 |
True, America isn't perfect, but to say that it's turning into a dictatorship such as China is ignorant and are simply made, because you're pissed off by the DMCA.
And proposed SSSCA, and patent laws, and encryption laws, and - mainly - the attempts to enforce them outside their jurisdiction, or push them into international treaties (or, as I in some cases like to say, threaties).
How could America be becoming less democratic, when more people can vote for the leaders of America, even the Senate now, than before? Although America might be becoming less free in some ways, it is also becoming more free in others.
Slightly different sort of dictatorship; not based as much on politics as on the economy. Be quiet citizen, make and spend money, don't question the official policies, and bend to each new Law - even a clearly bought one, and you can have nice life. If you don't happen to be fired. Errr, downsized. Errr, rightsized.
Right to vote isn't everything as well. When the available choices mean either minor derivations of the same thing, or clearly have no chance, it's a bit tough luck. The pre-election promises are empty words, there is no liability for the candidate for not following them once elected, after election the politician often sharply changes his orientation. (See Dubya getting from moderate right to rather far right.) The campaigns themselves are done by advertising experts, the same people that peddle us cookies, cars, and chewing gum brands, sometimes even using unfair tricks. Both the major parties' promises are designed the way to be appealing to the most of people, so they are often strikingly similar. (Hence Repucrats and Demoblicans.) The corporations pour soft money to the pockets of the representatives of both the parties, which neatly ensures that regardless who wins, he will be "owing". The other parties are left as underdogs. They have small chance to win, so nobody bigger wastes money on them. Their budgets are tighter, so they can't afford to mount large-scale campaign. As a result, they have small chance to win, and the circle is closed. The rest of eventual chances to get their voice out is then neutralized by unfair means.
It's sometimes being said that the USA has only one party, the Business Party, with republican and democrat factions. High level of apathy about politics, which leads to low voter turnout, is only a logical result.
I agree that extreme capitalism is bad, but extreme communism also is.
Agree here. Any regime can fall over to totalitarian stage. It's why I propose free networks and anonymity and anarchy - to keep counterbalance; naturally marginalized when the society is happy and healthy, growing when under oppression.
What pisses me off about the anti-Americanism of Linux users is that you act as if other countries are innocent of similar acts that America has done, even China. America isn't the only terrible country in the world, especially when you think of the dirty British. When you guys start realizing that, you guys will be taken more seriously.
You are right here. (Don't let me start on British RIP Act, or on German and French corporations buying our manufacturing plants, in order to later "rightsize" and even later shutdown them - see Cegelec vs CKD Semiconductors.)
However, America is the biggest one, influencing or attempting to influence everyone. Perceived as the World-class Bully[1], it aids and harbors the multinational corporations and financial organizations (perceived as the bullies as well, often there isn't clear difference who's who so occassionally America gets the flak that belongs to the World Bank or some multinational) that are more and more influencing the world politics, quite often with counterproductive results. Naturally, it attracts all the flak. The cost of being a symbol.
Principially the same situation is with Microsoft. There are other companies using similar tactics, but they aren't big enough to be real problem, and so they don't have the status of the Prime Time Adversary. Watch the Secondary Targets getting their deserved attention after neutralizing of the Primary Target (though it is probable that after reintroducing the fair market rules, they will play fair again). Rule of the warfare: don't unnecessarily fragment the efforts.
[1] An example; when an OSN resolution against human rights violations on Cuba was being prepared, our diplomats attempted to include a paragraph criticizing the impact of US embargo. Within couple hours, Powell phoned our president, and personally intervened that it is Bad Thing To Do. After some political tug-of-war, we as usual bowed to our Bigger Friend, and dropped the paragraph.
See also another example, this time about machinery industry. A contract that was ok only an year back, even consulted with the US administration who acknowledged it, suddenly wasn't ok (which weirdly followed the crude oil price rise of 2000). My queries to the Parliament what exactly are the "reprisals" that Washington promised if we wouldn't comply remained unanswered; so it is quite possible our Elected Representatives cowardly caved in to an empty threat.
Similar case, couple years before, with power plant turbines. Nobody dares to stand against our Transatlantic Friend, like nobody dared to stand against Soviet Union's will.
Another case, passive radar system, code name Tamara. (Our radar technology was the best from the Eastern Block - ie, we reportedly were the first nation to spot SR-71 on radar.) Accusing the management from some sort of economical crime, suspension of the licence to sell military materials, after several years cleaning of the charges - meanwhile the company went to shards; Rumour Channel - in this case, quite reliable (I could tell you why, but only face-to-face and not on record) - said Washington pulled the strings. Meanwhile, Lockheed Corp. worked hard on development of the same system, highly probably using data gathered from reverse engineering of a shipment of Tamaras that got seized in some port by US agents.
|
Stories
Poll
