Little known Facts

[FredM 0]

The Europeans have done a lot right in the way of environmentally sound policies, while keeping their industry up. (Germany for example has the third highest GDP in the world, Japan, another country doing well on the front of Environmentally friendly policies, is number 2.) And there's no reason to not adopt some of their policies.

 

Hey there,

 

While there are positives, let us not forget the negatives. Germany is also facing massive issues with employment concerns, where the practice of forcing retirement at 50 has become common in several industries to "make room" for younger workers. In addition, unemployment sits at about 7%. Due to social programs that the country is starting to have issues affording, at one point over 3/4 of every dollar earned went to the the government. On the other side, Japan's economy is starting to show signs of issues with cultural "employed for life" views clashing with modern day (or lack of) business ethics.

 

And dealing with the assertion that the people know best, that gets back to the entire concept of the great "American" experiment. It is a Western view because honestly...this is where it was invented. At the core, this issue is...essentially...the basis for most modern conflicts.

[Cptn Corizon 0]

Which goes under the "we they do which doesn't work," none of which actually has anything to with their environmental policies.

 

The core issue is that Americans are too ethno-centric :D

[Grom 0]

On the more broad political note, I'd like to respectfully note that the assertion of "you and I know what's best for us" is a very 'Western' point of view considering for the largest portion of history in the world, the government decided everything for the people with out their input, and one that doesn't take into account historical context.

 

I'm not quite understanding this statement, but I'll take a stab at it. If you look at the history of the world, you will see that "Western thought" as we now describe was a culmination of thousands of years of development. The power of the individual is not a new concept, but arguably, precedes the power of the state and/or centralized authority.

 

 

To say the government cannot regulate how you dispose of your trash, for example, is to reject all government interaction. That's silly idea. Government is a needed entity to regulate society. Essentially, its back to social contract theory (to which a great portion of our constitutional theory is based upon.) The very nature of government is often to preform tasks that individuals alone can't accomplish.

 

I am by no means an anarchist, but I am opposed to micromanaging, at least on a federal level (which is what I was arguing against in HD's post). My view of the federal (national) government is, admittedly not very progressive, but harkens back to the original intent of our Founders. For instance, I believe that it is the national government's role to provide defense from threats both foreign and domestic. I do not believe, however, that it is the national government's responsibility to feed the hungry or provide shelter for the homeless, for example. Sound heartless? Sure. Is it? Not when you consider that these roles were more effectively filled by other entities such as private community organizations and religious groups. Instead of neighbors banding together to help someone through a difficult time, the faceless government writes checks. Which is more compassionate? Which is more meaningful and effective? The only reason government performs these functions is because they've been ceded the power to do so, not because it is necessary for them to do it. "Why should I lend a hand if someone else is going to do it for me?"

 

Some may call me a dreamer or idealistic, but I simply point to our nation's history and say, what makes them better than us that we can't do the same thing? Are we inherently less competent or resourceful? The problem is, we've made government our ketracel-white (obligatory Star Trek tie-in). Maybe it's time to kick the habit.

[Cptn Corizon 0]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would disapprove of government intervention, they were pretty progressive. Not to mention the fact that they sort embedded the idea of improve government instead of keeping it the same way in the constitution itself.

 

Private community-based help is nice, but you forget that it utterly failed to support the people in a meaningful way.