Below is a carry forward from Lazy's
Scruff wrote:
I see, I think now we are getting at the heart of the issue as you see it. No offense intended, but it seems like you are personally disgruntled with the way governments run because they do not cover your agenda or the issues you would like to see discussed. Now there is plenty of reason for this action as you've already said, but it has nothing to do with the necessity of the state (it certianly affects its effectiveness, but seeing as the state is a necessary institution this pitfall is likely to be introduced at some point or another). They want to keep possibly dangerous issues on the backburner because it's politically advantageous. They don't have to deal with partisanship if they do that, since they won't be berated as a "pinko" or a "hater of the poor" depending on what their stance on the issue of poverty is. Honestly I don't feel it is the responsibility of the state to make sure that people make a living, though I understand the cycle of poverty. I do however think it is the responsibility of the state to provide sufficient education such that people don't get stuck in such a cycle in the first place.
In the end though, you must consider, even if it be a government of laws and not men, men run it and men are fallable. Men are self-serving creatures and such will pursue a self-serving agenda. However, when common interests are present, a self-serving agenda also may serve others, and a proper government allows for a mechanism to manifest such interests.
My only agenda is that the American people
always be number one in any actios taken by their government. If that is wrong--I will accept that criticism.
_________________
Slower minds Keep right
politics is war without bloodshed--War is politics with bloodshed
"THE PEN"
http://marxandme.blogspot.com/
It's a social problem with social remedies, IMO.
the "new constitution"
Linear Mode
