Luke Hobbs

This conversation is closed.

How do we show the Governments around the world that they have become the very monsters they once sought to fight?

In an ideal world, the creation of Parliament was to stop a singular family Monarchy ruling over the entirety of a nation, so that a more "equal" governing method could be used to represent the needs of the people rather than the opinion of a single ruler.

However, all I see now is that Governments have ended up becoming just another Monarchy, creating class gaps, oppression and not working towards improving societies at all.

What can we do to show these Governments that they work for us, represent us, and are employed by us as public SERVANTS and not insidious rulers?

  • Sep 4 2012: They already know that.
    They know exactly what they are doing.
    They don't care if you call them names, say they are stupid, continue to throw up your hands in confusion as to the denial they are in. They aren't. They don't care. They don't care. They don't care.
    Wake up. They know exactly what they are and what they are doing. They are doing what they do intentionally.
    Their goals don't include you except to use you and then discard you.
    They intend on taking every thing away from everyone.

    I have a relative who actually has come to believe that everything is the property of the government.
    This relative doesn't want the government to give the people everything for free!
    It doesn't belong to the government! It isn't theirs. Besides, this person worked for it so why is it taken away from them or made even more difficult to get?
    It isn't the government who is to give whatever to them, but it is this relative, and other citizens who should give it to themselves! They are the ones who produced it or worked for it. This is nuts. It is insanity to think that way.

    Again, decades ago, a book was written, influenced by WWII, about (a paraphrased title) "How to ensure we (people) don't allow Monsters to gain political power again", a la Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.

    We have. The very same kinds of monsters are in power and new ones are running for the vacancies everywhere. This is the reality the people of the world must change. Voting will not do it. Sorry.
    • thumb
      Sep 4 2012: You had me, Mr. Chance, right up to the part about "Voting will not do it."
      Voting is the only thing that will do it. I cannot vote except in my own country. If every free (having the right to vote) nation elects decent, fair leaders the world WILL IMPROVE. Not exercising one's right to vote and is one of the most helpful things a citizen can do to further the cause of evil leaders. Vote sir, vote!
      • thumb
        Sep 5 2012: But how do we know voting isn't fixed? And even if it wasn't fixed, how do we know all MP's and politicians aren't just from the same men's club?
        • thumb
          Sep 5 2012: The same way you know anything Mr. Hobbs, by studying, investigating, and learning about the candidates and the propositions. It takes time and effort. Strangely, it has become typical in the USA for politicians to want you to know only two things: their name, and every possible shortcoming of their opponents. Your source of information should be other than the media, and other than politicians. The Internet has made available the voting record of every elected political figure. Visit town hall meetings and ask the hard questions. Remember Luke, if voting goes away freedom goes away. Unchecked apathy and ignorance will eventually eradicate voting. You can make a difference.
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2012: RE: "The thing is . . . "
          Fiscal bullying is a reality. Wealthy people can wield great influence for good, or for evil. That is all the more reason for free people to vote at every opportunity. It is the ONLY safguard we have against those bent on conforming us to their will. I agree there is corruption in democracy, but there is also hope. QUOTE: "Where elections end, slavery begins."-- John Quincy Adams
      • thumb
        Sep 5 2012: I wish it were that simple! its my opinion that the power of the people is being sucked up by the corporation, not by the government.

        “He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation”: James Garfield

        its supply and demand, if you have supply you can make demands
        • thumb
          Sep 5 2012: There can be no doubt that lobbying is a powerful force in US politics. Corporations and special interest groups pay unemployed politicians to influence legislators, and it works!. The fact remains though that it is the ELECTED politicians who make the laws. Without getting sufficient votes no one can take office as a legislator. Voting is essential. Every citizen who lives in a free country, is eligible to vote and does not vote, is a part of the problem. Voting by an informed population is the solution. It really is that simple, Mr. Newman!
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2012: The thing is, the human mind can be swayed by something more powerful than money, and that is "consequence". For example, the world's wealthiest woman, a large, foul-mouthed, uneducated Australian woman by the name of Gina Rineheart, is worth a hefty $29BIL. Yet she commands very little "power" and respect, and because of this is rapidly losing much of her fortune. But it's the lack of consequence for not following her that allows people to walk away. Yet it's the person with money/access to resources who will stop at nothing to control you, does so by making us live in fear and then he owns us. This is how people lose their will, enforced fear.
      • Sep 6 2012: You still believe that nonsense?
        Especially after the 2000 Preferential Election?

        I don't and you have every right to but things are not changing for the better and voting still allows two lousy choices and nothing more.

        Sorry, but when Ralph Nader ran for office, he was marginalized, pushed aside, made fun of and for all practical purposes, kept out of debates just like Ron Paul.
        What we do know of Ralph Nader is that for 40 years he worked for the people of America, in many different respects and achieved a tremendous amount of change that benefited citizens.
        He lived in one small room for 25 years and could have become incredibly wealthy but passed up the money to work for change.
        If he said he could do something, he was telling the truth. If he said what it is he has done, everyone knew he was telling the truth. If he had ideas on how to go about affecting good change as President, one would have to believe that he could, that he knows how and that he would, to the best of his ability.

        What was he running against? Morons who said anything just to get a vote. Morons who had no real portfolios to speak of. Some had even ruined businesses, states, or were investigated for wrong-doing after they left their position in order to run for President.

        And then Al Gore won, and Bush went in. Now, in California, I believe, there is no limit on how much can be spent on a candidate, meaning Senators will represent companies, not the people. There is much, much more, but go ahead and believe another one of America's failing parachutes, still works.
        • thumb
          Sep 6 2012: So, you advocate what? Not voting? Endure the free fall, ignore the reserve parachute? Expect to die by smashing into the ground at terminal velocity? I doubt Mr. Nader, Mr. Gore, or Mr. Paul would agree with your hopelessly pessimistic fatalism. Too bad there is not as much passion in your plan for America as there is in your name-calling condemnation of mine. Rechannel your energy, intellect and passion toward a solution. We all know more than enough about the problems. Is that your suggestion to help America. . . ." DO NOT VOTE"? Really?
      • thumb
        Sep 8 2012: The problem is not Government in itself, but the way the people within it perceive their roles and act the out.

        I liken the government/people relationship to be much like a computer and its software: the hardware is the land, the software the people, and "windows" the government. However, without a decent antivirus, the system gets filled with malware and eventually things start working against you. This is when governments start getting infected with ideas of power, control and profit either internally or through external factors like corporations.

        What we need is a metaphorical anti-virus/anti-malware program, a government designed to keep an eye on the government, to keep it clean and functioning for our benefit, not against us. We need Watchmen.
  • thumb
    Sep 5 2012: We have to re-examine our values as a society.
    Leaders are products of the society; and liars, pretenders, hypocrites and selfish individuals can not make good leaders.
    Without good leaders, even very good and laudable systems will not work; societies with vague ideas of what is right, and what is wrong, will not be able to produce good leaders.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +1
    Sep 4 2012: You have only one choice Learn how to give up your dependence on money - which will serve you well seeing as the economy will be collapsing soon anyhow. With growing populations combined with growing automation, there will soon be not enough consumers to sustain our Plutonomy (Plutarchy's economy) (Plutarchy = Plutocracy plus Oligarchy working together against you). So help the imminent collapse along.

    Governments around the world ALREADY KNOW what they are doing to you. They don't even care if you know because your self-imposed slavery to $$$ (that they invent into existence) keeps you malleable (sheeple). That's what it's about.
  • Sep 11 2012: American citizens are avoiding their own accountability to act and confront the truth of this government . All of you want a plan of action how sad do your part it will add up or this debate won't see real progress just more empty words
  • thumb
    Sep 8 2012: Education
  • thumb
    Sep 8 2012: Try to push a bill that gets rid of the electoral college. The fears that America's founders had for creating the electoral college are nonexistent and allows elections to go against the popular vote. Or a 100 million man, woman, and child march would be nice if a cohesive message could be attained.
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2012: except in most countries there is no such thing, and the situation is not any better or even worse. improving the election system is always good, but this change will not solve the problem the O.P. raised.
      • thumb
        Sep 8 2012: That does only apply to America. What might apply or be a first step where you're from?
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2012: i can tell you a first step, but it would not help much, just as reforming the election system of the US wouldn't. the problem lies elsewhere.

          here, i would remove the barriers to entry. we have a 5% minimum limit to get into the parliament, and there is a stupid nomination system that requires a lot of people to sign a piece of paper in order for a candidate to enter the elections. i suppose you have some similar there. but our system is set up in a way that it essentially excludes small startup organizations and minor candidates. that prevents change.
      • thumb
        Sep 8 2012: In America, nominees have to "win" delegates from either party to get on the national election ticket. The barriers here are may be more invidious.
  • thumb
    Sep 6 2012: you don't need to show it to the governments. you need to show it to the people.
  • thumb
    Sep 5 2012: It is the closure of systems that prevent them from achieving their goals.
    It is the very definition of our institutions that prevents them from trancscending their own limitations.
    Any organisation that is constituted to be self-perpetuating will look to the definitions of its survival as the absolute limit of its activities.
    If that organisation is formulated to be at the service of an open population it will fail that population because it will collapse if it does so.
    For a government to serve a population, it must be constituted to be continuously open to that population. Democracy does this by taking the Plutocratic fascist model and making it more porous by way of voting.
    If the vote is non-compulsory the votes then fall to the market model of supply and demand and will gravitate to full plutocracy.
    If the vote is sublimated into a choice of least-worst it will likewise gravitate to full plutocracy.
    If the governmental and judicial structures are based on closed-contest tournaments, the system will gravitate plutocracy by way of the market for conpetitive skill - i.e. paid-for lawyers - the system will devolve to a state of entertainment much like the Roman games - while the populace is focussed on the tournament, the pretext (policy and governance) is sublimated and falls to the plutocracy who remain carefully, and quietly, out of the arena.
    Whilever the state remains beyond absolute scrutiny and audit .. whilever the sysem is tournament based(adversarial) .. and whilever the vote is optional or constrained to the point of inefectuality, the goals of teh open population will not be served - and eventually become irrelevant - while the institutions thrive at their expense.
  • thumb
    Sep 5 2012: @Random Chance

    But this is the thing, there's no such thing as Government. It's just more people doing jobs. How have we let that have so much control over us? How are we so easily distracted by mass-media and shiny products? At the end of the day, has anything actually changed since we first became Homo Sapiens? It just seems so logical that if Government isn't representing us, then they have no authority over us.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Sep 4 2012: You have only one choice Learn how to give up your dependence on money - which will serve you well seeing as the economy will be collapsing soon anyhow. With growing populations combined with growing automation, there will soon be not enough consumers to sustain our Plutonomy (Plutarchy's economy) (Plutarchy = Plutocracy plus Oligarchy working together against you).