NationStates Jolt Archive

In American politics, we tend to be more distrustful of our government than most. We're this way because we rebelled from Britain, and because we instilled a fear of government since through our various politics, from the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists, to the Civil War, to modern times where we cry about anything even remotely being close to socialism.

There are two extremes to this view. On one side, you've got those who think that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" are the most horrifying words they'll ever hear. (Thank Reagan for that.) They're convinced their government can't ever be trusted.

On the other side, you've got two kinds of people, one who say you should always trust your government because it can never hurt you(naive peeps) and the others who say you should trust it because nothing you could do could stop them if they wanted to go authoritarian anyway.

My question is: where's the healthy centre? Where should we actually stand? Should we generally trust our government? Should we generally distrust it? Or should we take my personal position, which is to have healthy skepticism but generally be optimistic about each public official until you see otherwise?

My question is: where's the healthy centre?


In a tootsie roll after many licks.


Where should we actually stand?


On your feet, usually.


Should we generally trust our government?


As far as you can throw it, with the help of catapults or high explosives.


Should we generally distrust it?


Until they build room 101, then it's better not to.


Or should we take my personal position, which is to have healthy skepticism but generally be optimistic about each public official until you see otherwise?

Heresy!

:p

about as far as we can throw it. our level of trust in the bloody munkey bussiness of bussiness ought to reasonably be somewhat less then that. somewhere in the negative numbers. trust in personal means of destructiveness as accompleshing anything other then destroying is insane also.

governments are a thing that exists. we don't owe them any more of a free lunch then anyone owes us or each other. they need to earn their keep, and their trust. this they can do with welfare and infrastructure. NOT by making gratuitous wars to frighten us into believing we need them.

Why trust a government that broke every treaty it ever signed with the American Indians? Why trust the government that slaughtered and imprisoned them without justification? Why trust the government that tried to bar the Chinese and the Japanese from getting into the country? That is wasting billions on border fencing that can be breeched in a matter of minutes with tin snips or a ladder? That imprisoned people in camps because of their last names? That permitted slavery until the mid-19th century? That has waged a war in it's own streets, against it's own people for recreational use of drugs other than alcohol? That has attempted to violate the Constitution on which it is founded more than once?

Seriously, this is a very short and selective list of the problems with our government throughout our nation's history. Why trust that government?

Well, there are a few basic truths about politics.

1. People who work for government departments generally do it because they either couldn't get a job in private industry, or because they prefer the more relaxing lifestyle of government employment.

2. Politicians are powerhungry people, and there has never been anyone who went into politics as a way of helping people. Sometimes people who didn't plan to become politicians do when the cause they were championing gets flung into the mainstream, but if people see someone hurt or mistreated, they don't respond by going to study law, journalism or political science and running for some local election. People do that because they're ambitious and choose power as a career goal.

3. Governments virtually always produce unintended side effects when they do things. The bigger the policy, the greater those effects.

So most of the time, I don't think it's about trust. You'd be foolish to believe what politicians say, but much more vital than that is to be wary of what happens when governments do whatever it is they set out to do. So do I trust them to try to do what they say they want to do? Yes. Do I trust that they actually accomplish it? Rarely.

Why trust a government that broke every treaty it ever signed with the American Indians? Why trust the government that slaughtered and imprisoned them without justification? Why trust the government that tried to bar the Chinese and the Japanese from getting into the country? That is wasting billions on border fencing that can be breeched in a matter of minutes with tin snips or a ladder? That imprisoned people in camps because of their last names? That permitted slavery until the mid-19th century? That has waged a war in it's own streets, against it's own people for recreational use of drugs other than alcohol? That has attempted to violate the Constitution on which it is founded more than once?

Seriously, this is a very short and selective list of the problems with our government throughout our nation's history. Why trust that government?

but remember: it wasn't JUST government that did those things. it was government motivated, and as often as not influenced by, economic intrests, and also by that statistical consensus of incentives we are all of us constantly creating, whether we pay attentention to which ones we are and how we do so or not.

so don't trust 'market forces' either. not to really serve any end other then enabling symbolic value to socialize with itself.

In American politics, we tend to be more distrustful of our government than most. We're this way because we rebelled from Britain, and because we instilled a fear of government since through our various politics, from the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists, to the Civil War, to modern times where we cry about anything even remotely being close to socialism.

There are two extremes to this view. On one side, you've got those who think that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" are the most horrifying words they'll ever hear. (Thank Reagan for that.) They're convinced their government can't ever be trusted.

On the other side, you've got two kinds of people, one who say you should always trust your government because it can never hurt you(naive peeps) and the others who say you should trust it because nothing you could do could stop them if they wanted to go authoritarian anyway.

My question is: where's the healthy centre? Where should we actually stand? Should we generally trust our government? Should we generally distrust it? Or should we take my personal position, which is to have healthy skepticism but generally be optimistic about each public official until you see otherwise?

I would say that it is best to be cautious and questioning of government, but not so much that you assume everyone in it and everything it does to be completely evil.

but remember: it wasn't JUST government that did those things. it was government motivated, and as often as not influenced by, economic intrests, and also by that statistical consensus of incentives we are all of us constantly creating, whether we pay attentention to which ones we are and how we do so or not.

so don't trust 'market forces' either. not to really serve any end other then enabling symbolic value to socialize with itself.

The government isn't a completely separate from the people it governs. That means that whatever a government does, it is usually with at least some level of agreement by most of it's populace. After all, if they could not approve of it under any circumstance, there would be outright rebellion.

I would say that it is best to be cautious and questioning of government, but not so much that you assume everyone in it and everything it does to be completely evil.

USA is a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Distrusting government thus equals distrusting the people.

I don't get it. :confused:

We don't believe in socialism? We socialize losses all the time. Look at the bailouts.....

USA is a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Distrusting government thus equals distrusting the people.

I don't get it. :confused:

Lotteries are there to make you rich. So to distrust lotteries is to distrust wealth.
Or, to put it slightly differently: if you don't participate in lotteries, apparently you don't want to get rich.
And 1000 more similar examples of flawed reasoning.

government would do a lot of good if it weren't for politics getting in the way.

too many people see politics as a game and politics runs the government. people vote for people for stupid reasons.us Kerry almost won in '04 not because of what he wanted to accomplish, but because he was running against Bush.

Trust government as much as you'd trust anyone with the power to ruin your entire livelihood on a wim. trust it as much as you trust any group of people that has the power to send you to die in war, rot in prison, or tax right into the poor-house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Callisdrun
I would say that it is best to be cautious and questioning of government, but not so much that you assume everyone in it and everything it does to be completely evil.

USA is a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Distrusting government thus equals distrusting the people.

I don't get it.

I dont trust people at all. people can be stupid bigots with a hidden (or open) agenda or just not understand an issue at all.

However in a democracy society gets what it is worth. The problem is that they often think they are worth more than they are

The best thing you can do for any government is question its logic. There should be something you are against from every party if you actually look hard enough. If you are in favour of every policy you are most likely a blind pathetic party follow with no understanding about anything.

For me when I vote its always voting to switch the power the way i want or the lesser of all the evils.

1. People who work for government departments generally do it because they either couldn't get a job in private industry, or because they prefer the more relaxing lifestyle of government employment.
What makes you say this?

Government opposes criminals mainly because it prefers a monopoly under its control.

Consider my view in this fashion: Government is a necessary EVIL. It is like any dangerous and unreliable machine that you MUST HAVE. Kept manageable and limited, it works poorly, when expanded, it works against the citizenry, and works even more poorly.

One can adequately describe our Government, as a parody of Corporatism-that is, all the Bureaucracy, insanity, venality, banality, lack of accountability and lack of ethics in the worst entities of the private sector, combined with nearly unlimited resources and little to no oversight by the people it is supposed to serve, and led by a board of directors composed of the most self-centred, narcissistic, intelligent sociopaths available (that would be Politicians, in case you're confused).

but, with all its evils, it is necessary. Necessarily, if one does not wish to experience MOST of those evils first-hand, it must be limited, restrained, and made to fear the displeasure of the citizenry. (i.e. the sociopathic bastards must be made to fear you, or they will make themselves your masters.)

1. People who work for government departments generally do it because they either couldn't get a job in private industry, or because they prefer the more relaxing lifestyle of government employment.

Relaxing?

I haven't worked for the government and hopefully never will (except for perhaps the ADF as a reservist) but some of the stories I hear aren't all that relaxing. Unless you mean some of the work they do and that they don't have to worry about their job all that much well yeah that is relaxing but a lot of the flexibility goes such as you will start at 8:21am and finish at 5:04pm not to mention a lot of crap and the whole sense of equality that you must have. Maybe I just couldn't stand to work in an environment like that and prefer to go into private industry. Actually I tend to agree with you and this whole pointless post is for nothing, I could go on a big rant about government workers but I won't I'm to tired and have been celebrating today for to long to go into it.

Actually what was the question? Do I trust the government? How about no the government can't be trusted the executive and legislature can't be trusted and a lot of those bastards (sorry if you are one of them though you may not be that bad) can't be trusted.

I trust the government a lot more than the wider population. In most representative democracies there are checks and balances to limit corruption, though this will inevitably arise due to the inherently corrupt nature of human beings. In a more direct democractic system prejudices and short-term shifts in public opinion could lead to persecution of minorities and unstable policy. The ordinary public are too stupid to make decisions themselves. Thats why government was invented.

Those in power are pushed into pursuing the national interest (or at least to frame their policies under this term, and have themselves constantly questioned on this by other governmental institutions, the media etc) through the desire for reelection and accountability to individuals in a variety of other institutions who are seeking to increase their own status by highlighting the mistakes of the current leadership. In the realms of welfare, education and the provision of other services, I strongly believe government can have a positive role in creating a society with a modicum of justice and fairness out of a bunch of fundamentally selfish, ignorant and unpleasant human beings.

USA is a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Distrusting government thus equals distrusting the people.

I don't get it. :confused:

I don't trust the entire nation. And the government is certainly not completely trustworthy.

We trusted them enough to vote them into office, but we don't trust them to do their jobs? Almost sounds like the thinking of a micromanager. If you hired someone to do a job you didn't know anything about, wouldn't you trust them to do their job and only get on their case if there was a serious lack of performance?

We trusted them enough to vote them into office, but we don't trust them to do their jobs? Almost sounds like the thinking of a micromanager. If you hired someone to do a job you didn't know anything about, wouldn't you trust them to do their job and only get on their case if there was a serious lack of performance?Most people get fired when they continue to display gross incompetence and negligence on the job.

Most people get fired when they continue to display gross incompetence and negligence on the job.

Well, those who display gross incompetence should be let go at the first opportunity. Those who don't? Let them be. Gross incompetence is usually pretty visible.

Well, those who display gross incompetence should be let go at the first opportunity. Those who don't? Let them be. Gross incompetence is usually pretty visible.Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war), yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Environmental_Exposure_Research_Study) it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_katrina).

Why trust a government that broke every treaty it ever signed with the American Indians? Why trust the government that slaughtered and imprisoned them without justification? Why trust the government that tried to bar the Chinese and the Japanese from getting into the country? That is wasting billions on border fencing that can be breeched in a matter of minutes with tin snips or a ladder? That imprisoned people in camps because of their last names? That permitted slavery until the mid-19th century? That has waged a war in it's own streets, against it's own people for recreational use of drugs other than alcohol? That has attempted to violate the Constitution on which it is founded more than once?

Seriously, this is a very short and selective list of the problems with our government throughout our nation's history. Why trust that government?

More to the point, why trust any government when so many governments in so many nations throughout history have been so untrustworthy?

Why trust a government that broke every treaty it ever signed with the American Indians? Why trust the government that slaughtered and imprisoned them without justification? Why trust the government that tried to bar the Chinese and the Japanese from getting into the country? That is wasting billions on border fencing that can be breeched in a matter of minutes with tin snips or a ladder? That imprisoned people in camps because of their last names? That permitted slavery until the mid-19th century? That has waged a war in it's own streets, against it's own people for recreational use of drugs other than alcohol? That has attempted to violate the Constitution on which it is founded more than once?

Seriously, this is a very short and selective list of the problems with our government throughout our nation's history. Why trust that government?

Not to mention, a list that is, largely, over 120 years old.

1. People who work for government departments generally do it because they either couldn't get a job in private industry, or because they prefer the more relaxing lifestyle of government employment.
I disagree. For example, it would be interesting to work for the state department or something if you are interested in that. My problem with public jobs are that you don't really have the ability to make alot of money like you would in the private sector.
2. Politicians are powerhungry people, and there has never been anyone who went into politics as a way of helping people. Sometimes people who didn't plan to become politicians do when the cause they were championing gets flung into the mainstream, but if people see someone hurt or mistreated, they don't respond by going to study law, journalism or political science and running for some local election. People do that because they're ambitious and choose power as a career goal.
Indeed. ;)

Though it could be argued that people who are power hungry have agendas which they'd like to institute that they really do believe will help people and better their nation/community/whatever.

Power hungry does not have to be directly connected with evil/bad/corrupt.... It just shows one has extreme ambition.

3. Governments virtually always produce unintended side effects when they do things. The bigger the policy, the greater those effects.
Indeed.

So most of the time, I don't think it's about trust. You'd be foolish to believe what politicians say, but much more vital than that is to be wary of what happens when governments do whatever it is they set out to do. So do I trust them to try to do what they say they want to do? Yes. Do I trust that they actually accomplish it? Rarely.
Hence Reagan's "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" being the most scary thing one can hear.

My level of trust in the government has changed over the last few years from "Mostly honest" to "Guilty until proven innocent"

I doubt the British government could plan something evil like world domination when it seems to lose such sensitive information like a goldfish with alzheimers :p

I figure I could trust Gordan Brown to pay me back if hes like short on cash or something

i'm from the viewpoint not mentioned in your OP. the one that says we should trust the government because the public sector has a lot to offer... but keep an eye on it, just in case.

Trust is a very nebulous concept. Requires more qualification and specification; I do trust in the capacity of the British politician to renege on any policy promised, to vacillate and play any amount of semantic gymnastics to avoid an uncomfortable truth, and, generally, to neither make a sufficiently good or bad job of public office so as to either noticable benefit or disadvantage me.

No trust for the government here.

Here's a question; Could you point out an action by the government that gives us reason to trust it in general?

Here's a question; Could you point out an action by the government that gives us reason to trust it in general?

flu vaccinations haven't turned the elderly into drooling zombies? fluoride doesn't have mind control properties?

At the risk of being slightly reasonable I think that the level of trust should be proportionate to the level of involvement in the politocal process of the citizens. One of the things about politics that annoys me most is the presumption that the political responsibility of a citizen is to vote and nothing more.

I trust the government more then I trust the private sector.


And I dont trust the government at all. So that should tell you how much I trust the private sector.

My question is: where's the healthy centre? Where should we actually stand? Should we generally trust our government? Should we generally distrust it? Or should we take my personal position, which is to have healthy skepticism but generally be optimistic about each public official until you see otherwise?

We are the government. We should distrust all those that think they govern us and fail to recall who gives them the authority to act in our interest.

The government is made up of people. Do you trust those people? I don't understand what this weird amorphous faceless 'Government' thing is. Like 'The Market' it's a label, not a thing.

Luckily, many people work in government because they want to serve their community, and many people stand for election for the same reason. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. Unfortunately there are also political dynasties out there that just think they deserve to govern, and run for that reason. The second, I would be wary of.

The civil service is not the government, they aren't elected, they are the medium through which a government enacts policy. Which are we talking about here? The second are more scary, because they can become entrenched and corrupted. But they can also be the only people knowledgeable enough to prevent idiotic elected officials making mistakes that kill millions.

The issue with democracy is that it makes those wanting to be elected be shameless yes-men and lie to the public, because the public is self-serving... So blame yourself if your government sucks.

flu vaccinations haven't turned the elderly into drooling zombies? fluoride doesn't have mind control properties?

So that's 2 things compared to how many actions that cause distrust. Such as lying about the Iraq war, The Patriot Act, The fact that Bush wasn't impeached, the two recent elections, blahblahblah.

In American politics, we tend to be more distrustful of our government than most. We're this way because we rebelled from Britain, and because we instilled a fear of government since through our various politics, from the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists, to the Civil War, to modern times where we cry about anything even remotely being close to socialism.

There are two extremes to this view. On one side, you've got those who think that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" are the most horrifying words they'll ever hear. (Thank Reagan for that.) They're convinced their government can't ever be trusted.

On the other side, you've got two kinds of people, one who say you should always trust your government because it can never hurt you(naive peeps) and the others who say you should trust it because nothing you could do could stop them if they wanted to go authoritarian anyway.

My question is: where's the healthy centre? Where should we actually stand? Should we generally trust our government? Should we generally distrust it? Or should we take my personal position, which is to have healthy skepticism but generally be optimistic about each public official until you see otherwise?

Where the government is concerned, distrust is the healthy center. My stand is, and always has been, politicians lie. Public officials (of the non-elected variety) may not lie, but they probably don't know the truth, having been lied to by their elected superiors. Trust no one in the government.

I loves me the strong state in its current form in Britain. If it's dodgy, then I won't trust it any more. There we go.

On the other side, you've got two kinds of people, one who say you should always trust your government because it can never hurt you(naive peeps) and the others who say you should trust it because nothing you could do could stop them if they wanted to go authoritarian anyway.

There are two extremes to this view. On one side, you've got those who think that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" are the most horrifying words they'll ever hear. (Thank Reagan for that.) They're convinced their government can't ever be trusted. (Paranoid Millitiants) Let's be fair. if those that trust the governemnt completely are Naive Peeps, then those that don't are Paranoid Millitants. :p

My question is: where's the healthy centre? Where should we actually stand? Should we generally trust our government? Should we generally distrust it? Or should we take my personal position, which is to have healthy skepticism but generally be optimistic about each public official until you see otherwise?
me, I Trust my Government to do what they think is 'best'. they have more information and can see the bigger picture than we could ever do.

however, I also watch them. play the opposite game. for every bad thing you hear, find the good. for every good you hear, find the bad. it keeps the perspective honest and closer to the truth.

What makes you say this?
Experience.

As you might know, I spend a lot of time at the economics department of a pretty good university. Over the past year or so I have started to observe where people are trying to go once they finish their degrees. The only government institution that is aimed for by the high end of students is the central bank. I've once met someone who wanted to go to the Treasury. That was it - over recent months I received a huge stack of letters from various departments and ministries asking me to apply for them, and the same will be true for others who are approaching graduation. But the only reason people actually do this is because they can't get a job with the places people actually want to work at - consultancies and banks, primarily.

Relaxing?
The second reason is that I actually worked for the largest council in Queensland, and one of the largest in Australia over the course of a few months for a project with one of my professors. That gave me the chance to find out what working in government is like - and it's horrible. Everybody sucks, nobody has the first clue what they're doing (this was the strategic planning department) and everybody is on "flexi-time", meaning they pack up after half a day to "work" from home. It's not for me, but some people might like that sort of thing, and they're the ones who end up working for organisations like this.

I think distrust of the government is healthy. Not crazy conspiracy theories, mind you, but a good healthy distrust. Without it, people become complacent and either end up putting way too much power in the hands of government or stop bothering with proper oversight on the power it already has. Both are dangerous.

Absolute zero!

I think it's important to remember that a government is made up of individuals. Some more trustworthy than others.

Government officials are going to have people from all sides trying to encourage them to do things or not do things. It would be very easy to be led astray, since one'd have to find a balance between giving requests a fair hearing and preventing yourself from being manipulated.

So that's 2 things compared to how many actions that cause distrust. Such as lying about the Iraq war, The Patriot Act, The fact that Bush wasn't impeached, the two recent elections, blahblahblah.

would you like me to go on because I think the list of conspiracies will beat the list of naughtiness

(JFK doesn't count because he was killed by the moon people)

SNIP

you really do sell those fancy economics degrees to me :tongue:

I loves me the strong state in its current form in Britain. If it's dodgy, then I won't trust it any more. There we go.

I never figured you as a New labour type

Realize that whenever you give the government any kind of foothold in your life, you are consenting to play by their rules.

you really do sell those fancy economics degrees to me :tongue:
Well, everyone needs economists, even if politicians do what they can to discredit them in public. So the average starting salaries are among the highest for any discipline, and if you play your cards right and do end up going to one of the banks, things can get stratospheric quite quickly.

1. People who work for government departments generally do it because they either couldn't get a job in private industry, or because they prefer the more relaxing lifestyle of government employment.

This is kinda true.

Mmmm... Massages :fluffle:

I would say that you should place a high level of trust in the government, but only as far as that trust is reciprocated - i.e. there must be reasonable checks and balances to safeguard that the government is worthy of the trust. And with a high level of trust, there must be a high level of accountability and responsibility for the government. If those factors are lacking, I would not trust the government.

This is also to say, the top of the US government today seems highly untrustworthy, and that infects the entire system below.

The government is the only organization that monopolizes the use of force and worse, labels anything contrary to its acts as illegal and *will* coerce compliance. 'Nuff said.

Distrust of government is a necessity for the proper functioning of a democracy. The government is as accountable as we demand them to be.

Well, everyone needs economists, even if politicians do what they can to discredit them in public. So the average starting salaries are among the highest for any discipline, and if you play your cards right and do end up going to one of the banks, things can get stratospheric quite quickly.

I wanted to post the Yes, Minister clip involving Margaret Thatcher, but I can't find it. So I just need you to imagine it.

2. Politicians are powerhungry people, and there has never been anyone who went into politics as a way of helping people. Sometimes people who didn't plan to become politicians do when the cause they were championing gets flung into the mainstream, but if people see someone hurt or mistreated, they don't respond by going to study law, journalism or political science and running for some local election. People do that because they're ambitious and choose power as a career goal.


Really? I know several. Often because they were doing a different career and then shifted into politics. The comment is truer the less local you get, but the idea that all politicians are power hungry careerists only out for themselves is the fashionable cynicism of someone who doesn't actually know many politicians.

I never figured you as a New labour type
I'm politically neutral, I just think that what we've got at the moment is pretty damned fine compared to basically everywhere else in the world, and would like to keep it that way.

Really? I know several. Often because they were doing a different career and then shifted into politics. The comment is truer the less local you get, but the idea that all politicians are power hungry careerists only out for themselves is the fashionable cynicism of someone who doesn't actually know many politicians.
It's a matter of the method people choose. The control of the institutions of government that politicians ultimately aim for only has one function: the use of violence to enforce certain goals. To want to be a politician and help others through government action means to want to use violence to do what you personally feel to be correct. A world in which the government only did what was objectively necessary and correct wouldn't need politicians: you could do it all with a piece of paper stating the rules and public servants to handle the mechanics.

So, regardless of motivation or outlook, a politician aims to impose his or her goals, which are not universal, through controlling others by use of force. The higher up the politician, the greater his or her ability to do so. That's just a description of the job, a necessary prerequisite to explaining what a politician does or aims to do.

And the thing is that even someone who thinks helping is a good thing doesn't do it through politics. You would see someone in trouble, but your response wouldn't be to become a politician just for that person. You would go into politics because you think you could help two people. Or the whole town, or the whole country, or the whole world, or future generations and so on. There are always more people to help - politicians rarely if ever say "I have now achieved what I set out to do when I started, hence I will retire". So every bit of helping becomes just a means to a further end - getting into a position where one might help even more people. And it never ends: by the time you get to the point where you're running out of upwards moves, you've forgotten anything about helping long ago, since you haven't treated it as anything but a vote-buying mechanism for decades.

So there is a selection bias in that only a certain kind of people would actually want to be a politician, given that their function is public knowledge, and the process of being a politician in itself changes a person for the worse. And so I put to you that politicians are bad people, and that the higher up in politics you get, the more universal this statement becomes.

It's a matter of the method people choose. The control of the institutions of government that politicians ultimately aim for only has one function: the use of violence to enforce certain goals. To want to be a politician and help others through government action means to want to use violence to do what you personally feel to be correct. A world in which the government only did what was objectively necessary and correct wouldn't need politicians: you could do it all with a piece of paper stating the rules and public servants to handle the mechanics.

And who is writing this set of 'objectively necessary' rules?


So, regardless of motivation or outlook, a politician aims to impose his or her goals, which are not universal, through controlling others by use of force. The higher up the politician, the greater his or her ability to do so. That's just a description of the job, a necessary prerequisite to explaining what a politician does or aims to do.

And the thing is that even someone who thinks helping is a good thing doesn't do it through politics. You would see someone in trouble, but your response wouldn't be to become a politician just for that person. You would go into politics because you think you could help two people. Or the whole town, or the whole country, or the whole world, or future generations and so on. There are always more people to help - politicians rarely if ever say "I have now achieved what I set out to do when I started, hence I will retire". So every bit of helping becomes just a means to a further end - getting into a position where one might help even more people. And it never ends: by the time you get to the point where you're running out of upwards moves, you've forgotten anything about helping long ago, since you haven't treated it as anything but a vote-buying mechanism for decades.

Firstly, not all politicians climb the greasy pole. Secondly you're ignoring all the help they do along the way? Thirdly you're asserting that they only use helping people as a vote-buying mechanism (and what a terrible vote-buying mechanism helping people would be) with no substantiation.


So there is a selection bias in that only a certain kind of people would actually want to be a politician, given that their function is public knowledge, and the process of being a politician in itself changes a person for the worse. And so I put to you that politicians are bad people, and that the higher up in politics you get, the more universal this statement becomes.

Do you know any politicians? Have you ever looked at a politicians workload? Not all politicians are great, but many (esp at local levels) are. And for those who look to help, the workload is neverending.

Government opposes criminals mainly because it prefers a monopoly under its control.

Consider my view in this fashion: Government is a necessary EVIL. It is like any dangerous and unreliable machine that you MUST HAVE. Kept manageable and limited, it works poorly, when expanded, it works against the citizenry, and works even more poorly.

One can adequately describe our Government, as a parody of Corporatism-that is, all the Bureaucracy, insanity, venality, banality, lack of accountability and lack of ethics in the worst entities of the private sector, combined with nearly unlimited resources and little to no oversight by the people it is supposed to serve, and led by a board of directors composed of the most self-centred, narcissistic, intelligent sociopaths available (that would be Politicians, in case you're confused).

but, with all its evils, it is necessary. Necessarily, if one does not wish to experience MOST of those evils first-hand, it must be limited, restrained, and made to fear the displeasure of the citizenry. (i.e. the sociopathic bastards must be made to fear you, or they will make themselves your masters.)

Bravo! (*claps hands*) Ditto! Excellent! An exceptionally good commentary on government, and I agree wholeheartedly.

EDIT: Sigged. At least part of it, because I knoe the Mods frown on a signature of more than nine lines, and quoting takes up five by itself.

Generally, my feeling about government is that I can trust it a bit more than private corporations, because I have control over government. The People give government its power. We vote for elected officials, vote in referendums, amendments, do petitions, rallies, protests, etc etc, and can even run ourselves. We can control government.

Comparatively speaking, we can't control private institutions to any real extent. That's why I generally tend to favor government control of certain things over private institutional control, because SOMEONE'S going to end up doing it as one of those necessary evil things, and so I'd rather have the people whom I have control over doing it as opposed to those I don't.

And as this thread shows, it's often a job that will make you the least popular.

Seriously people stop being such bloody sheep. Anytime a politician does a bad thing it's headline news. Everytime they do anything positive it's dismissed as electioneering. It's a completely no-win job in terms of PR. "All politicians are this, all politicians are that" because you want to blame someone for every fucking thing that goes wrong. Don't tar everyone with the same brush because inevitably some are bad.

Guess what, mistakes will be made and shit will happen. And you won't solve a problem by writing someone off everytime that happens. Do you think it is even possible for politicians to solve all the problems in existance? Be fucking grateful that at least some are prepared to try, because they have often done a shitload of thankless work to get anywhere near being able to change anything, and do a shitload that you never hear about every day.

If you don't like it, stop sitting on your arses being armchair critics and get involved and try and change something. The system is built on the idea of the public not just turning up once every four years, but actually participating outside of elections. People who sit around and complain and never contact any politician about something are the biggest problem with the system. Write to them, phone them, e-mail them, tell them what you think. Don't expect bloody telepathy. Don't complain about politicians being out of touch with the people when often if they hold surgeries (and this is all uk based) no-one bloody turns up to them.

Don't sit around saying 'politicians are worthless liars' because it's a common cynical conception and everyone can sit around and circle jerk about how bad they are and it's all their fault. Because that's all most people do. They've heard a couple of news stories (often about civil servants rather than politicians), been told it, and never investigate or think portrayedfor themselves on the matter.

Do any of you know any politicians? Have any of you looked at their schedules and seen what they do?

Not all politicians are angels. But mostly they're a damn sight better than they're ever portrayed or given credit for.

And as this thread shows, it's often a job that will make you the least popular.

Seriously people stop being such bloody sheep. Anytime a politician does a bad thing it's headline news. Everytime they do anything positive it's dismissed as electioneering. It's a completely no-win job in terms of PR. "All politicians are this, all politicians are that" because you want to blame someone for every fucking thing that goes wrong. Don't tar everyone with the same brush because inevitably some are bad.

Guess what, mistakes will be made and shit will happen. And you won't solve a problem by writing someone off everytime that happens. Do you think it is even possible for politicians to solve all the problems in existance? Be fucking grateful that at least some are prepared to try, because they have often done a shitload of thankless work to get anywhere near being able to change anything, and do a shitload that you never hear about every day.

If you don't like it, stop sitting on your arses being armchair critics and get involved and try and change something. The system is built on the idea of the public not just turning up once every four years, but actually participating outside of elections. People who sit around and complain and never contact any politician about something are the biggest problem with the system. Write to them, phone them, e-mail them, tell them what you think. Don't expect bloody telepathy. Don't complain about politicians being out of touch with the people when often if they hold surgeries (and this is all uk based) no-one bloody turns up to them.

Don't sit around saying 'politicians are worthless liars' because it's a common cynical conception and everyone can sit around and circle jerk about how bad they are and it's all their fault. Because that's all most people do. They've heard a couple of news stories (often about civil servants rather than politicians), been told it, and never investigate or think portrayedfor themselves on the matter.

Do any of you know any politicians? Have any of you looked at their schedules and seen what they do?

Not all politicians are angels. But mostly they're a damn sight better than they're ever portrayed or given credit for.
I agree. That's one reason why I intend to go into politics, to try and prove this true.

I'm probably going to fail miserably at that, but at least I'll be able to accomplish the other things!

And who is writing this set of 'objectively necessary' rules?
That's not really the topic. If you were aiming for a claim that politicians are needed to write these rules, you'd be missing the point. Philosophers and economists are the only ones required to write a constitution, and one that is properly designed eliminates the need for any further legislation.

Firstly, not all politicians climb the greasy pole.
Those that don't stay at the bottom and are irrelevant to anyone's life.

Secondly you're ignoring all the help they do along the way?
I'm seriously doubting its value to society, but more importantly I'm saying that any helping they happen to do is incidental.

Thirdly you're asserting that they only use helping people as a vote-buying mechanism (and what a terrible vote-buying mechanism helping people would be) with no substantiation.
The substantiation is the process I described. Politicians don't stop, when they see the opportunity, they try to move up the ranks to gain a higher position. I'm sure some many actually believe that they're doing it for the right reason, but that's not the point. Helping people ceases to be an end after some point, and becomes the means to some other end. And that is a given, since politicians don't start their careers to help specific single people, but great masses of them - and whenever they are at any one place on the ladder, it's obvious that they could help even greater masses on the next rung. Hence they keep climbing, and the sort of help a government can provide (freebies paid for by other people, mainly) is the way to do it.

Do you know any politicians?
I do know my local councillor, and the local MP would occasionally come to my school and answer questions posed by students.

But that's not the point, the argument that I'm making is about the characteristics of politics as a career, not individuals. Both of them are disgusting people whose main function appears to be to fan and ride "community outrage" about the issue of the day, but I don't think that says anything about the point I'm trying to make.

Have you ever looked at a politicians workload? Not all politicians are great, but many (esp at local levels) are. And for those who look to help, the workload is neverending.
I don't think I suggested that politicians are lazy. If they want to become top dog, they have to work long hours all the time. But that doesn't make them good, honest or reliable people.

Do you think it is even possible for politicians to solve all the problems in existance?
No, I don't think it's possible for politicians to solve any problem whatsoever. The dangerous thing about them is that they seem to disagree.

Be fucking grateful that at least some are prepared to try, because they have often done a shitload of thankless work to get anywhere near being able to change anything, and do a shitload that you never hear about every day.
We're not marxists, we don't value someone's labour by how hard they worked or how long it took. We value it by what it actually achieves.

If you don't like it, stop sitting on your arses being armchair critics and get involved and try and change something. The system is built on the idea of the public not just turning up once every four years, but actually participating outside of elections. People who sit around and complain and never contact any politician about something are the biggest problem with the system. Write to them, phone them, e-mail them, tell them what you think.
Shall I send an email to my councillor or MP then, suggesting he get to work abolishing the majority of laws in this country and then resign? Or do you think he would much rather appear at the next meeting pledging he'll do something about those evil kids who vandalised a skate park by spraying graffiti tags on it?

My problem is not with politicians as people, my problem is with them as a function within society. No amount of voting or sending emails is going to change a thing.

Well, there are a few basic truths about politics.

1. People who work for government departments generally do it because they either couldn't get a job in private industry, or because they prefer the more relaxing lifestyle of government employment.

Oh, good. Grossly insulting overgeneralizations ftw.

That's not really the topic. If you were aiming for a claim that politicians are needed to write these rules, you'd be missing the point. Philosophers and economists are the only ones required to write a constitution, and one that is properly designed eliminates the need for any further legislation.
It's entirely the point. The main function of politicians is to make these rules. Which philosophers, which economists get to write them? On what basis? And how is it realistic to suggest a constitution (if we want one in the first place, or at least a fixed, codified one) that will be perfect for eternity without need for change or any further legislation ever?


Those that don't stay at the bottom and are irrelevant to anyone's life.

Firstly some stop at different levels of representation. Secondly that's a pile of bollocks.


I'm seriously doubting its value to society, but more importantly I'm saying that any helping they happen to do is incidental.

Why?


The substantiation is the process I described. Politicians don't stop, when they see the opportunity, they try to move up the ranks to gain a higher position. I'm sure some many actually believe that they're doing it for the right reason, but that's not the point. Helping people ceases to be an end after some point, and becomes the means to some other end. And that is a given, since politicians don't start their careers to help specific single people, but great masses of them - and whenever they are at any one place on the ladder, it's obvious that they could help even greater masses on the next rung. Hence they keep climbing, and the sort of help a government can provide (freebies paid for by other people, mainly) is the way to do it.

Many do stop for a start. Secondly you're claiming that you know their motives based on nothing. It is not a given. Many politicians do get on that lowly first rung because of a local problem they wish to solve. Some see higher problems and look to move up while helping along the way. Thirdly you're over-generalising.


I do know my local councillor, and the local MP would occasionally come to my school and answer questions posed by students.
No, actually know them. As in the sort of work they do, hours they put in, things they have to deal with etc.


But that's not the point, the argument that I'm making is about the characteristics of politics as a career, not individuals. Both of them are disgusting people whose main function appears to be to fan and ride "community outrage" about the issue of the day, but I don't think that says anything about the point I'm trying to make.


I don't think I suggested that politicians are lazy. If they want to become top dog, they have to work long hours all the time. But that doesn't make them good, honest or reliable people.

No, they don't. Frankly. Long hours of community work are not the only (or even the best) way of gaining political advancement. The fact that many do do these long hours of community work makes them good.


No, I don't think it's possible for politicians to solve any problem whatsoever. The dangerous thing about them is that they seem to disagree.
No, they believe that trying will at least do some good.


We're not marxists, we don't value someone's labour by how hard they worked or how long it took. We value it by what it actually achieves.
That was aimed at the general view of politicians as lazy freeloaders. But since this topic is not just about competency but also the 'goodness' of politicians then their hard work counts for something.


Shall I send an email to my councillor or MP then, suggesting he get to work abolishing the majority of laws in this country and then resign? Or do you think he would much rather appear at the next meeting pledging he'll do something about those evil kids who vandalised a skate park by spraying graffiti tags on it?

My problem is not with politicians as people, my problem is with them as a function within society. No amount of voting or sending emails is going to change a thing.

If you wish to get rid of politicians and the majority of laws then I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're in a minority. In that case you'll just have to get along being a minority viewholder in a democracy.

Philosophers and economists are the only ones required to write a constitution, and one that is properly designed eliminates the need for any further legislation.

A constitution which didn't allow for any additional legislation would be too inflexible if unforseen circumstances appeared and since anyone who disagrees with any piece of it would just have to ignore the constitution completely(if they are a politician with sufficient backing) or rebel. Its not something that allows for any institutional flexibility, and I don't see it working.

That's not really the topic. If you were aiming for a claim that politicians are needed to write these rules, you'd be missing the point. Philosophers and economists are the only ones required to write a constitution, and one that is properly designed eliminates the need for any further legislation.

Oh, for fuck's sake, get over yourself. Any constitution that would not require further legislation would be hopelessly rigid and entirely incapable of lasting. I know you love to think you're smarter than everyone else because you're an economist, but unless you're perfectly omniscient, you're not going to be able to design a constitution that can perfectly deal with any and all future situations. It's just not possible.


Shall I send an email to my councillor or MP then, suggesting he get to work abolishing the majority of laws in this country and then resign? Or do you think he would much rather appear at the next meeting pledging he'll do something about those evil kids who vandalised a skate park by spraying graffiti tags on it?

You could always run for office and get things changed that way. I wonder if that's ever how someone's found their way into politics.