The US: Democracy, or Plutocracy?

Do we have a democracy in the US, or a plutocracy? Or somewhere in between? Or something completely different? How much does money really influence American politics?

Views: 1024

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Natalie A Sera on September 22, 2011 at 12:22pm
Not sure what you mean by "manufactured" nations. All nations are manufactured -- our map today doesn't even look like it did when I was a child 50 years ago. And multi-ethnicity is the rule, not the exception. Even Japan, which is usually considered a homogeneous nation, has its aborigines, the Ainu, whose culture the Japanese tried to completely destroy. They didn't totally succeed, and the Ainu are starting to re-assert themselves these days.
Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on September 22, 2011 at 2:13pm
I think what Glen means, Natalie, is nations which were conjured up by a handful of people thousands of miles away drawing lines across maps, rather than a more "natural" expansion of a people through decades or even centuries.
Permalink Reply by Dogly on September 28, 2011 at 11:09pm
Natalie,  The Ainu were completely destroyed.  Look at old photos of the Ainu people.  They do not look anything like the Japanese.  Look at recent photos.  Their is no resemblence to the original people of Japan.  Their culture, language, even their style of architecture were outlawed.  They have been completely assimilated.  Their mixed race decendants may try to revive their culture, but they are not Ainu.
Permalink Reply by Natalie A Sera on September 29, 2011 at 12:38pm

Well, depends on what you mean by completely. Yes, the Ainu were forced to take Japanese names, and there was a lot of intermarriage, much like among our Eastern Native American tribes in the US, which is why you find blue-eyed blonds on the membership rolls of many Eastern tribes. But there ARE still pure-blooded Ainu in Japan, and I own a book that teaches the Ainu language to Japanese-speaking young people.

I dispute the idea that you have to be "pure-blooded" to be a member of an ethnic group. That's because if you go back far enough, there is no such thing as "pure-blooded". One's appearance does NOT necessarily reflect one's ancestry. Going back to the group I know best, many (but not all) Ashkenazic Jews LOOK European, but genetic study after study has found that they share more common ancestry with Arabs than with Europeans. Ethnically and culturally, they are still Jews, in spite of having genetic admixture behind them. So why do you refuse the same right to mixed-race people who identify as Ainu?

Permalink Reply by Glen Rosenberg on September 22, 2011 at 6:25pm

Wanderer,

Your interpretation of what I mean is correct. And I am saying as a result of multi-national immigration in US and the civil rights movement we dont have those ancient antipathies that the cobbled countries have, at least not to the same extent. Further, based on our fundamental division there may come a time when this idea gains currency.

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on September 22, 2011 at 7:44pm
That would indeed be the best possible scenario, anything else I can think of would only be highly destructive. The problem is that there are so many Christians in the US that seccession would mean losing "Christian" land to the most hated people of all, us infidels. Unless we were to have overwhelming numbers in a particular area... and even in that case there are huge problems. Which is why I think we need to be far more proactive. I think it would greatly benefit our cause, and the cause of humanity, if we were to stake out our own territory sooner rather than later, say by a single city at a time. Actually it makes more sense for us to have our own city rather than a whole state, for starters. This is an idea I am growing ever more serious about.
Permalink Reply by Dogly on September 28, 2011 at 11:15pm
Oh, please, make it San Francisco.  Liberal, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, more restaurants per capita than any other city, lots of gays, artists, musicians, a highly educated majority, a city of beauty. I lived there for 17 years, my happiest years.
Permalink Reply by Glen Rosenberg on September 22, 2011 at 8:04pm

I like it Wanderer.

On the other hand you will have provided the best of all possible targets for terrorists. And think of the international outcry for further destruction. Nothing unifies disparate forces like hatred!

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on September 23, 2011 at 6:29am
We would need to invest heavily in security, to be sure. No shortage of jobs in that field, so that is one positive! Also, we would be in much the situation as both Israel and Palestine are in. We would need to make use of soft power, appealing to our secular friends in Western Europe to respond to attacks on us with economic sanctions and the rest. I would see nothing but opportunity and a great future ahead of us if we had our own city-state. It's just a problem of getting there!
Permalink Reply by Dogly on September 28, 2011 at 11:19pm
It would be more like India and Pakistan, than like Israel and Palestine.  Yes, they would wage war against us.  We would loose.  We would may wise and excellent points; they would shoot us.  Still, it's a pleasant fantasy.
Permalink Reply by Glen Rosenberg on September 23, 2011 at 4:11pm
How about Vermont. It is perhaps the most liberal state. And there are fairly desolate areas that could be developed without incurring the wrath of the locals. Especially since there is high unemployment and an atheist enclave would spur an economic boom without the enmity that would occur almost anywhere else. There would of course be some environmental opposition to development.
Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on September 23, 2011 at 4:16pm
Sounds good to me, except the environmental risks. Right next to some skiing, too. I would be all for moving there and starting an atheist, leftist society. Now what do we do? :-)

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service