prodj101 Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 We have a grad standard thing going right now about getting peoples opinions and in the end have to write a paper about it and give a speech to the class, and for one of my sources, I thought I would use you guys. So, my question is: In your opinion, should the government have more or less control over the people. By this I mean should they be able make as many laws, disclose as much information, make major decisions (like war with Iraq), without the populations consent? Thanks in advance guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Y'all tryin' to start a riot ? Step away from the keyboard and keep your hands high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 When you say "the government," are you refering to the US government or any government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 lynn - I'm with you on this one -- it smells like trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for pool. Which is where I will jump to avoid the inevitable flame war that is about to begin in about 2 pages and 15 posts. DD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 a few observations... A big question here is what exactly you consider to be the "populations consent". We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. In a true democracy, of which very few have ever existed, every citizen has the right to vote on every decision made by the "government". In this case, the government truly is "of the people by the people". However, pure democracies become unmanageable when the size of the populace passes a very low threashold. Imagine the chaos that would result if every legislative issue (at least at the Federal level) required a vote by 200,000,000 people. In our form of government, we elect representatives who then take on the responsibility for the decision making process. A basic question is, do we elect representatives whom we trust to act in what the representative believes to be the best interest of their constituants, or do we elect representatives whom we expect to simply reflect the will of the majority of their constituants? If we elect Mr. Doe to be our state Senator, and Mr. Doe votes on a bill regarding Global Warming according to his personal belief as to whether this is a "good bill" or not, and his decision (hopefully, a fully enlightened decision) is not in alignment with the popular view of his constituants, has he acted according to his charge by making the best informed decision he can, or has he acted at variance with his responsibility by not voting along the lines of the majority will of his constituants? Let's say the President decides to invade Iraq. Let's say the United Nations opposes this action, and issues a stong statement condemming the action. Let's say the President conveins a special session of Congress, and gets the majority support of both the House and Senate. Let's say the American People (at least, the ones who are polled and express an opinion) are solidly AGAINST this action. What just happened? Did the representatives in Washington honor their duty by making their decision based on the best available information available to them, as we charged them to do when we elected them in the first place, or did they abdicate their responsibility by ignoring what appears to be the majority opinion of the public at large? Which is their duty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyKlipschFan Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Ray, I loved the History lesson in the bigger 1st part. (Many people could benefit from straight forward explanations like this.) When you get into the the president bla bla bla the UN bla bla ....Vs popular tv culture etc etc etc.. What flavor of the moment do you want to go on? **************Bang********** just shot the first fire in this argument.(OK discussion. LOL ) We need some kind of government to make our lives safe to provide services to people through a free enterprise system and to keep capitalism working. Beyond the level of protecting us from people who do not operate by society's wishes, (thats why we do have laws after all,) I think most people would like to see a freedom with more of their own money in their own pockets, to be responisble for their own actions, and to be left alone to raise, educate, practice religion, and be free to move and engage people where they want to go and do. Boy did you open a can of worms on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 ---------------- On 10/28/2002 1:59:23 PM dougdrake wrote: lynn - I'm with you on this one -- it smells like trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for pool. Which is where I will jump to avoid the inevitable flame war that is about to begin in about 2 pages and 15 posts. DD ---------------- Yep, I agree with both of you... ACK! I am exiting the door from where I came in, and not coming back through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 is this plagiarism of opinions or a survey? if its the former form your own opinion. if its a survey i choose "less" w/ no further comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 i'll keep it simple, cause i know that's all you need to get your homework done government should have total control over everything (i just ain't gonna bother to support my opinion, unless u need it for the class) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Ain't touching this one! HOT!!! HOT!!! HOT!!! OUCH!!! Just write what the teacher "wants" you to write, got a good grade, and use your own opinions in life and voting! Good luck on your paper!!! I will be off to Wal-Mart at 5:00 AM tomarrow morning to get GTA3 Vice City! School? Nope, tomarrow is too important for school. Wish me luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 jeez, skipping school to play a video game? thats pretty bad to me. Oh, and by the way, In my opinion, the government should have alot less control than it currently does. Personally, with the way the treat us right now, it seems like they think we are a bunch of little kids who are to stupid to decide what is best on our own, when 99 percent of us are smarter than Bush! To me, we really have more of a dictatorship than anything, because after the officails are elected, all public say is lost, even on the smallest issues. For example, here in Minnesota, fireworks are illeage because they think we'll get hurt. When well over the majority of the people beleive fireworks should be legal, the few politicians feel that they know what is best for us, and that the say of 450,000 people just doesn't matter. And now with this stuff in Iraq, a recent survey showed 98% of 5,000 people surveyed said that they are strongly against going to war without the consent of the UN, but the people in the senate still want to do it when the rest of the country says NO! what is up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 jeez, skipping school to play a video game? thats pretty bad to me. Oh, and by the way, In my opinion, the government should have alot less control than it currently does. Personally, with the way the treat us right now, it seems like they think we are a bunch of little kids who are to stupid to decide what is best on our own, when 99 percent of us are smarter than Bush! To me, we really have more of a dictatorship than anything, because after the officails are elected, all public say is lost, even on the smallest issues. For example, here in Minnesota, fireworks are illeage because they think we'll get hurt. When well over the majority of the people beleive fireworks should be legal, the few politicians feel that they know what is best for us, and that the say of 450,000 people just doesn't matter. And now with this stuff in Iraq, a recent survey showed 98% of 5,000 people surveyed said that they are strongly against going to war without the consent of the UN, but the people in the senate still want to do it when the rest of the country says NO! what is up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 You could try for some extra credit and make your report into some sort of "Point-Counter Point" similar to a debate. This may show that you can relate to either side. "A disarmed people is a controlled people" -Joseph Stalin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 As I understand the question, you're asking whether the government should have more or less control over the population than it currently has. I don't like the question, because it asks us to quantify the notion of control. The question is either impossible to answer properly, or it is an invitation to discuss specific instances of governance. Nevertheless, I'll take this opportunity to spew about what I want the question to be. The only good thing about democracies and democratic republics is that they offer folks an opportunity to get rid of the leadership and replace it with something else. They don't do a good job of making the replacement reflect anything relevant to the leadership itself, but at least they get people fired and so avoid tyrannies. I propose that we add this neat replacement option to the legislative process itself and not restrict it to only the identity of the leadership. In other words, the citizenry should be given opportunity to negate the decisions of the lawmakers. How often, in what scope and in what manner this should be done are issues about which I cannot even begin to make good recommendations, but I really like the basic idea. For example, these "legislative retention elections" should not override certain commitments made to other nations, there should be stricter rules about changing constitutional law, etc. Very difficult issues to address, but I believe the basic idea could be implemented with success. Of course, since democratic systems are not at all successful in making decisions in any but irrelevant methods, perhaps the idea is bad medicine. Why leave it up to the masses of idiots out here to make important, detailed legislative decisions. There is a level of comfort in knowing that the ignorant, cheap and fickle will of the people is only a coin that is tossed to decide simple things like whether a dude keeps his job as leader. No matter what, we should be given the opportunity to oust the politically active wives/husbands of our leaders. Tipper Gore and that Cheney chick have GOT to go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Time to put on my "history teacher hat" here, I guess: When drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson ran into a real problem!! He had thought highly of Thomas Locke's Treatise on Governments, and he wanted to paraphrase Locke in the reasons given for the colonists to attempt to overthrow the legitimate government under which they had been up to that point(the legitimate government being that of England!!) Locke put forth the belief that governments should be responsive to the NEEDS of the people who are being governed. And, if the government got to a point where the needs of the governed were not being met, then the people had a right to change that government to one in which their needs WOULD BE met!! Now...how was ole Thomas Jefferson gonna convince the people that their needs WEREN'T BEING MET??? And, even if the people believed their needs weren't being met...then how the heck could he convince them to overthrow a legitimate government that already existed? He knew full well that the English would not just walk away and let us do as we pleased!! He also knew full well that there would be a war for this "independence" of the colonies from England...and that it would be simple farmers who bore most of the brunt of fighting against the best equipped army in the world in order to achieve this "independence" from England!! Now...how do you get a bunch of farmers and other poor folks to fight against an established government and overthrow it and defeat its army? Well...Thomas Locke said that people have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of PROPERTY"...but what about that poor guy who owned nothing? How do you get him to fight for the right to pursue property, if he has none? Well...ole wiley Thomas Jefferson figured that if a person could have property, then it would make that person happy...therefore, the successful aquisition of property equals happiness...therefore, he changed Locke's statement to read: "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS"!!! Now...Thomas had what he needed to get the poor folks to take up arms against the finest army the world had at the time...and it worked, didn't it?!?!?!?! Hell, EVERYBODY wants the right to pursue HAPPINESS, don't they? Even the poorest person in the land wants HAPPINESS! AND...if that poor person has a rifle and is proficient with it...all the better!!! That poor fool could possibly survive a few years of killing British soldiers so that others could have the colonies to themselves without British interference!!! Look at it this way....how many members of the Continental Congress ever shot AT any British soldiers...or were shot at BY any British soldiers during our revolutionary war? Just who DID get shot by the British??? Just who DID shoot the British? Just who DID get frostbitten at Valley Forge? Just who DID finally receive pay for serving in the Army during the Revolutionary War???...and what did they get as pay??? Worthless paper money...money nobody would take in payment for ANYTHING...including the government who PRINTED IT!!! These same farmers who let their fields go to waste while they were off fighting the British for half a decade, went home, penniless, shot to pieces, frostbitten, in debt, and sometimes with their property they owned on the auction block due to non-payment of taxes...and the government wouldn't even take the money it had paid them when they tried to pay their taxes with it!!! The government would only take SPECIE (ie., gold or silver or copper currency) as payment for taxes owed!!!!...NOT paper money!!!! So....just what did these farmers do? Well...a few of them REVOLTED against a government they had helped to create...because it was NOT being responsive to the needs of its people!!! They went to a local courthouse, and had a sit-in demonstration. Yes, they were armed, but they shot nobody!! And what did these patriotic veterans of the Revolutionary War get for their efforts? Well, for the only time in our government's history, the President PERSONALLY led the ARMY to put down the revolt...and the leaders were hanged...and the rest were imprisoned!! This is in the history books as Shay's Rebellion...but it SHOULD be called the murder of a few veterans who wanted to be treated fairly!!! What eventually happened to all that continental currency that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on? Well...Alexander Hamilton created the first U.S. bank....the fore-runner to the treasury department...and all that gold and silver that was the only thing the govermnent would accept in payment for taxes owed and such...was eventually used to redeem all of the continental currency...BUT!!!!!...it was folks like Hamilton, and the others who already HAD gold and silver...who had bought up ALL of that continental currency for less than one cent on the dollar...so that when the government FINALLY started to redeem it for hard currency at face value...who got the money? The rich got it...and they got richer from it!! But...what about all those poor farmers who froze at Valley Forge, and won the war for us? What happened to them? What did they get out of all of this? The vast majority of them went heavily into debt and/or lost everything they had before the war because they stuck themselves in the position to fight and die for a bunch of rich con-artists whose REAL desire was to take over the colonies...all because they wanted the right to "pursuit of happiness"!!! Have things changed much in the last two and a quarter centuries? You tell me!!! Once we elect officials, we need to hold them accountable to US!!! Plain and simple!! Do we do that? Nope!! Hell, most of us don't even VOTE!!! And...just WHO runs for major offices anyway? Some poor dirt farmer? Some factory worker? NOT HARDLY!!! Ours is still a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich...but it is still the best thing around...ain't it????? I am now taking my "history hat" off!! Nuff said!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 HDBR- Kinda makes me wonder now, my great, great, great, great, grandfather fought at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Okie VanOsdol from New Jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 ---------------- i choose "less" w/ no further comment. ---------------- LOL.... BOA!....LESS would chose you also...Proj...dont you think that your sampling is a bit skewed?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Trouble? A riot ? Put 'em up, put 'em up! Whoever has the most wins the game. The most of what? Why money is what. MONEY! What makes a king out of a slave? MONEY! What makes the flag on the mast to wave? MONEY! What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the Discount Disc, or the Toys R Us? What makes the executor guard his trust? MONEY! What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? MONEY! What makes an H-bomb come up like Thuuunnnnnnder? MONEY! What makes the Hottentot so hot? What puts the "ape" in apricot? What keeps the politicians in office that aint so hot? What have they got that I ain't got? MONEY! Should I say that again! Huh? Ha haaa .Live and earn and only then youll learn that the only thing that allows a system of checks and balances to work is Da CASH. Try to run for office without it. I cant do it. No MONEY. I did hear of a race for dog catcher in Jabip within the Tibet province of China that I might be able to afford to enter. It includes a doggy-bag lunch and the fireworks are legal. Oh boy ! Rice cakes and I get to eat them too.I better lay off the soy sauce and stay on the band wagon. Somewhere over da rainbow................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 BBB-What ¢yni¢i$m! It $eem$ that you are $eriou$ly ob$e$$ive about the $ubject of ¢ash. I hadnt realized that you had politi¢al a$piration$ either. I ¢ertainly will vote for you $hould you de¢ide to run for offi¢e. Jabip ¢ould u$e your experti¢e, $ee ya in OZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikjohn Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 We are sheep. They just better not ever try to take our guns, that would be the last straw. Trying to take guns from the honest people only gives the power to the corrupt(criminals, gov't, etc.). The fact that so many American people have guns is what keeps the gov't from doing something that would really piss us off. Oh yea, and if you break into my house, you will be shot. EJ IMO of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.