Thread: hatred for the government?

I don't hate bush, but im swedish. i hate you Alric....








j/k

A lot of us? Huh, I didn't notice that. I don't think its cause we are a bunch of anarchists bent on destroying a governmental institution or anything.

Personally I understand the angles of both sides. The government screws up big sometimes, and at other times they are halfway intellegent. Opinions also vary with the time period and the party and person in office. *CoughbushCough*

The bottom line is that, even if we hate some of the policies the government puts forth at times we still need an established institution to keep order. We can hate all we want and call them corrupt idiots who live off the common people, but then again, there's no one else to enforce law and order, and no one else to provide social security.

All I know is that the priorities are screwed and if we went back to the principles in which governments arose then it would be a much better world. Think about it, why were governments created and in that answer you will find what I mean...

Yeah, the government is an easily manipulated insititution. It's just hard for something this major to be implemented and sustained without fault. Though I'd still have to say the U.S. is in a way better condition government wise then most of the world.

But what is to be done Truth?

I actually think the opposite, and the fact that people believe it so helps/disproves my point. Here's the thing: When you say that it means that either I could be wrong, or that the government is doing its job making you think so...

I really don't see why it would be better than in other countries. The fact that the U.S. is the economical leader of the world doesn't mean they have the best government, it just means that they knew had to manage their resources greatly. Of course the U.S just capitalized on slavery and WWII, but that's besides the point.

Most governments at least are more focused on their people than in conquering the world and overthrowing governments that do not follow the American ideologies.

I don't necesarily hate every government I just hate how far we've strayed from our roots, from what the original purposes of concepts such as leader and money meant, that we seem to have forgotten why they began in the first place...

I don't hate the government. Hell, I work for them. I may not agree with it all the time, but they are the ones in charge and I don't hate them for it.

I think its kind of funny how you say we are conquering the world and at the same time that we are straying from our roots. When historically we conqured like half of north america, but we have not done anything like that in a long time, and I think its pretty safe to say we no longer do.

Too powerful and controlling. Spreading its the U.S. "culture" to "liberated" countries. American people doing little to stop it.

True it is the U.S. manages their resources better. But isn't that a form of governmental regulation? The government doesn't just regulate the country in the form of politics.

Economical democracy involves captialism, and a free-market economy which are enforced by the government. In this way the government is responsible for a lot of the benefits American's recieve. However, I don't claim that this is the reason that makes the U.S. better off then others.

Look at the African nations, post-WWII China/Russia, Bosnia, etc. They are all among the worse off of the world in terms of stability.

True also the U.S. is hypocritial and pushes itself on those 'liberated countries' but that doesn't mean the 'liberation' itself is not doing any good. If the U.S. kept it's isolationist policies, then the world would be a mess of anarchists, nazis, and militist dictators. And no matter what, thoses are definitely more harmful to the public then a democracy, albeit imposed.

No hard feelings, I'm not trying to say my viewpoints are better or right. I like this debate.

Originally posted by Daeraug
I don't hate the government. Hell, I work for them. I may not agree with it all the time, but they are the ones in charge and I don't hate them for it.

Its a case of they pay the salaries.

Originally posted by Alric
They don't trust them, they think the goverment is out to get them, that they are greedy, that they only think of themself.

You just answered the question for me.

Some ppl think that bashing government or america or whatever is an "Intelligent" conversation and they demonstrate their wits by doing so...

Just my opinion...

to quote boyd:

[b][i]'To think that one's actions could please the masses, is a notion bound in irony. Someone will inevitably find something wrong

Now...what i think is that no one will ever be SATISFIED with the government, or the leader representing that government. People in this world are miserable...they will never be satisfied. It makes me sick.

Originally posted by Lowercase Society
[b]to quote boyd:

[i]'To think that one's actions could please the masses, is a notion bound in irony. *Someone will inevitably find something wrong

Now...what i think is that no one will ever be SATISFIED with the government, or the leader representing that government. *People in this world are miserable...they will never be satisfied.

my good-natured reflection on this quote: "yeah... so what?"

The quote is correct; I completely agree. It's strangely only a little disappointing that I am one of these hata's, and I hate quoting the American ideals that "everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion", but that's kind of what I see here. I really don't care really because I can grin and bare it; I'll be outta here in less than 80 years...

Several issues to address here:

1.

Originally posted by Alric+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric)</div>

I think its kind of funny how you say we are conquering the world and at the same time that we are straying from our roots. When historically we conqured like half of north america, but we have not done anything like that in a long time, and I think its pretty safe to say we no longer do.[/b]

I believe this is actually a deviation from our roots. I do not speak for the U.S.(they aren't the whole world, despite the fact they think they are). I am talking about when governments first arose. Why were governments created? How would leader be chosen and which characteristics were demanded of them?

My point is that it was all about uniting under a leadership in order to accomplish more, and the leader's intentions were to bring as much prosperity to all, as it was posible. Is that the case things are now, or do you think they might have gone a tad astray?

2.

Originally posted by Squall@
If the U.S. kept it's isolationist policies, then the world would be a mess of anarchists, nazis, and militist dictators.

I don't consider this statement particularly true. There is an entity, although it seems the U.S. can easily walk right through it with no consequence whatsoever, call the United Nations. They are responsible for keeping world order, despite popular belief that the U.S rules the world. They are conformed by several countries and if they believe something is getting out of hand, they will vote and, if the world wants it so, then something will be done about it...

3. <!--QuoteBegin-Lowercase Society
Now...what i think is that no one will ever be SATISFIED with the government, or the leader representing that government. *People in this world are miserable...they will never be satisfied. *It makes me sick.

To be honest with you I think this a very conformist attitude. It is obvious that some people will have qualms with the current government at all times and all places, but that still says nothing about the quality of the rulers themselves. Yeah, some people will never be satisfied but that doesn't mean that, if we stive for the best we can achieve, and it is still not enough for them, that it was all a waste...

All I can say is that I truly believe that the closer we get to our roots, the closer we will be to discovering the true purpose of it all. We would shed all the corruption, in the minds and the ideology itself, that has accumulated over the years. Eventhough it is almost inevitable that the cycle will repeat itself and hundreds of years later they will find themselves in the same spot we are now, wouldn't that period of time be worth everything??? To me it is....It is time we reload this matrix...

I might be wrong but when governments started by far most where monarchies. Monarchies where not made to help the people in anyway. It was the powerful people who control the land, and used that to then control the people living on the land. There was no voting, it was all by blood line, or you would would take over and kill the old leader. In which case I want nothing to do with a dictatorship type government. So I am kind of unsure of what you are talking about when you say our roots.

The UN is a joke anymore, they can't stop anyone from doing anything.

Think before that. Monarchies are already corrupted forms of government...

I am talking about the real roots of civilization...when governments were created. They weren't governments for a country, for that concept probably didn't even exist back then...yeah that far behind. When they first realized that they needed leader to guide the people and make the best of the joint efforts of the people. Once again, why did governments arise?

Because somebody wanted money and power...no

Leaders were elected because of their wisdom and not because of all the ulterior motives that we have today.

It is hard to explain it, for it was a long time ago but just try to think about why everything came to be, what we wanted back then and contrast it to today...I hope you will then see how much its changed

The most basic reason for a government is to create laws. Which does not take any leaders at all. The first real leaders became kings and such and made monarchies. Before that you just have a bunch of people who come togather and decide on things. Easy when your live in a town of a 100 people, not so easy when its a town of half a million.

People are elected because of their wisdom though. No matter how much people complain or argue that no one has any say, at the end of the day people vote and they elect who they want.

I guess you real problem isnt with the government then, but you have a problem with how the majority of people think. In that case I am not sure what we can do, we can't go back to our "roots" because we will never think like that again, things are to different.

Believe me, the first real leaders were not the monarchs...

Monarchies came from leader abusing their power and wanted to be learders forever, and have their family get that special treatment too...

I don't think people are elected because of their wisdom anymore, at least in many democracies they aren't(including the U.S). Many people are blind enough to just vote for the candidate that comes from his usual party. The fact that there are basically two choices that keep on getting elected in the U.S. democracy says a lot. Republican or Democrat? How about giving the other guys a chance if they truly seem much better than those other two?

Parties themselves also corrupt things to a great extent. They impose certain values on the government itself. Also, sometimes people vote for a party and not the person, and others they like the person but not the values of the party. It does make the process a bit more confusing...

Also, the government's main reason of being is not to make laws. If it was so then we wouldn't need a president. We could just have a council to approve laws and such and the whole judicial system to punish those who do not follow, as well as the police to enforce them(in the cases in which it is required so). Then, why do we have presidents now? The purpose of government, simple or complex, is to look out for the people's best interests and sort of manage the country and its inhabitants like one would manage a business and its employees. Only it didn't use to be for personal profit, it was all for the people...

Originally posted by Truthbearer
Also, the government's main reason of being is not to make laws. If it was so then we wouldn't need a president. We could just have a council to approve laws and such and the whole judicial system to punish those who do not follow, as well as the police to enforce them(in the cases in which it is required so).

You just stated how we have it set up. Congress is the council that makes the laws. We have courts for the judicial system. And the president main job is to basicly enforce the laws and protect us with the army and such.

The presidents job is not to "enforce laws and protect us with the government" What makes you think it is? It is a lot more complex than that, they basically have to look out for the country and its economy amongst many another tasks...

Basic highschool government class. Government is split into 3 groups. Legislative which is congress take makes laws. Judicial which makes up all the courts. And the executive which is ran by the president whos job is to enforce the laws and protect us. And then they all look after each other to make sure the other ones are not doing things they shouldn't.

To quote the constitution.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. "

So he has the power to run the army, make treaties(with appovel) and appoint ambassadors. Yes I will admit its a lot more complex but thats what it basicly boils down too. Its not the presidents job to look out after the economy or anything like that.

Well Truth's got a point. In a way they do. They have the power to influence the economy through their vetos and connections, which is what usually happens. (The reason why presidents run on economic platforms and make economic campaign promises) That's the reason why the economic proceedings of a country in many instances completely changes with the election of a new president. Eg. Roosevelt/New Deal.

Sure it's not written, and really the president isn't supposed to vest that much power. Heck all they are supposed to do is listen to Congress and move around the military. But not everything goes by the rules.

President is the leader of his party, which gives him a ton of influence. So yea he can do other stuff but we are talking about the reason we have a president. And the reason we have one is to protect the country and enforce laws, not to do that other stuff. Which is why its not really his job.

Either way you can't say its not his job to protect us, because thats like 90% of his job.