Agree or disagree?

The government is supposed to care about you?

I don't know, is it, tmp?

The government is an entity not a human being. It does not have feelings, lol.

Does the government have your best interests at heart?

That's what it's supposed to mean.

We elect the human beings that make up  the government to give it the dual function of an entity with feelings.

At least that is what they try to sell us......as they all laugh all the way to their off shore swiss bank accounts....

This new woman that is running for president for example.....she has chosen a family values platform from which to try to win votes to take her turn at being the head pretender that the government is capable of feelings.....

Lets us see what promises she will make to show proof she is serious about family values.....maternity is leave is 6 weeks off without pay currently...In Europe you and the father get one year off with 80% of salary....

I think we should demand Michelle commits to making this change on behalf of family values.....

Show of hands how many think we will ever get even close to what Europe does for maternity leave and family values....

>

At present I think we've been kind of "trained" to think that governments are something that should support us, and care about us, and have our best interest at hearts almost like a parent.

If we really think about it, governments are just a bunch of "elite" folks that were granted the power to oversee a certain semblance of order when there are just too many people that can create too much chaos.

The people that should have our best interest at hearts are ourselves. No one else is going to guarantee my freedom, safety, security or interests better than I can.

By training us to think of government as a parent that takes care of a child, it's making the people of that nation into children who don't really think, care or take self-interest into their own hands. (pretty much the MTV generation)

Kind of Machiavellian actually. If they train us to be helpless, the "elite" folks get to do whatever they pretty much want and say its for the "good" of the people

That's why I'm hoping Ron Paul wins and has a chance to run for president. We need to start taking care of ourselves a bit more.

just my two cents. I tend to like small community activity over big government actions. I care more about my mom-and-pop shop down the street than the big starbucks that views me as cash-producing cattle. But that's just me :)

Great question Caroline!

Interesting perspective, mia. But don't you think it would be more difficult to preserve your well-being if there were no police, military, etc?

Just prompting thoughts here...

The government is not capable of having interests or a heart. Those are human qualities.

Okay, Elsa, under your assumption then, how do you classify its purpose/agenda if it is non-human?

In my opinion, the government is an entity comprised of humans and therefore must encompass some kind of human qualities.

Interested in hearing your thoughts...

The individuals who make up the government tend to act in their own best interest. 

You will have to extrapolate from there because my wrist is burnin'. Sorry.

@ Elsa - On point!!! Very true! It's like the whole thing the past couple of years where they've been trying to give human rights to companies and organizations. Kind of sick actually that we're thinking of concepts/creations as if they were people with feelings and ignoring actual human people-to-people contact. It almost seems that the more time we live in the digital abstract world, less time we socialize with actual people, the more we start relating to the things that aren't real. Not sure if I'm writing this clearly, but the concept is kind of troubling

@Caroline - Absolutely! You're right. That's why people came together to assign certain tasks to certain people to ensure that things stay kind of stable. But I don't think that means we need to stop caring for ourselves and thinking for ourselves. Just because they have a fire department doesn't mean if my towel get lit on fire in my kitchen I'm not going to put it out because I can call them instead. You know what I mean? We've been prompted to almost stop "thinking" and "taking care of ourselves" just because their an agency that has a similar function for it. It's like someone saying...don't worry about all these daily living functions, we'll take care of it. Just stop thinking and go and enjoy the new movie that came out or the new electronic gadget that came out. Don't worry what's behind the big curtain. And that's what we do. We're only now starting to question where I food comes from (no cameras are allowed in big food factories), where our clothes come from, where our oil comes from, how our government is printing fake money and playing hoodini tricks to ensure that other governments think it's still big and powerful.

Sorry for the long response, have a lot to say on this subject!!! :)

Got it!

Ah yes, I see your point, mia.

Anyone who thinks that government provides essential functions that can't be kept up by volunteer organisation of human beings should read some Austrian Economics. :)

Note that gov isn't volunteer at all, you're forced into membership at your time of birth, or after you've become a legal immigrant.

Just my 2c.

I always thought that the function of government was to make our lives better - create laws to live by, handle responsibilities that singlely were to large for a citizen - like roads, interstate highways, water and sewer districts.   The evolution of government, I believe, started back when we first learned it was easier to hunt and kill a big animal together, rather than singlely, or that raising/harvesting crops was easier together. 

Now, government is ruled by corporations, who have no allegiance to anyone or anything, not kin or country, but profit.  Me thinks we have many grave days ahead of us do to this.  I hope we correct the situation, but it does not look hopeful.

As for the US government "caring" about us - well I got my answer the day after Hurricane Katrina.

Huh? Confused, SilverStar.

The government structure was not set up to serve me as an individual..but the "people". And I believe the structure is sound enough to do that.

However, Politicians..only care about me during voting season, at least they seem to handing my flyers and calling to announce their candidacy. But beyond that..no.

At the end of the day, government is a structure. When the structure no longer serves its purpose...it dissolves, and a new structure is formed...

That being said...I think an issue with government is that it is run by wallstreet and the economic model of though, and forsakes the altruistic model, which is what is good for teh whole rather than a select few - meaning .00001 percent of society.

In Europe you and the father get one year off with 80% of salary

Yep. and we're all broke, with an ever-shrinking workforce looking after more and more pensioners, benefit claimers etc etc. Wearing my Libra-I-Love-You-All hat, I think it's great to have such generous welfare policies. Wearing my Cap-stellium-Saturn hat, I KNOW such generosity is utter madness.

Example, and this is from real life:

A guy round here was running a big pub on a shoe-string; his business was hit hard not just by the recession but also by the smoking ban and the drink-driving rules. He took on a local girl 20-odd to work in the kitchen, and within two months one of the customers had got her up the duff (a local lad, her age, still living with Mum). She took her time to tell him so the law on maternity leave kicked in...

Result: within a few months she is on maternity leave, which will last til the kid is almost a year old, and he has to keep paying her. Meanwhile, he has to employ ANOTHER girl to do the work she was supposed to be doing.

Conclusion - he closes the pub! Everyone loses.

To me the government is a collective of people who are there to help a collective middle ground people.

I don't think are doing what they are meant to do. They have old ideas in a modern society.

BP, in Ireland thats not the law here. Its only a few weeks to 6 months (depending how long you have worked at the company) and the men only get a few days.

Caroline, sorry for being terse, it's kinda late here now. It would have helped if you told me what exactly confused you, though. :)

Some of the main points I'm making are: government is a group with forced membership (you can't opt out of taxes and wars, for example), government doesn't evolve in a positive fashion because there's no real competition, government always uses force to make you do things (don't comply to our rules? Get fined, arrested or killed). Oh yeah, government issues its own paper money that is a big fraud device (through inflation).

I know that all this might be a bit hard to digest and might sound alien, but that's how I see it.

I guess he should have hired a male waiter...six weeks of unpaid leave is ridiculous.

My point is when the politicians run the horse and pony show, full of smoke and mirrors, that is a presidential election. They pick a slogan like change, or family values, and they make a lot of promises that they know they can't keep. The promises are usually I care about you and you and you and I will (if eelected) prove to you I care about you in XYZ ways, by taking XYZ actions

When they get elected they do not implement any policy that supports the platform they ran on.

Extending the Bush tax cuts is a classic example of the way the people elected to run the government make decisions that advance their own interests the tune 600 billion dollars, to continue tax cuts for people who make more than a million dollars per year.

Apologies - looong post.  And a Caveat:  I am a citizen of an European country and have never visited the US.

In democratic countries the legislature is elected to ensure that an adequate legal structure exists to support the everyday life and human rights of its citizens and to ensure that some basic public services are provided.  The provision of those services is the responsibility of the public servants that form the government. 

As Elsa says, government is not a human being but is an entity so it can't care about anyone/anything.  But, governments in democratic societies are supposed to ensure that the human rights of its citizen are supported, irrespective of whether they represent the majority of the minority group in that country. 

You then have to ask whether in the democracy you live in this is being done.  Clearly, in Europe many countries have been working hard to ensure that all citizens have some basic rights - education, healthcare, employment prospects and in the event of unemployment food and shelter. 

As mentioned above, the European governments have also worked hard to provide labour rights to ensure dignity and equal rights in employment - maternity and paternity leave, entitlement to min 20 days annual leave, a notice period if the employee is to be asked to leave, etc.  The overriding view there being that employers act in their own best interest not necessarily in the society's interest and so governments must act to ensure that some measure of balance is achieved in the employer-employee relationship. 

As I understand it, this is a different approach to that employed in the US.  There the view has been that, there is a significant trickle down effect from those generating wealth to the rest of the economy and that is more important than ensuring labour rights for employees or others in society.  That is a purely capitalist model that replies on the market taking care of everything, including labour rights, and one that espouses small governments.  But I think this explains why the US governments often favour ensuring that large companies and industries/industrialists are always catered for - they bring the opportunities for everyone in the society.

And in the US you also have the issue of professional lobbyists and payments by large companies and wealthy individuals to campaign funds of wannabe politicians. This I believe leads to even more conflict of interest for those in the legislature (congress, senate, etc).

BP - I think there is some confusion there. 

In the UK, a pregnant woman has to have been employed for min 6 months at the time she is 25 weeks pregnant to be able to get maternity leave from an employer.  She must also tell the employer by 25 weeks of pregnancy to qualify for maternity benefits.  The government pays out the basic element of the maternity pay (the minimum wage element) and the employer makes up the rest upto the employer's own policy (this is determined by the employer alone with no prompting by government and many employers pay nothing).  But you are right, the job has to be kept open until the 1 year period is over.

I am struggling to see how a single barmaid's maternity has led to a whole pub being closed.

Hiya muhajir,

Very nice post!  However feel the need to reply to "the US governments often favour ensuring that large companies and industries/industrialists are always catered for - they bring the opportunities for everyone in the society."  

They are catered to because they give millions and millions to politicians so that they can run for office and then offer those same politicians cushy jobs when they aren't re-elected, but can peddle their influence due their past position.  They do not "bring opportunities for everyone in society" - maybe in the past when we had great unionized jobs.  That day is long since past.   If a corporation can make a profit by laying off thousands, they'll do it in a blink of an eye.  Now they don't even employ americans - they go to countries with no unions and no labor standards, (or lesser standards than those found here).

And trickle down - that has been the biggest fraud ever commited against the American people!

"The government does not care about you."

Wow...what a revelation!! *facepalm*

I don't think they EVER cared about us. BUt they DO care about getting our VOTES.

@HadesMoon - I am with you as I don't agree that trickle-down works.  If it did, we would no thave the financial crisis almost engulfing the Western world.  In fact, much of economic theory that promotes the trickle-down theory is being revisited as we speak.  The conclusions so far being that trickle-down doesn't work, continuous consumption cannot be supported and that new ways need to be found that promote growth without prosperity.

I was just observing that this is the prevailing view amongst the US policy makers and people alike.  I understand that those in the US view the European system as being communism (something it is not) and which is unwanted in the US.

One other thing, many of the employment laws in Europe have been hard campaigned and fought for by ordinary people and then been adopted by the governments, not the other way round. 

In an ideal world, it would be government serving the people's interest, but in reality it is people serving the government's interest (ie corporations, wars, bullshit, etc)

"What we are seeing today are the results of the corporate takeover of America and the World.  The ruling elites have worked long and hard to undermine our social and economic equality, with stunning success.  Our government is now effectively an oligarchy, meaning ruling by an elite few, and a plutocracy, meaning rule by the wealthy.  Corporate interest and the ultr-rich call the tune.  Fascism is defined as business and government being in bed together, and that unholy marriage has come to pass in America.  Business is able to dictate to government the removal of restraints or social safeguards.  When business take great risks and win, they use government to allow them to keep all the profits, rather than returning a portion of those profits through taxation for the benefit of society.  When business corporations take great risks and lose, however, they use government to bail them out at our expense.  It's a hell of a game.  Whether mega corporations win or lose, they still win.  And in both cases, the rest of us lose."

Bill Herbst.

Sorry.  It seemed appropriate.  *ducks*

(Lovingly stolen from Natalie Dee, obviously)

@SaDiablo :)))

SaDiablo -- exactly :) 

I am impressed by the level of conversation in this thread. Very happy to see people arguing ideas instead of interpersonally :) 

I think I need to move to Europe...

This is how I run my discussions! 

I'm living in the EU.

We have a huge bureaucracy with a heavy lobbying apparatus attached to it.

There's a tendency to regulate everything and move more and more national decision-making to Brussels and Strasbourg.

Banks are bailed out just the same as in the US when they don't know how to run their business properly. States have large deficits.

I live in Europe too.  I have benefited from taxes paid by others - have been a student, been dependent on the health system due to near-death and then chronic illness, benefited from child-friendly policies, use the roads and rails almost daily, have been violently mugged and the perpetrator was caught (by the police) and brought to justice by the judicial system, etc. I could go on but I won't as I am sure you get the idea.

I now also have a marginal tax on my income of 41% and pay VAT (sales tax for those not in Europe) on most of my purchases and I do not, on principle, go around looking for tax loopholes to reduce my tax burden as I think a lot of it goes to very good use here. 

Doea it bother me that I pay so much tax? Sometimes.  But then I am blessed with perspective and have also lived in countires where no one pays taxes and there is no infrastrucutre/ civil government/ healthcare...  There whether you live or die after a heart attach/ asthma attack/ caraccident depends on whether you can pay for the treatment.  So I have a very good idea of the advantages of paying tax.

muhajir, I hear you. My problem with taxes is that they're compulsory, so why not have opt-in based healthcare insurance, for example?

I'd also agree that *some* of the tax money is put into good use, but I'm very worried about the ridiculous overhead (i.e. tax money put into bureaucracy and other things that are no good), so I'm looking for other solutions. Preferably solutions that don't involve coercion.

Again, why not have small communities based on voluntary membership? Does it have to be millions that are coerced into a certain way of living?

Power cares about power. In practice, that means money. I've already known for years and known by experience, that ordinary people matter on election day only, if ever. If organised crime is the place to go for campaign funding, our illustrious leaders will support crime and find a seemingly logical excuse to do so. People mean nothing. People with loose cash mean everything. If I can say this much as the citizen of a "progressive democracy", how bad can the situation be elsewhere? Bad or extremely bad? I think we all know. Pluto in Capricorn will expose corruption, Saturn in Libra will judge corruption and Uranus in Aries will make heads roll. The same applies to the abuse of power. I'm expecting something in the style of the French revolution. Ghaddafi is already getting a taste of the world turned upside down...

See "General Electric moves its xray business to China" thread

http://boards.elsaelsa.com/topic/general-electric-moves-its-xray-business-to-china