What's wrong with our country, and how're you gonna fix it?
POSTED BY: Cuda
UPDATED: Thursday, December 11, 2025 19:41
VIEWED: 28394
PAGE 8 of 12
I don't think the problem is that "other people are stupid." We're all other people. The problem is that people tend to be self-centered. We have different interests, and rather than pushing for what is good for the country as a whole, we push for what's good for ourselves right now. The problem with human nature has nothing to do with intelligence; it has to do with greed and corruption. That isn't to say that ignorance isn't a problem, but I think the larger problem is not that we don't know, it's that we don't care. That is why we have checks and balances. It isn't to prevent ignorant or stupid decisions; it is to prevent selfish and corrupt ones.
Book: I'd forgotten - you're moonlighting as a criminal mastermind now.
Simon: No, but I'm thinking about growing a big black mustache. I'm a traditionalist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hey, Geez;
I'm not telling YOU or anyone else what to do. Also, if you got better ideas, I wanna hear 'em. This is a WE project. You can't fix it and I can't fix it. No one man is gonna fix it. It will take all of us to clean this mess up. So, when do we agree on a plan and get down to business?
Jayne, pass me that there chain of command...
Wasn't singling you out, my post just happened to fall right below yours. However, I must note that you are telling me what to do, just like anyone who says "WE must do this", or "ALL OF US are needed to clean this mess up".
To tell the truth, I don't see that much wrong with the country that needs a special major effort to fix. We're just cycling through political swings as we have for the past 200 years. Generally they end up leaving a better country. Remember that when we started, only rich white guys could vote or hold office, and a good portion of the population was someone else's property. Every cycle has ended up giving more rights to more people, and has made the process more inclusive.
A country and its government are like a closed ecosystem. Even if it's stable it'll have variations in its health. But trying to change it too radically usually has a bad effect.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
We're just cycling through political swings as we have for the past 200 years. Generally they end up leaving a better country.
I definitely agree with you here. The country does have a sort of perpetual oscillation in its political pendulum. However, I think it is the dissent that causes these changes. A unanimous consensus is always going to be impossible when it comes to groups of people, the best one can hope for is a hovering around a general area (like the Constitution). As one side goes too far, the other gains strength and pulls back towards the center; that is as one side gets more extreme more people disagree with it and the voice of dissent grows. Granted people and the idea of governance lack the 2-dimensionality of the pendulum, it is far more complex and dynamic with multiple voices pulling in multiple directions.
If absolutely everybody chose to wait for the pendulum to swing back there would be no oscillation at all, as people and their ideas are the force that makes this pendulum swing. Unanimous inaction is as likely as unanimous consensus.
Quote:
A country and its government are like a closed ecosystem. Even if it's stable it'll have variations in its health. But trying to change it too radically usually has a bad effect
Again I have to agree with you that too much change or change too quickly is a bad thing. Any human institution needs to have stability and to be dynamic. A balance must be struck, between the dissenting voices on the subject.
Quote:
Every cycle has ended up giving more rights to more people, and has made the process more inclusive.
This is only true depending upon where you draw your lines I suppose. I don't see cycles ending, but a continuous process with corresponding increases and decreases in personal freedoms as the political pendulum oscillates.
While inclusivity has increased, so has marginalization. From what I have read in this thread I am not the only person who would agree with this G.K. Chesterton quote,
"For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. The Lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold and then for great jest he will allow the slaves to choose."
Not all here believe this to be the case, but the discussion of such differences of opinion is what this thread is for.
Arawaen
P.S. For what it is worth, my salute to everybody for keeping this thread so civil. People are disagreeing and offering their opinions without the need to resort to hostile words, insults and mindless rhetoric.
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was a lot to read so I hope that I'm not repeating anything.
First off I'm Canadian and lived in the states (Berkeley) for a chunk of time and realized a couple fundamental things that could be changed. With reading below I admit that I may be wrong and please don't take these things personally. So, here I go:
1)
At least the US and Canada at the high school level have what I call "The Jock Syndrome". This being that the jocks tend to be the "King of the Hill" on the social ladder. Makes enough sense at this level, as teen-agers have a tendency to most respect physical prowess with the raging hormones and all.
Now, in Canada it stops at this level and intellect is most respected after that. But, in the states it doesn't stop. One need only look as far as college football to see proof of this. And no I'm not saying that intellect isn't respected at all, I'm talking in relatives here.
During someones University/College years is where people form there opinions about life that will in all likeliness stick for the rest of there life. This being in general that use of aggressive behaviour is preferred over the non-aggressive. Which we can see in the policies of the US government in general as well as how people think in the US in general.
2)
Getting back to high school. I see in the states (and in Canada we are catching up) there is a trend to raise kids self confidence. This is a good thing if done right. Unfortunately it isn't. The teachers are giving the kids so much "your the best" comments that they have an over inflated sense of self so a "I already know how to do that" attitude surfaces.
This inevitably leads to the "Me Attitude". I noticed that in the states when I walked down the streets that people didn't move out of each others way. They basically just played a game of chicken to see who would move out of the others way. Another example would be when someone is waiting at light to go and the light went green they would just go. It didn't really matter if there was a pedestrian there as then you would here screeching tires and some colourful language.
I think that they actually believe that by doing this would cause a reduction in teen pregnancy. This is false. Teen pregnancy has be linked directly to good self esteem not self confidence. These two are mutually exclusive but the former will lead to the latter and not the other way around. Which is where I think the fallacy is in this logic.
3)
A complete lack of respect for education in general. I'm not saying that this persists through out the country but a good portion of it.
In California the cities sell there schools to other cities to run because they can't afford it.
California cut all student loans programs and state funding to all Universities. This was one of the *first* things they did when they started budget cuts. As a result UC Berkeley has had to turn away thousands of students because they just can't afford it. And I know of at least one case of someone losing a permanent position because the University (a different one) couldn't afford to hire him anymore.
Somewhere else in the states (I have no inclination to look this up again) one of the cities sold a portion of the schools to a private company to run. This company was to run the schools at profit. I think we can all agree that that just won't work.
4)
At the risk of being unpopular (if I'm not already) Gun Control. Yes, I mentioned this dreaded taboo topic. I do this because I have seen studies that show that gun control is favored by the majority of the US citizens. So, then why isn't responsible gun control in place.
5)
People don't vote. Everyone in the NRA votes (see 4) but the majority of people don't. There is a my vote won't count for anything attitude.
There are other points but I think that 1, 2 & 3 are the most fundamental as the others tend to be a result of these.
I will offer some logic here (flawed or not it is up to you to decide).
Of course 5 is the easiest to change which if changed wil
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki,
Excellent points in most respects except for gun control. Unfortunately you've not got the truth here. In all, and I mean ALL locations where concealed-carry laws have passed, crime has gone DOWN.
THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS BY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.
Nuf sed.
.......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton, no need to shout, white on black is just as readable as lower case as it is in uppercase.
The reason that I stated that gun control should go through is that the US did a study some years back of why Canada has such little violent crime (ie firearm related) and when the results came back it was largely because of our gun control laws. Now, that being said, I am *not* saying that social factors are not in play here.
But to counter, studies show that when there is a firearm in the home, there is an increase in accidental injury/death (ie someone hears a noise and shoots).
So, now it is an opinion war. Does the loss of life in my point overcome reduction in crime in yours or visa versa? This is a debate that I don't wish to participate in as we clearly disagree here and I know that you're not going to change my mind on gun control laws and I think that I won't change yours.
One question though. Why would someone want to carry a concealed firearm?
----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The U.S. needs binding national referendums on the big issues (should the U.S. join NAFTA?, etc). The rest of the civilized world (Australia, New Zealand, all of the European Union nations, Canada) hold binding national referendums on the big stuff. It's time to ask why we don't.
Constitution in the way? Well... frickin' change it!
I know it's hard to accept but DOZENS of other nations are MORE democratic than the citizens of the U.S. This means the citizens of those nations have more power than U.S. citizens do.
Once we have binding national referendums, it will be MUCH easier to do away with relics such as the electoral college. Hell... we citizens could even vote on new ways to elect congressional bodies (google: proportional representation) and executive positions (google: majority preferential voting).
The new better ideas are out there. The States just ain't using them.
The present U.S. system is so old and decrepit (hell... most of our constitution predates ELECTRICITY) that it was possible for a moron like G.W. Bush to steal an election.
Citizens in other countries looked at Florida 2000 and asked the obvious questions "RE-count?! Why don't you RE-vote?"
That's what would have happened in a truly democratic U.S.
mattro
PS: I know, I know... the U.S. is a Republic, not a democracy. STEP OFF! 
It will become a democracy as soon as we make it one!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki,
Sorry, it is NOT an opinion war. I make my living knowing things about firearms, and must tell you that you are much misinformed. I have no time to lead you to links that prove my point, but there are many. (look up Gary Kleck and John Lott, for two.) I capitalized my comment not because I wanted to shout, but to make it absolutely clear that you are mistaken. Because you doubt that:
"One question though. Why would someone want to carry a concealed firearm?"
...ask a woman who has just been raped (or one who just prevented a rape because of the presence of a handgun) what she thinks of carry laws. I think it was Gary Kleck (without looking things up) who has done many long-term studies of crime and its prevention, and proved that the presence of firearms prevents crime by the millions of instances yearly. Not many of those events make the news because they're not dramatic.
I have to emphasize that most of what you've heard about so-called studies of "gun control" have been put out by anti-gun proponents. The truth, which they never tell you, is not popular with the media. The opposite camp doesn't grab headlines all that often.
I understand Canadian laws about handguns, but we in the U.S. are permitted to go lawfully armed. If that were not so, I would ask you, when you see I am armed, why in heck are you NOT armed?
Only free men bear arms.
.......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton, then I say to you that you are in the other camp and then why should I buy any of either sides propaganda?
Let's put the rape issue aside as it is a rather dramatic one.
The question now becomes, do we prevent crime by fear that the potential victim may have a firearm or by more passive means (ie preventative eduction, promoting a more non-aggressive society, etc.)?
If by fear then the perp will only wait for the poor woman who can't afford a gun (they are *expensive*). Now protection has become somewhat of a "only if you can afford it" thing hasn't it?
But, if we take the promoting a more non-aggressive society road then the benefits will be to all and for a longer time. It may take awhile to get there but IMHO this is the better option. This way, there is also the prevention of an arms race in the general population.
You said "Only free men bear arms."
Well I tell you that I am free and I don't bear arms.
You said "Sorry, it is NOT an opinion war."
It just turned into one.
Remember, truth is relative and any statistics can be cooked.
----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An armed society is a polite society.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
SigmaNunki,
Excellent points in most respects except for gun control. Unfortunately you've not got the truth here. In all, and I mean ALL locations where concealed-carry laws have passed, crime has gone DOWN.
THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS BY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.
Nuf sed.
.......Ruxton
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME