SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Maybe it's just me, but I've been getting this vibe (it's strong here, but I'm feeling it elsewhere too) that there are folks who would like to see our entire society come crashing down.
Perhaps they think we can build something better, and like the Phoenix, emerge from the ashes, strong and vibrant.
And I guess I can see the attraction. Our government has been co-opted by the monied interests, our waking lives seem to be either being tracked by corporations or one government agency or another, the same monied interests seem determined to depress wages to keep us docile and hungry for the resources we need to keep ourselves and our families alive. And on and on. It's as if our society has been taken over by greedy, corrupt and amoral scumbags.
And to an extent, all of this is true. Which begs the question: What can/should we do about it?
There is one thing most of us can agree upon: That those elected to administer our governmental systems aren't acting in the best interests of the greater populace. Rather, they seem to be taking their marching orders from those with the resources to command their attention, their wallets and their votes.
There's quite a bit of agreement about that. The problem is that there are large groups of people on various sides of this question with different prescriptions for solving these problems:
Some think we need to strip the Federal government of most of its power and leave things to the states/counties/municipalities.
Some think we need to reform our existing political systems to reduce the influence of money on our elected officials (at all levels of government).
Some think it's just a lost cause and we need to just tear it all down and start over.
The biggest issue, IMHO, is that those same folks who are controlling our political systems for their own benefit use these differences of opinion to divide us. This keeps us from putting aside our differences so we can work together to create the kind of society of which we can all be proud.
Which brings me to the folks who want to tear our system down. With what shall we replace it?
Destroying one of the bulwarks of our society seems like we're creating change. But what are the consequences of doing so, intended or otherwise?
History (cf. all the infighting and problems with the Articles of Confederation) tells us that a strong central government was necessary back in the late 18th century, and (again, IMHO) is even more important today.
Could government be more distributed than it is? Possibly. Should there be stronger controls on how the central government treats its citizens? Almost certainly.
But if we destroy the "beast in DC" to punish those who have so egregiously abused it, who will pay the price when chaos ensues.
Just some semi-random thoughts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @08:34PM
I think you're right: although the Indian nations are supposedly accorded sovereignty, it's limited. But if the federal government wants to run a pipeline, a power line, or a highway through tribal land, can't the tribe stop it? Before your proposal reminded me of the reservations, it reminded me of the situation with the native Americans versus the white people prior to the reservations. White people believed in ownership of land whereas the natives did not; white people were all organized as a single society whereas the natives formed multiple societies. Eventually the white people gained possession of nearly all the land and, as you explain, limited what the natives could do. There were technological factors to it but it's often true that a large, organized group can bully people who don't also form a large, organized group.
Under the arrangement you propose, suppose you have a homestead and you're not part of the system. You're sovereign. Now if your sovereign neighbor with the 11,960 acre farm wants to make it 12,000 acres for efficiency, knowing that you're armed may dissuade her. But if the people with the system decide that your land is in the way of a hyperspace bypass that needs building, do you really expect to stop them? Even if you join up with a few sovereign neighbors, you may get trampled. If lots of you unite, well, that's starting to look like you're forming a system of your own, isn't it?
Conversely, if the people with the system can provide goods or services that you want, such as a supply of clean water, sewerage, power, fuel, or communications, you may be tempted to deal with them. In those dealings I see the potential to be drawn into joining the system. Suppose you wish to be entirely off the grid. You'll have to provide some of those services for yourself. One person can plausibly build a house from materials gathered onsite, but such a house will be primitive. Niceties such as photovoltaics or even water pipes aren't going to be practical for one person or a family to manufacture.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday July 18 2016, @01:35PM
If lots of you unite, well, that's starting to look like you're forming a system of your own, isn't it?
I have no objection to people forming new systems of their own, but I don't think their should be a monopoly. You can tell which systems are the moral systems because they are the ones that let people exit and go off and form new systems when they feel that this one isn't working. In fact that's exactly what the Declaration of Independence says is a right of all people, but that right isn't available in the U.S. or in most jurisdictions.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings