US No Longer a Democracy

[bUU]

No. When carried to a logical conclusion, money takes public expression of all but the rich out of the equation.

[Alan]

No. When carried to a logical conclusion, money takes public expression of all but the rich out of the equation.

I would disagree. There are lots of sources of influence, including newspapers, magazines, entertainment industry, blogs, forums such as this, talk radio, cable TV's opinion programming, etc.
I'm not sure why some vague description of "the rich" should be culled out of the herd.

[creaker]

I would disagree. There are lots of sources of influence, including newspapers, magazines, entertainment industry, blogs, forums such as this, talk radio, cable TV's opinion programming, etc.
I'm not sure why some vague description of "the rich" should be culled out of the herd.

Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporations - and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.

Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.

[catherine]

Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporations - and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.

Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.

+1

[Alan]

Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporations - and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.

Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.

So, that begs the question, should public expression from anyone other than individuals, lets say advocacy groups, news organizations, unions, corporations, entertainment venues, etc., be regulated, perhaps by being limited to voluntary gatherings?

[creaker]

So, that begs the question, should public expression from anyone other than individuals, lets say advocacy groups, news organizations, unions, corporations, entertainment venues, etc., be regulated, perhaps by being limited to voluntary gatherings?

It's a really difficult question to answer - we could have every single aspect locked down by the state - we could live in an anarchy. I think in the US most folks want something in the middle while those with power more often would like to be unrestrained to exercise the power they have, whether it be political, or economic, or popular. And I think the best you could hope for is to work to correct situations where too much power is being concentrated into too few hands. I don't think there is a "fix" - it's more of an organic, evolving, mutating landscape that has to be continually reexamined and tweaked and managed.

[catherine]

I think there's a problem when only FOUR companies control the media outlets. As you said, the open internet is some relief from that, but now with net neutrality in the balance, who knows what will happen? People think that there's a big difference between MSNBC and Fox News, but they are alike in the breadth of their control of the dissemination of the news.

Why is it bad that four companies control what we see and hear in the news? Because the news can then be slanted and there's no one with equal weight to counter. I remember when the Iraq war was being pushed through Congress. I was in Germany at the time, and the headlines were: "A disaster for President Bush. Only half of Congress supports the war" When I got home the next day, all the news here was saying "victory for George Bush. Half of Congress supports the war."

[flowerseverywhere]

Perhaps Jefferson had it right: Jefferson, of course, was talking about the potential tyranny of men ensconced in high ranking positions for long periods of time, while I personally would apply it more to the tyranny of rule of monied interests (and there is a direct connection there, IMHO). I rather suspect that even though many of us may be in agreement with Jefferson's sentiment, not all of us would spill blood willingly in hope of the same outcome. . .

spoken by someone who owned several hundred slaves. Kind of an odd quote considering the circumstances.

[Gardenarian]

I think America was designed to be ruled by the wealthy, right from the start. George Washington was the richest person in America when he was president. (Not that he wasn't a remarkable man anyway.)
We've always been a county ruled by rich white guys.

Here's an article from Common Dreams about democracy, oligarchy, and free-trade.

[creaker]

I think America was designed to be ruled by the wealthy, right from the start. George Washington was the richest person in America when he was president. (Not that he wasn't a remarkable man anyway.)
We've always been a county ruled by rich white guys.

Here's an article from Common Dreams about democracy, oligarchy, and free-trade.

A People's History of the United States - Howard Zinn