Stop blaming ‘government’

Indie

As I’ve told you many times localism is fine as far as it goes. Did you go and research urbanization? If you had you’d know it didn’t happen everywhere or to the same degree, and that’s what happens (like natural disasters) they are not usually everywhere at once or having the same impact everywhere, and so it is good to be able to move resources from places where they are not then needed to places where they are.

Also what is local i think needs to be defined here, in the past you seem to have suggested that the US State level is local and that the city level is local and that to you local is knowing intimately all the people seeking assistance or standing for office.

I mean at US state level there is going to be a lot of difference between Wyoming with a population of around 600.000 and California with one nearer 40,000,000 (larger than all but 7 European states) . As to cities I live in London which covers 700 square miles and has a population of 8 million (more than all but 12 US states) is that local?

To know everyone seeking assistance or standing for office intimately would suggest something a lot smaller a neighbourhood or village of a few hundred at most. And then you definitely get the problems I’ve mentioned of prosperous areas and slums.

*

[edit] The other issue here that we have discussed many times before is that yours is an ideology that doesn’t really seem to recognise size it doesn’t matter if it’s the national or varying degrees of local your views on how governance should be ordered has the same right wing libertarian spin.

 

But back to the old question of who to blame. A government can be TRUSTED for it's essence of lying. We need to learn the common way of trusting each other as citizens. We have relearned of late to blame each other, and that has no ideology. We would like to blame responsible individuals. Governance is to fill the bill for responsibility assumptions. Is that empirically true. Lying for one way of realizing distrust has been used too long as a vehicle for finding out valuable threats, yes I say threats to living standards as well as livelihood. More interesting in the value for realizing distrust may again be falsified people at work and judgments of impropriety; not to mention distrust is realized by scandalist behavior and utter fraud. Governance lacks on it's own the channels for discovering that kind of legalized precedence.


What is governance in the terms of havens of escape from responsibility and judgment as I've said here? Direct attack by a good competitor just re-determine un-involvement in the legal regulation of doing the market as it were. Is responsibility to become moral or social? A flexibility of understanding which form of distrust we are at; pragmatism or phenomenologism.

 

When I look at who is at fault with our present problems in the US I almost always end up seeing the government, or their proxies as the root of the problem, so why not blame them? A huge mass of ineptness, liars, thieves, and other common criminals that seem attracted to positions of power to further their own gain at the expense of their fellow citizens and have caused the ruin of what was once a prosperous nation. So, yeah, just calling it as I see it, they are at fault and should receive the public criticism they so well deserve.

 

We get the government we deserve. The present "leaders" only listen to hundreds of thousands or millions before they believe their cozy jobs might be at risk.

 

Urbanization.
A city or a town should not be looked at as places to plant human beings, fertilized by Federal entitlements, allowing the production of abuntant fruit which then must be preserved by additional entitlements.

As in your example, if no jobs exist in town A, perhaps moving to town B, or C, or D, or..., would provide a solution, or in the least an improvement. Hardly anyone I went to school with and grew up with lives in the town we grew up in, and most every one of us, who is still living, has achieved an adequate amount of success, along with some failures.

 

Do they really listen even then?

 

I don't know. We're too comfortable to find out.

 

One of the problems of government is that each department has its own fiefdom of entrenched ass-sitters that fight tooth and nail to maintain their positions/money doled-- whether good for the country or not. The waste is tremendous and ongoing. It's just too easy to gain possession of taxpayer money by the granting of favors back and forth between legislators. And the money is too tempting to "do the right thing" for the country. There needs to be some kind of citizens committee to go over the budget with ---you know--the fine toothed comb.

 

In America, I'm all for those bureaucrats. They take the flack for the Injustice that must be contemplated if true equality and merit is to be maintained.:biker:

 

"In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative,"

"We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges.... We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

Do I need to say who I have quoted?

 

I agree with this.

And I'd totally do that job for $20 an hour, if I was also given legal power to analyze the budget and cut spending items from all state and federal budgets to cut wasteful spending, and get the political bureaucracy out of spending money.

I'd also need a bathroom, electricity, a powerful computer, and a large desk to handle all that paperwork, and hopefully a next door bedroom to the office.

Waste occurs, when money is spent because of lobbyists gaining favor or with politicians scratching the back of their colleagues or most favorable donors to the campaign funds.

Citizens views, don't equal the political weight of an organization, in fact they probably cancel each other out with conflicting views. leaving only organizations (unions, corporations) to really sway policy and law.

 

Lafin

If you are constantly being told that something is to blame by people that are experts in manipulating what people think then you are likely to end up blaming that thing for everything.

But the US has an elected government if people are electing bad representatives who are inept, lie, thieve and whose only interest is in furthering their own agendas resulting in suffering to the voters then isn’t the problem with the voters for elected such people to be their representatives?

It seems to me you are blaming ‘government’ (an elected government) for being ‘bad’ when the true problem is a dysfunctional political system that allows ‘bad’ representatives into power, it would seem then to me that the solution would then be to try and fix the political system so elections get ‘good’ representatives into power.

That of course is harder than just blaming ‘government’ because it means taking a long look at your whole political system and work out why it is not working.

 

Indie

You reply did not address anything I’d raised in my post (once again), for a start can you please answer my direct question and define what you mean by ‘local’ as you seem to have a number of differing definitions.

Who is saying this is about what towns should be?

What do you mean here by ‘entitlement’?

Are you saying that people needing assistance shouldn’t be allowed to have children, you have said very similar in the past as well as suggesting the children of people on assistance or in hardship should have their children forcefully removed. Are you saying this again?

Yes but that doesn’t address what I said above -

As I’ve told you many times localism is fine as far as it goes. Did you go and research urbanization? If you had you’d know it didn’t happen everywhere or to the same degree, and that’s what happens (like natural disasters) they are not everywhere happening or having the same impact everywhere, and so it is good to be able to move resources from places where they are not then needed to places where they are.

I mean here you are talking about four towns or more that might not be very close to each other and could very likely be in other States hundreds of miles from each other again as I’ve said localism is fine as far as it goes but…

I mean if say 100 jobs become available in town B and 1000 people from town A move to fill them suddenly B has to deal with 900 new unemployed 500 of which spent their savings on the move and are now in need of assistance.

People move around I live in London it is a city of immigrants not just from other places in Britain but from around the world (I’ve lived and worked in other countries and I wasn’t born in London). But moving somewhere is no guarantee of a job, often it can just mean replacing one place of hardship with another. This can have an impact on services and infrastructure.

As to success or failure that as has been explained many times is often more a matter of luck than effort.

 

scratcho

That sounds like bad management and if your elected government is badly managed then ultimately isn’t it that the fault of the electorate?

You mean people should be chosen (say by elections) to be the electorates representatives to oversee their interests say in a house of representatives or such like….

 

I would like to inform you, in case you didn't know, that governments don't rule their countries. Some selected few control what is going on and were never elected/never will be. Prime ministers, presidents, so called leaders are just puppets and that's been proven time and time again. So we (the tax payers) slave and pay so those in charge can waist our money on systems that are to only benefit the corporations, banks, stock market, oil companies, monarchy (yes, monarchy),etc, etc. That is why people are starving on this earth.... GREED AND CONTROL. Ever seen a government come up with a new policy or system to profit the little guy? I never and it will never happen as long as we (citizens) act as sheeps. Do your homework before defending governments. Corruption is everywhere and most of it, is at the top..... that's is when you and I come into play...... PAY MORE TAXES. Sad to say but true.

 

I often wondered over the events in the middle east whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship which makes more sense applying it's military against it's citizens. A libertarian democracy which you all espouse really makes sense for such an attack upon citizenry.:biker:

 

It's all about control of the middle east. Remember, Lybia and Irak were just the beginning and it's all in the plans. When you see well organized protest with violence and well equipped in weaponry, hmmm.... someone is behind it all. That's what happened in many countries where the CIA got involved secretly to get rid of a political party they didn't want in power. Like I said, power and control. 9/11 was blamed on Irak right away even though they had nothing to do with it. Go figure, and the worst is that they get away with it. Same thing is happening in Syria right now.....

 

Oh well, and I thought I was rude now. Being human amounts to just being withdrawn from civilization and feeling indifference to one's fellowman.

 

as a libertarian I withdraw from taxation , not from civilization . mostly
people don't mind . when i'm desperate for some food money i'll make
a flute and play at the galactic center . I make an honest living .

 

So we blame government, and systemic racism comes about. It is in human nature otherwise to be complacent,and intrinsic to the system that being religious will stop the racism of vain complexes in society.