Government of the People is...?

[BjornP]

So... the concept and idea of "government of, by and for the People"? Bullshit, desirable, impossible?

[DBTrek]

Public union vultures make it pretty evident that once they’re entrenched in government positions it’s open season on “the people”.

[Speaker to Animals]

Government of and by the people who pay the costs.

Military service. Taxes.

[Martin Hash]

A king. (Me.)

[DBTrek]

Stating that government workers are “of the people while working for the people” ignores the fact that what’s “good” for the people isn’t necessarily “good” for public employees. The needs of the two aren’t only misaligned, they are sometimes in conflict.

A public workers niece who just landed a government job due to some string pulling by her relative needs an income. “The people” do not need one more gravy-boat rider appointed a government job through nepotism. Public unions need more employees to gain power, and need more money from the public to reward their membership. “The people” don’t need unchecked government growth or increased taxation to meet the concessions the public unions win against them.

[BjornP]

Stating that government workers are “of the people while working for the people” ignores the fact that what’s “good” for the people isn’t necessarily “good” for public employees. The needs of the two aren’t only misaligned, they are sometimes in conflict.

A public workers niece who just landed a government job due to some string pulling by her relative needs an income. “The people” do not need one more gravy-boat rider appointed a government job through nepotism. Public unions need more employees to gain power, and need more money from the public to reward their membership. “The people” don’t need unchecked government growth or increased taxation to meet the concessions the public unions win against them.

While the poll is obviously inspired by our past discussion, I thought I'd dig a little deeper into citizen-government relationship this time. I tried to understand what sort of assumptions about the role of government in itself one could have to believe as you, and many other Americans do. I came to the conclusion this was one of those factors. It's an interesting topic in of itself, though, which is why I made a poll and seperate topic about it. Set aside the union question for a second, then.

What I am interested in discussing is really wether or not there is much validity to democracy's ideal of "government of, by and for the people", as in the idea of a "kratia" by the "demos". If one of you stood for public office, won the election and got the public office, are you no longer part of the "demos" part of democracy? Are you then only the "kratia", the governer of the people, yet no longer OF the people? If that is true, then how can the elected rule in the people's stead? If they cease being the people once elected, they how much can they be said to really represent the interests of the people?

If one believes so, isn't that an excercise in "learned helplessness"? That no matter what you do, as a citizen, government will never, and can never, be your government.

[DBTrek]

I think the idea is that when the demos can select the kratia then the government will perform according to the wishes of the people as a matter of survival. Because one bad decision can lead to an election where the kraita is returned to the demos by way of being voted out.

That part of the system works well enough. The failure comes when the kratia create massive departments and organizations that do not directly answer to the demos, for reasons we’ve discussed extensively.

[BjornP]

You're in favor of more sectors of government (at both the federal, state and local level or?) being elected, then? More direct democracy, Athenian style? And how far down the government hierachy are we talking? All the way down to electable social workers (I assume not, but that's why I'm asking), or are we talking the administrators who are the social worker's bosses?

Or are you imagining some other way, besides voting, that would increase the level at which government workers and department chiefs are answerable to government?

[DBTrek]

Destroy public unions as anti-democratic institutions. Problem solved.

Look at it this way, A (the people) elect B (the kratia). A has direct power over B. B creates C (departments and organizations of public employees with public unions). B has direct power over C.

Now, the problem is C can leverage demands that have to be financed by A (aka C has direct power to impact A), but A has no direct influence on C.

The power chain is broken in favor of C. Remove C’s ability to directly leverage financial concessions from A and the power balance is restored in favor of “the people”.

[BjornP]

And without public sector unions, you'd then get a genuine government of, by and for the people? Because government could then no longer act in conflict with the people?