3 ms·

>Why should we be forced in this country of 300 million people to agree on everything? It's more like 340,000,000 and no one is forcing anyone to agree about a

>Why should we be forced in this country of 300 million people to agree on everything? It's more like 340,000,000 and no one is forcing anyone to agree about anything. There are many things about which I disagree with my neighbors/friends/family/local, state and Federal governments, but I feel no no need to justify such disagreements to them (or anyone else, for that matter), nor are their choices/ideas impinging on my ability to disagree (or agree, for that matter) about anything. And even if I vehemently disagree, that's no reason to commit acts of violence and/or attempt to secede from the Union. What is it, exactly (not vague pronouncements or complaints about what other people think, say or do), that makes you feel like you must agree with everyone else? Please do enlighten us.

rayiner 3y ago
People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have. Sorry for the late reply. Absolutely. Things like the rule of law (which is mostly the case in the US, with certain really frustrating exceptions -- we should all be treated equally under that law), free and fair elections (there are significant issues there -- especially with gerrymandering and the politicization of the officials who run elections -- e.g., state Secretaries of State) which, we mostly have. I'd add well-regulated capitalism/market economy, which is something of an issue (the sewer of filthy lucre in our political system is the primary culprit in causing problems) here. Freedom (although not unlimited, but pretty expansive) of expression and thought are also important. Most everything else should be left to individuals and communities. While the US system certainly has some significant issues, that's not because (IMNSHO) we (the collective 'we', in the vast majority) agree on the above. The enormous amounts of money in our political system is the biggest issue, with gerrymandering and the (often codified into law in the several states) hegemony of the two-party system not far behind. So no. Americans as a population are mostly in agreement about important things, making compromise possible. But the hegemony of the two-party system creates perverse incentives to demonize the other party and eschew cooperation for fear of alienating the constituencies the parties have riled up by "othering" their fellow Americans. Publicly funded, non-partisan elections, along with regular geometric shapes for congressional districts would go a long way to fix those problems.

rayiner 3y ago

People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have.

nobody9999 3y ago
>People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have. Sorry for the late reply. Absolutely. Things like the rule of law (which is mostly the case in the US, with certain really frustrating exceptions -- we should all be treated equally under that law), free and fair elections (there are significant issues there -- especially with gerrymandering and the politicization of the officials who run elections -- e.g., state Secretaries of State) which, we mostly have. I'd add well-regulated capitalism/market economy, which is something of an issue (the sewer of filthy lucre in our political system is the primary culprit in causing problems) here. Freedom (although not unlimited, but pretty expansive) of expression and thought are also important. Most everything else should be left to individuals and communities. While the US system certainly has some significant issues, that's not because (IMNSHO) we (the collective 'we', in the vast majority) agree on the above. The enormous amounts of money in our political system is the biggest issue, with gerrymandering and the (often codified into law in the several states) hegemony of the two-party system not far behind. So no. Americans as a population are mostly in agreement about important things, making compromise possible. But the hegemony of the two-party system creates perverse incentives to demonize the other party and eschew cooperation for fear of alienating the constituencies the parties have riled up by "othering" their fellow Americans. Publicly funded, non-partisan elections, along with regular geometric shapes for congressional districts would go a long way to fix those problems.