"were black people in the united states freer in colonial times than now
Were women freer? ... Your "Americans," of course, are rich white men"

Curiously absent from your list of oppressed minorities are Native Americans, who were most definitely more free before the Revolution than they have been in the two plus centuries after - at least, those who managed to survive the imposition of 'freedom' by the Imperial Legions. Considering that they almost certainly constituted a majority of the population of what would become the United States, your suggestion that only Evil White Men are less free today is completely absurd.

"Were poor people under the thumb of the local elite families freer than now
when those families directly controlled the economy the courts and the police force"

It is hilarious that you proclaim our freedom from "elite families" at a time when the two proclaimed presidential front-runners are both people known first and foremost for being immediate familial relations of past presidents. In California, our current governor (now in his fourth term) initially became governor because of the influence of his father (a former governor himself). A couple cities over, the city is dominated by a particular political family whose patriarch served in congress for a time. Stepping back from elected offices and looking at the string-pullers in the background, local politics here is dominated by several families of land developers - some of which go back to the initial settlement of this area in the late 19th century - and families of car dealership owners (one of which has three brothers that went to jail for "campaign finance" violations a few years back).

As for the courts and police, the legal system has become a calcified machine that terrorizes and oppresses the poor and blacks you feign concern about, working in favor only of those wealthy enough to afford teams of lawyers. The police rape, rob, and murder the public with almost total impunity - particularly the black people you are feigning concern about. Smiley's link about more black men being under the thumb of the criminal 'justice' system is telling.

"that's no surprise knowing your ideals and politics."

Considering that not too long ago you were accusing me of worshipping the founding fathers (most of whom turned out to be at least as bad, if not worse, than Georgie once they were in power), I'd say your grasp of my ideals and politics is tenuous at best.

* about more black men being under the thumb of the criminal 'justice' system than were ever enslaved is telling.

"It is hilarious that you proclaim our freedom from "elite families" at a time when the two proclaimed presidential front-runners are both people known first and foremost for being immediate familial relations of past presidents. In California, our current governor (now in his fourth term) initially became governor because of the influence of his father (a former governor himself). A couple cities over, the city is dominated by a particular political family whose patriarch served in congress for a time. Stepping back from elected offices and looking at the string-pullers in the background, local politics here is dominated by several families of land developers - some of which go back to the initial settlement of this area in the late 19th century - and families of car dealership owners (one of which has three brothers that went to jail for "campaign finance" violations a few years back)."'

I never proclaimed my "freedom"from them, I'm just proclaiming that having a guy named bush run is nott he same as me working for, taking loans from, buying groceries from, receiving police and judicial protection from a group of men from the same family as was often the case in early america, false equivalencies.

"Considering that not too long ago you were accusing me of worshipping the founding fathers (most of whom turned out to be at least as bad, if not worse, than Georgie once they were in power), I'd say your grasp of my ideals and politics is tenuous at best. "

You do worship the founding fathers, and white folk in the past, a simpler time.

"
* about more black men being under the thumb of the criminal 'justice' system than were ever enslaved is telling."

No it isn't,

let me make it fucking clear

IF YOU BELIEVE BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE LESS FREE NOW THAN IN 1774 YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKING MORON.

Let me reiterate

A COMPLETE FUCKING MORON

I think you both are fucking morons, get out of my thread and get a room, you two bitches. Take fucktard Thucy with you.

I NEVER CLAIMED BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE LESS FREE NOW THAN IN 1774. I SAID AMERICANS ARE LESS FREE, OF WHICH BLACK PEOPLE ARE A SUBSET.

Now leave that poor defenseless strawman alone!

|---------
| \
| --------

graph of freedom

agh the spaces did not work

but the symbolism did

I AM GLAD THE AMERICANS OF 1815 DIDN'T HAVE THE INTERNET OR THEY WOULD BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR LOSS OF FREEDOM THIS WAY TOO.

Alright, despite our personal views I think we're all ready to riot in the name of freedom.

Lol why are people still posting here?

In other countries they openly call it the Presidential Palace. What makes us different? And what is delusional about that?

What is delusional is pretending that an oligarchy that labels itself a democracy is any different from an oligarchy that labels itself The Defender Of The Faith. Different times, different legitimization propaganda, same power structure.

So are we a monarchy or an oligarchy in your mind, Thucy? That's the delusion, because we are neither.

The United States *is*, in fact, a constitutional republic. The corridors of power may seem far removed from the voting populace, but we do actually hold elections which are by and large free and fair. We do actually have peaceful transitions of power between one Presidential administration and the next, and between iterations of Congress.

There is propaganda, but it is not "legitimization propaganda." We elected them!

There is a power structure, but it is not what you believe (wish?) it to be, even if you don't like it or what it may *seem* to be.

Elected who? Oligarchs. The presence of a show election and a document filled with words about representation does not necessarily have any relationship to the facts on the ground, and the facts on the ground are that the will of the american people is not a significant factor in influencing government policy, whereas the will of corporate (oligarchic) interests is. Just google it dude, this isn't some big secret. When the people cease to have an effect on policy, it makes little difference that there are elections. They can have elections till the cows come home - the voters do not significantly impact policy next to the plutocrats.

If you want to make an argument about the relative influence of individuals vs organizations, then make that argument. Your rhetoric about monarchs and oligarchs isn't helping your case.

"They can have elections till the cows come home - the voters do not significantly impact policy next to the plutocrats."

Mmmm, yeeeahhh, k.... same as it ever was you loon. Perhaps a nice course in system dynamics would do you good.

If it is not one person, one vote, it is not a democracy and is instead an oligarchy. And, morally, there is no difference between a monarchy and an oligarchy - both are repugnant for the same reasons. One group has no right to rule another.

"same as it ever was you loon."

So? Do you also love war because we have been fighting them for 5,000 years?

As I quoted from Abe Lincoln not long ago:

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy."

@Thucy
Do you believe everyone should vote on every law and every law should only be passed when a majority agrees on it? People cannot and should not be expected to read every single law. It is time consuming, complex, and frankly people wouldn't understand or care about half of the laws passed. We elect politicians for the same reason we hire a mechanic to fix a car. We don't want or know how to fix it ourselves. People don't want a perfect democracy because people don't want to have to worry about the specifics of how the country is run. And frankly a perfect democracy means the majority rules over the minority. Perfect equality is anarchy where everyone is their own king, but people start forming a hierarchy almost immediately because humans alone are some of the weakest creatures on the planet.

Thucy,

Currently, large companies do exercise an outsize influence on what happens in this country, and that's unfortunate. But it's a sick democracy, not an oligarchy, and your rhetoric is doing nothing to cure the sickness.

Let me explain why it's not an oligarchy. There is still an extremely high level of freedom of speech in this country (something rarely or never seen in an oligarchy or a monarchy), and while the corporate interests do exercise great control, they do it by bending the will of the people to their own (which is an imperfect process, and does not always work). That is, Congressmen (for example) feel beholden to special interests because they need money to get elected; but they need money to get elected because they need to reach people, and that is expensive.

So why does all this matter? It matters because there are still things that corporations could not get away with, or could not get away with making the government do. You and your silly friends can post on the internet freely, for example; if you had a real outrage to tell us about, we could read about it. This is how, sometimes, people get angry, and Congressmen realize that to preserve themselves, they need to try to do something OTHER than placate special interests, and bills get passed that corporations do not like (although often they are not very good bills -- but that is due to the flaws of how a democracy works, and the fact that ours is rather sick).

In an oligarchy, for example, the oligarchs could decide they wanted much more control of online copyright laws, and they could pass it. When they tried this in this country, a genuine furor resulted, and Congresspeople, not from principle but from popular pressure, backed down and did not pass SOPA.

Recognizing these different forces and how they threaten and/or preserve our democracy, and acting to strengthen it, would actually be productive. Characteristically, you instead choose an extreme and silly position, and cry about how the sky is falling while doing absolutely nothing that might make things better.

An oligarchy with freedom of speech is an oligarchy with a chink in its mail, not a democracy with an image problem.

@demon I am not arguing against representative democracy per se, but I am arguing against it to the extent that it results in the de facto disenfranchisement of large swathes of the population.

Re: SOPA - this is the exception, not the rule, and the authorities are going toget what they want in that regard before long anyway, and you know it. The people won the battle but continue to lose the war.

Your abstract perfect definition of oligarchy is nonsense to use: even the oligarchs of China must pay attention to the will of the people. But in general this is not in good faith because neither nor the american government are actually interested in carrying out this will, they are merely interested in keeping people placated to avoid unrest. Under your definition there have never been any autocracies, monarchies, or oligarchies because the people have always had at least a small modicum of power.

Yet democracy can only exist when the people truly do govern themselves; and it is the will of the people that corresponds to the will of the government. You may equally that no such condition has ever existed, and I agree. That makes it no less right. Any christian should be familiar with the idea that although perfection cannot be reached, it is not a waste to pursue it with all our strength anyway. And so, it is democracy which I demand; not that which goes by democracy today.

As to your final thought

"Characteristically, you instead choose an extreme and silly position, and cry about how the sky is falling while doing absolutely nothing that might make things better."

This is not only insulting and ad hominem, it is the umpteenth time this tired objection has been raised, and for the umpteenth time I repeat: I do not believe that beliefs or words alone can be said to have meaning or to exist (for we know a tree by its fruit) - it is only through corresponding actions that they take on any meaning. And so again for the umpteenth time: I do not simply talk about these things, I struxture my life and my life's work around their meaningful execution, and so I find this red herring not only an insult but also ringing hollow. As I have also said umpteen times, I do not wish to give a laundry list of what I do in my personal life on this forum, because this would take on the character of a self-aggrandizing pissing contest.