Democracy's Darker Side and How It Has Been Exploited By Putin and the Far Right

by Nomad

"The Tyranny of the Minorities"

The other night, I was talking to a conservative friend about democracy. He has traveled the world and would be considered to be well-educated and successful. The subject turned to politics, something I loathe to discuss with locals given my delicate situation.
I usually prefer to listen in silence.

What Happens When Young People Lose Their Faith in Democracy

by Nomad

The Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), José Ángel Gurría, has thought a lot about a disturbing global trend: the crisis of public faith in democracy. 
What are the causes? What are the effects and what are the long-term implications? And, perhaps most importantly, after the recent rise of right-wing populism, how can trust in liberal democracies be restored?

Trump and the Lessons of the Rise of Benito Mussolini

by Nomad

Comparing Donald Trump to some of the more infamous dictators of the past is pretty standard fare nowadays. However, without even mentioning Trump by name, one blogger, Quintus Curtius, in an interesting blog post has made a few fascinating points about the Italian fascist Mussolini and the series of events that put him in absolute control.

Is Putin's Majoritarian Democracy the Alt-Right's Fast Track to Fascism in America?

by Nomad

In the hands of a corrupt leader, majoritarian democracy can be a very dangerous thing. Russian president Putin is all the proof the world needs. 

A Dangerous Idea in the Wrong Hands

Most Americans take a positive view of democracy. Everybody wants to live in a democracy. Yet, it might surprise a lot of people to learn that, in its purest form, the democratic idea can actually be a dangerous thing.
The term, majoritarian democracy, for example, refers to a democratic form of government based upon majority rule of a society's citizens.
Pedro Schwartz, a professor in the Department of Economics at the University San Pablo in Madrid, explains:

Many modern constitutions proclaim that sovereignty is ultimately vested on the people. In that case, the power of the people must also be divided if liberty is to endure. Democracy can therefore not be defined as the rule by majority vote. Neither does it imply that the vote of the majority is "an authoritative expression of what is right".

Strictly speaking, majoritarian democracy is defined as the concept that anything more than a 51 percent share of the popular vote entitles the election winner to rule without interference.
For far right-wing parties, who claim this to be no-nonsense democracy, it has proved to be an extremely useful concept to justify their agenda.

Justice Louis Brandeis on the Choice We Have

by Nomad

Langston Hughes on Democracy

by Nomad

The Vitally Important Lessons that Syrian Refugees Have to Teach America

by Nomad

A recent article from Detroit reminds us that Syrian refugees have something important to teach all of us about where we came from, who we now are and what we will become.

The arrests of two Iraqi refugees on charges of providing material support to ISIS this week has provided new impetus for governors to attempt to block Syrian refugee efforts. Their crusade, which runs counter to their actual authority, has naturally met with some serious stumbling-blocks.
Those obstacles are unlikely to force them to stop. For  some time now we have all watched as Republicans seized upon the Syrian refugees as a political issue, stoking as much as possible public fears. 

One state, Michigan, has taken in about 200 Syrian refugees, one of the highest of all states in the U.S. In November, after the Paris attacks, Governor Snyder -like many governors- demanded a halt to accepting any further Syrian refugees. 

Snyder cited security concerns and the possibility of terrorist infiltration. Never mind that there were already rigorous checks and screenings. Never mind that in the Paris attacks, only one of the 13 terrorists was born outside of France and Abdelhamid Abaaoud was born in Belgium, not in the Middle East, and definitely not in Syria.

Facts, facts, facts, what untidy things they are.

Meanwhile we have armed militias dressed up as soldiers seizing federal property in Oregon and advocating rising up" against the tyranny of the federal government. Nobody on the Right, as far as I know, has suggested deportation for these louts.

JFK and the Ignorance of Voters

by Nomad

Aaron Swartz: Thoughts on the Death of an Idealist

by Nomad

The tragic story of Aaron Swartz, and the events that led up to him taking his life,  got me thinking deep thoughts about the age we live in. 

When Stealing isn't

The digital age has clearly thrown many past concepts into disarray. Particularly when it comes to the definition property and the definition of ownership. No small matter because after all, property ownership is the basis of capitalism.
If ownership of property is a concept that has been turned on its head then so has the idea of stealing the property. 
Most people can understand the concept of stealing. 

You got it. 

I want it. 
I take it. 
Now you don’t got it.

As most of us know, stealing normally involves the taking of property that the thief has no right to. It also implies that the original owner is deprived of that property by the act of theft.

So when a top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts in charge of a computer hacking investigation blankly states that “stealing is stealing, whether it was done with a computer or with a crowbar” many people might completely agree. It sounds right. Stealing is stealing, except....

Yet, in the brave new world of the digital medium, (songs, books or images) can be copied endlessly and in seconds, and that copy is exactly the same as the original, without any damage to the original, is it theft or is it something else?

True, while no property is actually lost, its relative value may (or may not) have decreased when everybody has free access to it. 

If somebody broke into your home and made an illegal but perfectly exact copy of your prized Chinese vase, would it be stealing? Would damage to the owner be the same as if somebody had broke into your home and snatched- or smashed- that vase?

What happens if you had wanted to keep my original vase behind closed doors and only let your special friends view it? Or make people pay money to get a peek? Would it be so immoral to make a copy so that the rest of the world could appreciate it? 

According to law, it would qualify as outright theft. That’s the message that the film and music industry, (which has supposedly taken a bit hit from illegal digital copying), has spent millions of dollars in advertising to push: Copying is stealing. 

If you want to argue, you are condoning criminal activity. You are making Beyonce go hungry. Copying a film, they say, is equal to stealing a DVD from a store. You are spitting in the face of Nicholas Cage when you do it. For the industry, the issue is black and white. 

Many technophiles, however, would beg to disagree. 

Few could argue that duplicating somebody else's creation and selling it on the cheap is ethically wrong. True creative artists deserve compensation, after all. Additionally most of us can see the harm done to the actual value of the property if the robber then made millions of copies of the hypothetical vase and gave them away. 

And that is the main problem.

It wasn't a moral or ethical question at all. It's a question of profit-making, pure and simple.

That is what has the "haves" so very upset.

What the NRA Doesn’t Want You to Know: The Fallacy of Democracy and Gun-Ownership Rights

by Nomad

We have all heard it. The conventional wisdom states- or at least, implies, that private gun ownership is a protection against tyranny. 
It’s an idea that the NRA likes to propagate. People take it for granted that it must be true. 
Apparently, they'll tell you, our founding fathers believed as much. Why else did they include the second amendment if they didn't. It's easy for them to ignore the part that says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Interestingly, however, despite the mentality that claims that democracy must be protected by citizens bearing automatic weapons, the evidence doesn’t support this link at all. In fact, our own actions in Iraq and in past nation-building, prove that we don’t really believe it ourselves.

The Angry Right Wing Voter: Have We Gone Too Far? 2/2

by Nomad

In the previous post, we examined the problem of rage, hate and anger that seems to have become an integral part of American politics these days. The questions I want to look at in this post deals with the sources for this anger. Apart from the general state of the economy, where does all this bitterness come from? Who is inciting this overreaction? How exactly do politicians benefit from the angry mob? 

Well Springs of Anger

One of the problems with having a two-party system is the strong possibility of polarization; when the middle ground dissolves and the only voices you hear are the most strident and angry. 
This puts the mainstream media- which has long surrendered its impartiality to its commercial demands- in something of a quandary. A sensible discussion is next to impossible.

Present the unadulterated truth, and one side is insulted and claims bias. The next best thing is to try to give equal time to both sides. But in the past, this too has made neither side particularly happy. 

The Uncomfortable Truth about Iran: How the US Lost a World

 by Nomad

Amid all the advertisements for gas-guzzling cars, there is an interesting editorial from LIFE magazine, dated May 21, 1951. The title:

"How to Lose a World: Our Government's Deplorable Performance in Iran Has Contributed To a Great Disaster."

At that time, because of its location and its petroleum, Iran was caught between two great millstones of conflicting ideologies, Capitalism and Communism.

Britain, heavily reliant on Iranian oil, had directly controlled the oil monopoly through the British Anglo-Iranian Oil company (later to become BP) but now, suddenly the rules of the game had changed.The author neatly summarized the lead-up to the foreign policy disaster like this: