Skip to main content

View Diary: How Government (doesn't) Work (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is a misperception of government's role. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    Governments are the tools of Capitalists, their enforcers and enablers.  The way this particular law is written re: liquor licenses is a good example.  Clearly, it was written by those who hold liquor licenses much the same that the ACA was written by insurance and drug companies.

    A better way of handling this particular issue is for the neighborhood to have control over licensing.  Interested citizens would meet in assembly, hear the owner's proposal and make a decision.

    Direct democracy is always the best way to handle issues when it's logistically feasible.  Larger scale issues would be better handled using delegates rather than representatives.  Delegates are instructed how to vote and are subject to immediate recalll.  If issues come up at a delegate meeting about which they have no instructions, they go back to the body that sent them.

    What we have now are "representatives" who only represent the rich and powerful.

    •  That is a thoughtful answer. (0+ / 0-)

      I agree about direct democracy. A government that is more representative of the people it serves is unquestionably better.

      I particularly like what you said about delegates returning to seek instructions. I think it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that the government is a servant of the people and exists solely for our benefit.

      In that light, it is particularly off putting to think about when the government acts like it's the other way.

      Eric Holder's decision to not prosecute the banks becomes even more disgusting. Holder serves us, for our benefit, yet he refuses to perform his duty at the moment when we rely on him the most. I think it is disgraceful.

      So, the reason for my question is that you are obviously disenchanted with capitalism (Why the capital c?), a sentiment which often seems coupled with a desire for larger government. What am I missing?

      •  There are many varieties of anti-capitalists. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm an anarchist.  I see the State and Capitalism as wielders of authority against the people, usually in concert.

        As for the capital "C" for Capitalism, it's personal quirk, an effort to get people to understand as an alien system that oppresses them, not as a neutral description of a system to which there is no alternative.

    •  I am assuming that there are limitations as to (0+ / 0-)

      the reasoning of 'why' some interest cannot have their establishment there, otherwise you will get the 'weeding out' of 'others' not like those who fill the neighborhood. Do we want to give a majority of citizens this kind of discriminatory control? I.e. "I don't want an Indian food market in my neighborhood because it will bring in more Indians", blah, blah...ad infinitum.

      •  In our particular case, that would be unlikely. (0+ / 0-)

        The neighborhood is roughly equally divided among Eastern Europeans, African Americans and Asians.

        But your question is a very important one.  Obviously, the kind of society I'm advocating requires a societal ethic that directly attacks that kind of ethnocentrism.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site