continuing proofs America is wacko

I knew it... that's why I'm voting for that Practicing Moron, Romney!

I have been thinking about the US system of government in comparison to the European version- and I have a question for the Americans. What is your government for?
You see in Europe governments are elected to provide what the people want (as far as possible and allwoing for consumirsm, individual greed etc) but in theory they proved health, education etc all the basic fundementals a human being should just get in the modern world, as far as Europe is concerned at least.
But the US in general prefers as little government as possible- so what do they do? What are they for? If they are not there to provide the basic human needs for its voters what are they there for?

The classical liberal (which is very different from the modern meaning of the word liberal) conception of government is that government exists to protect people's life, liberty, and property. That exact phrase shows up in John Locke, who was one of the most significant influences on the writers of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. (You may also notice that he was paraphrased in the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".) In the Lockean/liberal view of government, it should provide a military for national defense but not for foreign wars, a police force to provide internal security, a judicial system to help enforce laws protecting people's lives, security, and property, but not much beyond that.

Some people - mostly known as Libertarians these days - still hold on to the Lockean view, or only slightly more expanded views of government. However, Americans as a whole have gradually expanded their view of the role of government, particularly since the early-mid 20th century. It's not very controversial here (or at least, it wasn't before the Tea Party drove the GOP back into more reactionary territory and started challenging previously settled questions like contraception, the individual health care mandate, and other things that Republicans were once okay with) to say that the government should help protect the weakest of society: social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all pretty much accepted.

If you ask people if they support "welfare" then many will say no, but if you ask them if they support "help for the poor" then most will say yes. I attribute this to decades of anti-welfare propaganda that has made people hate buzzwords without changing their fundamental opinions. Furthermore, stuff like education is accepted by pretty much everyone as a legitimate function of government. While there is some controversy over it (though not as much as in the '90s), that's limited to how much of a role the federal government should take, as opposed to leaving things to the states. In fact, many "small-government" advocates are okay with government doing at least some stuff (though not health care) so long as it's left at the state and local level. I'm sure state and local politics get less news coverage outside the U.S., though, so I could see how it might not be evident. Also worth noting is that many people who talk about "small government" or "states rights" only do so when they're losing the political battle at the national level.

In the end, the attitude that government should provide "all the basic fundementals a human being should just get in the modern world" is a fairly common opinion in America, though probably more common among progressives than conservatives. There is a strong belief that people should take care of themselves and not free ride, this being probably more common among conservatives than progressives, but very few people will say that the government shouldn't give any help at all. The difference - both between American political factions and between America and Europe - is how much is what "a human being should just get in the modern world". I think that level is definitely seen as being lower by mainstream American political perspectives.

NB I hope this isn't too long of an explanation.

Don't forget to tell him about the cheese Eldo.

Nice explaination Eldo, its very interesting.
I wonder whether there was a cross pollination of ideas about the French ideas of laissez faire free trade during the French Revolution and the American war of Indipendance?

I think you're right about that, Mrs Figg. The French philosophes who influenced the outcome of the French Revolution were to some extent influenced by English political thought, including Locke. French thinkers such as Rosseau and Montesquieu also influenced American thinkers. I think the republican forms of government that emerged on both sides of the Atlantic in the late 1700s grew out of a common philosophical heritage, though they each developed into unique forms. Even so, there continued to be an exchange of ideas about liberty, democracy and the like between the U.S. and France carried on by writers such as Thomas Paine and Alexis de Tocqueville.

..and of course men like Thomas Jefferson had direct links with the French and their philosophers having been a Minister to France.

Eldorion wrote: In the Lockean/liberal view of government, it should provide a military for national defense but not for foreign wars, a police force to provide internal security...

The stronger your defence, without outlet, the more powerful the junta, methinks.

I don't mean to speak for anyone, but as far as I'm aware most people who still hold to classical liberalism aren't looking for a particularly large military. *shrugs*

If America were ever to NOT engage in foreign wars, nor should they trade with anyone.

Orwell wrote:I knew it... that's why I'm voting for that Practicing Moron, Romney!

Just curious. Does any of this sound familiar Orwell ?

From Answers.Com:

Most people who insult other people are insecure. They think that it will make them feel better if they put someone else down, or they insult the other person to take attention off of themselves...Other reasons could include boredom, desire to be funny, genuine or learned hatred of another person or culture. Insults could depend on the situation, and it could be a person's way of taking their anger out on one person instead of the thing they are angry at. Insults can also be used as a form of control, whether it is to control another person, to control a conversation. Insulting outbursts are often used by people who are angry that their lives are out of control in other ways.

Third thought. Could be any of those things... Desire to be funny would be the most likely, but I'm curious to know why this particular 'joke' has offended you, Turembar?

Seems a perfectly good pun to me Orwell. Although perhaps if you are an actual Mormon less so, but this particular Mormon is also a politician and politician as moron seems apt.

Making 'politician' jokes I never thought of as engaging in 'personal insult'. I found Turembar's reaction puzzling to be honest - and pretty rude and ignorant too, to begin with.

At first I made two heated posts - or repostes - which I deleted, before I settled on my third reply. I decided it's best to be good humoured if one can, even if someone who knows absolutely nothing about you proceeds to make personal judgments on you.

I learned a sour lesson dealing with leelee, and propose to do my best to... well, not take the ignorant personal comments of others too personally. That's manners.

come on guys, lets not do a 'me' and get all steamed up over stuff. I just want everyone to get on.

This thread is a bit inflamatory sometimes and its title should be a warning, its not called 'Fluffy Bunnies and Kitties', I dont come here often because it makes me squirm and a bit worried sometimes, so maybe its best to avoid it if it makes you crabbit? and by that I am talking to folk in general.

Perhaps you should have gone for a fourth attempt, Orwell. That is just...

I know the feeling, Figg. I know why I joined here, and I know why I stay and I know that threads like this plus the religion one(s) aren't my favorites, but they are part of the experience.

This is what happens when a forum grows. It's just the way it is.




And how anyone could learn a sour lesson from Leelee? Bitter-sweet ones, perhaps.

Amarië wrote:Perhaps you should have gone for a fourth attempt, Orwell. That is just...

To be honest, the more I look at what Turembar posted, Amarie, the more it annoys me.

As to the reference to leelee, I could have put it a bit better. I did not mean to bring up old wounds. I was pretty hard on leelee when she originally sort to 'moralize' me and 'analyze' me. She was trying to help, I guess, but where it was neither needed or wanted - but for all that she meant well, and I regret my attitude to her. The 'sour lesson' was that I should have tried to understand leelee better before I let loose. It's me who was in the wrong in the end. (Not that I will necessarily ever take kindly to being 'moralized' or 'analyzed' by people who don't know me - I can just be less 'spontaneous' and more 'thoughtful' when it happens).

That's why I thought and re-thought my response to Turembar. In the end, though, I did not take kindly to his post. A grossly stupid thing to post. Give me advice? Draw a character asessment of me? He can do it, of course - we are Free Spirits here - but I don't have to take it without comment. It was out of line. And what was it over? A pun on words involving a Politician? What the....?

Sometimes the most innocent seeming off the cuff comment or 'jokey' comment, can offend other people. You dont know how deeply they feel the cut of the jibe, for example I have learnt by hard experience if I critisize someones job or religion or political views they have the right to get angry and take me to account. You dont know who is a Mormon, you dont know who is a deeply religious person, the internet is open to all and this forum is open to all, its true on certain political/religious threads you should be allowed free speach, that is the sign of a free spirited forum and should be applauded, but if you make comments you have to be prepared for the backlash, and not be surprised when it comes. Personal slights are never cool however.

Mrs Figg wrote: Personal slights are never cool however.

That's the only part that annoyed me - which was most of the post, sadly. But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so I'll drop the matter, Mrs Figg.

I hope its forgotten and forgiven on all sides.

These 'Serious' threads are meant to be controversial and get debate flowing, but they do teeter on the edge sometimes. In an ideal world maybe it would be an idea to try and separate as much as possible the serious debate from the flippant, but the style of this whole forum is pretty irreverent and anarchic so its probably impossible in practice. The mixture of the two is what satire is based on, and satire is sometimes cruel.

See, this is why this forum is so interesting. Lots and lots of rambling, venting some annoyance here and causing annoyance there and then suddenly intelligent and insightful posts, then it falls back into chaos again. Glimpses of who people really are besides the jokes and characters. Love it!

But it is a format that can be hard to grasp; the people, the characters, the names, the tone. I struggled for while when I joined, tip toed around a bit* and now it is even more complex.

I guess Turembar may have accumulated some resentment perhaps? I don't get it either, perhaps he will come by and explain. He may have tried to prove a point, but he didn't score any with me. And I don't blame you for getting angry, Orwell. (Or for not getting Leelee at first, thanks for explaining. ) I just didn't want to see you take the bait and stoop down to that level. You're better than that. I think? Sometimes?


*though that was mostly because of the fury at DP at the time.

Amarië wrote:I just didn't want to see you take the bait and stoop down to that level. You're better than that. I think? Sometimes?

I concede I am sometimes better than that, but not often, Amarie! And I'll thank you to not suggest that kind of thing again, thank you very much....

Mrs Figg wrote:...for example I have learnt by hard experience if I critisize someones job or religion or political views they have the right to get angry and take me to account.

Satirists comment - sometimes wittily - on politicians and religionists all the time, Mrs Figg. If someone makes fun of police, I might get annoyed if I think the comment misleading or plain wrong (even if it's funny), but I know it's foolish to take it as a personal insult. And I have, and I do, and I will, but as a rule, with people I know very well, I will only sometimes seek to set them straight about erors of fact - though it's unlikely I'll get personal unless they get personal first. Analyzing anyone as a means of criticising you, even by friends or family, is never easy to take; but from perfect strangers it's purely strange, especially when it's so out of the blue.

As to 'criticizing' people's religion or political views, everyone does it, every day, and so they should. So long as it is at last a 'respectable' discussion, well and good, all is well. An example, to me it is a disgusting practice in some cultures to marry off your daughters and sons without their consent - evil, horrible and unjust. I will say it to anyone, even if it means they get angry about it. But all said and done, mine is only an 'opinion'. Others are free to agree or disagree.

Another thought: people run their lives according to God's mandate and rules, I think that scary and ridiculous, but I may in fact have a minority view here - and indeed, I could very well be ultimately incorrect, as I can't Prove God doesn't exist and write "Rule Books". All I know is that in a Free (with Responsibility) Society one has as much right to express ones views as a religious person has to go on late night TV and Evangelize about his/her Beliefs, telling you what is Right, and even what Truth (or The Truth) is. Should I be personally angry and insulted and aggravated by their (money-making?) crowd-controlling soap-boxing? Well, yes - and so long as I am allowed a voice to demur from their Programs - and put forth my view as just another view up for discussion - then Democracy goes on unabated.

I think discussion should be tempered with at least respect on the surface to oil the works, thats what Diplomacy is for, you might think the other Nation/person is a complete moron but its better not to say it out loud to their face, it breaks down the talks and everything degenerates into a slanging match or worse War, nil nil win for all concerned.

I quite agree- except for those occasions where I am obviously right of course.