Where do you land?

[rebelcowboysnb]

When governments were first starting it was a group of men that had acquired respect from the people. An they were bough in to help settle arguments. There power was only as strong as the respect they earned. When it went past that it went down hill in my opinion. Power corrupts.

 

[Cowgirl71]

Quote:
How do you know it would be best with little or no government? Have you ever lived that way? I think it would be total chaos with millions of people living however they felt like.

Actually Yes I have...

But to answer your question history has shown that having a powerful government makes a rich government. Having almost no government make happy people.
Every large government in history has oppressed its people. Not as safe but I will take free over safe any day.

X2, except that our government acts rich when they're actually trillions of dollars in debt...

Anyone who wants to harm me will have to get past my double barrel shotgun! I think the sound a shotgun makes when you load it is one of my most favorite sounds. So classicly red-neck!

 

[arabianequine]

Quote:
How do you know it would be best with little or no government? Have you ever lived that way? I think it would be total chaos with millions of people living however they felt like.

Actually Yes I have...

But to answer your question history has shown that having a powerful government makes a rich government. Having almost no government make happy people.
Every large government in history has oppressed its people. Not as safe but I will take free over safe any day.

Where in a 3rd world country or in the toolies some where? Cause we have had some kind of government since 1776

You might think different with todays generations seem to just be getting dumber and dumber, less educated, takes longer for the vass majority to think properly on their own and mature if ever I am starting to wonder etc....you would have teenage kids in your neck of the woods with a glock just shooting at random cause they can. No one working cause they don't have to or no reason too. Everyone would just exist.

 

[Mahonri]

I knew it would be a broad spectrum here, but wow....

 

[Ridgerunner]

I'll bump it again but I think we have a pretty good idea of the proportions in the different groups. I have not gone through the psots to count up how many were in one group when they thought they were in another. I think part of that is that many people who thought they were conservative thought conservative meant personal individual freedom. It doesn't. Conservative means you want the government to impose personal values on everyone. Most want the government to impose their personal values on everyone else, but it doesn't always operate that way. Something about who is in charge gets to choose what personal values are forced on everyone else. To me, a good example of this is during the reformation, if your lord (meaning nobility, that's why it is not capitalized) was a Catholic, you were a Catholic. If your lord was a Protestant, you were a Protestant.

To me, being civilized means giving up some personal freedoms to allow us to live in a society. Which and to what degree we give up those personal freedoms will determine what type of civilization we have. I think it has worked here so far because when it gets too far out of balance one way or the other, we get moved back away from the extremes. I think this poll shows we are pretty well balanced.

I have lived in anarchy, the delta region of Nigeria. All of Africa and all of Nigeria is not in anarchy, but this section was pretty close. I worked for one of those mean, nasty, despicable, greedy, morally corrupt oil companies. There are a lot of villages and people living in the delta region, divided into different tribes and communities within the tribes. There was an Itsekeri village right outside our compound where we we build schools, clinics, provide drinking water and electricity. We did that for a lot of villages in the delta region, but this village was across the river from our compound, in clear site. We could not do all of the villages at the same time. Every three or four years, the Ijaw would burn that village and kill some of the inhabitants, making sure they destroyed any of our improvements. The raid was usually tied to politics. If you scatter a village beore the election, they can't vote. Part of it was tied to jealousy. That village has these improvements and mine doesn't. It wasn't just this village. It happened throughout the delta region. Part of it was that the Ijaw did not like the Itsekeri, though sometimes one Ijaw village would raid another Ijaw village to destroy their improvements. It wasn't just the Ijaw. The Ileji, Nimby and others would do the same. If you want frustration, try to figure out how to run electric cable through the swamp to get electricity from one village to another in a way that somebody cannot come along and steal the cable to sell for scrap. You can't hide it. You are going to leave signs, plus the ones that know how to steal it without being electrocuted are the ones that installed it. I've seen anarchy. I'll pass.

 

[Dunkopf]

That's why we're called the UNITED States of America. I've heard so many people talk about states rights and how each state should function by itself. That kind of takes the UNITED out of our name.

Anarchy is not civilization. All these people that say they would like Anarchy. I wonder how long they would last in an Anarchy.

 

[litterbitt]

Centrist with Liberal leanings (regarding personal issues)...
Not surprising...
I'm glad the population is diverse here.

Liz

 

[michickenwrangler]

Quote:
Exactly.

I like roads and parks and libraries and bridges and police officers and teachers and traffic lights and stop signs

 

[FarmerJamie]

Quote:
Exactly.

I like roads and parks and libraries and bridges and police officers and teachers and traffic lights and stop signs

I remember this topic when I was taking an American Civil War course in college. Politically, it boiled down to the "The United States are, versus the United States is. Up until the Civil War, this country was extensively and strongly regionalized. States functioned in their own self interests and worked together as needed to further that goal. The development of industry and railroads across the New England States and Midwest based on regional/local need, not for the "good of the country". The States ARE united, the discussion is to what degree is needed/wanted.

The premise of stronger states rights is if you want all those good things, but you live in a State that doesn't value them, the federal govt shouldn't come in any force the implemenentation of them. I think good examples of this is alot of the food production regulations. Strict food regulations to protect large city dwellers shouldn't be enforced on my little corner of the rural world, just because someone in power "thinks it is a good thing". The whole raw milk discussion is a great example, ditto for backyard egg/chicken production.

 

[rainplace]

Regarding anarchy: Just because there wouldn't be a government doesn't mean someone or someones wouldn't be in control. People always rise to the top. I'd rather that person be an elected official.

Regarding the poll. I didn't find that it adequately portrayed me. It put me pretty far to the left and though I have many liberal tendencies, I also have many conservative and libertarian views. Voting-wise I tend to vote democrat unless a republican candidate has proven they are not interested in pushing or upholding religious morality, then I'll vote republican. I believe in more state rights, gun ownership, fiscal responsibility, but also believe in society taking care of those less fortunate than myself. I don't know what I am politically to tell you the truth.