3 ms·

The big question is if our government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people", then how did it manage to become this separate entity--with a life and age

The big question is if our government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people", then how did it manage to become this separate entity--with a life and agenda of its own--that has now turned against "the people"? We all (myself included) talk about the government in the third person. Yet, it is supposed to be our representative and our voice. It is supposed to be "us". So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc?

dreamdu5t 14y ago
> So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc? Personally, I think it's because we buy into the idea that an individual should be given the authority to "rule" people by fiat in the first place.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Do we?
  - dreamdu5t 14y ago
    In the US, yes. Most people believe that the authority to rule over others based on a vote is legitimate, ethical, and desirable. Personally, I don't think it's legitimate or ethical that some guy I've never met asserts the right to rule over my property because another group of people I've never met got together and voted on it.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      Not sure we're talking about the same thing. In the case you mention, isn't the problem you have with the people who voted? And isn't the issue you take, in general, not with an individual "ruling over you", but with the very notion of majority rule (i.e. that "a group of people you've never met" can vote in ways that affect you/your property/etc.)? Edit: Because I would say that the problem is the opposite: that our government is no longer an expression of the will of "the people". And my question is why isn't it?
      - dreamdu5t 14y ago
        My point was that the electoral process is what is meant by "will of the people." In that regard, the government IS acting in accordance with the will of people. But you asked why we are powerless to stop things like the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc. My answer to that is because we've all decided to cede that power to a vote.
        unclebucknasty 14y ago
        Ok, now I think what you're talking about boils down to representative democracy vs direct democracy. I do think that's where the breakdown occurs, especially given the money in our representative democracy and our two-party system. Because voting in a direct democracy would not be ceding power, it would be directly expressing it. Now whether we would "do the right thing" remains to be seen, particularly given the massive degree to which many are misinformed or misled. Of course, once our will is expressed, thereafter comes the execution. That may involve similar apparatus to what we have now (DOJ, FBI, etc.). Not sure that wouldn't lead us right back to where we are now, with abuses, etc. Maybe it's just a function of human nature.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- graycat 14y ago
  One reason: Another terrorist attack like 9/11 is 'immediate', that is, right in front of people, something to be afraid of right now. Shooting holes in our Constitution is a danger more abstract, more distant, less immediate, although in total more serious. So, with the usual short sightedness of people and politics, we throw away some of our liberty in hopes of some short term security. And, we are gullible, get manipulated, get sold nonsense by the MSM, etc. In simple terms, the solution is for the voters not to fall for such nonsense.
graycat 14y ago
"The big question is if our government is supposed to be 'of, by, and for the people', then how did it manage to become this separate entity--with a life and agenda of its own--that has now turned against 'the people'? "The people" can turn it around anytime they want. When enough voters shout "frog", Congress jumps. But getting that many people to shout at the holes we have seen shot in our Constitution is not so easy. You asked why? Okay, first reason is that there are problems, and conceptually the easiest solution is for Congress to pass a law and the executive branch to set up a program. So, DC gets bigger, richer, and more powerful. Second reason is that our gumment is heavily for sale at prices that are not high enough. So, lots of 'special interests' quietly get what they want, and gumment gets bigger. So, gumment gets big and powerful, and then lots of people want to be part of this power and work to keep gumment big and powerful. Third, out in voter land, there is not much in good information and a lot of confusion. Mostly people are fed, by the media joined at the hip with the politicians and other special interests, a lot of emotional nonsense that keeps up the divisions and, thus, forestalls a clear consensus on curing the problems. My favorite example in the last election cycle was abortion. Take whatever view on abortion you want, there remains a rock solid fact: Roe v Wade was 40 years ago, and the chances of changing it are from zip and zilch down to zero. So, talking about abortion is essentially just a waste of time. Still there was a lot of such talking. Lots of people got concerned. Lots of women got scared. And the holes we were shooting in our Constitution were ignored. And the media was filled with stories about Brit and Lohan. I hate that media nonsense. So, I stay informed as best I can from a few Internet sources and nearly totally ignore the MSM. E.g., I haven't touched a print news publication in likely over 10 years. I have TV only because for one year it's a little cheaper to have it, but I have no TV set connected to the settop box and don't watch TV. I'm doing a startup, and in part I hope it does something about this mess and results in better informed voters and better gumment.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  I think you nailed a lot of the problems: money plus a two-party system equals disasterous. Likewise, the degree to which many are misinformed and manipulated. But, even with that, I wonder which group specifically benefits from the kinds of abuse we see with NSLs and the Aaron Swartz tragedy? You can easily see how security firms and the defense industry benefit from war, new technology for airports, etc. So, there is a direct path from the lobbyists to the politicians back to the corporate interests. But, where privacy is simply being invaded or abusive power wielded over an individual, you ask: who is directly benefiting? There is certainly interest in maintaining the status quo by the same moneyed interests noted above (and others), so that is ostensibly the purpose of such abuse and control. But how, precisely, does that interest translate to these abuses? How is this effort to control by removing rights or infringing upon them communicated to those who execute? Who is communicating it to them? Because this, seemingly, is at least one place where the gumment takes on the role of a third entity that is no longer representative of the people, but frequently at odds with them.

dreamdu5t 14y ago

> So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc? Personally, I think it's because we buy into the idea that an individual should be given the authority to "rule" people by fiat in the first place.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Do we?
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  In the US, yes. Most people believe that the authority to rule over others based on a vote is legitimate, ethical, and desirable. Personally, I don't think it's legitimate or ethical that some guy I've never met asserts the right to rule over my property because another group of people I've never met got together and voted on it.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Not sure we're talking about the same thing. In the case you mention, isn't the problem you have with the people who voted? And isn't the issue you take, in general, not with an individual "ruling over you", but with the very notion of majority rule (i.e. that "a group of people you've never met" can vote in ways that affect you/your property/etc.)? Edit: Because I would say that the problem is the opposite: that our government is no longer an expression of the will of "the people". And my question is why isn't it?
    - dreamdu5t 14y ago
      My point was that the electoral process is what is meant by "will of the people." In that regard, the government IS acting in accordance with the will of people. But you asked why we are powerless to stop things like the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc. My answer to that is because we've all decided to cede that power to a vote.
      - unclebucknasty 14y ago
        Ok, now I think what you're talking about boils down to representative democracy vs direct democracy. I do think that's where the breakdown occurs, especially given the money in our representative democracy and our two-party system. Because voting in a direct democracy would not be ceding power, it would be directly expressing it. Now whether we would "do the right thing" remains to be seen, particularly given the massive degree to which many are misinformed or misled. Of course, once our will is expressed, thereafter comes the execution. That may involve similar apparatus to what we have now (DOJ, FBI, etc.). Not sure that wouldn't lead us right back to where we are now, with abuses, etc. Maybe it's just a function of human nature.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
graycat 14y ago
One reason: Another terrorist attack like 9/11 is 'immediate', that is, right in front of people, something to be afraid of right now. Shooting holes in our Constitution is a danger more abstract, more distant, less immediate, although in total more serious. So, with the usual short sightedness of people and politics, we throw away some of our liberty in hopes of some short term security. And, we are gullible, get manipulated, get sold nonsense by the MSM, etc. In simple terms, the solution is for the voters not to fall for such nonsense.

graycat 14y ago

"The big question is if our government is supposed to be 'of, by, and for the people', then how did it manage to become this separate entity--with a life and agenda of its own--that has now turned against 'the people'? "The people" can turn it around anytime they want. When enough voters shout "frog", Congress jumps. But getting that many people to shout at the holes we have seen shot in our Constitution is not so easy. You asked why? Okay, first reason is that there are problems, and conceptually the easiest solution is for Congress to pass a law and the executive branch to set up a program. So, DC gets bigger, richer, and more powerful. Second reason is that our gumment is heavily for sale at prices that are not high enough. So, lots of 'special interests' quietly get what they want, and gumment gets bigger. So, gumment gets big and powerful, and then lots of people want to be part of this power and work to keep gumment big and powerful. Third, out in voter land, there is not much in good information and a lot of confusion. Mostly people are fed, by the media joined at the hip with the politicians and other special interests, a lot of emotional nonsense that keeps up the divisions and, thus, forestalls a clear consensus on curing the problems. My favorite example in the last election cycle was abortion. Take whatever view on abortion you want, there remains a rock solid fact: Roe v Wade was 40 years ago, and the chances of changing it are from zip and zilch down to zero. So, talking about abortion is essentially just a waste of time. Still there was a lot of such talking. Lots of people got concerned. Lots of women got scared. And the holes we were shooting in our Constitution were ignored. And the media was filled with stories about Brit and Lohan. I hate that media nonsense. So, I stay informed as best I can from a few Internet sources and nearly totally ignore the MSM. E.g., I haven't touched a print news publication in likely over 10 years. I have TV only because for one year it's a little cheaper to have it, but I have no TV set connected to the settop box and don't watch TV. I'm doing a startup, and in part I hope it does something about this mess and results in better informed voters and better gumment.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
I think you nailed a lot of the problems: money plus a two-party system equals disasterous. Likewise, the degree to which many are misinformed and manipulated. But, even with that, I wonder which group specifically benefits from the kinds of abuse we see with NSLs and the Aaron Swartz tragedy? You can easily see how security firms and the defense industry benefit from war, new technology for airports, etc. So, there is a direct path from the lobbyists to the politicians back to the corporate interests. But, where privacy is simply being invaded or abusive power wielded over an individual, you ask: who is directly benefiting? There is certainly interest in maintaining the status quo by the same moneyed interests noted above (and others), so that is ostensibly the purpose of such abuse and control. But how, precisely, does that interest translate to these abuses? How is this effort to control by removing rights or infringing upon them communicated to those who execute? Who is communicating it to them? Because this, seemingly, is at least one place where the gumment takes on the role of a third entity that is no longer representative of the people, but frequently at odds with them.