Stop blaming ‘government’

Over and over some people spit out ‘government’ as if it were a bad word.

But ‘governments’ are made up from our fellow citizens – ‘government’ covers every civil servant, police officer, everyone in the military and everyone elected and they are not all seven foot tall lizards from Alpha Centauri whatever the conspiracy theorist might say.

This use of ‘government’ its seems to me is a trick used by right wing libertarians because so many Americans have been indoctrinated by right leaning propaganda to boo whenever ‘government’ is mentioned, wealth whispering the self serving mantra of ‘private good, public bad’

My desire is not for ‘big government’ or ‘small government’ it is for good governance and as shown a number of times right wing libertarians don’t seem that interested in that, preferring to clutch to ideological delusions that they seem unable to defend from criticism.

The US has an ‘elected government’ so isn’t any flaws in it down to those that elected people into government? It seems to me that some sneer and blame ‘government’ for being ‘bad’ when the true problem is a dysfunctional political system that allows ‘bad’ representatives into power, it would seem then to me that the solution would be to try and fix the political system so elections get ‘good’ or at least better representatives into power. People that have decent ideas that stand up to scrutiny and wish to improve the system.

 

I agree with this, and it's a big reason why I am a Libertarian. Lefties such as yourself seem to think that if a person votes Libertarian then they want a full on free market Libertarian only Government. But that's simply not the case. It's not even a possibility. I just want to see a more balanced government but the Republicrats currently have complete control over who gets into high offices. We technically have an elected government, but it seems to me to be just a dog and pony show to give us the illusion that we have a choice. If the Republicrats don't like who we choose then they'll just change the rules and choose someone else as they did with Ron Paul.

I don't think too many people blame the government. I thing that too many people blame the government while doing nothing to change it and continue buying into their corrupt system.

 

Letlovin

As I’ve said many times there are many shades of right wing libertarianism, and it seems to me that many of them use this ‘bad government’ argument often coupled with shouting ‘freedom’. I don't think that is disputed, is it?

My argument which I’ve set out often and at length is that to me the problem with the US is that it has gone too far down the neo-liberal/free market path and many of its problems are due to that and I’ve explained that travelling any further down that road (as right wing libertarians seem to want) will most likely make things a lot worse rather than better.

 

But we do have, each one of us, religion and that is private religion, to house as it were our maintained judgments against the Neo-liberal commonwealth.

 

I don't disagree. But it's not something exclusive of the LP. We see it in all parties, and wherever there are large groups of people who disagree with eachother. The words aren't the same but it's the same concept.

I disagree. I don't think it's free market ideas that got us here it all. I think it's the manipulation of the market by those who stand to gain by doing so.

 

letlovin

Oh people can argue over good and bad government but the right wing libertarian ‘bad government argument seems based in the idea that public governance is inheritantly ‘bad’, while the private is inheritantly ‘good’.

Been through that many times with you, please read - Free market = plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

There never has been and there never can be a free market. That is why the ‘free market’/neoliberal dream is such a dangerous one.

You may disagree but so far you haven’t put up any counter argument beyond that you disagree.

 

I don't know any Libertarian who thinks that government is inherently bad. If that were the case then wouldn't they be an anarchist?

But to your point, I can see how that could be construed by the rants and ramblings by Libertarians that we often see. But most of the beefs Libertarians have with government is with the current government, not the entire idea of governance.

I agree.

The free market ideals that you speak of aren't free market ideals at all. They have only been implemented in ways that benefit the corporations that pay to have those policies put in place. All the while placing heavy restrictions in other areas eliminating competition. The Libertarian ideas that I support would take away those special privileges and bring about a fairer marketplace.

 

Zzzz...

If government was good, had noble intentions, and had the potential to effect positive change, don't you think things would get slightly better instead of progressively worse with time, regardless of which party takes power? If the people are the government, as you say, then what is so special about that when the general public is so uninformed and gets all their information from corporate news? That's why they vote for dumb fucks like Obama and the moron in office before him. Look, anyone can enter politics -- or attempt to enter it -- but anyone with a modicum of respect for the truth will admit that you don't get very far in the political realm unless you're beholden to corporate interests, which ensures you get reelected and go far in the political world, so that you have some degree of real power to effect real change, if those are even your true intentions at that point.

Name one top-tier US politician (or British politician) who is working for good. Can you?

Also, do you always have to inject your ad hominem bullshit into every political discussion you bring to the table with regard to conspiracy theorists and talk of "seven foot tall lizards from Alpha Centauri" (which I have never even heard mentioned in this forum)? Not everyone who isn't buying the farce which is politics (or simply has a different opinion than you) is a person who believes in lizard people. I would say most people who are even slightly awake see politics for what it is, because it should really be quite obvious by now. Really, at this point I try my hardest to avoid political people, because they seem every bit as much brainwashed as some of the whackiest of religious zealots.

 

The axiom (or maxim) ' the bad always drives out the good' manifests constantly and as we see---includes our government.

 

Politics is little more than a soap opera put on by actors whose job is to keep our minds occupied while they fuck us and rob us. It's been shown over and over again that when a majority of citizens is against a government action, like going to war, or getting out of a war, the government action takes place anyway despite how it may bankrupt the country.

And for the record, the average height of a lizard person is eight and a half feet. And then there's the fact that there are different factions of these beings, some being taller than others. Things are not as black and white . . . or green as people seem to believe.

 

Letlovin

That doesn’t address the outstanding criticisms of right wing libertarian ideas.

I mean how are you going to ‘take away’ wealth’s influence and power which is based in wealth when so many RWL ideas seem about increasing that wealth and enhancing its power

 

This is absurd.

History hasn't been some linear progression from total freedom and utopia to modern tyrannical state of total oppression. Even now things are much much better for the vast majority than they have been at any point in history, and centralized power is directly responsible. The global village might have its losers, but the majority wins.

There's a reason that the decentralization of power across Europe after the breakup of Rome is known as the Dark Ages. Religious superstition, ignorance, disease, the suppression of science, and torture were more prevalent and far more cruel. You don't see public hangings, or people being put into iron maidens, or burned at the stake for their religious beliefs anymore except perhaps in religious states.

There are always going to be dips and peaks throughout history... we're currently in a tiny dip at the top of a very large peak that has been climbing since the 15th century... or if you want to look at an even bigger picture, since agriculture became a thing.

You might think you want to go back to feudalism or tribes or people huddling in caves together or whatever it is that you have in mind, but I'm pretty sure that if it actually happened you would be dying to get back everything you had just lost.

 

When people figure out how to make the system work for them they realize it's not as bad as they thought. Dwelling on everything wrong is not the way to success. And I'm not talking about "working the system" getting on welfare and government checks. I'm talking about working the system by using it to your advantage in a legit way. That's the American dream after all...

 

But, really, does anyone deliberately elect a "bad" representatives? They campaign on the same ol' claims. We find out they're bad only after they've been in office.

My view of those elected officials is that by the time they throw hats in the ring, they've been pretty much co-opted by those that stand to gain from their getting elected: from big donors to local campaign staffs. They're shielded from the public by their ever-growing entourages. Every word they do speak in public is, presumably, carefully selected by cadres of writers, P.R. wonks, agents. & We know, from countless recent TV'd events, that when they stray from the script, it's invariably trouble. They are light years removed from the average Jo or Joe.

& Of course the lobbyists ("private" orgs.) are always knockin' on the office doors of our reps.: by the time they're kneaded & shrunk-to-fit by lobbyists, they're barely "our" reps. anymore. This sounds like a dismal scenario, but I read what I can about candidates, but by the time I vote, I vote only for candidates I feel truly know about: I skip lotsa candidates for offices, cuz I just don't know.

 

I'd be down for good governance too.

Problem is the government is made of imperfect people who inevitably pick favorites. And this favoritism always seems to triumph over proper justice. To be more specific: Those who have the power and influence within the government, always triumph over the smaller ones. Corporations grow to monopolistic scales because the government leaders favor them by placing in regulations to stomp out the competition from smaller entities.

This is why we are in dire need for a new system. A system where governing leaders are looked upon not as officials, but as servants!

 

"Stop blaming ‘government’ "

blame
verb - assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
noun - responsibility for a fault or wrong.

While the people who vote are responsible for selecting those who will govern, once elected the people have little or no power in assuring that they will govern as they seemed to promise while they were campaigning.

Blame rightfully belongs to be placed on the government for actions it takes that the people did not have direct input, and disagree with. And as government becomes more intricately involved into the daily lives of the people it governs, controversies arise with much greater frequency.

The word 'democracy' is thrown around quite often, and the U.S. government while being a Constitutional Republic,does indeed employ democracy it was intended to be put to use primarily at the lowest level of government, locally, and used to ensure that the people were given representation at higher levels of government. Good government requires a strong foundation, built on the consensus of a large majority of the people. This is why the 10th amendment came into being. Only government from the bottom up produces government 'BY' the people, while government from the top down results only in government 'OF' the people.
The successes of smaller governments are most easily spread among other small governments, while the failures are most likely avoided, and in that way consensus is more easily achieved in empowering higher levels of government when the people feel it should be allowed.

When government is working best, the people hardly know it exists. Today government has become the most visible activity people have to contend with on a daily basis.

 

Indie

Other than to remove them the next time around – how would you do it? But at least they can do that Kings, tyrants and dictators seldom allow even that.

That is why honest debate is needed so that differing ideas can be looked at to see if they stand up to scrutiny and the problem here is that yours don’t seem to – you seem unable to defend your ideas in anything like a rational or reasonable way.

Placing blame were you see it is fine but if your solutions would seem likely to make a bad situation worse, then you are not really helping.

Great you have leant that, but you have been critical of democracy in the past and have even suggested a system where wealth would have greater voting power so it could block the will of the majority, and as explained before you ideology does not change with size you talk a lot about federal government, but your‘d thing the same at the local level

And we have been through localism as well

“localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example someone – say X – lives in a prosperous area with high employment, they might ‘evaluate’ and find little reason to give since there are few disadvantaged. But only a few miles away there could be a town with high unemployment with many people in hardship but since X doesn’t live there, doesn’t go there and so cannot ‘evaluate’ that towns needs they have to suffer hardship.

If you have a national scheme with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things nationally if can move resources to those places where it is most needed.

But if often then that you get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias.

Why should I give money to people I haven’t personally evaluated I mean they are most likely feckless, scroungers.

The people around here don’t need so much help probably because they work harder than those feckless scroungers. “

What do you mean?

I live in London, my bins were emptied this morning (government) it was dark in the street but the street lights were on (government) and while my child got ready for her state school (government) I got ready to go on the road (government) where the cars owners have to have passed a driving test and are licensed and insured (government) these are enforced by the police (government) but if someone did have an accident they’d go to hospital (government)…I could go on and on and on about work place health and safety, speed bumps, public transport, traffic control, etc etc
Yes the signs of government ‘interference’ are all around us but is that a bad thing?

 

The rational solution would be to seek employment where jobs exist. We, humans, are not inanimate objects and have arms and legs for a purpose, which sometimes they have to be put to use in ways that circumstances require as responsible members of a society, moving from one to another. Are illegal immigrants MORE individually responsible than citizens of any society?

 

Indie

“localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example someone – say X – lives in a prosperous area with high employment, they might ‘evaluate’ and find little reason to give since there are few disadvantaged. But only a few miles away there could be a town with high unemployment with many people in hardship but since X doesn’t live there, doesn’t go there and so cannot ‘evaluate’ that towns needs they have to suffer hardship.

People often do but that can create its own problems - just look at urbanization in western countries during the 18-19-20 century (and in developing countries today).

And localism worked in the same way with prosperous areas in some parts of a city and only a few miles away slums and ghettos.

 

Still sounds like a local problem, best solved by a local solution. And most local problems could be solved more efficiently and cost effectively at a local level than they could be at the Federal level. The fewer government agencies and employees money needs to pass through before put to the use intended the greater amount of it remains to be put to the use intended.