SLAVERY REPARATIONS COULD COST UP TO $14 TRILLION

[Seth]

problem is that republics don't have to be democratic in principle and democracies don't have to be republican in form

either way, he has a case that I could rest that Merka is actually a plutocratic oligarchy rather than the democratic republic that its founding texts claim it to be.

That would require that the alleged plutocrats and oligarchs actually control society, which they don't. You mistake public preference, expressed "democratically" by consumers voting with their wallets as granting to the producers something more than the consumer's temporary approval of whatever product the producer presents to them.

American businessmen are not "oligarchs" because they have no more (and no less) legal power or authority than any other individual under our laws. Neither Donald Trump nor Elon Musk has the power or authority to make, much less enforce any law at all. Nor are they "plutocrats" because their vote is just one vote, just like everyone else's vote and all their money can't change that and give them two or more votes.

It's a popular canard of Marxists to make such specious claims simply because Donald Trump and Elon Musk have enough money to make their voices heard in the political arena to a greater extent than a single not-wealthy individual. But this ability does not make them oligarchs or plutocrats because all they can ever do with all their money is seek to persuade others to support their positions. They have absolutely no power to "buy" elections or force anyone to vote for them who doesn't freely wish to do so.

[Seth]

Yeah, that's probably more relevant. Perhaps Seth could reflect (to himself, please) how a corrupt corporatocracy is somehow better than a constitutional democratic federation.

First you'd have to support your specious and false claim that a "corrupt corporatocaracy" exists in the US. Then you'd have to show evidence that I've ever argued that a "corrupt corporatocracy" is somehow better than anything.

Good luck with that because neither is true.

[pErvinalia]

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy...........

Do you guys learn this nonsense in school? Keep hearing Merkins who don't know what democracy can mean.

We know exactly what "democracy" means: "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members."

That's why we aren't a democracy, we are a Republic that utilizes some restricted democratic processes in our political decision making.

Republics are democracies too.

No, Republics are not democracies, at least ours isn't. We just use some aspects of democracy in our political decision making, but unlike actual democracy it is not unconstrained majority rule.

This is the bit you don't understand. "Democracy" doesn't mean "unconstrained majority rule". Get a dictionary ffs. Your Republic is most definitely (nominally) a democracy, but you are half right when you claim it isn't. As Svarty said it's a plutocratic oligarchic corporatocracy.

[Seth]

This is the bit you don't understand. "Democracy" doesn't mean "unconstrained majority rule". Get a dictionary ffs.

You mean like this dictionary definition?

de·moc·ra·cy
noun
noun: democracy

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
synonyms: representative government, elective government; More
self-government, government by the people;
republic, commonwealth
"freedom of speech is essential to democracy"
antonyms: dictatorship
a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"
control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"
the practice or principles of social equality.
"demands for greater democracy"

Origin
late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
Translate democracy to
Use over time for: democracy
- private

Or perhaps this one:

noun, plural democracies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Or how about this one:

Full Definition of democracy

plural de·moc·ra·cies

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2
: a political unit that has a democratic government

3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Ooooh, here's a good one from the OED you will like:

democracy
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: /dəˈmäkrəsē/
Definition of democracy in English:
noun (plural democracies)
1A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world
More example sentences
Synonyms
1.1A state governed by a democracy: a multiparty democracy
More example sentences
1.2Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members: the intended extension of industrial democracy
More example sentences
1.3The practice or principles of social equality: demands for greater democracy
More example sentences
Origin

Late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos 'the people' + -kratia 'power, rule'.

Your Republic is most definitely (nominally) a democracy,

No, it's a Republic that uses some limited democratic mechanisms in our political decision making.

but you are half right when you claim it isn't. As Svarty said it's a plutocratic oligarchic corporatocracy.

A false claim you have been entirely unable to support with any credible evidence whatsoever.

[pErvinalia]

This is the bit you don't understand. "Democracy" doesn't mean "unconstrained majority rule". Get a dictionary ffs.

You mean like this dictionary definition?

de·moc·ra·cy
noun
noun: democracy

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
synonyms: representative government, elective government; More
self-government, government by the people;
republic, commonwealth
"freedom of speech is essential to democracy"
antonyms: dictatorship
a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"
control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"
the practice or principles of social equality.
"demands for greater democracy"

Origin
late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
Translate democracy to
Use over time for: democracy
- private

Doesn't say unconstrained anywhere. And see my highlight.

Or perhaps this one:

Same for the rest.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies...

Embedded in one of your dictionary quotes. I suppose you are going to cherry pick the bits you like...

But again, your key point is that your system of government has built-in restraints to democratically elected governments trampling on individual rights.

So do all the other developed democracies, in their own way. You may say that you prefer yours, fair enough, but it is absurd to suggest that all the other stable, well-established western democracies are trembling on the edge of marxist dictatorships just because their systems of government are different to yours.

[Seth]

This is the bit you don't understand. "Democracy" doesn't mean "unconstrained majority rule". Get a dictionary ffs.

You mean like this dictionary definition?

de·moc·ra·cy
noun
noun: democracy

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
synonyms: representative government, elective government; More
self-government, government by the people;
republic, commonwealth
"freedom of speech is essential to democracy"
antonyms: dictatorship
a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"
control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"
the practice or principles of social equality.
"demands for greater democracy"

Origin
late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
Translate democracy to
Use over time for: democracy
- private

Doesn't say unconstrained anywhere. And see my highlight.

Doesn't say "constrained" anywhere either. Just because the majority might act tyrannically through elected representatives to abuse the minority doesn't make it any more morally legitimate.

The roots demonstrate that the core meaning is "rule by the people."

The reason I don't acknowledge the US as a "democracy" is because it isn't a democracy because while democratic methods are used, it is not in fact "rule by the people" because that implies that everyone is subject to "rule by the (other) people" and that simply is not, and has never been the case in the US. This is so precisely because essential and fundamental rights of individuals are entirely beyond and immune from the popular vote.

To call the US a democracy is to suggest that majority rule rules when it most certainly does not. You have argued in the past that the will of the majority should take precedence over the rights of the individual in many cases, particularly when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. This is an expression of the socialist notion that "democracy" is unconstrained and that the majority is always right and must always be obeyed.

We don't subscribe to that philosophy and therefore is it inappropriate to call the US a "democracy" because it mischaracterizes what the US is and how it operates.

We use strictly limited democratic processes of public voting on issues in our political activities, but ALL of those votes are bound by the fundamental premises of the United States, which is that the individual is the default protected party in all government actions and that the rights of the individual cannot be abrogated or violated merely because that's what the public wants.

If I were to agree that the US was a "democracy" I would bet your RIGHT nut (the left already being mine) that the very next thing you would try to argue is the supremacy of the will of the collective over the rights of the minority because that's "democratic" and "fair."

So I don't agree because that's also a misrepresentation of how the US actually works.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies...

Embedded in one of your dictionary quotes. I suppose you are going to cherry pick the bits you like...

But again, your key point is that your system of government has built-in restraints to democratically elected governments trampling on individual rights.

So do all the other developed democracies, in their own way. You may say that you prefer yours, fair enough, but it is absurd to suggest that all the other stable, well-established western democracies are trembling on the edge of marxist dictatorships just because their systems of government are different to yours.

It's the "in their own way" that's important. In point of fact none of the other "stable, well-established western democracies" subscribe to the supremacy of the individual or, for that matter, the source from which all legitimate government power flows.

This is seen in the UN Charter of Human Rights itself, which is constructed with the presumption that government is legitimate and that its power is inherent, and that "human rights" must be declared and listed and that where not listed, and where government is not explicitly prohibited from interfering with those "human rights" government has plenary authority to do whatever the fuck it pleases and the people whom it rules don't have a damned thing to say about it unless the UN says they do.

And if a government arrogates to itself the source of all political power and control it by its very nature and function subjugates the individual to the interests of the government. And that is the case in every "stable, well-established western democracy" I'm familiar with.

In the US the individual is NEVER subjugated to the power and control of the government because it is the people themselves, as individuals and collectively, consentint to the grants of authority to the government, who are the sole source of all legitimate government power and authority, and the people are perfectly free and entitled to amend, control, constrain or revoke any and all authorities that government exercises in their interests at any time they please.

We could tomorrow get together and abolish the federal government entirely if that is our collective will because the government has no existence, much less power, other than what we, the people, allow it to exercise.

I don't think that's the case anywhere else in the world. Certainly not in any monarchy like England, despite it being "ruled" by Parliament.

However benevolent such systems may be they bear the poisoned seeds of tyranny at their very core because such societies are based on the precept that the government is inherently legitimate and has the power to exercise ALL possible powers and authorities EXCEPT perhaps those explicitly removed by the people.

In the US, the federal government has authority to exercise absolutely no powers whatsoever other than those specifically and explicitly granted to it by the Constitution.

[pErvinalia]

This is the bit you don't understand. "Democracy" doesn't mean "unconstrained majority rule". Get a dictionary ffs.

You mean like this dictionary definition?

de·moc·ra·cy
noun
noun: democracy

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
synonyms: representative government, elective government; More
self-government, government by the people;
republic, commonwealth
"freedom of speech is essential to democracy"
antonyms: dictatorship
a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"
control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"
the practice or principles of social equality.
"demands for greater democracy"

Origin
late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
Translate democracy to
Use over time for: democracy
- private

Doesn't say unconstrained anywhere. And see my highlight.

Doesn't say "constrained" anywhere either. Just because the majority might act tyrannically through elected representatives to abuse the minority doesn't make it any more morally legitimate.

The roots demonstrate that the core meaning is "rule by the people."

The reason I don't acknowledge the US as a "democracy" is because it isn't a democracy because while democratic methods are used, it is not in fact "rule by the people" because that implies that everyone is subject to "rule by the (other) people" and that simply is not, and has never been the case in the US. This is so precisely because essential and fundamental rights of individuals are entirely beyond and immune from the popular vote.

To call the US a democracy is to suggest that majority rule rules when it most certainly does not. You have argued in the past that the will of the majority should take precedence over the rights of the individual in many cases, particularly when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. This is an expression of the socialist notion that "democracy" is unconstrained and that the majority is always right and must always be obeyed.

We don't subscribe to that philosophy and therefore is it inappropriate to call the US a "democracy" because it mischaracterizes what the US is and how it operates.

We use strictly limited democratic processes of public voting on issues in our political activities, but ALL of those votes are bound by the fundamental premises of the United States, which is that the individual is the default protected party in all government actions and that the rights of the individual cannot be abrogated or violated merely because that's what the public wants.

If I were to agree that the US was a "democracy" I would bet your RIGHT nut (the left already being mine) that the very next thing you would try to argue is the supremacy of the will of the collective over the rights of the minority because that's "democratic" and "fair."

So I don't agree because that's also a misrepresentation of how the US actually works.

Tl;dr It doesn't need to say constrained, as you claimed it was unconstrained and your own fucking links don't support that.

[rainbow]

In the US the individual is NEVER subjugated to the power and control of the government because it is the people themselves, as individuals and collectively, consentint to the grants of authority to the government, who are the sole source of all legitimate government power and authority, and the people are perfectly free and entitled to amend, control, constrain or revoke any and all authorities that government exercises in their interests at any time they please.

Sometimes I think you're for real, and then you come up with gems like the above.

Thank you for brightening up my otherwise bleak day.


The problem is though, even if your remarks are tongue in cheek, there are certainly enough dim-witted Merkins who do believe this drivel and might end up voting for Rughead.

[Hermit]

I call the short version as one aspect of the law of the jungle. In civilised nations we have different laws. There is no such thing as "adverse possession" in Australia.

Wrong!

Look for the length of time required. Where it is possible to obtain land by adverse possession, there are time requirements (limitation periods) involved:

Victoria, 15 years[1]
South Australia, 15 years[2]
New South Wales, 12 years[3]
Western Australia, 12 years[4]
Tasmania, 12 years[5]
Queensland, 12 years[6]

Turns out I was wrong and you are right. Thanks for providing the evidence. I am always happy to learn.

You don't even know your own laws.

If you find something of value, you hand it in to the nearest appropriate place for handling it, and you get a receipt for doing so. If the rightful owner cannot be located within two years, you can claim it.

In other words you can claim title to it if it's been abandoned, like I said.

"Adverse possession" applies to real property (land) not lost or found property, but even when it comes to found property you still get it if the owner cannot be found, which means of course that the owner has failed to keep possession and defend title to the lost property. That's exactly what I've been saying.

As for appropriating someone else's land other than by consent, no law permits us to do that either. We have no need to defend title to our property against someone who thinks he / she becomes entitled to it on the ground that we don't defend it. Our law does not allow such conduct. People who do try that finish up in front of a judge and face the real possibility being gaoled.

Wrong again.

Adverse possession
Adverse possession is a legal principle that enables the occupier of a piece of land to obtain ownership if uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the land for at least 15 years can be proven.

We didn't make it up, it comes directly from English law...and before that. It's quite an ancient principle.

Better luck next time. Oh, when can I expect your contrite admission that you were completely and utterly wrong?

[Seth]

In the US the individual is NEVER subjugated to the power and control of the government because it is the people themselves, as individuals and collectively, consentint to the grants of authority to the government, who are the sole source of all legitimate government power and authority, and the people are perfectly free and entitled to amend, control, constrain or revoke any and all authorities that government exercises in their interests at any time they please.

Sometimes I think you're for real, and then you come up with gems like the above.

Thank you for brightening up my otherwise bleak day.


The problem is though, even if your remarks are tongue in cheek, there are certainly enough dim-witted Merkins who do believe this drivel and might end up voting for Rughead.

That was not a very good description I admit. What I meant was that the people, as a whole, are never subjects of the government, they are government's master and government serves them only to the extent that the people themselves authorize and permit it to do so, which is the antithesis of, for example, a monarchy, where the monarch claims absolute power and authority and may (or may not) cede certain power to his or her subjects, as in the Magna Carta.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

[Seth]

I call the short version as one aspect of the law of the jungle. In civilised nations we have different laws. There is no such thing as "adverse possession" in Australia.

Turns out I was wrong and you are right. Thanks for providing the evidence. I am always happy to learn.

You're very welcome.

[Forty Two]

http://europe.newsweek.com/slavery-repa ... ion-331766

SLAVERY REPARATIONS COULD COST UP TO $14 TRILLION

In 1865, toward the end of the Civil War, Union Army General William Tecumseh Sherman promised slaves that they’d receive 40 acres and a mule. Land was even set aside, but the promise was recanted by President Andrew Johnson. Ever since, the issue of reparations has come up many times, often fiercely debated. Although most Americans generally don’t support reparations, according to University of Connecticut researcher Thomas Craemer, it matters greatly how the question is worded, who would get reparations and in what form. For example, the idea of reparations paid in educational benefits are more popular than others, Craemer says.

On the other hand, one of the cases often made against reparations is that it'd be impractically difficult to calculate how to fairly take and give so many years after the fact. But in a new paper, published in the journal Social Science Quarterly, Craemer makes the case that there are other examples of historical reparations paid many decades later after “damages” were incurred. He also has come up with what he says is the most economically sound estimate to date of what reparations could cost: between $5.9 trillion and $14.2 trillion.

Craemer came up with those figures by tabulating how many hours all slaves—men, women and children—worked in the United States from when the country was officially established in 1776 until 1865, when slavery was officially abolished. He multiplied the amount of time they worked by average wage prices at the time, and then a compounding interest rate of 3 percent per year (more than making up for inflation). There is a range because the amount of time worked isn’t a hard figure.

Previous estimates of reparations have ranged from around $36 billion to $10 trillion (in 2009 dollars), Craemer says. Those calculations mostly looked at wealth created by slaves as opposed to services provided, resulting in underestimates. Craemer believes that “the economic assumptions underlying [his method] are more sound” than those used in previous papers.

The paper also illustrates several historical examples in which reparations were paid, many decades later, despite being initially unpopular—showing that repayment of age-old claims is not without precedent.

(continued)

Is the US the only nation that should pay reparations? When slavery began in the US, the US was a colony of the British Empire, and slavery was allowed in the colonies under British law. Slavery was not a creation of the the US. The US, like Suriname, Brazil, the British, French and Dutch Caribbean, Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, most of the Arab countries, etc.... etc. etc....

And is black slavery the only slavery that should be the subject of reparations? What of most of human history, wherein slavery was the norm?

[Tyrannical]

The question is, where will the blacks get 14 trillion to pay for those reparations? That's 350k per black in America, no one would pay that.