Which should support the other more, government or people?

[farzad didehvar]

Probably, Collapsing soviet union shows the more right structure of any government is the in side of the designing that answer the above question, by replying back:"People".

Seemingly any designing is a balance among, the worldwide situation, the local situation and cultural points of that society and to consider that

"in order a government be able to support his people, that is people in first step which should support the government".

It is why we need Ngo s and universities.

This institutions could be destructive in the same time, specially in societies that are in progress.So, it is why they need to be conservative . Usually a mixture of university people and non political NGOS, as some experiences shows could be so much helpful.

Any other point? Any other plan?

Edited March 1, 2014 by farzad didehvar

[John Cuthber]

At least one purpose of a government is to help the people support other people.

 

So it doesn't make sense to me to ask which should do more.

If, for example, the government pays money to stop people who cant't find jobs starving, they are doing that with money given to them by the people to do that sort of thing.

 

The government can't support the people unless the people support the government.

[Phi for All]

I think when you start asking this question in a democracy, you've made the mistake of assuming they're separate entities. Government should be an extension of the will of the people who put it in place.

[imatfaal]

I think when you start asking this question in a democracy, you've made the mistake of assuming they're separate entities. Government should be an extension of the will of the people who put it in place.

 

I think the "should" in your comment needs to be emphasised and I would argue it a target that we failed to reach - in the last 10-15 years we have seen a gradual separation of electors and elected. It is difficult to argue against the idea that most mature western democracies have a new political elite made up of parliamentarians, media-sorts, ngo-ers, and think-tank commanders; and that this bi-partisan apparatus runs a fairly closed shop which is pretty much disconnected from joe-wage-earning-public.

[Phi for All]

 

I think the "should" in your comment needs to be emphasised and I would argue it a target that we failed to reach - in the last 10-15 years we have seen a gradual separation of electors and elected. It is difficult to argue against the idea that most mature western democracies have a new political elite made up of parliamentarians, media-sorts, ngo-ers, and think-tank commanders; and that this bi-partisan apparatus runs a fairly closed shop which is pretty much disconnected from joe-wage-earning-public.

 

I agree. In the US, we're being actively conditioned (imo) to see the gov as this big immovable entity that wants to do horrible things to us if we step out of line. It makes us not question things. We accept that national healthcare is too expensive, for instance, despite the fact that we could buy any of the already successful systems for less than what we pay now. The psychology that goes into politics these days, backed up by constant media massaging, has left us with a disconnected view of our government. We've forgotten that we're People, so we're just people.

[imatfaal]

A friend said to me regarding the Ukraine situation that protesters had been arrested in Red Square - as if this was a sign of a repressive regime that could never be trusted and so so far from our own situation. Unfortunately I see people being arrested and moved on from Parliament Square in London on a regular basis; it was made a crime a few years ago to hold any form of public political protest within 1km of parliament without prior police approval. The standard response to any form of protest in the UK is to treat the participants as potential terrorists, bottle them up, and stifle spontaneous action. I lived in London whilst the IRA were actively targeting and killing mainland targets and the level of security then was nothing like it is now.

 

So I agree with your comments almost completely - but would add that this disconnect is the result of a deliberate and cynical campaign to teach the proles their place. All hail the new Patricians.

[Phi for All]

It should be alarming to any citizen how quickly one can go from being a "peaceful protester" or "freedom fighter" to "radical insurgent" or "terrorist suspect".

 

The US political situation is such a quagmire. The financial elite are the only ones who can afford to "represent" us, yet they hardly represent the common man they work so hard to pretend to emulate. They don't want their taxes going to pay for public works they'll never use. They want the public to buy them airports the public will rarely use, and legislate away their tax liability so the wealthy pay for even less. The whole time, the wealthy are claiming they're the ones who create the jobs, so we should all be happy to bend over for them.

 

Perhaps the problem is that the job description for politics attracts mostly people we should be terrified of. So many are fringe fanatics that feel their small segment isn't adequately represented, so they Tea Party things up and claim to be bringing their voice to the table. Our media loves those types and often goes out of its way to make their stances on a par with the mainstream.

[imatfaal]

It should be alarming to any citizen how quickly one can go from being a "peaceful protester" or "freedom fighter" to "radical insurgent" or "terrorist suspect".

 

Or all at the same time depending on the political slant of the reporting.

 

The US political situation is such a quagmire. The financial elite are the only ones who can afford to "represent" us, yet they hardly represent the common man they work so hard to pretend to emulate. They don't want their taxes going to pay for public works they'll never use. They want the public to buy them airports the public will rarely use, and legislate away their tax liability so the wealthy pay for even less. The whole time, the wealthy are claiming they're the ones who create the jobs, so we should all be happy to bend over for them.

 

 

The disparity between the waged workers and the profit-taking elite has never been so stark - and thus never so divisive. We read stories of the excesses of Gatsby in roaring Twenties, the Nouveau Riche of the industrial revolution, the palatial courts of old Europe, and the Shipping, Oil, and Railroad Kings of Ayn Rand's dreams etc. and none of those even come close to the chasm of wealth that now exists around the world. British Prime Ministers used to retire to write obscure monographs, become the Master of an Oxford College, or sleep on the benches of the House of Lords (once described to me by a member as "the best club in london -shame about the politics") - now they take on numerous non-exec directorships for companies they just stopped regulating, give motivational speeches with remuneration of about an average national yearly salary for 30 minutes waffle, and join an international group of "wise men" flown around the world to ease troubles (and we see the benefits of that easily in the middle east, the levant, central africa...)

 

I am quite the opposite of politically cynical - by which I mean I want to be engaged, to understand, to form a considered opinion, and that I still think it is important to do such things and make it known what the outcome is - but I find myself regularly in the same boat as the "no one cares what I think might as well not bother" cynics. And this is because of the absence of real information rather than propaganda - Syria and now Ukraine have both set off my soylent green detector. We are being fed stuff that we wouldn't want to know the origins of, that is keeping us docile, and which is deliberately deceptive.