Why Does The US Right Distrust Representative Government?

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?
 
Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?

I can only speak for myself I don't fear the government but I believe there are a lot of things the market can do more efficiently than government does.

And not to say Spike Lee speaks for all black people (and I'm sure you're aware 90% of blacks vote Democratic) but I don't think he's the only who thinks the way he does with his "I don't put anything past the U.S. government" comment.
 
I can only speak for myself I don't fear the government but I believe there are a lot of things the market can do more efficiently than government does.

What sort of things?

And not to say Spike Lee speaks for all black people (and I'm sure you're aware 90% of blacks vote Democratic) but I don't think he's the only who thinks the way he does with his "I don't put anything past the U.S. government" comment.

He may be right. But I would put more trust in someone who has an ethos of public service than someone soley motivated by profit and profit alone.
 
I can only speak for myself I don't fear the government but I believe there are a lot of things the market can do more efficiently than government does.

What sort of things?

And not to say Spike Lee speaks for all black people (and I'm sure you're aware 90% of blacks vote Democratic) but I don't think he's the only who thinks the way he does with his "I don't put anything past the U.S. government" comment.

He may be right. But I would put more trust in someone who has an ethos of public service than someone soley motivated by profit and profit alone.

As I'm sure you're aware there are many many crooked people that are in "public" service while there are also many many people who do great things for communities, their country and the world who work in the market and are not in public service. You are certainly entitled to your own bias but I surely am not going to say someone's a better person becasue they go into public sector life.
 
As I'm sure you're aware there are many many crooked people that are in "public" service while there are also many many people who do great things for communities, their country and the world who work in the market and are not in public service. You are certainly entitled to your own bias but I surely am not going to say someone's a better person becasue they go into public sector life.


Neither am I.

I just wonder why such unabridged distrust of public service, and apparently blind devotion to the private sector.

The private sector is soley motivated by profit, if it produces community service, it is either designed to indirectly increase profits or is done as an unintended side effect.

The public sector may have some bad apples, but its sole raison d'etre is to provide service.
 
Neither am I.

I just wonder why such unabridged distrust of public service, and apparently blind devotion to the private sector.

The private sector is soley motivated by profit, if it produces community service, it is either designed to indirectly increase profits or is done as an unintended side effect.

The public sector may have some bad apples, but its sole raison d'etre is to provide service.

How does one make a profit? By providing a service people desire. If that is negative to you then again you are entitled to that opinion. My company invested public employees retirement money. We earned fees by doing that. Are we bad people because we provided that service? If we only cared about profit and didn't provide any service would the pension funds hire my company?
 
How does one make a profit? By providing a service people desire. If that is negative to you then again you are entitled to that opinion. My company invested public employees retirement money. We earned fees by doing that. Are we bad people because we provided that service? If we only cared about profit and didn't provide any service would the pension funds hire my company?

I am not talking about bad or good people.

I'll give you an example.

Once upon a time, hospital cleaners in the NHS were in-house, employees of the local NHS trust. They were responsible directly to the ward matron they were assigned to. And during that time, hospital transmitted infections such as MRSA were virtually unheard of.

Then the government at the time decided to out-source these cleaners using the argument that the private sector could provide these services more efficiently. Bids were tendered for the contracts, each of which fought to offer the lowest cost bids.

Which meant that when contracts were awarded, to make a profit, which these companies must do for their shareholders, cleaners were employed on minimum wage. They weren't part of the NHS team, were responsible to remote managers rather than ward staff and were generally casual workers.

Standards started to slip. Some wards weren't cleaned properly. In the old days, the ward matron would have picked this up and sorted it out. Under privatisation all they could do was report the failings. Eventually the contractor might lose their contract, and a new round of bids were tended for. But to win the bid, the new firms fought to offer the lowest cost bids.
etc etc etc...

And thus due to a slip in standards outbreaks of MRSA etc appeared weekly in the news.


The private sector is very good at doing what its raison d'etre is... making a profit. But profit always come first.
 
Why do the American right fear goverment so much?
you must understand, when it comes to left and right or democrat and republican, neither side trusts the other. what you are probably referring to is the middle mainstream america that still remembers history and the teachings of the founders, that government is a necessary evil, but never to be entrusted with too much power.

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?
I don't think anyone is really saying that. However, it's easy to understand the mindset of a corporation in its quest for power.....which is money. the difference between a corp and government is that government has the ability to enforce thuggish laws to garner both money and power at the expense of freedom.
 
you must understand, when it comes to left and right or democrat and republican, neither side trusts the other. what you are probably referring to is the middle mainstream america that still remembers history and the teachings of the founders, that government is a necessary evil, but never to be entrusted with too much power.

But the founders were revolutionaires, whose rhetoric is appropriate for instilling strength into a people in rebellion from their kinsfolk who they considered to be tyrannical.

What was right for revolutionary America may not be right for modern America and surely can't be taken as a permanent axiom.

And if the people have to delegate power, which by the nature of a modern state is needed, surely it is better to delegate that power to individuals controlled by the people?


the difference between a corp and government is that government has the ability to enforce thuggish laws to garner both money and power at the expense of freedom.

And a corporation can act in a thuggish way to garner both money and power at the expense of freedom. Corporations have been doing so since the time of the East India Company.

Surely it is better that power be delegated to representative people whose raison d'etre is to provide public service and are directly responsible to the people, rather than to corporations whose raison d'etre is to make maximum profits and have no direct responsibility.
 
Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?

I don't think the right fears government. It's just an excuse. The opposition to the health plan bears that out.

Virtually every country with a medical plan is supported by it's citizens. There isn't one country where a politician of any note campaigns against such a plan.
 
I don't think the right fears government. It's just an excuse. The opposition to the health plan bears that out.

Virtually every country with a medical plan is supported by it's citizens. There isn't one country where a politician of any note campaigns against such a plan.

British Conservatives wouldn't dare to hold a front on attack on the NHS. Their method is to undermine it by underfunding and creeping privatisation.
 
British Conservatives wouldn't dare to hold a front on attack on the NHS. Their method is to undermine it by underfunding and creeping privatisation.

Yes, that's the right's trick so they can say, "See, it doesn't work."

I'm sure that was the Repub plan regarding government services. Cut taxes and run up a deficit so there wouldn't be any money for services. I'm glad Obama went ahead anyway. Now the succeeding governments are obliged to find the money.

Raise taxes. Cut somewhere else. Do whatever it takes. That was Obama's great achievement. One giant step.
 
Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?

Fear representative government ? We want representative government.

We obviously don't have it at the moment.....

When the majority of the populous says the DON'T WANT a particular action and your elected representative goes and votes FOR that particular action...that is directly the opposite of representative government


The representative is only representing himself, not his constituents...
 
Fear representative government ? We want representative government.

We obviously don't have it at the moment.....

When the majority of the populous says the DON'T WANT a particular action and your elected representative goes and votes FOR that particular action...that is directly the opposite of representative government


The representative is only representing himself, not his constituents...

What would you prefer? If just a citizen decides they don't support something, that should act as a veto else it isn't representative?
 
Yes, that's the right's trick so they can say, "See, it doesn't work."

I'm sure that was the Repub plan regarding government services. Cut taxes and run up a deficit so there wouldn't be any money for services. I'm glad Obama went ahead anyway. Now the succeeding governments are obliged to find the money.

Raise taxes. Cut somewhere else. Do whatever it takes. That was Obama's great achievement. One giant step.

It is an improvement from the death panels in the insurance companies and a healthcare lottery based on wealth.
 
Yes, that's the right's trick so they can say, "See, it doesn't work."

I'm sure that was the Repub plan regarding government services. Cut taxes and run up a deficit so there wouldn't be any money for services. I'm glad Obama went ahead anyway. Now the succeeding governments are obliged to find the money.

Raise taxes. Cut somewhere else. Do whatever it takes. That was Obama's great achievement. One giant step.

So Obama raises taxes and runs up the deficit. Please tell me how that is better.
 
Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?
It representative government they fear the most as they know good and damned well that the vast majority of Americans don't share their world view.
 
So Obama raises taxes and runs up the deficit. Please tell me how that is better.
Well for one he's pulling us out of Bush's messes. For second he's governing the fiscus responsibly. Third the deficits he has run up have been have been a direct result of Bush's and Republican mismanagement and fourthly by reforming our health care system he can save the nation trillions (that's right, trillions with a T) of dollars.

So what did Republicans do other than irresponsibly cut taxes when we couldn't afford it and then spend money they didn't have like drunken sailors on an immoral war in Iraq and then fell asleep at the wheel and stayed blissfully asleep while a city drowned and our banks became so corrupted that they disintegrated?

Oh that's right! They told us how they were going to protect us from guns, gays and abortion.
 
Well for one he's pulling us out of Bush's messes. For second he's governing the fiscus responsibly. Third the deficits he has run up have been have been a direct result of Bush's and Republican mismanagement and fourthly by reforming our health care system he can save the nation trillions (that's right, trillions with a T) of dollars.

So what did Republicans do other than irresponsibly cut taxes when we couldn't afford it and then spend money they didn't have like drunken sailors on an immoral war in Iraq and then fell asleep at the wheel and stayed blissfully asleep while a city drowned and our banks became so corrupted that they disintegrated?

Oh that's right! They told us how they were going to protect us from guns, gays and abortion.

Oh, this new health care law is going to save us trillions? I think that's news to me and most others. And of course Obama doesn't want to spend this much money right? He doesn't want to raise taxes right? Poor Obama having to do everything against his will. Such a victim he is.
 
What would you prefer? If just a citizen decides they don't support something, that should act as a veto else it isn't representative?

NO, its not to represent A citizen...its to represent an entire group of citizens....

I would prefer a representative....

acting as deputy or proxy for another or others, and of course to VETO or ACCEPT as his constituents deem....

acting for or representing a constituency or the whole people in the process of government a representative council, characterized by, or relating to the political principle of representation of the people.

The representatives only duty higher, other than acting for those he represents, is to act within the Constitution of the US.....
A person to help accomplish the will of the people he or she represents....
 
Back
Top