Please stop with the 'anarchy' stuff; less government and no government are a long ways apart, especially when our government has a budget in the trillions of dollars.

If you don't trust people to run their own lives, why do you expect the right of self-governance to be extended to you?

If your answer is that you are somehow special who can make proper decisions whereas 'the masses' must be ruled, then how do you know you are in fact one of the anointed elite? Other people might disagree with your self-assessment.

If your answer is that everyone is incapable of self-rule, then how could such a people be possibly trusted to elect their own representatives? Further, if the controllers of a planned society are themselves drawn from the populace, doesn't it follow that they are also incapable of self-rule, and are therefore not only unqualified to run their own lives, but really have no business running anyone else's?

Maybe there's a special class of people so blessed with the gift, not only to manage their own lives, but to justly and appropriately decide for us what we ought to do? Oh wait, that system's been tried already; I think you can find it under 'monarchy.'

As for not voting being the political equivalent of letting others decide what you buy, I agree. We do not yet have a system where we can vote "none of the above."

 

As far as my reference to anarchy, I realize none of use support that. I simply meant to juxtapose that government (and a bit of centralization) is essential.

It is not that I don't trust democratic government, but rather that I believe the opinions of many are swayed too easily by religion, social climate, and selfishness. For example, I realize that beginning at age 15, minors may work and therefore generate income tax for the governement. Going all the way back to the revolution when the Americans shouted "No taxation without representation," I'd consider granting suffrage to anyone who can generate income tax. Then again, I don't trust the 15-17 age group to make decisions because I am confident that a large portion of them would vote for an irresponsible candidate. Imagine Snoop Dogg as a presidential candidate because people think he's "cool."

I don't necessarily think others can make the best choice, but I still believe in democracy.

As far as your inquiring how I know I'm "elite," I don't believe there's such thing. I think that eveyrone has their own set of morals, values, etc. and there MAY be no right or wrong on many issues. However, as I am opinionated about many of these issues, naturally I would desire more control for myself and less for others. The US has undeniable control of a vast part of the global economy. We consider ourselves "elite," of course, but how many Americans who benefit from this dominance really criticize it?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm guessing that you favor a republic versus a direct democracy, then, based on your statements.

Would you then favor the repeal of the 17th Amendment? (providing for direct election of Senators?) Before this amendment, Senators were elected by the Congress of their state, not directly by the people.

These steps, as well as the staggered Senatorial terms and terms for each office, were intended to insulate the political process from a temporary whirlwind of popular opinion.

I do differ significantly on one point you made.

IMO the proper order of things is more control for me and more also for others. I don't mind other people making good or bad choices for themselves. If my ideas are good, they'll stand on their own merits.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that I find the current government unideal I am in support of the American government system just fine, thank you!

The problem is that people don't make good or bad choices for themselves. They make good or bad choices for everyone. I am no entity to decalare what, exactly, is good or bad, but I have my own perception. It's not that I'd want to "impose" my views on others, but generally I do think that a well-meaning and educated person could look out for the welfare of the people better than the people can.

Look at the President, for instance. Of course, he is elected by the people, but once he's appointed, it's like "The power is yours!" Yes, I stole that from the 'ol Captain Planet. Anyway, imagine a world where instead of a president, the masses simply voted to do anything -- veto, propose a bill, declare war, etc. How often would we do what's best for the country? Most major initiatives by America has been against the will of the masses. And if the people agree, often it is because of the government's declaration of its greatness in protecting the rest of the world.

World War I wasn't fought by us to make the world "safe for democracy." It was fought for our economic interest.

 

Your earlier statements about not trusting the people led me to believe that you might be an elitist who believed that *they* were always right and that the "sheeple" needed to be led about. There exist plenty of those on the political left and right.

Later it became clear that what you were really saying is that a republican (small r) system of government is what you like, and you distrust direct democracy, fearing mobocracy. That's fine, and the Founders agreed with you at some length about this.

 

I suppose that's relatively accurate. Note that at my age I'm still highly ambivalent about my political association. I find myself so extremely moderate that I can hardly place myself with either of the major political parties. Not a good thing, considering I'd like to be a politician.

I think I'm leaning slightly towards Democrat, but there are definitely many issues in which I strongly support the Republican side.

 

Looks like I found out what broke that RSS feed. In the latest hybrid news post, I had the special character for an English Pound. That broke it Apparently the script can't handle special characters?

 

Don't feel bad - I am nearly three times your purported age and I feel the same way! Reminds me of a P. J. O'Rourke line (I think it was in Republican Party Reptile - great read if you get the chance!) where the young P. J. was getting his yaya's out with the rebelliousness of the late 60's.

His Grandmother heard him spouting roughly Communist rhetoric, and she said "My God - you aren't a Democrat, are you?"

He said "Haven't you been LISTENING? I'm not a Democrat! I'm a MAOIST!"

To which his Grandmother replied "Well ... At least you're not a Democrat."

I registered independant. I couldn't stomach registering with either major party - toyed with Libertarian (can you register as that yet?) but they just aren't my type either. Freethinker would work - but there aren't any of those.

I like this little quote from P. J.: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

I too find much to agree with - and much to DIS agree with - on all sides. Picking what I believe to be the "best" - whatever that means - out of the morass requires more intellectual energy than I am willing to give. I recognise there is in the end little difference in any event and, should worse come to worse, I am much better than a fair shot

Jack

 

1 Bush Score: 61%

2 Kerry Score: 38%

3 Kucinich Score: 29%

4 Sharpton Score: 23%



Great survey! Told me something I already knew