All this false, rhetorical, and surfaced discussions of democratic principles and theoretical models leaves me rather exausted. It's never what it seems to be.

Quite simple. Are you free? Are you independent and self-sufficient?

Can you be? Or.....are you allowed to be?

I find this dreamy attachment to political philosophies and identities to be nothing short of a scam. Easily fooled, are we - and to broader suggestion. The systems are designed not for us, but for the selected few. It's always been like that....we purchase the benign and benevolent promotions because, in our hearts, we fear the worst. We don't care to face what really is.

No one seems to be curious, less questioning.

Should you be allowed? The freedoms you talk about are anarchy's cousins.

The social and familial extensions and solidity are the based of culture and civilisation. Not fabricated political schemes.

Those cultures and civilisations, the societies and familial clans have come about because someone enforced rules and took away certain "freedoms"

Credo... you are not the only pebble on the American beach.

Zzaa... who is the dreamer? You, who constantly indulge in airy-fairy pseudo-philosophocal bibble-babble... or the rest of us, who try to think as realistically as we can about the world we live in?

A financial blog I like to read had this excerpt on it today....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The American Constitution, even with its imperfections in realization over time, is laid on this founding principle, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

This is why corporatism is the very antithesis of American liberty.

A financial blog I like to read had this excerpt on it today....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The American Constitution, even with its imperfections in realization over time, is laid on this founding principle, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

This is why corporatism is the very antithesis of American liberty.

There is a problem, though, as I'm sure you've realised. Many of the material supports of our civilisation, such as oil, pharmaceuticals, even transport, depend on large corporate entities to enable them to be produced at a relatively low cost. You may not like them, but couldn't do without them. Their size and economic muscle makes them entities which have to be taken into account. No, I don't like Exxon or MSD or a hundred others we could name pulling the strings of government... but I don't see how we can exclude them. State control? No, thankyou; it's been tried, and is monstrously inefficient.

Corporatism may be the antithesis of American (or any other) liberty... but how can you eliminate it?

Corporatism may be the antithesis of American (or any other) liberty... but how can you eliminate it?

I think you have latched onto the wrong thing presented.

This is the important part......

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

None would deny Corporatism/capitalism it is what makes a free market.

But what the poster probably intended was never was it to be allowed as it is now

where powerful lobbyist/corporations control the government with $$$$$ provided to campaigns.

It is We The People they work for. Anything less should be seen & treated as treason.

Those that hold high government positions should be scrutinized more so than how they audit middle class citizens.

But it is the citizenry that has let this lapse into what it is today.

As such as I have said before it will fall on the same to take it back.

Corporatism may be the antithesis of American (or any other) liberty... but how can you eliminate it?

I think you have latched onto the wrong thing presented.

This is the important part......

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

None would deny Corporatism/capitalism it is what makes a free market.

But what the poster probably intended was never was it to be allowed as it is now

where powerful lobbyist/corporations control the government with $$$ provided to campaigns.

It is We The People they work for. Anything less should be seen & treated as treason.

Those that hold high government positions should be scrutinized more so than how they audit middle class citizens.

But it is the citizenry that has let this lapse into what it is today.

As such as I have said before it will fall on the same to take it back.

Agreed, Flying... but you did include the last sentence.

I suspect everybody would agree with the rest of your post, knowing perfectly well that nobody is going to do anything about it.

I also suspect you're thinking narrowly American. I don't think the UK Government, for example, is so much in thrall to the big corporations.

Corporatism may be the antithesis of American (or any other) liberty... but how can you eliminate it?

I think you have latched onto the wrong thing presented.

This is the important part......

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

None would deny Corporatism/capitalism it is what makes a free market.

But what the poster probably intended was never was it to be allowed as it is now

where powerful lobbyist/corporations control the government with $$$ provided to campaigns.

It is We The People they work for. Anything less should be seen & treated as treason.

Those that hold high government positions should be scrutinized more so than how they audit middle class citizens.

But it is the citizenry that has let this lapse into what it is today.

As such as I have said before it will fall on the same to take it back.

Agreed, Flying... but you did include the last sentence.

I suspect everybody would agree with the rest of your post, knowing perfectly well that nobody is going to do anything about it.

I also suspect you're thinking narrowly American. I don't think the UK Government, for example, is so much in thrall to the big corporations.

I don't know, IB.....For sure America has become renowned for corporate (and private) lobbying, but I think it would be naive to assume that any "democratic" country is immune to financial influence.

It;s just that the older democracies have learned how to be "diplomatic" about how the lobbying gets done (ie there are more cultural hoops to jump through, and more oblique language).

I think Flying makes an excellent case.

Having said that, I don't Flying is seeing the bigger, future picture, and giving governance of the govenors to the people is not enough.

You're going from one extreme to the other, Harcourt. My words were "not so much in thrall". I did NOT say "not in thrall".

The American Constitution is an amazing document... but it was created for a country with... how many million people? A fraction of the number there now. This is where my contention that democracy may be good for small countries but not for large ones comes in. But I mustn't repeat myself!

Agreed, Flying... but you did include the last sentence.

I suspect everybody would agree with the rest of your post, knowing perfectly well that nobody is going to do anything about it.

I also suspect you're thinking narrowly American. I don't think the UK Government, for example, is so much in thrall to the big corporations.

Well that last sentence was part of the quoted original text.

As I said it is from a financial site I read Called Jesse's Cafe Americain

As I long time reader I understood his intent but it would be a lot to explain it all here.

Yes my thinking is probably American as a US citizen it is my main focus. I do not follow the UK & Euro problems enough to comment.

Although I do see a common thread between all.

Having said that, I don't Flying is seeing the bigger, future picture, and giving governance of the governors to the people is not enough.

Actually I do not think of giving anything as it is already the rule of our Constitution.

What I comment on is the same as LB pointed out.

It is through the lack of vigilance on our part that this has been allowed to become the beast it is.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

seeing something like this does not speak well does it?

I also suspect you're thinking narrowly American. I don't think the UK Government, for example, is so much in thrall to the big corporations.

Then why are we bombing Libya - because BP want the oil.

Why are we in Afghanistan - because BAe and other armaments suppliers want to sell their toys.

Why were we in Iraq - see first item.

Why are we in Europe - because our manufacturers / suppliers want unfettered access to that market.

Ask any thinking citizen what advantages any of these ventures have given to him and his kin and, after a few minutes thought, he may come up with the trips to Calais for cheap baccy and plonk. But otherwise none of the above ventures have benefitted Britain in any way I can easily discern.

We do not have control of our politicians. They offer a prospectus of their intended actions prior to an election and then, if in the victorious party, proceed to do exactly as bidden by the leader(s) of that party, without regard to the mandate given by the electorate.

When voted out of office they are found other jobs within the political establishment, util the next election. These are a coterie of people, regardless of party allegiance, who make their lifetime living (and fat pension) out of conning the electorate with broken promises - and not allowing full and fair discussion on major topics affecting our lives(war / Lisbon Treaty / referendum on EU / etc.)

Nicely put.

Corporatism may be the antithesis of American (or any other) liberty... but how can you eliminate it?

I think you have latched onto the wrong thing presented.

This is the important part......

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

None would deny Corporatism/capitalism it is what makes a free market.

But what the poster probably intended was never was it to be allowed as it is now

where powerful lobbyist/corporations control the government with $$$ provided to campaigns.

It is We The People they work for. Anything less should be seen & treated as treason.

Those that hold high government positions should be scrutinized more so than how they audit middle class citizens.

But it is the citizenry that has let this lapse into what it is today.

As such as I have said before it will fall on the same to take it back.

Agreed, Flying... but you did include the last sentence.

I suspect everybody would agree with the rest of your post, knowing perfectly well that nobody is going to do anything about it.

I also suspect you're thinking narrowly American. I don't think the UK Government, for example, is so much in thrall to the big corporations.

Really? Why do you think the British are fighting in Libya? Why do you think they released the Lockerbie bomber? Why do you think they lobbied the US government hard during the BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

Fair point(s), LB. But I'd like to see examples outside the oil business.

Oil is the core business on which most everything else exists. Oil is energy and energy is power. The military can't operate without oil. We are more dependent on oil than a heroin addict is on his next fix.

Oil also represents huge profits and a constant need.

We know that fiat currencies are really only paper and more and more people are losing faith in that paper.

Oil is the core business on which most everything else exists. Oil is energy and energy is power. The military can't operate without oil. We are more dependent on oil than a heroin addict is on his next fix.

Oil also represents huge profits and a constant need.

We know that fiat currencies are really only paper and more and more people are losing faith in that paper.

Don't forget about the hundreds of everyday products that are made from petroleum. Even if we never needed another gas-powered vehicle we would still need to pump oil out of the ground.

I just don't see where any of us have much choice in what is going to happen.

Oil has peaked, and there is no alternate solution that can be scaled up in any reasonable period of time. The contribution of our energy needs from oil is huge, and from everything else is small. Even a sustained 2% decline rate is going to strain our ability to adapt beyond what is possible. And forget about any kind of economic growth. That period of human history is over for the foreseeable future.

This pattern has happened many times before in history where a society exceeds its resource base (of which Easter Island is probably the most famous) and it is one of the primary reasons for collapse. Democracy never survives a civilization's collapse. Never. People en masse can never vote to voluntarily implement the austerity measures necessary to resolve the crisis. Dictators are the only effective form of government during this period, as they can impose order and rationing on people who would refuse to do it themselves.

I think it is pretty obvious what is coming for the next century or two. Poverty, war, hunger and malnutrition, the associated plagues and viral outbreaks due to malnutrition, drastic reduction in population, and of course, military dictatorships in place of democracy. How anyone thinks we are going to avoid unimaginable death and suffering is beyond me. Energy depletion necessitates all of these things if we allow that our civilization will follow the same pattern of countess civilizations before us that exceeded their resource base.

Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire for a reason. An emperor can make necessary but unpopular decisions where an elected official simply can not. This is due to the fact that a small group of a few dozen people can work together for the common good. The human brain is incapable of forming the social relationships necessary for this to work with several billion people however. It always divides into small groups or tribes who try to continue their own comfort at the expense of others.

So if we assume the typical human pattern will repeat, immediately up next on the cycle of government will come dictators and military juntas, then warlords as central government becomes too complex and it can no longer collect taxes or exert control, then feudalism as the warlords stop fighting and turn to production within their boundaries, then monarchies as the feudal lords join together for common defence, and eventually after a thousand years or so democracies will spring up again.

This cycle has happened a couple of times in recorded history, and I see no reason to believe it isn't happening again.

The energy source of the future is probably Shale oil which is easy to find, rather than wind or solar power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil

Don't forget about the hundreds of everyday products that are made from petroleum. Even if we never needed another gas-powered vehicle we would still need to pump oil out of the ground.

That was the Shah of Iran's philosophy - <oil is much too valuable to burn>.

However, after the petroleum is extracted from the crude, it is what is left that is broken down into the olefins, monomers and polymers. So there will be gasoline and non-degradeable plastics around as long as there is crude to provide them.

And that will mean intense pressure from oilmen to have additional privileges not available to the common man. And while we have the weak, greedy political class around, they will get those privileges.

We need to select our representatives from among the working people. Give the nominated people a year of political education (not party politics, but economics, history, social sciences, so on) and then let them attend a congress for five years, discussing on non-party lines the matters of import to the future of the country. Then these people return to their jobs and another set take over. As I say, no parties, no government/opposition face-offs - more of a round-table discussion. The representatives should be compensated for their time by a reasonable salary, compared to their working salary, and their pension should be based upon their normal working life, not the time spent in congress / parliament.

In order that this does not make the civil service too powerful, as it is in the UK today, there would have to be some way of changing the top men frequently - say every three years - and electing the top half-dozen or so in each department from among the trained staff, by the trained staff. Three years at the top and out.

The energy source of the future is probably Shale oil which is easy to find, rather than wind or solar power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil

Not if the Greenies have their way - the current green scream is 'fracking' (hydraulic fracturing of rock).

Here's a couple of links :

http://www.marcellusprotest.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401

The energy source of the future is probably Shale oil which is easy to find, rather than wind or solar power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil

Probably not. From the same article, "The production of shale oil has been hindered because of technical difficulties and costs.^[38"

It is still non-renewable and finite.

With an EROEI as low as 0.7, it's silly to use it because it is non-renewable. Burn 1 trillion barrels to produce 1.7 trillion barrels, and that's it, finished, no more.

Besides, it is not just availability that is an issue. It is still a dirty fuel.

Have you noticed that computers and medicine have improved drastically over a very short period of time? It is called progress. You can bet on it that scientists will figure out how to make Shale Oil cheaper and more convenient to use in the not too distant future.

Have you noticed that computers and medicine have improved drastically over a very short period of time? It is called progress. You can bet on it that scientists will figure out how to make Shale Oil cheaper and more convenient to use in the not too distant future.

Agreed. Goes without saying.

But this does not address the real problem, which are flow rates. Right now, oil production is a big, big number. Shale oil is a tiny, tiny number. If oil production falls by 2%, the shale production has to grow by several orders of magnitude to make up the difference, and grow even faster than that if you want economic growth.

It can't be done. The industry simply can't be scaled up fast enough to make a difference, no matter how smart we are.

I personally think the energy of the future is oil just like it is today. The only difference is that access to it will be limited to the wealthy elite while the vast majority of struggle in abject poverty. I don't see any other path as being politically viable.

Besides, it is not just availability that is an issue. It is still a dirty fuel.

People don't care about pollution when they are starving. The human brain has an extremely steep discount function when someone is hungry. All concerns about the environment are going to be discarded in the near future as the reality of our predicament begins to hit home.

Starving is the other problem.

With population increasing almost exponentially, and agricultural land shrinking, energy will become a secondary problem in years to come.

And governments will have to change their way of thinking very soon. Aid to developing / under-developed countries must either increase dramatically, so that they can grow sufficient for their population, using new techniques, plus educate their populations in birth control, two child families and no nooky on the side, or aid must be stopped entirely, so that the third world countries are limited in population size by lack of support facilities.

The third course - China at war with India / Brazil at war with the rest of South America - does not bear thinking about. But it would reduce the world population nicely.

Food scarcity and rising costs is already here. The days of plenty may be numbered. I might also add that agriculture is extremely dependent on energy--and that means oil. Any non-mechanical means of growing food commercially means taking land out of production for beasts of burden, whether they are buffaloes or horses.

As for oil from shale, it's a real possibility, but will the commercially available technology arrive in time to save us from the doomsday scenarios?

I just don't see where any of us have much choice in what is going to happen.

Oil has peaked, and there is no alternate solution that can be scaled up in any reasonable period of time. The contribution of our energy needs from oil is huge, and from everything else is small. Even a sustained 2% decline rate is going to strain our ability to adapt beyond what is possible. And forget about any kind of economic growth. That period of human history is over for the foreseeable future.

This pattern has happened many times before in history where a society exceeds its resource base (of which Easter Island is probably the most famous) and it is one of the primary reasons for collapse. Democracy never survives a civilization's collapse. Never. People en masse can never vote to voluntarily implement the austerity measures necessary to resolve the crisis. Dictators are the only effective form of government during this period, as they can impose order and rationing on people who would refuse to do it themselves.

I think it is pretty obvious what is coming for the next century or two. Poverty, war, hunger and malnutrition, the associated plagues and viral outbreaks due to malnutrition, drastic reduction in population, and of course, military dictatorships in place of democracy. How anyone thinks we are going to avoid unimaginable death and suffering is beyond me. Energy depletion necessitates all of these things if we allow that our civilization will follow the same pattern of countess civilizations before us that exceeded their resource base.

Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire for a reason. An emperor can make necessary but unpopular decisions where an elected official simply can not. This is due to the fact that a small group of a few dozen people can work together for the common good. The human brain is incapable of forming the social relationships necessary for this to work with several billion people however. It always divides into small groups or tribes who try to continue their own comfort at the expense of others.

So if we assume the typical human pattern will repeat, immediately up next on the cycle of government will come dictators and military juntas, then warlords as central government becomes too complex and it can no longer collect taxes or exert control, then feudalism as the warlords stop fighting and turn to production within their boundaries, then monarchies as the feudal lords join together for common defence, and eventually after a thousand years or so democracies will spring up again.

This cycle has happened a couple of times in recorded history, and I see no reason to believe it isn't happening again.

It's an interesting analysis, and one that I would not discount alltogether....however, there are smart people looking at it and will be bound to offer solutions.....I hope.

Besides, it is not just availability that is an issue. It is still a dirty fuel.

People don't care about pollution when they are starving. The human brain has an extremely steep discount function when someone is hungry. All concerns about the environment are going to be discarded in the near future as the reality of our predicament begins to hit home.

I don't think it's a matter of food vs energy. Global warming will ultimately kill off more people than food scarcity, and so cleaner fuel is highly desirable.

It's an interesting analysis, and one that I would not discount alltogether....however, there are smart people looking at it and will be bound to offer solutions.....I hope.

It goes beyond a simple lack of supply.

It is also now becoming a matter of diminishing returns.

For each barrel of oil....whether pulled from this or that there is diminishing returns

It is at a point that to reach any is now taking far more energy.

If oil is harder to reach or convert from shale/sands etc then at some point you will spend just as much or more in fuels/transportation/etc etc to mine it/refine it. At that point it does not matter if you know where it is as it is a zero sum.