of you define "facts" in a usable way.

Maybe conspiracy is the wrong word... maybe 'cronyism', or 'nepotism' between those in high places. Even 'corruption' is an adequate word.... meaning a lot of people with power abuse that power because they don't feel that they can be 'caught'.