Forum Post: We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." By Robert Lenzner
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 12:57 p.m. EST by marcelamejia
(10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"I commend you to the late Justice Louis Brandeis warning to the nation that " We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." We have to make up our minds to restore a higher, fairer capital gains tax to the wealthiest investor class-- or ultimately face increased social unrest."
"The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that "Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed-- and volatile-- source of household income," according to Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.
No wonder the super wealthy plutocrats obtained the largest share of national income-- 25% of the nation's wealth- greater than any other industrial nation in the the period of 1979 to 2005. Make no mistake; after unemployment-- this disparity between the 1%-- 3 million-- or the 0.1%-- the 300,000-- and the other 312 million citizens of the U.S. has become the major theme of the Occupy Wall Street movement-- and an important national debate.
Complete nonsense.
We can have democracy where the institutions that govern society are equally owned by the public.
Or we can have monarchies and capitalism where the institutions that govern society are owned privately for the personal benefit of its owners.
But we can't have both.
There is absolutely nothing democratic about capitalism just like there is nothing democratic about monarchies.
The means of law making should be democratically owned and controlled just like the means of production should be democratically owned and controlled.
If the means of production were democratically controlled, we would have long ago switched to green energy since nobody would have a stake in oil.
If the means of production were democratically controlled and its income democratically allocated, the minimum income would be $115,000 per year. Everyone would be wealthy. And there would be virtually NO social problems.
We replaced monarchies with democracy.
Now it is time to finish what the Enlightenment Era started and replace capitalism with democracy. The end of history is government democracy and economic democracy.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year
Nice. But we cannot let corporations escape so easily. Lobbying must die. Period. In a perfect world, Pure Capitalism and Pure Democracy would be the answer to all our problems. Unfortunately we live in a venal, crass world, filled with egos and suppositions. There is nothing Pure. That's why we must strive for purity, otherwise, we end up with the strife and bloodshed of humanity to-date.
Huh?
If we lived in a perfect world, then a monarchy would be the answer to all of our problems. Plato's philosopher king would make all the best decisions for society.
But we don't live in a perfect world. That is why monarchies AND capitalism do NOT work.
So the only solution is to eliminate both monarchies AND capitalism and replace them both with democracy.
Corporations and privately owned companies must die, not their ability to lobby.
Communism is NOT the key. ANY system of government that does not regulate itself is bound for failure and corruption. Democracy is maintained by the vigilance of its citizenry. Sometimes a protest here or a rebellion there. When the citizens begin to apathetic and disinterested in the workings of their own country, they deserve to lose it to the rats in the walls so-to-speak.
I said we should replace capitalism with democracy, not with communism.
And democracy is not the ability to protest. It means power rests with everyone equally.
I noted that many people are trying to push the failure, Communism, as the new government. Asses... I assumed. I apologize and am glad you have more than the normal spoonful of grey natter! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
To date, there is no democracy, in no one country of the world.
Democracy - it is different.
"As the state grows in power and the sphere of peaceful cooperation shrinks, economic wealth becomes less an indicator of entrepreneurial achievement and more an indicator of the ability of some to plunder their fellow man through the political means. The Occupy Movement tends to be suspicious of the present existing large concentrations of wealth.vi In our increasingly statist age this seems a reasonable complaint.
"What we as libertarians should do, is point the Occupy movement, and more generally, the radical left, in the right – er – correct, direction. We should try to explain to them that if they really think wealth inequality is a problem our goal should be to abolish the state and the violent, political means of exploitation that have always reduce men to poverty and misery in the first place."
http://www.mises.ca/posts/articles/should-libertarians-oppose-wealth-inequality/
It is known that : the honest is oppressed; take bribes ; as trample poor law; the poor are despised. Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time; for it is an evil time. If so, vote for the petition: http://wh.gov/jkl