On 13-10-2009 0:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
>>
>> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
>> can not be trusted.
> 
> What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* 
> government.

I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of 
course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into 
it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is 
wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

>>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
>>
>> No, *your* government, not mine.
> 
> That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you 
> to trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is 
> for *me* to trust *my* government to that extent.
> 

If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens 
first and themselves next. And campaign and vote for those that you 
trust. That is more important than if what they promise will cost you 
.05% less of your income.

>>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>>> customer-focused.
>>>>
>>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>>
>>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
>>
>> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.
> 
> I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
> competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are 
after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
getting into trouble without them doing something wrong. The reason 
being that if you let that pass it will often cost the community more 
than what it costs now. Examples are health care and homelessness.

>> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
>> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
>> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
>> meaning to you)
> 
> I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense 
> to enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. 

Did I say you were?

> I don't even particularly 
> distrust "the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats 
> decision powers over individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to 
> some bureaucrat to take action to let you do something reasonable, then 
> it's not uncommonly going to lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, 
> informing the old tax authority that you're not paying taxes there and 
> informing the new tax authority you are isn't what I'd call petty 
> actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff like getting 
> *permission* to move in the first place.)

In this crowded country there is logic to it. Take a large city like 
Amsterdam. People want to work there because that is where the jobs are. 
Now within an hour driving distance are a couple of smaller towns with 
more green, bigger houses for the same money, and better environment for 
the kids to grow up. So everybody wants to live in those smaller towns. 
Ok now from the perspective of the smaller town: people come live there 
but don't work, don't take part in the local society and don't use the 
local shops. So nearly no income from these people, but they still have 
to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them. 
Seen from this perspective anyone wanting to live in their town that is 
working in the big city costs the local community money. Besides they 
will make every town expand to the same density as the big city, 
effectively destroying the whole idea of a smaller town. So they pass a 
law that you have to have a strong relation with the town to live there. 
  Very democratic.

I don't like it that I can not live everywhere that I want, but I 
understand the logic and accept it. The concept is that it may harm me 
now, but will benefit society (and therefore me and my grandchildren) as 
a whole in the long run. A concept that seems to be alien to many Americans.

Post a reply to this message