4 ms·
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 "yo
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI'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.
- ahallock 13y agoI don't think abolishing the state is ideal now. Hierarchical structures and violence are far too ingrained in people and passed on to their children. We really need a philosophical awakening to move beyond institutionalized violence. Abolishing the state swiftly would have the opposite effect as there are too many people dependent on it. Too many lives would be lost. This is a process that needs to happen at a local level, over generations. And I don't have any proposals for how those services will be provided. People will just figure it out and create solutions organically, as they have for numerous other problems throughout history. We didn't need to know how cotton would be picked before we abolished slavery.
- md224 13y agoI would point out that the conception of the state arose "organically", in the sense that basically all of our structures and hierarchies are socially constructed. With that in mind, would you see it as "wrong" if, upon finally ridding ourselves of ingrained hierarchical structures, we find ourselves rebuilding similar structures all over again? Do you find hierarchical structures of authority to be bad because you don't think they're "organic," or because you think there's a better way and you simply don't know what it is? Or perhaps you think our current structures are stale, and even rebuilding them in new ways would be helpful?