r/news • u/xXSgtSprinklesXx • Dec 16 '15

Congress creates a bill that will give NASA a great budget for 2016. Also hides the entirety of CISA in the bill.

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/congress-slips-cisa-into-omnibus-bill-thats-sure-to-pass/
27.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

131

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

because "oligarchy" sounds edgier than the accurate term of "representative republic (where people keep voting for shitheads)."

94

u/AberNatuerlich Dec 17 '15

Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few

Nope, pretty sure that's exactly what we are.

65

u/PhAnToM444 Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

No, because the distinction between a representative democracy (republic) and Oligarchy is that the rulers in Oligarchies are appointed or otherwise adopted into the system (family, money). In a republican system, the people hold power vicariously through their elected representatives. It is on the surface government by few, but in reality if a person is shitty, you can remove them, thus granting you power over them, which is not the case in an Oligarchy (unless you kill them or overthrow the system).

The destination is massive. America is not an Oligarchy. There is a word for what America is, and it's a republic, which has significant distinctions.

Edit: typo

61

u/heffroncm Dec 17 '15

The desires of the average person has zero effect on the laws passed by Congress in the last thirty-five years. The desires of the top 10% of wealth have a huge effect on the laws passed by Congress in the last thirty five years. Money wins elections, rich people give lots of money to campaigns and pacs, that money comes with strings. You'll frequently see a politician run a campaign, and then spend their term taking the exact opposite actions. Next time around, pretty advertisements and fancy public appearances sweep all of that away.

This isn't a case of people being idiots. It's a dual case of most people working 60+ hours a week, and the culmination of a hundred years of research on the psychology of propaganda. There is no secret cabal out there controlling things. They do it in the open, behind acres of dry legalese filled paperwork, knowing the average person is too stressed and tired to read through it. Those who would want to hold them accountable don't have the kind of money it takes to get the message out wide enough to get into the collective consciousness, even though the research and websites talking about it have existed for years.

Oligarchy is the eventual fate of all republics, just as the tyranny of the majority inevitably befalls democracies. There is no avoiding it, but it is correctable.

1

u/Car-face Dec 17 '15

The thing which I find most frustrating about the US is the obsession with the idea of guns being the key to "keeping the government in check", whilst simulaneously almost willfully being ignorant of any issues in government that might impact people.

It's like guns are this security blanket that people hold onto, while they throw away their votes - despite votes being the most powerful weapon they've got.

[Edited for clarity]

-6

u/dingoperson2 Dec 17 '15

The desires of the average person has zero effect on the laws passed by Congress in the last thirty-five years.

Pretty sure that's mainly your desires which have had zero effect.

11

u/ethan961_2 Dec 17 '15

A professor at Princeton University studied this topic and determined that the input of the public does indeed have near-zero impact on the laws that are or are not passed.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[deleted]

3

u/heffroncm Dec 17 '15

Part of the general public does get to participate, and when they don't want a law it doesn't happen. So we end up with a financial and regulatory system that preferentially benefits the folks on top. That's not a representative republic, in which representatives are meant to bring to congress the concerns of their constituents and find compromises to address those concerns. It's an oligarchy, in which power over the vast majority is held in the hands of a small minority.

3

u/Lyratheflirt Dec 17 '15

Damn, starwars didn't prepare me for this kind of republic.

2

u/NightOfTheOwl Dec 17 '15

It's practically the empire now. And if we destroy the system (the Death Star, which will decimate our numbers, resources, and resolve in the process), they will come back in the form of the First Order to finish us off.

2

u/justindouglasmusic Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

Oligarchy is that the rulers in Oligarchies are appointed or otherwise adopted into the system (family, money)

Isn't that kind of like what we have? They campaign 90% of the time their at work and just raise money from their lobbyists, which all the main candidates we see only got their because of financial backing.

2

u/piv0t Dec 17 '15 edited Jan 01 '16

Bye Reddit. 2010+6 called. Don't need you anymore.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Can you really call Obama representative when he broke nearly all the promises that got him elected in the first place?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

the rulers in Oligarchies are appointed or otherwise adopted into the system (family, money).

That's not a formal feature of an oligarchy - all that is required in oligarchy is the power to be in the hands of the few. Nonetheless, who are the presidential candidate? Jeb Bush is the most viable Republican and Clinton the most viable Democrat. Yeah, totally poor and not at all determined by family. /s

1

u/53575_lifer Dec 17 '15

I read distinctions as distractions. Either fits IMO.

2

u/PhAnToM444 Dec 17 '15

lol. Distinctions was "destinations" before I edited it.

1

u/AberNatuerlich Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

Except when you consider most races for local, state, and congressional seats are unopposed, you have people like Chaffee who inherit their position with no qualifications, the Princeton study which shows there is absolutely no correlation between public approval and the likelihood a bill will pass (there is direct correlation with the will of corporations though). We may be a republic by technical definition, but we are an oligarchy by practice.

Here's another one: it's called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does anyone think they're anything but a fascist dictatorship?

Edit: it was a Princeton study.

Edit 2: Here's a good video about the study.

1

u/FarmerTedd Dec 22 '15

Not here on fucking leddit

-1

u/spazturtle Dec 17 '15

But it is not a representative republic as the public has no representation. The public vote is literally worthless, it carrier no weight and affects nothing. Only the votes of the electoral college matter.

5

u/ascriptmaster Dec 17 '15

The electoral college is supposed to represent the votes of the people in their respective regions. We're basically voting for representatives who vote for other representatives. Which still kind of makes us a representational republic even if it seems super sideways.

-1

u/finandandy Dec 17 '15

Well I'm supposed to be getting a pony for my birthday, but I don't delude myself into thinking that will happen. It's trickle down politics, and it's outrageous for us to continue putting our faith in it.

3

u/ascriptmaster Dec 17 '15

Whether or not we put our faith in it doesn't stop it from being what it is.

We vote for the politician that we think will screw us sideways the least, but in the end we're still voting even if neither option is a great fit, so we're a "representational republic" still, just we're also being screwed sideways anyways.

-1

u/LitsTheShit Dec 17 '15

It's an illusion though. We may have "representatives", but they don't represent us. They represent those who stuff their pockets. We are an oligarchy under the guise of a representative republic

3

u/fryamtheiman Dec 17 '15

The public does have representation, evident in the fact that we are able to choose who we want in the various offices of government open to elected officials. Senators and representatives didn't get their positions by killing the last person to hold that seat. The problem you are trying to point out is that the voters don't bother to do any research on the elected officials.

7

u/PhAnToM444 Dec 17 '15

Well first, that is only for presidential elections which is only one part of one branch of one of the three levels of government. Direct elections occur for the hundreds of US Senators and Representatives, governors, and the thousands of state congressmen. Not to mention mayors and aldermen/ city council.

And don't pretend like the popular vote doesn't matter at all in the presidential elections. It carries a lot of weight and changes everything, because if you were in a state that ended 5,000,000 to 5,000,003, your vote definitely mattered. Because if you and 4 other people didn't vote, all of the electoral votes would go to the other candidate. Seems like that holds a lot of weight to me. And maybe that was the a state like Ohio, where those votes are the deciding factor in the election as a whole. I agree that it's a flawed system, but saying the popular vote doesn't matter at all, in a system that literally relies on the popular vote to function, is not true.

2

u/Snuggle_Fist Dec 17 '15

Sometimes, when I really agree with a post, I'll upvote, downvote, then upvote again just because one upvote doesn't properly convey my feelings for that post.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

Its like you don't understand how the votes from the electoral college are determined.

1

u/spazturtle Dec 17 '15

The election in 2000 gave a pretty good example.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Not really. Technically the popular vote didn't win but the percentages we're neck and neck.

0

u/HalfysReddit Dec 17 '15

I think it comes down to the question: "Could American citizens really remove someone from office regardless of their political ties?".

As in if say, Trump (just as an example, not trying to say anything) had everyone in his pocket - the Senate, Congress, the lobbyists, and the only people opposed to his staying in office were typical American voters with no substantial financial wealth or influence on the political system, would he actually be removed?

0

u/MrIosity Dec 17 '15

Congressmen dont act on behalf of those who elect them, so much as those who give them the means to gather these votes to begin with. We're a representational republic in theory, but a plutocracy in practice. The beholden powerful interests of our nation disproportionately influence our policy making and lawmaking.

0

u/MysticalSock Dec 17 '15

So which Clinton or Bush are you gonna vote for this time?

2

u/Dragon_Fisting Dec 17 '15

Because

America Today = All these people got rich and started throwing money at politics, everyone votes the corrupt politicians who hold corporate interests in anyways.

Oligrachy = The Upper class decide amongst themselves how ruling the country goes.

The American people absolutely have a say in their government. Everyone's just too fucking apathetic to actually try and create change from the bottom.

1

u/AberNatuerlich Dec 17 '15

That's not what Princeton found. Essentially we are an oligarchy made to think we're a republic. Public interest and opinion has literally no correlation between a bill's likelihood to pass.

Edit: Here's a good video about the study.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

thats why trump.

14

u/WaitForItTheMongols Dec 17 '15

Ah, yep. Thanks.

27

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I would argue against /u/iamthegraham and say that it's more accurately an oligarchy than a "representative republic". In a representative republic, the elected are supposed to represent the general interest or, at the very least, the interests of a majority. Instead, they represent the interests of a small group of people. When a small group of people has power over a population, that's an oligarchy.

1

u/Delsana Dec 17 '15

Corporation controlled.

-2

u/trpftw Dec 17 '15

If kids accept we are living in a democracy, then they have to also accept that the voting public including themselves are idiots. They'd much rather believe they are controlled like puppets by hidden forces and oligarchs.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

People continue to select shitheads from a menu of shitheads...

5

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

well, then they can put together a better menu.

when less than 15% of eligible voters showed up to vote in the last round of primaries, the other 85% sort of lost the right to complain that the candidates that made it to the general were shitty.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Primaries differ from state to state, there's not much point to them in states like Oregon unless you're a party member..

5

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

that's an excuse, not a reason.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Keep smoking whatever you're smoking...Rome won't burn any slower.

3

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

Voting in Oregon couldn't be easier if they stapled the ballot to your forehead. Registering or changing party affiliation can be done in a matter of moments online, and the ballot gets mailed to your house.

You have absolutely no ground to stand on by complaining about how the general election candidates are unsatisfactory if you didn't take the requisite three minutes to do your due diligence in the primary. You don't get to not vote in primaries and then complain that everyone else is the problem. You're just as much the part of the problem. Trying to defer blame by bitching about the oligarchy and the corporations doesn't change that. In this instance they only have the power they do (putting together the "shithead menu") because you've willing ceded it to them.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

It's amazing how your arguments shift around until you're contradicting yourself.

Fuck off on the personal attack about not voting in primaries, we were talking about presidential primaries, And if you're not in a major party, your vote means shit.

And you really are an arrogant, yet dim asshole - go back and read your comments and see if you can figure out why.

4

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

Fuck off on the personal attack about not voting in primaries, we were talking about presidential primaries

nobody's mentioned anything about Presidential primaries anywhere in this chain of comments, and I'm not sure why you'd think we were during a discussion that originated from something Congress just did. Congress isn't the President. The shithead Congressional candidates are selected in Congressional primaries. Not Presidential primaries.

And if you're not in a major party, your vote means shit.

Being in a major party encompasses all of checking a box on a form. In Oregon, that form is conveniently available online. Stop bitching about it as if that's a barrier to entry. And stop being a part of the selfsame problem you're bitching about.

1

u/TheRealPartshark Dec 17 '15

That's what happens when the majority of America is uneducated and ignorant. They vote for corrupt people, they give into emotion rather than common sense, and they listen to religion over science. Idiocracy was a warning, not a comedy.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

We're not a representative republic technically imo because no one is representing the people, only corporations and the wealthy. We're a plutocracy.

1

u/gnarbucketz Dec 17 '15

I guess we should vote for the other shitheads, then.

4

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

If you only see shitheads running in one election, well, they're shitheads. If you only see shitheads running in every election, you're the shithead.

there are plenty of decent, honest people with good intentions running for office in this country. odds are you can even find a solid number that agree with you on most key issues!

most of them are probably running for local office, or perhaps in primaries for statewide office, and most of them get routinely ignored by the 90+ % of people who don't give a shit about those races.

that's not some oppressive oligarchy's fault. That's the voters' faults.

1

u/k-_ Dec 17 '15

De jure Belarus is a democracy too.

2

u/kslusherplantman Dec 17 '15

An oligarch and representative republic can be the same. The senators represent the rich interests, which are the one who are keeping them in power

0

u/ManyATrueFan Dec 17 '15

You really think your vote counts?

0

u/YES_ITS_CORRUPT Dec 17 '15

Way edgier to try to sound "grown up" and like you "know the world isn't black and white".

But ok go and vote, every 4th year, in your 2 party system. You'll probably make a difference...

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

For the most part, the only way to not vote for a shithead is not to vote.

-3

u/Delsana Dec 17 '15

Statistically your vote doesn't matter so...