Communism creeping into our future?
Communism isn't the word. It's called fascism and don't be fool enough to blame Obama. McCain = Bush. Any US president = puppet.
Quote:Original post by Silvermyst
From the link:
-Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor.
-Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk [of drug use] than those in two-parent households.
-Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school. -A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father.
Effect, not cause.
Intriguing, just goes to show that people don't parent as well as they should no matter what then.
Personally, I wouldn't hold the father being absent as the reason the children end up where they are. It would be poor parenting skills on behalf of all parties involved. Because I've known way too many families with both parents present which have turned out this way and far too many families with only one parent which does otherwise.
Perchance would it be possible that the reason that these fatherless children turn out this way is that the parents tend to lean towards not providing actual parenting?
Quote:Original post by Terlenth
Perchance would it be possible that the reason that these fatherless children turn out this way is that the parents tend to lean towards not providing actual parenting?
Entirely possible. If the fathers aren't there by choice, it might reflect poor decision-making on the part of the mother.
It might be interesting to do similar studies with fatherless homes where the father died (and was not replaced with a new father), and see if the percentages are still higher.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:Original post by Way WalkerQuote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by trzyQuote:
That conservatives have taken up the message of "you're on your own" marks their departure from traditional American values. Have you forgotten about barn raisings? It seems that you have.
A barn raising is an example of a closely-knit community coming together, without the help of unseen people and governments, and providing a fellow member of the community with something that they will need to earn a living. This is quite different than subsidizing ever-increasing parts of a person's life and interfering with their ability to invest, as with the European system.
The principle is the same only scaled for larger populations and vastly different economies.
What an interesting thought. Why isn't the government seen as an organic part of the community? Why isn't it seen as something of, by, and for the people? Why is there such an us vs. them situation when thinking of the government?
Because that's the very nature of government. Government is about providing public order and security. To accomplish this, it must hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and represents interests other than your own. Although you can be a part of the government, and the government is theoretically there to serve you, it also has a disproportionate amount of power over you and if history is anything to go by, power (especially in the hands of people who disagree with you) is a dangerous thing. Hence the sometimes adversarial relationship between government in America and its people.
Perhaps a more direct version of the question is, if the government is theoretically there to serve us, why is this not the case in practice? Why does it have power over us when we should have power over the government?
Quote:
Be careful what you wish for when you wish for a government that is more integrated in our daily life. How is it that the same people who decry nationalism, the Iraq War, and government espionage can call for expanded government? It boggles the mind.
I believe this is essentially begging the question. You're still assuming the government is a separate entity that meddles in our affairs. I'm more wondering why it's a separate entity to begin with.
I don't like the image of the government more integrated in our daily lives either, but that's not what I was suggesting. I was more suggesting us being more integrated in the government's daily life.
The picture of the evolution of governments that I've usually seen presented is that as social groups grew bigger they needed to organize themselves. This organization is government. Thus, government is a tool used by large groups of people to efficiently manage their interactions. However, this picture doesn't seem to fit the current reality where the government is a separate entity managing our interactions for us. The slave has become the master.
Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Perhaps a more direct version of the question is, if the government is theoretically there to serve us, why is this not the case in practice? Why does it have power over us when we should have power over the government?
Because we're more optimistic than we should be in regard to government ("If we just get the right people in government, everything will be fine."), and more pessimistic than we should be in regard to individuals.
Quote:Original post by RegressLess
Communism isn't the word. It's called fascism and don't be fool enough to blame Obama. McCain = Bush. Any US president = puppet.
Brief and to the point. Yep. We dance like marionettes, Swaying to the symphony...
Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Perhaps a more direct version of the question is, if the government is theoretically there to serve us, why is this not the case in practice? Why does it have power over us when we should have power over the government?
I think it comes down to its monopoly on the use of force. Otherwise government couldn't work. Even without government (or outside of government), people come up with moral and philosophical justifications to use force against each other.
Quote:
I believe this is essentially begging the question. You're still assuming the government is a separate entity that meddles in our affairs. I'm more wondering why it's a separate entity to begin with.
How do you imagine it could be better integrated? Even small organizations which we join, like companies and clubs, have a leadership structure and the "us and them" dynamic comes into play.
Quote:
I don't like the image of the government more integrated in our daily lives either, but that's not what I was suggesting. I was more suggesting us being more integrated in the government's daily life.
Are you picturing more opportunities for government service -- eg., people becoming easily involved in the day to day operations of government as well as the decision making process?
Quote:
The picture of the evolution of governments that I've usually seen presented is that as social groups grew bigger they needed to organize themselves. This organization is government. Thus, government is a tool used by large groups of people to efficiently manage their interactions. However, this picture doesn't seem to fit the current reality where the government is a separate entity managing our interactions for us. The slave has become the master.
I don't know about that. Don't primitive societies with limited or no government at all still have a way of managing their peoples' interactions?
Quote:Original post by trzyThese things have actually been researched the days of Aristoteles already. Aristoteles states in his book Politics, in general terms that mob rule, i.e. democracy, where many rule in favour of the ones ruling (or the ones they represent in their rulings) is a degenerate form of polity where the rulers rule in favour of the all.Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Perhaps a more direct version of the question is, if the government is theoretically there to serve us, why is this not the case in practice? Why does it have power over us when we should have power over the government?
I think it comes down to its monopoly on the use of force. Otherwise government couldn't work. Even without government (or outside of government), people come up with moral and philosophical justifications to use force against each other.Quote:
I believe this is essentially begging the question. You're still assuming the government is a separate entity that meddles in our affairs. I'm more wondering why it's a separate entity to begin with.
How do you imagine it could be better integrated? Even small organizations which we join, like companies and clubs, have a leadership structure and the "us and them" dynamic comes into play.Quote:
I don't like the image of the government more integrated in our daily lives either, but that's not what I was suggesting. I was more suggesting us being more integrated in the government's daily life.
Are you picturing more opportunities for government service -- eg., people becoming easily involved in the day to day operations of government as well as the decision making process?Quote:
The picture of the evolution of governments that I've usually seen presented is that as social groups grew bigger they needed to organize themselves. This organization is government. Thus, government is a tool used by large groups of people to efficiently manage their interactions. However, this picture doesn't seem to fit the current reality where the government is a separate entity managing our interactions for us. The slave has become the master.
I don't know about that. Don't primitive societies with limited or no government at all still have a way of managing their peoples' interactions?
As suggested by Way Walker already, one way of alleviating this mob rule problem would be people integrating more closely to the process of ruling. In practice full involvement is imposible since everyone would need to know everyhing to make educated decisions. A situation which has created representatives in order to the decision making machine to function at all (or even adquately). It used to be in ancient Greece that all free men (i.e. people) gathered to local agorae (market squares) to decide on common matters.
But as stated, the practical problems involved these days, a different path has been adopted. In democracy the problem to decide which decisions are good has led to majority rule. The concensus is that the representatives of the majority possess the knowledge, will and vision of the majority of the real decision makers (i.e. the people they represent).
In practical terms, there are many ways to implement democracy, some reprsenting more closely the ideal of the aforementioned polity of direct decision making, or something new. It has been suggested that electronic voting would increase the involvement of people in everyday decision making and lessen to need to use "professional representatives", i.e. politicians and the bureacracy to support them and not the structure of producing information to make good decisions and executing the decisions. To some extent the results have been promising.
Quote:Original post by Naurava kulkuri
But as stated, the practical problems involved these days, a different path has been adopted. In democracy the problem to decide which decisions are good has led to majority rule. The concensus is that the representatives of the majority possess the knowledge, will and vision of the majority of the real decision makers (i.e. the people they represent).
In practical terms, there are many ways to implement democracy, some reprsenting more closely the ideal of the aforementioned polity of direct decision making, or something new. It has been suggested that electronic voting would increase the involvement of people in everyday decision making and lessen to need to use "professional representatives", i.e. politicians and the bureacracy to support them and not the structure of producing information to make good decisions and executing the decisions. To some extent the results have been promising.
I'm not sure allowing people to vote directly on legislation is a good idea. People are simply not informed enough and unable to navigate the complexities of the legal system. I don't think most people would take the time to rationally analyze issues they are presented with. Interest groups would have a much easier time manipulating public opinion.
I think the future trend will be towards systems that attempt to solve the short-term thinking that current democratic governments suffer from. This might mean a concentration of power in the hands of the government, greatly expanded term limits, a more rigorous political vetting process, etc. Authoritative governments, such as in Singapore, have had great success even while favoring open market economies. I don't know enough about Singapore to say much, except that I'm aware of some serious drawbacks to the way it has operated for the last several decades.
China and the EU will be interesting to watch. In both cases, the governments are quite removed from the people.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuite a much of the real governing power is in the hands of civil servants already, in fact. So, despite of politicians coming and going, some common politics stays. In some sense, meritocracy is in effect then. Is it a problem then, I don't know. Likewise I don't know if it was a problem if people would have a more direct say on things than they currently have. Perhaps a system where one could influence with a vote if one desires or authorise someone else to make decisions would be good. I feel that current democractic systems are in place like they are now partly because of the inherent difficulty of arranging all the required interactions for all to participate.
I'm not sure allowing people to vote directly on legislation is a good idea. People are simply not informed enough and unable to navigate the complexities of the legal system. I don't think most people would take the time to rationally analyze issues they are presented with. Interest groups would have a much easier time manipulating public opinion.
I think the future trend will be towards systems that attempt to solve the short-term thinking that current democratic governments suffer from. This might mean a concentration of power in the hands of the government, greatly expanded term limits, a more rigorous political vetting process, etc. Authoritative governments, such as in Singapore, have had great success even while favoring open market economies. I don't know enough about Singapore to say much, except that I'm aware of some serious drawbacks to the way it has operated for the last several decades.
China and the EU will be interesting to watch. In both cases, the governments are quite removed from the people.
Who knows, maybe people would feel compelled to educate themselves on social matters or at least find an expert to make a decision on behalf of them on need-to basis.
EU is rather interesting. There are elections to vote MEPs (Members of the Parliament) with direct elections every fifth year (next is summer 2009), but the system is a bit unclear. There are national governments, national parliaments, European parliament, Commissars etc. making the decision making a bit of a cooking. There was an attempt to clarify the situation, but the Irish vote for no. The European Parliament doesn't feel that removed in itself, but physically it's farther away and there are some language barriers.
By the way, rather interesting is that the rather guarantee of functioning democratic system, the civil service, came to Europe and to United States from China. For instance, the Pendleton Act is probably familiar to some in these forums.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement