4 ms·

No difference. Why do US citizens have to pay for wars and killing a great number of innocent people in them, or Guantanamo, or NSA, or TSA... when the majority

by snitko 13y ago

No difference. Why do US citizens have to pay for wars and killing a great number of innocent people in them, or Guantanamo, or NSA, or TSA... when the majority clearly opposes it? Democracy is a nice myth, which gives surfs a false feeling of satisfaction and control, obscuring the reality, which is that you are being robbed. "You can always leave", as has been noted before, is another myth: yes, spend 5-6 years on the paperwork and then leave to yet another democracy that's gonna steal from you. Look, I understand you believe in the idea, but the harsh reality is that you are being tricked into obedience by your rulers/owners. My country is no different. The standards of living may be lower, but the fact remains: no government ever truly cares about its citizens. It's nice to think they do, though. But look at the incentives. There are none.

gnaritas 13y ago
In a democracy, the government and the citizens are not different parties; they are citizens and their incentive is that they have to live here as well even after they're no longer in power. To say governments never care about their citizens is silly, a government is not one mind, it's a collection of said citizens.
- snitko 13y ago
  Theoretically. In practice, as soon as you get power, you have very little incentive to serve those who elected you and all the incentives in the world to make money from special interest groups. You can't fix that with any number of new rules and legislation. Instead, think about this: why do you need some people sitting in a pathetic building ruling over you? Why do you think society cannot do without them and what is it that only governments can do, but people and companies can't?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > In practice, as soon as you get power, you have very little incentive to serve those who elected you and all the incentives in the world to make money from special interest groups. Special interest groups are citizens teaming up to push their agenda, those are people who elected you. Special interest groups are not inherently bad nor are they automatically against the will of the electorate. Many are actually representing the electorate. > Instead, think about this: why do you need some people sitting in a pathetic building ruling over you? Why do you think society cannot do without them and what is it that only governments can do, but people and companies can't? There you go again treating government and people as if they're different things. You're presenting a false choice, it's not government rule vs freedom from it, it's government rule vs local warlord rule. Power abhors a vacuum and government is our solution to that problem, it's how we live civilly together. It's not nor will it ever be perfect as no human system is, but it's vastly preferable to the alternative. The idea that people can live peacefully without a form of government is just silly, someone has to enforce rule of law and it can't be someone's private security force or the guy with the most goons wins every time. Either the people choose a government or someone will choose one for them, or decide to rule himself.
wpietri 13y ago
I certainly grant that things are not perfect here. Regarding your particular questions, in May 2003, 79% of Americans thought the Iraq war was justified, so the majority clearly didn't oppose it. Most now believe it was a mistake. Only 41% of citizens agree with the president's plan to close Guantanamo. A majority of Americans think the TSA is doing a good job. I think the majority of Americans are wrong on all of these things, but they are undeniably popular opinions. I, personally, am not being robbed. I am also not being tricked into obedience. Your insistence to the contrary, entirely ignorant of my actual situation, is arrogant foolishness. I've lived on four continents, and I'm quite happy with what I have here. Could it be better? Sure. Is it at risk from powerful interests? Definitely, especially at the federal level. But I also see many causes for hope.
- snitko 13y ago
  Fine, you feel you're not being robbed. I know quite a few people from the US who feel that taxes are theft. Granted you agree they have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, how do you justify the fact that if they don't pay taxes, they will go to prison (not right away, but eventually, if they decide to resist, even if peacefully) or have their property alienated? Democracy isn't the answer, because they don't believe in one. If you say they have to pay because they use services a government provides, then it's also very debatable: they certainly may not want to pay for some of them (military?) and surely they don't have any alternative because government monopolistic behavior prevents any competition in certain sectors of the economy. Saying they have this freedom to believe in whatever they want when they don't have the same freedom to act according to their beliefs is identical to not granting them any freedom at all.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I justify that by pointing out that they are free riders. There are surely people living on backwoods property that pay little to no tax, because they are effectively not part of our various collective enterprises. Godspeed to them. But if people want to enjoy the benefits of living in a city, state, and country, to participate in an economy, those benefits come with obligations. Sure, they may not want to pay for things. But if they can't get others to agree that the government should not do those things, or at least should run them on a cost-recovery basis, then it's too bad. They certainly have the freedom to move to someplace without effective government. E.g., Waziristan or Somalia. They will be much freer there. Of course, warlords will be free to rob or kill them, so it may not be entirely to their tastes, but then, we aren't guaranteed perfect choices, just the opportunity to make better ones.

by snitko 13y ago

gnaritas 13y ago

In a democracy, the government and the citizens are not different parties; they are citizens and their incentive is that they have to live here as well even after they're no longer in power. To say governments never care about their citizens is silly, a government is not one mind, it's a collection of said citizens.

snitko 13y ago
Theoretically. In practice, as soon as you get power, you have very little incentive to serve those who elected you and all the incentives in the world to make money from special interest groups. You can't fix that with any number of new rules and legislation. Instead, think about this: why do you need some people sitting in a pathetic building ruling over you? Why do you think society cannot do without them and what is it that only governments can do, but people and companies can't?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > In practice, as soon as you get power, you have very little incentive to serve those who elected you and all the incentives in the world to make money from special interest groups. Special interest groups are citizens teaming up to push their agenda, those are people who elected you. Special interest groups are not inherently bad nor are they automatically against the will of the electorate. Many are actually representing the electorate. > Instead, think about this: why do you need some people sitting in a pathetic building ruling over you? Why do you think society cannot do without them and what is it that only governments can do, but people and companies can't? There you go again treating government and people as if they're different things. You're presenting a false choice, it's not government rule vs freedom from it, it's government rule vs local warlord rule. Power abhors a vacuum and government is our solution to that problem, it's how we live civilly together. It's not nor will it ever be perfect as no human system is, but it's vastly preferable to the alternative. The idea that people can live peacefully without a form of government is just silly, someone has to enforce rule of law and it can't be someone's private security force or the guy with the most goons wins every time. Either the people choose a government or someone will choose one for them, or decide to rule himself.

wpietri 13y ago

I certainly grant that things are not perfect here. Regarding your particular questions, in May 2003, 79% of Americans thought the Iraq war was justified, so the majority clearly didn't oppose it. Most now believe it was a mistake. Only 41% of citizens agree with the president's plan to close Guantanamo. A majority of Americans think the TSA is doing a good job. I think the majority of Americans are wrong on all of these things, but they are undeniably popular opinions. I, personally, am not being robbed. I am also not being tricked into obedience. Your insistence to the contrary, entirely ignorant of my actual situation, is arrogant foolishness. I've lived on four continents, and I'm quite happy with what I have here. Could it be better? Sure. Is it at risk from powerful interests? Definitely, especially at the federal level. But I also see many causes for hope.

snitko 13y ago
Fine, you feel you're not being robbed. I know quite a few people from the US who feel that taxes are theft. Granted you agree they have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, how do you justify the fact that if they don't pay taxes, they will go to prison (not right away, but eventually, if they decide to resist, even if peacefully) or have their property alienated? Democracy isn't the answer, because they don't believe in one. If you say they have to pay because they use services a government provides, then it's also very debatable: they certainly may not want to pay for some of them (military?) and surely they don't have any alternative because government monopolistic behavior prevents any competition in certain sectors of the economy. Saying they have this freedom to believe in whatever they want when they don't have the same freedom to act according to their beliefs is identical to not granting them any freedom at all.
- wpietri 13y ago
  I justify that by pointing out that they are free riders. There are surely people living on backwoods property that pay little to no tax, because they are effectively not part of our various collective enterprises. Godspeed to them. But if people want to enjoy the benefits of living in a city, state, and country, to participate in an economy, those benefits come with obligations. Sure, they may not want to pay for things. But if they can't get others to agree that the government should not do those things, or at least should run them on a cost-recovery basis, then it's too bad. They certainly have the freedom to move to someplace without effective government. E.g., Waziristan or Somalia. They will be much freer there. Of course, warlords will be free to rob or kill them, so it may not be entirely to their tastes, but then, we aren't guaranteed perfect choices, just the opportunity to make better ones.