Quote:Original post by trzy
Quote:Original post by Way Walker
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.
I think there's a big difference between "us and them" and "us vs. them". My original question is: why are "they" seen as being (and may even be) separate and against "us" when "they" should be of, by, and for "us"?
Structure may be required for us to get things done efficiently, especially as the group identified as "we" gets larger, but the structure ought to be a means to our ends. Why does it so often seem like we are a means to their ends?
Quote:
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?
I was thinking both more opportunities for "us" to get involved with the government and ways to make "them" more a part of the people they lead (in the sense of them having to look us in the eye after doing something unpopular and otherwise making them live with their decisions).
This made me think of one way the electoral college could be a good thing. The idea is that a certain distance is felt, in both directions, between the president and the population of the U.S. The hope is that a middle-man could be closer to both the president and the population of the U.S.; the president is more likely to have to look the elector in the eye, and the elector is more likely to have to look us in the eye.
Quote:
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?
In the above picture, these "ways of managing their people's interactions" would be considered "primitive governments". That is, they are the initial structures that will, out of necessity, grow into larger scale government as the society grows.
