4 ms·

I think the subtitle gets to the heart of the issue: "How can a democratic republic function when the bureaucrats are constantly misleading the people?" It fee

by jdmitch 13y ago

I think the subtitle gets to the heart of the issue: "How can a democratic republic function when the bureaucrats are constantly misleading the people?" It feels more and more like a deceptive charade that the US is actually a democratic republic. It is increasingly clear that in a number of significant areas the shady bureaucracy is taking action without the public's consent.

nwh 13y ago
From an outsiders view, that's my interpretation too. Have to wonder just how many people are under gag orders for various secret things. An uncharitable view would be that the democracy bit is just to keep the public from realising they have no control. I often wonder how the US will be seen in history books, and it's quickly slipping further into the evil section.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  > I often wonder how the US will be seen in history books, and it's quickly slipping further into the evil section. That will depend upon who wins.
quadhome 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Inspirations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Inspirations Or, if you dislike comedic form, the Crossman Diaries are insightful in the working of the civil service: http://www.amazon.com/s/?&field-keywords=Richard+Crossman+diaries http://www.amazon.com/s/?&field-keywords=Richard+Crossman+di... We separate "politics" from our bureaucracy. It's quite difficult to, say, fire a civil servant. Don't get me wrong, I think the spoils system was worse. (Hmm, why do I think that...) But the independence of the civil service is intentional. Elected officials and not very effective oversight.
clarkmoody 13y ago
The government certainly seems out of control with regard to secrecy & privacy, but these just hint at the larger issue at hand: the government regulatory arm is out of control in all of its duties and functions. Many regulatory agencies can pass new rule changes that have widespread impact on productivity and business. These rules are not subject to electoral review, since these are non-elected officials making decisions. It's time we reign in government on all levels, to increase the freedoms of individuals, businesses, and even the states.
raintrees 13y ago
Doesn't it seem like the United States has gotten too big for our Democracy to function correctly anymore? Maybe it is time to break it up... Or at least move authority back down to the smallest level: Solve problems in your local township. If can not resolve: Go up to County level for resolution. If can not resolve: Go up to Sate level for resolution. If can not resolve: iterate as necessary. (Edited for better formatting).
- psaintla 13y ago
  So you want to make it even easier than it already is for corporations to control govt?
  - raintrees 13y ago
    About that: Currently (until I get enough evidence/data to change my opinion) I subscribe to an amalgamation of John Perkins' and Jerry Mander's point of view on Corporations: They should not be bigger than their locality, also expressed as smaller is better. As soon as their operations can no longer be felt in the same geographical area as any other part of said corporation, they have gotten too big and need to be broken back up again. When corporations were smaller, it seemed there was better control and oversight. If they fouled their nests, it was eventually (preferably rapidly, but not always the case) obvious in the same locality and could be subjected to local response/censure, until wrongs were made right or they were closed. Overall, more localized government would seem to also provide for better "vote with your feet:" If one does not like the local consensus, one may move to another locality, possibly not that far away from the first, where the environs are more to one's liking. I am purposely using subjective language such as "seems" since I know I must not be as smart as others in these arenas. But so far, the ideas above have my support/backing/agreement. fwiw.
    - krapp 13y ago
      I might support this thinking ... except that we would be the only country in the world doing it. Wouldn't we essentially be rolling back the entire industrial revolution? What happens to manufacturing, commerce and IT when everything is the size of a hamlet? Would there be no more national banks? Would be go back to having local banks print their own currency?

by jdmitch 13y ago

nwh 13y ago

From an outsiders view, that's my interpretation too. Have to wonder just how many people are under gag orders for various secret things. An uncharitable view would be that the democracy bit is just to keep the public from realising they have no control. I often wonder how the US will be seen in history books, and it's quickly slipping further into the evil section.

redblacktree 13y ago
> I often wonder how the US will be seen in history books, and it's quickly slipping further into the evil section. That will depend upon who wins.

quadhome 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Inspirations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Inspirations Or, if you dislike comedic form, the Crossman Diaries are insightful in the working of the civil service: http://www.amazon.com/s/?&field-keywords=Richard+Crossman+diaries http://www.amazon.com/s/?&field-keywords=Richard+Crossman+di... We separate "politics" from our bureaucracy. It's quite difficult to, say, fire a civil servant. Don't get me wrong, I think the spoils system was worse. (Hmm, why do I think that...) But the independence of the civil service is intentional. Elected officials and not very effective oversight.

clarkmoody 13y ago

The government certainly seems out of control with regard to secrecy & privacy, but these just hint at the larger issue at hand: the government regulatory arm is out of control in all of its duties and functions. Many regulatory agencies can pass new rule changes that have widespread impact on productivity and business. These rules are not subject to electoral review, since these are non-elected officials making decisions. It's time we reign in government on all levels, to increase the freedoms of individuals, businesses, and even the states.

raintrees 13y ago

Doesn't it seem like the United States has gotten too big for our Democracy to function correctly anymore? Maybe it is time to break it up... Or at least move authority back down to the smallest level: Solve problems in your local township. If can not resolve: Go up to County level for resolution. If can not resolve: Go up to Sate level for resolution. If can not resolve: iterate as necessary. (Edited for better formatting).

psaintla 13y ago
So you want to make it even easier than it already is for corporations to control govt?
- raintrees 13y ago
  About that: Currently (until I get enough evidence/data to change my opinion) I subscribe to an amalgamation of John Perkins' and Jerry Mander's point of view on Corporations: They should not be bigger than their locality, also expressed as smaller is better. As soon as their operations can no longer be felt in the same geographical area as any other part of said corporation, they have gotten too big and need to be broken back up again. When corporations were smaller, it seemed there was better control and oversight. If they fouled their nests, it was eventually (preferably rapidly, but not always the case) obvious in the same locality and could be subjected to local response/censure, until wrongs were made right or they were closed. Overall, more localized government would seem to also provide for better "vote with your feet:" If one does not like the local consensus, one may move to another locality, possibly not that far away from the first, where the environs are more to one's liking. I am purposely using subjective language such as "seems" since I know I must not be as smart as others in these arenas. But so far, the ideas above have my support/backing/agreement. fwiw.
  - krapp 13y ago
    I might support this thinking ... except that we would be the only country in the world doing it. Wouldn't we essentially be rolling back the entire industrial revolution? What happens to manufacturing, commerce and IT when everything is the size of a hamlet? Would there be no more national banks? Would be go back to having local banks print their own currency?