What you don't like about your government?

[I_am_learning]

So, I would like to ask what things you don't like of your government systems and political leaders of your country?

 

[Jack21222]

So, I would like to ask what things you don't like of your government systems and political leaders of your country?

I don't like our warmongering. I don't like the blatant corruption that goes unpunished in many cases. I don't like laws protecting me against myself. I don't like the rabid anti-intellectualism in many members of congress.

I'm from the US, by the way.

 

[mugaliens]

I don't like our warmongering. I don't like the blatant corruption that goes unpunished in many cases. I don't like laws protecting me against myself.

+1

I don't like the rabid anti-intellectualism in many members of congress.

Huh? Examples? Or is this an extension of the "new cool" where people laugh at not knowing things most of us who frequent this board know cold, as a way of attempting to either put us down, or at least maintain parity by claiming it's not necessary for the average person to understand things more complicated than taking out one's trash, balancing one's checkbook, and keeping the boss happy?

As for my +1, I'd add I think our government is far, far too big!

 

[Danger]

I always fall back upon the "First Danger Rule of Politics"; anyone who is possessed of the sort of mentality necessary to run for public office is unfit to hold it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I dislike the government itself and the debt-based, fiat monetary system under which the government operates.

 

[Danger]

I dislike the government itself and the debt-based, fiat monetary system under which the government operates.

Since this is an international forum, it might be a good idea for you to specify under which government you reside. The majority of members are Yanks, but several of us are Canuks, and there is a very strong presence of Brits and those of the former Soviet bloc. The middle East and Asia are very well represented as well. (There's an Aussie kicking around somewhere, too.)

 

[Mathnomalous]

Since this is an international forum, it might be a good idea for you to specify under which government you reside. The majority of members are Yanks, but several of us are Canuks, and there is a very strong presence of Brits and those of the former Soviet bloc. The middle East and Asia are very well represented as well. (There's as Aussie kicking around somewhere, too.)

Sure.

In my case, I am allegedly represented by the US Government. I think it does not matter much, though. Most governments on Earth work under the same nebulous global economy and use the US dollar as the international reserve currency. The purpose of all these governments is the same: protect and perpetuate the power of the elite while keeping the general population under control. The difference between various governments is the level of control these governments exert and how that control is exerted over the general population.

 

[Danger]

I can't argue against that. It's a widely held belief that I am not qualified to comment upon. I can, therefore, neither agree nor disagree with you. It will interest me to see what becomes of this thread.

 

[Mathnomalous]

It is understandable. It will probably be categorized as "conspiracy theory", and rightly so, since I have not presented any evidence to support my claim. With that being said, I think it is safe to express many people understand that the more money and connections an individual or organization has, the more influence that person or organization enjoys within human social structures.

That is the way the system seems to be designed. If anyone thinks that their vote counts, I have got a couple of worn out bridges to sell them; I will even throw in a crappy subway system, too!

 

[Al68]

I think it is safe to express many people understand that the more money and connections an individual or organization has, the more influence that person or organization enjoys within human social structures.

That is the way the system seems to be designed.

LOL. That's like saying that the reason men prefer beautiful women is because that's the way the "system" is designed. It's true as a result of simple logic that more money and connections results in more "influence in society". It has nothing to do with any design of any system or government.

 

[Mathnomalous]

LOL. That's like saying that the reason men prefer beautiful women is because that's the way the "system" is designed. It's true as a result of simple logic that more money and connections results in more "influence in society". It has nothing to do with any design of any system or government.

Precisely.

Men prefer women with desirable traits (e.g. "beauty") because that is how the system of natural adaptation is designed to work. The man and the woman perpetuate themselves through offspring thanks to those desirable traits. The beauty of that system is that the bare requirements are both biological entities must be fertile, healthy, and have access to food.

Similarly, governments are created and designed to protect and perpetuate the very same people who created and designed the government. And as it happens, people who end up creating and designing governments already have some kind of power they wish to protect and perpetuate, be it economical power, social power, geographical power, religious power, intellectual power, etc.

The weak, the poor, and the uneducated do not get together to protect and perpetuate their weakness, poorness, or their ignorance; if anything, they get together to protect and perpetuate the only power they have: their very lives.

 

[cobalt124]

U.K. member:

1) We elect them to represent us and self interest, party interest, national interest and corporate/multinational interest all come before this (post #7 in essence)

2) All spin and no direction

Tony Benn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn) has four questions to ask anyone who takes power (cant find it online, but I think it goes something like this):

1) How did you get power?
2) Who are you accountable to?
3) A third probing question no corrupt leader would like (perhaps someone can help me?)
4) How do we remove you from power?

How many of your leaders would have a respectable answer to these questions (again help with 3 please if possible)?

Don't lock the thread, there may be spleens to be vented here!

 

[cristo]

1) How did you get power?
2) Who are you accountable to?
3) A third probing question no corrupt leader would like (perhaps someone can help me?)
4) How do we remove you from power?

The questions are:

What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
And how can we get rid of you?

 

[cobalt124]

Thankyou Cristo, I didn't even get the number right!

 

[Jack21222]

Huh? Examples? Or is this an extension of the "new cool" where people laugh at not knowing things most of us who frequent this board know cold, as a way of attempting to either put us down, or at least maintain parity by claiming it's not necessary for the average person to understand things more complicated than taking out one's trash, balancing one's checkbook, and keeping the boss happy?

As for my +1, I'd add I think our government is far, far too big!

Examples, followed by what they did that I consider anti-intellectual.

1) Joe Barton ("In 8 seconds, explain how oil got to Alaska, Secretary Chu," among other things)
2) John Boehner (Frames the global warming debate as "the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen... is almost comical)
3) John Shimkus (Global warming won't destroy the Earth because God promised Noah he wouldn't)
4) John McCain (Characterization of Adler Planetarium's sky machine as a "3 million dollar overhead projector")
5) Michele Bachmann (Creationist)
6) Barbara Boxer (EPA study on the effects of pesticide use on children was attacked by Boxer as "Testing pesticides on kids," when the study was actually about seeing the effects of EXISTING pesticide use)

Outside of the federal government, I can provide a few other examples.

a) Don McLeroy (Texas Board of Education, "Somebody's got to stand up to experts!")
b) Bobby Jindal (Governor of Louisiana, delivered Republican response to state of the union, made fun of the idea of volcano monitoring as ridiculous)
c) Sarah Palin (Comments deriding fruit fly research)

I could probably dig up other examples, but these are what I was able to come up with off of the top of my head. I also didn't include all of the times where congresscritters intentionally lie about any number of topics, hoping the general public would be stupid enough to buy it. (Scott Brown, "The stimulus bill didn't create one new job")

 

[Danger]

U.K. member:

1) We elect them to represent us and self interest, party interest, national interest and corporate/multinational interest all come before this (post #7 in essence)

2) All spin and no direction

Tony Benn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn) has four questions to ask anyone who takes power (cant find it online, but I think it goes something like this):

1) How did you get power?
2) Who are you accountable to?
3) A third probing question no corrupt leader would like (perhaps someone can help me?)
4) How do we remove you from power?

How many of your leaders would have a respectable answer to these questions (again help with 3 please if possible)?

Don't lock the thread, there may be spleens to be vented here!

That sort of reminds me of a pal that I haven't seen in over 20 years, who was the manager of one of the most up-scale bars in the province. His first question to a prospective employee was to ask for 3 ways in which s/he could rip off the company. Anyone who came up with 2 or less was immediately turfed. I never worked for the dude, but I knew about a dozen; never used any of them, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think these are some of the biggest problems the US faces:

Party loyalties now supercede national loyalties.
Rove's theory of divide and conquer; as opposed to building a genuine consensus.
Palin's them vs us approach to politics [where have we seen this sort of thing before?]
The dumbing down of decision making
Misrepresentation of the facts wrt critical issues, for political gain
Media driven bluster, rage, and fury
Fear mongering as a political tool [e.g. pull the plug on Grandma]

To me there seems little hope of addressing the real issues with all of this going on. If America fails, it will be our own doing.

 

[Mathnomalous]

When America fails. The fiat money system has got to go; cannot have unlimited growth in a world of finite resources.

 

[mheslep]

I think these are some of the biggest problems the US faces:

.

... the OP asked about your government, not the media, not Sarah Palin, not Rove.

 

[mheslep]

When America fails. The fiat money system has got to go; cannot have unlimited growth in a world of finite resources.

Growth of economic wealth doesn't depend entirely on physical resources such as minerals.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Growth of economic wealth doesn't depend entirely on physical resources such as minerals.

And this somehow means your economy can expand forever even if the physical resources you depend on the most become very scarce or run out.

 

[mheslep]

And this somehow means your economy can expand forever even if the physical resources you depend on the most become very scarce or run out.

Matter doesn't "run out". Energy does.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Matter doesn't "run out". Energy does.

And since money represents a transformation of energy, we conclude one cannot have infinite economic growth. But seeing as you are side-steppin' it, I will let the matter (no pun intended) rest.

 

[cobalt124]

Danger, you should have quoted Cristo, at least he got the damn thing right!

 

[WhoWee]

I think these are some of the biggest problems the US faces:

Party loyalties now supercede national loyalties.
Rove's theory of divide and conquer; as opposed to building a genuine consensus.
Palin's them vs us approach to politics [where have we seen this sort of thing before?]
The dumbing down of decision making
Misrepresentation of the facts wrt critical issues, for political gain
Media driven bluster, rage, and fury
Fear mongering as a political tool [e.g. pull the plug on Grandma]

To me there seems little hope of addressing the real issues with all of this going on. If America fails, it will be our own doing.

1. Party first is a problem
2. Rove doesn't hold an office
3. Palin doesn't hold office - and last time I checked - it was the Dem's (who do hold office) using these tactics in the Lame Duck session
4. Dumbing down sounds correct - considering nobody is expected to even read legislation before voting anymore - just (see 1 above) vote the Party line
5. I'm sure we can document a good deal of this activity over the past 2 years
6. The media doesn't seem content to just report the news any more - I agree
7. Perhaps calling Tea Party members Nazi's would also qualify?

I agree with most of what Ivan posted - just from a different perspective - that is the Unrepresented Angry Independent perspective.

 

[WhoWee]

I always fall back upon the "First Danger Rule of Politics"; anyone who is possessed of the sort of mentality necessary to run for public office is unfit to hold it.

IMO - formerly, it was my opinion that anyone who sought a Government position was unemployable in the free market. Now, the Government workers are labeled "elites" and are paid more than private sector workers - what happened?

 

[Ebola_V1rus]

I love that my government takes ~25% of my income and hands it to others in the exact same financial situation as me.

 

[Jasongreat]

I think this is what's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0&feature=player_detailpage" with our government.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I live in the US. I think the biggest problems are its two main political parties (though, contrary to others here, I see this improving), government secrecy, and its tax policy: too high in general, too low Pigovian, too much paperwork.

 

[mheslep]

I live in the US. I think the biggest problems are its two main political parties (though, contrary to others here, I see this improving),

Yes an issue since US day one. So replace it with what?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes an issue since US day one. So replace it with what?

Specifically: replace the voting system for President (largely, first-past-the-post winner-takes-all state by state) with a national Condorcet election, perhaps Kemeny's method or Schulze's method. Then replace the first-past-the-post methods for Senate and House elections with appropriate statewide multiple-winner proportional representation method. I am ashamed to admit that I'm not sure which one I would choose, but any reasonable one would allow for:

• An end to gerrymandering
• Results that are less (literally) random
• Results that are more proportional (unlike results in, e.g., gerrymandered states)

Further, I would choose a method which does not depend on party lists in order to keep power in the hands of the voters rather than the proverbial smoke-filled back room. To put yet a further requirement, I would (similarly to mixed-member PR) have representation chosen both for an area (so people have 'a representative' they can hold accountable) and at-large, where the proportionality is across districts and compensating for the local choices. (This is less complicated than it sounds.)

The important point here: I want to change the system to remove its two-party bias (and fix some other issues), not to attempt to enforce draconian rules ensuring that at least three viable parties exist. If, counter to my expectation, exactly two parties hold almost all the seats in Congress, the system would allow that. I'm only trying to fix the underlying problem that causes the two-party system.


If there's interest I could expand on either point: the mathematics/social choice theory of how to actually accomplish the vote or the need for some such change.

 

[mheslep]

The important point here: I want to change the system to remove its two-party bias (and fix some other issues), .

Oh, I thought your problem was with party politics in general, not just with the US two party system. I have several problems with moving to more parties. First, its not clear to me that the multi-party systems we see abroad are more effective, given the difficulties in forming governments, and that it gives the lunatic fringe elements a few actual legislative seats in stead of a simply a few votes. Second, the D and R parties are hardly monolithic. Especially see the influence of the Tea Party (movement, not a party) in shaking up the power structure of the R party this year.

 

[Al68]

I think this is what's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0&feature=player_detailpage" with our government.

Now that was funny!

 

[CRGreathouse]

Oh, I thought your problem was with party politics in general, not just with the US two party system.

One thing at a time! Yes, I strongly dislike political parties, but they literally won't go away in the US without a change to the system (this is essentially Duverger's law). How to deal with them after that is anyone's guess, but since I was asked what to do about it I gave an effective step forward.

Second, the D and R parties are hardly monolithic. Especially see the influence of the Tea Party (movement, not a party) in shaking up the power structure of the R party this year.

The problem is that a party schism is party controlled from within the party (removing power that should go to the voters). Worse, if it grows so deep that two candidates from a party run (presumably with only one on the ticket) they can split the vote in the present system, which is inappropriate. Whether Independent Democrats vs. Democrats, independent/Reform vs. Republican, Blue Dog vs. (traditional) Democrat, or Tea Party vs. Republican, this is a bad situation for voters. At best a candidate will step down, robbing voters of a choice; at worst, both will run and possibly elect an unwanted (by the electorate) third candidate.

[Multi-party systems give] the lunatic fringe elements a few actual legislative seats in stead of a simply a few votes.

I'm unwilling to restrict the lunatic fringe, insofar as it has public support. It's not clear which lunatic fringe ideas (like democracy itself for most of history) are actually good and which are simply batty. We've even elected single-issue lunatic fringe party members to the Presidency (like in 1860).

 

[Al68]

Specifically: replace the voting system for President (largely, first-past-the-post winner-takes-all state by state) with a national Condorcet election, perhaps Kemeny's method or Schulze's method. Then replace the first-past-the-post methods for Senate and House elections with appropriate statewide multiple-winner proportional representation method.

Those aren't so bad in theory, but horrible as a practical matter. As a practical matter, the details of the system must be determined by politicians, and more complicated equals more corrupt in the real world.

Being complicated means that the people won't know whether or not, or how, the system is corrupt. They won't know for themselves whether a proposed "tweak" to the system makes it more or less corrupt.

And if you don't think people are that stupid, just look at how many people think Bush's election was the result of a Supreme Court decision. Apparently the situation was too complicated for many people to understand what happened. The last thing we need is a more complicated election system.