You amply demonstrate the left's point of view: To the left, the government IS the nation. To the right, the government, is the neighbhorhood association.

and you wrongly represent my view as well as that of the left. YOU are the one who said Nation!=Govrnment. then say that is what I and the left say??????!!!!!!

After i explained the differences, your tunnel vision still doesnt allow you to see the scope of the disaterous consequences of your view. I dont think even most of the people on the right think of their Nation that way. The fact that current laws and government's involvement in people's lives were done DEMOCRATICALLY says a lot about what the people really think of their Nation. The view of the few on the right may differ drastically from that of the people (left and right). But the people, not the few on the right, decide what their Nation is.

No, only a supermajority can do that. As defined in the constitution (in black and white so it cannot be "interpreted" by judges legislating from the bench), 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of congress are needed to "change" the constitution, which defines the limits on our government. And thus the nation. Not the other way around, nor subject to the passing fancy of an interest group at a particular point in time.

No matter how you slice it, "the nation" is not the "government" any more than "the neighborhood" is the "neighborhood association".

If the left ran the neighborhood association, you would have the fees be based on income and the services rendered by the association be based on the individual needs of the residents with the costs paid for by the wealthiest residents.

The only reason why the US federal government can get away with doing that is because of how non-trivial it is to simply move to another country.

What residents can do, however, is simply hide their wealth or produce less of it which is what ultimately happens.

The correct wording would be: "says a lot of what people think the role of the federal government should be".  You need to quit being so sloppy in your semantics. The government is not the nation.

If you are stealing from Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul.

Only because for most of the history of the United States the federal government functioned as I indicated -- without "disaterous" consequences.

Moreover, like most liberals, you honestly think that most Americans view the government as a caretaker.  The bulk of the GOP has a view of the federal government as I do.  I wouldn't run the federal government precisely as a neighborhood association (I do not represent it as a perfect analogy) but it would be pretty close.

The things individuals can do for themselves should be done by individuals.  The more power you give the government, the less power you, as a private citizen has.

ThinkAloud and Leauki:

Are all your arguments based on taking things out of context?

I never said opt out means "leave the country" and I did say that we have the choice of either leaving the COMMUNITY or working to change the community we are in.

Yes, we are One Nation Under God. One Nation made up of 50 States and thousands of communities. Just because we put the emphasis on community instead of the nation itself does not mean we don't see the United States of America as a nation.



Actually, the Southern States were doing whatever they like, it wasn't until they succeeded and tried to create their own nation that it became a federal issue.



Nice little mindless shot there. Apparently you think that a person is isolated in their views if they don't check the polls before voicing their opinion. Even if no one believed the facts, they are still the facts.

"The book Atlas Shrugged works on a similar premise. What if the people who make all the money simply went on strike? What if they simply stopped producing and went away? The book shows how society, as we know it, would soon collapse."

"What if the people who make all the money simply went on strike?"

They would be replaced very quickly, guaranteed.

By whom?

Or do you view people like Bill Gates or Henry Ford as merely hogging all the wealth and largely disposable?

As a practical reality, only a tiny % of the population is willing and capable of building a successful enterprise. 

But if you think it's a trivial matter, why aren't you rich, Iben? Just staying back out of politeness?

ooh, and now you telling me what i meant to say?

i meant what i said:" says a lot about what the people really think of their Nation."



That is not good  . Now we agree on something ????

Very true. but i still say the Nation is not a neighborhood.

No one is advocating more power to the Gov., in fact we say less power but more sense in managing the affairs of the nation.

It is really strange that the right supports more gov access to citizens' private information and control over their private life at the same time you saying they want less power to gov.

then again, contradiction is no strange thing to the far right. they spin things to suit the moment.

That is the problem right there. MY neighborhood is more important to me than MY country?

and what does it mean that you "see the USA as a nation"?

just forget the gov for a moment and please tell me what does that mean to you.

If the views are about people's way of thinking and what they expect from their Gov and how they view their Nation .....then yes you should know what the people say about all of that if you expressing views about their thinking.

You really think that you can express your views about people's wishes without knowing what they are saying?

you have the right to oppose the people's views of course but you cant ignore them and say that your views are better for the people. The people speak for themselves ..... through polls.

How do you define nation then?

Your usage of the term seems to imply that only the federal government of the United States can do the things you wish to have occur in "the nation".

Of course not. The nation is all the neighborhoods in the United States combined together.

What are you talking about?  What control do you suppose people like me want over you? I want you to be free to do whatever you want as long as what you do does not infringe on someone else's freedom. But I also believe that you should be accountable for that freedom.  You don't want to work? That's fine. But don't expect other people to pay for your lifestyle then.

Nation: the collection of pepole living within a defined state. In terms of our discussion, our nation is the people of the United States.

I believe people should help their fellow citizens in time of need.  I do not, however, believe that people should be forced to help their fellow citizens at the point of a gun.

When the government takes my property in the form of taxation and gives it to another individual, they are, in essence, forcing me to help someone without my consent at the point of a gun (if I don't pay, men with guns will come and take me away). 

The family who has more children than they can afford demanding that I pay for the health insurance for their children is an infringement on my family's inalienable rights.

To get back to the analogy: - the neighborhood association (the government) is set up to provide services and manage common resources to the entire community of residents (the nation). 

The neighborhood association leaders (congress) are voted in by a majority of the residents of the neighborhood (nation).

And while the majority of a given neighborhood might like the idea of having the richest residents pay more than the others or pay for additional services, they know that that would only result in the wealthiest residents to simply move.

But at the national level, the majority can vote in representatives who will happily confiscate property from the richest to hand out to the majority because they know that the richest people are not likely to move to another country.  And so they do.

That's how our nation (the United States) went from being unable to get the Erie Canal project going for awhile because it was considered unconstitutional for the federal government to fund a project for one group of states to now having people claim that Bush is a "scrooge" for vetoing a bill that would have the health insurance of middle class children paid for by the government.

I think you GOT it. and yes, there are few IMPORTANT and VITAL things only a Gov can do to ensure that the wellbeing and progress of ALL its citizens are being carried out properly. Examples: proper education in ALL States in order to maintain a level playing field for all globally, Sound energy policy to ensure independence from foreign influence, Sound fiscal policies in order to protect people from greedy unethical interests (regardless of the foolishness of some people and some businesses), Sound Environmental policies to ensure proper management of natural resources without adverse effects on people and resources, ... and many many more things the NA can never be able to take responsibility for.

have you noticed that the Gov just issued (today) new rules and guidelines to avoid another subprime loan's disaster. ..... Why wasnt that issued 3 yrs ago when many many warnings were issued but the Feds and the SEC ignored .... until it is too late .....

Greenspan, the hypocrite, kept saying no problem till the collapse was happening already .... how nice of him and of the SEC. where were they when they ignored all the warnings and the signs of the looming disaster?????

NA's are no where have that responsibilities and a collection of neighbohoods are no where near forming a nation.

You know something, a Nation is like one of your Bee Hives. A hive is not just a collection of Bees living on several plates next to each other. It is much more than that. I am certain that you can see that for yourself.

Not you Draginol, the people who support unauthorized spying on citizens, the people who support take-over of small private properties for the benefit of a major private commercial project, people who support laws to manipulate federal spending in a way that affects private affairs of citizens, people who support signing statements that expand executive power beyond all normal limits (sometimes even beyond existing laws) .... etc. that is what i am talking about.

Thanks for taking the time.

They would be replaced very quickly, guaranteed.

By whom?

Or do you view people like Bill Gates or Henry Ford as merely hogging all the wealth and largely disposable? My answer: Everyone is replaceable.

As a practical reality, only a tiny % of the population is willing and capable of building a successful enterprise.

But if you think it's a trivial matter, why aren't you rich, Iben? Just staying back out of politeness? My answer: How rich would I need to be to make you happy?

I am thinking about the questions you asked me.
I have a question for you.
Why are you willing to build a successful enterprise?

Because my overall life objectives require it and I enjoy doing it.

As for your question "how rich would I need to be to make you happy"

What I was responding to was your assertion that the most productive people in society would be easily replaced "garaunteed".  So my question is, where are these replacements right now? What have you produced that is particularly notable in society? Have you founded your own company employing dozens of employees? And if not, why not? If you think it's so easy that the people who do it can be replaced easily, why haven't you already done so?

One word - Responsibility. Productive people also have a lot of responsibility, and while many would love the fame and fortune of being one of the "producers", most run away when the responsibilities of the job are also included. Some dont want it, and more still just cant handle it.