Forum Post: Our form of government
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 9:54 a.m. EST by Fedup15
(30)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are put in power by people who produce nothing but just play card games with other people's money, and where the members of society who produce everything are least likely to be able to sustain themselves or succeed.
Fixed.
Well played
that sound like a libertarian fantasy. here is a fantasy that I have been pondering. we live in a society that those who are the most innovative and loving choose to scrape by and enjoy life. those that are self-interested and morally bankrupt rise to the top with the help of opportunistic people. we get the government we deserve not the one we mentally concoct.
Any hierarchical organization that has any power will always attract the corrupt to lead it. The more power the more corrupt it attracts. Government has the advantage of being a monopoly on the use of force (police, army) which means no alternatives. Power with no alternatives will attract the most corrupt.
Decent people don't need or want power over others.
that idea is kinda dangerous. imagine an ant colony that chose the individual over the collective. would it create mounds that sustains them all?
The ant colony is designed to serve the Queen, not the worker ants. Bad example
i guess you would say that. but I bet if you interviewed and ant and checked his fecal matter, you'd find that he is ok with that. it's called purpose. and you'd be surprised what a vision for the future will do to drones.
Then the 99% should be ok with the status quo
true, but I'm not Ok with wars for resources, global warming fear mongering, decaying infrastructure and no vision for the future. it kinda leaves me just wanting to be, and not be a contributing member of a collective.
Agree with that. The lack of leadership in washington is terrible
Ants don't have any idea of personal power or sapience - just biological programming so corruption isn't really an issue.
With humans it is.
What we have to determine is where the advantages of willingly collective action begin to create the danger of forced collective obedience.
see, now we are learning. just because i have an ego, does not mean I am right when every one else says so. the common knowledge, or sense, of one group of people is never the common sense of others. Bush don't hate poor people, he just don't respect them. that is why he believed that states should intervene during katrina, or so I believe. he is not corrupt he is just miss guided. no?
What now? Slow down because your're going to have explain your meaning there. Your references are jumping around and I can't logically connect them.
As far as Bush FEMA doesn't have its own intrastate emergency plans - it relies on the states and cities to have their own. Its not that he believed the states should intervene - it was their responsibility to do so legally. The lack of necessary planning in New Orleans and La in general was the responsibility of the Mayor and Governors going back a long ways.
Bush was corrupt and misguided. I just don't think he was either insofar as Katrina was concerned.
yeah and that is why Fema is kicking ass and taking names under Obama. or so the news leads me to believe that. they were so productive that they ran out of money. and going back to Katrina, my understanding was that there was animosity between Blanko and Nagin, and bush just let them choose what solutions to use. If, and this is me opining, bush's constituency asked for intervention, he would not have played the states' rights card. no?
It is kicking ass and taking names because Obama hasn't appointed an administrator yet? Or because it is currently functioning in states that did their due diligence in making emergency plans?
Read the law yourself if you don't believe me. FEMA's operational guidelines and mandates are public.
i'll do that, thank you. so are you suggesting that the Federal bureaucratic apparatus works well when states and feds get together and compromise? and only thing that gets in the way is an egotistical federal administrator.
It doesn't take an egotistical administrator - with Katrina it happened with inept administrators. They just didn't care enough to do their job - a long line of them didn't care enough to do it. Why should they - they were getting their kickbacks and had enough patronage jobs to hand out to keep their system going. Protecting citizens in emergencies just wasn't important to their goals - of getting rich and staying in power.
The system works best in the short term when they cooperate yes. Just as pretty much anything works better when there is cooperation. Its especially true in situations where quick reaction is needed.
Its not a libertarian fantasy, it is what we have today here in the USA
yeah, and it don't bother me. because I am happy where I am. you know what separates innovators from imitators? The self confidence of the challis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w