Questions for the "I hate government" folks

I see a LOT of anti-government posts here these days. And to be sure, governments all over the world are screwing up big time...

But my main question is, with what would the "I hate government" folks replace government?

One of the biggest problems we have in the US today, if not THE biggest, is that the government is in the obvious control of corporate interests, not the people.

Yet I see thread after thread and post after post calling for essentially the removal of government, or making government so small it is unable to do anything.

Are you then that willing to turn all aspects of running a modern civilization over to the corporations? Why the attitude of "government bad, corporations good"? Because that is what is being promoted.

In the US at least, the government is at least in theory accountable to the people. We can see that this is not really the case, but at least it's the theory.

Corporations are not accountable to the people in any way whatsoever. Yeah, I've heard the responses of "vote with your dollar, if you don't like a company, go elsewhere". In a truly free-market economy, that might work. But (as has been noted here many times) we do not live in a free-market economy. We as a culture appear to accept the myth that we do, but it is not the case.

So to want to eliminate government, or make it a nothing entity, is to embrace the coporate approach. Which is the basis of most of the problems we now have.

The other option is anarchy, which while it may sound nice, does not work, and has been proven to not work, for creating or maintaining a modern industrial civilization. So if that is the proposed alternative, forget it: it won't work.

And in all the calls for the removal / reduction of government, I have seen precious little in the way of constructive suggestions as to a viable replacement. Putting more power in the hands of the states will result in worse conditions than we have now. One consequence of the current corporate-owned approach is the wide gap in wealth in the US (and other places, but I live in the US...). I've been talking about this for years, thank Gawd for the Occupy movement, who have raised the issue in the public mind.

Massive inequality in material wealth is one of the more socially de-stabilizing forces. Look at the social unrest we have now, compared to what existed a half century ago, when the wealth distribution was less skewed.

It's about at this point that the "Socialist!" cries will start, and that's fine. I'm not promoting any particular economic or government model here, I am pointing out social truths... massive wealth mal-distribution generates social chaos.

And the corporate-derived tax structure of this country promotes massive wealth mal-distrubition, and has for years.


Pardon the early Sunday morning stream of consciousness here...

The basic question remains - You folks that hate "government" - with what do you propose government be replaced? What mechanisms would you employ to avoid the problems of anarchy (no government) and the problems of the current corporate-owned government?

It doesn't matter much what system you employ. One's as good as another, mostly.
The problem is keeping the greed and corruption out of whatever system you're using.
As long as being a politician is a means of obtaining power and money, we'll never have a fair system.

Most of us became aware of the fact that we were born into a system that is not natural to humans. This is why there is so much misery and destruction in this world. Like trying to domesticate a hyena or tiger.

We all have the and knowledge of good and evil. As we become aware of our surroundings you'll see that the government consists of many idiots who just need a job. They are more concerned with their bills and how they look to their friends and neighbours than the your bills,rights and happiness.

People hate the government because they know that the collective intelligence of the majority of government workers equals that a of a psychopathy moron. We feel as there is someone stupid and drunk behind the wheel of our bus and we are not allowed to point it out or stop him.

If you had kept sheep in a dark room, and abused them, and took away more of their freedoms every day.. it would leave the flock feeling distraught. In this sense of doom, some of the sheep would undoubtedly try to get away from the farmer...Let's say he gets away from the farmers control- you might say, well what does the sheep propose he do to survive in the long run? and the answer is Nothing. It doesn't matter to the sheep what he does as long as his oppressor is no more.

This is how I feel toward the government, I know we would have to replace it with something and I know that is a monumentous task. But all I want is to escape my oppressor, and after that whatever comes of me comes of me. It's more about an emotional drive to break free of our capitalist/fascist chains then an intellectual plan of survival. If you could live forever as a caged bird, or live for a week as a free bird....what would you choose?

For those who value safety and security over rights and liberty- take the cage.
For those who care not about safety, but about the ability to live freely on this Earth- you know what to pick.

I realize I didn't answer your question but hopefully the metaphor helps illustrate why many people just feel a type of primal urge to shake off their masters.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I think what people hate is corruption, power, greed, abuse of position, discrimination and monopolization, war mongering, fear mongering, racketeering, nepotism and elitism, intrusion on privacy and freedom.

That is what Governments seems to mean now, to many people.

I think people would rather see progress, honesty, integrity, equality, opportunity as well as freedom be the defining traits of a government.

I think that woud reduce the hate.

Originally posted by Lapislazuli
If you had kept sheep in a dark room, and abused them, and took away more of their freedoms every day.. it would leave the flock feeling distraught. In this sense of doom, some of the sheep would undoubtedly try to get away from the farmer...Let's say he gets away from the farmers control- you might say, well what does the sheep propose he do to survive in the long run? and the answer is Nothing. It doesn't matter to the sheep what he does as long as his oppressor is no more.

Do you believe, then, that the situation in the US is such that only destruction of the current system will work, and we'll just have to see what then transpires?

Keep in mind that in the US, we (the people) have the legal means to replace all current implementors of government and start with a new group. We just need to stop re-electing corporate drones like Bohner and his boy-toy Cantor, and Pelosi and her boy-toy Reid.

Is it then actually necessary to destroy the current system and rebuild something entirely new?

For those who value safety and security over rights and liberty- take the cage.
For those who care not about safety, but about the ability to live freely on this Earth- you know what to pick.

Why do you believe that "safety and security" and "freedom and liberty" are mutually exclusive?

reply to post by atlasastro


Good point... So that sounds more like people are fed up with how government is currently implemented, not the concept of government itself.

Would you agree?

Originally posted by Lapislazuli
I realize I didn't answer your question but hopefully the metaphor helps illustrate why many people just feel a type of primal urge to shake off their masters.

It's not a mystery why people hate certain aspects of government. I think we all do.

The question is: When you shake off the masters, what then? No tax money for roads, bridges, police and fire depts., national defense, veterans benefits, medical research, education... How realistic is it to 'get rid of government'? And are people REALLY thinking about the consequences of such action? I don't think so.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


That is wht I am saying.

Government has become synonymous with certain traits. It is these traits that create the hatred not the concept or Idea of government per se.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


We do not need alot of the Gumment that is in place.
Why would we need federal this state that and county those?
3 plus organizations to do the same job?
I believe in redundancies but beurocrats are something that do not need redundancy.
Smaller Gumment is what we need and the local officials can take care of what is local.
If not, we vote them out and or take legal action.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by Lapislazuli
If you had kept sheep in a dark room, and abused them, and took away more of their freedoms every day.. it would leave the flock feeling distraught. In this sense of doom, some of the sheep would undoubtedly try to get away from the farmer...Let's say he gets away from the farmers control- you might say, well what does the sheep propose he do to survive in the long run? and the answer is Nothing. It doesn't matter to the sheep what he does as long as his oppressor is no more.

Do you believe, then, that the situation in the US is such that only destruction of the current system will work, and we'll just have to see what then transpires?

Keep in mind that in the US, we (the people) have the legal means to replace all current implementors of government and start with a new group. We just need to stop re-electing corporate drones like Bohner and his boy-toy Cantor, and Pelosi and her boy-toy Reid.

Is it then actually necessary to destroy the current system and rebuild something entirely new?

For those who value safety and security over rights and liberty- take the cage.
For those who care not about safety, but about the ability to live freely on this Earth- you know what to pick.

Why do you believe that "safety and security" and "freedom and liberty" are mutually exclusive?

Because they are.

You can't have 100% safety without 100% security, and you cannot have freedom with liberty if operating with 100% security.

Security = removing freedom.

Example;

I have a dog, he jumps the fence and gets hit by a car. In order to secure him and keep him safe, I build a fence that he cannot climb, or worse -- put him on a leash.

Both reducing his freedoms under the guise of security -- under the guise of safety.

Every condition of security follows as above.

In order to have some safety with guns we require background checks and permits. This removes the freedom to anonymously procure a firearm.

America was founded on the principle of minimalist security, maximalist freedom. Meaning, we knew we'd have to give up SOME freedoms, or we'd live in anarchy, but we preserved the most important aspects of freedom to achieve what we called a democratic republic.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin circa 1738.

Biggest problem we have in the US is the fact that our government does not allow adults to be adults. Instead they want to basically tell you how to live your life. In a way, government should never get big enough to where most people "hate" it as you say.
No law should be created unless they are in place to prevent a person from PHYSICALLY harming another person or person's property. We need laws to stop things such as murder and theft - but short of that, the gov needs to butt out of our lives and let adults handle their affairs in the ways they see fit. Otherwise, its as though the gov is telling us that we are inherently evil adults and cannot be trusted.
All you have to do nowadays to pass a law is claim that in someway it hurts the children and then voila! - more freedom is stripped away!

Originally posted by Salamandy
Biggest problem we have in the US is the fact that our government does not allow adults to be adults. Instead they want to basically tell you how to live your life. In a way, government should never get big enough to where most people "hate" it as you say.
No law should be created unless they are in place to prevent a person from PHYSICALLY harming another person or person's property. We need laws to stop things such as murder and theft - but short of that, the gov needs to butt out of our lives and let adults handle their affairs in the ways they see fit. Otherwise, its as though the gov is telling us that we are inherently evil adults and cannot be trusted.
All you have to do nowadays to pass a law is claim that in someway it hurts the children and then voila! - more freedom is stripped away!

Pretty accurate.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

We do not need alot of the Gumment that is in place.
Why would we need federal this state that and county those?
3 plus organizations to do the same job?
I believe in redundancies but beurocrats are something that do not need redundancy.
Smaller Gumment is what we need and the local officials can take care of what is local.
If not, we vote them out and or take legal action.

Youre right. Id say we need much, much, much less government.
For instance, how in the world can a government tell a private business that they cannot allow smoking in their establishment??
I do not smoke and don't care for second hand smoke but if it really bothers me that much, somehow I am able to act like an adult and make a choice to either put up with a little smoke or leave!
The modern day enemies of freedom are exactly the same type of people who allow a government to tell private business owners that they cannot allow smoking in their privately owned establishments.

Further enemies of freedom are those who:
Were upset about Janet Jacksons nip slip.
Supported seat belt laws
Do not support blanket free speech.

Originally posted by Laokin

In order to have some safety with guns we require background checks and permits. This removes the freedom to anonymously procure a firearm.

Actually no, no it does not.

I impedes lawful people from a lawful purchase.

The criminals still get guns.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


There is

essentially NO DIFFERENCE between big corporations and big government.

The SAME ELITES run both.

It is a FALSE, charade of a dichotomy.

Check out the Boards of Directors of those international conglomerates and the top government positions the last 100 years. You can throw in the Board of Directors of the National Geographic Society.

They are the same satanic global oligarchy.

They have the same goal of setting up overtly the satanic global government that's been running things under the table for 110+ years.

Just following the USA Constitution authentically and protecting the Bill of Rights would be a good start.

Won't happen . . . at least not until after Armageddon.

The Oligarchy will be in charge . . . of all the nations . . . 3.5-7 years with 2-3 nations rebelling somewhat for part of that time . .

and, the 'birth-pangs' period leading up to the Great Tribulation of 7 years also finds them essentially in control of the whole planet . . . under the table.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Laokin

In order to have some safety with guns we require background checks and permits. This removes the freedom to anonymously procure a firearm.

Actually no, no it does not.

I impedes lawful people from a lawful purchase.

The criminals still get guns.

Gun laws of course are a huge issue nowadays. They should be 100% legal. It once again goes back to the fact that certain people in the US must think that every one other than themselves are brutal savages that cant be trusted.
You can never stop certain people from acting evil through laws. Why waste time and tax dollars trying. You just gotta trust that most of us are good guys!

This is when the family unit becomes important. Take care of your family and butt the heck out of others (unless you are called upon to help in a realistic way).

Originally posted by g146541
Smaller Gumment is what we need and the local officials can take care of what is local.

Why do you believe that smaller government is intrinsically more honest?

If not, we vote them out and or take legal action.

AGREED! We have the mechanism to do that now, on local, state and federal levels. Any thoughts on why that is not happening?

Originally posted by Laokin

Why do you believe that "safety and security" and "freedom and liberty" are mutually exclusive?

Because they are.

You can't have 100% safety without 100% security, and you cannot have freedom with liberty if operating with 100% security.

Security = removing freedom.

Then you favor complete dissolution of the current Industrialized civilization? It is not possible for individuals to have 100% freedom and still maintain a complex society.

Example:

I am a firearms enthusiast. I want to go down and set up targets and have a shooting match on main street, when there is a parade going on. Hey, I'm free, I should be able to do that.

So saying you require 100% individual freedom is equivalent to saying you support an anarchic civilization. Are you sure that is your preference?

Second example: I ride motorcycles. I wear a helmet, fully armored clothing and good boots, making me safer and more secure. This in no way diminishes my freedom.

What it would take for me to be proud of my government:

Repeal every law that has no authorization in the constitution. IE any sort of welfare. Gun laws. Drug laws. Reduce copyright to equal patent terms. Issue every American a m-16 and at 18 require everyone (male and female) to go through boot camp. Then eliminate the standing army. Only keep the generals on during times of peace. Stay out of other countries business, repudiate the national debt.

I watched COPS last night. I saw several people arrested only for owning and carrying guns. I cannot comprehend why they were arrested. We have a RIGHT to own and carry guns. Bear means carry. Keep and bear, not own and keep in the closet or on your property.

I want any congress critter who has voted for unconstitutional laws arrested and put in prison for loooong periods of time. I want the Supreme court removed from office and hanged for treason. Every last one of them. I want corporate personhood ended.

And finally I want the right to roam at will through any and all woods. Not within sight of peoples houses, but in the woods. I despise people who buy large tracts of land then put No Trespassing signs up and call the cops on anyone who dares walk in their woods. It is an affront to everything good and decent in the world. Also want a ban on building withing 100ft of any waterway and the right to roam the banks and fish wherever I desire. There are thousands of miles of river banks and lake shores around here and zero miles of places to fish and enjoy nature. The rich people have built them all up or posted it all. It's not right, not fair, and unAmerican to do that.