I'll ask it more simply: can the government be trusted?

[Recursion]

We seem to be exposing a crack in our coalition here, I fear.

31 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Absolutely, yes
	0 (0%)
	In general, yes
	5 (16%)
	In general, no
	19 (61%)
	Absolutely, no
	6 (19%)
	With our health records but not our phone records
	0 (0%)
	Stop connecting surveillance to social programs
	1 (3%)
	I like voting
	0 (0%)
	I hate voting
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[closeupready]

1. Not really. I'm of the school of thought, 'Question all authority.'

[Recursion]

2. So what part of the Democratic platform appeals to you, then?

Most of our programs are based on expanding the reach of government.

[closeupready]

3. Wait - what? That wasn't what you asked us.

You seem to be asking one thing, while trying to interpret those answers as responses to an entirely different question.

[Recursion]

4. Post #2 was a different question from my OP

If you in general distrust authority, I literally don't understand what part of our platform appeals to you, since nearly every part of it involves expanding rather than reducing the role of the government.

[closeupready]

48. I participate on DU primarily as a traditional liberal, a gay man,

someone who almost always votes Democratic and supports most of the planks of the Democratic Party's platform. Including planks that involve expanding the role of government, for example regulating the financial industry.

Why you think that means I trust government absolutely, I have no idea. I do not.

Tuskegee Experiment mean anything to you? Nuclear testing fallout? Vietnam? And on and on.

[alarimer]

113. Expanding government to help the poor, protect us from predatory corporations, etc.

Yes.

Expanding it to SPY on us and treat everyone like a suspect, NO WAY IN HELL.

Also expanding it to tell women (or anyone) what to do with their bodies or who we can have sex with or marry, also HELL NO.

Government belongs in the business of infrastructure (roads, etc.), supporting the less fortunate, ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all, prevent corporate monopolies, ensure safe food, water, air and a healthy environment and self-defense.

The government should not be engaging in preemptive war or killing people without due process, or detaining them indefinitely without charge or trial, treating whistleblowers who are revealing wrong-doing by the government as "Public Enemy #1.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. If ya gotta ask...................

[daleanime]

6. Is the question....

about this current government or any government?

[Recursion]

9. Very good question. I was thinking of "the government" in abstract

whoever's in charge.

[daleanime]

82. Actually it depends on the 'surrounding' instutions....

is there a large and well educated middle class, is there an active and fairly good sized media or has it been shrunk and placed in only a few hands, is income inequality reasonable or is it bad and growing worst, has there been a solid tradition of investigating and processing government officials or have people found it easier to "look ahead".

[Recursion]

83. OK, well most of those sound dysfunctional right now

Why are we pushing for more government involvement in the economy, regulation, etc., then?

[CakeGrrl]

7. "A crack in our coalition"

I'm fascinated by the actual objective of these surveys.

Is it to separate "us" (definition varies by OP) from "them" (read - NOT 'us')? Does it help people create ignore lists or decide whose posts are worth reading?

Does it make the 'coalition' feel better that they have lots of reinforcement?

What is the real goal of the ask?

[Recursion]

10. I don't know about "objective"; the impetus was my seeing people here saying they have no trust...

... in the government, and how that reminded me about how conservatives talk about the government when the issue is money or health care.

[CakeGrrl]

47. Thanks for clarifying.

To agree somewhat with a post below mine, it depends on WHO is running the government, IMO. AND it depends on what (or whom) people perceive the government to be.

In some cases, the President becomes the visual representation of government. The GOP is using this to full advantage, IMO, to scare the RW into associating the 'scary black other' currently holding the office of POTUS as the face of the evil government that wants to give their hard-earned money to welfare cheats and to snatch their guns out of their hands.

To some others, the perception could be that the government is this massive, faceless organism that has grown beyond the control of any one person or even a few people. But that still has to trace back to some key people making decisions.

Maybe a common thread is that people perceive the government to be telling them what to do and taking away their control. The control that they perceive the government to be taking away varies by which issue people hold most dear.

And they simply don't trust the people they think are calling the shots.

I don't believe the administration in power today has the nefarious intent of prior GOP administrations, to boil it down.

But rogue elements can cause trouble anywhere. Where are they? We can't always be sure. But to live in fear of their potential? I won't look over my shoulder 24/7.

[Pholus]

8. How about: It depends on the party in power.

Just because "our side" doesn't abuse this crap doesn't mean that "President Bachmann" wouldn't. And given how nerve-wracking elections have been the past decade I am not willing to believe we're going to stay in charge forever.

[didact]

61. Really?!?

[Pholus]

63. Sorry. Attempt to point out that even if you completely trust

the process now, a change in elections will bring people around to understanding how wrong it is.

Too bad that's ephemeral.

[alarimer]

114. "Our side" is abusing it.

Obama is engaging in the VERY SAME activities that Bush did, yet he is more trustworthy? No. What I've learned from this whol miserable experience is that none of them are to be trusted unconditionally, but must be pushed and prodded to do the right thing.

As I have learned from both Clinton and especially Obama. I trust it less now that during the Bush administration because I expect more from "our" side. Turns out I was wrong to trust Obama and I will never trust any politician and especially the President ever again.

They are not on the people's side. They are on their own side. They side with the corporations every time. Wall Street when the Democrats are in; military contractors when the Republicans are in. But of course most corporations hedge their bets and bribe both sides equally.

[Pholus]

118. Agreed, but there is the "fig leaf" of legality.

Which boils down to:

Bush illegally did this.
Make it legal. Play a procedural game to give it a legal taint.
Do the same stuff.

[Martin Eden]

11. PASS

A major strategy for the rightwing corporatocracy is to drive a wedge between The People and their own government ... to make the people believe our government is a quasi-foreign entity not to be trusted. They repeat the mantra of Saint Ronald Reagan: government isn't the solution, government is the problem.

While I agree that we should not trust in secret survelliance programs -- putting power in the hands of men rather than the rule of law -- I think the key to protecting our liberty & privacy is to embrace the principle that We The People ARE the government and therefore it is up to each and every one of us to engage in the Constitutional process of representative democracy to make the changes we believe are necessary.

IMO Ronald Reagan was dead wrong: government IS the solution, becaue IT is US.
(that's why I passed on voting)

[Recursion]

12. Fair enough (nt)

[KansDem]

41. Agreed...

I'm inclined to say, "Ask me when we have true government "of, for, and by the people." What we have now is government "of, for, and by the corporations."

What began with Reagan has fully developed with "Citizen's United."

[NoOneMan]

13. The government isn't a single homogenous entity

But frankly, you should blindly "trust" any government institution. Government is supposed to work for the people, but will only do so insofar as there are proper checks by the people continuously.

[Recursion]

14. Just clarifying, did you mean "you shouldn't blindly trust"? (nt)

[NoOneMan]

21. Yep. :)

[TheKentuckian]

15. No, trust and government don't belong in the same statement.

Government is a necessary tool to manage a large society. Limited government means that the people grant their government required authority and then hold those overseeing accountable for their stewardship if they fail to live up to our exceed their mandate while constructing all systems with checks and balances to act as automatic fail safes to contain any and all power and authority.

[Recursion]

17. Then why the hell are we even *talking about* the Government running health care?

That has a million times the potential for abuse that phone records have.

[NoOneMan]

23. We shouldn't trust the government to run health care

We should force the government to transparently and efficiently manage health care resources or be subject to investigation and imprisonment


The moment you trust the government is the moment you allow the government to act in an untrustworthy manner. This making sense yet?

[Recursion]

25. What does "transparently" mean?

I'd like what doctor I visit and when to be as private as possible.

[NoOneMan]

31. It means being able to observe the flow of funds, contracts, payouts, wait times per procedure, etc.

So we know how the funds are being used and there is no conflict of interest between the government and private parties.

All these things can be done without showing everyone what individual went to what doctor at what date. Frankly, its entirely possible to segment data such that a public audit can track fine details of payments that are entirely blind to what private citizens were involved.

[Recursion]

33. OK, but a President Santorum would still have the capability to get your health record

It's "just a law" stopping him, like it's "just a law" that keeps the NSA from abusing the metadata it gathers.

[NoOneMan]

43. Yes, depending on how such records are kept (provided that they are kept)

But single-payer does not actually depend upon having instant accessible records in a computer of every single visit and health issue at everyone's fingertips. So, its actually a separate argument you are engaging in, believe it or not.

Single-payer existed in Canada long before they had electronic records and the databases that you seem to be referring to. Its in the public interests to debate if the benefit of having these records is greater than the potential threat of having them.

And here is a relevant article of current news: BC health info for more than 5 million people improperly released

Now, a trusting populace would not debate this point. They would blindly trust their government to provide the service and collect all records and never think there is a problem with them. That is precisely what would allow abuse. Distrust and challenge is a prerequisite to good government

[Art_from_Ark]

84. If you use insurance to pay for your doctor visit,

the results aren't going to be private.

[Recursion]

85. And if I use a phone company to call a number, that fact isn't going to be private

However, this seems to set people's hair on fire, so I'm trying to sort out the distinction.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. The distinction is quite clear

If you are not the object of a criminal probe-- not just a "fishing expedition"-- no one has a need to know who you call, where you call them from, or when you call them. No one. However, the way the crazy American health insurance system is set up, your insurance company wants to know your health details so they can charge (fleece) you accordingly. And perhaps sell your information to, er, "interested" parties. That would certainly bother me, if I were stuck in the American health care system.

[Recursion]

88. Verizon sure as hell needs to know

They aren't just going to take my word for it. Plus, I'm paying them to route the call, so I have to let them know whom I'm calling. I do that by sending tones from my keypad.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. The *people* at Verizon don't have to know who you call

Routing is done automatically. There is no need for humans to be monitoring your calling habits.

[Recursion]

90. Well hell, the *people* at the NSA don't know who I call either

The data gets sucked into a big system that looks for patterns.

And unlike HHS, which actually could connect my name to my medical records, they still can't connect my name to my phone number.

[Art_from_Ark]

92. There's a huge difference

Verizon needs to know your phone information to connect and bill your call, but in the absence of a criminal probe, that is the only reason why they need your data. NSA does not need your data at all, so why should they be collecting it?

[Dragonfli]

49. No One wants the government to "run health care" we just want them to act as a single payer

to replace the crazy profit driven insurance pay system. Who told this poster anyone wanted government to "run" health care? Rush?

We want our doctors specialists and care facilities to handle the care.

We should force the government to transparently and efficiently manage health care resources or be subject to investigation and imprisonment

You stated it perfectly.

For some reason the poster thinks we also want to trust the Govt with our medical records while they "run" health care. Again, I don't know anyone advocating that. I only want my doctor to see those and if anyone else wants to see them they must ask me to sign off on it. This reminds me of death panel misinformation, the questions themselves are misleading RW talking points.

[Recursion]

55. I do. I want a USNHS

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

But I wouldn't if I felt about the government the way a lot of people here seem to.

[pampango]

67. I do, too. n/t

[Dragonfli]

78. I have studied single payer and living just across the river from Ft. Erie Canada,

I have focused more on that as a solution. I am not necessarily opposed to including government run hospitals as well which I believe would be the difference here.

I would still like HIPPA protections under such a system, but my understanding (which is limited re VA) is that such a system is already in place for VA hospitals and that keeps the overhead quite low and I have heard (but am no expert) that the care is good there.

It is not that I don't trust government, it is that I will never trust everyone that works for the government so to me it is more common sense than paranoia to not trust blindly in government. With transparency and privacy rights not merely assured, but legislated and enforced I would not have to merely trust. If that comes with a proposed USNHS then I would wholeheartedly support it as I believe a profit motive should not exist as the means of providing health care. I would not blindly trust the government, or any government however, we are not supposed to have to trust them, they should have to follow rules that reassure us with laws rather than trust.

[TheKentuckian]

93. I'm talking about government as payer and even then obviously you must have safeguards,

compartmentalization, restrictions on information sharing, and adherence to the principle of need to know for the purpose of performing a prescribed mandate.

I'm also not convinced of your assertion that the potential for abuse based on historical track record versus state surveillance of the population is greater, I don't see mechanisms of oppression in Medicare, here no issues of abuse overseas, even Tricare seems to run ok in such regards, I've heard no complaints from personnel citing abuses of their medical records.

Government is like fire, it can be the difference between life and death or it can leave one charred to the bone. One must be vigilant and cautious with fire but that doesn't mean it cannot be used to great benefit. This isn't a yes or no question, to try to make it so is nonsense.

[sibelian]

98. Oh so THAT'S why you phrased the question "more simply"!

It's so you can muck it all up with a whole bunch MORE totally unrelated stuff!!!

[Recursion]

99. I was condensing where an earlier OP went

I don't see the unrelated stuff you're taking about. If the government is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, the last thing we should do is let HHS know when err go to the doctor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. In a democracy the people should neither trust nor fear their government.

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine

[Recursion]

18. So that's a "no" on single payer from you?

If you don't trust someone with your phone records, I can't imagine you would trust that person with your medical records, right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. No. What gives you that idea?

Would you have whoever would run Single Payer above scrutiny?

[Recursion]

20. Nobody's "above scrutiny"

But scrutiny involves trust, unless we're literally auditing everything ourselves.

The stakes with medical records are much, much higher than they are with phone logs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Then, why, pray tell, is the NSA keeping its doings secret.

They seem quite alarmed by Snowden's revelations that they are now under "scrutiny".

[Recursion]

27. I assume they know what's in the other documents Snowden has

Also, people whose job it is to prevent the leaking of classified documents tend to freak out when they get leaked.

The famous example is that when we're about to bust a meth lab we don't tell them how we found them out, right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Another example: Nixon's plumbers.

My heart breaks for the poor guys who can't do their job because of whistleblowers. Hunt, Liddy, and the rest were doing their job "preventing leaks".

[SomethingFishy]

36. "nobody's above scrutiny"?

Seriously? The government produces over 10 million secret documents every year. 10 million. You trust that those documents need to be secret, that they are "protecting" you. I don't. I believe the government is hiding things from me because they know I will be angry if I find out what they are doing, and what they are spending my money on. There is no "scrutiny" they police themselves.

That doesn't mean I don't trust them to run a single payer health care program, it just means I don't trust the military, the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI... And I have damn good reason not to.

[Recursion]

37. Why do you trust the HHS but not the military?

That makes little sense to me.

[sibelian]

66. The military dosn't NEED to be trustworthy to function.

The HHS does.

[Enthusiast]

40. You would trust a private insurance company

over medicare with your records?

[Recursion]

42. I trust both in general to obey the law

I also trust the NSA in general to obey the law.

[Art_from_Ark]

96. Oh my gosh

[limpyhobbler]

24. Hell no. There can be no democracy without transparency and accountability.

Government should never be trusted. It must be closely monitored and held accountable by the people.

Any attempt to keep the workings of government a secret should be regarded with suspicion and investigated.

[Enthusiast]

26. At this point in history, it appears

that the government is ignoring the interests of a majority of the people, the 99% if you will, and catering to the well being of the 1%.

By the government I mean all the elected representatives included in both branches of congress, the executive and judicial branches. Of course this is also being mimicked on the state level.

It's as if "supply side" economics are now written in stone. The American people are far and away in favor of increasing taxes on the upper income earners. This is not happening.

The American people have expressed their desire to scale back the size and scope of the military so we can instead focus on the needs of citizens at home. This is being ignored by the government.

The American people have repeatedly made it clear that Wall Street criminals should be held accountable for their crimes of fraud. As far as I can determine the fraud continues unabated.

Then there is the government NSA surveillance of the activities and communications of the people. This is the greatest scrutiny in all of history. Yet while this intense scrutiny is going on the government has become more secretive than ever. There is simply no justification for this.

So, no, the government cannot be trusted. This is clear.

[Recursion]

29. So should we stop seeking government solutions to social problems?

I have trouble squaring this feeling with what I thought was a broadly shared belief here that government can effectively address social problems.

[NoOneMan]

35. Do you realize that if you are the only one not "getting it", maybe the routine is getting boring?

Talking people into trusting NSA domestic spying by paralleling it to liberal social programs just doesn't make sense to anyone but you.

[Recursion]

39. I'm hardly the only DUer troubled by libertarian talking points on this board (nt)

[NoOneMan]

46. Social libertarianism has been an intrinsic part of the Democratic Party for ages

I also don't think you can trust the government to oversee who you can marry, who you can have sex with, who can have abortions and what drugs I should be allowed to take.

There are libertarians on the left and on the right, and in most times, they have far less in common than what they disagree on.

[Enthusiast]

44. No, we should try to get control of the reins of government.

At this moment in history, private corporations, the military industrial complex and the surveillance industrial complex have near complete control of the government. Government in general, big or small, isn't the problem. But this corporate controlled government is a major problem because it subverts democracy.

What social problems are you speaking of?

[tularetom]

28. I trust "government" slightly more than "private enterprise", but

I don't really trust either of them very much.

[Salviati]

30. A better question is: Should the government be based on the trust of those in power?

The answer is no.

If we have to err on either trusting them too much or too little, it is best to trust them too little. If we have to err on too much transparence or too little, it is better to err on the side of too much transparency

[Recursion]

34. So why should I trust the government with my health records?

I'm taking HHS's word for it that they aren't selling that information to Merck or Eli Lily.

[Salviati]

45. Why do you trust anyone with your health records?

Because you want the service that they provide. If they take my health records and throw it into a big database that can be assessed by god knows who to do god knows what, then I have a problem with it, if they're maintaining my health records to, you know, provide health care to me, then I don't see what the problem is.

Most people want health care. Most people do not want the government tracking all communications by everyone.

[Recursion]

86. But most people do want terrorist plots stopped before they happen

Neither the government having my health records nor the government knowing what numbers my number has called are ends in themselves.

[pampango]

38. I trust it more than your average tea partier does, but less than I used to. As a liberal,

I think it is important to work for a government that we can trust rather than giving up on the idea of government playing a positive role in society.

[Hydra]

50. No, the Gov't absolutely cannot be trusted

And you seem to not see how we can want strong gov't and not trust them. I do want strong gov't, and I want it with strong oversight by US citizens.

I also want single payer. I don't want the NSA and Military to get all of my tax dollars and to be free of rule of law.

You are attacking a different enemy here. The people who want smaller gov't want less regulation on the rich, lower taxes on the rich and the end to social programs. I want higher taxes, stricter regulation and programs that improve our environment, daily life and economy.

Most of all, I want rule of law. The NSA is not run on rule of law and should not be trusted when they say they are. If this is a hard concept, look at all of the gov'ts with selective enforcement of the law and see how well they worked.

[woo me with science]

51. OF COURSE NOT. nt

[MrSlayer]

52. Gods no. No one can be trusted.

Or perhaps I should say very few people can be. Corporations and politicians absolutely cannot. I trust my parents and one friend and that's it.

[treestar]

53. I get your point

People as mistrustful of the government as has been shown to be the case recently, should not want it to have their health records, ergo, no single payer.

[BainsBane]

54. Government is a huge category

Firstly, trusted for what? Certainly not with our civil liberties, but to extend that to mean it can't do anything properly is false.

Then I have to ask why people would feel a need to trust government or any bureaucracy anyway? As citizens, we enter into a bargain where we pay taxes and get certain services in return. We don't need to trust, but we do need proper oversight. Congress is supposed to provide that oversight, but of course they are part of government too. Then there is the fact they don't manage to get anything done anymore.

[Orsino]

56. Too simply.

We have to trust our government to a certain extent.

To what extent? That would be a useful question, one that might lead to substantive discussion.

[DevonRex]

57. Everyone who votes no or hell no needs to stop whining about single payer. Now.

And the lack of a public option. Or Social Security, since they can manage their retirement better than the government. And all safety net programs since people can provide for themselves better than the government can. After all, the government can't be trusted. That's what you just said. Blanket statement. You said it. Just like the Tea Party says, over and over.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

60. Only a moron would place their trust in the government--any government.

And no, that's not incompatible with wanting single payer healthcare.

[DevonRex]

62. LOL! Guess you haven't seen the tie-in between the faux-IRS/NSA scandals and

the Tea Party saying that the government THEREFORE cannot be trusted with your healthcare information. Get a clue. None of this is coincidence. Especially from Mr. Edward get-rid-of-Social-Security Snowden. Or Mr. Glenn tax-dodger Greenwald.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. I don't care who tea baggers trust or mistrust

They don't write a script for me, and it would be very counterproductive for me to spend 30 seconds pondering their utterances.

[DevonRex]

72. That's really silly since they have representatives in Congress who vote

on health care, food stamps, Social Security, etc. In fact, the IRS and NSA scandals were generated specifically to gin yup mistrust of the govt. How nice you're dancing to their tune. Keep tapping.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. You seem to be very 'bagger-controlled. I'm just not. Have fun with it.

[sibelian]

68. Yeah I'm not worried about SS or publuc option as they aren't doing anything evil.

Not going to be trusting a system that produces Abu Ghraib, thanks.

This isn't very difficult, really.

[DevonRex]

74. Neither is the connection they're drawing between the IRS being the agency who "implements"

Obamacare and not trusting the govt. Keep right on dancing to their tune. They love you!!!!

[bigwillq]

73. Sometimes they make a few right decisions

But they still can't be trusted.

[Union Scribe]

97. Trusting the MIC isn't at all the same as

trusting government workers in most other arenas.

The MIC is a profit-driven arena that is in bed with private corporations that we should in NO way trust. Putting healthcare in the government's hands, however, takes away the corporate connections that are at the root of most government corruption that we have every reason to distrust.

[bvar22]

58. Thomas Jefferson told us to NEVER "trust" the government,

but to be judicious with our responsibility of Citizen Oversight.
I didn't see that as an option in your poll,
so I'll stick with Jefferson.

[bigwillq]

59. Nope (nt)

[OneGrassRoot]

65. I think it's possible (and preferable) to be able to trust government, but our system....

as it is, no, it can't be trusted much because the corporations and our government are essentially one and the same.

If we get money out of politics and fix our election process, then we should be able to trust government.

[sibelian]

69. AHEM. ahEM ahEM.

cough cough. HrrrrHM. Hrrrr... HM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023112611#post12

[ForeignandDomestic]

70. Hell No......

Government is suppose to be whatever the will of the people wants it to be, if the people want single payer than that's what their government should give them with whatever oversights and systems of laws they have in place to prevent corruption.

If the people don't want their military raging wars all over the earth and spying on it's own citizens in secret than that government shouldn't be doing it.

The only trust you should have in government the power you consent for it to have, you should never trust anything that's done in secret on your "behalf".

[REP]

71. To do the wrong thing most of the time? Absolutely.

[Cleita]

75. My opinion is that when the cheating and lying party became successful in cheating on elections

by any means possible from paperless electronic voting machines, to gerrymandering districts and being able to change the voting rules because they can, we lost a good chunk of legitimate government that can be trusted. I don't like to blame the government for everything. That makes us no better than the crazies in the neo-Nazi movement, but we do have some serious problems with people in office who would not be there if they hadn't cheated their way to power. In the old days, they would have been called usurpers or pretenders to the throne.

[cantbeserious]

76. No - Domestic Surveillance, VRA, Wall Street, NDAA, etc ...

eom

[aquart]

77. Do you trust a pound to weigh a pound?

If you do, you trust your government.

However, if you find that a pound does not weigh a pound, you should indeed scream to high heaven. The thing is, it is your government employees and elected officials you will be screaming to, not heaven. It is them you will ride herd on until your complaint is satisfied.

If you do, you trust your government. Not to be perfect, but to be there for you, more or less.

[baldguy]

79. Government can be trusted a hell of a lot more than corporations.

Libertarians trust corporations.

[eaglesclaw]

80. Hmm, Trust,......no

I used to have faith in my government, but I might have been niave. I could trust it if the institutions were not corrupt and worked for the people's well being, not the corporate and foreign's well being.

I think the question might be do you trust the corporate run government, and that gets a no also.

[Marr]

91. Depends on what we're talking about, of course. Can they be trusted to inspect food?

Absolutely-- at least, much more so than private industry, which has a profit motive that would run counter to the job.

Can the government be trusted with a free pass to violate your privacy rights? Absolutely not, and that's been demonstrated over and over again.

[kenny blankenship]

94. Oh but that's NO FAIR! You won't play along w OP's silly, childishly reductive game

Play dumb and play along, or you are BAD BAD Democrat!

[Zorra]

95. The control of our government by profit motivated wealthy private interests makes the government

inherently untrustworthy on every level.

I am forced by real circumstances to consider that every action taken by the government is motivated by service to a profit seeking interest.

Which means I cannot reasonably trust the government without profound reservation.

[ileus]

100. Back when it was WE the people, before they the corporations took over

maybe it could be trusted in some circumstances...

[Democracyinkind]

101. Difficult question. Trust must be earned.

I'm unsure to what extent the "government" (talking unspecifically now) has earned our trust.

[rucky]

102. In theory, yes. In practice, it's hard.

The long view: It's amazing our government has the constitutional structure to survive in its current form for as long as it has - and actually evolove - despite all the corruption and abuse within it throughout history and especially lately.

[HiddenAgenda63]

103. Wasn't this one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment?

Tyranny prevention and incursion defense...

[Recursion]

106. So I've heard, though I'm not a fan of that particularly

I believe in "gun rights" in the abstract, but under the rubric of the 9th rather than 2nd amendment, which I think lets us keep guns in a town armory.

[HiddenAgenda63]

115. I much prefer mine locked away securely in my home...

...in my responsibility and under my control.

We don't have a "right to bear arms" in Canada. Our "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" does guarantee our right to protect our security, liberty and property, though...

No one where I live likes to appear underdressed during Black Bear or Whitetail seasons and it can be fairly hard to know how to dress on any particular day up here, but a pretty rifle is a rather fetching accessory to complement any sporty, yet seasonable ensemble...

[GoneFishin]

104. Wow. This OP sure attracted the pros.

And I see a new talking point was circulated.

[moondust]

105. The political side or the functional side?

[Recursion]

109. That's a good distinction, though I haven't seen many departments where the pol side has much power

Then again I'm most familiar with DoD and State, which probably have the strongest safeguards against that.

[Cerridwen]

107. Forest Service? Park Service? Education? Transportation?

BLM? FDA? USDA? DOJ? IRS? Army? Navy? Marines? Air Force? National Guard? SBA? NIMH? Executive? HHS? Congressional? Supreme Court? Federal Courts? Commerce? Energy? Science and Technology, Maritime, OSHA, etc., etc., etc.

The US Federal Government is not a monolith. Those who talk of it as though it is play right into the regan-inspired "the 9 most terrifying words" schtick.

[Recursion]

108. So which parts do you trust more than others, and why?

I agree, it's not a monolith. My experience has been that civil servants are largely the same everywhere.

[Cerridwen]

110. Out of the hundreds of US agencies you want me to post

based on a simplistic reading of US government? No thanks.

I haven't found "civil servants <to be> largely the same everywhere"; well, except they're human. Some want to do a good job; some don't care; some are retired in place; some are excited; some have been beat down; some are good supervisors; some have Peter Principled out; some are smart and funny; some are boring and apathetic; some will talk; some are rushed...and on and on.

Much the same with the various agencies; some are run well, some aren't, some are hog-tied by legislation that doesn't let them follow their mission statement, some aren't, some support the individual, some support business, some set the law, some follow the law, some don't.

But keep playing the government is evil; it's already circling the drain in the grover norquist's bathtub.

If you think the parts shrunken to fit through that drain were only the "evil" parts of the government; watch what happens when fuel reduction isn't performed in forests and lightning starts hitting those forests and there aren't enough fire fighters; or when the EPA doesn't have the funding or the regulatory teeth to stop business from trashing NEPA; and on and on.

I'm not doing a dissertation to justify a 2-dimensional mind-set of government hatred.

Hell, it would take an encyclopedic effort to write against all the limbaugh, o'reilly, coulter, schlafly, gingrich, robertson, et. al., anti-government screeds spewed over these past 40 years. It's just sad how successful they were at pouring shit into the minds of so many who refuse to view the simplistic claptrap with any critical/cynical eye.

[Recursion]

111. Huh? I'm trying to push back against "government is evil".

I'm not doing a dissertation so you can justify a 2-dimensional mind-set of government hatred.

I wrote the OP because I was disturbed by people posting things on DU like "I will never trust this government again". Well, OK, but that attitude seems to be prohibitive of supporting single payer, etc.

[Cerridwen]

112. My apologies. I'll change the pronoun.

I'm tired of the "evil government" simplistic thinking I've been running into and I did what I criticise in others; I targeted "you" rather than the generic. Again, I apologize and I'll fix the pronoun.

[Zorra]

116. It appears, from the poll results, that we have a problem. "We hold these truths to be self-evident

, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[malokvale77]

117. In a nutshell