What should be the primary responsibilities of any government?

[Shadowraven]

First of all, when I cite cases or policies, I am specifically referring to the United States. However these points should be able to apply to any country. Get ready, this is a long post.

I believe that government's only purpose is to provide the following for all of it's citizen's.

1) Safety - Protect citizens from criminals in an effective way. Also stop environmental threats.
2) Security - Protect the country from outside threats and not maintain foreign policies that jeopardize that.
3) Health - Maintain a healthy environment to live in and free health care to everyone.
4) Welfare - Maintain the welfare of it’s citizens by helping to minimize the effects of disasters.

It should not exist to protect the right to become obscenely wealthy or to protect the interests of the elite to the detriment of everyone else. That does not mean that it should create a hostile environment for business. But any time that business interests interfere with one of those four points, then business interests should be of secondary, or no, concern at all.

I will explain this further in the following post.

[Shadowraven]

(Continued from previous post)

Safety
A society cannot function properly unless it has effective law enforcement. Just how to do this is wide open to debate, for there are many opinions on this. One way I think we can start is to decriminalize the use of narcotics. Most of the people I've seen who are addicted are not enjoying the experience, but they can't stop. We need to create effective treatment programs to combat what is basically an illness, just like alcoholism. Just sending these people to jail IS NOT effective. They just continue to return.

Law enforcement should not just be effective, but evenly enforced as well. Corruption cannot be tolerated anywhere in government or business, to any degree. Allowing it to exist at all, just encourages more of the same and will inevitably lead to someone being harmed by it's existence.

Next we need to provide proper housing and treatment, for the Mentally Ill or Retarded. Right now many of them have a difficult time living in the community at large. But we continue to send them back out into it. Many times they end up in jail for their behavior, oft times behavior they cannot help. Instead they should be placed somewhere decent, under supervision where they still might be able to live somewhat normally in a community.

I think part the reason the U.S. has such a high percentage of it's citizen's in jail is due to the above points. That and the fact that the government provides for the concerns of business, but not for it's citizens. Hence those citizens live in squalid conditions and turn to crime as a way to exist. That's not to say those people have no responsibility for what they've done, but it may help diminish crime if they have fewer excuses to commit it.

Security
Any government has a primary responsibility to provide for the security of it's citizen's. One way is to prevent or deter the likelihood of being attacked. They should not maintain policies that endanger their citizens abroad or at home. If you go to other countries and interfere with their politics to the point that you affect their citizens negatively, you start to create enemies.

If you allow your corporations to strong arm the governments of other countries so you may suck them dry and leave nothing for their people, you create enemies. They may also try to change the way their society works for their own benefit, same effect. If you attack, or assist in the attack, of countries without provocation, you will unquestionably create more enemies still. If you are attacked, then you have no choice, but that is an entirely different story.

The only reason we should ever engage in war is when we are attacked or one of our allies is attacked. Preemptive strikes are bad policy. The best way is to try to contain an aggressive government and make it understand that they will suffer if they attack their neighbors without provocation. You may still need to attack them anyway, if they continue to export their violence to others. But that should be a last resort, and only done with overwhelming force with a well conceived plan. That plan should utilize solid, proven military techniques. Not untested "theories" from people with no military strategic experience.

Health
There should never be a single person that has to go without good medical treatment. This is one area where everyone should be treated in exactly the same way, regardless of income. It should be a primary responsibility of any government to provide this for it's citizens. People should not be subject to the whims of insurance companies or medical corporations as to how they will be cared for. Too many people in the U.S. go without this basic right everyday. That is inexcusable in a country of this size and wealth. The poorest citizen should be given the same care as the richest billionaire.

Citizens should also be protected from people who wish to destroy or pollute the environment where they live. This could mean going as far as to insist on the use of alternative fuels for any future purchase of an item using an internal combustion engine. That doesn't mean we get rid of what we are using now, just that we won't create any more. That or at least increasing fuel standards as high as technology will allow. Those measures may be unpopular, but would probably necessary to mitigate the effects we’ve already had. Citizens should be willing to make at least small sacrifices for the common good of everyone. We would also force any corporate polluter to either change the way they do business or pay for the total effect that business will have in the surrounding environment. That would be prohibitively expensive for most, but only fair as they are the ones doing it.

Welfare
Maintaining the welfare of a country’s citizens encompasses several different areas. The first would be to minimize the effects of natural disasters when they occur. Government should help all citizens get back to where they were before the disaster occurred. This should be tempered somewhat though. If a person insists on living in an area that consistently gets hit by these disasters and refuses to leave, then they don’t really deserve full compensation. However, if that person stands to lose if they do leave, then some compensation may be called for to eliminate future problems. When that old property is evacuated no one should be allowed to occupy it again. This would minimize the financial burden on the country by trying to maintain dwellings in a disaster area.

Next would include environmental protection. This was discussed before here, but it is one subject that can be placed into several categories. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that when the environment suffers, then people will suffer along with it. Not only physically, but mentally as well. Nobody likes living in a dirty trash dump.

Financial stability is another part of this. The government should help people in financial trouble. If they lose their job for circumstances beyond their control, they should be helped and supported. If reeducation, employment counseling, job assistance, or child care is called for, that should be provided. They should also have income provided for a short time to help them. If a person is unemployable due to a disability or an injury, a reasonable stipend should be provided. We should also provide old age pensions or the assistance people need to save for retirement. Real solutions, not the partial ones we have now. People who go beyond the initial period of financial assistance and still need money should be put to work and have job placement assistance provided so that they may be removed from the public payroll as soon as is feasible. However, as long as they are on it, they could be providing vital help in keeping our cities maintained in good order. They should not be a replacement for public workers, but a supplement to them. Mostly to help with keeping our environments clean. If you can work, and expect assistance beyond a reasonable period (say 9 months to a year), you should be required to provide labor in return. In the same light, I have no problem with prison labor, as long as it is administrated properly and does not replace someone’s job with it.

Another thing to provide for would be damages incurred through accidents or negligence from people with no coverage. Assistance should be provided for people involved in those types of losses. That way, serious losses would not be incurred or charged against people who are trying to be responsible. Any damages paid out in lawsuits should go to the government and reasonable payments and reimbursements be made to injured parties. The lawsuits would still pay out damages commensurate with injury and still be large enough to discourage bad behavior on the part of the sued. But it might cut down on the number of suits and provide government with badly needed revenue to maintain these programs. Obviously a close eye would need to be kept on these programs to prevent corruption or malfeasance.

The last would include not enacting any laws or rules that would benefit only the elite, at the expense of the regular citizens. Any law that would violate the rights of individuals to increase the profits or welfare of a group of the elites should be eliminated. The votes and voices of the people should always count in the eyes of the government and no one should be allowed to usurp that.

These commentaries should be taken in the light given. I’m saying what I believe would be the best solutions if they could be enacted. I neither expect they would, nor do I believe that they would be workable without a lot of work and attention. Possibly more then it may workable to achieve. I live in a world of reality, so I know what is, and is not, likely. However, I do believe that if they could be done, even partially, the citizens living there would be much happier.

[Willow of Oz]

Um, costs add up.
Other than that, I'd vote for you.

[Shadowraven]

Um, costs add up.
Other than that, I'd vote for you.

Thank You.

You may kiss my ring now. :cheeky:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

What should be the primary responsibilities of any government?

Build spaceships and colonise the universe. :biggrin:

You forgot to mention 'protecting endangered species' & 'reducing greenhouse gas emissions' although this would fall under environmental issues.

You also forgot to mention that any government should promote and support technological developments and innovation.

uhm, im sure there is much more :)

[acushla]

What should be the primary responsibilities of any government?

To stay out of my life.

[Shadowraven]

Build spaceships and colonise the universe. :biggrin:

You forgot to mention 'protecting endangered species' & 'reducing greenhouse gas emissions' although this would fall under environmental issues.

You also forgot to mention that any government should promote and support technological developments and innovation.

uhm, im sure there is much more :)

Yes, that would mostly fall under the enviromental protection. Technological innovation could easily fall under welfare. The same as helping to support the arts. Acushla's "stay out of my life" would again fall under welfare. Not enacting any laws that would negatively impact most citizens lives, for little, or no, reasonable purpose. Separation of church and state is a given in my opinion. That is in any real democracy.

It would have been very easy for me to have made this post even longer, but I was trying to hit the salient points without getting too much into the tiny details. I leave that sort of thing to my web site commentaries.

[gsb521]

The only reason we should ever engage in war is when we are attacked or one of our allies is attacked. Preemptive strikes are bad policy.

True and not so true. While it is absolutely wrong to start a war, that situation does not exist. Everyone feels threatened by someone when they go to war (for those who don't, shadowraven won't even be able to run for pres there). I'm not sure if you are implying this, but if an ally is attacked, it is not automatic to respond and defend it. Once that happens, you start a third World War. Too many cross-alliances, and it becomes a big slaughterfest. Preemptive strikes are proper policy, when done in a proper way. Firstly, if a government has the tools, weapons, and motive to do harm to others, and if negotiations aren't working, it might be a last resort. There is no general case with war.

This whole post and thread is very contreversial. There is no perfect solution, or else somebody would already be in power utilizing it.

[acushla]

and if negotiations aren't working,

Negotiations...? What's that?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Negotiations...? What's that?

You know what that is. Suggesting a comprimise of course. It always works like that. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the worse. Or should you think we should all just resort to violence? I hope not. :ermm:

[acushla]

Or should you think we should all just resort to violence? I hope not.

No...I do not think we should all just resort to violence...however, I do believe that there are times for violence.

Negotiations...? What's that?...was a tongue in cheek comment pointed squarely at the US. With that much power and might it seems that any 'negotiations' that they might 'appear' to be involved in usually is simply a pre-emptive way of achieving their objectives...a way to let the other side know what their intentions are should the 'negotiations' not produce the desired results. Sort of like saying: This is what we want and if we do not get it through 'negoatiations' then you leave us no other choice but to get it through other means...namely violence.

Hardly negotiations.

[Shadowraven]

True and not so true. While it is absolutely wrong to start a war, that situation does not exist. Everyone feels threatened by someone when they go to war (for those who don't, shadowraven won't even be able to run for pres there). I'm not sure if you are implying this, but if an ally is attacked, it is not automatic to respond and defend it. Once that happens, you start a third World War. Too many cross-alliances, and it becomes a big slaughterfest. Preemptive strikes are proper policy, when done in a proper way. Firstly, if a government has the tools, weapons, and motive to do harm to others, and if negotiations aren't working, it might be a last resort. There is no general case with war.

This whole post and thread is very contreversial. There is no perfect solution, or else somebody would already be in power utilizing it.

No, it is not appropriate to automatically go war on any trigger. Each situation is different and must be judged that way. I mean that it may considered to be appropriate to engage in an attack to help defend an ally. Assuming of course that the situation warrants it.

When I say that preemptive strikes are bad policy, I mean just that. I did not say that they may never be utilized, but that it would take some pretty serious evidence to justify the necessity. As far as negotiations are concerned, I covered that. If they aren't working, and there is absolutely no other viable alternative to war, then an attack may be called for. You better be pretty damn sure if you are going to ask men to give their lives for that cause. WWII qualified. Vietnam didn't and neither does Iraq. That's politics pure and simple.

As for this post being controversial, of course it is. The main problem I see with folks around me is that they are not even willing to discuss this. If more people did, and took an interest in doing so, politicians would likely get away with alot less crap!

[Shadowraven]

No...I do not think we should all just resort to violence...however, I do believe that there are times for violence.

Negotiations...? What's that?...was a tongue in cheek comment pointed squarely at the US. With that much power and might it seems that any 'negotiations' that they might 'appear' to be involved in usually is simply a pre-emptive way of achieving their objectives...a way to let the other side know what their intentions are should the 'negotiations' not produce the desired results. Sort of like saying: This is what we want and if we do not get it through 'negoatiations' then you leave us no other choice but to get it through other means...namely violence.

Hardly negotiations.

Which anyone who knows me, knows that is what I am specifically thinking of. "Bush Pig" definitely had other options there, but didn't even consider for one minute using them, regardless what he says to the contrary. He asked for options on attacking Iraq as one of the first actions when he got in office. Nobody could ever convince me any differently. I remember hearing about this just after he got in office. 9-11 did "Bush Pig" a favor, which makes me wonder how much he knew before it occured. Especially since I've heard other suspicious information related to this.

So what acusla is saying is just what I mean. Negotiations were never seriously considered at any time. The most intelligent and knowledgeable person in his cabinet, Colin Powell, was completely ignored and marginalized. Mainly because he argued with the wisdom of the "party" line.

[acushla]

"Bush Pig" definitely had other options there... He asked for options on attacking Iraq as one of the first actions when he got in office. Negotiations were never seriously considered at any time.

I know that in Canada...and certainly throughout the world news services...it was essentially a foregone conclusion that if Bush was to win (who could have imagined 'stole'...in Amerika!) then war was inevitable.

[Shadowraven]

I know that in Canada...and certainly throughout the world news services...it was essentially a foregone conclusion that if Bush was to win (who could have imagined 'stole'...in Amerika!) then war was inevitable.

Yeah, the only ones that wasn't obvious to were the people silly enough to vote for him. Even they alone weren't enough. He never would have got there without rigging the elections involved. Yes Virginia, he really did "rig/steal" the elections.

[acushla]

Yeah, the only ones that wasn't obvious to were the people silly enough to vote for him. Even they alone weren't enough. He never would have got there without rigging the elections involved. Yes Virginia, he really did "rig/steal" the elections.

Hey, I just wanted you to be the person I made my 1000th post to!

[Willow of Oz]

As for this post being controversial, of course it is. The main problem I see with folks around me is that they are not even willing to discuss this. If more people did, and took an interest in doing so, politicians would likely get away with alot less crap!

Actually, I didn't really think it a very controversial post, except, now that I think about it, the war situations. Maybe that's just because of my perspective.

And maybe there aren't too many responses because everyone is just nodding their head.


Okay, to RMI - with regards to "promote and support technological developments and innovation" - what do you suggest? I mean, why should this be the province of the government? And what should they do? Support it through patents? http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/silly.gif

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Okay, to RMI - with regards to "promote and support technological developments and innovation" - what do you suggest? I mean, why should this be the province of the government? And what should they do? Support it through patents? http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/silly.gif

Well, it should be the province of the govenment, because the government makes all the decisions. So for example take the development of cars that can run on hydrogen. This is something the government should encourage by lowering taxes on this type of fuel and support (financially) gas stations to add a hydrogen fuel tank to their collection of fossil fuel tanks. While simultaneously allow these types of cars to be build with financial support. This will in turn benefit the production of hydrogen-based cars. Any developed country should always look for means to reduce pollution, which damages the environment and health of individuals. Maybe im not explaining it very clearly but i hope you see what i mean.

[rorythedog]

True and not so true. While it is absolutely wrong to start a war, that situation does not exist. Everyone feels threatened by someone when they go to war (for those who don't, shadowraven won't even be able to run for pres there). I'm not sure if you are implying this, but if an ally is attacked, it is not automatic to respond and defend it. Once that happens, you start a third World War. Too many cross-alliances, and it becomes a big slaughterfest. Preemptive strikes are proper policy, when done in a proper way. Firstly, if a government has the tools, weapons, and motive to do harm to others, and if negotiations aren't working, it might be a last resort. There is no general case with war.

This whole post and thread is very contreversial. There is no perfect solution, or else somebody would already be in power utilizing it.

There's nowt controversial here as far as I can see. Plain Common Sense.

(Believe me, I know what controversial is).

[madjo]

Well, it should be the province of the govenment, because the government makes all the decisions. So for example take the development of cars that can run on hydrogen. This is something the government should encourage by lowering taxes on this type of fuel and support (financially) gas stations to add a hydrogen fuel tank to their collection of fossil fuel tanks. While simultaneously allow these types of cars to be build with financial support. This will in turn benefit the production of hydrogen-based cars. Any developed country should always look for means to reduce pollution, which damages the environment and health of individuals. Maybe im not explaining it very clearly but i hope you see what i mean.

Now this really makes me wonder why the Dutch government decided to stop the tax-cuts for people who use solar-power for their own electricity... I hope it has nothing to do with lobbying (read: bribes) from the power-companies in this country...
I don't buy all this "we have to save every euro-cent" crap, they told us, because they will spend it needlessly on other areas. Examples: the HSL (the high speed train between Paris and Amsterdam, which has been in building for over 5 years now, and has cost a lot more already then originally estimated)

[BALTY]

Hey, I just wanted you to be the person I made my 1000th post to!


182 for me But I'm only a little bullshitter!:bandit:

[Todd The Kiwi]

are you implying that acushla is a big bullshitter? :biggrin:

[acushla]

...because the government makes all the decisions.

Best laugh all day...still time to go though.

[acushla]

(Believe me, I know what controversial is).

Is that your new signature? :cheeky:

[acushla]

are you implying that acushla is a big bullshitter? :biggrin:

Be nice. :cool:

[rorythedog]

Is that your new signature? :cheeky:

Might be...want to make something of it?

[acushla]

Might be...want to make something of it?

Seems I've done enough for one decade so...no. Thanks for asking though.

biggman15 will be thrilled to see the 'doggie' back. Throughout the dark days he kept asking...'where's the dog...where's rorythedogs dog. He was genuinely concerned.

[Shadowraven]

Hey, I just wanted you to be the person I made my 1000th post to!

I'm truly touched.

No, really...

OK, OK. So I'm truly touched in the head as well.

Is it that obvious?

BTW, aren't you the big man now?

[Shadowraven]

are you implying that acushla is a big bullshitter? :biggrin:

You mean he's just implying it.

I thought he was just stating a fact! :cheeky:

Well, what do you know...

[Shadowraven]

Well, it should be the province of the govenment, because the government makes all the decisions. So for example take the development of cars that can run on hydrogen. This is something the government should encourage by lowering taxes on this type of fuel and support (financially) gas stations to add a hydrogen fuel tank to their collection of fossil fuel tanks. While simultaneously allow these types of cars to be build with financial support. This will in turn benefit the production of hydrogen-based cars. Any developed country should always look for means to reduce pollution, which damages the environment and health of individuals. Maybe im not explaining it very clearly but i hope you see what i mean.

One of the few instances where I can think that their intervention would be a good thing. They could help induce a quick changeover instead of the gradual one they are considering in "the future". That gradual change is to make it easier on companies, not regular citizens. I suggested that they start selling hydrogen almost exclusively. If they did that you can bet that business would be scrambling over themselves to provide a quick refueling infrastructure to support it. Phase back pollution creating vehicles and fine the polluting companies that refuse to reduce or eliminate their emissions. If they want to continue anyway, make them pay the FULL COST of the effect that their emissions might have. Even if we don't have the full data now, we have enough to make it intenable for them continue the way they have. People cry that it will eliminate jobs to switch. I pesonally believe it create more than it destroys to implement pollution controls and enviromentally friendly technology. Where do I get the idea? From the companies I've already seen springing up around me to do just that. I can just imagine what would happen if they were actually encouraged to exist.

[acushla]

One of the few instances where I can think that their intervention would be a good thing.

"Liberty has never come from the government.... The history of liberty is the history of resistance...a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." -- Woodrow Wilson

[BALTY]

are you implying that acushla is a big bullshitter? :biggrin:
If the foo shits wear it! :ponder:
Just kidding my darling!

[Shadowraven]

"Liberty has never come from the government.... The history of liberty is the history of resistance...a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." -- Woodrow Wilson

Like that quote and can't argue with it. It's one I have on my web site as a matter of fact. Woodrow Wilson was one of our better President's really, as was his political rival Theodore Roosevelt. They just had two different approaches.

[Todd The Kiwi]

If the foo shits wear it! :ponder:
Just kidding my darling!i hope i'm not the only one who doesn't understand this :cross-eye

edit: i just read the joke thread, it sort of makes sense now.
but not really.

[acushla]

i hope i'm not the only one who doesn't understand this :cross-eye

edit: i just read the joke thread, it sort of makes sense now.
but not really.

...and since when did BALTY ever make sense... :chinese:

[Shadowraven]

...and since when did BALTY ever make sense... :chinese:

I'm still trying to figure out the "My Dear" part.

Did he suddenly revert to some Celtic roots, or is there something Todd and Balty would now like to share with the rest of us?

[Todd The Kiwi]

i don't really understand any of what was typed.
he did made reference to "foo shits" in the joke thread though, hence my 'edit'.

please stop talking about roots... :bandit:

[WHAT?]

Father- Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very
liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor
of higher
taxes to support more government programs, in other words
redistribution of
wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the
lectures that she
had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor,
she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he
thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to
higher taxes
on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed
objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and
she
indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was
doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0
GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting
that she
was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly
studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.
She
didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have
many college
friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey
doing ?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are
easy
classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is
so
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always
invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even
show up for
classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the
Dean's
office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to
your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA
and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion,
angrily fired
back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked
really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of
hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.

She played while I worked my tail off.

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to
the
Republican party"!

[Willow of Oz]

How she achieved such high grades...

Father- Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
....
"Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.
She played while I worked my tail off."

Tail: Vulgar Slang. A sexual partner, especially a woman. :normal:

[Willow of Oz]

I happened to stop in at the Obama website, given that someone here has spammed the thread with it through his sig (:cheeky:) and whilst there I checked out his policies (what else are you going to do on a political site!). I also watched his June 06 speech on religion and politics. Pretty good.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
(shocking though when he remarked that more Americans believe in angels than evolution).

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I happened to stop in at the Obama website, given that someone here has spammed the thread with it through his sig (:cheeky:) and whilst there I checked out his policies (what else are you going to do on a political site!). I also watched his June 06 speech on religion and politics. Pretty good.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
(shocking though when he remarked that more Americans believe in angels than evolution).

...and how more americans rather have a homosexual in power than an atheist...(this is not related to Obama).

[acushla]

...and how more americans rather have a homosexual in power than an atheist...(this is not related to Obama).
I have got to tell you...whenever I see 'poll results' of this nature...I have zero faith in whatever nonsense is being put forward cloaked in the fabric of the finality and respectability of a 'poll'. With over 300 million people to choose from I bet I could conduct a poll that would show that 63% of those polled believed that Bush could win a third term if it was allowed.

[WHAT?]

Found this one I like....


I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE
100%. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay
me, I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In short, I am required to pass a random urine test to get my paycheck,.which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
That is... Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check?
Because having to pass one to earn it for them, I feel they should have to pass one as well to receive it.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butt, doing drugs, while I work...

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

[Todd The Kiwi]

man you suck @ necro, but i totally agree! :bulb:

[WHAT?]

man you suck @ necro, but i totally agree! :bulb:

Necro the rapper, or death in general?:cross-eye

[Willow of Oz]

Necro the rapper, or death in general?:cross-eye
I nearly went and saw him.

[badbite26]

Necro the Grim Rapper?

The primary responsibilities of a government should be to protect it's citizens. The best way to protect it's citizens would be from commitments to infrastructure. Proper sanitation, clean water, and sewage disposal. Oh, and ample parking at the mall.

[WHAT?]

Most places don't have thriving malls anymore. Some do have your "super mall" where competition has killed off the older malls. If you're lucky enough to have one in your town, it may have no other mall. You better hope the city has a big enough population to have the stores that all ages like to shop in, or they leave to go shop in other cities. The rich don't like shopping elbow to elbow with the poor guy. Inotherwords, Hi-class stores don't go in malls that aren't going to support them. Hi-class people support them. If K-mart is an anchor store of the mall, "Hi-class" isn't going to go there. "Hi-class store" knows this will happen, and don't bother setting up shop there either.
Strip malling is killing the conventional mall.
Gangs (kids) that hang out loitering... kill malls.
Making laws that prevents kids from hanging out in malls.. is killing malls.

"Government" like "malls"...should cater to all ages.
One mention of making changes to an elderly social program from a candidate, and all hell breaks loose (even if it actually is about future elderly peoples programs such as you and me). You know what i mean? The opposing candidate lambaste the other out of the water thru the twisting of words. There are those certain no nos in the political world that candidates can't touch.

Anyway, mall parking in the "government world" would be promised at a great location, easy access, and security patrolled (including a free wash).
But "reality" delivers at .... big brother watched location, great exercise from distant parking spots (oh great), and all this at "not so easy payments for parking". ;)


EDIT:
I still say WE are government. We shouldn't look to "government" to "DO" anything for us. "WE" should do it!

Kinda like the JFK speech... Ask Not ... etc. ...you know...