Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Barry Hufker]

Government wouldn't be the place to go if people were nicer to others.  There's a powerful group in government right now made up of people who don't want to be nicer to others.  A second group in government tries to make the government fill in for those people who don't want to be nicer.  And therein lies the problem.


A joke someone recently told me:
Democrats believe the glass is half full.  Republicans believe the glass is theirs.

[Jay Kadis]

Our system of government in  the US is over 200 years old.  It took days for information to spread.  Now we know what just happened in milliseconds.

Our best hope is to eliminate from the equation all the trashy advertising and somehow get people to think about the issues for themselves for a while - real deliberation with reading up on it and all...

Nah, that's not gonna happen.

Technology offers potential alternatives to what we're doing for government, but  Diebold has poisoned the well.  Open source software seems a prerequisite for any trustworthy voting system.

[MDM,]

Personally, I am beginning to think that most of these things are rigged.

like Wrestling Matches on TV

A friend of mine said he saw the Rolling Stones when Italy won the world cup in the early 80's and Jagger said on stage that Italy would win 3 to 1 before the match. How did he know?

I guess I am influenced, in a way, by living in Italy, where apparently almost everything is rigged.  The politicians we see here have been in office for decades.  Corruption and mafia is out in the open... almost

[DarinK]

Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 06 November 2010 20:05

... I don't want some kooky law-of-the-jungle situation, just what we have today but with a significantly smaller government that isn't seen as the natural place to go for solving problems. PC

Theoretically, our government is, "of the people, by the people, for the people."  It can be a mechanism through which people help other people.  Ideally, "going to government for solving problems" is exactly the same as "the citizens solving the problems for themselves."
I don't see the issue as being one of people looking to government for help, I see the issue as being that the government is no longer of, by & for the people.  Making government smaller may help somewhat, but it's not dealing with the fundamental problem that there are other forces that have much more influence on government than the people do.  Taking the money out would be the best thing, but unfortunately in the 1970's the Supreme Court ruled that restricting spending money on campaigns was an infringement of the right to free speech.  Add in the more recent ruling that corporations are essentially people, and the system's rigged.

[YZ]

DarinK wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 16:05

(...)the fundamental problem (is) that there are other forces that have much more influence on government than the people do.

Yup.

As individuals, we have a negligible amount of political power.

If many individuals congregate around a commonly-agreed set of goals and premises, then such group has more political power.

That's how political parties start...

IMHO, things will only get better in the USA if there are more than two big parties; people have been left with no options lately.

Some 'smart' politicians saw that a little while ago and created a 'fake' alternative with the tea party, an amazing example of astroturf that I thought couldn't happen in this age of widespread communication.

Oh well...

[Paul Cavins]

'Ideally, "going to government for solving problems" is exactly the same as "the citizens solving the problems for themselves."'


I don't see it that way at all. I don't want a situation of the rulers and the ruled. I don't see how you avoid that with a big and active government.

I think the nugget of wisdom that makes America great is individual freedom (and therefore responsibility). I see that as the step of progress in human development, and I see collectivist systems as a step back.

Not that I know what I'm talking about or anything.

With all we have at our disposal with modern technology and an open society, smaller government seems to be the way up for me.

PC

[Barry Hufker]

I agree personal responsibility is a key to any well-lived life.  And I don't think we should have one ounce more government than needed.  The problems occur when some conspire against others to hold them down because they are different or in order to take advantage of them.  That's when someone larger than this group (government) has got to try to make the offenders back-off.

We can all thank Dems for the Civil Rights Act, Minimum Wage, Unions (for good and for bad),food inspection and other benefits. If America is where everyone has a chance to be who they want and to do the things they want, then it is government which makes the rules so that can happen.  Otherwise self-interest runs rampant (which it still does but...) and you get no government oversight of anything - as was the case during the Bush Jr. admin.  Think then of government's role in Katrina, the oil disaster, e coli outbreaks, etc.  Unbridled, Wall Street's greed drove this country into ruin.

Personal freedom is a fine thing when someone knows how to handle it.  When it's abused, there needs to be a "policeman".  Fighting between law and personal freedom is unending.  Even now we don't have the personal freedoms we did 15 years ago.  Think illegal wiretaps, "Patriot Act" and no Habeas Corpus...  We lost more personal freedoms during the Bush admin than we'll ever get back.

Barry

[Tidewater]

Barry, we agree on the what, it's the how where we diverge.

I think you see the shiny bouncing thing receding from the scene, and it looks to be the culprit. I see the culprit, he tossed the shiny ball..

Tiny, miniscule, POWERLESS government is the answer. The government requires NOT power, but privledge, and responsibility to us, the lives that make the humanity that is harmed by even the most righteousy (tip) idea.

The privledge granted to the government should be serving the people at no direct cost.

To serve the people, not any intrests.. none.

[YZ]

Well, it should first be defined what are the responsibilities of a government and then based on that see what size it needs to be to fulfill them.

Apparently the USA hasn't reached the first stage yet...

[Tidewater]

The government has well defined responsibility. The government has grown itself far beyond it's granted power. The government needs to get a job.

We, The People.

The government is no less than a very rude drunk at your party.

(who you catch downloading porn on your child's computer)

(using your credit card)

[YZ]

Tidewater wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 21:10

The government needs to get a job.

Fantastic!

[Edvaard]

Government serving no outside interests or having no external influence sounds great, and hardly anyone would not agree with that. But the outer influence is so entrenched I don't see it ever changing to any significant degree. And this influence works today and has worked in the past regardless of the size of government, and regardless of whether one political party has had near total control (as both parties have on occasion) or more often when the control is split into whatever proportion.

It just doesn't matter.

The government did not grow itself into more power, it has been fed growth hormones by corporate interests forever.

It is somewhat na

[Tidewater]

Another winner of a post from you, Ed. For sure.

What a mess.


M

[Edvaard]

Thank you.

I am much more attuned to the plight of smaller businesses and proprietorships because a) they have more of an affect on overall employment than the largest businesses, b) the laws that are so convoluted, to either accommodate large corporations or account for their greater ability to evade intention, are much more burdensome for the small business, and c) they are much more sensitive to changes in their costs, changes in market conditions or the economy overall, and changes in regulations. They do not have the size to withstand the storms of these vagaries, too many of which are preventable.

 

[Paul Cavins]

I see what you mean, Edvaard. I might not line up with you exactly as far as all of the FDA stuff. That is a tough one. We need to regulate food safety, but then with all of the regs in play, and the economics of our food supply being so vast, there is bound to be a lot of powerful interests battling it out.

I would guess that my take on such things would be less conspiratorial and less from the left side than yours.

Small business is where it is at. I would like to see less regulation where possible, so that the small guys are not at such a disadvantage when dealing with the feds.

I think farm subsidies and "corporate welfare" should go bye-bye. Although, maybe the definition of corporate welfare is in the eye of the beholder at times.

I would like to see an America where there was as little as possible to be gained by lobbying the federal government. It won't ever be ideal, but I wish it could be better.

PC