America free?

*Warning* Do NOT get offended by this thread.

I'm Canadian and I know that we are free. But this doesn't involve Canada. No, this is about the USA and weather you think they are actually free... IMO, the people of the States aren't as free as some may think...With all the issues their having, it makes you (well, makes me) REALLY think if they are a free country.

NTO, AO!

well did you know that every year there are at least 10 new laws passed, or the old laws are added onto, and what the gov doesnt realise is that the more laws you pass the more crime there will be at least that is what is happening now, some thing that really doesnt make sense to me is the freedom to smoke marijuana not that I smoke it but really you can smoke cigarretes which are much more lethal but they arent illegal, and there are drunk driving accidents almost every night/day but alchohol isnt illegal its crazy how the goverment chooses which freedoms you can and cannot have

Being an American, I don't necessarily that my "freedoms" are being unfairly restricted or anything. Yeah, there are laws and regulations that I see as pointless or stupid, but they don't really impede me from doing what I really want to do. Of course, it would be near-impossibile for any country to be truly "free" because of the differences people have in how they perceive freedom and all the like. Free? No. Free enough? For me, yeah, I think so.

But I'm not just talking about their laws. Here are some examples:
-They pass unfair rights to gays.
-Police will beat you to a criple er death.
-When the protesters are being violated fer their rights by riot squads...
Not to mention all the bull**** their governement is doing!
How can they call this a free land?
NTO, AO!

Police brutality is a very rare occurrence, but of course highly publicized so that some people assume that is the norm. It is not. Police officers are just people like you & me, they aren't some special, malicious robots dedicated to whacking us all into shape. In truth I have personally seen the opposite in practice, more than a few times: officers show awesome restraint when dealing with truly dysfunctional individuals -- individuals who would gladly maim or kill them if they only got a single chance.

Riot squads don't act until people cross a line of behavior. I've never understood why some people think their violence is justified and that the police are wrong for stepping in to protect property & the rights of innocents.

The issue about homosexuals, however, is on target. It is highly, HIGHLY contentious here though, which suggests that a significant portion of people recognize the threat to all our freedoms. Keep in mind that it is an election year. (damn nader, damn damn damn nader)

"Free" is a state of mind. Laws are necessary because we have proven incapable of governing ourselves. Too many people display a distinct lack of personal integrity, ethics, and responsibility. Laws let the rest of us do something about that.

My viewpoint is that no one is free, and no one has ever been free. Helios is right. Laws are restrictions, and when we are restricted, we are not free. Additionally, we are restricted by our own mortality and our own responsibilities. If it were up to me, I would lay on a beautiful beach, forever, surrounded by beautiful women (physically and mentally) who wanted nothing other than me, and I would have an endless supply of all alcoholic beverages of my choice.

But, could I ever be free to do this? Of course not. The beach can't always be beautiful. There are storms. Not all women who go to the beach possess beauty. To my dismay, not all women want me. An endless supply of alcholic beverages would not be free, I would need to pay for them. I would need a liver transplant. I would eventually need to leave the beach to use the facilities. I would need to use sun-block, so I wouldn't get cancer. You get the picture.

True freedom is a bag of crap myth, and governments use the term freedom as a buzzword to give their citizens hope and a false sense of security. Albeit, some governments are more free than others, all governments take away freedom from their citizens. After all, what do governments do? They govern. In other words, they keep people in line. They force people to remain on the line, and that is not freedom.

The question becomes, which country has the most freedom?

Originally posted by Crap-Bag

True freedom is a bag of crap myth, and governments use the term freedom as a buzzword to give their citizens hope and a false sense of security. Albeit, some governments are more free than others, all governments take away freedom from their citizens. After all, what do governments do? They govern. In other words, they keep people in line. They force people to remain on the line, and that is not freedom.

Very true! (wb, btw)

Personally, I see America as not the "Land of the Free," but really as the "Land of anything goes as long as it doesn't upset my (certain politicians/law enforcers) own interests."

There's so much petty garbage that goes around, but the larger issues seem to be ignored completely! Instead of fixing things, they tell the flock of civilians something, and we all follow mindlessly! It's frusterating! There IS no true freedom, IMO. No matter what you do, someone will be offended or restricted or hurt in some manner. Do any of those happen in a "free" place? Like you said, Crap-Bag, it's just a nice phrase America likes to use to help its citizens feel better about life. It's all a bag of fecal matter :p

Still, you'll never find a perfect place. Humans are too full of errors to create and uphold a utopian society as long as they still have free will. We're too greedy, lazy, wishy-washy, and pathetic.

Originally posted by Crap-Bag
The beach can't always be beautiful. There are storms.


Aha...but surely a storm is a simple expression of the freedom of unruly nature? I, for one, find beauty in storms as they promise other delights and freedoms...

As for the good ol' US of A...I think it is one of the biggest fallacies that Americans regard their country as the 'Land of the Free'...it quite simply isn't the case. The reason for this is that it is perhaps THE most corrupt country in the world, yet continues to preach from a doctrine that says it is the model for all other countries!!!

How can this be true when the two prospective presidents for the next 4 years are amongst the richest people in the country? Money seems to buy their freedom, which means the 'freedom' is inherently false.

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Aha...but surely a storm is a simple expression of the freedom of unruly nature? I, for one, find beauty in storms as they promise other delights and freedoms...

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and I wasn't talking about what you find as beautiful, I was talking about what I find as beautiful - as it was my bag of crap fantasy.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that the US is not the "Land of the Free," but it sure does sound good, and when it was founded, it probably was the most free country. The US being the most corrupt country? I don't buy it. There are too many checks and balances. Don't forget that there are two major political parties in the US, with very different political and economical viewpoints. Who cares if the nominees come from the upper class? They still need to look out for the lower class, or the press will eat them alive.

Originally posted by Crap-Bag
Who cares if the nominees come from the upper class? They still need to look out for the lower class, or the press will eat them alive.

And you actually think Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy do this? Oh dear...

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
And you actually think Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy do this? Oh dear...

And how would you have ever heard about these tax cuts and held them in such negative regard if it were not for the negative press that it generated? Once again, there are checks and balances, like the press. There are also checks and balances coming from the democratic party, which opposes these bag of crap tax cuts and uses the opposition as a platform for election.

So what does this negative press actually do? The tax cuts are still in place, it just goes to show that despite the atrocities commited by the American government they still hold power because of the $$...You are very naive if you think it is poor-people power that changes American governments and not the mighty moolah-lah-lah...

What is one of the things Kerry will do (or say he is going to do) if he gets into office? Reverse the tax cuts. Undoubtedly, politicians represent people's, group's, and business' interests, but they can't represent all the bag of crap interests of every person, every group, or every business. If you want proof that poor people have impact on government, consider programs such as medicare/medicaid.

Originally posted by Crap-Bag
Undoubtedly, politicians can't represent all the bag of crap interests of every person, every group, or every business.

This is undoubtedly true...it's just a shame that it's the wealthy, election-campaign donators who get their needs pandered to in preference to the common man.

Absolutely. Perhaps the key to it all IS campaign election reform. Think about it, if funding was severely limited, no longer would the candidates seek approval from the one's dishing out the most money to finance their campaigns, but they would be truly interested in the masses. Now, the problem is that this needs to be voted upon, by people that got into power by raising the most money.

Perhaps this is why Thomas Jefferson believed every government should be overthrown (peacefully) every couple of hundred years - to correct such bag of crap problems in hopes of creating a more utopian society.

Originally posted by Crap-Bag
Think about it, if funding was severely limited, no longer would the candidates seek approval from the one's dishing out the most money to finance their campaigns, but they would be truly interested in the masses. Now, the problem is that this needs to be voted upon, by people that got into power by raising the most money.


Indeedily-doo, it is a veritable paradox, my dear Watson....AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Perhaps, but this is where the press could play a greater role, and help facilitate a movement. I guess I have hope, you know, that thing the KFC guy said was humankind's greatest strength and greatest weakness - or some bag of crap like that.

Originally posted by Crap-Bag
Perhaps, but this is where the press could play a greater role, and help facilitate a movement. I guess I have hope, you know, that thing the KFC guy said was humankind's greatest strength and greatest weakness - or some bag of crap like that.

You mean hope?.......

I'm definitely not in that upper-echelon of wealth, but I've also never understood why people think that those who are more successful or affluent should be more severely penalized or restricted. The rich rule the country? Yeah, sure..... but I don't feel a wee bit sorry for the poor. I've been there, done that. EVERYONE can get out if they choose. It takes damn hard work & sacrifice, it also takes courage, and, yes, hope, patience, and faith (because it doesn't happen quickly). There aren't many who are willing to do all of that, and instead they sit back & blame the rich for all their problems & want heavier taxes for the wealthier tiers & blah blah blah.

Who pays for programs that feed the hungry? that ensure medical care for children? that provide education for those who're less fortunate? that counsel people with credit problems? that help people find jobs? that offer significant support to first-time homebuyers? that provide for people who've lived their whole lives WITHOUT managing their money properly and now are old, not working, with severe health problems and whose costs far exceed anything they put in to social security or medicare during their working years? Taxpayers pay for most of this. And who pays taxes? I guarantee you it isn't the poor. No, in contrast, the poor get money back at the end of the year! Charity pays for a significant portion of it too, and that ain't provided by the poor either! Charity also funds medical research, and humanitarian programs, and environmental preservation programs..... don't kid yourself or me that the poor do any of this. The wealthiest people are already paying for all of this stuff, and here you are wanting them to pay even more? And you wonder why they fight this?

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that most people who are affluent VOTE!!!! And from my experience with people all around me, most poor people do not. So, the rich are concerned about what gets done with their money, and they damn well do something about it!

My father-in-law has millions saved. He's worked like a dog for most of his life, and they've spent very carefully, and invested very, very wisely. They've held onto their money so that when they get to retirement they are able to maintain their lifestyle (a nice home, nice cars, golf, some vacationing). But they deal with tax issues that make me cringe! Because they've been wise in their lives, because they've taken care to be able to support themselves they are significantly more severely penalized than others -- like those who make the same amount of money but have spent all of theirs and thus don't have the same assets.

It's easy enough to sit back & blame the rich for all our problems. It takes something quite a bit more to try to understand the web.

Ah damn, I hate politics :( Maybe coz I don't understand them :p Guess I don't need to really since I live in a free country called Canada :p USA (I think) used to be free. Not now. They are turning into a Nazi nation :(

Originally posted by Tempest01
I'm definitely not in that upper-echelon of wealth, but I've also never understood why people think that those who are more successful or affluent should be more severely penalized or restricted. The rich rule the country? Yeah, sure..... but I don't feel a wee bit sorry for the poor. I've been there, done that. EVERYONE can get out if they choose. It takes damn hard work & sacrifice, it also takes courage, and, yes, hope, patience, and faith (because it doesn't happen quickly). There aren't many who are willing to do all of that, and instead they sit back & blame the rich for all their problems & want heavier taxes for the wealthier tiers & blah blah blah.

Who pays for programs that feed the hungry? that ensure medical care for children? that provide education for those who're less fortunate? that counsel people with credit problems? that help people find jobs? that offer significant support to first-time homebuyers? that provide for people who've lived their whole lives WITHOUT managing their money properly and now are old, not working, with severe health problems and whose costs far exceed anything they put in to social security or medicare during their working years? Taxpayers pay for most of this. And who pays taxes? I guarantee you it isn't the poor. No, in contrast, the poor get money back at the end of the year! Charity pays for a significant portion of it too, and that ain't provided by the poor either! Charity also funds medical research, and humanitarian programs, and environmental preservation programs..... don't kid yourself or me that the poor do any of this. The wealthiest people are already paying for all of this stuff, and here you are wanting them to pay even more? And you wonder why they fight this?

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that most people who are affluent VOTE!!!! And from my experience with people all around me, most poor people do not. So, the rich are concerned about what gets done with their money, and they damn well do something about it!

My father-in-law has millions saved. He's worked like a dog for most of his life, and they've spent very carefully, and invested very, very wisely. They've held onto their money so that when they get to retirement they are able to maintain their lifestyle (a nice home, nice cars, golf, some vacationing). But they deal with tax issues that make me cringe! Because they've been wise in their lives, because they've taken care to be able to support themselves they are significantly more severely penalized than others -- like those who make the same amount of money but have spent all of theirs and thus don't have the same assets.

It's easy enough to sit back & blame the rich for all our problems. It takes something quite a bit more to try to understand the web.

Bull****. Not every one can be rich. Why? Being rich means having wealth. In our capitalistic system this means, most of the time that you have a job, and through this job you make money.

You are paid by your boss through a salary, but this salary does not just "fall" from the sky. This salary comes from the poor. Whether it is through selling them expensive food, or expensive stuff they don't need, they are being exploited. Naturally, this is completely legal, since it is capitalism.

Sure, there are people like Bill Gates, who start out as a small-time person to a big-shot multi-millionaire.

There may be less extreme examples of people rising from poor to rich, but it does not matter, the money you make, was earned on other people, making them even poorer.

The US is ruled by corporations, not the rich. However these corporations are dominated by very rich people. I won't go into detail about the Illuminati, but I think it is obvious that these companies lobby for non-civilian-friendly laws to ease up their job, so they can exploit the poor more.

Note that president Bush has played a big role in this "easing" up the corporations grip on society. Sure, he might not be so popular, but daddy and his affiliates are very pleased: They have got a fat pension.

It has always been like this, though, companies with enough money, or individuals can influence the government easily and efficiently. Note also that this is not democratic.

[adj] representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large;

Representing major corporations is not democracy, and thus nor is the US. The strange elections that happened when Bush was elected further hint towards the shadiness of the US government.

The Patriot Act has violated civil rights while you are shouting at your tv becaouse Janet Jackson showed her boob. Naturally this was not intentionally and was not meant to divert intention off of more important issues.

The media knows how to play the people, and they play it well. The Greatest Democracy in the world isn't a democracy. Scary huh?

HU

It doesn't scare me one bit. ;) The whole scary-America psuedo-freedom thing is typically shouted by those who don't understand & those who like to hate the US & also, I suppose, by those who need to buck authority because they can't comprehend the idea of being considerate to those around them & thus have to be TOLD how to be considerate.

Conspiracy theory is a joke, meant to scare people who are too blind to realize they are being lead around by their noses... and their fears.

Corporations provide jobs -- do you deny this? Sure, some of them funnel money & do their best to find every loophole in existence, but is it really reasonable to blame the whole system for the illegal or unethical actions of a few? I have to just shake my head when people criticize the system.... because we are a wealthy country, even our very poorest.

Living in the real world: you work, you play, you follow some basic rules pertaining to responsibility & integrity, and you have no problems. Works for quite a lot of people. Media makes a big deal out of those for whom it doesn't work, and WOOOHOOO! that America, oooh, it's a $hitty place to live.....

You are paid by your boss through a salary, but this salary does not just "fall" from the sky. This salary comes from the poor. Whether it is through selling them expensive food, or expensive stuff they don't need, they are being exploited.

There may be less extreme examples of people rising from poor to rich, but it does not matter, the money you make, was earned on other people, making them even poorer.


ah, so the rich don't work? ;) This is a rather alarmist statement that doesn't accurately represent the picture. The web of product-services-salary-products-service-salary is extremely complex -- every piece supports the whole, and there is no one start or end. So my profs taught in college, anyway.

I'm not denying that exploitation exists, nor that it is simply wrong, but please, let's be realistic about the picture: in truth those with more money consume more (ie spend more). My husband (yes, I'm a chick, not a dude) adds that "the consumer machine pushes all of us to consume, even when doing so isn't good for us, and the poor are of course the ones most hurt by this, as they have less room for error." Still, people have a choice. Choice doesn't have to be easy, btw, just present.

I haven't decided where I stand on the Patriot Act. I'm certainly not opposed to it outright. It's always a tricky thing, protecting the innocent without compromising rights. In practice, the criminals have more obvious rights than the victims. And that's just wrong. I guess ultimately I feel that if people didn't need to hide so much (because what they are doing is illegal) they would have nothing to fear. If we have to compromise to ensure safety, is it worth it? It's a tough question. For myself, the answer is a resounding yes, but then I have little to hide.

In the meantime, I want to know where this police state is that y'all are saying I live in. I want to know why the police have never broken down my door, nor the doors of anyone I've known. I want to know why I wasn't dragged out of the car during my one traffic stop, and harrassed & beaten. Why did that cop smile & chat & write me a warning instead of a ticket? I want to know where those laws are that the Illuminati & special interest groups are having passed that are supposed to keep me down. I want to know why I've been free to go wherever I want including out of the country without complications. I want to know why the EPA has any power at all, why endangered animals are still protected, why snowmobiles were banned at Yellowstone Park. Isn't money more important than some dumb ol' animals & plants? I want to know why the govt is providing special funding for companies that produce non-petrol autos, cuz that is REALLY in opposition to our well-known hunger/greed for oil. I want to know why in the world I have been able to write my President & other govt officials in serious complaint & am still a free person!

pshaw..... we don't live in the world y'all describe.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Conspiracy theory is a joke, meant to scare people who are too blind to realize they are being lead around by their noses... and their fears.

I'm pretty sure that was exactly what the Christians said, not too long ago when they condemned people for saying Earth was not flat. Saying someone is incorrect because he is controversial is as old as man, I had hoped we had conquered it by now.

Democracy is suppose to act for the people, not for people representing people. It is a form of government in which people are represented by a few who decide what is best for the many, not for the few represantatives, or the few that have the money to bribe the government.

Corporations do hire people, but this does not mean these people have the right to decide along with the company. Corporations are not democratic, they depend on a hierarchy. They are a dictatorship, therefore they can not be trusted to represent the people that work under them.

Here is a quote from one of my favorite conspiracy theorists:
Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
--George Washington

HU

EDIT: On the Patriot Act:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

So, my dear HU, you propose that the people are better able to govern themselves individually?

I will remind that we do not live in utopia. In truth we're talking about 250 million people. I do have to laugh at the implication that govt is expendable.... the chaos I've been thru this week trying to keep all the members of my rose society (I'm prez) civil & cohesive are driving me BATTY! I would be much happier as a dictator, believe you me, but I am fully, completely, and totally recognizant of the fact that if I had acted as such I would have either a) lost members or b) been ousted, probably both. So, I compromised some of them a little here and some of them a little there, so that the needs of the whole were better met. And THAT'S what you object to? I'm sorry, but it almost seems silly. Why the hell should people get to go thru life interacting with so many others without needing to compromise?????

It's ALL about moderation & compromise. Checks & balances. Flux & flow. Sometimes things go wrong, sometimes things ARE wrong, but in general & as a whole the system works. Your concern for "the people" is touching, but I guarantee you that it is unnecessary. Still, I wonder what it stems from?

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


I understand your little dig here, but keep in mind that I was the first on this thread to say that free is a state of mind. When I used the word in my last post it was meant to define "unincarcerated."

Saying someone is incorrect because he is controversial is as old as man, I had hoped we had conquered it by now.

I don't think the problem is the controversy, I think the problem is the accuracy. I don't mean to offend, but it's hard for me to completely trust your credibility in this issue since you don't actually live here. Reading about a thing and experiencing a thing are very different of course, as I'm sure you know. Besides, you also are suggesting that I am blind or enslaved simply because my viewpoint is wrong in your opinion.

Now, about corporations, are you suggesting that a business doesn't have the right to decide for itself what's in its best interests? that it must consider the needs/wants of its employees in determining the goals & policies of the company? Just as an fyi, a business is not a democracy, and has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to be so. A business owner assumes all the responsibilities, takes all the risks. The only obligation a business owner (or board) has to its employees is fair & reasonable treatment, including the expectation of safety & proper compensation.

------------

Ultimately, I genuinely believe that life is what you make of it, HU. The beauty of the situation is that I don't need you or anyone else to define "freedom" for me. I'm fully comfortable with my own interpretation. ;)

In a democracy people are represented by a few. These few act in the benefit of the people, not their own.

As soon as corporations begin to influence government, they either have to represent a large group, or the people. As soon as they represent their profit, and they get away with it, the government is corrupt, as it no longer follows the purpose of democracy.

The eventual goal of democracy and communism is a community/society without classes, in which all people have equal rights and equal chances. Ergo, we try to grow towards a Utopia.

Free a state of mind? According to Buddha everything is a state of mind, I would appreciate it if you would explain a little more about what freedom is, since eventuall that is the problem in this situation, what is Freedom? People die and live for it, but we can not define it.

As said before, if freedom means the freedom to do everything we like, government disturbs our freedom by it's mere presence, ergo America is not free.

Freedom a state of mind? Although some philosophers claim it is so, I am not convinced that people are willing to fight others for a state of mind. How can I limit your freedom if it is just a state of mind? How can a dictator supress his people when all they cry for is Freedom, how can that be a state of mind?

HU

Now, that's an excellent question... (not that any others weren't)

What I mean specifically is that life is too complex & diverse for there to be any one definition of freedom. Therefore you define it (freedom) for yourself. Is it about wealth & military might? Is it about civil rights? Is it about the ability to express oneself in whatever manner one chooses (within the bounds of avoiding harm to others)? Is it about being able to vote your officials? Is it about being able to trust the justice system? Keep in mind that this is about feelings or beliefs or opinions..... these are intangibles, and differ for every single person. Your quote about people who "falsely believe they are free" is pretentious because it assumes to define freedom for everyone. What is freedom really? Freedom is whatever YOU need it to be. Freedom is, therefore, a state of mind. EDIT: For example, a member of the militia believes that freedom is the right to carry arms, including assault rifles, and to extract vigilante justice as they see fit, and perhaps even to kill a cop who's upholding a law against poaching. In my own opinion there is NOTHING free about any of that -- to me freedom is tied to personal safety, and all of that activity threatens it. Laws help to maintain my personal safety. Our justice system ensures that the burden of proof has at least been considered, rather than just killing people who we THINK "did it." But do you see how complex the issue is? Because for that militia member, the freedom issue is also about personal safety.

Something else I want to mention is that nothing is perfect. Things DO go wrong sometimes. It really is better (for one's own true peace of mind) to work for changes than to just complain about the problem and claim that it is symptomatic of wide-spread corruption.

Getting back to one of the original questions in this thread, I think that the homosexuality issue presents a real threat to our freedoms because in my opinion discrimination is counteractive to freedom. Constitutional amendments sparked by religious-based fears is.... god, I can't even tell you how horrifying.

------------------------------------

A different question: why shouldn't corporations be interested in their profits? Wouldn't YOU be interested in making the most for yourself? In making your money stretch the farthest & work the best for you? Even a simple homesteader must occasionally seek outside himself for some supplies..... and will be focused on getting the best bang for his buck, regardless of whether that is thru cash or barter. If these other things are acceptable, why is it unacceptable for corporations to want to protect their interests?

--------------------------------------

I forgot to add: It is a "state of mind" because 2 individuals can be in the same circumstances, with the same restrictions & the same opportunities, and have totally opposite perceptions of the situation.

Live or die for a state of mind? Sure, why not? We act & respond according to our beliefs of the truth, of what is right.

Well, since Capitalism isn't the topic here, let's say that making profit is good.

If I buy a supermarket (with money I just won from the lotto ;)) I can start making money. Unfortunately, a nasty bill is about to be passed with which I'm no longer allowed to buy cheap meat, as it contains a certain hormone. Instead, I have to buy more expensive meat. This will cause my customers to buy less of this product, and potentially leave.

This is bad for my profit, but I can't do a rat's ass about it, if you get my meaning. However, the hormones are bad for people, so it's in the interest of the people.

I just won 20 billion dollars, and I bought 10 000 stores throughout the world and have just called it McDonalds (just a random example ;)). I send my people to lobby for it so I can keep buying cheap food (which is actually bad for the people).

The law is not passed because I 'bribed' the government, and I win in 'profit' therms.

This is not democratic. This is American.

HU

So McDonald's is evil because they have influence? Does that explain why they are taking the "supersize" off their menus? I would think that such an action is counter-intuitive to what you're saying, as it is what the people have clamored about. I mean, isn't your point that majority rule is just a myth?

For your first example, no, you are not screwed: creative marketing is one of the beauties of this system. Perhaps you jump the gun & find a local organic source & market THAT to people. It costs you more but you slide that on to the customers, and they accept it because you are, after all, looking out for their best interests by providing them a healthier choice. The cup is half full, HU, the cup is half full. :)

And whether McDonald's is "bad" for you is totally subjective.... you know all too well that adequate research can be found to "prove" any statement. America doesn't own that policy. McDonald's is high fat, high calories, and very yummy. Still, you have a choice.

I wasn't trying to state McDonalds food was bad, although in America growth hormones are still allowed while they are clearly bad for a person's health.

I'm very aware of the fact that there is no healthy or unhealthy food, but some hormones are bad for us, whether they are in McDonalds food, or in the food of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The point is that American corporations have the ability to alter the choices of the government in such a manner that they are bad for the people the government is supposed to represent. I see no way how that can be justified.

Majority rule a myth? Well, than we might as well go to the streets and shoot our governments. Democracy might not work perfectly, but it is not our right, but our duty to assure the government tries to make it work.

Supersize off their menus? I was never talking about the fat percentage of their food, and frankly this was never what this discussion was about. It's about the influence corporations have on the government, and how it affects the people who elected that government in a bad way.

By the way, I don't find McDonalds food yummy. It just has so little flavours there is no way you can not like it. The beauty of any dish is to aspire to create something that provokes the senses, that is more than just something you put in your mouth and swallow.

HU

So, you aren't saying that majority rule is a myth? Isn't that what it means to say that the people have no voice? That the govt responds to the bribery of a few wealthy corporations, and ignores the majority voice of the people? If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. But if that's actually what you're saying, then my supersize example is appropriate: because it is in THE PEOPLE'S best interest, not McDonald's. (although it can be argued that doing what's in the people's best interest IS in McDonald's best interest)

Furthermore, I disagree with your point that someone who has more money to lobby their interests is automatically more corrupt. McDonald's has a right to be concerned about their profits, same as anyone. With your example in specific, about the hormone, there are too many credible arguments on BOTH sides to know the truth of whether such is actually harmful. Perhaps the lobbying power of McDonald's ends up being to the benefit of you, the small-time supermarket owner, because maybe the hormone isn't ACTUALLY as problematic as some suggest.

I don't know, I'd also rather eat hormone-free meat and organically produced food. But that's personal choice. And admittedly alot of it is based on my fear of the potential for harm, rather than the actual presence of it.

I'm sorry if I'm digressing slightly in this conversation.... the toddler has me a bit distracted. Still, it is interesting enough for me to want to continue it, if you can keep me on track. ;)

Originally posted by Tempest01
So McDonald's is evil because they have influence? Does that explain why they are taking the "supersize" off their menus? I would think that such an action is counter-intuitive to what you're saying, as it is what the people have clamored about.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a complete load of expletive deleted! They are taking 'supersize' off the menu because of all the 'Fat suits' they've recently had to face...it was a case of the accounts being heard, not the people!

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a complete load of expletive deleted! They are taking 'supersize' off the menu because of all the 'Fat suits' they've recently had to face...it was a case of the accounts being heard, not the people!

Well that's one perspective. The suits had no hope of going anywhere since they are considered legally frivolous, so I'll stick by my statement.

Fat is no bad, it's almost vital, since it is one of the forms your cells get their energy.

I'm going to state a hypothetical situation. I just found an incredible herb somewhere in South-America. When American/European cows eat this, they grow like hell. This happens because of a hormone present inside the herb. Sadly, the hormone also comes into the muscle tissue, where it stays untill the meat is consumed.
Let's just say that the hormone causes cancer. Not just the cancer you get from UV, but a severe risk each time you eat it.
Research has just shown it, and the newspapers speak of outrage. Congres decideds to ban meat, but before they vote, they lobby.

I'm the head of the McDonaldson company, a huge fast-food chain that has not removed it's supersized menus because it has a huge income and pay the claims. This income is so high because my company uses this hormone to get lots of meat, real fast, at real low prices.

Naturally, I don't want it to change, and I don't give a hell about people, just myself (Capitalism is based on this!). I lobby, 'pay off' the congres. I loose 26 billion dollars, but I will have made that back in a week.

Has the people been represented? No. Was democracy followed? No.

America is not a democracy. If it was, McDonaldson could not do what it just did. Sadly, it can. You thought of my post as incorrect since you failed to see the destinction I create between democracy and America. Unless the US starts doing something about it's government, it will never truly be a democracy.

Premisse Major: Democracy represents the majoriy.
Premisse Minor: The United States of America do not represent the majority.

conclusion: The Unites States of America is not a democracy.

HU

//EDIT:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini, Encyclopedia Italiana

Fat IS vital to a healthy diet, that's for sure. The problem stems only, as with all things, from excess consumption.

The only reason your hypothetical situation doesn't work for me is because the issue of whether the hormone causes cancer is the determinate factor..... The problem in our real world scenario is proving without a doubt that the hormone causes cancer, and to this point they haven't, regardless that I agree with you that the evidence seems enough for me to be concerned. Still, you're saying that getting what they want despite the evidence against them is an automatic, and I couldn't disagree with that more: I see regulations in place all the time about chemicals, for example -- regulations that the chemical lobby would happily do away with. I see more & more land set aside for conservation, despite the timber & mining industries fighting hard & spending billions to gain better access. I see water & air pollution regulations mandating costly changes to the way companies deal with their waste products.

*sigh* I'm not saying that they don't get away with corrupt activities. I agree that this happens. But it simply doesn't happen to the extent that you imply. And every situation must be looked at completely, without bias, to fully understand the motivations behind it & the goals ahead of it. This is rarely done, unfortunately enough. It is much easier to be distrustful & disdainful, to assume the worst of everyone & everything, particularly when you're talking about America, the country everyone loves to hate.

Besides, we can hardly do that (observe without bias) as the newspapers are NEVER a credible, unbiased source. Accurate representation is anything but the media's strong point. Clever but intentional misrepresentation is more like it.

Anyway, I am content to agree to disagree about this. We have different viewpoints, that's all. Who's to say whether either is completely correct or incorrect?

Well, we can create fat ourselves, from sugar, carbon-hyrdrates and proteins, so it's not vital, however it is handy :).

I really believe the majority of the people should be represented and not a corporation. I belief that the size in which this happens does not matter. I belief that each time this happens, with each law passed that did not represent the people democracy crumbles a bit more.

I agree that it is sometimes hard to see how one can best represent the people, since people are so diverse on individual levels, however this is not always so.
I just tried to establish an example in which it was clear that the people was not represented. I am sure however that there have been instances the people was not represented (watch: a distinguished gentleman).

It's a difficult subject because there are so many aspects, nevertheless the concept of democracy is simple, and should always be followed in a... democracy.

HU

I agree with you, HU. I just don't think that because a certain amount of corruption exists that the system as a whole is flawed. Are there things that could (should) be fixed? Sure. Definitely. But this is true in EVERY system -- especially when you're talking about something as complex as a federal government.

Regarding fats: fats contain fatty acids and a certain amount MUST be ingested, or so I was taught. Dietary lipids are different from stored body fat. The amount is tiny however -- something like a tablespoon of polyunsaturated fats per day will give you all the fatty acids you need. However, extremely low-fat diets are usually connected to deficiencies in the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, & K. So says the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in the book Total Nutrition. Regardless, few of us eat such low-fat diets, so the point is nearly moot. ;)