4 ms·

'such fundamental disdain toward and alienation from government are peculiar American' This. If you're so unshakably convinced that a government full of people

'such fundamental disdain toward and alienation from government are peculiar American' This. If you're so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you vote for every four years is never going to work in your interests, you have serious problems.

kenj0418 13y ago
"full of people" being the operative phrase here. People with power tend to abuse that power. This is human nature, and this is where distrust of government comes from. People work in their own interest (however they may define that). Working in the interests of those that elect them is just a hopeful side effect of the democratic process.
nine_k 13y ago
I wish you counted the officials you voted for and compared it to the number of governmental bureaucrats, agents, and other persons that are assigned, never elected, and often stay at their offices as elected officials change. The number of non-elected officials is vastly larger than the few thousand elected officials people vote for. Not that governments (and other bureaucratic bodies) never work in your interests. They always work in their own interests, and among these are self-perpetuation and grabbing more power. But as long as their other interests are aligned with yours, they could throw all their power at your cause. Should your interests diverge... well, good luck.
- 7s 13y ago
  Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
- 7s 13y ago
  Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
glenra 13y ago
> a government full of people you vote for every four years You mean a government full of people I vote against every four years, right? I actually don't vote any more, but back when I did, the people I voted for were never the ones who won the election. (At least not at the national level. There might have been a local one, though not any I can recall offhand.) But even if my favored candidate had ever won, there are good public choice reasons to think the system as a whole would resist serving my interests ahead of its own. We have a "government by the government, for the government" - a vast barnacle feeding off the economy, trying to take as many resources as it can without killing the host.
randallsquared 13y ago
I think it's rather the other way. The historical record shows that they hardly ever do what I would have preferred. One problem is that the referents for "you" and "your" don't always match during the sentence: "If you [1] are so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you [2] vote for every four years is never going to work in your [3] interests, you [4] have serious problems." 1. the person reading this 2. the majority of voters in your country, which the person reading this is only likely to be a part of about 50% of the time at best, in the US 3. the person reading this 4. the person reading this Looking at just US presidential elections, people who vote straight Republican or Democrat will have been in the majority at least some of the time, but someone voting their conscience without regard to party has a fair chance of having been in the minority most of the time. Another problem is that voting gives an individual neither control over nor responsibility for anything that the elect do. Look at all the Bush voters outraged about what happened during that administration (either Bush, actually), and all the Obama voters currently outraged about current administration activities.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  The thing is, for all its supposed power, government is really bad at marketing. People tend to see only what they don't like about government while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. As in those "get the government out of my medicare" signs that were seen in the US. (Cue the "blah blah markets can do it blah blah" responses - no, I'm sorry, but even economists disagree with you.)
  - ahallock 13y ago
    > while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. Using these services because there's no practical way not to is just the reality of our system. Taking a few scraps from your masters to survive does not mean you agree with your chains.
    - md224 13y ago
      I'm curious, what's your ideal political arrangement? How do you propose we provide for transportation infrastructure, medical services, police, fire departments, etc? I'm not convinced that abolishment of the state is possible or even ideal, but I'm open to discussion.

kenj0418 13y ago

"full of people" being the operative phrase here. People with power tend to abuse that power. This is human nature, and this is where distrust of government comes from. People work in their own interest (however they may define that). Working in the interests of those that elect them is just a hopeful side effect of the democratic process.

nine_k 13y ago

I wish you counted the officials you voted for and compared it to the number of governmental bureaucrats, agents, and other persons that are assigned, never elected, and often stay at their offices as elected officials change. The number of non-elected officials is vastly larger than the few thousand elected officials people vote for. Not that governments (and other bureaucratic bodies) never work in your interests. They always work in their own interests, and among these are self-perpetuation and grabbing more power. But as long as their other interests are aligned with yours, they could throw all their power at your cause. Should your interests diverge... well, good luck.

7s 13y ago
Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
7s 13y ago
Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.

glenra 13y ago

> a government full of people you vote for every four years You mean a government full of people I vote against every four years, right? I actually don't vote any more, but back when I did, the people I voted for were never the ones who won the election. (At least not at the national level. There might have been a local one, though not any I can recall offhand.) But even if my favored candidate had ever won, there are good public choice reasons to think the system as a whole would resist serving my interests ahead of its own. We have a "government by the government, for the government" - a vast barnacle feeding off the economy, trying to take as many resources as it can without killing the host.

randallsquared 13y ago

I think it's rather the other way. The historical record shows that they hardly ever do what I would have preferred. One problem is that the referents for "you" and "your" don't always match during the sentence: "If you [1] are so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you [2] vote for every four years is never going to work in your [3] interests, you [4] have serious problems." 1. the person reading this 2. the majority of voters in your country, which the person reading this is only likely to be a part of about 50% of the time at best, in the US 3. the person reading this 4. the person reading this Looking at just US presidential elections, people who vote straight Republican or Democrat will have been in the majority at least some of the time, but someone voting their conscience without regard to party has a fair chance of having been in the minority most of the time. Another problem is that voting gives an individual neither control over nor responsibility for anything that the elect do. Look at all the Bush voters outraged about what happened during that administration (either Bush, actually), and all the Obama voters currently outraged about current administration activities.

nhaehnle 13y ago
The thing is, for all its supposed power, government is really bad at marketing. People tend to see only what they don't like about government while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. As in those "get the government out of my medicare" signs that were seen in the US. (Cue the "blah blah markets can do it blah blah" responses - no, I'm sorry, but even economists disagree with you.)
- ahallock 13y ago
  > while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. Using these services because there's no practical way not to is just the reality of our system. Taking a few scraps from your masters to survive does not mean you agree with your chains.
  - md224 13y ago
    I'm curious, what's your ideal political arrangement? How do you propose we provide for transportation infrastructure, medical services, police, fire departments, etc? I'm not convinced that abolishment of the state is possible or even ideal, but I'm open to discussion.