6 ms·

> And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for

> And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. > Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work.

SllX 6y ago
> I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. If that’s all legislatures did, that would be nice. Unfortunately people can always invent a need where they perceive one. > And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work. Problem or not, you don’t have the “should” in charge, you have the “is”, so now you can only try to shape its scope: expand or contract governmental powers within a jurisdiction. That’s what it means to be a self-governing society, you don’t have to participate in the process, but if you don’t, you are intentionally limiting your own political power. If more people participate, they are also reducing your political power. It’s not just large companies that participate either. Small businesses and constituents of all stripes do. If your participation begins and ends at the ballot box, that’s only a step up from a bystander because someone else is choosing who and what goes on those ballots you fill out. Whether you choose to treat your ballots as the tail end of your civic engagement or the face of it, that’s a personal choice, and I won’t tell you any choice you make is illegitimate, it just is whatever you choose to do.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  It sounds like you're saying that we cannot change the way things work and that it's not even worth discussing how we think it could be better. I would say that is patently false (the statement that we cannot change things) and downright horrifying (the statement that we should not even discuss how it could be better). We should always be looking for ways to make our government (and civil employees) perform their roles (both by limiting the bad actions and facilitating the good).
  - SllX 6y ago
    I’m saying: 1. Recognize human nature. 2. Plan for human nature; both mitigate it and incorporate it where possible. 3. Expect people to eventually break whatever you come up with because they’re people. 4. Take part in that system; don’t expect others to think of you on your behalf. Legislatures and governments are made up of people, and any system which doesn’t recognize this is doomed to failure. You go through life doing what is best for yourself, your family, your community, why should you expect any different from people with more (or less) power than you? Why should they care about you if you’re not even there asking them to care about the things you care about?
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      > Why should they care about you if you’re not even there asking them to care about the things you care about? Because they were elected to their position specifically to do what's best for everyone they represent. That is, quite literally, their job. And yes, I care more about me and my own than I do for others. But I do care for others. Plus, caring for my own means I need to care for others because society as a whole must survive and be better tomorrow than it is today if I want the best for my own in the future. All that being said, we do create laws to make sure people act in the best interest of "people", not "person", and that includes limits on what lawmakers and those that interact with lawmakers can do. They are part of that mitigation you spoke of. We can change how humans behave, counter to their human nature, via those laws and their enforcement.

SllX 6y ago

> I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. If that’s all legislatures did, that would be nice. Unfortunately people can always invent a need where they perceive one. > And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work. Problem or not, you don’t have the “should” in charge, you have the “is”, so now you can only try to shape its scope: expand or contract governmental powers within a jurisdiction. That’s what it means to be a self-governing society, you don’t have to participate in the process, but if you don’t, you are intentionally limiting your own political power. If more people participate, they are also reducing your political power. It’s not just large companies that participate either. Small businesses and constituents of all stripes do. If your participation begins and ends at the ballot box, that’s only a step up from a bystander because someone else is choosing who and what goes on those ballots you fill out. Whether you choose to treat your ballots as the tail end of your civic engagement or the face of it, that’s a personal choice, and I won’t tell you any choice you make is illegitimate, it just is whatever you choose to do.

RHSeeger 6y ago
It sounds like you're saying that we cannot change the way things work and that it's not even worth discussing how we think it could be better. I would say that is patently false (the statement that we cannot change things) and downright horrifying (the statement that we should not even discuss how it could be better). We should always be looking for ways to make our government (and civil employees) perform their roles (both by limiting the bad actions and facilitating the good).
- SllX 6y ago
  I’m saying: 1. Recognize human nature. 2. Plan for human nature; both mitigate it and incorporate it where possible. 3. Expect people to eventually break whatever you come up with because they’re people. 4. Take part in that system; don’t expect others to think of you on your behalf. Legislatures and governments are made up of people, and any system which doesn’t recognize this is doomed to failure. You go through life doing what is best for yourself, your family, your community, why should you expect any different from people with more (or less) power than you? Why should they care about you if you’re not even there asking them to care about the things you care about?
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    > Why should they care about you if you’re not even there asking them to care about the things you care about? Because they were elected to their position specifically to do what's best for everyone they represent. That is, quite literally, their job. And yes, I care more about me and my own than I do for others. But I do care for others. Plus, caring for my own means I need to care for others because society as a whole must survive and be better tomorrow than it is today if I want the best for my own in the future. All that being said, we do create laws to make sure people act in the best interest of "people", not "person", and that includes limits on what lawmakers and those that interact with lawmakers can do. They are part of that mitigation you spoke of. We can change how humans behave, counter to their human nature, via those laws and their enforcement.