And Thucy I don't know what you mean either...

Really? Giant conversation on moral absolutism vs moral relativism? Ringing no bells? I seem to remember you claiming that atheists "just did whatever we want" because we have no morals to stop us or some such rot.

What I mean is, God is omnipotent. And so he leads the world.

Or he doesn't.

In my own personal theology I think "God" controls literally everything except human consciousness.

But what I meant is, in the world itself, God is in charge. Who else would it be? That's the definition of omnipotence.

"But if you are a fatalist about oligarchy and assume no effort to dislodge or dismantle it will be successful, you are part of the problem. It is you yourself who allow it to perpetuate itself. Whether you defend it in principle or not, you defend it in practice."

I don't think I agree with you on this Thucy. Most of us don't have anything approaching realistic means of resisting the oligarchy. I think it makes a lot of sense, if you're going to get the most out of your life, to assume it as a given and work to do the best you can for yourself, your family and friends, and your community in spite of it. I don't see that as part of the problem -- instead I see it as making the best use of your good in a bad situation. Hats off to those who want to fight the oligarchy and have the means to do it, for sure, but I don't see a lot of sense in writing off people who assume it as a fixture of public life as "part of the problem" unless they truly aren't doing anything to make the best of the situation.

Don't confuse difficulty with impossibility, I say.

So another way of saying what I mean is, we may have *limited* means, but we do not lack means.

I think it's actually crucial to address the issue as best we can, because not doing so has led us to the brink of disaster in 2014. I speak of course of climate change.

Amazing that broad majorities of people support action on the climate and yet our governments do precisely nothing.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what's behind that?

I have rarely seen a better summary of the Founding Fathers' political thought than OutsideSmoker's last long post.

That doesn't mean he's right, of course (though he is), but it does mean it's ludicrous to accuse him of betraying America's founding principles with the well-reasoned, realistic, freedom-promoting line he's taking. I have to run right now, but I'm really tempted to come back later and annotate his whole post with quotations from the founders. It would be a fun and easy exercise.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn

I mean... how this has not caused a complete policy reversal truly does boggle the mind.

Obviously though, the real reason it has not done so is that the elites don't give a shit. Meanwhile Bangladesh will have to be largely abandoned, and several nations will cease to exist.

I hate to sound like an alarmist, but this is no longer the stuff of hypothetical.

Right, let the founders save us. They were oligarchs themselves. It's just luck that their words happen to aspire higher than they ever even realized when they wrote them.

I doubt they had transgender people in mind when they wrote "all men are created equal," but that hasn't stopped us from realized the truth of the words.

As I said, you can disagree with what the Founders said, but at least don't accuse the man of hypocrisy for loving the Constitution and espousing precisely the principles that motivated it.

I only mean to point out that although the Founders wrote a democracy, they created an oligarchy. You can agree with them at their worst, as they sought to take control of the economic engines of the new country, or at their best, as they outlined that government was to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Being legally free is a necessary first step. But if elites use that freedom to pressure people into atomized ignorance, there is no true freedom. Again, I need only reference the dystopian visions of the last century to give you an idea of how this is possible.

Indeed, this misuse of freedom in fact imperils it. Most Americans don't even really care about the Snowden thing. I guess I don't blame them - it's not like the NSA is knocking on their doors asking to see their drug stashes and account for their radical internet posts, but once that does begin to happen, it will pretty much be too late.

No YJ, I was wondering what kept you from doing whatever you wanted. I was wondering where your moral foundation came from, not questioning whether you were capable of having one. I was pretty sure I understood your position but I still wanted to see what you'd say. I DO think people can have morals without religion. To argue otherwise would be to argue that nonreligious people are incapable of love.

Thucy I do agree with you that God is omnipotent and in control, but I don't know where your views on this matter come from. While I agree that God is in control, I think that he allows largely for human free-will to reign temporarily in this life. He does this to see whether people will use that free-will to reciprocate his love for them. I could explain more but I'm pretty sure I'd get yelled out by various family members if I did.

Right, so God rules reality. I didn't expect that to be misunderstood so badly. It seems obvious to anyone familiar with the idea of God.

One last word on the founders. Do you think if they had foreseen organized propaganda campaigns that are limitlessly financed and their impact on electoral politics that they would have ever left it unaddressed in our founding document?

It's been said before, but don't forget that these were just people, and fairly ignorant people at that. Well-read for their time, to be sure, but ignorant of processes that did not exist in those days.

It's one thing to support democracy and the obeisance of the constitution. It's another thing to pretend it's 1790.

On that note, I also think it's high time for a new Constitutional Convention, and I'm not alone in that:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/constitutional-convention-Boehner-balanced-budget/2014/04/11/id/565155/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

"Amazing that broad majorities of people support action on the climate and yet our governments do precisely nothing."

Thucy our government has done a lot about environmental issues. It could definitely be doing more, but I don't think our government is to blame for climate change. It's the developing nations like China that don't give a darn about protecting the environment who are more at fault. We could be 100% environmentally friendly but if other countries aren't making an effort to do the same, it won't make all that much of a difference. We need to encourage other nations to get onboard with us in this campaign as well.

I'm quite surprised at you with this post, Eden. I would have thought you'd find such complacency in accepting an oligarchy would be antithetical to a just and robust republic. I disagree completely that the average Joe is incapable of making a difference. In fact, I would argue that change only comes about when the average Joes get riled in sufficient numbers as to demand it!

"Thucy our government has done a lot about environmental issues. It could definitely be doing more, but I don't think our government is to blame for climate change. It's the developing nations like China that don't give a darn about protecting the environment who are more at fault. We could be 100% environmentally friendly but if other countries aren't making an effort to do the same, it won't make all that much of a difference. We need to encourage other nations to get onboard with us in this campaign as well."

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha this is the most ignorant combination of words imaginable

I mean, really, you've outdone yourself

I'll give you one guess which country, USA or China, has the highest greenhouse gas emissions per head.

This is even worse than the "the US is the most moral country on earth" hogwash you were spouting earlier.

I'd be laughing harder if the implications of your ignorance weren't so god damn dark.

The callous disregard China has shown for the environment is rather depressing. In terms of attitude they are no better than the Americans, tending to act only when problems become blindingly obvious. Whilst the US pumps out more gas per head, I'd be interested to know which out of an equivalently wealthy Yank and Chinaman is the greener.

I'm ignorant because I want more countries than just ours to be environmentally friendly? If the US has higher green house gas emissions *per head* then fine. I'm still betting that China's overall emissions are substantially greater than ours. I don't see any of our city dwellers having to wear masks because of smog, do you?

This is even worse than the "we should get rid of all private property" hogwash you were spouting earlier.

(I would laugh at that opinion of yours, but the implications of your ignorance are just so very dark...)

"I'm quite surprised at you with this post, Eden. I would have thought you'd find such complacency in accepting an oligarchy would be antithetical to a just and robust republic."

It is antithetical to a just and robust republic, but I'm not convinced the US ever was one, or that it'll ever be one. Thucy said it wonderfully on the last page:

"honestly, i didnt used to feel this way, but i think it's high time we trust the general public to self-govern. what passes for self-government today is actually the source of much of the misinformation and poor decision making, and not to mention the de facto disenfranchisement of regular people who are currently not represented even in our sham democracy"

Politics is at its core the pursuit of power over other people. I don't think political action is the solution to much of anything at this point; government is either theoretically powerless to do something (in the sense that whatever "should" be done is beyond its capacity) or practically powerless to do something (in the sense that the incentives of state actors haven't and can't be aligned to encourage them to solve problems) about every major problem I can think of.

The much more time-effective solution imo is to do your own small part with the people you know to make their lives and your life better for it. Work around the things you can't change and do everything you can to improve the things you can change.

If "dismantling the American oligarchy" is one of those things you can change, by all means! I don't believe it's something I can change, so I'm focusing my energy on the people close to me and my community.

@Yellowjacket
"We should just have a despotic theocracy until Jesus comes back - that's as enlightened as it gets until the man makes it back, right?"
Come now, you're better than that. That's ridiculously sloppy deductive work, and you know it.

@President Eden
"Politics is at its core the pursuit of power over other people. I don't think political action is the solution to much of anything at this point"
I think this is true much more often than we usually realize or (unconsciously) suppose.

And Thucy, a question: what is it that ought to be the government's guiding framework in making policy decisions? What the people want, the right/moral thing, or both? And if the people's wishes and the right/moral thing to do conflict, how ought the government to choose?

And by "the right/moral thing," I mean you should feel free to use your own definition of what is right/moral.

@Eden I think so, for the most part, but I think you have more power as an individual than you're giving yourself credit for.

@smoker, well, that did seem to be what you were hinting at, and slyguy came right out and said it! But the idea is still foolish. You can pick the Christian in the world most free from sin, and a theocratic dictatorship founded under his "benign" rule would still be a nightmare. Heck, a theocratic dictatorship founded under the Christian God (as the Bible describes him) would be a nightmare. A disgusting, horrible, nightmare.

@Yellowjacket
"You can pick the Christian in the world most free from sin, and a theocratic dictatorship founded under his 'benign' rule would still be a nightmare."
I'm pretty sure you and slyguy and I all agree on this point. In fact, I'm pretty sure slyguy and I both said this (and if we didn't say it explicitly, we certainly meant to imply it). This is why neither of us would actually advocate a theocracy run by anyone other than Jesus. An actual benevolent dictatorship run by a sinner is a mental construct without possibility of actualization.

"Heck, a theocratic dictatorship founded under the Christian God (as the Bible describes him) would be a nightmare."
For you? Absolutely.

^ What he said.

"One last word on the founders. Do you think if they had foreseen organized propaganda campaigns that are limitlessly financed and their impact on electoral politics that they would have ever left it unaddressed in our founding document?"

I think they did foresee the essential contures of it, and I don't think they left it unaddressed. They just didn't say explicitly in the Constitution what they were doing.

Yes, I'm familiar with the calls for a second constitutional convention. I pray it never happens. We were exceptionally blessed ever to get such a number of wise, thoughtful, and perceptive people. Our society no longer has their equal (on the left or the right, in policy or academia, or anywhere else) and I could foresee only disaster.

Got any Kool-Ade for me? I'm thirsty. I'm getting PMed by a delusional american, accusing me of being jealous. Is it THAT obvious?