<p>Fridge, you say everything that i feel about the government, yet you still support it, why?</p>
<p>Also, I never agreed to the social contract. (:</p>
<p>umm i say freedom of speech.</p>
<p>and donny “swell” is so 1940’s</p>
<p>panic, wouldn’t speech be even freer without govt?</p>
<p>yes…
but let’s give it to em anyway cuz there are governments who dont even give you that.and like i said above im for anarchy.</p>
<p>Was there ever a “good” president, one who did the write things for the right reasons? I honestly can’t think of any.</p>
<p>Good things thanks to the govt.:
Public education
Public roads
Uh…let me think…</p>
<p>The reason I support government: well, at this point in history, without government the whole world would be thrown into choas; the result would be massive increases in crime (especially religiously motivated); as Hobbes said, life would be brutish and short if people were competing more than cooperating (cooperation implies sytem implies government of some kind). And I think government would eventually grow again at any rate, through kinship-based alliances and basic social contracts, religious hierarchies, etc. eventually redeveloping into full-fledged government (although probably more corporate in nature). I don’t support the govt we have now. I really don’t like democracy either; I feel it fails to protect minority rights, but I don’t have any alternative system. Oh yes, and I would die in an anarchy.</p>
<p>I don’t think anarchy would work, we would most likely degenerate back into a Dark Age devoid of all intellect pursuits, in my opinion. What I advocate is a very limited government with a much more direct representation of the people.</p>
<p>public education varies from county to county and can be really bad in some places. and omg tolls in nyc kill me, like literally taking money out of my pockets and throwing me to the subway tracks. plus it takes forever for anyone to fix anything.
how bout the postal service. it’s pretty nifty. and no dont even go to presidents it wont happen.</p>
<p>and yes i know anarchy has failing…it remains a far off fairy tale for the angst-y.hehe.</p>
<p>Hudson, what do you feel should be the responsibilities of govt in that case? Would we eliminate public education, public roads, the army, the police force, etc…and allow them to turn into corporate enterprises?</p>
<p>Imagine calling the fire department with your house up in flames, and having them show up only to tell you that they refuse to put it out because you don’t have the money… Or what if you bought a house, and had to pay a toll to the guy who owns the road leading up to it every time you enter or leave?</p>
<p>Panic - public education does vary from place to place, but I don’t think it would ever be argued as a detriment to society…for example, the education system in my town is probably worse than that of, say Bloomfield Hills (i.e. where the rich ones live), but at least I’m literate, to say the least. And imagine how much those subway tolls would be jacked if owned by a private company.</p>
<p>i know i know. but does that mean we should settle and be happy that we got something.</p>
<p>No, but I think having some (free) education (govt.) is better than having relatively little education (anarchy). Actually bettering the education system would probably be a process of creating more bureaucracy…
:)</p>
<p>i would hope it doesnt enough money is p****ed away to people holding administrative jobs, while funding is often insufficient and teachers screwed over by the union.</p>
<p>calling donny, where you at?</p>
<p>The teachers in Detroit are overpaid; they keep demanding more. The state takes our money and gives it to them; each child there gets thousands of dollars more in funding than in my suburban town, despite paying drastically lower taxes.</p>
<p>So much money is spent on stupid stuff like No Child Left Behind and whatnot. And improving education would probably mean the govt creates more oversight committees, coordinators to officiate public schooling, and all that jazz…</p>
<p>Essentially, nothing would get done. It’s virtually impossible to trace where exactly our tax money goes. So much of it is siphoned off at different levels of the government, used to pay for politicians’ junkets, bribery, personal salary increases…</p>
<p>i know it is frustrating.</p>
<p>Have we wrung this topic dry? Conversation seems to have slowed…</p>
<p>indeed we have. any ideas??</p>
<p>Sorry, an irate mother practically pried me from the computer to eat dinner.</p>
<p>This is kind of random, but kind of building off of education, how do you feel about relative funding spent on special ed. kids vs. gifted kids vs. “normal” kids?</p>
<p>by far i think that special ed kids need the money more. like some of them really benefit from what they get, yet it isnt enough sometimes. now im not saying they should get a big majority share but i guess some priority.
gifted and “normal” should be about even. like while gifted kids should be given an oppurtunity to flourish and all that really they are not worth more than “normal” kids. yet i dont think that the kid sitting and slacking should be getting like 2k a year while the smart kid is given 1.5k you know. i guess id like to see the money split up. like if you have 10 gifted kids but 250 “normal” then yeah maybe the average might say the gifted kid gets more.
at the same time “normals” need the money so they can reach their potential because they are kids and they deserve a chance.</p>