>>>Then what do you suggest ?
>>>Only power to 'enlightened'
>>>people (such as yourself ?),
>>>who know what's best for
>>>the ignorant masses ?
>>
>>How about making a document of
>>laws, have the people agree
>>to those laws and ideals,
>>and then make sure that
>>every law and act is
>>in strict accordance to those
>>laws. That way, the
>>law is actually the power
>>of the land, and not
>>the people who make them.
>> Oh yeah, we already
>>have done that. It's
>>called the Constitution.
>
>Read my question again ...
>Please at least try to
>answer it.

You asked me to come up with a suggestion, and I did. I said leave it as it is.

>>Because you cannot trust every individual
>>mind to do the right
>>thing. This is Earth,
>>not Candy Land. Not
>>everyone is nice, and sweet,
>>and going to do everything
>>for everyone else's interests.
>>Therefore to put full trust
>>in people is being naive.
>>That's why this is
>>a nation of laws, not
>>men.
>
>You don't trust a SINGLE person,
>what's worse ?

Being naive and gullible.

>Last time I checked, Nike was
>an American company, not an
>Indonesian one.

BUT they are conducting business on Indonesian territory. Therefore, the Indonesian government has jurisdiction, not the US government.

>You act like there's no such
>thing as globalisation, you completely
>ignore the ties between big
>corporations and local governments.

I don't ignore it, I said it goes on. However, you cannot effectively tie that into the responsibilities of the US government. If the US government has to correct every mistake that another government makes, then there is no reason why that foreign government should even be given soverignty in it's respective country. It is THEIR job to govern THEIR own people, and that includes the violations and crimes committed there also.

>Indeed, that government AND the companies
>involved. Which means that
>the governments of the countries
>where the companies are located
>are involved too.

That's right, and the citizens of that country should hold their government accountable for those injustices. You can't blame that on the US government when they don't have jurisdiction in that country.

>You said it yourself : governments
>should control or check the
>(il)legality of companies' acts.

WITHIN THE COUNTRY. There is no feasible way to hold investigations and what not outside the country. I repeat, that's not within US jurisdiction.

>IF they represent the public accurately,
>that same public will be
>the one to judge.

But once again, who is to say that the public is represented accurately?? How will the public be able to judge?

>No, that's called consensus/compromise.
>Which is completely different from censorship,
>since it's been discussed, not
>imposed.

It doesn't matter if it is discussed or not, it's still censorship when you take them off the airwaves. Once again, who is to judge the content to decide whether or not it fits within the guidelines of the "public's" approval? Referendum? Survey? Committee? What?

>The taxes you pay are being
>used to finance projects, executed
>by companies.
>
>All Western industrialized governments have very
>close ties with their respective
>industries (understatement) : government officials
>go to new plants, have
>dinner with managers, ...
>
>All of this has evolved to
>a situation where governments represent
>the business interests of a
>country, or better : where
>big business has managed to
>use the government for its
>own expansion and wellbeing.

The country's economy is dependent on the success of its highest achieving businesses, that's why. Like I said before, the economy can only do as well as it's highest achievers. If they aren't succeeding, then that means the lowest ones aren't either. That's what makes them low. Hence, when companies like Microsoft makes money, everyone makes money, because they bring in more wealth into the economy to be circulated between the corporation itself, which will go to the labor, the businesses it got its materials from, and from them to other businesses.

>>It doesn't matter if they are
>>sick of it or not,
>>the point is that if
>>they are not willing to
>>stay active and keep up
>>with politics then they have
>>no right complaining to the
>>rest of the world.

>What's the use of being active,
>if that only results in
>harassment, intimidation or ridiculisation ?

There is no harrassment or intimidation in reading a newspaper. There is no intimidation or harrassment in going to the poll and casting a concealed ballot. That is just excuses.

>>There are newspapers, magazines, television,
>>radio, internet, and other forms
>>of information just waiting for
>>them to open up and
>>access. If they can't
>>take the time to open
>>up a book and read,
>>then it is noone's fault
>>but their own.
>
>Some people don't have the time
>or access to what you
>mentioned, cos they got their
>3 jobs to take care
>of. And they need
>to work 3 jobs cos
>the minimum wage is so
>low.
>Those internet connected PC's at the
>library are occupied 24/7, plus
>people who work 60 hours
>a week for a minimum
>wage probably have other things
>on their minds than checking
>out what sweatshops Nike uses
>in Indonesia. They just
>wanna chill, they've worked hard
>all week.

Hey, sometimes you can't just "chill". You got to do what has to be done whether you like it or not. We'll talk about minimum wage later.
As for the internet access, buy a computer. You can get a computer that will grant you internet access for as low as $400/mth. Work and save for it. Otherwise, I suggest you sign up on the waiting list or reserve a time at the library. Either way is feasible.

>I'm no different : I'm not
>debating or reading all the
>time. Part of it
>is part of my job,
>but I don't expect anyone
>to be informing themselves whenever
>they have some time off.

Well I do. If you want to get ahead in life, you're going to have to do things that other people WON'T do. That's why there are people that are ahead of the pack, because they do the lil things that other people dont.

>>Well then what other possibility is
>>there? If there is
>>another way to effectively represent
>>the people through democratic means,
>>then please inform me.
>
>There's different ways of organising a
>referendum, different ways of registering
>people.
>If it ever happens, it will
>take some time to work
>out, since the US have
>never known such a thing.
>So, considering its amount of people
>and its diversity, you'll have
>to develop and search for
>a specific way to organize
>democracy. Don't expect me
>to come with an instant
>recipe.

Well, when you find one, please inform me. The concept of democracy has been going on for the past.....I'd say 200 years? Starting with the French Revolution? Therefore, I'd say that if there was a better way, either they haven't found it, and/or tried to find one.

>All I'm saying is that you'll
>have to look for efficient
>AND democratic ways. But
>you already seem to exclude
>that, in other words :
>you don't even want to
>try.

Because, you cannot place the future of the world in men's thoughts and dreams alone, you must have something concrete in line to keep principles solid. That's what a constitutional republic does. It makes sure that people cannot go over the head of the laws of the land.

>>What companies are deciding how much
>>you pay in taxes?
>>Not one.

>Since companies are part of the
>government OR (rephrased) the government
>defends big business' interests :
>the amount of taxes depends
>on how much money is
>needed for their projects.

The amount of taxes given to businesses are definitely exaggerated. Besides, if those funds given to businesses allow them to bring in a positive return, then it only helps out everybody, including the nation's economy.

I'll be back with Part 2 in about an hr.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.