For those of us critisizing the politicians...

What would you do if you got your way?

I admit to being against much of U.S. policy these days, but if we go the direction many people are pushing for, then what?

Exactly. Everyone keeps hating on the politicians, either Democrats or Republicans or both, but do you realize how much worse off we would be with NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL?

Even without complete disbanding of government, loosening the government's control to the point many people want would be suicide for the country.

If you hate big corporations, think of the power they would have without any government holding them back! Think of the things that would go in your food without the FDA!

And what if we just let all the bigger corporizations fail? Industry would die in a heart beat. At least if you lose a small business another is more likely to appear. When you lose a major manufacturer's support in your country, it's gone for good and it can take quite a while for something to replace it.

Tired of job loss? Imagine if several major companies pulled out. Where would your jobs be then?

I'm not saying we should give the government more control. I'm not saying things don't need to change.

I'm asking that people think before they act. People don't realize the consequence of what they ask for. Sure, things aren't so great. But they could be much,much, worse. Be careful what you wish for.

Amusingly, I did hear somebody saying that the government can't do everything for us this weekend.

I was so tempted to point out the absurdity of their fallacy, but I could tell they were just mouthing a catchphrase without genuine understanding of what they were saying.

I suppose there might be some people out there proposing a government with absolute control, much like there are people who propose having no government, but for most people, it's a bit in between extremes, not at the poles.

Unfortunately, there's too frequently a failure to grasp that, and so they ascribe an extreme position to the other side.

Criticizing the government doesn't equal anarchy. That's not the way that I think. Where did you get this sample of anarchists? I haven't noticed such a trend on Tv Tropes. Then again, I tend to ignore most of the Libertarianism threads. Is Libertarianism the inspiration behind this thread?

edited 20th Jun '11 10:20:04 PM by Grain

Ask anywhere in my city, or even around the surrounding states.

You'll get an answer similar to this: "We need to strip the government down starting with Obama and ending at the City level."

This line of thought has increasingly become popular and people don't realize the trouble they're asking for.

On top of that, MSNBC and Fox News have been fanning the flames with either pro democrat or pro republican news, and it spreads like a virus.

It's a cycle. People get angry at the government, the news channels realize this and try to make money off the stories, then people watch it on tv and the hate itensifies, and then the cycle repeats until everyone is brewing with rage.

It's been worse, but we're very close to the situation back in Jackson's era where both parties could not come to an agreement on key issues. There was nearly civil war if Andrew hadn't threatened them.

We're dangerously close to that kind of polarization, and I don't want to see us go down that path again.

I'm in the south, by the way.

edited 20th Jun '11 10:27:48 PM by TheProffesor

Which is kinda funny considering that around here, the usual answer is to fix up government and make it more efficient and to give it the power to clamp down on problems in society. More government but more efficient so we don't have to raise taxes.

Ain't the belligerent South fun?

Of course, if you got them talking about the Ten Commandments, prayer, saying the pledge, and other patriotic/religious activities, a good share of them would be for more government.

No they wouldn't. If you want to make religous slurs, I recommend you do it somewhere else.

No matter what the case the south wants states to have more control than the central government. It's been like this since the beggining.

It's just gotten worse lately.

What slurs on religions? I wasn't describing them in any way, but discussing a certain group of people, who I have found to be hypocritical, because when asked about somethings they want more government suppression, to get what they want.

And states' rights is a phony sham. Many of them would be just as glad for the federal government doing the job.

It's ideology over substance. They rather blab about certain ways of doing things instead of figuring out the best method of doing anything.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea to give the states a little more control.

Not the "STATES MUST BE A SOVEREIGN DEMI-COUNTRY" some people want, but a little more control wouldn't hurt.

Also, slurs against a certain group of religous people is still religous slurs.

Control of what? It would help to be specific about what roles you want them to have, and what powers you wish them to express, rather than a vague statement.

And I'm sorry, but I can't avoid feeling negatively about people who are at best misguided hypocrites.

It's not a slur on any religions, it's a slur on that particular form of behavior. Is there some reason I should feel otherwise?

edited 20th Jun '11 10:42:23 PM by blueharp

Perhaps because it's a trait that all of humanity shares. All of us have said one thing and done another. What gives you the right to critisize those people for hypocrisy when at some point you've been a hypocrite yourself?

As for specifics, I'm not entirely sure yet. I'll have to put some thought into it.

If you want to say other people are guilty of it as well, go for it. I won't say you're wrong until you given some examples, because I do agree, it is a human problem. But I really wasn't talking so much about saying one thing and doing another, but rather, being selective in application of force, and a failure to understand some of the basic principles the country was founded upon.

Better to let it all be known than to not say it for fear of the mote in our own eyes.

Of course, if you simply don't believe it's true, then I invite you to inquire about you. There was a study on it as well, but I'm not sure of the details.

Or don't worry about it, and focus on what power you think should be divested to the states, that's probably a more interesting discussion.

edited 20th Jun '11 11:03:06 PM by blueharp

I find much more fault with American culture getting soft than I do with the government itself. If Americans weren't so content and soft, they wouldn't let some of this shit happen in the first place.

Thats been an arguement used since Ancient Greece that "everythings worse/less tough than it used to be". The problem is that the people doing the complaining are frequently (though not in this case) meaning that "we should just copy the old days and have done with it" or "shoot someone".

Besides which, making people tough does not make them nice, good, sensible or intelligent. Look at Sparta for the perfect example of that. Brilliant Tactical Geniuses, absolute shite at planning politics.

edited 21st Jun '11 5:09:18 AM by JosefBugman

What's wrong with being content? We have a pretty nice civilization. Perhaps the welfare system could be revised to fit the parameters of the country, and maybe there are a few kinks here and there, but it could be worse.

Hey, maybe welfare should be in the power of the states. Or the government health care should be customizable by the states. That might work.

If I got my way, I'd instantly pretty much cripple the police power, abolish drug prohibition and the very notion of controlled substances, drop the drinking age, driving age, age of consent to 15, kill gun control dead, kill censorship dead, abolish union-busting, legalize any and all forms of consensual vice immediately, legalize copyright infringement, scale back patents, abolish sales taxes and sin taxes, and start phasing government out gradually. I'd abolish the damn thing, but welfare would be the very last thing to go.

I forgote: Among the right now reforms, I'd also kill the FCC dead. Broadcasters would be allowed to broadcast whatever the Hell they wanted.

I doubt nothing bad would come from all that. People would be quite freer.

edited 21st Jun '11 4:12:49 AM by SavageHeathen

...Are you crazy? Some of those restrictions are there for a reason!

Copyright infringement is BAD.

Drugs are BAD.

15 year olds aren't ready to move out of the house let alone get a drinking license.

Patents are there for a reason. They protect the inventor's work. W Ithout them, people would be stealing the ideas left and right.

I agree with some of it, but some of those restrictions are there for a reason. Absolute freedom from regulation isn't a good thing. Granted, neither is too much regulation but still.

I agree with gun control. As good as the police often are, it's always safer to have a means of protecting yourself on hand.

The FCC could use some retooling but disbanding it all together wouldn't be a good idea.

Thos

Wait, you need a license to drink?

I don't care whether there are reasons for restrictions on personal liberty.

The people's communications remaining private and inviolate is much more important than artist's rights to prevent people copying and distributing their artwork. Since preventing copyright infringement requires some censorship and some invasion of privacy, it stands to reason that it should not be persecuted at all.

The people's right to make choices about their own lives trumps any concern the government might have on the health and social effects of drug use or any other vice, so they should be legalized immediately and the government should stay the Hell away, even if there are costs to such a policy.

What, so society should bear the cost of people destroying their own lives or 15-year-old drivers killing others and themselves in driving accidents? That doesn't seem fair to me.

If people had the ablity to choose everything for their own lives this country would be ripped apart in a heartbeat.

People will always go for the way that suits them best, no matter the cost to others. Copy right infringement is stealing. If you think robbing a store is wrong, then isn't it hypocritical to state that there should be no laws preventing intellectual property theft?

Those laws are there for the same reason laws are in place to stop physical stealing:To protect the people.

There are predators out there, just waiting for the oppurtunity to advance themselves at any cost.

It doesn't matter if it's you or me. The only thing holding those people back is the law.

Then it should be ripped apart, no problem. Better to tear the damn thing apart than to violate personal liberty.

Then can ignore the costs or bear them, their call. What they are not entitled to do is prohibit consensual conduct.

edited 21st Jun '11 4:46:51 AM by SavageHeathen

..and how you proposing to ignore the cost of losing your entire family to a drug-fueled lunatic or a child driver?

Without gun control, you ain't losing your family to a lunatic. You're going to shoot the lunatic as soon as he appears and attacks your family.

Also, drug-fueled lunatics are rare. With a steady supply of cheap drugs, addicts wouldn't have to turn to crime to support their addictions. You still have to account for crazies, of course, but there are crazies both on and off drugs.

As for child drivers, we hand out driver's licenses at 16 already. I fail to see why 15 would make any real difference. I'm all for making the age of majority 15-16, mostly because I support youth rights.

edited 21st Jun '11 4:56:01 AM by SavageHeathen