View Single Post
Old 10-09-2005, 08:38 PM   #87
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
I see where you could have a problem wrapping your brain around the concept of government as a parental authority. In reading your response I see that you associate the concept, automatically, with bad and abusive parents.
bad, yes - abusive, perhaps but mostly in terms of and applied to the good kids in the home. they're the ones that are penalized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
The best government is a government that governs the least. The best populace is one that understands they must do for themselves, before they ask others to do for them.
agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
A good set of parental units will allow their children to mature at a natural rate, to experience and learn within their environment without being oppressive, and suppressing only when absolutely needed.
true - and it should be established within the context of the home so that when the members of the populace leave their parents to do for themselves, the government can continue to govern in the least intrusive and encompassing way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
As parents you and your wife have set up a pseudocity(ies)-state, complete with a semblance of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You’re not elected per-say, but I’d hazard a guess it’s not quite a totalitarian regime, either. Possibly a diarchy, maybe a monarchy (but that would indicate a chirocracy, and I just don’t see you like that) but most families fall under arithmocracy, and if everyone wants to go to the beach for the weekend, then the beach it is.
i love this paragraph because i don't inderstand all those terms and the fact you can roll them off without hesitation is fuckin' hot. i understood the last sentence and you hit the nail on the head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
So government really isn’t that different from parenthood, and just like parenthood, you have your ups and downs, the good and the bad…and the ugly.

Which you were able to illustrate in your previous example.
ah, opinions diverge here. government shouldn't be involved in trivial matters such as whether or not families are heading to the beach on their days off, other than to ensure that the roadways are safe and free of damage SHOULD a family desire a trip along them. and i'm using the finite point of that example in a universal sense. our government should not be sending monthly checks to families who refuse to carry their own weight, figuring out what they need in terms of monthly allotments for food and pleasure, taking care of their medical needs and pharmacy needs just because said individuals and families don't feel like getting out there into the work force, or doing for themselves.

our government is involved in that and a whole bunch more just like it. our government is hell-bent on perpetuating a sense of helplessness amongst communities that scream they have no way of making it and that it's everyone else's fault for them being in such a state. our government welcomes the whining, lazy masses to come suck at the teat of our tax dollars and we, the ones who pay those taxes, have not a word to say about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
As for what the people want, that would be great, it would be divine—if people weren’t lied to and tricked into believing they wanted something, which they really didn’t. This isn’t they people’s fault, they can’t help being ignorant most of the time due to the fact they have a plethora of their own problems, not to mention their own government to run at home.
i don't agree. if we, as a people, were brought up to respect the choices and chances we are given here in this country, while at the same time knowing full well that we sink or swim once the doors of school slam shut behind us and it's time to make it or break it - there'd be a much greater propensity for individuals to take stock of what's going on around them. as it is, the government has become a "don't worry, we'll take care of it" type of institution and THAT is the message that gets pounded into people's heads every day - and a message like that promotes laziness, distraction and apathy about what goes on in the government over time. why care when someone else will take care of things? why care when you don't have to? you can bet those who founded this country paid attention to everything going on and when needed, they had their say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Which is why we invest our power in someone else. We pay attention just long enough to see which person has our best interests at heart, we cast our votes, and let him or her do his or her job. From time to time we’ll check in on him or her, to make sure the job is still being done, and then go back to doing our job.
there's no way we can check on whether or not the government is doing its job. "the government" encompasses something so massive today, even "the government" can't be sure it's doing its job. all they can do is hope the machine is running fairly smooth and all we can hope for at this point is that we'll know or hear if it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
If there were no term limits people would (and you’ve already alluded to this) become lazy and comfortable, and they would not worry so much if a job was being done, and would not put so much effort in finding another candidate when they could just cast a vote for the same one over and over again.
The probability of an elected official abusing that trusts, of fleecing as it were, the populace, becomes greater with each subsequent election…because our elected officials are people too, and are subject to the same lazy and comfortable code of ethics we apply to our own selves.

So it will happen if term limits are lifted, with greater frequency.
with the way the government is now - you're exactly right. scaling down what we have out there is the only way to bring what you said above into something manageable for all of us, you, me and everyone else to deal with effectively. in a way, we're all dependant on the government at this point because it essentially runs all of our lives whether we want it to or not.

is that going to happen? not at the rate we keep expanding. shit, we've started to install governments into other countries now, for christ's sake. bigger and bigger and bigger. how, exactly, are we supposed to check and see if they're doing their job correctly in that instance? according to the constitution, we have no business doing such a thing and yet - ouala - here we are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Our founding fathers realized this, our founding president was against unlimited term limits, and it just makes sense.
that's fair, however i feel differently. and to put it into perspective, they'd just fled a country where a king was a king for life. it only makes sense that their line of thought would carry them in a different direction. if there was a vote to determine what people in this country wanted now as far as term limits were concerned - you know, a democratic sounding board inside this democratic nation instead of the government just saying "don't worry, we'll take care of it" - i would vote for unlimited term limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
yeah, i agree. i'm friggin' beat and i'm going to bed when i'm done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Lastly, the government as the people’s parents, their legal representation, has been a notion since the drawing of the constitution. Think not of the elected officials as the parental units, but that slip of paper; the constitution, as the highest authority in the land, and we the people elect amongst ourselves the people we believe best suited to represent it, us, and all we stand for.

It has been our guidance for the last 230 years, the parental hand of our founding fathers, and I hope it lasts for another bajillion.
i wholeheartedly agree with the distinction of the constitution as the guiding hand, or parental figure in this scenario. the politicians have desecrated what it once was though, making up what they will when it suits their fancy. 230 years is not that long of a time and for what it's worth - the changes that have gone on internally just during the time i've grown up are huge. the last 20 years, give-or-take.

yes, the constitution was provided as a backbone for what this country was supposed to be - and unfortunately i find myself believing that it has become the backbone only in reference, an old piece of paper encased in glass and hanging on a wall (figuratively) out of sight, while politicians sip their booze and walk away from it when they really need to talk about the country.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote