3 ms·

> what is a person like this doing in congress? There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive abou

> what is a person like this doing in congress? There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. People don’t need to be smart to have a valid point of view worth representing. In the UK people mock ministers who don't have health experience running the NHS, or in Belgium an obese person running their health service, for two examples, but the point isn't that they represent the health service, the point is that they represent the users of the health service. (Sometimes that means representing the needs of the health service to the rest of the Government.)

School-Cotton 4y ago
In fact, I personally think one of the many reasons the US is less well-run than other rich democracies is that the professional civil service has a much lower level of responsibility (and prestige) compared to elected representatives.
- NateEag 4y ago
  I think the US being the largest rich democracy might have something to do with that, too. The cultural history of valuing individual freedom above everything, so much so as to start a war rather than pay "unjust" taxes, also seems relevant to me. Society is all about giving up individual freedoms for the group's benefit, and the US's founding mythology is kind of the opposite.
  - batch12 4y ago
    When talking about a myth, do you mean the colonies taking issue with being taxed without having legislative representation? Is this something you disagree with when you finger-quote "unjust"?
    - NateEag 4y ago
      I think it _was_ unfair and illegitimate, from a procedural perspective. Practically, I think representation wouldn't have changed the outcome that much. I'm no historian, but my impression is that the taxes were in large part England trying to cover the bill from the French and Indian War, which was mostly incurred on behalf of the colonists. So, procedurally unfair? Yeah. Actually unjust? I dunno about that. Even if I'm wrong about the facts and the taxes were genuinely egregious abuse, I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people.
      - throwoutway 4y ago
        > I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people. If you’re blaming the colonists for this, you have selective memory when it comes to the history.
        NateEag 4y ago
        From my perspective, both sides clearly chose to undertake massive amounts of killing to get what they wanted. In my view, neither was a good course of action. I have room for the concept of just wars, but I don't think the American Revolution was one for either side.
      - batch12 4y ago
        There wasn't a need to go to war. England could have just accepted the colonies' demand for independence. Was keeping the colony worth killing all of those people?
        NateEag 4y ago
        No, it obviously wasn't. That England took unacceptable actions in no way justifies the Americans taking unacceptable actions.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. Exactly, and the reason these people stand by unapologetically to their false accusations and lies and hypocrisy is because the real message they are sending to their “tribe” is that they are willing to screw others, no matter the truth, for the benefit of their tribe. And as long as you can believe you are part of their tribe, and hence you might receive their support, you might be willing to forego caring about the truth or what is right.

School-Cotton 4y ago

In fact, I personally think one of the many reasons the US is less well-run than other rich democracies is that the professional civil service has a much lower level of responsibility (and prestige) compared to elected representatives.

NateEag 4y ago
I think the US being the largest rich democracy might have something to do with that, too. The cultural history of valuing individual freedom above everything, so much so as to start a war rather than pay "unjust" taxes, also seems relevant to me. Society is all about giving up individual freedoms for the group's benefit, and the US's founding mythology is kind of the opposite.
- batch12 4y ago
  When talking about a myth, do you mean the colonies taking issue with being taxed without having legislative representation? Is this something you disagree with when you finger-quote "unjust"?
  - NateEag 4y ago
    I think it _was_ unfair and illegitimate, from a procedural perspective. Practically, I think representation wouldn't have changed the outcome that much. I'm no historian, but my impression is that the taxes were in large part England trying to cover the bill from the French and Indian War, which was mostly incurred on behalf of the colonists. So, procedurally unfair? Yeah. Actually unjust? I dunno about that. Even if I'm wrong about the facts and the taxes were genuinely egregious abuse, I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people.
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      > I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people. If you’re blaming the colonists for this, you have selective memory when it comes to the history.
      - NateEag 4y ago
        From my perspective, both sides clearly chose to undertake massive amounts of killing to get what they wanted. In my view, neither was a good course of action. I have room for the concept of just wars, but I don't think the American Revolution was one for either side.
    - batch12 4y ago
      There wasn't a need to go to war. England could have just accepted the colonies' demand for independence. Was keeping the colony worth killing all of those people?
      - NateEag 4y ago
        No, it obviously wasn't. That England took unacceptable actions in no way justifies the Americans taking unacceptable actions.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

>There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. Exactly, and the reason these people stand by unapologetically to their false accusations and lies and hypocrisy is because the real message they are sending to their “tribe” is that they are willing to screw others, no matter the truth, for the benefit of their tribe. And as long as you can believe you are part of their tribe, and hence you might receive their support, you might be willing to forego caring about the truth or what is right.