Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

Something drastic is needed. And it will happen. It sounds like Pat wants to be the one to wake up Mommy and Daddy. He thinks they'll thank him and adopt his plan. I think they've got a different idea from his. In any case, when Mommy and Daddy wake up there will be h3ll to pay.

Leaders rise to the occasion and would do so in this situation.

Agree that things need to change but we now have about 25% of the people on the dole one way or the other and they are not going to change anything that would effect their not having to work to survive.

We boot the President out after two terms as it is, so whats the issue? We needed to boot about 80% of Congress and the Senate out and get people who will do something and not just feather their own nest as they have been doing for years now.

Why even get two terms? I don't think there should be any reelections - just open seats. In VA our governor gets one term only - sort of a "the king must die" thing. And VA is one of the best managed states in the union. Sure, the governor usually goes on to some other political office; senator, mayor, pres. candidate, etc. But the closest they can come to wasting their time with another gubernatorial election is helping their guy win the next one.

If all House and Senate seats were limited to one term, they'd actually fix real problem instead of currying favor to raise money for their reelection. Think about what it takes to raise $20 million for a US Senate seat in a state like NY or CA. You have to raise over $60,000 PER WEEK for your entire Senate term. I think that time and effort would be better spent working on real problems. It's simply amazing to think of how much better things would be almost instantly if this were the law.

Supe I understand and appreciate your argument, however until we stop the practices that allow politicians to make a career out of raping (er, I mean serving) the public, the problem will not go away.

Government at all levels has degenerated to the point that 90% of their actions are aimed directly at sending some candy home to their voters so they can keep their jobs for another term. The other 10% is spent dreaming up ways of changing the voter population that controls whether or not they keep their office to ensure they will never leave.

Term limits would remove the carrot at the end of the pork stick, i.e. there would be less incentive for politicians to waste money buying votes back home, especially in their second term.

If you really want to fix the system, you would have to completely replace the current crop of politicians with those who would inexplicably go there to ensure that it would be more difficult for them to keep their own jobs. They would have to outlaw pork barrel spending, outlaw gerrymandering districts and run all the special interest lobbyists out of town. The chances of America doing that fall somewhere between slim and none.

The House has an over 98% incumbant reelection rate. I think the Soviet Politburo was more competitve.

Interestingly enough, virtually every foreign country I've visited - some of whom have contentious relationships with the U.S., the people there were able to separate me and other Americans from our government. I found this truly beneficial, because foreign countries invariably do not see the infrastructure provided by the government, but its ill-founded policy such as what we have now.

As an aside, virtually everywhere I went, people loved and envied Americans. The world doesn't thing badly of us. The world, however, detests our government.

Ah, now that's the mythology. Government doesn't protect me from you, I am completely responsible for that, and am by good fortune able to do so, or pay someone to do it for me if I'm busy. Even if I, or someone else pays, we should be willing to do it ourselves. It's cowardice to ask others to provide security when we will not provide our own.

This philosophical idea was the underpinning of the Articles of Confederation, along with enabling differences to exist among the states, with free travel from one to another based on desired living conditions.

That freedom was washed away with and by the the ratification of the centralizing Constitution.

Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

Not radical enough, Joe. You're still giving them credit for two things, 1. that there are things that aren't against the law now that need being made illegal, I postulate that America hasn't needed a single new law since at least 1913, and maybe a great deal earlier; and 2. that the federal government needs any money at all, I postulate that if they provided needed services, people would willingly pay for them, that funding for government must be obtained coercively means that what government provides won't sell on its' own merits.

I would argue that government is to protect itself from everyone else; i.e. those that aren't in the ruling elite and those connected to it are protected from those that fund government by government.

the biggest fear government has is to lose it's money and it's power.

Again, hard to type through the chuckling. Pat decries the Constitution of the United States of America. Pat, you might find some support in the well known "anarchist" communities in Western Oregon but there would be two problems. First, I have a sneaking suspicion you wouldn't get along with them and second, there still would not be enough of you to overthrow the government of the United States of America.

Yeah, I'd be happy to drive one of the busses that takes our current crop of elected representatives home from DC. But then there is the problem I have noticed and considered many times. Perhaps the crux of the problem. Leaders don't run for public office. Opportunists do. Egomaniacs do. Sociopathic megalomaniacs do. But the many capable leaders in our communitieds do not. Why?

Because it's the most embarrassing and thankless job on the planet and they're too smart to stand on high while folks like many here throw rocks at them and blame them for every problem. In a society that made sense, teachers, judges and public policy makers would be among the most respected. There would be dignity in those endeavors. You guys won't allow that. Who would you have left to blame?

Again, I would say that government is to protect those that don't want to fund that protection themselves. The Fortune 500 companies would provide security against just about any kind of threat at their own expense if that wasn't being provided by forced taxation. Those that live on the coast might have to pay more for security than those smart enough to live in say, Montana or Wyoming. That goes for security against natural diasters as well as invasions, or piracy if you live in the Florida Keys.

Quote:

Unfortunately, government has morphed into a "big brother" (big bother?) who makes decisions for all of us, and for the most part, we accept this as the good little automotons we have been trained as.

In the sociofascist training camps better known as government schools.

Quote:

Little by little, individual freedoms are disappearing (in the name of national security) and we seem willing to simply let this happen, thinking these changes make us "safer". Funding provided by the federal government for local projects is used sometimes as a weapon, ensuring that the locals follow the desires of Washington. Elected officials are answerable to the public inversely to the distance from the public (locals catch the most hell and are the most accountable, Congress and the President the least accountable). The system becomes more Machivillian and no one seems to notice.

Some of us have noticed. You can see the resistance put up when I point out how far we need to go to shake off the shackles of illegitimate power.

Further, you see how some here want one part of government hyper strong and another part weak; and can't seem to realize that a grant of power to one arm of government is a grant of power to government across the board. A fact that has always been true.

So, the same people that can't be trusted as individuals are granted extra power, given guns, and put in charge of the rest of us? How did they become more moral than those they govern?

Quote:

In synopsis, see Legion's comment and take it seriously. Remember, not so long ago in human history, might made right. Still true in most of the world.

The availability of low cost firearms to nearly everyone during the 19th century made the "might makes right" a thing of the past. The so-called wild, wild west was the safest area in the country at one point in time, still is for the most part. It was the most heavily armed area too. There are several references that support this fact, I'll post them if you wish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

Term limits are needed because politics has become a full time profession for most of them. I'd propose not only term limits, but only one job in government can be held in a politicians lifetime. In CA they had the power to have musical government jobs; Attorney General Bill Lockyer was a state senator before his current job, and a state assemblyman prior to that. The guy had certain power blocks sewn up and was in their pocket. The CA Teachers union was the most powerful, but there were others

Government encourages sleeping voters, that's what they teach in government schools, it's what they encourage elsewhere.

Government must be gutted, skinned, and tacked up on history's wall.

In my hometown, a logging town in northern Idaho, there was a county referendum that would have mandated that every household have a firearm, and ammunition for that firearm. Nearly every house does anyway, and I'd guess that the majority of those firearms are loaded with ammunition. Further, loggers get up at all hours of the day and night. From my perspective or anyone else in my hometown, a decision to burlarize a house is roulette. You get caught, you die. There isn't a lot of serious crime in my hometown. If I were lying in bed at night with a loaded gun in my hand and a burglar came into the house, the burglar would die. I'm sure the legal issues would get sorted out. Certainly the burglar would be dead.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

Apathy and anger are both common reactions to powerlessness.

The job of government is to serve the people. Like you, I believe government is a powerful tool with which to secure fairness and ultimately, liberty.

Term limits and the end of legislative "riders" and pork spending seem reasonable steps to improve the way our government serves us.

There are no "real leader"'s, that's a myth. Most men, US government presidents come to mind, that are fancied as "real leaders" are those that started wars and hurt hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people. We don't need those kinds of men.

Quote:

Yes dd, I think you fairly stated the two opposing camps. There is no question that our government is misbehaving. Massively misbehaving. Tragically, unconscionably misbehaving. Bagdad does not have the market cornered on Evil. We have that right here. But to suggest that government is unnecessary is not even sensible enough to be "laughable."

So, why is the internet, the world wide web, virtually government free, and hugely successful? Government, contrary to what some think, had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with that, and thankfully still does not. Further, the internet, being unregulated, has seen more inovation and helped create more wealth than any "new thing" in decades, maybe even over half a century.

Quote:

Imagine a country with no government. Can't, can you?

Sure we can, it's not hard at all. If you can't, there's a huge body of data on how to eliminate government available to anyone wishing to acquire it. The 18th and 19th centuries in America were essentially unregulated and almost ungoverned at all. What drove the Revolutionary War was as the continent became more settled, and was reaping huge unregulated profit, the British Government wanted a larger share of the spoils, and wanted to impose regulations.

[quote]That's because "government" is what defines a country.[quote]
Wow, the biggest myth of all, and right here in print.
Government doesn't define a country, or nation, the people that live with a given area do that. Government happens because some people wish to exercise control over most of the others, it is the least moral and most corrupt of the people in the land.

Quote:

Without it, it's just an area of land ripe for formation into a country or countries.

Sorry, Supe, I have to call this one as I see it; statist nonsense.

Quote:

Now let's imagine a country with almost no government, but with "national" defense. What "national" values and principles would that "nation" defend, other than the desire to be left alone? It would be a nation formed under the principle of non-integration. And would that be a powerful force when it comes time to defend? I mean, again, the military would not be part of a government, it would be the whole thing. And it would have the job of protecting "citizen's" (if you can call them that) rights to have no other government. I'm not sure that military would be terribly motivated to be effective. If the rest of the world thought a nation such as this would survive and be stable, it might immigrate by the millions. Maybe. And there would be no immigration policy or enforcement.

In the 19th century, the US government military was used almost entirely to grab land from those that held title to it, Mexico, the Indians, and the Confederate States. The sole exception was the War of 1812, when Britain invaded. Not one other "defense" of America was actually needed to repel an invasion.

The same holds true for the entire 20th century.

Quote:

In fact, there would be no enforcement of land rights. Citizens protected under this military would have to be heavily armed to further protect themselves from fellow citizens.

They'd have to be armed at least as well as the military itself, to defend themselves from that entity. Come to think of it, that's what the Second Amendment is supposed to enable today, all restrictions on weapon ownership being blatantly unConstitutional.

Quote:

Let's go at this another way: If a community were cut loose.......if a community were disowned by federal, state and local government, what would happen? Easy. The people in that community with leadership tendencies would get together and talk. "What do we do now?" they would say. They would agree that a sewer system is favorable, and that roads would benefit everyone also. And schools. And they would throw some money together because these things are 1) in everybody's interest and 2) worth more than their costs in terms of health and economic prosperity.

The important thing in this hypothetical community, and all others, would be that any decision to group activity would have to be voluntary; with unanimous consent. That's the primary issue today, 50% plus one cannot be allowed to dictate to 50% minus one.

Quote:

Government is simply our way of getting ***** done. Investing in ourselves. Pooling our resources to build the infrastructure we need. We can work in competition or in cooperation. I prefer the latter. Pat imagines the former. I may get my wish. Pat will never get his wish.

A half full cup is better than either a half empty one or one that is almost completely empty, we have the latter today.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

In my opinion, that's putting a bandaid on someone that's gut shot.

It might make you feel as though you've done something, but the patient, in this case all Americans, will die.

We need radical changes in what government can do; term limits, while I approve of them if done deeply enough, aren't going to provide the surgery we need.

Through the election process, enfranchised voters should weed out the ones you don't trust and elect the ones you trust the most. If most people don't pay much attention though to who they actually vote forthat is their own fault. Politicians represent you and your peers, so if your candidate turns out to be corrupt, in part, you have only yourself to blame and you try again later.

I do not dispute the right to bear arms. It is crucial. However, resorting to it as your SOLE means to maintain your other rights is a serious problem. Rather it should be the LAST resort.

Liberia and Somalia, for example are also heavily armed, with very little effective government of any kind until recently. Patently not safe. Guns are not always going to keep you safe or preserve your rights. The financial hurdle between a farmer with a AK-47 and and an armed band on a technical with a Bofurs is very great indeed. Most poor land owners can't afford weapons of either sort. A government, however can provide you some level of protection and rule of law.

Final word here: We have religions, government and police, in part, because individuals can't be trusted. We also have laws, checks and balances and elections to keep those institutions honest. Guns are the last resort.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

I'm still not ready to oppose term limits. Certainly not the Pat variety. What if we get a Governor that clears up all of California's problems and retains a 90% approval rating? I'd like to be able to consider him for a trip to Washington.

But hey, I respect term limit supporters. It is not an idiotic idea. Just not optimal.

The legislative process could be vastly improve however, as I have said here before, by requiring (as in Washington State Legislative actions) that a bill's subject matter be limited to its title. Poison amendments and pork cannot be added. Legislators must stick to the subject, and not "bundle" good stuff with ridiculous stuff. That is a major procedural problem in DC.