It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

Observation

Comments

Watching several elections, in more than one country, and watching closely the long primaries I tend to agree with the claim that democratic elections are a very well designed process to choose the least qualified candidate for wrong, and most of the time irrelevant, reasons. It is not that I’m advocating for a different method - I don’t know one that is better, but I’m more than convince that minimizing the power handed to these people, to effect decent people lives, is the best solution to minimize the damage they can cause.

Written by Rogel

November 29th, 2007 at 8:12 am

Posted in 2008 campaign

Tagged with ,

« Its the economy stupid
Crash course »

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    (a) I doubt the person who said that is actually "wise"; and (b) I dare to relocate your family to a country with a really bad government. I think even you will identify some differences. Putting government down in modern democracies is a national pastime. But, don't let that that confuse you... our governments, both of them, are far better than we usually give them credit.
    • ^
    • v
    On this my friend said someone wise "Never seen any evidence to that (a) being put to work (not even in America); nor (b) proving any worth." :)
    • ^
    • v
    This is what I disagree with: "Once you open the door for the paternalism you like - you legitimize the paternalism you don’t like"… I don’t care too much for slippery slope type argument. Borders can and should be set (regarding both rhetoric, reasoning and behavior), and avoiding activity because it can potentially lead to misuse of that activity doesn't make much sense to me. We should concentrate out efforts against Huckabees and the Giulianis, and not give up on good government because of these bad examples.
    • ^
    • v

    I completely agree with you that the term “National Security” is being over used, not only in the US. The concept of maintaining status of superpower, and imperialistic foreign policy, in the name of “National Security” - either in the name of “spreading democracy” or as a mean to maintain failing economical concept. But dismissing “National Security” altogether is in by itself a mistake. 

    Since my believe is that a just government role is to protect human rights the definition of National Security is directly tied, and therefore limited, protection of those rights. Protecting commerce, or other economical interest, are not part of such definition of national security. Different discussion can be developed about protecting human rights of people that aren’t residents of specific country - for example should a country go to war to stop Hitler even if he doesn’t directly threaten the country. 

    As far as a political system is devoted to protection of human rights I’m welcoming its activities. The problem is that during the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century western governments broaden their role way beyond the protection of human rights into increasing paternalistic tyranny. Some of these activities is being motivated by a believe that those who know better should protect other people from making wrong choices, and some of it is simply power hunger. In both cases the results are constant attack on peoples freedom. 

    Once you open the door for the paternalism you like - you legitimize the paternalism you don’t like. The political game Ultimately become a play ground to those who going after the power, not the those “who knew better”. At the end, it isn’t the intellectual but the Huckabees and the Giulianis that ordering people around.

    • ^
    • v
    National security is a "fit all" cure… almost as effective as good old chicken soup. Seriously, how can superpowers claim a serious threat to national security (in any serious definition of the term) by marginal and eccentric organizations or even countries? I can quite as easily make the claim that the pretext of national security diminishes human rights more so than it protects them. The US, under the leadership of your so called small government proponents, would make a wonderful example. Moreover, as far from perfect as twentieth century democratic governments are, never in history have so many people enjoyed so many basic human rights. If this, in your eyes, is a petty advantage – so be it. I myself prefer this situation over any other known history. You can marginalize the benefits of modern governments as you please, but I've no knowledge of any factor more dominant in the overall wellbeing of so many people, or any other political organization more effective than what you so eagerly relate to as currupt and coercive governments.
    • ^
    • v
    I  agree with your assertion that: "I find the fact that they do so in the name of national security and other such pretext more offensive than those who exercise the power of government towards social benefits, education, healthcare, childcare and the likes. If I were American, I’d rather see my tax dollars spent on welfare than on aggressive foreign policy, and intrusive internal (so called security)." I have only one reservation - I do think that government budget that protect national security (as part of protecting human rights) is justified and has more moral justification than wealth distribution.<div>I do not agree with your claim that smaller government never worked - the increasing scope of governments in the 20th century has very arguable benefits and many disadvantages. One doesn't need to be as extremist as me to acknowledge that not all good come from government's coercion. </div>
    • ^
    • v
    Very American way of thinking. Never seen any evidence to that (a) being put to work (not even in America); nor (b) proving any worth. Can't seem to see past the rhetoric of such statements. Ironically, those who claim such claims in the US prove themselves as no less intrusive on the American public, and on international ones. I find the fact that they do so in the name of national security and other such pretext more offensive than those who exercise the power of government towards social benefits, education, healthcare, childcare and the likes. If I were American, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on welfare than on aggressive foreign policy, and intrusive internal (so called security). But, that's my own individual preference. After all rhetoric aside, government is no smaller and definitely no less intrusive when those advocating small governments are in power.   
    Truth be told, I find the quality of government much more to my liking in other parts of the democratic world.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't suggest having an inefficient government, I only suggest reducing its scope. Political systems are essential but the scope and the intrusiveness got out of hand. The damage of having a bad President/Prime-Minister can be mitigated by limiting (unlike eliminating) the scope of its influence.<div>Having a functional regimes and political system isn't synonymous with ever expanding intrusive government.</div><div></div>
    • ^
    • v
    Perhaps you'd like to further your observation by taking a good look at the monstrosities characterizing week and dysfunctional regimes & political system.  Political systems characterized by a lack or deficiency of (what political scientists call) governability are arguably far worst off than those with efficient, deep rooted, government practices. I fear, my friend, that your observation is nearsighted… unable to see a distant devil, you suspect a friend of worse evils…

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus