This is very complex. In principle, you are 100% correct. But at the same time, a perfect democracy would be an absolute disaster. The average person is not qualified to make a judgement call on most issues of state. Now, if you are going to expect to have citizens give their input on every major issue, or set up citizen groups to act on their behalf, every time a decision needs to be made, the Government would grind to a halt. A room full of democrats seldom reaches a happy consensus. Often it's a case of he who shouts loudest wins the day. More than that, imagine scenarios such as war. While you are debating whether to fight back against a perceived threat, you've already been invaded and occupied.
Then consider that over time population group percentages of the total will change. You already see an influx of Latino's, Middle Eastern refugees, and so on. It can therefore only be expected that opinion will change accordingly.
Agreed, what goes on now is not acceptable but exactly where do you find the balance? In my opinion, totalitarian regimes have the advantage in that they can make quick decisions. It sounds like that's exactly the behind-the-scenes under-the-covers scenario in American politics as well. But heck, these are people we are talking about. Human nature as we know it is far from perfect and the standards you are expecting are beyond anything that's likely been before us and lies ahead of us.
That doesn't mean that I disagree with your intent. We must always strive to improve. But let's understand that perfection is not possible. Some compromise of sorts will have to happen and the people at the top will have to have some kind of licence to make quick decisions on matters they consider urgent. The emphasis should rather be on putting trustworthy people in positions of authority. With the advent of modern technology, surely machines that can read minds can't be far off. We'll probably find that no one is clean enough to be President, but that's for another day.
But it seems to me you are reacting to a different piece, one that I didn't write. The argument you are criticizing is the view that democratic citizens should weigh in directly on every issue. But I never suggested that. What my piece is saying is that it has been tremendously costly for democratic Western citizens to allow the bureaucrats to spend their money in secret. That is an entirely different point. Whether or not the citizens weigh in on every issue, it is a very bad idea to let the bureaucrats spend our money in secret. Just look at the results! And I have proposed that spending our money in secret should be unconstitutional. That's what my essay is about.
Having reread your article I will agree that you use the money aspect increasingly as the article develops. You start however by saying that this 1947 law stripped US citizens of all their democratic rights. Then you further say that the Act gave US intelligence explicit authority to begin any action, at any time, without asking anybody. That for me is the nutshell. The launch pad for what follows.
Common sense allows that money would be expected to be involved in many instances, but not every action of corruption or manipulation necessarily needs money. Threats at this level no doubt work wonders. Failing businesses or a few dead whistleblowers send strong messages regardless of any financial rewards. Besides, acts of treason can be rewarded by favors down the line, not specifically cash on delivery.
It's your article so I guess you know what you mean.
Thanks for your reply. I think this exchange is useful.
We are missing each other again. I am not talking about money.
When I said "costly" in my reply to you, above, I didn't mean that US Intelligence is costing us a lot of money. That has certainly happened, but money itself is not my main focus.
I did mention the absolutely staggering amounts of money that are spent each year on US Intelligence, but I did so to emphasize that this is enough money to corrupt EVERYTHING. As you point out, threats (not just bribes) can also be used to exert control. One of our articles documents how both were used to take over the National Student Association, as revealed by a famous Ramparts investigation way back in 1967 (before I was even born!).
But notice that even where secret threats are involved, money matters, because US Intelligence needs to pay (and pay for the training of) the specific individuals who do the threatening (and the monitoring of the threatened individuals), and who then carry out those threats when deemed necessary.
So my larger point is, with respect to money, that US citizens have allowed the bureaucrats to spend it in secret. The Intelligence bureaucrats and field agents don't have to ask anyone before they do their stuff in secret. And that's the problem. I didn't mean that US citizens should all be asked directly whether every single spending item is okay. That sounds unwieldy. There's too many citizens. That is why we have parliaments. But I did mean there should be no secrets concerning how the money is spent. As I say at the end of the article, the only way to protect our democratic rights is for the citizens to force a re-writing of the Constitution, so that every single cent spent is immediately and completely and transparently auditable. Not by congressional intelligence committees that themselves take testimony in secret. That's nonsense. It needs to be entirely out in the open: the government should not operate in secret, period. Because otherwise it is no longer the citizen's government.
It's the money of the citizens; they should know where it went.
Coming back, then, when I said "costly" to you what I meant was that US Intelligence has been very costly to everyone's democratic rights, but first of all very costly to US citizens. The democratic rights of US citizens were essentially abolished by the National Security Act of 1947, and US citizens have been functional slaves ever since.
This is very complex. In principle, you are 100% correct. But at the same time, a perfect democracy would be an absolute disaster. The average person is not qualified to make a judgement call on most issues of state. Now, if you are going to expect to have citizens give their input on every major issue, or set up citizen groups to act on their behalf, every time a decision needs to be made, the Government would grind to a halt. A room full of democrats seldom reaches a happy consensus. Often it's a case of he who shouts loudest wins the day. More than that, imagine scenarios such as war. While you are debating whether to fight back against a perceived threat, you've already been invaded and occupied.
Then consider that over time population group percentages of the total will change. You already see an influx of Latino's, Middle Eastern refugees, and so on. It can therefore only be expected that opinion will change accordingly.
Agreed, what goes on now is not acceptable but exactly where do you find the balance? In my opinion, totalitarian regimes have the advantage in that they can make quick decisions. It sounds like that's exactly the behind-the-scenes under-the-covers scenario in American politics as well. But heck, these are people we are talking about. Human nature as we know it is far from perfect and the standards you are expecting are beyond anything that's likely been before us and lies ahead of us.
That doesn't mean that I disagree with your intent. We must always strive to improve. But let's understand that perfection is not possible. Some compromise of sorts will have to happen and the people at the top will have to have some kind of licence to make quick decisions on matters they consider urgent. The emphasis should rather be on putting trustworthy people in positions of authority. With the advent of modern technology, surely machines that can read minds can't be far off. We'll probably find that no one is clean enough to be President, but that's for another day.
Hi. Thank you for your comment.
But it seems to me you are reacting to a different piece, one that I didn't write. The argument you are criticizing is the view that democratic citizens should weigh in directly on every issue. But I never suggested that. What my piece is saying is that it has been tremendously costly for democratic Western citizens to allow the bureaucrats to spend their money in secret. That is an entirely different point. Whether or not the citizens weigh in on every issue, it is a very bad idea to let the bureaucrats spend our money in secret. Just look at the results! And I have proposed that spending our money in secret should be unconstitutional. That's what my essay is about.
Having reread your article I will agree that you use the money aspect increasingly as the article develops. You start however by saying that this 1947 law stripped US citizens of all their democratic rights. Then you further say that the Act gave US intelligence explicit authority to begin any action, at any time, without asking anybody. That for me is the nutshell. The launch pad for what follows.
Common sense allows that money would be expected to be involved in many instances, but not every action of corruption or manipulation necessarily needs money. Threats at this level no doubt work wonders. Failing businesses or a few dead whistleblowers send strong messages regardless of any financial rewards. Besides, acts of treason can be rewarded by favors down the line, not specifically cash on delivery.
It's your article so I guess you know what you mean.
Very thought-provoking as always.
Thank you
Thanks for your reply. I think this exchange is useful.
We are missing each other again. I am not talking about money.
When I said "costly" in my reply to you, above, I didn't mean that US Intelligence is costing us a lot of money. That has certainly happened, but money itself is not my main focus.
I did mention the absolutely staggering amounts of money that are spent each year on US Intelligence, but I did so to emphasize that this is enough money to corrupt EVERYTHING. As you point out, threats (not just bribes) can also be used to exert control. One of our articles documents how both were used to take over the National Student Association, as revealed by a famous Ramparts investigation way back in 1967 (before I was even born!).
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/ramparts-cia-national-student-association?utm_source=publication-search
But notice that even where secret threats are involved, money matters, because US Intelligence needs to pay (and pay for the training of) the specific individuals who do the threatening (and the monitoring of the threatened individuals), and who then carry out those threats when deemed necessary.
So my larger point is, with respect to money, that US citizens have allowed the bureaucrats to spend it in secret. The Intelligence bureaucrats and field agents don't have to ask anyone before they do their stuff in secret. And that's the problem. I didn't mean that US citizens should all be asked directly whether every single spending item is okay. That sounds unwieldy. There's too many citizens. That is why we have parliaments. But I did mean there should be no secrets concerning how the money is spent. As I say at the end of the article, the only way to protect our democratic rights is for the citizens to force a re-writing of the Constitution, so that every single cent spent is immediately and completely and transparently auditable. Not by congressional intelligence committees that themselves take testimony in secret. That's nonsense. It needs to be entirely out in the open: the government should not operate in secret, period. Because otherwise it is no longer the citizen's government.
It's the money of the citizens; they should know where it went.
Coming back, then, when I said "costly" to you what I meant was that US Intelligence has been very costly to everyone's democratic rights, but first of all very costly to US citizens. The democratic rights of US citizens were essentially abolished by the National Security Act of 1947, and US citizens have been functional slaves ever since.