Why does America fear/distrust it's government?

[Valkyrie101]

Haha, no disagreements on that. Although personally I have to say Bush did a better job than Obama has done so far (he did manage to prevent any post-9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil and brought gas prices down to a reasonable level and kept them there till the end of his term), but that's just one guy's opinion...

To be fair, so has Obama - successful attacks anyway, there were a couple that would have gone ahead if the terrorists themselves were halfway competent, which they aren't. On the other hand, that's mainly because he's following Bush policies on national security with very little change.

 

[Kathinka]

For me, it's because the government isn't really ours. There's so many different special interests and corporate shills, I honestly don't see how anyone represents me.

spartan231490:
Listen, if you're really trying to understand American culture, there is one very important fact that you need to understand first. It is the basis of most of the differences between America and other countries. We value freedom, over safety. "Those who sacrifice freedom for a little temporary security, deserve neither." This is one of the core beliefs of our culture. That is why we have loose gun control, and that is why we dislike socialism, or any form of government regulation really.

There are other differences of course, but that is the core difference, as far as I can tell.

Then how do you explain the Patriot Act? We are just as prone to panicking and giving away our rights until we feel safe. Every time the U.S. is attacked or under the threat of attack we revert to fascistic systems, usually with discrimination.

The patriot act had a lot of opposition. Our government has become somewhat abusive lately, the Patriot act being a great example of this. There were no people asking for the Patriot act, that came straight from the government. And just because we may be forced to accept some restrictions to our freedoms during a panic time, doesn't change the fact that we still value freedom more than security and that we will not accept something permanent that restricts our rights, if we have any choice.

they keep saying that, and yet american citizens are under a lot harsher control and restrictions than those of almost all other western nations. i think it's just something that they like to keep telling themselves. and yes, i have lived in the u.s., as well as several other first world contries.

How are we under stricter control and restrictions?

Try going into an airport. You'll figure it out quickly enough.

xD

something in that direction.

but i was actually refering to other stuff.
it starts with basic political decisions. you have two parties that are essentially identical. that puts your political "freedom" somewhere in the vicinity of east germany in the fifties. basic human rights are intruded by the governement on a daily basis. gun control, the example you brought, is more liberal in some european nations too. as i understand it a lot of states don't permit firearms.
the entire ruleset of society is dictated by wealthy white christians. anti islamic sentiments are the social norm, kind of like antisemitism was in the twenties and thirties. the restrictions start with simple and little things, like in school. this whole detention-suspension-expellation-system is pretty unique to the states, in no other country i've been to school was there ever more needed than a "don't do it" by the teacher.
there is so many tiny nuances that form the complete picture, i can't count all of them down here obviously. had you ever lived outside the u.s. for an extended period of time (maybe you'll get the opportunity one day), you'd soon see that it's actually as restrictive and authoritarian as it gets without turning into a full blown dictatorship (though i would under no circumstances consider the u.s. a democracy. the days when the people actually had influence of the nations course are long over.)

Also, keep in mind that, historically, the United States has been a very undemocratic and unjust place to live in, so, even though it claims to be built on principles of freedom, justice, and the power of the people, everything the U.S. does rings of hypocrisy -- the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, the Cold War containment policy, which put countless corrupt dictators in power in the name of halting the spread of communism.

So, yeah, I definitely agree with you there.

i partially agree, though i think that there was a time, back when the u.s. were founded, when it was pretty much ahead of most of the world. it was a crude and crappy form of democracy while everyplace else was still ruled by clerics and monarchs.
the problem is that they kept their crappy and crude form of democracy in place over the few centuries of their short history, while the governement systems of the rest of the world kept evolving.
but i'd still say that back then, when the founding fathers created the u.s. they were on to something. not their fault that the whole thing mutated into a warmongering, contentration camp toating abomination.

On this, I must disagree. I can relate the government of the early U.S. to the manner in which many people describe communism today: perfect in concept, flawed in practice. The central flaw with democracy is the 51% of the people can rule over the other 49%, which is pretty much what happened with African-Americans for about an entire century after they were freed.

More importantly, it (like communism) assumes that people are inherently good, and will do the right thing and vote in favor of justice and righteousness, which we all know hasn't really been the case.

Frankly, the principles and practices of democracy haven't really changed much. It's still a very elitist system which claims that "anybody" can be put into office, but, let's be honest -- everybody who's ever been President was a filthy-rich person who was educated in those elitist schools that historically only accept other rich people.

it is not perfect, and all the flaws you mention are real. but of all the flawed systems we have, democracy probaly sucks the least.
still, government even in its best form remains a necessary evil, as thomas paine said.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

The government has power in a very Captailistic society, I don't see a reason not to fear it.

I really don't agree. The sole purpose of government is to prevent purely-Capitalist enterprises interfering with the welfare of the people as a whole. The duty of a government is to hold power over business and disincentivise unethical practice on behalf of its citizens. Laws are set by whoever holds the power to enforce them, and an elected government is essentially a way of putting that power in the hands of a group whose eventual goal is not solely to acquire power and profit (although obviously both things are desired as a means to an end), but to enrich and empower the citizenry as a whole. Stronger businesses mean weaker government, not the other way round.

That's not really the sole purpose of the government. Frankly, the purpose of the government is up to interpretation. Some would say that it is there to win us wars and give us some national pride. Others would say that it's just a bunch of rich white people lining their pockets. Many say that it's just a corrupt piece of shit trying to oppress the people.

You can't say, with 100% confidence, that "this is the purpose of government, period," because, frankly, it doesn't really have a purpose other than being the official posterboy of a nation and being the ruling force behind that nation.

 

[Treblaine]

Why is it "Why are Americans so afraid of their government?" rather than "Why are Europeans not afraid of their government?"

I can think of a few examples in recent history of European governments that really shouldn't have been trusted. And so too with America, no government can be trusted due to the corrupting influence of power, and power is very much a relative thing.

A lot of it is cultural. America is made up mainly of people who left the old world who don't want to be dependant or constrained by government. The UK is much more expecting of the government to be a caring and constraining yet equal parental type, a "big brother" if you will.

Why do you think George Orwell used that analogy for extremist government in Britain, we expect the government to be a power that is equal semantically (siblings) yet superior (older sibling) and masculine in authority (brother rather than sister).

 

[spartan231490]

snip

For me, it's because the government isn't really ours. There's so many different special interests and corporate shills, I honestly don't see how anyone represents me.

spartan231490:
Listen, if you're really trying to understand American culture, there is one very important fact that you need to understand first. It is the basis of most of the differences between America and other countries. We value freedom, over safety. "Those who sacrifice freedom for a little temporary security, deserve neither." This is one of the core beliefs of our culture. That is why we have loose gun control, and that is why we dislike socialism, or any form of government regulation really.

There are other differences of course, but that is the core difference, as far as I can tell.

Then how do you explain the Patriot Act? We are just as prone to panicking and giving away our rights until we feel safe. Every time the U.S. is attacked or under the threat of attack we revert to fascistic systems, usually with discrimination.

The patriot act had a lot of opposition. Our government has become somewhat abusive lately, the Patriot act being a great example of this. There were no people asking for the Patriot act, that came straight from the government. And just because we may be forced to accept some restrictions to our freedoms during a panic time, doesn't change the fact that we still value freedom more than security and that we will not accept something permanent that restricts our rights, if we have any choice.

they keep saying that, and yet american citizens are under a lot harsher control and restrictions than those of almost all other western nations. i think it's just something that they like to keep telling themselves. and yes, i have lived in the u.s., as well as several other first world contries.

How are we under stricter control and restrictions?

Try going into an airport. You'll figure it out quickly enough.

xD

something in that direction.

but i was actually refering to other stuff.
it starts with basic political decisions. you have two parties that are essentially identical. that puts your political "freedom" somewhere in the vicinity of east germany in the fifties. basic human rights are intruded by the governement on a daily basis. gun control, the example you brought, is more liberal in some european nations too. as i understand it a lot of states don't permit firearms.
the entire ruleset of society is dictated by wealthy white christians. anti islamic sentiments are the social norm, kind of like antisemitism was in the twenties and thirties. the restrictions start with simple and little things, like in school. this whole detention-suspension-expellation-system is pretty unique to the states, in no other country i've been to school was there ever more needed than a "don't do it" by the teacher.
there is so many tiny nuances that form the complete picture, i can't count all of them down here obviously. had you ever lived outside the u.s. for an extended period of time (maybe you'll get the opportunity one day), you'd soon see that it's actually as restrictive and authoritarian as it gets without turning into a full blown dictatorship (though i would under no circumstances consider the u.s. a democracy. the days when the people actually had influence of the nations course are long over.)

There are no states that don't permit firearms. There are 2 or 3 that don't permit handguns, but that's the closest you get. Some cities have stricter gun control than their states, NYC is probably one of the strictest, if not the strictest, place in the union for gun control, and you can still own rifles and shotguns. I generally agree with you about the political parties except for one thing. We have hundreds of political parties. The "2 party" system is basically an illusion of powerlessness brought about by the "No one else will vote for them" mentality, but they are there. and at several points in US history the dominant political parties have changed, there is no reason to believe that this couldn't happen again.

Wealthy white Christians don't hold all the power. The certainly hold a good deal of it, but the wealthy have more control over politics in every country.

I have a hard time believing that middle-schoolers can be controlled by a simple "don't do that" regardless of the culture, but I have no experience of this anywhere else.

No, I've never lived outside the US, but I know several people who have, and none of them agree with you. In fact, they say the opposite. It's one of the reasons a family friend of ours wants to move back to Europe, he believes our system isn't restrictive enough.

The democracy in the US isn't over. Dramatically weakened, yes, but far from over. The problem isn't that we don't have any control, it's that ignorance and apathy are preventing us from using it. That is a problem with the people, not the government.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

For me, it's because the government isn't really ours. There's so many different special interests and corporate shills, I honestly don't see how anyone represents me.

spartan231490:
Listen, if you're really trying to understand American culture, there is one very important fact that you need to understand first. It is the basis of most of the differences between America and other countries. We value freedom, over safety. "Those who sacrifice freedom for a little temporary security, deserve neither." This is one of the core beliefs of our culture. That is why we have loose gun control, and that is why we dislike socialism, or any form of government regulation really.

There are other differences of course, but that is the core difference, as far as I can tell.

Then how do you explain the Patriot Act? We are just as prone to panicking and giving away our rights until we feel safe. Every time the U.S. is attacked or under the threat of attack we revert to fascistic systems, usually with discrimination.

The patriot act had a lot of opposition. Our government has become somewhat abusive lately, the Patriot act being a great example of this. There were no people asking for the Patriot act, that came straight from the government. And just because we may be forced to accept some restrictions to our freedoms during a panic time, doesn't change the fact that we still value freedom more than security and that we will not accept something permanent that restricts our rights, if we have any choice.

they keep saying that, and yet american citizens are under a lot harsher control and restrictions than those of almost all other western nations. i think it's just something that they like to keep telling themselves. and yes, i have lived in the u.s., as well as several other first world contries.

How are we under stricter control and restrictions?

Try going into an airport. You'll figure it out quickly enough.

xD

something in that direction.

but i was actually refering to other stuff.
it starts with basic political decisions. you have two parties that are essentially identical. that puts your political "freedom" somewhere in the vicinity of east germany in the fifties. basic human rights are intruded by the governement on a daily basis. gun control, the example you brought, is more liberal in some european nations too. as i understand it a lot of states don't permit firearms.
the entire ruleset of society is dictated by wealthy white christians. anti islamic sentiments are the social norm, kind of like antisemitism was in the twenties and thirties. the restrictions start with simple and little things, like in school. this whole detention-suspension-expellation-system is pretty unique to the states, in no other country i've been to school was there ever more needed than a "don't do it" by the teacher.
there is so many tiny nuances that form the complete picture, i can't count all of them down here obviously. had you ever lived outside the u.s. for an extended period of time (maybe you'll get the opportunity one day), you'd soon see that it's actually as restrictive and authoritarian as it gets without turning into a full blown dictatorship (though i would under no circumstances consider the u.s. a democracy. the days when the people actually had influence of the nations course are long over.)

Also, keep in mind that, historically, the United States has been a very undemocratic and unjust place to live in, so, even though it claims to be built on principles of freedom, justice, and the power of the people, everything the U.S. does rings of hypocrisy -- the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, the Cold War containment policy, which put countless corrupt dictators in power in the name of halting the spread of communism.

So, yeah, I definitely agree with you there.

i partially agree, though i think that there was a time, back when the u.s. were founded, when it was pretty much ahead of most of the world. it was a crude and crappy form of democracy while everyplace else was still ruled by clerics and monarchs.
the problem is that they kept their crappy and crude form of democracy in place over the few centuries of their short history, while the governement systems of the rest of the world kept evolving.
but i'd still say that back then, when the founding fathers created the u.s. they were on to something. not their fault that the whole thing mutated into a warmongering, contentration camp toating abomination.

On this, I must disagree. I can relate the government of the early U.S. to the manner in which many people describe communism today: perfect in concept, flawed in practice. The central flaw with democracy is the 51% of the people can rule over the other 49%, which is pretty much what happened with African-Americans for about an entire century after they were freed.

More importantly, it (like communism) assumes that people are inherently good, and will do the right thing and vote in favor of justice and righteousness, which we all know hasn't really been the case.

Frankly, the principles and practices of democracy haven't really changed much. It's still a very elitist system which claims that "anybody" can be put into office, but, let's be honest -- everybody who's ever been President was a filthy-rich person who was educated in those elitist schools that historically only accept other rich people.

it is not perfect, and all the flaws you mention are real. but of all the flawed systems we have, democracy probaly sucks the least.
still, government even in its best form remains a necessary evil, as thomas paine said.

Again, I respectfully disagree, but I must leave. We must continue this highly stimulating conversation some other time.

 

[PatSilverFox]

We are encouraged to.
That is how a good system works.

 

[jedisensei]

"Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others."
~Edward Abbey

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
~Groucho Marx

"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them."
~P.J. O'Rourke

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
~Cornelius Tacitus

"That government is best which governs least."
~Henry David Thoreau

"What luck for rulers that men do not think."
~Adolph Hitler


...and so on...

 

[Kleingeier]

Every government hits the debt ceiling, and fairly often.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

Two Words: George Bush. We go from a "sex-crazed" President who everyone admitted actually did things semi-competently to a guy who can't even speak his own native tongue semi-competently. Kind of like the movie industry, those of us on the outside looking in have been turning our noses up at what's been produced over the last decade or so, while simultaneously accepting that "less shitty" is acceptable over "massive improvement."

Also, I'm reminded of a certain comedy bit by Robin Williams in Man of the Year. In it, he reminds us just how much it costs to run an election campaign (somewhere in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars) and how next to no one just has that kind of money lying around. So, most electoral candidates have to get sponsored by various companies, and if they get elected, it basically means these companies now have favors they can cash in. This is where a lot of paranoia comes in, because no president in recent years has gotten in on their own merit, but rather through making deals with all the various big businesses and companies across the country.

Now, am I saying that only people who can pay their own way through the electoral process should be allowed to be president? Dear god no! But my point still stands. With the way things work right now, it's nigh impossible to elect a president that doesn't come with some withstanding corruption, and we Americans are naturally skeptic to see where said corruption may go.

 

[Kleingeier]

Because people can't think for themselves, and so they blame the government for the government's power. People are villagers.

 

[JWAN]

where did this happen?

Alison from extra credits was refused surgery by her insurance company so the escapist fans donated money so she could get it done. If she hadn't gotten the surgery done she would have been disabled in one arm and probably in the other aswell eventually. Just watch their latest episode it explains it there.

It was a pre-existing condition and under the new healthcare bill (which was passed) she should have been covered. Meaning, The new bill that was supposed to fix everything doesnt.

 

[theultimateend]

I was flicking through the American health service thread, and noticed that the main argument that the main argument against free healthcare was that they didn't want the government controlling it.
Most American's I've talked to also seem to distrust their government, a lot more than Europe does. Your constitution also seems to have been designed from the ground up to prevent the government from having anything more than a fringe affect on anything.

So, why does America distrust it's government so much more than Europe?

And, for comparison, I live it the UK, and we generally get on ok.

Nixon and Watergate started the Mistrust of the government in large scale.

Fox and similar for profit news stations did the rest of the work.

where did this happen?

Alison from extra credits was refused surgery by her insurance company so the escapist fans donated money so she could get it done. If she hadn't gotten the surgery done she would have been disabled in one arm and probably in the other aswell eventually. Just watch their latest episode it explains it there.

It was a pre-existing condition and under the new healthcare bill (which was passed) she should have been covered. Meaning, The new bill that was supposed to fix everything doesnt.

It hasn't fully gone into affect yet.

Not that we should let little things like reality get in the way of it.

Plenty of reasons to complain about the new healthcare bill, your point is one of the maybe 3 that isn't legitimate.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I was flicking through the American health service thread, and noticed that the main argument that the main argument against free healthcare was that they didn't want the government controlling it.
Most American's I've talked to also seem to distrust their government, a lot more than Europe does. Your constitution also seems to have been designed from the ground up to prevent the government from having anything more than a fringe affect on anything.

So, why does America distrust it's government so much more than Europe?

And, for comparison, I live it the UK, and we generally get on ok.

Here's a direct answer: This country was founded by people who'd literally fought against a tyrannical governing system and did not want to institute another government where the voice of the People were cast aside by the ruling elite in favor of "we know better than you". Its in America's blood to distrust those in power, because they're in power and can't be trusted. Our Founders recognized the fallibility of humanity, that we're all imperfect beings and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore our Constitution was designed not to give power to the Government, but give power to the People.

Communism, as designed by Karl Marx and NOT Stalin or Lenin is designed to do much the same thing. Yet America hates Communists more than quite possibly anything else that has, does, will and can exist ever.

Difference being, Communism (supposedly) rewards everyone equally no matter if they make an A effort or a D- effort. It also fantasizes about human beings being inherently good and can be expected to treat each other equally and fairly. Equality isn't everyone gets the same things, its the idea that we're equally free to choose our paths in life, not have them chosen for us. In theory it sounds good but proven in practice, communism is oppressive and self-defeating. IF its such a great idea, how is it that every country its been practiced in is also high on human rights violations?

'In theory it sounds good but proven in practice, communism is oppressive and self-defeating. IF its such a great idea, how is it that every country its been practiced in is also high on human rights violations?'

Here's the thing. A Communist Dictatorship is an oxymoron. If a 'Communist' nation is oppressive, then it isn't Communist. That's just not how Communism works. A Communist Government has very little power.

Besides, the Democratic Republic model (What the US has) hasn't been working either, and it honestly doesn't even sound great in theory. It's the majority telling the minority how to live in theory, but in practice...

Well, what was Obama's public approval rating at last count? 11%? Well, he's who you voted in. Or if you DIDN'T vote for him...well, he got elected anyway, didn't he? That would be the failing of a DR.

A communist dictatorship isn't an oxymoron. Communism is an economic system where everyone gets paid the same, and a political system where everyone is treated the same. If everyone is equally oppressed, then it's still communism.

The Democratic Republic model works the best of any that I've looked at, and it has the best theory. Do you want to know why our opinions on that subject differ even with identical information. Because we have different values. I believe that freedom is quite literally, the absolute highest good possible. I would rather be dead, than a slave. The democratic republic model is the best with this value system because it allows the common people the opportunity to watch and limit their government. This is necessary because a government is made up of "people, usually notably, ungoverned." When given power, most humans will abuse it, that's just the way it works, so there must be a system to watch them. Unfortunately, Americans have recently declined to take advantage of this opportunity, but the opportunity remains available. Yes, there are many many flaws in the execution of this system, and a few flaws in the system itself, but this is true of any system, IMO others far more than our own.

If communism is such a great system, move to China. I'll take my US system. I'll try to improve it in any way I can, because it does have problems, but at the end of the day, it's still the best system that I've heard of.

...What? No. It's not an economic system. The idea behind Communism is a classless society. In a Communist State, you wouldn't have to 'watch over those in power' because nobody can be in power. Communism is basically pure democracy, as opposed to a Democratic Republic.

There could be no slaves in a Communist State, because the position of a slave only exists in a society with a chaste system which ranks people based on occupation, nationality, and lineage. To be a slave means you're of the lowest class, of which there are none in Communism.

Also, just for the record, China isn't Communist. They do have a Communist party, but China is a Republic. The US is also a Republic. Neither are Communist.

Protip: Your vote actually doesn't count. It's a guideline for the electoral college, but if they feel like ignoring the popular vote, they can. John Q. Adams became President with only 30.9% of the popular vote.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_president_only_won_thirty-two_percent_of_the_popular_vote#ixzz1R4EFmto2


Your vote technically counts if you consider that you vote in the members of the electoral college, but if they don't vote the way you wanted, then it's kind of moot.

 

[Kleingeier]

where did this happen?

Alison from extra credits was refused surgery by her insurance company so the escapist fans donated money so she could get it done. If she hadn't gotten the surgery done she would have been disabled in one arm and probably in the other aswell eventually. Just watch their latest episode it explains it there.

It was a pre-existing condition and under the new healthcare bill (which was passed) she should have been covered. Meaning, The new bill that was supposed to fix everything doesnt.

It hasn't been fully put in place yet. And it wasn't supposed to fix everything. It was supposed to give everyone safety coverage until it could be fixed properly.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

A communist dictatorship isn't an oxymoron. Communism is an economic system where everyone gets paid the same, and a political system where everyone is treated the same. If everyone is equally oppressed, then it's still communism.

The people doing the oppressing are not being oppressed. Its not equal. It isnt communism. America hates it for no rational reason. Its scary and a little depressing. The world will NEVER get to see if it actually works. Real communism. Cus you bet the second someone tries America will be there to burn the seeds of the country and salt the land, then purge it with hellfire. Then Sink the island. The unending fury toward communism surpasses the energy of ten thousand stars exploding into supernovas. Its weird.

America seems to be founded on the one obvious untruth that the harder you work the more you are payed. I wish lol. Who actually believes that? Is anyone that stupid? I dont understand why that even seems to be true...

 

[PipPup]

You also have to understand that during the designing process of the national and state government powers the system was designed to keep the uneducated masses from ruining the country by giving them little power in many aspects of the government. Over many years of evolution in the public education system civilians have become more intelligent while their power remains the same. This has caused a dissatisfaction in the people with remainders of the American Revolution and the Water Gate scandal looming over them. That is a big part of the distrust.

 

[Enamour]

Americans have become consumers. The largest industries in the world; oil, technology, health care. How's the US government's control over oil helped ANYONE? It hasn't. Health care? Hmm.

Let's look at the US government's track record in world conflicts as ONE example eh.

Angola - South Africa fought Cuba and Russia for America but America kept interfering when South Africa tried defending Botswana... doesn't really help I explain this shit if you don't know the history. Point is; not much love for Americans after that war.

Vietnam - Mass murder in an unjust war?

WW2 - American companies supplied the Nazi's. Bush' grandfather sold them the oil that kept the Luftwaffe in the air: American politicians made ALOT of money, Nazi's were transported in Ford trucks etc. The war was half won when the supplies stopped and the Americans sent troops to "save the world".

Afghanistan (back then) - didn't want to piss of the Russians, gave Afghanis weapons without proper targeting systems.
Afghanistan (today) - America finished what the Russians started. Freed the fuck out of them.

Iraq - Why has everyone forgotten that the UN declared the Iraq War illegal back in 2003? Let's not forget everything else that's gone wrong there. Anyone seen the refusal to go into Libya and the reasons why? Fucking ridiculous.

France - Just an interesting sidenote on why Americans love bashing the French; America tried paying debts to France with "printed money", meaning a devaluation in the currency. Charles de Gaulle said "No, you pay in gold." and thus America refused to pay and France got a healthy dose of American propoganda.

South America - Mostly hates the north. Why?


The vast majority of you won't have read this post, the vast majority of those who've read this far won't agree with me AT ALL; that's fine because most of it is historical record. Here's my point. A politician's job is to do "stuff", he can't do stuff if he doesn't have a post ie. point number one on any politician's agenda is "Get elected at all costs." What did politicians study? Politics. I might be wrong but I don't exactly think that politics is geared towards solving problems, how can it? The fuck do politicians know about solving problems? FUCKOLL, NOTHING, NILL.

Now back to the OT. Imagine a country more powerful and rich than any other in the world. Now imagine that it's run by a bunch of buttfuckers who studied politics. Now imagine that they've screwed over the majority of the world in one form or another in the last 50 years.

Liberal, Republican... they're different sides to the coin. I mean NO ONE trusts the US government, NO ONE. Not the world, not US citizens, no one. It's an irresponsible government unlike most European governments. Reagan was technically guilty of high-treason. Contras, anyone?

Anyway, it's ranting when you can't justify each statement, you would need to write a book on it. Anyone read Naom Chomsky? I'm wondering if it's worth it.

 

[Kathinka]

snip

that other parties exist does not chance the current situation that there are only two virtually identical parties in power and that this will not change in the forseeable future. east germany did have a wide spectrum of parties too, but there was such a strong social pressure to vote for either the communist party or the party of socialist unity. sure, you could vote for anything else, but it would do exactly nothing. like in the usa. i wouldn't consider east germany a democratic nation, so i don't think the u.s. are, either.

as for the school thing: from first to 12th grade i have had not one classmate have detention (there isn't even such a thing in the schools i went to) or being expelled. in twelve years a stern talk or a conversation with the parents of the kid were always enough.

i find it hard to believe that anyone would want to live in a restrictive system, so i have a hard time believing your story. just out of interest, in what countries did you say the people you know lived? i can't think of a single nation in the european union with so little personal freedom like in the usa.

i partially agree with the last paragraph. the people are the core of the problem, yes. but the government of course profits from that and will do everything to keep things that way. they have no interest in a true democracy and freedom, they want obedient subjects, not a citizen body they have to be afraid of that will hold them responsible for their fuckups.

 

[Kleingeier]

Nixon and Watergate started the Mistrust of the government in large scale.

Fox and similar for profit news stations did the rest of the work.

Fun fact: The basis for Fox News was drafted within the Nixon Administration. More connected than you think!