Weekend Open Thread → Re: Snowden

There is a word for that philosophy - anarchy. Where the PEOPLE are in charge without elected representatives.

Kearnstd is reminding us that the government must be accountable and subservient to the voters.
That isn't anarchy, it's reasonable.

No. The people should be in charge of the elected representatives, and the way to make that happen is by taking money out of politics. Lobbyists and Corporations do not deserve to be more powerful then the citizenry.

When the government fears the people you have freedom. When the people fear the government you have tyrrany.

And when you have anarchy and a weak government, you get the Crimea and the Ukraine disaster.

Strongly agree!

and...
When you have a government which is beholden to itself 1st and corporations 2nd
and
increasingly sees it's citizens as a commodity to be manipulated and exploited
you have China, Russia and the US.

The money in politics isn't the main problem, though I would welcome finite limits on campaign spending from all sources, whether its corporations, lobbyists, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association, the IBEW, ACORN, or any of the 401(c) groups on either side. But as we've seen, time and again, it is very difficult to craft such restrictions without violating free speech rights.

The main problem we have is gerrymandering and special rights for districting. In California, districts have been carved to assure one party always wins - and by counting non-citizens, it is quite lopsided compared to party registration.

We actually went to a party-neutral districting commission, but one party managed to reverse-engineer the "neutral" profile and stacked the commission with partisans.

The result is that no political contest is ever competitive - never changes sides, and there is never a free exchange of ideas or open, honest debate. Seats in every legislative body are never threatened, so they have no reason to listen to the people.

Talk about mangling definitions! Anarchy is the opposition to a hierarchical structure... it is what you get when you take Tea Party Smaller Government/Less Regulation ideals to their extreme. You can see it at work in Somalia.

A government of the people, by the people is called a Democracy. Elected officials are secondary in a Democracy, they are not needed as long as a system can give everyone an equal say. Calling that Anarchy is spitting on the Gettysburg address.

Based on your comments, I can only conclude you've never bothered to attend a Tea Party meeting. If you did, I think you would find the diverse lot is not "extreme" by any means.

Is it extreme to expect our government to let people keep their hard-earned money? To live within its means? To let parents direct their childrens' education? To curtail the military and spy budgets?

Sure, you can find a few ultra-zealous religious folks within the mix, and they're politely welcome to speak, but the common consciousness experienced at a Tea Party meeting is focused on freedom, liberty, dignity and civility, not oppression.

No, I have never attended a Tea Party meeting but my comment was not that the Tea Party view was extreme... it was that the Tea party views of smaller government and less regulation taken to an extreme (no government or regulations) would be Anarchy. Equating Democracy with Anarchy (as 'No' did) is ridiculous. I am only singling out the Tea Party here because I don't usually hear a call for 'smaller government' from other political groups.

Should people be allowed to keep their hard earned money? Of course... but not all of it. It is impossible to run a society with no taxation (though some seem to think we should try); those who benefit from our system the most should support the system the most IMO. Your other points I tend to agree with.

Agreed, but I think we can run society with far less government, on far less than 50% of the average person's earnings.

There is little justification for most current "functions" of federal, state, and municipal governments, most of which seem to see their sole purpose as perpetuating their existence and power.