Michigan, Meet Martial Law

[Andara Bledin]

This thread is suggesting we limit the government's ability to actually get stuff done efficiently. I don't understand the point of doing that.

There's a difference between allowing government the ability to "get stuff done efficiently" and letting them have the power to pillage everything in sight.

This is something that should be plainly obvious to even the densest students of politics.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Just like I feel it should be plain obvious that being able to do something about ineffective schools is a good thing.

[MadMike]

Just like I feel it should be plain obvious that being able to do something about ineffective schools is a good thing.

Maybe so, but that shouldn't mean giving the government unlimited power.

[Hyena Dandy]

The more efficient a government is, the greater its chance of becoming tyrannical. At the same time, the less efficient it is, the lower the chance of anything getting done.

Its a problem, but I prefer to err on the side of doing less.

[FArchivist]

So if we can't have government because they abuse all their powers, but we can't get rid of government because anarchy is bad, what do we do?

We go for a middle ground. Also, we institute checks and balances, which this bill does not have.

I mean, we are talking about people being able to effectively do something about schools being total crap we just get "ABUSE OF POWER OMGWTFBBQ!!!"

That's not what the bill is about. Doing something about schools =/= the ability to walk in and cancel all science classes because you think Creationism is all we need - which this bill gives the POWER to do.

I don't care how unlikely it is; my problem is giving a person UNLIMITED POWER TO DO AS THEY SEE FIT, with no checks and balances. And that's what this bill does. Its gives the emergency financial administrator UNLIMITED POWER OVER GOVERNMENT. It has no checks, no balances, no stops.

If I'm reminded of Deep South "Sheriff Baronies", then that's not a good thing.

[smileyeagle1021]

This thread is suggesting we limit the government's ability to actually get stuff done efficiently. I don't understand the point of doing that.

Taking that argument to the extreme.
The most efficient way to deal with our social security deficit is to just kill all citizens who reach retirement age. At 65 you go into the social security administration and they administer a lethal injection. The same goes for disability, can't work, take the shot. That would very efficiently solve our budget crisis in the federal government.
After all, what's the point in limiting the government's job to do something efficiently?
Just because something is efficient doesn't mean it's the right way to do something.

[Evandril]

Obviously the government should have absolute power to do what it feels is right, just like the USSR...after all, they could do similar across the board, isn't that why they are in such a good place in the world today?

Our government is good BECAUSE it doesn't have absolute power, and cannot make arbitrary decisions without restraint. If you look at the limited laws we have in place, and see how *those* have been abused...why would giving MORE power to the same people have better results? Yes, there are some good politicans, and there are some that would not abuse the power they have. However, in my opinion, with the way money wins elections, and who is providing that money...the amount of honest politicians is drasticly dropping.

[Greenday]

I guess I just prefer efficient governments over ineffective, pointless ones.

[FArchivist]

Taking that argument to the extreme.
The most efficient way to deal with our social security deficit is to just kill all citizens who reach retirement age. At 65 you go into the social security administration and they administer a lethal injection. The same goes for disability, can't work, take the shot. That would very efficiently solve our budget crisis in the federal government.
After all, what's the point in limiting the government's job to do something efficiently?
Just because something is efficient doesn't mean it's the right way to do something.

I find this grimly amusing, especially as I just got done dealing with a person elsewhere who has decided that a better solution than welfare is to put the poor in 'voluntary' Poverty Camps run by the government.

[Boozy]

Oh, I think that's a good idea. I don't like seeing poor people wandering around the streets with the rest of us, all uppity, as if they were normal people or something.

[Greenday]

Oh, I think that's a good idea. I don't like seeing poor people wandering around the streets with the rest of us, all uppity, as if they were normal people or something.

Exactly! And let's just call them Happy Camps instead. Sounds nicer.

[Tanasi]

When the government won't respond to the needs and wants of its citizens then the citizens must rise up and take back control of their government. Think it can't happen? Read this

[Greenday]

When the government won't respond to the needs and wants of its citizens then the citizens must rise up and take back control of their government. Think it can't happen? Read this

People may disagree with the government, but it isn't nearly as close to the tipping point as people like to believe for revolution. It basically seems like those who believe it is just want no government and I for one think that's a terrible idea.

[Evandril]

Enjoying your pay as of late? I know congress is making ME nervous, and I'm in better shape than most of our troops. I don't disagree with the goverment, I DO disagree with the idiots in power at the moment. I know I've seen lines redrawn pretty much constantly, to insure voting areas contain the 'right' people for the people making the choices...and that's not as 'strong' of a power as this is trying to give them. We're not arguing against government, we're arguing against goverment without controls and limits. The protections against search and seazure are very much against the abilities of the police to catch guilty people...but I personally LIKE those limits. Most of the consitution says what the goverment *cannot* do, and laws that weaken those limits, I do not approve of.

[smileyeagle1021]

The protections against search and seazure are very much against the abilities of the police to catch guilty people.

Something I've always heard that I've liked, you can't protect the rights of the innocent unless you protect the rights of hte guilty as well.
While it can be maddening at times, limits to power, while making the government inefficient, do a great service to us.