Poll: Millennials Increasingly Distrust the Government
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
Almost X
I was born at the very tail of what is defined as the Baby Boom generation.
When I was 14 there was not enough room in the school and we had to have class in crappy trailer parked in the school playground where we were taught "new math". The teachers were older hippie boomers ( and all that implies.)
When I was 16 and got my drivers license, gas was rationed and Route 66 was officially closed. My BC pills cost 30 bucks a pack.
When I was 25 and trying to get a mortgage the interest rates were 24%. Older Hippie boomers were yuppies by then, and begining to buy every espresso machine in sight.
When I was 30 and taking the bus to trade shows to start my own business my Greatest Generation Dad was getting senior discounts on air fare.
When I was 40 and able to afford an espresso machine myself, my Baby Boomer elders began preaching about "living simply and owning fewer things" ( since they already had them.)
Now that I am 50 and no longer need to buy and pay for birth control it is free. Now that I finally have some money to save for retirement ( ha ha) interest rates are near 0. Greatest Generation Dad and my Baby Boomer elders are sunning themselves in Palm Beach. Those younger than me are equally screwed.
When I get old the nursing homes are going to be crappy trailers parked in dilapated schoolyards, my Social Security will be stolen and I will again be at the mercy of "New Math".
Demographics make it suck and the goverments compound the misery.
I was born at the very tail of what is defined as the Baby Boom generation.
When I was 14 there was not enough room in the school and we had to have class in crappy trailer parked in the school playground where we were taught "new math". The teachers were older hippie boomers ( and all that implies.)
When I was 16 and got my drivers license, gas was rationed and Route 66 was officially closed. My BC pills cost 30 bucks a pack.
When I was 25 and trying to get a mortgage the interest rates were 24%. Older Hippie boomers were yuppies by then, and begining to buy every espresso machine in sight.
When I was 30 and taking the bus to trade shows to start my own business my Greatest Generation Dad was getting senior discounts on air fare.
When I was 40 and able to afford an espresso machine myself, my Baby Boomer elders began preaching about "living simply and owning fewer things" ( since they already had them.)
Now that I am 50 and no longer need to buy and pay for birth control it is free. Now that I finally have some money to save for retirement ( ha ha) interest rates are near 0. Greatest Generation Dad and my Baby Boomer elders are sunning themselves in Palm Beach. Those younger than me are equally screwed.
When I get old the nursing homes are going to be crappy trailers parked in dilapated schoolyards, my Social Security will be stolen and I will again be at the mercy of "New Math".
Demographics make it suck and the goverments compound the misery.
The military being male defined is a non-squitur. What does it being male-defined have anything to do with it's functionality? Reverse the male in your post with the word female and we would have a well-defined example of sexism.
I didn't say that we needed to have hierarchy to command nations, I said that the process of military hierarchy, more often than not, selects for individuals with leadership abilities and tends to weed out those with negative qualities. We can leave the democratic process as it is yet require leaders to go through a process of discrimination that isn't based on celebrity status.
And granted, there are problems at the base of the military hierarchy, but we don't tend to see admirals and generals at the top with the same kind of psychopathology as the average politician.
And, like I said, it's not as if the military has to be the only organization to do this, nor should it be. Military men and women shouldn't be the only ones in politics and for good reason.
Hence why I pointed out that solution's flaws.
But I want to pose my earlier question to you, though abbreviated:
What happens in a democracy when the will of the people undermines the sustainability of the society itself? How does democracy correct for this?
Example: the will of the people wants to produce tanks, except these tanks will likely never be used, which means they are a waste of precious resources. The money to make these tanks comes out of future spending, which, if left to continue, will cause the society to undergo an economic collapse. How does the system itself stop this from happening? Where's the circuit breaker?
Ah, so that's what Churchill meant.
Of course, he also said:
Hmm, now I wonder why that particular quote isn't as widespread as some of his other, more notable ones? =P