Naive question...

[Fergie]

Why do we, as Americans, allow our government to control so many aspects of our life?

Fergie

 

[RichP]

Because the WWII vets, Korean war vets and Vietnam vets are dying off. The generation of the 80's, 90's, etc have been raised to be sheep. From kindergarten on up they are taught to blindly accept authority, do nothing to defend themselves even if attacked and if they do they are also taught to accept the same punishment as the attacker. The pendulum will swing the other way in a few years once all those street fighters that are over in the mid east come home and start getting into govt service and running for office. Alot of the teachers from the 60's, 70's were draft dodgers as were alot of priests, govt employees who got deferments. They are getting up there in years now and reaching retirement age. The current crop are a product of that generation and thats part of the problem. I hope I have managed to limit the sheep mentality out of my kids.
My personal opinion...

 

[rockwerks]

Why do we, as Americans, allow our government to control so many aspects of our life?

Fergie

Asking the question of a good republican

Many people would rather go through life allowing someone else to make many desicions for them, we call those people deomcrats.

 

[riverfever]

Ferg...

What areas, specifically, are you thinking about? Just curious where your mind is this morning.

 

[Fergie]

Ferg...

What areas, specifically, are you thinking about? Just curious where your mind is this morning.

It isn't this morning....been mulling around in my mind for a few months now.

Such as, why are we told we have to drive a certain speed limit on wide open roads(school zones I can see)?

Why are we told what mufflers we can have, or what lift can be put on our vehicles?

Those are just a few things I can think of right now, but my question stems from many other issues.

I mean, why are we coddled and told what we can and can't do?

I know, very broad and non-specific right now, but I am sure the more I think this over, the more understandable I'll be.

Fergie

 

[dyna]

I dont think its a case of wanting someone to decide for the general population. Around these parts at least common sense has long gone, logic as well along with morals,respect. Greed, stupidity and what have you has taken over. With this people will not accept responsibility for any of their actions good or bad, there for the gov has to step in a make laws out the ass so lawyers can screw us with them and to protect us from our selves. what ever happened to the days of right and wrong? I stand the likelyhood of going to jail here shortly cause some fuck in a ricer decided to lie to the cops about our accident. As usual your guilty till proven innocent.People have become like sheep, they just tollerate shit and big bro regulating everything you do. Here one can go to jail for smoking a cigarette in public, but its OK for two gay men to cornhole each other in a park or on TV, WTF? Or for the cops to kill a friend,130 lb man against 6 ahole cops?? they all walked. Tree huggers to string up wire or nail trees so your chainsaw cuts your head or arms off? but if you 4x4 on their sacred land you go to federal prison? My buddies kids cant defent themselves from gang bangers with knives and guns at school, cause school officals are afraid to get involved, they just talk shit about how there fixing the problem, but turn a blind eye to it. In Santa Maria they just passed a bill to pay the illegal alliens car insurance so they can drive to the farm fields to work. Hows paying my insurance?? This country is a ship going for the count. Just like the days of Rome, it will fall.

 

[rockwerks]

It isn't this morning....been mulling around in my mind for a few months now.

Such as, why are we told we have to drive a certain speed limit on wide open roads(school zones I can see)?

Why are we told what mufflers we can have, or what lift can be put on our vehicles?

Those are just a few things I can think of right now, but my question stems from many other issues.

I mean, why are we coddled and told what we can and can't do?

I know, very broad and non-specific right now, but I am sure the more I think this over, the more understandable I'll be.

Fergie

Hey Gav, Most of what you have listed are designed to protect us from ourselves, Grocho marx said it best " common sense ain't so common" So we the thoughtful pay for the moronic. Laws are put in place kinda like how schools now teach, they have been DUMBED down to allow for the least of us. ONe reason I will never ive in the big city is to keep some of the freedoms that I hve now.

 

[Fergie]

I think that is my biggest issue right now.

I don't want the govt or anyone else to look out for me. If I screw up, then it is my fault, and if I prosper, then I want to prosper, not the gov't.

And another phrase I hear myself saying a lot these days is "We have a legal system, not a justice system."

Fergie

 

[Eagle]

I don't want the govt or anyone else to look out for me. If I screw up, then it is my fault, and if I prosper, then I want to prosper, not the gov't.

But we live in a time when reason and common sense have been hijacked by liberals who apparently believe that we are all, collectively, too stupid to be trusted with responsibility for our own lives, and therefore they (government, specifically their "enlightened" liberal form thereof) has to lead us by the hand and tell us what we can and cannot do, and where and when we can and cannot do it.

This becomes self-propagating because education has been taken over by left-wing types. Those of you how have kids in school at about the age when they should be learning about the Consitution (back when I was in school I think that was around the 7th or 8th grade) ... ask your kids what they're being taught. I'll bet the 2nd Amendment isn't even mentioned, and if it is I'll bet it is NOT being taught that the fundamental purpose for guaranteeing us all the right to keep and bear arms was so that the citizenry would always have the means to oust a tyrannical government.

Ask about the freedom of religion. There is nothing in the Constitution about any "separation of church and state." That's a judicial construct. The U.S. Constitution says that the (federal) government shall not establish a state (i.e. national government) religion. It does not prohibit the mention of God in public.

Ask if any of the teachers have mentioned how the so-called "Patriot Act" effectively by-passes the Constitution. The Constution supposedly guarantees us due process, and says we shall be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Yet the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain a SECRET warrant, issued by a SECRET court, to search anyone's house or business just because someone THINKS you "may" be a terrorist. They can come in, toss your house, and just pin a note on the door as they leave saying "Have a nice day. Sincerely, the FBI"

If I understand the drug enforcement laws correctly, your car, home and bank accounts can be seized (not just frozen ... I mean siezed, as in taken away from you) if you are just ARRESTED on suspicion of being a drug dealer. Never mind being tried and convicted ... you can lose your entire life's work just for being arrested, even if you are innocent.

IMHO the fundamental reason for any creeping big brotherism is education. Those of you who are parents MUST monitor what your children are (and aren't) being taught about the Constitution and the laws, and you must ensure that omissions and lies are corrected so that your children grow up understanding their rights, and the limitations the goverment is supposed to be subject to.

Those of you who are LEOs should re-read the Constitution periodically, and do your best to stay within it even if your department's policies seem to overstep. Why? Because when people see their Constiutional rights being trampled they tend to lose respect for law enforcement officers. I know some police officers who understand that. I also know some who feel their badge and gun is a license to go on a power trip. Many people don't understand that they do not need to blindly acquiesce to the latter.

And another phrase I hear myself saying a lot these days is "We have a legal system, not a justice system."

It isn't only "these days." My great grandfather (and those of you who know how old I am can better judge just how long ago this must be) was an attorney. He quit private practice and became a professor of law because he was disgusted by what he saw in the profession. His advice to the family was consistently to "Stay out of court. There is no justice in the courts." That was about 100 years ago. Think how much worse it must have gotten since he said that.

 

[ECKSJAY]

Many people would rather go through life allowing someone else to make many desicions for them, we call those people deomcrats.

I have to disagree. I can think of many aspects of Democrat and Republican 'thought' which inhibit our naturally inherent rights. I think I heard somewhere, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'

I agree with the points of diminished values, such as respect and accountability. People don't want to be held responsible for their actions, no matter their status of fault. Government is supposed to be to protect the peoples' rights, not protect people from themselves. The legal systems and court decisions have gone WAY out of hand in this country, thus making everyday life more and more restrictive.

An annoyance of mine is when people SAY that they advocate freedom, yet contradict themselves when they show otherwise. I wish I had a dime for every time I've experienced someone profiling or discriminating another person. Instead of making fun of them or getting frustrated, they should show a little compassion and put themselves in their shoes. Just because a person doesn't speak English doesn't mean that they're not willing to learn or haven't been in the country but 2 weeks. If you don't know their story, you should find out. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate illegal entry into the country (enacted to protect the citizens from foreign enemies, not themselves), but I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the people who discriminate had ancestors enter this country not speaking the common language. Our country has a wonderful, colorful (if you will) history of melting a diversity of cultures into a multi-faceted entity. If you don't know your history, you don't know your future.

In all I think that we all need to do our part in making humanity a priority in our lives. Consider how your decisions or thoughts will impact other people. If you make mistakes, be accountable for your actions. Take responsibility. Don't let others control you. Teach other people and your children the same. Rinse. Repeat as necessary.

 

[casm]

Why do we, as Americans, allow our government to control so many aspects of our life?

Fergie - I know it seems that way, but believe me, the amount of freedom people still have here is unparalleled compared to virtually everywhere else in the world. Yes, there are definitely some things that (to me, at least) don't make sense, but by and large we are less beholden to our government than anywhere else on the planet. Believe me, having lived in countries that consider themselves 'free', they really were doing their best to keep their citizens indentured to the state. The odd part is, the people were more than willing to go along with it thinking this was a good thing.

I mean, why are we coddled and told what we can and can't do?

Because we live in a society, and, unfortunately, a goodly percentage of the population is entirely incapable of exercising common sense and reasonable judgement in its actions. While that sucks for the rest of us, it's amplified by the fact that legislation is written to the lowest common denominator. Equality before the law means that not only must the law be enforced equally across the board, but also apply equally - there's no testing out to gain an exemption from specific portions of it, or issuing 'idiot cards' to those who really deserve them.

I don't want the govt or anyone else to look out for me. If I screw up, then it is my fault, and if I prosper, then I want to prosper, not the gov't.

Spoken like a true Constitutionalist, and I very much agree. Pardon me if I seem to have read too much into the way I believe you're thinking here, but it seems as though you're mulling over the idea of an anarchist (in the literal sense of the term) state. Anarchism, much like communism and socialism, are great on paper, but all of the above fail to take into account the will and ambitions of the individual - we're very much bound by the paradox that freedom cannot exist without law and order, and that freedom cannot be guaranteed without government. The real question is how much of either is required to maintain freedom, something that has been struggled with for thousands of years. Read Plato's Republic (full online version in that link) if you haven't already; many of the same concepts you're outlining here are addressed there or translate into a modern context.

And another phrase I hear myself saying a lot these days is "We have a legal system, not a justice system."

Justice is in the eye of the beholder, though. If you lose (or disagree with) a verdict, it's a legal system; if you win, it's a victory for justice.

Just out of curiosity, what was the catalyst to get you thinking this way?

If you don't know your history, you don't know your future.

Amen to that, but unfortunately too many people see history as irrelevant - and even when they do remember it, they don't remember it accurately. If I had a dime for every time someone has said to me that we don't need the second amendment because we don't have to hunt for our food anymore, I'd be wealthy enough to put them all in a cage and sink it

 

[ECKSJAY]

Fergie - I know it seems that way, but believe me, the amount of freedom people still have here is unparalleled compared to virtually everywhere else in the world. Yes, there are definitely some things that (to me, at least) don't make sense, but by and large we are less beholden to our government than anywhere else on the planet. Believe me, having lived in countries that consider themselves 'free', they really were doing their best to keep their citizens indentured to the state. The odd part is, the people were more than willing to go along with it thinking this was a good thing.

Another area of annoyance for me is the false assumption that everyone views 'our' freedom as 'just fine' compared to 'everyone else.' Say, how about when we compare freedom in the USA today versus 200 years ago? If only people got off the 'other country' bandwagon and turned their attention inward instead. Sure we have more freedoms than other countries, but at which point do we draw the line and demand that the government stop taking our freedoms away?

 

[casm]

Another area of annoyance for me is the false assumption that everyone views 'our' freedom as 'just fine' compared to 'everyone else.' Say, how about when we compare freedom in the USA today versus 200 years ago? If only people got off the 'other country' bandwagon and turned their attention inward instead. Sure we have more freedoms than other countries, but at which point do we draw the line and demand that the government stop taking our freedoms away?

True, and I agree with you. A large part of the problem, though, is that most Americans have never lived or travelled abroad, immigrants excepted, and so don't understand why we have the freedoms that we do. Do I think that people should be able to smoke pot in their own homes without fear of legal retribution? Sure. Do I have any interest in doing so myself? No, but if we legalise it with the same basic restrictions in place as with alcohol (no grass and driving is what I'm thinking of, not so much 'until you're 21', something I disagree with anyway) I don't see it as being a problem.

Now, would I trade my existing Constitutional rights for the right to get stoned? Absolutely not. But people look at Holland's decriminalisation of drug use as being a good thing without realising what other freedoms people don't have in that country compared to the US. They confuse 'being coddled' with 'being free'; as Eagle pointed out, it's the great liberal assumption that we can't take care of ourselves, only in this case the coddling comes with a prize that lets everyone feel good about being beholden to the state.

Understand that I wasn't saying that our freedoms are 'just fine' - they aren't in many ways, mainly due to impingement upon them - but in terms of the ones that count (to me, they're all important but the first five granted by the constitution are key) we have a much better level of freedom than most other countries.

 

[BrettM]

Such as, why are we told we have to drive a certain speed limit on wide open roads(school zones I can see)?

Why are we told what mufflers we can have, or what lift can be put on our vehicles?

Because people are generally stupid.

Now I guess you could replace lift laws with "if your vehicle modification fails and kills someone, we kill you"

 

[Fergie]

Because people are generally stupid.

Now I guess you could replace lift laws with "if your vehicle modification fails and kills someone, we kill you"

See, that is the general assumption that irritates me. You arent the one to decide whether a person is stupid, and no one else should either. Apples and oranges as far as comparisons go.

ECKS- I agree with the comment on the Dem/Rep comment. I have an extreme dislike for the 2 party system we have in this country. I also don't buy the BS comparison of "compared to other countries we have freedom."

One thing that I always end up saying is "There is no personal accountability and responsibility in the country today." People are out to save their own butts and have no concept of how their actions will affect others around them. Courteousness has gone out the door.

CASM- I am in no way(at least to me) advocating anarchism. I realize that there rules are needed when people live in such close proximity to each other. And I dont think the comment about jsutice when I win, and legal when I lose is correct.

Tort reform is needed in this country, and badly.

 

[5-90]

S'funny - I'm working on an essay that addresses most of your questions - and a few more - and proposing solutions.

Before you fully decry anarchy, take a moment to realise what it means. The concept of any "-archy" is describing some sort of external rule above and beyond the clan/tribe, and associated rules. Therefore, "anarchy" is the absence of an external rule, and the absence of any sort of government ruling over everyone.

Anarchy, however, is not without some sort of rules - they just aren't codified into a body of law.

In a true anarchy, there would still be an unwritten set of rules - which the student of sociology would describe as a "social contract." The social contract is always in place, and it governs interpersonal relations at all levels. However, the social contract would be all that directly governs behaviour in a true anarchy - which means that a heightened moral sense is required if an anarchy is going to be functional.

To reiterate: anarchy is not an absence of rules, it is an absence of government.

I would be fully in favour of an anarchistic society, if it could be made to work. Why? It's the only thing that hasn't been tried yet. The vision of Marx and Engels will never be a reality (and no, I don't think socialism would be fair anyhow - it's just an extension of the welfare state,) modified socialism has been failing all over the world for the last hundred years or so - wherever it's been tried, and it's pretty obvious that the "Great Experiment" we started nearly 230 years ago is failing - and has been since about 1935.

In simplest form, I think the following modifications to our system would begin to effect repairs:

Reinstatement of the "Pauper's Oath" as a condition of acceptance of public assistance or subsidy - or the elimination of public assistance or subsidy altogether. This applies also to the acceptance of unemployment, disability (in cases where it actually prevents working,) or social security, if these are retained.

Elimination of "tort law," and the trial of each criminal case upon its own merits. Period.

Some sort of "poll tax" to eliminate the current 18-year-old "warm body" electorate. For ideas, please refer to Starship Troopers by Robert Anson Heinlein (and most emphatically not Paul Verhoeven's version - he should be pilloried for what he's done to an excellent novel of moral philosophy!) or the essay following "Who Are the Heirs of Patrick Henry" in Expanded Universe, also by Heinlein - or "The Curious Repulic of Gondour," by Mark Twain. Since the electorate is not encouraged to have a stake of some sort in the future and to base their decisions thereupon, there is no consideration of future results in current decisions. Water always runs downhill, but we keep thinking it will never get to the bottom.

Introduction of some sort of legislative accountability. Did you know that if a law is passed, which directly and negatively impacts us, the Congress is not able to be held responsible for their actions? It's called "Congressional Immunity" - look it up!

Return to specie money and an elimination of our current fiat money. Governmental failures are typically preceded by economic failures - if we don't do something to stabilise the dollar, it won't matter what else we do. If the aim is to destabilise a particular government, it should be remembered that this may be done effectively in one of two ways - military action or economic sanction or destabilisation (usually by devaluation of the currency involved.) Giving the dollar back and anchor will not be easy, but will be worthwhile.

Simplification of law. There are too many laws, and we can't understand most of them (and don't know about the rest.) There are also too many loopholes which are exploited by the rich. Rewrite the system with the following requirements:
Any law must be written in English as commonly used and understandably by a graduate of primary education. Failure to do so will result in rescinsion of the law.
Any law may be challenged upon Constitutional grounds by anyone - anyone who can understand the law as written under the previous requirement.
If the circumstances which prompted the passage of the law no longer apply, the law itself may be voided.

I've got a lot more to say on the subject, but I haven't finished writing it yet...

5-90

 

[Fergie]

Good read as always 5-90, but can you address the current issue of "why?"?

I am too young to have experienced the history leading to our current state, and have only recently began reading the history(I'll have to re-read SST as I didnt pick up on what you are talking about).

So, can some of the older guys here give a bit more insight as to why things are the way they are right now?

Thanks...more than you know.

Fergie

 

[logdog]

Short answer.... MONEY!!

 

[5-90]

Hey - I'm willing to bet you're about my age. Age has little to do with matters as they are, and the question of "why" is largely irrelevant at this point. However, if you'd like for me to take a stab at it...

WHY?

Flashback to 1933. The Great Depression is in full swing (and we're trying to recover,) and the Great Socialist is in office. We have had a series of temporary income taxes, specie money is partially replaced with redeemable paper (Gold Certificates and Silver Certificates,) and the veterans of WWI are trying to collect a small portion of what they were promised - in futility (the Bonus March.)

FDR declares the Bank Holiday, effectively outlaws the private ownership of gold, and begins the creation of what we know as the Federal Reserve - in full violation of Consitutional Law.

The National Reconstruction Act and the Works Progress Administration are created to jump-start the job market (which works, to a certain extent) and now live on in the current welfare system (only it's getting the money without doing the work.)

The Social Security Act is passed with a sunset of five years, and the promise that "The Social Security Account Number (SSAN) will never be used as an identifier." (And we wonder why SS is broken.)

The Bonus Marchers, instead of being granted some small part of the WWI bonus (which is all they wanted - a little living money to carry them over while we got things in working order) are run out of their tent city by Generals Patton and Eisenhower. The tents are burned, and an undisclosed (or at least unrecalled by me) number of our veterans. No-one is paid anything.

The WPA and NRA are later dismantled (they aren't needed anymore,) but the fiat money as issued remains in full effect, and the income tax from WWI is made permanent (which is patently illegal, was never ratified by the states, and is still enforced in an illegal manner. Google the name "Larken Rose" (Larkin? I'd have to check) for more information.) The private ownership of gold is reversed later by, as I recall, President Carter - but the other problem of the fiat money isn't fixed. We went through this during the Civil War with greenback inflation, but the fiat money was bought back by the Federal Government - which caused a minor recession, but we recovered quickly.

The rampant inflation caused by the rescinsion of the Gold/Silver specie standard, coupled with the additional inflation caused by the Minimum Wage act and the constant raising of the minimum wage afterward, has caused a constant devaluation of the dollar - which is still going on. Everytime the minimum wage is increased, the dollar becomes worth less. Everytime the income tax is raised, the dollar devalues even more.

Since the government is the only one that wins this setup, we are constantly distracted by the need to make more money just to survive (the term "working poor" is a recent innovation...) has allowed the passage of newer and more useless laws which do a wonderful job of keeping us under control. Heaven forbid we should be able to easily make a living wage - we might then have time to handle other issues and get these people under control!

Of course, these are merely my opinions. I'm not actually an historian, and I'm barely a scholar - I'm just a tradesman who fixes things - and in our government, I see something that needs fixing - BADLY

5-90

 

[JAGx1414]

Asking the question of a good republican

Many people would rather go through life allowing someone else to make many desicions for them, we call those people deomcrats.

is that true? thats what democrates are or is that just opinon.. im 17 know nothing about government really.. but intrested