The fundamental question

[Nosmo King]

should our government be a passive observer of the problems of the people, or an active participant in finding solutions?

When America had Conservatives, they would most likely say the former. But in today's climate of Trump and authoritarian populism, what answer would they give?

 

[fncceo]

What problems?

 

[Pete7469]

Government is usually the problem.


.

 

[Nosmo King]

What problems?

That's a response I did not expect. Are you saying we have no national problems, or are you asking for a list?

For now, let's stick to the question before rambling down the primrose path.

 

[Nosmo King]

Government is usually the problem.


.

So the role of government is not to be a mere observer of the people's problems, but he eliminated?

 

[TNHarley]

The government causes most of the "problems of the people"

 

[jc456]

What problems?

That's a response I did not expect. Are you saying we have no national problems, or are you asking for a list?

For now, let's stick to the question before rambling down the primrose path.

I'm with the other poster, what problems? name one.

 

[fncceo]

What problems?

That's a response I did not expect. Are you saying we have no national problems, or are you asking for a list?

For now, let's stick to the question before rambling down the primrose path.

A 'national' problem is something like the Germans are invading. All other 'problems', both real and imagined, are personal problems that, in a political power grab, some choose to make national.

Other people's personal problems are none of my business and my personal problems are none of theirs.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

in today's climate of Trump and authoritarian populism

Trump has been the least authoritarian of any President in my lifetime.


What government are you talking about Federal or State?

Federal government should only be concerned with what someone mentioned invasion or disputes between states.

State/local government should more "micromanaging" depending on the area.

 

[Some Guy]

The government causes most of the "problems of the people"

Or exacerbates them.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm guessing some lack the vision to recognize people's problems. Problems like lack of an adequate water supply. Or ruinous industrial pollution. Or crime. Or gun violence. Or pay equity for women and minorities.

I'm guessing that some assume those are personal problems that should be solved by individuals.

What is government for if not to provide adequate infrastructure? What is government for if not to fairly administer justice? Is government just supposed to protect the borders, deliver the mail and get out of the way? Should government deliver on its promise to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense?

 

[Nosmo King]

in today's climate of Trump and authoritarian populism

Trump has been the least authoritarian of any President in my lifetime.


What government are you talking about Federal or State?

Federal government should only be concerned with what someone mentioned invasion or disputes between states.

State/local government should more "micromanaging" depending on the area.

Which previous presidents have called for the suspension of due process?

 

[Some Guy]

Government is meant to be no more than an agent. Someone you hire to do a job for you that you're not willing to do yourself, can't do yourself or recognize that can do a better job than yourself. But just because you hire an agent, it doesn't mean that agent has any more rights than you do to infringe on others' rights. An agent can protect you but can't assault people on your behalf. An agent can help you decide where you should spend your money but can't decide what to do with others' money as a result.

I wish more people thought of government in this way. We'd be much better off.

 

[Darkwind]

should our government be a passive observer of the problems of the people, or an active participant in finding solutions?

When America had Conservatives, they would most likely say the former. But in today's climate of Trump and authoritarian populism, what answer would they give?

The federal government should be passive in all things relating to society.

Local, County, State governments should be participative but not controlling.

The Federal government has been given far more power than it is authorized to have by the Constitution. The feds should deal with just the issues between the states (this does not mean the people) and with the world at large. Just as the President has far too much power beyond the offices' scope. It should be a chief law enforcement agency and our front to the world. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Nosmo King]

should our government be a passive observer of the problems of the people, or an active participant in finding solutions?

When America had Conservatives, they would most likely say the former. But in today's climate of Trump and authoritarian populism, what answer would they give?

The federal government should be passive in all things relating to society.

Local, County, State governments should be participative but not controlling.

The Federal government has been given far more power than it is authorized to have by the Constitution. The feds should deal with just the issues between the states (this does not mean the people) and with the world at large. Just as the President has far too much power beyond the offices' scope. It should be a chief law enforcement agency and our front to the world. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are there problems that are national problems? For instance, does air pollution respect state lines and stay within the state where it was generated?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm guessing some lack the vision to recognize people's problems. Problems like lack of an adequate water supply. Or ruinous industrial pollution. Or crime. Or gun violence. Or pay equity for women and minorities.

I'm guessing that some assume those are personal problems that should be solved by individuals.

What is government for if not to provide adequate infrastructure? What is government for if not to fairly administer justice? Is government just supposed to protect the borders, deliver the mail and get out of the way? Should government deliver on its promise to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense?

Because water departments love dead customers.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm guessing some lack the vision to recognize people's problems. Problems like lack of an adequate water supply. Or ruinous industrial pollution. Or crime. Or gun violence. Or pay equity for women and minorities.

I'm guessing that some assume those are personal problems that should be solved by individuals.

What is government for if not to provide adequate infrastructure? What is government for if not to fairly administer justice? Is government just supposed to protect the borders, deliver the mail and get out of the way? Should government deliver on its promise to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense?

Because water departments love dead customers.

Talk to folks in Flint or the California centeral valley or anyplace in the southwest.

 

[Darkwind]

should our government be a passive observer of the problems of the people, or an active participant in finding solutions?

When America had Conservatives, they would most likely say the former. But in today's climate of Trump and authoritarian populism, what answer would they give?

The federal government should be passive in all things relating to society.

Local, County, State governments should be participative but not controlling.

The Federal government has been given far more power than it is authorized to have by the Constitution. The feds should deal with just the issues between the states (this does not mean the people) and with the world at large. Just as the President has far too much power beyond the offices' scope. It should be a chief law enforcement agency and our front to the world. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are there problems that are national problems? For instance, does air pollution respect state lines and stay within the state where it was generated?

Thank you for making My point for Me.

The Federal govenment is responsible for issues arising from the States. If one State is polluting the resources that flow downstream to other states, then the Federal govenment acts as an arbitrator -- or judge if necessary -- to resolve the issue; BETWEEN THE STATES.

The ruling would go something like, "Your industry is sending unreasonable and unwarranted amounts of toxic contaminates downstream and harming the people of this State.

You will bring this practice to a halt and ensure that the water leaving your State is safe and clean for everyone. WE (The People) do not care HOW you do this, but that you will do this.

This is the proper role of the Federal Government. Not to micromanage how the States go about cleaning up their environment, but ensure that they do.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm guessing some lack the vision to recognize people's problems. Problems like lack of an adequate water supply. Or ruinous industrial pollution. Or crime. Or gun violence. Or pay equity for women and minorities.

I'm guessing that some assume those are personal problems that should be solved by individuals.

What is government for if not to provide adequate infrastructure? What is government for if not to fairly administer justice? Is government just supposed to protect the borders, deliver the mail and get out of the way? Should government deliver on its promise to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense?

Because water departments love dead customers.

Talk to folks in Flint or the California centeral valley or anyplace in the southwest.

This issue then runs deeper than governmental oversight.
Inspectors and supervisors are bribed left and right.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm guessing some lack the vision to recognize people's problems. Problems like lack of an adequate water supply. Or ruinous industrial pollution. Or crime. Or gun violence. Or pay equity for women and minorities.

I'm guessing that some assume those are personal problems that should be solved by individuals.

What is government for if not to provide adequate infrastructure? What is government for if not to fairly administer justice? Is government just supposed to protect the borders, deliver the mail and get out of the way? Should government deliver on its promise to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense?

Because water departments love dead customers.

Talk to folks in Flint or the California centeral valley or anyplace in the southwest.

Those are problems of Michigan and California.