Thread: $100.000 offered...

Originally Posted by Bruno

This is something I'll never understand.
YOU are the ones electing the government. You get what you ask for (generally speaking from the pov of the majority). And the people making up the government are just people like you and me.

We elect people just like us, therefore we know that power can corrupt. Also at any given time almost half the people did not vote for their representative therefore they have no reason whatsoever to trust that guy. This actually by design, we aren't supposed to trust our government, the people are supposed to be mistrustful and therefore pay attention to everything our government does. If it should start to get out of hand and become tyrannical or even just start to repress the people we should scream bloody murder and even take more concrete action to pull those in power down and replace them (you might be seeing the beginnings of this right now). In this way the people governed are the ultimate check on excessive government power.


The other part of the government we mistrust, with a guttural loathing, is the bureaucracy. The unelected drones who carry out the policies of the government sometimes to excess or their own specifications. We did not choose these people, we can not remove these people, we are often forced to deal with them. It is rarely a good experience. When we are talking about the interfering hand of government it is this part of the system we are talking about. They now have on average a higher salary than those in the private sector, hows that for scary. We all know they will be the first in line to put on Jackboots if things fall that far so they need watching.

Originally Posted by Bruno

This is something I'll never understand.
YOU are the ones electing the government. You get what you ask for (generally speaking from the pov of the majority). And the people making up the government are just people like you and me.

+1 on this.
I've never understood why should anyone ever vote for someone he/she doesn't trust
The trust or ability to work for what is best for the country (and not just for people from they get votes) is determined in elections. Not between.

Originally Posted by Sailor

+1 on this.
I've never understood why should anyone ever vote for someone he/she doesn't trust
The trust or ability to work for what is best for the country (and not just for people from they get votes) is determined in elections. Not between.

Sometimes I have voted for the guy I don't trust the least. For instance in our last presidential election I voted for a guy I didn't like because I though he had the best chance of beating a guy I fear and loath.

Also at this current time I did not vote for any of the people who supposedly represent me at the federal or state level. In each election I voted for the candidate I trusted, he or she happened to lose the election, this means that the guy I don't trust is in every case technically my representative. The only thing I do trust is that if my letters are read I am a thorn in their sides every step of the way.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Sometimes I have voted for the guy I don't trust the least. For instance in our last presidential election I voted for a guy I didn't like because I though he had the best chance of beating a guy I fear and loath.

I got the point. I think, but cannot be sure of course, that this is what happens mostly in countries with only two parties or anywhere in elections where are only two candidates.

Little OT, but that is why i think that multi party system is sometimes, but not always, better. We have no only red and blue parties, but several greens, yellow, blue-yellow, orange, dark red, black and gray parties + few that have no color. All reds do not necessary have anything to do with ideological left and the green doesn't always mean enviromental thinking.

This system makes the winners behave very carefully as there is no actual ideological majority or it is changes here and there. The winners know that they cannot only take care for those who voted them but for those who didn't as well. Every voter (well at least those who can think) knows that good government has to make not so nice decisions sometimes. They are not to make friends but to work for the whole country, not only for those who gave their votes to them.

Of course this system has downsides as well, but dividing people in two or creating mistrust between opponents are not those downsides.

Originally Posted by Miner123

You have too much trust in the government. If someone who worked for the government told me the sky was blue, I'd have to go out and check for myself.

I agree. I work for the government, and I can find no fault with your statement.

Originally Posted by Sailor

I got the point. I think, but cannot be sure of course, that this is what happens mostly in countries with only two parties or anywhere in elections where are only two candidates.

Little OT, but that is why i think that multi party system is sometimes, but not always, better. We have no only red and blue parties, but several greens, yellow, blue-yellow, orange, dark red, black and gray parties + few that have no color. All reds do not necessary have anything to do with ideological left and the green doesn't always mean enviromental thinking.

This system makes the winners behave very carefully as there is no actual ideological majority or it is changes here and there. The winners know that they cannot only take care for those who voted them but for those who didn't as well. Every voter (well at least those who can think) knows that good government has to make not so nice decisions sometimes. They are not to make friends but to work for the whole country, not only for those who gave their votes to them.

Of course this system has downsides as well, but dividing people in two or creating mistrust between opponents are not those downsides.

See this is a basic ideological difference between many European/progressive type of systems and our system.

I don't want my representative doing "whats best for the country" or "best for the people". These are nebulous concepts and can be used to do all sorts of draconian things. "for the children" is another one that is used to justify tyranny quite often.

I want my representative looking out for the specific interests of the guys who put hm in office, (meaning the voters of his district, not the moneybags of his party). This specific direction and self-interest means he will come up with specific ideas to benefit the people he works for and just as importantly stand in the way of ideas that don't benefit them directly. It is the interaction of all these selfish people that lead to only the things that will actually help the most people being made into law.

A nebulous concept is justification for anything (ends justifying the means) while trying to satisfy specific desires only results in action if everyone agrees on the means itself. This to me is how you get a government that works for the will, not the whim, of the people the number and type of parties really shouldn't enter into it.