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.

	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.

	(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).

	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.

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

	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.

	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.

	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. 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).

	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.

> 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.

	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.

	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.

	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.

> 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.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message