government control

[danielost]

this will be short and sweet, ok maybe not sweet.

here goes, why do we americans think we need to the government to control everything. we didnt need it in the first 150 years. now all of a sudden we need it to tell us when and where we can go to the bathroom.

[Corp]

Well with the progression of urbanization and increased medical research people thought that perhaps it wasn't a good idea to squat behind a bush or throw your chamber pot out your window into the streets. That a more private place was needed to go to the bathroom. It was then pointed out that sometimes you needed to pee when you were out and about and perhaps some form of public bathroom was needed. Now building tolets everywhere would be far too expensive so it was agreed that only certain areas, based on several key factors, should have these bathrooms. The government then conducted studies and determined where one could go to the bathroom. Now as for when this likely came about as people complained that at night unsaviory people were using the public bathrooms for an ill purpose. Thus in responce to public demands the government decided when one could use these public bathrooms.

Too literal?

[+OverSword]

Because people are under the illusion that the government can give them things for free. So they figure that following 100,000 rules in order to get everything for nothing is a fair trade.(?)

[supervike]

Too literal?

Not at all.

[supervike]

Although I would like to know what Daniel has in mind here.

I don't want the Government to control everything. What things do you feel they are in complete control over?

[Drayno]

Government is a very tricky thing.

In order to properly secure the being of things, Government is obligated to measure decisions. Each decision is potential to harm the national state - or to induce reprimanding from folk; when men feel Government has too much power they lose their temper. Now, Government must have some control - that is only for the purpose of controlling the safety of its citizens. For example, the President of the United States can send troops to a foreign country, but only for a limited amount of time.

For a formal declaration of war, Congress must approve. There are expressed rights that Government has, you see. However, you must discern between gain for the Government itself and for the people. For the Government can very well secure the assets of its men; it would be hard to prove, indeed.

Absolute control would be possible to descend out Republic into an Autocracy. If you notice, no more politicians endorse the ideals of the framers. Instead they refer to lesser men; Nixon - getting caught was his mistake, Kennedy, Lincoln.

Government is not always effective, although it attempts to be practical.

Though times practicality is not enough.

[H.H. Holmes]

Government is a very tricky thing.

In order to properly secure the being of things, Government is obligated to measure decisions. Each decision is potential to harm the national state - or to induce reprimanding from folk; when men feel Government has too much power they lose their temper. Now, Government must have some control - that is only for the purpose of controlling the safety of its citizens. For example, the President of the United States can send troops to a foreign country, but only for a limited amount of time.

For a formal declaration of war, Congress must approve. There are expressed rights that Government has, you see. However, you must discern between gain for the Government itself and for the people. For the Government can very well secure the assets of its men; it would be hard to prove, indeed.

Absolute control would be possible to descend out Republic into an Autocracy. If you notice, no more politicians endorse the ideals of the framers. Instead they refer to lesser men; Nixon - getting caught was his mistake, Kennedy, Lincoln.

Government is not always effective, although it attempts to be practical.

Though times practicality is not enough.

How are these lesser men? From what I know, neither Lincoln or Kennedy had their own slaves. I do agree on Nixon, though.

[Drayno]

How are these lesser men? From what I know, neither Lincoln or Kennedy had their own slaves. I do agree on Nixon, though.

Lincoln preserved the Union by force. It can be argued that it was constitutional or unconstitutional for the southern states to secede, but nonetheless - his actions caused the needless deaths of six-hundred thousand men. He sacrificed the vision of the original America to entertain himself with his vision of America. Ironic to preach about liberty and then to disallow men to secede; for they wanted their own independence, much like the colonies did at the wake of revolution.

Kennedy I thought, was a decent leader. His only fault was his failure with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Just as Nixon, his fault lies not in his capability or capacity, but in his execution - and getting caught. I agree with Kennedy's stance on war and I admit he did see the possibility of utter destruction - and he did his best to ensure we are living.

[danielost]

How are these lesser men? From what I know, neither Lincoln or Kennedy had their own slaves. I do agree on Nixon, though.

the case of nixon is indeed a good example of government gone wrong.

the law that nixon broke wasnt a law when he broke it. in other words he didnt break any law.

congress from pressure from hillary rodom passed the law and made it retroactive.

when that same law came into affect when her husband was in the white house, it didnt count.

[SilverCougar]

From what I've seen.. People who baw that the government is too big, that the government is getting to much in our personal lives are the same people that want the government to get involved with the reproductive business of a woman's personal life.. and ban gays from getting married.. ban sexual acts that are largely done in the privacy of people's own home between (and this is the important part) two consenting adults. Among other things.. And it makes me just drown in the irony.

The government is there to protect us, to insure various jobs, make sure that the market doesn't crash out, and in various cases of need help provide. (goes with keeping us safe)

And while the government is supposed to be for the people, we laxed greatly allowing corporations step in and take over. And they so do not have our best interests at heart.

[conspiracybeliever]

From what I've seen.. People who baw that the government is too big, that the government is getting to much in our personal lives are the same people that want the government to get involved with the reproductive business of a woman's personal life.. and ban gays from getting married.. ban sexual acts that are largely done in the privacy of people's own home between (and this is the important part) two consenting adults. Among other things.. And it makes me just drown in the irony.

The government is there to protect us, to insure various jobs, make sure that the market doesn't crash out, and in various cases of need help provide. (goes with keeping us safe)

And while the government is supposed to be for the people, we laxed greatly allowing corporations step in and take over. And they so do not have our best interests at heart.

I agree completely!!

[danielost]

I agree completely!!

so you agree that the government, the corporate controlled government, should control everything.

[SilverCougar]

*headdesks*

[danielost]

*headdesks*

i hope that knocked some sense into you.

[SilverCougar]

i hope that knocked some sense into you.

Ok.. Dan, you're an idiot. You truly are. Con was agreeing with me, and what I said was COMPLETELY the opposite of what you're ASSUMING they're agreeing with. But no... you're that dense to miss out what Con was agreeing with. If anyone needs sense knocked into them here.. it's you.

Edited March 15, 2011 by SilverCougar

[danielost]

Ok.. Dan, you're an idiot. You truly are. Con was agreeing with me, and what I said was COMPLETELY the opposite of what you're ASSUMING they're agreeing with. But no... you're that dense to miss out what Con was agreeing with. If anyone needs sense knocked into them here.. it's you.

ok, if i misread it sorry.

but i have seen too many people on here telling us we need government control because the corporations control the government or something like that.

[ninjadude]

why do we americans think we need to the government to control everything

What specific evidence do you have for this outlandish statement?

[lightly]

Sometimes, government control is a good thing. When it protects the interests of the Many over the interests of the few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

[Drayno]

From what I've seen.. People who baw that the government is too big, that the government is getting to much in our personal lives are the same people that want the government to get involved with the reproductive business of a woman's personal life.. and ban gays from getting married.. ban sexual acts that are largely done in the privacy of people's own home between (and this is the important part) two consenting adults. Among other things.. And it makes me just drown in the irony.

The government is there to protect us, to insure various jobs, make sure that the market doesn't crash out, and in various cases of need help provide. (goes with keeping us safe)

And while the government is supposed to be for the people, we laxed greatly allowing corporations step in and take over. And they so do not have our best interests at heart.

That is perhaps the most important thing stated in your post, mate. When we allow corporations to influence our Government, we forget the global market. If a foreign state holds much influence over a corporation then consequently, and sadly, they have direct influence on our sovreignty. Not to mention the corruption and greed perpetuated by corporations is very great indeed.

As for me, I do not view myself as a person who wants to destroy our current Government.

However, I do know that there are some areas that we should pay attention to relentlessly.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." - Thomas Paine; Common Sense; I. Of The Origin and Design of Government In General, with Concise Remarks On The English Constitution

[supervike]

Sometimes, government control is a good thing. When it protects the interests of the Many over the interests of the few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Agreed!

The FDA is something as well, where the 'good' far outweighs the 'control.'

[MichaelW]

this will be short and sweet, ok maybe not sweet.

here goes, why do we americans think we need to the government to control everything. we didnt need it in the first 150 years. now all of a sudden we need it to tell us when and where we can go to the bathroom.

Why do most Americans think the federal government is the spawn of Satan? And how the hell did they get the idea that government control = communism?

[aquatus1]

I'm still trying to figure out how they expect to reign back the power of corporations without asking the government to step in and take back control.

Really, how exactly do they think the government got so powerful to begin with? It wasn't by subtlety or secret design. It was by request of the American people.

[Guest]

The whole small Government movement is a paid for shill of the ultra right wing free market think tanks. It a carefully focused campaign which promotes the interests of the Corporate sector at the expense of society. No regulation of corporate activities, no control on pollution, no protection for worker - these are all the unspoken agenda of the Small Government lobbyists. The big mistake people have made is to fail to understand that Corporations answer to only one group - their shareholders, and the interests of the share holders are not the same as the interests of society. They have bought the dream that rolling back the government will restore the simple certainties of the 50's - when the government was infact at the height of its powers to control the national agenda.

The people of Michigan have finally wised up to what that actually means on the ground - no protection of working standards, no protection of a living wage, an erosion of the middle classes (to be replaced by minimum wage serfs). They have finally seen the connection between the third world dictators who live to serve the corporate interests - and where that finally leads to - and what is happening at home at the hands of corporate lobbyists.

The tide maybe turning - but I do not feel that the Corporate dominated Government of America will roll over and give up their ill gotten gains.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

What specific evidence do you have for this outlandish statement?

you and obamacare.

[SilverCougar]

you and obamacare.

Yeah... try again, something real, not something like a weak comeback.