3 ms·

So I was just thinking, and hear me out, since the budget is all coming from us why can't it be spent on something we like or want?

riehwvfbk 2y ago
For the same reason that sheep don't decide what kind of sweater gets made from their wool.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  I don't think that's a productive attitude. If you were someone's manager, and they had learned that they could get away with a lot under you, there's only so much time you could spend complaining about human nature. Really, it was your responsibility from the beginning. We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground. Who's "we" in this sentence? Plenty of us have known about the "raw chicken on the ground" for years and actively try to do something about it. A better question for this discussion is why have you been looking away for so long, and what are you going to do now that you see the problem?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      I don't know the answer to that question generally, but that's the only sense that is productive.
  - Rury 2y ago
    Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      We already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
      - Rury 2y ago
        Even if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        Making it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)
1659447091 2y ago
Technically it is. If you don't like what the money is spent on, "write to your representative"[0] But unless you can start a movement that gets large groups of people to agree about the same things, probably won't get too far. Also, vote. Or better yet, run for your areas house seat and make changes from the inside, if you have the patience [0] https://www.house.gov/representatives https://www.house.gov/representatives
- whatshisface 2y ago
  While pretty much everybody would say no to this if you explained it to them, between nobody wanting to spend a lot of time keeping track of everything that's going on, and the stewards of res publica not exactly feeling excited about the prospects of closer attention, the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous.
  - taurknaut 2y ago
    > the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous. This is exactly why I can't imagine an open internet was ever going to survive.
rasz 2y ago
How much do you like or want not being at war? Because si vis pacem, para bellum.
mft_ 2y ago
The current model of “democracy” in the US —and indeed in most countries— is very arm’s length. In countries with a model closer to direct democracy, Switzerland being the best example I know of, it might be possible to hold a vote about a specific policy (e.g. we don’t want our army to develop/use autonomous AI hunter-killer drones) but micromanagement of multiple policy decisions is probably both difficult and maybe unwise. Defence topics might be especially challenging given the background knowledge required to make a rational decision may often be classified and/or otherwise unavailable to the general public.
taurknaut 2y ago
You'd better be happy with the choices you're offered or you're actually a fascist, whether you knew it already or not.

riehwvfbk 2y ago

For the same reason that sheep don't decide what kind of sweater gets made from their wool.

whatshisface 2y ago
I don't think that's a productive attitude. If you were someone's manager, and they had learned that they could get away with a lot under you, there's only so much time you could spend complaining about human nature. Really, it was your responsibility from the beginning. We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground. Who's "we" in this sentence? Plenty of us have known about the "raw chicken on the ground" for years and actively try to do something about it. A better question for this discussion is why have you been looking away for so long, and what are you going to do now that you see the problem?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    I don't know the answer to that question generally, but that's the only sense that is productive.
- Rury 2y ago
  Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    We already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
    - Rury 2y ago
      Even if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        Making it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)

1659447091 2y ago

Technically it is. If you don't like what the money is spent on, "write to your representative"[0] But unless you can start a movement that gets large groups of people to agree about the same things, probably won't get too far. Also, vote. Or better yet, run for your areas house seat and make changes from the inside, if you have the patience [0] https://www.house.gov/representatives https://www.house.gov/representatives

whatshisface 2y ago
While pretty much everybody would say no to this if you explained it to them, between nobody wanting to spend a lot of time keeping track of everything that's going on, and the stewards of res publica not exactly feeling excited about the prospects of closer attention, the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous.
- taurknaut 2y ago
  > the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous. This is exactly why I can't imagine an open internet was ever going to survive.

rasz 2y ago

How much do you like or want not being at war? Because si vis pacem, para bellum.

mft_ 2y ago

The current model of “democracy” in the US —and indeed in most countries— is very arm’s length. In countries with a model closer to direct democracy, Switzerland being the best example I know of, it might be possible to hold a vote about a specific policy (e.g. we don’t want our army to develop/use autonomous AI hunter-killer drones) but micromanagement of multiple policy decisions is probably both difficult and maybe unwise. Defence topics might be especially challenging given the background knowledge required to make a rational decision may often be classified and/or otherwise unavailable to the general public.

taurknaut 2y ago

You'd better be happy with the choices you're offered or you're actually a fascist, whether you knew it already or not.