Understanding the the government is formed by the people, elected by the people, and ultimately responsible to the people, sure, I'll give you that.
Thank you.
As I pointed out earlier, your facts are incorrect. The government did not start slavery. It was private individuals and companies. It took the government finally doing the right thing and abolishing it. Left up to the individual, I bet you we'd still have slavery today.
As for the rest of your thought in that statement, it's just absurd.
We had a system of indentured servitude before the government stepped in. Private citizens took African prisoners in as indentured servants but they had more freedom than they did under slavery. In the early 1600's Virginia decided that no Africans coming to the colonies could be free after arriving. After that, other colonial governments followed suit. I'll give you that we pressured the government to do it, but it was still the government that had the final say. And as for the civil rights statement I made, what I meant is that, before slavery, people were just called a name by what nation they came from, Africans were Africans. It was the legalization of slavery that caused gross intolerance of them. I'm not saying they were seen as equal beforehand, but surely they weren't seen as 3/5 of a person. If the government had not made the "3/5" statement, I believe we could have naturally evolved into a more tolerant society. However, I could be wrong on that point.
Hmm, when was this? 150 years ago when records weren't kept and drugs couldn't be transported as easily? Funny, I would think from a statistical analysis standpoint it would be difficult to compare.
I'm not talking about hard core drugs per se. I'm talking about pot and the less harmful drugs. Trade protectionism, at least in part, from the government against hemp drove the movement in the late 30's to illegalize it. And how well has it worked?
What, the death penalty that a majority of the individual people want? You're right, let's go back to the wild west laws and bring back dueling. That was a much better society.
I never have and never will support the government taking the life of someone for any reason. Why not have them do hard labor instead? If given the choice between death or 16 hour days working hard, I suppose many would choose death over it. I just think the death penalty is too easy on people. I know I sound morbid, but I'm feeling ill today, I can't really explain my position as well as I'd like. The wild west thing you said isn't what I meant in the least. I support the police, I know they're necessary, I'm not naïve. I just don't support the death penalty.
You're right. The government caused pollution, poor wages, racism, and poverty. Heck I even hear they eat babies too!
Pollution- The citizens have demanded that cars be more fuel efficient. The government may have helped, but that wouldn't amount to anything if we didn't buy them up. Compare gas mileage today to gas mileage in 1970, and you'll see that people with the help of government have naturally moved away from that. We'll continue to progress. We'll find better ways of transportation. Nobody had to outlaw horse and buggy transport.
Poor wages- What is your definiton of poor wages? Economists would say that the market value of any particular labor is decided by supply and demand. Keynsian and Classical economics are better at deciding what the market value of anything is. The government should have a part in the process since they are part of the economy, but carelessly raising wages can do some harm. It can cause higher unemployment because businesses can't afford to hire more people or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, if they can hire the same amount, it'll lead to inflation because there will be more spending.
Racism- The government is as racist as anyone. Again, this goes back to the "3/5" of a person thing.
Eating babies- Yes, I've heard the same thing.
Then they don't get re-elected. If they do, then a majority of these altruistic individuals you want to run the country re-elect them.
Yes, but most people will vote for someone and not pay attention after that. Sometimes people care more about voting on American Idol than they do for their representatives. Our educational system is a failure, and that is why.
There's a reason that government has never existed and never will. People cannot be trusted to care for the least of society and take care of shared resources without guidelines and laws.
I don't think Paine was a fool. He's one of the most revered figures in our history. But the whole, "People aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, therefore government should" idea could lead to a nanny state.
A truly representative government would make laws and guidelines that are clear. Most people do not understand the law, and as an attorney I know said, most judges don't either. I believe a real representative government would set the guidelines and laws that people can understand, and that aren't as restrictive as they are today.