Why does America fear/distrust it's 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.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Americans ***** that they don't want the government running things, but the fact is that the government is the sole organization in their entire fucking country with an interest in actually helping them, as opposed to screwing them for all that they're worth.

I mean, if you don't want healthcare in the hands of the government, then no one at all is going to take it up. Look, fuck the people who are too short-sighted to see this. I love America, but it can really drive me up the wall sometimes.

Not everything the government does is done to hurt you. No, the government does not exist specifically to screw you. In fact, it's about the only thing out there trying to help you.

Suggesting A, that the government is trying to help people, and that B, no one else is.

Sure, there are certainly some good people in Washington committed to helping people, but a vast majority of them are career politicians through and through who care only about lining their pockets and getting reelected. You wonder why we don't trust these people?

There are, however a large number of charity organizations in this country who do good work at no charge.

Frankly what we need is not a government run healthcare system, but stricter laws ensuring insurance companies can't try to weasel out of legitimate claims (otherwise we end up with an Allison Theus situation). Medical operations often don't cost people a dime here when the people we're paying to help us are legitimate, it's just that too few of them are legitimate.

Okay, I'm riled up now, so one more thing. What the FUCK is with your tax rate? You guys wonder why your economy is fucked? The highest tax bracket kicks in at over a third of a million dollars, and it's only thirty five fucking per cent! You wonder why your economy is fucked? It's because you're fucking it! The media feeds your population a load of horseshit, and they swallow it whole

Our economy is fucked because our current politicians can't stop spending money they don't have, not because we don't tax people enough. To the contrary, I agree with what Churchill said: "I submit that a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man trying to stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle." Bear in mind - things you pay taxes for, such as college, medical care, etc., our government doesn't pay for that. Instead, we pay for those things to private institutions that don't fall under government control.

That's because conservative groups in the US have spent decades convincing the population that government is always incompetent.

Well, if the current political climate has shown us anything, it's that they're really not wrong in that regard...

Hah, it could be worse. I mean, just look at the previous eight years of government - now that's real government incompetence!

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...

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

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.

 

[Bleedingskye]

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?

You're also forgetting all the ridiculous amendments that have been added over the years, bizarre interpretations of the law, and lobbyist convincing gov officials to put commerce before politics.
I don't trust the US gov because they don't trust us and think of the rest of the population as pieces of the system in order to be manipulated.
It's all about capitalism, there are no illusions of that, and we, as Americans, are considered consumers not people.

Plus it seems that the government pushes the envelope just to the point of mass riots, then backs off a bit until people stop complaining, then push a little further. Also, Americans always think that someone else will take care of their problems so the gov gets away with a lot because of apathetic ignorant people.

 

[DarkRyter]

Because Government is lame.

Duh.

 

[ntw3001]

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.

We value our personal freedom above all else. It's the reason we don't have laws preventing the sale of M-rated games or R-rated films to minors. It's the reason we're allowed to purchase firearms for personal use. It's the reason we're free to choose what healthcare system works for us, rather than being automatically shoehorned into a government option (as I said in the other topic, I don't mind a government healthcare system so long as it isn't mandatory). It's not that we fear our government, it's that we don't want other people telling us how to live our lives.

I don't think I'd agree with that particularly. These are just examples of laws that are different. Sure, there are plenty of laws which are more permissive than in the rest of the world, but also plenty that aren't. For example, ages of consent and the death penalty. Admittedly either one depends on the state in question, but both show the flip side of the coin as regards comparative levels of freedom. As nonsensical as it is to suppose some general, universal measure of 'freedom', I don't think the USA is any more 'free' than any (for example) Western European country.

As for government healthcare being mandatory, does any country exist where private healthcare is illegal?

 

[neonsword13-ops]

We hit the debt ceiling. I think that says enough.

 

[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.