On 13-10-2009 6:04, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/12/09 17:39, andrel wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
>     OK - Shift the distrust to the people, then.<G>
> 
>     In the end, though, it's a question of rights. The government 
> doesn't have the right (at least here), to know all the details of what 
> type of stuff I'm buying.

Neither does my government, even if a bank knows something about my 
behaviour does not mean that the government does. Or probably more 
precise that *my* government does. When I fly to the states somebody is 
handing over my credit card details to the US government and I think 
there is at least 80% change that the US secret service has access to my 
bank account details anyway.

>     Now of course, that doesn't mean private stores are legally bound to 
> accept cash to preserve those rights. They're private and are free to do 
> what they want (in this regard). However, given the US governments' 
> abuse of powers in relation to these types of things throughout the 20th 
> century (and beyond), a lot of people have good reason not to trust the 
> government. So most businesses accept cash.

It is not about accepting cash. Of course I can pay cash. It is simply 
not convenient.

>     (And BTW, most small businesses here prefer cash - they get charged 
> a fee every time a customer uses a card - so they make more money on 
> cash transactions).

There is a risk associated with cash. I think there is a tendency here 
to pass regulation that minimizes the cost for the shop owner.

>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
> president can't just change everything if he wants to.
> 
>     I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have 
> probably been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.

I am still in the dark what kind of abuse you are talking about.

>>> 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.
> 
>     Voting for people you trust is usually how corrupt politicians get 
> elected 

True, alas.

> (as well as good politicians). Did you think they rigged the 
> elections to get there?

No, what I think is that for at least the level of senator, but probably 
even some levels below that, the big companies decide who you can vote for.

>     We're straying from the original topic, but as lots of people say, 
> the key to a good democracy is an informed population. And most people 
> here are really, really uninformed about most things. Chances are if 
> they read the news moderately, they're even more uninformed.

Why don't you try the BBC model? Oh yes, because someone will pay the 
senators to prevent that.

>     Don't know how this compares to other countries, though.
> 
>> 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.
> 
>     In the US, there's a general belief that if a person wants to screw 
> himself, the government should stay out of it. Of course, they may have 
> stuff like suicide hotlines, etc.

I noticed a tendency to assume that everybody fully controls his or her 
own destiny. Well, that is a complete fiction. You can pretend that is 
so as long as it does not involve you or your loved ones. Of course 
*your* house will not burn down, it has never done so, hence it won't 
happen.

>     The US does have a lot of a certain kind of freedom. It sucks in 
> many other ways, so they cling to that freedom even more when under 
> criticism. Kind of like how C/C++ programmers will respond to most 
> criticisms with "But in your language, how fast can you..."
> 
>     Of course, it's not that black and white in reality, but they try to 
> stick to the principle that you shouldn't put too many barriers against 
> shooting yourself in the foot if you're really bent on it.
> 
>     So you want a huge loan for your house that you can't reasonably pay 
> off? The government won't stop you. 

In the case of the bank here the bank sold products that looked solid, 
had people trained to sell them, avoiding all nasty details and paid the 
people that sold them a more if they sold dodgy mortgages than for solid 
ones. There is no way that any John Doe could figure that out for 
himself. It was probably the same in the US. You can not claim that 
someone who wants to buy something and somebody with great authority 
shows them that they can afford it, is wanting to shoot himself in the 
foot. It may be the ground state for some people in the US to assume so, 
but just wait until misfortune hits them.

> You want to buy unhealthy food items 
> that will kill you earlier? They won't stop you. They may set up an 
> agency to inform the public what the government thinks is healthy or 
> not, but they won't force any food manufacturer to change their 
> ingredients (unless it's so bad that they ban the ingredient 
> altogether). Recently I found out that the FDA cannot take punitive 
> action against stores that continue to sell products that the FDA has a 
> recall for (e.g. salmonella, etc).
> 
>     Of course, if the consequences are really bad (or affect others) 
> (e.g. smoking, unbridled lending, etc) - they then consider changing the 
> rules for the betterment of society.
> 
>     And since we don't have universal health care paid for by taxes, and 
> perhaps many other tax supported benefits that you may have, the cost to 
> the community is not big (financially).

I am convinced our system will cost less on average than yours.

>     And to be honest, over here financial costs are the ones everyone 
> cares about. That does suck, but it's a sad reality. All other kinds of 
> "costs" go into two categories: 1. We'll figure out a solution to take 
> care of those problems without impinging on people's rights. (usually 
> wishful thinking) 2. No one forced the guy to do something stupid, and 
> so it's his fault (perhaps a poor perspective on reality)
> 
>     Finally, you have to realize that the US population is much, much 
> bigger than your country's. So there's a lot of inertia, and it has to 
> get quite bad before things can change. Something small may cost your 
> community pretty quickly and pretty noticeably. Over here it has to be 
> that much bigger before people notice the problems.

No. 16 million has the same sort of inertia as 300 million.
> 
>> 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.
> 
>     Well, either way is democratic, if the people supported it. Not sure 
> what your point is.

It was an answer to Darren. Why I can not live everywhere that I want to 
and why I think that is OK.

>     My first thought is that they seem kind of spoiled to expect all the 
> comforts in a town if they're not willing to pay for it. But perhaps I 
> misunderstood the situation.

yes you did.

>     Over here, though, the concept won't work. A law like that would be 
> very unpopular. People like the freedom to live wherever they want. They 
> value it more than a lot of what we consider "luxuries", but you may 
> consider "necessities". It's as democratic as what you have, because 
> that's how the people want it.
> 
>     Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be 
> viewed as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, religion, 
> etc). Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that already.

What makes you think we don't have such a history?

>     And BTW, over here if you live in city A and work in city B, your 
> city taxes go to A, and not B. So that may somewhat take care of the 
> problem.

Same here as long as we are talking property taxes. The point is that 
these taxes do not cover all expenses of a city council. Raising them is 
also not a real option.

> 
>> 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.
> 
>     Well, yes and no. It depends on, more or less, your beliefs. Many 
> Americans believe that the very freedom that you restricted in your 
> country may actually result in a better society if you don't restrict 
> it. And if problems like yours arose, they try to find solutions that 
> don't restrict those freedoms.
> 
>     Ultimately, you feel differently because of what you're used to, and 
> you suspect the opposite would really suck. And Americans feel their way 
> for the same reasons - except on the opposite side.

I feel different because I understand what the alternative would cause 
*here*. Meaning that I though about it and decided that my long term 
interest do not coincide with instant gratification.

Post a reply to this message