Gugi,
Sorry for the long message. You make some interesting points which I try to address. Thank you for indulging me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gugi
Well, apathy isn't any better. Election participation isn't particularly low, if it were the small single-issue minority will have its say. At the end of the day people go to the voting booth and they get to pick who to vote, 90% of the time their pick says "This guy's the best I can have", even if it's not synonymous with 'approval' it's the next closest thing to it.
Well, to be fair, Gugi, you did change the definition of 'approval' from what most people would consider as a result of approval polls to the results of an election. I admit the results of an election are where the rubber meets the road, but there is a lot that goes into who actually gets elected. Political parties wouldn't exist if they didn't have an effect on who gets elected and what they get to do once they are elected. It is an imperfect system at best; no perfect system exists.
Quote:
I am always rather puzzled by this 'the government' vs. 'us the people' mentality that seems way more prevalent in US than in other parts of the world. The thing is that 'us the people' get to pick 'the government' on a very regular basis, so in reality it is much more a reflection of what we are, than our enemy.
This is the result of the history of our country and is one of the root causes of the Revolution. As colonists, we didn't trust the British to run our affairs here. The main reason the British wanted to tax the Americans so much was to pay for the French and Indian War (aka 7 Years War), but Americans felt as British subjects they should be represented if taxed. Once the U.S. Gov't was formed, people on the frontier didn't want the government telling them where they could or could not live (in deference to treaties with the Native Americans); others didn't want the U.S. gov't to tax their whiskey; the list goes on and on why that historical distrust of government got transferred from the British to the American one. It's obviously complicated, but it's part of what makes America what it is.
Quote:
Then there is the whole patriotic thing that is another puzzle. It's a direct result of the increasing centralization of power ever since this country was created. Without it there wouldn't be all that much of a national identity, people would consider themselves say foremost Texans and then maybe Americans.
The American Civil War did the most to change this. Before the Civil War, most Americans identified themselves with their state first, and the national government next. The Civil War, more than anything else, changed us from The United States, plural, to The United States, singular.
Quote:
As far as whether it's better to cede one's protection to a government, we have plenty of examples, historical and current. A society like Somalia where everybody is in charge of their own safety and security and don't have to rely on a government to protect them is not much fun to live in. Or the 'wild west' for that matter.
From the very beginning, the British colonists who came to North America had to make it on their own. The British ran North America very differently from the way the Spanish did. The crackdown after the 7 Years War was a paradigm shift in how the British ran their North American colonies, who were spoiled with self rule. Latin America followed the U.S. example with mixed results. The example of Somalia, which is an anarchy, is a bit unfair. I'm not advocating anarchy.
Quote:
Another example again in US that people value safety above all - the government spending both in entitlements and in military. The most effective talking point in todays politics is "they want to take your retirement/medical/unemployment/etc. benefits", or "they want to cut the spending on defense'". Most people want to pay less taxes only if that doesn't affect the goodies they're accustomed to receiving. If it is a matter of paying less taxes but then having to provide for themselves, they pick the safe option.
Yes, and this is why our government is set up the way it is. Representatives of the House are supposed to be selfish. Our republic is built with a bit of fault tolerance. The idea is that one constituency won't allow another to gain too much influence. People in general are selfish and will vote that way. The Senate was designed to be a body representing the sovereign States, not the people. That was changed in 1913 by the 17th Amendment. Now, states have no representation in Congress except through electors to the President.
Quote:
Since you mentioned money, it's no secret who funds the government, and the golden rule that the man with the gold makes the rules is still true. The only thing that slows the rate of conversion from democracy to plutocracy is that voting is still egalitarian (note that it didn't start this way), so even those who don't contribute much to the government funding have a power in determining how the government ought to behave. If they are easily bought/manipulated by those with the money, then that's their own fault.
And people are easily manipulated. That's why we live in a republic instead of a democracy. A republic has laws to protect the minority from the majority. A true democracy is rule by the majority, which is easily manipulated.
Quote:
And yes, I'm rather cynical when it comes to politics/money/dark side of humans.
And that's very understandable. If you're cynical about human nature, why let it all coalesce into an all-powerful government?
-Mark
