Friday, December 19, 2008

First Ideas On Plutocracy (Jan 2, 2007)

Judicial "Reform" and Welfare Reform: Notice the links to "corporation" from "plutocracy"
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:08 AM
From:
"loree baird"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
eaglelaw@qwest.net, dslader@spiritone.com, dick.whittemore@bullivant.com
I've never had a political science or psychology course in all my academic education, but I'm interested now...

I think the government is already a plutocracy, and that the aspects of socialism that seem to grow in some areas, are managed and held in tight control by the plutocracy. I don't know of a country that has had a democracy for a longer period than the u.s., and the u.s. would be naive to think capitalism and democracy can coexist over a long period of time without a particular evolution in the political climate (or, degeneration). It's already obvious, and it's not going to get better over the time. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class is already starting to decline. Many people are bought by money. Those with money will buy the people, who, eager for a part in the pie of capitalism, do not have the virtue or conscience to prevent corruption. For the (rich) people, by the (rich) people... And the justice system has already been bought, and was purchased a long time ago, and I'm not talking about "by the blood of our ancestors and the founding fathers". While the rest of the u.s. may not be absolutely controlled by plutocracy, yet, the justice system already is, and when the justice system is owned by the rich, there is NO democracy.

As for increasing the pay of judges, proposed by John Roberts, (?), at first I thought no judge I've ever seen deserves a RAISE of all things. They haven't earned it. If anything, they should be paid less. THEN, I read the reasoning... and saw the point of attracting "smarter" judges to the bench. However, isn't it interesting...that while Judge Roberts can perhaps convince others to raising the pay for judges, the same arguments for how it would benefit the climate could be applied to raising the pay for Welfare recipients? I'm not going to go into my argue about how it's related, but it is. It's sort of like comparing corporate welfare and welfare because it's all about how money influences motives. Anyway, increasing the pay to attract smarter candidates for the judiciary is not going to necessarily attract those with better morals. But, as for getting smarter judges, probably most lawyers would agree. Not all, but most of the judges I've been exposed to, are dimwits. And that was SHOCKING (at first, until I talked to other lawyers who laughed and said it was true and just accept it). I was told some of the federal judges are a little smarter than the district/state judges. Don't know how true, but maybe it's so. However, even if the federal judges are smarter...it would then be interesting because from what I've read, the FBI charges federal judges with crimes and having taken bribes, etc, more than the other judges. Also, maybe the college professors of law get more money, because they are better candidates for more money because maybe those who are smarter are attracted to the actual profession of teaching more than the practice of judging. As I've seen, there is a huge discrepency in what is theory and practice in law, and maybe those with more ideals prefer to work in an environment where they can focus on the noble aspects of law and don't have to deal with the crap in the courts. SO, therefore, maybe the solution is not to pay federal judges more, but to change the system so the actual practice and climate is more appealing to those who are smarter and more idealistic and who would gravitate towards "making a difference" if they thought it could be done in the courts. So, instead of money, mabye Judicial Welform people. Love hearing all about "Welfare Reform". Let's start talking "Judicial Reform" and maybe we'll cut salaries as long as the public and attorneys have to abide by incompetent and corrupt judges, until they "improve themselves" and can be "independent" and "self-sufficient" rather than just taking a hand-out from the taxpayers.

here, here.

Wikipedia Directory > Reference > Wikipedia
plutocracy
A plutocracy is a form of government where the state's power is centralized in an affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy itself is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.
Usage
The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two distinct concepts: a historical term and a modern political term.
Historical
Traditionally, plutocracy is the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece and the Italian merchant republics of Venice, Florence, and Genoa. Plutocracies typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anomie.[citation needed] Aristocracies are an example of plutocracies that typically develop early in the history of a nation state.
Kevin Phillips, author and political stategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there has been "the fusion of money and government." [1]
Modern Political
The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to the great and undue influence (both positive and negative) the wealthy have on the political process in contemporary society. Positive influence includes campaign contributions and bribes; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues. Recent examples include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK[2] and the United States or George Soros' efforts to back left-leaning PACs (political action committees) and the oil industry oligarchy which may back right-leaning PACs.
Recently, there have been numerous cases of wealthy individuals and organizations exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favorable legislation. (see: Lobbying) Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives; however it would be unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these contributions. The more cynical might describe these donations as bribes, although legally they are not. In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions, these reforms are often called clean money, clean elections reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not adress the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources.

No comments: