Government.

[Farto the Magic]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=DarkGreen]I don't know about you, but I don't like the government. I mean, I'm no anarchist, we need a government, but I don't like the organization of the American government. There are multiple reasons.

1. The senate is really frickin slow. Honestly, the senate takes months, if not years to get stuff done. Simple stuff that shouldn't take too long. And when something does get done, its a tug of war. After a bill is passed, the other people try to get it revoked. Don't even get me started about filibusters.

2. The two-party system tears the country apart every four years. Everyone has the need to define themselves as either a democrat or a republican. Why? You don't benefit off of it at all. The only benefit of it is that you get half the calls around election time. And then the parties are polar opposites. The democrats want freedom to the point of near-anarchy and the republicans want chains around our necks. Honestly, what ever happened to the days when people formed their own opinions on issues, rather than going with their party?

3. The president is a figurehead and has little actual power. Face it, George Bush is a frickin retard. He has done nothing. He can propose things to the senate, who take forever to get crap done because of the infighting. Then, when something does get done, the losing side complains! Get over it!

4. Our freedoms are too extreme. For some reason, the 1st ammendment covers all things. You can leak government secrets, protest at a soldier's funeral, or about anything you wish. What ever happened to the days when people had the decency to respect the family of a fallen soldier? Last month we had a funeral a few miles from my place and there was a huge protest. WTF?! That stuff that Michael Moore says would be considered treason anywhere but in the U.S.

Personally, I think that if you tell a man he is an autonomous being, he will do whatever he wants without being told to. I think its the government's job to make people's lives better. Limit freedoms. No one NEEDS to know how to make a pipe bomb. What is the practical application of such things? No one needs to know the layout of a military installation. So why do we have access to such things? I really can't come up with a good reason. Why does anyone need to have 19 kids? That many kids will send you to the poor house. Having Netherlands Reformed people around where I live, I see a lot of people who have over ten kids and live in terrible conditions. Don't tell me for a second that with 19 kids, each of them is getting everything they need and deserve. Why do we need 15 out of 20 stores in a mall to sell the same style of clothes? God, I have to travel 60 miles to get clothes I like. One more point. Two words: gas price.

I dunno, I think we should have a government that is utilitarian and decisive. One where people get what they need because what they want usually isn't good for them. It sounds kinda like socialism if not communism. Well, maybe it is. I think the government's job is to provide for its people, rather than the people provide for its government. Some of the government's policies are good, like roads and schools.

What do you guys think?[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Retribution]

[size=1]1. As far as I can tell, most democratic countries have a bicameral legislation and it works fine. The things that slow down the democratic process are completely organic, and I don't think it's possible for them to be destroyed. Honestly, I don't really see the problem with it. Congress seems like it gets things done if it is truly the will of the people, and if it's not then things tend to slow down or halt. What do you want to have happen? Saying "I wish it were faster!1" is great and all, but if you have nothing to give except empty complaints, suck it up. Have a solution before you voice your grievances.

2. Well, the formation of parties was an organic thing as well. Everyone and their mother knows that Washington was fervently against them, but the democratic system is engineered so that it would happen. I support View X, and since Group 1 consistently supports my View X, why don't we just band together so that our guys get into office? If there's united voting power, then our views will be represented. That's called a party. A party rarely stands for all your beliefs, but you go with the one who most closely resembles your views. It's just a pick of the lesser of the two evils, which is why everyone is so party-line. Sure, calling yourself a Democrat or Republican isn't necessary, you're right on that.

3. Are you kidding me? The President has only grown in power since the conception of the United States. He can arbitrarily declare war, since he has control of the military and is the "Commander-in-Chief," an the sheer weight he carries is enough to tip the poltical scale. There's also this thing call a veto, where if he uses it on a bill, it has to [b]re-pass through Congress with a 2/3 majority[/b]. If that's not power, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the President usually has his cronies in the Congress with him, so any proposed changes go through relatively quickly if he supports it.

4. Well, the people who protest at soldier's weddings do anger be quite a bit. They're abusing the civil liberties, and that's regrettable, but you can't take those freedoms away from everyone because a small percentage are being idiots. It's the freedom to assembly; picking and choosing becomes dangerous when you're deciding which liberties get the axe because they're just "not right."

Basically, the term "better" is just so subjective that you can't place your complete trust in the government. I can't just say "oh, they have my best interests at heart, I trust you." You should question the government's every move; if you don't, you might end up sliding towards 1984. Trusting a government to operate behind closed doors is completely foolish. You get something like wire-tapping and the PATRIOT Act and it's all in the holy crusade against "terror". I'll be damned the day that the government tells me how many children I can have. That's ridiculous.

And the other stuff you're talking about, that's capitalism and laissez-faire. If there's a demand, there'll be a supply. Get over it.[/size]

[eleanor]

[color=dimgray] While you're complaining, can you actually give any good, realistic alternatives?

[/color]

[Fasteriskhead]

1. Are you so sure this is a bad thing? Granted, it's certainly a pain when a budget doesn't get passed on time, but I'm not so certain that a legislature (you only mention the senate, but I assume you mean congress as a whole) that did [i]everything[/i] quickly would be desirable. I'd hate to bring up the Patriot Act (because we were all already tired of talking about the thing a good three years ago), but there's really no better piece of law to illustrate this. The USAPA is a mix of, on the one hand, things that should have been done a long time ago, and on the other, immensely far-reaching powers that [i]still[/i] haven't found a clear legal interpretation as to their limits. A few years ago, portions of the USAPA were invoked to try to kick homeless people out of a train station; it was also invoked try to justify drug traffic investigations without warrant or probable cause; ditto for FBI requests to ISPs for them to hand over user account information. Histrionic anti-right sites, of course, like to do things like superimpose the USAPA over Hitler and think that in doing so they're saying something important - this is silly and meaningless. The real danger of legislation like this is [i]not[/i] that we're suddenly back in Germany '33, but simply that we've introduced massive new powers to the federal government without having any clear idea where those powers properly end. Fast legislation is vague legislation, more often than not. If democracy is doing well, it generally seems to move at a power walk pace; if it's [i]sprinting[/i], something is probably wrong. The arguments we're having right now about the executive branch "overreaching" itself are really arguments that we should have had a half-decade ago.

2. Actually, the degree of polarization we're seeing right now is something quite new - as late as the '70s you still had conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. To oversimplify, both sides were generally pretty careful not to step on each others' toes too much because they knew that the following week they'd have to ally with the folks across the aisle to get something done. Nowadays, in contrast, we have "moderates" at best. There's too much that went into this change for me to try to round it all up in one post (massive shifts in the Republican party during the '80s and '90s, changes in how campaigns were financed and run, the gradual decline of the importance of local politics), but for now it's enough to point out that this "red/blue" thing hasn't always been the case. You say: "The democrats want freedom to the point of near-anarchy and the republicans want chains around our necks." Nonsense, unless you've only been reading Daily Kos and listening to right-wing talk radio. The problem is not that the two parties are fixed into their objectives and refuse to compromise, but rather that they increasingly define themselves [i]against[/i] the other (a caricature of the other) without actually having any goal in sight other than winning. Now, I obviously don't have any immediate solutions to fix this. But if we're trying to understand this split, it may be worth bringing up Santayana's famous quote on fanaticism: he says that it "consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim," which perfectly describes the present state of both parties.

3. I don't quite understand your meaning here. If you're just talking about the president himself, then of course there's always been talk (misguided, I think) that Bush actually doesn't do anything and that Cheney and Rumsfeld run the country. If you're talking about the executive branch [i]as a whole[/i], though, then I don't understand how you can say this. I would clarify Retri on a few points (the president can order a military action but only congress can declare war, and Bush himself has still yet to use the veto), but I completely sympathize with her confusion here. Hasn't the news been clogged to overflowing recently with questions of executive powers (when it hasn't been clogged with questions about the rights of the media)? The wiretapping thing? The bank accounts thing? [i]Hamdan v. Rumsfeld?[/i] Not that this being a "popular" question indicates that the executive branch really is overstepping its bounds, but it's at least something up for serious question.

4. Government cannot create responsibility, it can only create a space where responsibility can [i]happen[/i]. Anything beyond that is a practical question, although for the most part I would err on the side of the first amendment if only because of [i]stare decisis[/i], i.e. because the kind of cutting you're talking about would make a complete mess of the legal system. (And there [i]are[/i], I would think, legitimate uses for pipe bombs)

Also: "I dunno, I think we should have a government that is utilitarian and decisive. One where people get what they need because what they want usually isn't good for them. It sounds kinda like socialism if not communism." No, I think the word you're looking for is "authoritarian." This kind of state was described very well by Anakin Skywalker in Episode II.

EDIT: to the folks asking for possible solutions rather than complaints, I stress on the one hand that Farto [I]does[/I] propose bringing us over into authoritarianism as a solution, and on the other that I think you're moving too quickly. The best response to this kind of vague complaining is not to immediately "solve" it but to clarify and understand the issues at hand in a more fundamental way... and I don't think we're even close to pulling that off, not in this thread nor in the US as a whole.

[John]

The main conflict I see with your post, Farto, is that you think the government should be an entity that works to protect its citizens. The centuries-old question, though, is whether the government should be a body higher than the people that only concerns it with the people's best interest (the view advocated by Thomas Hobbes, hit him up on Wikipedia), or whether it should be a representation of the people's collective wishes (advocated by John Locke, check him out too).

The first option will result, sooner or later, in the protectors of the nation serving themselves instead of the people, and this has been proved throughout history. The second will probably result in the people destroying themselves, because they don't know what's good for each other. This is true the larger the nation is and the less the citizens and groups of citizens are able to know each other.

'Course, that second option is what most of the world has right now, and it's satisfied the most people succesfully for the longest amount of time, so which of the two evils should you choose?

[Farto the Magic]

[QUOTE]1. As far as I can tell, most democratic countries have a bicameral legislation and it works fine. The things that slow down the democratic process are completely organic, and I don't think it's possible for them to be destroyed. Honestly, I don't really see the problem with it. Congress seems like it gets things done if it is truly the will of the people, and if it's not then things tend to slow down or halt. What do you want to have happen? Saying "I wish it were faster!1" is great and all, but if you have nothing to give except empty complaints, suck it up. Have a solution before you voice your grievances.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]I just wish that congress, upon reaching a conclusion, would stick with it. How many times has the gay marriage ban been proposed? How many times has it been shot down? How many times is going to be brought up in the future? I understand that there are certain situations where changes must be made (slavery), but I'm sick of bills being brought up and shot down multiple times. In addition, what's the use of a filibuster? Making people get bored and leave so when you vote, they're not there. That's cheap and should not be allowed in our government. I thought our government was supposed to be professional.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]3. Are you kidding me? The President has only grown in power since the conception of the United States. He can arbitrarily declare war, since he has control of the military and is the "Commander-in-Chief," an the sheer weight he carries is enough to tip the poltical scale. There's also this thing call a veto, where if he uses it on a bill, it has to [b]re-pass through Congress with a 2/3 majority[/b]. If that's not power, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the President usually has his cronies in the Congress with him, so any proposed changes go through relatively quickly if he supports it.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]He can declare war IF CONGRESS ALLOWS IT. In addition, he tried to amend the constitution for (not to be redundant, but its still fresh in everyone's minds) gay marriage. Yeah, that one went over nicely.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]4. Well, the people who protest at soldier's weddings do anger be quite a bit. They're abusing the civil liberties, and that's regrettable, but you can't take those freedoms away from everyone because a small percentage are being idiots. It's the freedom to assembly; picking and choosing becomes dangerous when you're deciding which liberties get the axe because they're just "not right."[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]Yes, but shouldn't it be altered so such things don't happen? There is no need for people to berate a grieving family, freedom of assembly or not.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]And the other stuff you're talking about, that's capitalism and laissez-faire. If there's a demand, there'll be a supply. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]Yes, but its such a dog-eat-dog system. Its a system based on greed. I don't have any other alternatives at this point, but I'm just pointing out that its a flawed system. Its like pointing out that someone's car is smoking, though you don't know what's wrong. You don't want to read it, I'm not making you.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]No, I think the word you're looking for is "authoritarian." This kind of state was described very well by Anakin Skywalker in Episode II.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]Not to get off-topic here, but if you read the various Star Wars books though, it seems like the Empire had a fairly good thing going. It was well-organized and (at least outwardly) worked like a well-oiled machine. Whereas the Old Republic had senators squabbling for the longest time about stupid things, while catastrophies went mostly unheard. The last line is where we are currently at in our state of government.

In addition, I do agree that the government can't force responsibility, but it attempt to educate people more. My high school was sub-par at best and, as a result, we had three girls have four babies before graduation.

Also, there's got to be a way of getting the best parts of Hobbes and Locke. I'm not saying we'll have a super-government, but we know the weaknesses of both. Can't we now try to find a way to get them to work together? If not, there are a lot of political philosophers throughout history. I'll bet that Aristotle would have something to say about our government.[/COLOR]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name=' Farto the Magic][COLOR=DarkGreen']Not to get off-topic here, but if you read the various Star Wars books though, it seems like the Empire had a fairly good thing going. It was well-organized and (at least outwardly) worked like a well-oiled machine. [/COLOR][/quote]

Yep. They were so efficient they didn't even bother having a debate before they blew up Alderaan.

[quote name='Farto the Magic][FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=DarkGreen]I think its the government's job to make people's lives better. Limit freedoms.[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]

Exactly. We can ban books on pipe bombs, communism and Hitler, because they?re all bad. Same with Islam, because all Muslims are terrorists. Ban pornography, because it corrupts people?s minds. Harry Potter does that too, by making people witches, so let?s burn those books. Then we should shut down the New York Times, because they expose state secrets.

Then we?d all have much better lives.

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']The President has only grown in power since the conception of the United States. He can arbitrarily declare war, since he has control of the military and is the "Commander-in-Chief," [/size][/quote]

[quote name='Farto the Magic][COLOR=DarkGreen']He can declare war IF CONGRESS ALLOWS IT. In addition, he tried to amend the constitution for (not to be redundant, but its still fresh in everyone's minds) gay marriage. Yeah, that one went over nicely.[/COLOR][/quote]

Chill with the caps, Farto. You?re both right. The War Power Act of 1973 gives the President the authority to declare war, so that the United States can respond quickly to threats, but also makes sure that if Congress hasn?t supported that decision within 60 days the troops are brought home.

[quote name='Farto the Magic][COLOR=DarkGreen'] In addition, what's the use of a filibuster? Making people get bored and leave so when you vote, they're not there. That's cheap and should not be allowed in our government. I thought our government was supposed to be professional.[/COLOR][/quote]

lolz.

Where have you been?

[quote name='Farto the Magic][COLOR=DarkGreen']I'll bet that Aristotle would have something to say about our government.[/COLOR][/quote]

I?d offer you this,

[quote name='Lord Bryce via The New Yorker'] Providence has under its special care children, idiots and The United States of America.[/quote]

I think the third is a little heavy on the second.

[Retribution]

[size=1]I'm going to ignore the whining without a solution and cut to the important stuff.
[quote name='Farto the Magic][COLOR=DarkGreen']Yes, but shouldn't it be altered so such things don't happen? There is no need for people to berate a grieving family, freedom of assembly or not.[/COLOR][/quote]
If you alter the law for one specific case, all bets are off. You can't just arbitrarily change the law because you don't like the way a group is expressing their freedom of assembly and/or speech. The most you could get them for is disturbing the peace or protesting without a permit, but other than that, there shouldn't be any curtailing of civil liberties. The "no need" is a subjective, opinion-based assessment. All I'm saying is that you can't really pick and choose which laws you like and which you don't and just change things all of the sudden. What if I don't agree with you? Shouldn't I be allowed to change it back since [i]I[/i] don't like it? It's just a completely blind and idealistic idea you have.
[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkGreen]Yes, but its such a dog-eat-dog system. Its a system based on greed. I don't have any other alternatives at this point, but I'm just pointing out that its a flawed system. Its like pointing out that someone's car is smoking, though you don't know what's wrong. You don't want to read it, I'm not making you.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
It's not flawed at all in this case. I want to get money. I see alot of people like buying clothes from Abercrombie & Fitch. I open my own store to compete with them (which is the basis of all capitalism) and I call it American Eagle. Of course there are small changes to add incentive to shopping at my store versus another store. Without this, you'd be forced to buy from one specific store -- there would be a monopoly.

Now imagine several clothing stores that you liked all opened in a mall near you. Would you be so oppossed to the options given to you, or would you be so staunch and nihilistic? I'm not going to deny that there are problems with capitalism, but these problems aren't easily solved. Worker exploitation is the most important and pressing matter, but no one really cares about it so nothing will be done. The fact that Old Navy and The Gap opened up in the same mall really is unimportant. It sounds more like venting than anything else, to me.[/size]

[John]

The point that I was getting at is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. No matter what form of government you choose, you'll always have problems. And your misdirection comes from the fact that you're expecting to be able to make a perfect government, when we can't make a perfect [i]anything[/i]. And if we try to abolish cracks and snags in the system completely, instead of just minimizing them, then even more will simply come up.

[2010DigitalBoy]

We need government to survive and control because people are corrupt... but then the government is corrupt as well. And we want less controlling governments but when people get out of control, we blame the governments. The corruption of humanity and government turns in an endless cycle. The question is: how can it be helped?

[The13thMan]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]Well, i believe most of what i had to say has already been said. I totally disagree with most of what Farto said. I think it's ridiculous. But everybody's entitled to their own opinion, so it's cool.

1. It's slow because everybody has different opinions and they want ot make sure that the right thing is done. I accept that it's slow because everything has to go through the same process, if not then who'll decide what goes through what process? I can see what you're saying, but i'm totally fine with it.

2. The two parites are just labels, there are many types of democrats and republicans. Just because you're a democrat doesn't mean you support gay marriage.

3. He has power.

4. I love my freedom.

I believe they got rid of filibusters, though i'm not sure. Anybody know?

Later.


[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I believe they got rid of filibusters, though i'm not sure. Anybody know?[/COLOR'] [/FONT][/quote]
[size=1]I'm not sure, but I highly doubt it. I believe recently the Democrats were filibustering on the amendment to make marriage between one man and one woman. I only remember it because the Republicans got really riled up about it. Heh.[/size]