Do you trust the government?

[theDoctorisIn]

Secondly, can you think of a situation in which the noun "trust" would be applied to a corporation?

Precisely my point.

By the way, the word "trust" is an adjective.

No, it's actually a noun and a verb, but not an adjective. "Trustworthy" is an adjective.

I have trust in you. (noun)
I trust you. (verb)

Sorry for the grammar-nazi interlude.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So TK, you agree that the question in the OP is meaningless?

 

[konradv]

he aint no different than any other president...in with dark hair out with grey hair...

..except for bottle-red Ronnie.

 

[konradv]

Do you trust the government?

More than you.

 

[Mac1958]

Do you "trust" Coca-Cola? How about Sunoco? Halliburton?

I'm glad this question was asked.

The reason for the existence of those companies is to maximize shareholder value. No, it's not to put food on the tables of its employees or to put the children of their employees through school (I know that many erroneously think that). So I trust they will do what they can to accomplish that very clear and specific goal. If and when they break the rules and laws, too bad, they should be prosecuted for breach of trust by their shareholders, if not more, as appropriate.

The government? Well, that's a different deal. The government is supposedly there to work for the good of the people. Oh, and they do so with our tax dollars, not with money they earned via ingenuity, hard work, sacrifice and smarts. But to make it worse, their constant lies, distortion, deceit, influence peddling and law-bending is done supposedly as "public servants" (cough, hack) is an insult to everyone and made even more insulting by the partisans on their "side" who are so quick to forgive and deny and spin for them as they point the finger at the other "side".

So government, private business? Apples & oranges.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it's actually a noun and a verb, but not an adjective.

In the legal sense, it is an adjective. But lets not mince words. As defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, trust is:

"An equitable obligation, either express or Implied, resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with the property for the benefit of some other person, or for the benefit of himself and another or others, according to such confidence."

Now, the property in this instance are rights. The trust in this sense, is where both the government and I mutually agree to deal with each others rights equitably in good faith, holding that both parties will adhere to the terms of said trust so as benefit one another. In it, I acknowledge the government has rights, and whereby the government also acknowledges my rights.

This agreement is supposed to be beneficial to both parties, not one. Government is duly obligated to protect and enforce the rights of other citizens, while ensuring its rights are not compromised in the process.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it's actually a noun and a verb, but not an adjective.

In the legal sense, it is an adjective. But lets not mince words. As defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, trust is:

"An equitable obligation, either express or Implied, resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with the property for the benefit of some other person, or for the benefit of himself and another or others, according to such confidence."

Now, the property in this instance are rights. The trust in this sense, is where both the government and I mutually agree to deal with each others rights equitably in good faith, holding that both parties will adhere to the terms of said trust so as benefit one another. In it, I acknowledge the government has rights, and whereby the government also acknowledges my rights.

This agreement is supposed to be beneficial to both parties, not one. Government is duly obligated to protect and enforce the rights of other citizens, while ensuring its rights are not compromised in the process.

"Trust" is not an adjective in a legal sense, either - it's still a noun.

But it's also an entirely different definition - legally, "trust" refers to things like trust funds or putting the house in trust for your kids.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you "trust" Coca-Cola? How about Sunoco? Halliburton?

I'm glad this question was asked.

The reason for the existence of those companies is to maximize shareholder value. No, it's not to put food on the tables of its employees or to put the children of their employees through school (I know that many erroneously think that). So I trust they will do what they can to accomplish that very clear and specific goal. If and when they break the rules and laws, too bad, they should be prosecuted for breach of trust by their shareholders, if not more, as appropriate.

The government? Well, that's a different deal. The government is supposedly there to work for the good of the people. Oh, and they do so with our tax dollars, not with money they earned via ingenuity, hard work, sacrifice and smarts. But to make it worse, their constant lies, distortion, deceit, influence peddling and law-bending is done supposedly as "public servants" (cough, hack) is an insult to everyone and made even more insulting by the partisans on their "side" who are so quick to forgive and deny and spin for them as they point the finger at the other "side".

So government, private business? Apples & oranges.

.

Yet, the term "trust" applies equally to neither of them.

 

[Mac1958]

Do you "trust" Coca-Cola? How about Sunoco? Halliburton?

I'm glad this question was asked.

The reason for the existence of those companies is to maximize shareholder value. No, it's not to put food on the tables of its employees or to put the children of their employees through school (I know that many erroneously think that). So I trust they will do what they can to accomplish that very clear and specific goal. If and when they break the rules and laws, too bad, they should be prosecuted for breach of trust by their shareholders, if not more, as appropriate.

The government? Well, that's a different deal. The government is supposedly there to work for the good of the people. Oh, and they do so with our tax dollars, not with money they earned via ingenuity, hard work, sacrifice and smarts. But to make it worse, their constant lies, distortion, deceit, influence peddling and law-bending is done supposedly as "public servants" (cough, hack) is an insult to everyone and made even more insulting by the partisans on their "side" who are so quick to forgive and deny and spin for them as they point the finger at the other "side".

So government, private business? Apples & oranges.

.

Yet, the term "trust" applies equally to neither of them.

In general, yes.

But their supposed "motives" should be quite different. That's the point.

.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you "trust" Coca-Cola? How about Sunoco? Halliburton?

I'm glad this question was asked.

The reason for the existence of those companies is to maximize shareholder value. No, it's not to put food on the tables of its employees or to put the children of their employees through school (I know that many erroneously think that). So I trust they will do what they can to accomplish that very clear and specific goal. If and when they break the rules and laws, too bad, they should be prosecuted for breach of trust by their shareholders, if not more, as appropriate.

The government? Well, that's a different deal. The government is supposedly there to work for the good of the people. Oh, and they do so with our tax dollars, not with money they earned via ingenuity, hard work, sacrifice and smarts. But to make it worse, their constant lies, distortion, deceit, influence peddling and law-bending is done supposedly as "public servants" (cough, hack) is an insult to everyone and made even more insulting by the partisans on their "side" who are so quick to forgive and deny and spin for them as they point the finger at the other "side".

So government, private business? Apples & oranges.

.

Yet, the term "trust" applies equally to neither of them.

In general, yes.

But their supposed "motives" should be quite different. That's the point.

.

That might have been your point, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't trust but two people.

Other than me,myself and I...?
My wife and my best friend,thats it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So TK, you agree that the question in the OP is meaningless?

What are you talking about?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So TK, you agree that the question in the OP is meaningless?

What are you talking about?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed like you were agreeing with me when I said the term "trust" does not apply for governments. The OP asks if anyone "trusts" their government. From my (and perhaps your) perspective, since you define trust as the antithesis of government, the question in the OP is meaningless.

Please correct me if I got anything wrong there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed like you were agreeing with me when I said the term "trust" does not apply for governments.

I was not. Trust does in fact apply to government, or was supposed to. I would trust it to protect my rights. When we elect a president, we say "in you we place our trust, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." Same goes with other elected officials. The entire electoral system is based on trust.

The OP asks if anyone "trusts" their government. From my (and perhaps your) perspective, since you define trust as the antithesis of government, the question in the OP is meaningless.

It seemed like a rather simple question to me. Why must it be so complicated for you? Government becomes the antithesis of trust when government betrays that trust. Therefore in this case, and as of this present day, government is no longer synonymous with "trust."

Meaning I no longer trust this government in any of its capacity.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My entire point in this thread is that the simplicity of the question in the OP is what makes it meaningless. Of course on its face it's a "simple question" - but "simple answers" don't exist in the real world.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Simplicity is a vice, not a virute.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My entire point in this thread is that the simplicity of the question in the OP is what makes it meaningless. Of course on its face it's a "simple question" - but "simple answers" don't exist in the real world.

In fact "yes" and "no" are the most simplistic answers a person can provide. One or the other can speak to the feelings, intentions, or trust the individual has towards someone or something. Those two answers are precise and non-voluminous.

Simplicity is a vice only because it is a virtue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 'point' of the OP question is partisan and ridiculous, an effort to advance the sophomoric and naïve notion common to most on the right that 'the government' is 'bad,' that it is indeed a single 'malevolent' entity seeking only to garner more power to the 'disadvantage' of the people.

This inane notion has no basis in fact or reality, of course, it's yet another conservative myth, like 'political correctness' or 'liberal media,' the basic ingredients of rightist demagoguery and fear-mongering.

 

[Darkwind]

Also, what's the point of the question in the OP, if no government in history has been "trustworthy"?

The point of the thread is to discover what 'others' think with regard to the issue of trusting the government. Not if the OP trusts the government.