36lima:In my opinion, America's system has been wildly successful for a couple hundred years. It could probably use some tweaking, but I am politically opposed to anyone interested in large-scale change of our U.S. system (yes, that means progressives but it also means religious zealots).

In some ways I concur. I am probably one of those progressives (although not the US type no doubt, I've come to understand that politics and the different lobbies work differently stateside, the hard way ), but there's no telling what will stuff the system up for good. At the same time, how do we know if the success will last? Is the system really good for us as people or is it good for itself? But moving carelessly means we could ruin what good we have now, and stuff up the opportunity to have future success as well. If we wait too long, we might just start to decay where we're standing. Ayayayayay! No wonder politics is a circus when all we're doing is going around in circles

The problem is we humans lack that sort of foresight, so the best we can all do is wait until something goes down the drain and prove how awesome we are then at fixing up our own problems

Ultimately though, we should all be putting time into having fun and not reviewing whether we're going to die at the hands of the environment/terrorists/hippies/microsoft/Newscorp/planetary collisions/financial collapse/nukes/robots, so if there's one style of governance I'd support, it'd be no-nonsense no-bureaucracy simplistic governance. Unfortunately that only works in small "village states" and the like...

ceigered:
Ultimately though, we should all be putting time into having fun and not reviewing whether we're going to die at the hands of the environment/terrorists/hippies/microsoft/Newscorp/planetary collisions/financial collapse/nukes/robots, so if there's one style of governance I'd support, it'd be no-nonsense no-bureaucracy simplistic governance. Unfortunately that only works in small "village states" and the like...

For the most part, I would tend to agree.

No-nonsense, limited governance on a smaller scale was sort of the goal of our federal system (i.e. the centralized Federal Gov't was supposed to have limited and very specific powers with the States and local governments having the bulk of power and influence on resident's lives).

I would like a return to that original intent. The more the power of the federal (i.e. centralized Washington D.C. based) government grows, the less influence the people have over their local politicians and the less say they have in how they are actually governed.

I for one would be happy if large corporations had less influence over our lives. I think that if the central federal government is too weak, it's practically an invitation to private corporations to do whatever they please (which they largely do anyway). I believe that one positive function of government is to protect citizens from corporations. I think that market forces can achieve many positive effects, but I think that protection of people's health and safety isn't one of them. Big corporations are interested in making a big profit; they are not interested in my personal welfare.

I also think that if most government is localized, and that if the federal government is weak, government is very weak, then we might as well not even be one country. In that case we might as well have each state or region become an independent country, because there is nothing left to hold us together. The American "heartland" seems very foreign to me as far as lifestyle and culture goes. I have to say that it bothers me a lot when certain politicians speak of the "real" America, which always seems to be referring to small towns in the middle of nowhere. Sorry, Mr. or Ms. Politician, but about 80% of Americans live in urban, not rural areas, so basically you are saying that 80% of the population is "fake" American.

Historically speaking - our first constitution (the "Articles of Confederation") called for a confederation of states with a weak federal government with limited powers. Ultimately the founding fathers decided that the Articles of Confederation weren't going to make for an effective government (too weak and decentralized) and less than a decade later, we ended up with our current constitution. So essentially we already tried and rejected the weak central government plan.

It is interesting to think about, however; a weak central government with limited powers, most government functions are performed by local/regional governments.... hey...wait a minute...that sounds like the European Union! Who knew that Glenn Beck wanted to live in the EU?

erinja:I think that market forces can achieve many positive effects, but I think that protection of people's health and safety isn't one of them. Big corporations are interested in making a big profit; they are not interested in my personal welfare.

I agree with this statement (and some of your other statements ).

The Federal Govt. should protect our health and safety (protect our borders and national interests as well), however, it's a fine line to walk between protecting our health and safety vs. protecting us from ourselves and walking all over personal choice and responsibility. Yes on the former, no thanks on the latter.

As with most things involving politics, society, and freedom (or just people) it's not usually black and white.

I would prefer them err on the side of freedom rather than accidentally trip and fall into nanny-state while rushing to protect everyone.

I've lived in both highly populated urban areas and the remote end of nothing (or Arkansas as I like to call it) so, I think I have some insight into both. I think it would be hard to argue against a position that the remoter areas of our country tend to "cling" to more of an independent, take care of your own type of mindset (speaking in generalities of course). We're all real Americans and politicians will always play one side against the other. Essentially, most politicians are just about keeping their power base (again, my opinion).

I can respect someone who does what they say they'll do, is honest and has integrity regardless of their political position.

Now, is it any wonder, with our success that the EU is a poor mimic of the U.S. system?

36lima:
Now, is it any wonder, with our success that the EU is a poor mimic of the U.S. system?

Just in case the smiley wasn't a big enough clue, that last was a joking riposte in response to Erinja's Glenn Beck/EU comment.

No offense intended to the EU crowd.

I'm all for personal responsibility. But I'm also for a sense of communal responsibility; it's the responsibility that each person has to each other person, as a member of society. It's the balance of my freedom to do what I want to do, without infringing on the freedoms of others. Maybe I would like to walk around in a toxic cloud of stinky perfume, but other people will be unable to breathe properly if I chose to do so, therefore I would not do it. However some people think only of themselves and could not be relied upon not to do it, thereby polluting our air; that's why we have rules about these things. If I choose to eat nothing but fatty foods and I become obese, healthcare costs will rise for everyone, not just for me. I have a "right" to be as messy as I want in my apartment, but if I never clean it and rats infest it, those rats will likely spread to apartments of people who did nothing wrong. Therefore I do not consider it to be a nanny state to have certain rules in society that are for everyone's benefit. People can generally do what they want at home, but when your actions hurt others, that shouldn't be permitted. Without a rule prohibiting something, many people would just do whatever they pleased, because many people are selfish by nature and don't really care about how their actions harm others.

And if someone claims to be for freedom of personal choice, and then they try to impose their own religious views on me, then I have a problem with that as well. Sorry, Mr. Whatever Your Religion Is, I don't believe in your religion and I shouldn't be subject to whatever restrictions your religion places upon its believers (and neither should you be subject to my religion's restrictions).

A final note on the personal responsibility -

That guy in Tennessee whose house burned down because he forgot to pay the subscription fee for the fire service, that was really shocking to me. That's personal responsibility at its finest; he forgot to pay the small fee for the fire service, so while his house was burning down, fire trucks stood by to protect his neighbor's house (who had paid the fee). The man begged and pleaded for them to save his house, he offered to pay whatever they wanted, but they refused. They said that he must take responsibility for his lapse. I don't even care whether he forgot or just didn't pay for whatever reason; I find it beyond shocking that this happened. They call it personal responsibility, I call it shameful disregard for a fellow human being. Many people who do a lot of preaching of personal responsibility also claim to believe in a religion that spends a lot of time preaching forgiveness of the faults of others. But for "personal responsibility fundamentalists" (for lack of a better term), I don't see very much forgiveness (or love for the downtrodden, or help for the poor, for that matter)

I can think of no larger corporation than the Federal Government. So the government can "protect us from large corporations" but who protects us from the Federal Government?
Just thinking aloud.

erinja:I for one would be happy if large corporations had less influence over our lives. I think that if the central federal government is too weak, it's practically an invitation to private corporations to do whatever they please (which they largely do anyway). I believe that one positive function of government is to protect citizens from corporations.

erinja:But for "personal responsibility fundamentalists" (for lack of a better term), I don't see very much forgiveness (or love for the downtrodden, or help for the poor, for that matter)

I won't respond to every point you've stated because, I fully realize that you and I are on fairly opposite ends of the spectrum politically and it would likely be a waste of time for both of us (and Jebus knows I'm not running for any office). However, I would like to finish my part in this discussion with two statements.

1. In my experience, people who truly practice personal responsibility also happen to be the most generous and giving people. They are not, however, tolerant of enabling people who will not help themselves.

If this is not your experience then maybe you should try spending some time in some less urban areas and see if your experiences change. They may or may not, I don't know.

2. You are obviously an intelligent and caring person. I think most liberals genuinely care about people (as do most conservatives). I appreciate the help you give many on these boards (including myself) and have nothing but respect for you based on what I have observed of your actions and how you conduct yourself.

Thank you for the enjoyable discussion.

Amike,
Kelly

zmjb1:I can think of no larger corporation than the Federal Government. So the government can "protect us from large corporations" but who protects us from the Federal Government?
Just thinking aloud.

erinja:I for one would be happy if large corporations had less influence over our lives. I think that if the central federal government is too weak, it's practically an invitation to private corporations to do whatever they please (which they largely do anyway). I believe that one positive function of government is to protect citizens from corporations.

I actually like this comment Governments are essentially giant corporations who make money by charging people they define as being on their land - figurative or literally.

So, a good government is where the "corporation" and the "consumers" are in harmony and agree with each other; a bit like say Google's relationship with its consumer base/humanity (Google provides great searches and for the most part doesn't really sell out people or abuse information unless its for advertising which isn't as bad as those flash ads that take up entire screens ).

A bad government is one whose business practices aren't quite compatible with its consumers, e.g. charging the consumers more than necessary (overtaxing) for an inferior product (worse services to the people). If govts used half their tax money wisely this world would be a much better place, but instead they're too busy focussing money into things like "offence" (defence is the correct term in Australia for the military, but "offence" is what is happening most of the time), which is like corporations trying to sue each other all the time, e.g. Apple and Nokia, and no one really likes that unless they're institutionalised and biased for their own side more than what's healthy

@ this personal resonsibility discussion:

Surely with that story about that guy in Tennessee, those firies were breaking the law?! Heck, surely the fire service fee should have been included in taxes?! That's absolutely abhorrent! Stories like that disturb me since it shows to me a lack of empathy.

However, after reading 36lima's comment, it appears that there is indeed a larger spectrum. I personally think it's best to not be tolerant of those who won't help themselves, but it's better to help them do so than just abandon them. I guess that case about the house fire is an example of those who copped out for whatever crazy reason and decided just to let the house burn down.

Anyway, it seems that humans are very happy as a whole to neglect each other of their basic rights (food, water, health, education, and nowdays probably electricity and internet/information access (say a library)) to teach each other lessons, and while it does seem effective I don't think that's the way to go; it will only end up in a spiral of having to do the same thing over and over again, rather than properly educating people and working together while respecting each others needs.

Dang I sound like a socialist here.

Erinja:In that case we might as well have each state or region become an independent country, because there is nothing left to hold us together.

I didn't want to say it as I run the risk of offending many, but I think because of the population size vs the method of governance in the US, splitting the US up would be rather useful, provided a proactive impartial group oversaw cooperation, like with the EU (only slightly better, because that too has its problems ). Pity the US isn't under the royal family, then you'd have them to intervene when stuff goes haywire (I've been having mini-debates about why Australia should stay a monarchy, mostly because an impartial queen we don't pay for who can effectively tell us to pull our heads in when we're naughty is more beneficial than an involved australia head of state who is already biased and hasn't got a 3rd person view of the country.
Perhaps the Americas in general should form a larger coalition so that you have opinions coming in from further south and north, that way each "member state" would be able to monitor their own position against the rest of the coalition better.

The difference between a corporation and a government is that we can vote the government out of power if we think they're doing bad stuff; we have no power to "vote out" the executives from Big Money Corporation Inc.

Regarding a monarchy, I actually like the idea of having a monarchy with no real power. Everyone in the country can support the Queen because she is a nonpolitical symbol of the country. You can support or not support the prime minister depending on your political leanings, but everyone can support the Queen. It provides a kind of unity that is missing in the US political system. Usually the way it works in the US is that the party of the president says "You have to support the president as a loyal American; it doesn't matter who's president, you have to support the presidency". The party in opposition to the president says "It is patriotic to state that you disagree with someone's policies, and while I support the presidency I disagree with this president and I strongly oppose his or her actions".

And then in the next election cycle, the political opponent of the president will trash the current president in an attempt to get elected, and there are bad feelings all around.

Therefore the US president is political in a way that the Queen really isn't. I think that the US could use a little unity in these hard economic times but instead we are determined to be at each other's throats so that even the most uncontroversial law couldn't get through Congress these days.

I felt sure that I saw an opinion piece to this effect in the Guardian recently but I'm unable to locate it again. Oh well!