Why do people trust their government?

Ive never understood why people are very distrustful of corporations but are for some reason very trustful of government. Isn't the same problem you have with corporations you have with government? That they're both run by people, and people suck. Even if government does take control of everything and things are good for a while isnt it just a matter of time until power changes hands and then the government isnt ran the way the people want?

The liberal philosophy is private ownership but complete government control and regulation. The conservative philosophy is less government and get out of my pocket. Most issues we have today that liberals want government to solve was actually created by government.

Is It Normal?
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 32 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • Laziness.

    Easier to just think and live as though everything is simple and one sided.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I dont know. I guess other people treat the goverment like a parental figure. Where you have to support them no matter what because they give you your rights that you already should have for being human.

    When I joined the navy it wasnt for the love of the goverment it was for the love of the ideas of our country.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • If you trust the government you are a fucking idiot

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I don't trust any Government. I am an anarchist.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I don't think we can trust the government when all the government will ever be are pigs.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I dont trust anarchists. Best case scenario they are naive.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Whats funny is the self proclaimed anarchists in America would honestly be the first ones dead if anarchy broke out

        Comment Hidden ( show )
      • That is your right, Lloyd, but Boris Johnson is enough to drive anyone to anarchy.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • One person cannot drive another to being naive. Anarchy doesnt work out for humans, we need goverment to minimize stepping on others toes and throats.

          I'm a libertarian and I can admit this. Organization is good. Too much bureaucracy is where democracy gets caught up in. One person making all the decisions takes a very special kind of person that is rare to come by in the seat of power.

          But no one in charge? That's where you get to see true human nature. Individuals acting for their benefit only the altruistic choices in life being made much harder to make through anarchy.

          Anarchy is always temporary. Because some hierarchy always arises where there is none. Who arises in that power vacuum is up to the people who are willing to trade something for the good of the hierarchy.

          Thus anarchy is naive.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • You make valid points, Lloyd. If no laws existed, the very worst crimes would be legal. But some governments have too much control over their citizens and this is where democracy ceases to exist. You saw it under Donald Trump and we are seeing it under Boris Johnson (although he is not entirely to blame as he merely inherited a bad system from Theresa May but the death of British democracy can be traced back to Tony Blair).

            I don't really like your word 'hierarchy', Lloyd, as it reeks of superiority and elitism.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • I love how you point out Donald Trump but not biden who is currently doing more corrupt and authoritarian shit than trump ever did. Have you seen what was in hunter bidens laptop? If the fbi wasnt in the pocket of the democrats he would be strung up on high treason.

              What else would you call social structures if not hierarchies? Theres always a power structure when more than 3 people are involved. It's not always bad, in fact most of the time it's a beneficial relationship for all parties involved. No matter what you will always see hierarchies, it's not a notion of direct power over someone. Simply leverage one has over another that can be exchanged for both material and non material trades.

              Just because a system is ineffectual doesnt mean removing the system entirely would make everything turn into friendship and rainbows. It would just cause people to revert back to older ways of ordering eachother around such as might means right. Those with the highest leverage would have the most control over everyone. It is somewhat mitigated by goverment power, and when that goverment imposes restrictions on itself is when a goverment becomes better for all parties involved. While not completely fair... theres no such thing as fair. ripping down a system without a suitable solution to replace it will just lead to more damage than it was trying to prevent.

              Which is why Libertarians tend to support a high degree of self protections and rights. We dont trust the goverment to do everything, thus it has to come from ourselves to fill that gap.

              You also get into a problem of the pacifist vs revolutionary anarchy. If a group of people wish to live pacifistic lives it's fine... until someone wants to take from them. If you go the revolutionary route it's always a violent path to lead to even more violent after effects.

              Best we can do as common folk is try to fix the system from the inside. Make it better for our children in the future.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I find that most people nowadays consider their government a joke. When it comes to people still appearing to trust them I think it's just because it's way easier to put the blindfold on and tell yourself they mean well for their citizens, and there's no reason to distrust. It would take way too much for us common folks to make any difference anyways and most of us have too many personal things to worry about to take the time to think about how the government is screwing us, and how we're gonna stop it.
    After all if we think about it too hard it would be nearly impossible to just sit back and let it happen, and few have the energy to riot.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • For the same reason people protect their drug dealers and abusers. They don't know any different.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • what am i supposed to do? there isnt a choice in the matter so why should i worry myself

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 90% of all people are followers and would rather be led about then to think for themselves, that is the reason the government has put fear into people heart, as total fear means total control

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Liberals most definitely don’t want government to be involved unless it is absolutely necessary. I think you mean leftists. Conservatives don’t necessarily want less government. Fascists can be conservatives.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Leftists, liberals, they call themselves the same thing so they cant be called out on the fascist crap they proclaim as progress.

      Every political side can be fascist. Some are just more prone than others, power corrupts.

      As a libertarian I think we just need to cut back on goverment shit. Keeping obviously the important functions of goverment, but keeping it mostly a state and local goverment position for laws.

      That's why I have zero problem when states like California vote themselves into a shithole. They vote for it, now they become the example for why a democrat super majority means for the average person. A homeless plagued state that has zero control over crime because they choose not to care about the lives of their citizens who are somehow keeping voting for stupid shit.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • For example the problem with healthcare in the USA when Franklin D Roosevelt decided to enact a executive order to make it illegal to raise wages. So companies to entice workers were forced to come up with health insurance. Eventually this would create a domino effect that would make doctors only accept insurance because they were guaranteed more money. Then obamacare came along with pretty good policies like "not denying for pre-existing condition" that actually made healthcare rates go up

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • All insurances are a scam. They only work if you dont have any accidents or issues, once you start claiming that protection money, they drop you like a phone call made in the middle of fucking nowhere.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Finally someone with a brain! I don't know either. I have a strong distrust of the government and am pissed they actively banned people with respiratory issues from getting medical care during the pandemic. Than everyone tells us they are saving lives with the vaccine. After they went out of thier way to let everyone with existing breathing problems die and suffer. Why the fuck would anyone trust these assholes? Like I over the years became disenfranchised with the idea of being a patriot but this pandemic has shown how horrible these rich assholes have become. Why anyone would question a cop but not the government that dictates laws is beyond my understanding.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • "Then obamacare came along with pretty good policies like "not denying for pre-existing condition" that actually made healthcare rates go up.

      Not entirely true. Rates went down for a number of people with per-existing conditions; and there was a whole class of people who could not even get health insurance outside of employment with a major employer due to per-existing conditions; who could now get health insurance.

      With well controlled asthma, well controlled type II diabetics, and occasional lower back issues... I was uninsurable with most insurance companies prior to Obamacare, unless I was part of a large employers group plan.

      Health insurance rates went up for healthy people... they generally went down for people with medical issues.

      The original concept of health insurance was to spread the cost risk among the population; not to exclude those with health issues so that those who were healthy could enjoy lower cost.

      Obamacare returned us to the original standard.

      The area of Obamacare that I object to was including children on their parents polices to I believe age 25. The company I worked at did a study and found that this part of Obamacare was responsible for somewhat over 50% of the increase in insurance cost. For about 7 years the most healthy portion of adults are not being required to pay their fair share.

      When I left home at age 18 I had to provide my own health insurance (via employment, or via an insurance policy). So the US Military covered for 5 years, and then I purchased the University of Wisconsin student health care plan until I graduated and gained employment.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Yes I am sure that those making 1500 a month not qualifying for Healthcare makes sense. Are you serious?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Obama care comes with subsidies that pay almost all the cost of health insurance for those unable to pay the full rate.

          Yes, it makes sense.

          When I was in college most students had parents who purchased the University Student policy for them.

          In my case money went from me to my parents during those years. I fully self funded my own college education and living expenses; and was helped a lot by my post military GI Bill funding for much of my books and tuition and just a bit towards my apartment, food, and other living expenses.

          I don't see why most younger people cannot serve in the Military and earn similar GI Bill college benefits.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Yes charging someone who makes 1500 a month after taxes 500$ for health insurance that only covers three visits a year makes total sense. Governments standard for poor is ridiculous

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • $1500 a month is above the federal poverty limit; although I admit that does not meet the normal economic sufficiency test (which varies from 2-5 times the federal poverty limit depending on where you live.

              Also, it covers a lot more than 3 visits a month. It covers hospitalization... which is where the real expenses are. A visit to the Emergency room often starts at $5000 if you need anything more than a minor bandage or similar.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment