Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Central government for 321,605,012 people...

bisleybisley Senior MemberPosts: 10,813 Senior Member
... is a patently ridiculous proposition. Period. It didn't work in the Middle Ages, once a nation grew beyond a single city-state, and it didn't work for the Soviet Union, because the means of production only dribbled out enough poor quality items to provide a meager subsistence for most of the masses, while the apparatchik put on a show of prosperity, with second-rate luxuries in evidence in the largest cities. It has the appearance of working in China, because they don't allow journalists into the most depressed areas, and because they are experimenting with little doses of capitalism

How do you fit 321 million (one US population estimate) people into a one-size-fits-all template?

There is only one way - an authoritarian power that has an army of people out there punishing anyone who steps one foot over the line - no discussion, no mitigating evidence, no hired gun lawyers for the guilty, and no public defenders that can argue for mercy. Even this doesn't guarantee success, because....corruption. The 'enforcers' will take bribes, the disenfranchised will meet secretly and plot against authority. Since everybody but the government apparatchik are 'the disenfranchised,' the pot will always be about to boil over.

So what is the answer? Smaller sovereign states with geographically and demographically sensible laws and economies, plus a coalition with the other nearby sovereign states on matters of national defense, and a sensible approach to cross-border trade and immigration - the actual original intent for the United States of America.

Comments?

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    The federal government has the power of money automatically collected from the majority of the population. The establishment power structure molds popular public opinion through control of the media. Pulling teeth doesn't do this justice.

    States rights is a fictitious carrot pandered to the conservative right by a corporate oligarchy that can never afford to relinquish central power structures.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    edited July 2019 #3
    Yes, but...
    There are no easy answers. There's nothing more corrupt than a penny ante local gov't. Case in point: dealing with the local building/planning dept years back - which is ALWAYS the most corrupt branch of any local gov't. The tricks they were trying to pull were blatantly illegal. So I called the "central" gov't - the state of California on them, who put the kibosh on the "baloney" DARN QUICK. The guy at the building dept was as mad as a wet hen but couldn't do anything about it! Served them right.
    So I look at "states rights" with a jaundiced eye - its a two edged sword. States have a bad record regarding people's rights - its going on right now!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • BigDanSBigDanS Senior Member Posts: 6,992 Senior Member
    Today's computer and communication technologies would make it possible to simplify government significantly.  Having said this, there is a zero percent chance anyone involved in administering that much wealth and power wouldn't be corrupted by it.  Washington and the State Governments are already drowning in it.

    D
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,332 Senior Member
    Yeah Zorba. . ."jaundiced eye" is about right.  The U.S. probably has the best system that's yet been tried, and it's still pretty much "of the Idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots."
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • BigDanSBigDanS Senior Member Posts: 6,992 Senior Member
    What is amazing is the founders looked back at all the governments in history and realized  the Roman system was best with modifications and lasted the longest.  Learning from history.
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Will anybody agree that corruption, in general, is what taints every 'institution,' whether it be political, economic, philosophical, religious, or anything else that tends to unite people into groups? Will anybody agree that the size of government has a direct bearing on how much corruption occurs? It seems obvious to me that whichever party finds itself in the minority will use extreme measures to regain the majority. What we should be able to see now, as it is happening, is that the desire for the great power that can be wielded by a huge government promotes unbridled corruption.

    Assuming that corruption, in all of its forms, is the culprit that undermines the intended function of governments, how do we get rid of it? We don't. Ever. It's like the dikes in the Netherlands that hold back the sea - constant maintenance is a necessity to avoid catastrophy.

    In short, a person must dominate his personal domain to be absolutely free. The size of that domain is the limiting factor, because it determines how much power is needed to dominate. Any association with any other person is a concession he gives that reduces his personal level of freedom. If he ever gives up the power to vanquish anyone who challenges his personal freedom, he begins a steady decline (freedom-wise) that cannot be easily checked, at the particular stopping point that he desires.

    All realistic people make concessions to their desire for freedom, because the alternative is extreme loneliness and the paranoia that comes from guarding their freedom/power against encroachment from others. There is a 'sweet spot' to be found, when determining the amount of power needed to maintain an acceptable level of freedom, where it is manageable, and may be achievable without excessive corruption.

    In my opinion, this makes the case for majority rule being necessary for any democratic style government to work, with a somewhat manageable level of corruption. Majority rule works, if the minority can be appeased enough to lessen their push-back. I'm not saying that this is good, or honest - I'm just saying that it is the way it is, whether anybody likes it or not, and that the bigger government becomes, the more chaotic the process becomes.

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    Corruption in and of itself is not necessarily the problem. Its inevitable existence is actually a workong part of the machinery.

    Its the amount that's in contention. Reduce the money, reduce corruption. Over turn Citizens United. Regulate lobbying by dollar amount, and mandatory transparency. Big government is here to stay. Its too lucrative to shrink. Just reduce the money a bit.

    Legislation that breaks up giant conglomerate control of media would be good too.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    .
    Legislation that breaks up giant conglomerate control of media would be good too.
    Legislation, today, is only possible when one party has a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate. Even then, the 'permanent' establishment manages to throw enough monkey wrenches into the machinery that, when combined with the general slothfulness that is evident between campaigns, less gets done than the voters expected. Most veteran Congress people are lazy as hell, when the cameras aren't rolling, and the youngsters that aren't already jaded don't really have enough political juice to accomplish anything, by themselves.

    Anyway, how do you regulate a free press? You can't force them to tell the truth, because politicians can't really sue them for defamation of character, and the party politicians won't support anything that might weaken the advantages that the media can give them.

    The best example of this is taking place right now. The biggest political scandal in our history is taking place now, and 90% of the media will not report it.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    All realistic people make concessions to their desire for freedom, because the alternative is extreme loneliness and the paranoia that comes from guarding their freedom/power against encroachment from others. There is a 'sweet spot' to be found...
    All things in balance - and our two "parties of slavery" aren't it.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    edited July 2019 #11
    Smaller, more numerous news sources not under the monopoly unbrella of consolidation would be much more free press.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    .
    Legislation that breaks up giant conglomerate control of media would be good too.
    Legislation, today, is only possible when one party has a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate. Even then, the 'permanent' establishment manages to throw enough monkey wrenches into the machinery that, when combined with the general slothfulness that is evident between campaigns, less gets done than the voters expected. 
    The 'Permanent' establishment is the true bipartisanship in congress. They are people who by definition benefit from the status quo and have zero interest in changing it. All that special interest money flows directly or indirectly into the pockets of the only people with the power to reduce it's flow. Not going to happen anytime soon if ever. 
    There is a test of whether that can ever happen going on right now. The DOJ has been the major culprit, for at least a decade, in enabling those who would happily corrupt the legal system with bureaucratic snafus and selective prosecutions.

    At present, the DOJ is actually trying to develop real evidence into proof, against heretofore 'protected' political operatives within their midst. If they were to actually convict the offenders in a court of law, it would go a long way towards restoring a system that was once trusted by most Americans. Most of us are weary of the political show trials, or anything else that can be exploited through the media and parlayed into political capital. We just want to see the bottom line, i.e. will they apply the same standards of justice to political big-shots as they would apply to a common citizen? It looks promising, at the moment - only time will tell.

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    We can only hope - the federal Department of Justice has been operating like its California version for many years, ie like the 1984-esque "Ministry of Justice".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement