3 ms·

I feel like your comment has a serious anti-welfare-state slant to it. The US government is (well, let's stipulate anyway) a democracy. It represents the will

I feel like your comment has a serious anti-welfare-state slant to it. The US government is (well, let's stipulate anyway) a democracy. It represents the will of the people. We've decided we like stuff like Social Security and Medicare and we're cool paying for it. You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. If you want to talk about inefficiencies in the social safety net, let's start with the weird public/private meshing of providers and facilitators written into our laws by conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" (i.e. give government contracts to their peers and later themselves). It's not like "thinkers these days" have been frightened into silence by a mob addicted to social services. They've been disenchanted by the depth of corruption in our system.

ElViajero 5y ago
> You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. Well said. The government is the will of the people, to remove the government from all social negotiations leaves the poor, and the middle class unrepresented. > conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" "efficiencies of the free market" that are not applied to big corporations, that get the advantages of a social-democracy by being helped during crisis. Corporations are treated with more compassion than fellow citizens. "People is lazy", "Corporations are hard working" is part of the indoctrination.
jl2718 5y ago
> The US government is [...] a democracy No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed to prevent tyranny, regardless of the source. > If you want to talk about ... You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. They're both bad. Tolerance of one leads to the other.
- camgunz 5y ago
  > No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. Woof, I gotta say I super dislike the parsing out of "republic" vs. "democracy". It almost always deliberately misses the point: our government is supposed to represent us. And honestly, what does "by law" add here? > You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. There's nothing corrupt about social programs? That's not what "corruption" means.

ElViajero 5y ago

> You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. Well said. The government is the will of the people, to remove the government from all social negotiations leaves the poor, and the middle class unrepresented. > conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" "efficiencies of the free market" that are not applied to big corporations, that get the advantages of a social-democracy by being helped during crisis. Corporations are treated with more compassion than fellow citizens. "People is lazy", "Corporations are hard working" is part of the indoctrination.

jl2718 5y ago

> The US government is [...] a democracy No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed to prevent tyranny, regardless of the source. > If you want to talk about ... You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. They're both bad. Tolerance of one leads to the other.

camgunz 5y ago
> No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. Woof, I gotta say I super dislike the parsing out of "republic" vs. "democracy". It almost always deliberately misses the point: our government is supposed to represent us. And honestly, what does "by law" add here? > You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. There's nothing corrupt about social programs? That's not what "corruption" means.