General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)honest is what research indicates when they ask people what their preference is for wealth distribution, as Dan Ariely did, without putting any labels on the idea that cause knee-jerk reactions.
in Ariely's research, he found that the majority of Americans preferred a swedish-style income distribution, which means high taxes on wealth over a certain amt.
I'm not talking about no representation - minority rights do need to be protected - and THEY AREN'T under the current system, in many, many ways. Just ask the GBLT community. Just ask people in schools in low-income areas how current ways of doing things are done to create a permanent underclass - regardless of race, but racism plays a large part in the lack of representation for the well being of the poor, for instance.
We have a mob rule - it's just more like a mafia of the monied.
We certainly do not have representative democracy in this nation on issue after issue.
Universal health care, for instance. Social safety net protections for the ill, the infirm, the elderly, the abused.
If you think Rome fell by pandering to the mob - you have no idea what you're talking about. Rome fell b/c they ceased to be a Republic and became a dictatorship and the rich didn't care as long as they could do whatever they wanted and fuck everyone else.
The revolution was fought b/c the king favored one CORPORATION that benefited him, not the people living here. That was the taxation w/o representation - what the fuck does that have to do with the idea that we currently do not have representation for the way in which people want our govt to work here?
You do not seem to understand what I'm saying - I'm saying our current govt does not represent and protect the majority of people in this nation - that's not mob rule - that's saying small groups have undue power and influence.