Yea, im a depressed cynical assh*le by default it pains me to be optimistic sometimes :p:

especially here in PR, among the citizens ignorance is spread quickly but the inconvenient truth has to be reserved so we don't feel judged.

So we don't want to acknowledge how we got into this mess and we don't want realistic solutions we want our politicians to be messiahs that magically save our budget.

And the thing is, at this point to truly eliminate corruption we would have disassemble our system and this would stop progress so we don't do that, instead we work within a corrupt system and keep piling on layers of bullsh*t that ends up becoming part of it's foundation.

I feel like no matter what, no matter what precautions you place, any government will be corrupted in some form or another. It's been this way forever, people aren't fit to rule themselves, why not let a machine do it? I feel like we'd all rebel and start back from square one if that happened anyway.

I'm on to you....

I find this to be a false dichotomy personally. The issue is slightly more nuanced than that. Some government individuals and agencies provide an important service that is a benefit to society over all, but some abuse power or let their personal feelings guide their judgment in office, and some are just incompetent or ideas or poorly executed.

That being said, I'm a nihilist. I don't believe in objective meaning or value, I believe value and meaning come from humans. So I don't really care in the end, I will adapt to whatever B.S. power-abuser pull, and I will take advantage of whatever services governments offer.

I think the options given are far too black/white.

Government is great for some things, and horribly inept and ill prepared for others. Corruption is going to happen for either, but what is more concerning to me is whether government is a viable solution to a particular problem to begin with. If government is expected to solve all problems, then government is thus expected to control all things.

Personally, I'm more comfortable with judging individual policies versus opening up to the idea that government is inherently good/bad. That's too wide of a filter, and one or the other in such a state is bound to be a negative thing no matter what.

I'm 100% for the idea of an Established government (which by the way, Establishment is capitalized in the sense we're talking about here) on paper, but in reality, government at any level breaks down occasionally and has to be corrected.

The process for government to break down is a slow process that can't (I'm generalizing here) happen over night, and so the majority of the time I'm pro establishment.

How can you pick one or the other? In some regards, the government do a good job with the services they provide. In others, they are underfunded, not well thought-through, or in many cases corrupt. I don't think though that I could ever label myself as pro- or anti-establishment. Maybe when I was 18 years old and an idealistic, rebellious teen I would have considered myself "anti" in every sense of the word but the reality is that not all facets of any government is terrible, let alone "corrupt."

Basically what Freebase said. Too black and white.

X2 :clap:

Please add anal beads so I can vote. SHeeyot!

Edit: I have now voted for anal beads. I feel better.

Same here. When I was younger I used to be extremely anti-government but my views have gotten a lot more complicated over time. Not only is government useful for building roads and keeping people from killing each other, but it's also one of the only things in the world that can keep other powerful organizations such as corporations and religions in check. At the same time it can also be corrupt and intrusive and wasteful and downright dangerous. So, yeah, mixed feelings here too.

http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%...Wiggum_300.gif

Myaaahhhh... you're all under arrest! :laughing: