If government is so horrible, what is the answer?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I truly am lost on this subject and can't understand two things about this 'anti-government' attitude to life.

One is why do you hate government? Do you hate it at all levels (Federal, State, County, City) or just at one particular level? Do you see any value in government at any level and in any situation?

Two - what are the alternatives to government that you think would work in a diverse society such as the United States where, by definition, we are of many races, cultures, creeds, ages, abilities?

I ask this because there are so many in government that don't believe in governing and hense the business of governance is not getting done - the business of 'We The People' is not getting done.

Do you really think that Corporate governance will be benefitial to anyone in the long run?

My take, for the moment, is that it is Big Business and it's influence by endless money that is the problem and not the institution of government it'self. And I believe that diversions against government are a very well designed method of keeping the government enslaved to Big Business and Greed.

A recent article on the subject with a little history for those who are interested:

Why the Right Hates Government

www.alternet.org...




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Government isn't the problem, it's power and corruption. The more power you give a person or group of people, the more corrupt they can potentially behave without facing consequence. This is why you need checks and balances within any governing system, but what to do when every nook and cranny of a balanced government becomes corrupted?

Just look at the current situation in America; Obama and his seeming countless scandals have met no resistance. The people calling to bring him to justice are both powerless and starving for attention. Congress is a brothel where despicable, corrupted old men and women whore their power and influence to the highest bidder. The supreme court is no different, with 4 members polarized to the left, 4 members polarized to the right, and a douche who whores his vote to whoever makes him the better bribe.

Any system of government can work in theory, but when you put real people in those seats, your theories all fall apart. Greed is our unraveling. The answer is grossly limiting the role of government so that it serves one purpose: to provide a unified defense against potential aggressors in a war setting.

Everything else can, and should, be left to private industry. The competition of corporations prevents the incompetence of government. Why does every government service suck? Because there is no incentive to make it better. You are not a customer to the government.
edit on 3-6-2013 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.




Not sure I follow you.

How is smaller government a guess?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Once sustainable infinite energy is achieved, progress can be made. Once the burden of scarcity by way of energy is eliminated, serious transformations can happen.
It will be at the point, that the notion of absolute abundance will soon follow, and once people recognize that it is possible anything less will cause civic upheaval.

A completely autonomous system must follow after. People will no longer physically labor through the implementation of civil drone technologies, including the building structures, the harvesting of agriculture and mining of metals.

I just wonder if most people would be willing to go along with such a notion. I guess I'm not different than FDR saying "a chicken in every pot", but I can see the potential of technology and more importantly the human spirit. Our best days haven't passed us by yet.

When it comes to addressing socio-economic statuses, Machiavelli stated "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles", and I think that would hold true regardless. I believe a system of absolute abundance would allow for humans to be praised based upon their intellectual achievements in reference to the benefits the collective can generate from an individuals insights.

Sporting events would still occur, but individuals would participate namely for the sake of praise.

I feel like the crazy guy rambling about a real Utopia but I suppose the alternative will cause more interest.
edit on 3-6-2013 by nickendres because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.




Not sure I follow you.

How is smaller government a guess?


OK,

How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?

No guessing
edit on 3-6-2013 by hamburgerler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.




Not sure I follow you.

How is smaller government a guess?


OK,

How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?


As many as are required to perform the duties given to them by society.

Give the government less duties and it will require less people.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
We can keep the current structure in place, if we divide each respective branch by 5.

The separation of powers in the United States is represented in the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches. The current system is based upon

· 100 Senators in the Senate

· 435 in the House of Representatives

· 535 people in Congress

· 9 Supreme Court Justices (President appointed)

· President, Vice-President and the executive appointed Cabinet

I propose the division of the Legislative and Executive branches under the terms of re-organization establishing 5 ideological affiliated groups in terms of the political “right and left”.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nickendres
We can keep the current structure in place, if we divide each respective branch by 5.

The separation of powers in the United States is represented in the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches. The current system is based upon

· 100 Senators in the Senate

· 435 in the House of Representatives

· 535 people in Congress

· 9 Supreme Court Justices (President appointed)

· President, Vice-President and the executive appointed Cabinet

I propose the division of the Legislative and Executive branches under the terms of re-organization establishing 5 ideological affiliated groups in terms of the political “right and left”.



I would love to see you expand on this idea. I don't necessarily agree with it but it would be a very fun topic to discuss with you.

Maybe you should start a thread on it so we don't derail this one.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.




Not sure I follow you.

How is smaller government a guess?


OK,

How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?


As many as are required to perform the duties given to them by society.

Give the government less duties and it will require less people.


That is exactly what I mean by guess...

Everyone is going to have a different idea of how many people that will be.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by Hopechest
I wouldn't say the entire government is corrupt but I will agree that it is too large to function properly.

The answer would be to shrink the role of government however you must take into consideration that with population increases and now globalization, it is essential to have a government do far more than they did in the 18th century.

We saw the problems that existed before we had central control, the States could not govern themselves within the Union effectively so there is only so much power you could take away from the federal government for us to function properly.


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.




Not sure I follow you.

How is smaller government a guess?


OK,

How many people (employees and officials) should constitute government?


As many as are required to perform the duties given to them by society.

Give the government less duties and it will require less people.


That is exactly what I mean by guess...

Everyone is going to have a different idea of how many people that will be.


Why does the number of people matter to anything.

When I said reduce the size of government I was referring to taking away some of their duties and giving them to the States.

The number of people are irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I believe government is necessary for any civilized nation. Without common rules being set, there would be anarchy.

Although the current situation of many governments in the world is not the way it should be. The transparency should be much higher.

Setting the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of the people is simply wrong, as after all democracy is about majorities not minorities. If the actions of the minorities have negative effect on the lives of majority, these should not be tolerated.

Different industries should be regulated much more in order to guarantee that their actions to do not have negative effects on the health of people and the environment surrounding them.

Minorites should be heard and accepted, although their actions should not have a negative effect the lives of a majority. They can do what they want, as long as they do not directly affect the lives of others in a negative way.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Don't mind me, I'm just passing through


You'll hear about my proposal in a couple years, as early as Nov. 2014 when I turn 25. I have to run for the house and get elected first.

I was just throwing it out there to see if there was interest and if others have different or similar concepts.
edit on 3-6-2013 by nickendres because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Would it not make sense that as the population explodes as it has over the past few decades that several factors become more apparent?

First, as I learned in the corporate world, the more crowded the field of competitors for power or simple existence the more those who are willing to lie, cheat, or steal what they want will rise in prominence. Ethics, morals. and extraneous effort to follow laws and regulations very rapidly creates a voluminous void between them and the corrupt. Honesty is far more often penalized than rewarded.

Second, sheer numbers produce more competitors with hidden or unsavory motives.

Third, if a true democracy were to exist, this could be a tremendous move in the right direction. No more electoral; college, no more republic, and one vote = one vote. Even if such a situation were to occur, there would always be sore losers which could lead to a new set of concerns.

Fourth, even if a true communist ruling party were to exist, this could be a tremendous move in a better direction. Redistribution of wealth does not have to come by robbery, it could simply be allowed through real honest to goodness "effort invested is directly proportional to rewards gained". This falls under communism as those who refuse to participate reap exactly what they earn. Social services would be entitled and empowered to expect returns for their investments in under performers as opposed to free hand outs for laziness and unwillingness to add to the greater good.

Fifth, keeping our money "in-house" would very, very quickly make this country become perhaps completely self sufficient, thus reducing the need for an over-sized government in the first place. The added benefit would of course be we could actually build friendships and honest relationships with other nations if we just got out of their business. Less war would equal less rebuilding. Discontinued appointing ourselves the world's police would save tens of billions of dollars.

Sixth, if common sense exists were to somehow actually become a per-requisite to serve in upper level government, a huge amount of problems not only disappear, but by the act of common sense law could never again return.

Last, any government would still have to maintain a global position of power with some means of passive Mutually Assured Destruction. We can't paint targets on our chest in the process, but as we withdraw from trying to dominate world events we could become the 800 pound gorilla who stays in his own cubby hole with his family that no one wants to tick off.

There will be great answers to your question, op, and I hope my thoughts are helpful and not offensive to anyone participating in this exercise. Thanks for the topic and good luck.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Ever notice that "anti government" politicians join the government and use government the same as anyone else???



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
It's not Goverment that's the problem, the enemy, itt's the very idea of government.That we need to e governed..It's been culturally drummed into us for so long we have forgotten how to take charge of our own lives. How to look to ourselves for answers instead of some ruling body. Anarchy (Not anarchISM)

The rule of one. The self. There should be no sovereign greater than that which you have yourself. No kingdom bigger than one man's life. The proportionate resourcing of everyman's needs from sustainable sources. All pVia apple



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Government isn't the problem, it's power and corruption. The more power you give a person or group of people, the more corrupt they can potentially behave without facing consequence. This is why you need checks and balances within any governing system, but what to do when every nook and cranny of a balanced government becomes corrupted?

Just look at the current situation in America; Obama and his seeming countless scandals have met no resistance. The people calling to bring him to justice are both powerless and starving for attention. Congress is a brothel where despicable, corrupted old men and women whore their power and influence to the highest bidder. The supreme court is no different, with 4 members polarized to the left, 4 members polarized to the right, and a douche who whores his vote to whoever makes him the better bribe.

Any system of government can work in theory, but when you put real people in those seats, your theories all fall apart. Greed is our unraveling. The answer is grossly limiting the role of government so that it serves one purpose: to provide a unified defense against potential aggressors in a war setting.

Everything else can, and should, be left to private industry. The competition of corporations prevents the incompetence of government. Why does every government service suck? Because there is no incentive to make it better. You are not a customer to the government.
edit on 3-6-2013 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)


Okay - I'll agree with the power and corruption and the need for checks and balances. That was precisely why out government was set up with three equal and separate branches of government. But I would ask where is the source of the corruption you are speaking of? I would assert that it is Big Business not Government it'self.

The only role of government, and as you neglected to say what level of government, I will assume you are speaking of the Federal Government, is to protect us from Exterior Threats. All other services and functions should be handle by Big Business. Presumably because private enterprise is more effecient. There are many cases of government being more efficient then private business as in Medicare and USPS. These services would be prohibitively expensive to a large sector of the population.

Personally, I don't see business willing or able to provide services or protect the commons that would be non-discriminatory and cover all citizens. - But I'm willing to listen to schemes that say otherwise.

But what of the incompetance of Business?

And what happens to the poor, sick and elderly - Will business provide for them? Will business provide any social security net? No - they don't even adhere to current contracts with existing employees and retirees.

The almightly contract is binding on the little guy but not the Corporate person. What you suggest, appears a nightmare where Corporations are the only 'people' that have rights and real existence. People are just a 'consumable' resource - to be used to failure and discarded.

Give some direction to sources for how this Corporate paradise can be found. I've yet to run across one in literature with the execption of Rand's attempt in her novel but they were theoritical musings not day to day practical visions.

Really - Show me your vision of a better world through Corporate Rule.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hamburgerler


The problem is, "smaller government" is a guess.




How so?? What do you mean?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nickendres
Once sustainable infinite energy is achieved, progress can be made. Once the burden of scarcity by way of energy is eliminated, serious transformations can happen.
It will be at the point, that the notion of absolute abundance will soon follow, and once people recognize that it is possible anything less will cause civic upheaval.

A completely autonomous system must follow after. People will no longer physically labor through the implementation of civil drone technologies, including the building structures, the harvesting of agriculture and mining of metals.

I just wonder if most people would be willing to go along with such a notion. I guess I'm not different than FDR saying "a chicken in every pot", but I can see the potential of technology and more importantly the human spirit. Our best days haven't passed us by yet.

When it comes to addressing socio-economic statuses, Machiavelli stated "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles", and I think that would hold true regardless. I believe a system of absolute abundance would allow for humans to be praised based upon their intellectual achievements in reference to the benefits the collective can generate from an individuals insights.

Sporting events would still occur, but individuals would participate namely for the sake of praise.

I feel like the crazy guy rambling about a real Utopia but I suppose the alternative will cause more interest.
edit on 3-6-2013 by nickendres because: (no reason given)


I'm a minor fan of Machiabelli myself and think he gets a bad rap. People should read the Prince - it's not even that long.

Nice idea and I do agree with you - but how can you wrest control from Big Business interests to keep them from suppressing such technologies that would put power and autonomy in the hands of ordinary people?

I'm certain, in this forum, are countless stories of wonderful discoveries and technologies that have been forceablly suppressed by Big Business. Cures for cancer that cost pennies, energy sources for every home and apartment without need for massive distribution networks and endless payments to THEM. Shoot composting toliets in ever home would save massive amounts of fresh water, use grey water from bathing and other tasking for watering gardens and parts (have to use non-toxic and biodegradable products - the chemical companies are not likely to allow that).

I agree we do have the technology to move forward without further distruction and clean up past messes as well (think nuclear waste, etc).





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum