Comment on Governmental Responsibility...

[5-90]

Take a quick read of this - especially 8mud's post, and my answer to it -

http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?p=809381#post809381

And then take a shot at answering the following:

"The current duty of the government is to the body politic as a whole, and not to members of the body politic as individuals. Currently, the police have no duty whatever to protect individual members of the body politic, unless such protection should be in the interests of the State. This has been proven time and again in courts going back before the founding of the United States, and is a precept from English Common Law.
"If the government is to enact a total ban on the personal ownership of firearms, should the role of the government then be changed to make it responsible for the personal protection of individual members of the body politic?
"If so, how should this be done? What is the expected increase on the tax burden to fund this protection, or what should be cut to allow for funding?
"If not, why not?
"In either case, a moral/logical justification of your answer should be provided for consideration. Nothing professional or legalistic, but do please back up your thinking, premises, and ideas."

5-90

[red91]

I can only answer to the point of the government and its inabilty to protect us now.

They will not.

The irony is that the protection of it's citizens, be it on a federal or state level, is supposed to come first.

If they will NOT do their job....

Then martial law will be it's only option, and then I see a quick demise into a CIVIL War.

How long will it be before FEMA enacts martial law under the premise of a national emergency / crisis ?

[5-90]

Another interesting point - especially when you keep in mind that a National State of Emergency was enacted in 1932/33 for the Great Depression, and was never rescinded. Therefore, we're only a heartbeat away from martial law and suspension of the Constitution at all times, until the State of Emergency is actually rescinded by the sitting President.

Also, I wasn't looking for comments on the fact that the government is unable to protect us now (I already know that!) but on what their responsibility properly should be, if this line of thought were taken to its logical conclusion.

I am also inclined to think we're never far from the Second American Civil War - but it won't be over the rights of the States to secede from the Union this time...

5-90

[red91]

Another interesting point - especially when you keep in mind that a National State of Emergency was enacted in 1932/33 for the Great Depression, and was never rescinded. Therefore, we're only a heartbeat away from martial law and suspension of the Constitution at all times, until the State of Emergency is actually rescinded by the sitting President.

Also, I wasn't looking for comments on the fact that the government is unable to protect us now (I already know that!) but on what their responsibility properly should be, if this line of thought were taken to its logical conclusion.

I am also inclined to think we're never far from the Second American Civil War - but it won't be over the rights of the States to secede from the Union this time...

5-90


I see a Psuedo-political career for you in your future.

:D

A responsible Government? Surely you jest.

[goodburbon]

If they take them, they become responsible and liable for any damages incurred by citizens as a result. Fortunately the courts, which generally make that kind of ruling in the first place, are the ones who would hear and dismiss all such arguements. If the situation has progressed to the point where the firearms have all been taken away, the govenrment will no longer care what the press reports since no one can do anything about it.

This seems a natural progerssion to me; government takes guns under the guise of safety. this leads to further dependence on government for security. Which in turn leads to more willingness to part with personal rights and freedoms for that security. Along that path the government must eventually know everyones lives and exact whereabouts at all times for "safety purposes". This progresses to the government dictating what you do and when you do it, all in the name of protection. It is a slippery slope, and with technology progressing at its current rate, it becomes a more and more probable outcome. By the time the sheeple realize what is going on it will be far too late. So who cares if they're liable, they won't be held accountable, especially with the media behind them, which they will be in the beginning.

[red91]

in addition....the OLD SCHOOL boys had it right....



Prudence indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.


Our politicians really need to read the WHOLE thing.

It is the single, most well written document in American History.

[5-90]

I see a Psuedo-political career for you in your future.

:D

A responsible Government? Surely you jest.

Me? Go into politics? Don't be absurd.

Let's see...
I'd promise nothing. I've got things I'd like to do, but they would put me (immediately!) at loggerheads with my colleagues
I'd actually LISTEN to the people who sent me into office. Answers to their communications would be ON TOPIC and RELEVANT
I'd not actively campaign for re-election. If they think I did a good job, I'll get re-elected. If not, I at least tried
I'd fulfill the requests of the electorate, but with a Constitutional view in mind
I prefer problems that can be solved by education to actually be solved by education, not by legislation and regulation (see current regs on fireworks for an example)

I could go on, but those would be the cornerstones of my behaviour while in office. Moreover, I'd be highly inclined to PHYSICALLY THROW lobbyists out of my office, or have them forcibly removed from my presence. I'm not about to cater to special interests - I would have the interests of the electorate and America at heart. I don't care about corporations, except where such concerns would intersect with the need to protect the body politic.

I'd also like to see a simplification of the system of law - if "ignorance of the Law is no excuse," why must it be housed in a library? Why can't it be contained in a single volume? I'd also like to see precedents largely thrown out, since they result in changes to the law which are not published where the public would readily have access. Trials have largely become conflicts between technicians - there's something wrong there.

5-90

[red91]

Me? Go into politics? Don't be absurd.

Let's see...

I'd actually LISTEN to the people who sent me into office. Answers to their communications would be ON TOPIC and RELEVANT.

I'd not actively campaign for re-election. If they think I did a good job, I'll get re-elected. If not, I at least tried.

I'd fulfill the requests of the electorate, but with a Constitutional view in mind.

I prefer problems that can be solved by education to actually be solved by education.
5-90


YOU HAVE MY VOTE.

:heart:

[8Mud]

I'd take it one step farther, as our governement is a representative democracy, the individuals in that governement should be held to, at the least, civil responsibility if there policies cause damage to an individual. Make them accountable for there screw ups.
Governement is a process, that often affords the decision and policy makers with a sort of anonyminity. The legislative, judicial branches, even appointees and civil servants, most any governement employee that makes policy, can hide in the layers, policy papers, intepretation and self serving legislation. Governement is largely self policing.
Maybe the Constitution could be tweaked a bit, to include the body politic as a part of the checks and ballances (in addition to the vote). By allowing them Judicial recourse, if a flawed law causes damage to an individual.
Seriously speaking, one of the reasons for an armed populace was as another check and balance on governement. Governement has been trying for a long time, to disarm the populace (which has always made me wonder what they were affraid of and/or scheming). If they are going to remove an armed populace as one of the checks and ballances, shouldn't it be replaced by something else? Preferably a non governemental entity (independant) and accountable to the general population. A militia has pretty much evolved into the National guard. A new entitiy could be a civil guard, with it's own police and public defender branches. Designed to protect the population from each other and from governement.
I'm not a fan of big governement, but seeing as it has evolved into a behemoth that is often far too intruisive for my tastes. Maybe it is likely impossible to dismantle it and adding more checks may be the only way to control it.
If they can form a department of Homeland Security, they can form a department of Civil Security. In may mind, I'm much more likely to be damaged by flawed policy, than terrorism anyway.

[5-90]

I'd take it one step farther, as our governement is a representative democracy, the individuals in that governement should be held to, at the least, civil responsibility if there policies cause damage to an individual. Make them accountable for there screw ups.
Governement is a process, that often affords the decision and policy makers with a sort of anonyminity. The legislative, judicial branches, even appointees and civil servants, most any governement employee that makes policy, can hide in the layers, policy papers, intepretation and self serving legislation. Governement is largely self policing.
Maybe the Constitution could be tweaked a bit, to include the body politic as a part of the checks and ballances (in addition to the vote). By allowing them Judicial recourse, if a flawed law causes damage to an individual.
Seriously speaking, one of the reasons for an armed populace was as another check and balance on governement. Governement has been trying for a long time, to disarm the populace (which has always made me wonder what they were affraid of and/or scheming). If they are going to remove an armed populace as one of the checks and ballances, shouldn't it be replaced by something else? Preferably a non governemental entity (independant) and accountable to the general population. A militia has pretty much evolved into the National guard. A new entitiy could be a civil guard, with it's own police and public defender branches. Designed to protect the population from each other and from governement.
I'm not a fan of big governement, but seeing as it has evolved into a behemoth that is often far too intruisive for my tastes. Maybe it is likely impossible to dismantle it and adding more checks may be the only way to control it.
If they can form a department of Homeland Security, they can form a department of Civil Security. In may mind, I'm much more likely to be damaged by flawed policy, than terrorism anyway.


Hear, hear! I am minded of a lesson in Latin many years ago - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who shall watch the watchers?

While they may have lived 200-odd years ago, the people who set this system up were, in many ways, smarter than most people to-day.

Oh - don't get me started on DHS - I find them about as useful as the vermiform appendix, and they shouldn't even have gotten started. The only reason I applied to TSA 'way back when was with the hopes that I might work myself into a position to improve the system, rather than simply prolong it.

Being a non-conformist by nature, I do tend to fight the system with every breath. However, I'm not attacking it to tear it down, I attack it to make it better. Huge difference... I'd like to see something as close to an anarchy as human nature will allow - using the genuine definition of anarchy:

Anarchy - absence of externally-imposed social order.

This does not mean a total absence of governance, but domestic conduct can and should be ruled simply by the Social Contract - the unspoken moral and ethical code that guides interpersonal relations. The catch is, we first have to get rid of this false sense of entitlement that the Human Potential Movement (I can think of no better name for the "huggy-feely" lunatic fringe) has generated in our youth, and then show them that it really is in their best interests to treat others well. Hmm...

5-90

[goodburbon]

I'd take it one step farther, as our governement is a representative democracy, the individuals in that governement should be held to, at the least, civil responsibility if there policies cause damage to an individual

The only problem with that is that every decision an elected official makes affects Someones pocketbook. No one would ever run for or accept appointment to a position that would bankrupt them just for being there. But I wholeheartedly agree that some form of accountability beyond elections is necessary, since it is possible for people like Ted Kennedy and Ray Nagin to get re-elected. These people I have cited because they show no interest in the well being of the body politic, but only their own agendas. I also think that those ignorant of the process should not be allowed to vote.

but I digress.

[5-90]

The only problem with that is that every decision an elected official makes affects Someones pocketbook. No one would ever run for or accept appointment to a position that would bankrupt them just for being there. But I wholeheartedly agree that some form of accountability beyond elections is necessary, since it is possible for people like Ted Kennedy and Ray Nagin to get re-elected. These people I have cited because they show no interest in the well being of the body politic, but only their own agendas. I also think that those ignorant of the process should not be allowed to vote.

but I digress.

Digress? Hardly - I think you have touched upon a centre of the issue. Since there is no accountability, there is no interest in doing what is actually right.

As far as 'taking a position that would bankrupt them,' do you realise that every four years, some people spend millions of dollars - granted, not all their own - to try to get a job that pays $400,000 per annum? I think that one thing that would be good for campaign finance reform/campaign reform in general would be to make them have to spend their own money on campaigning, and to make donations flatly illegal. Also, any sort of paid advertisement, statement, or media presentation must be funded by the candidate personally.

Of course, a reinstution of the "equal time" rule would also be good - if the candidate pays for a spot, it will not be aired unless and until a spot substantially the same is provided by the other side. He doesn't lose the money - it's a deposit, and if the spot doesn't get aired, he gets it back after the election!

As far as people "ignorant of the process," I thought a course in American Civics was a necessity for graduation from primary education? It's not as difficult to understand as they'd like us to think it is - it was a semester when I was in high school, and the first two-thirds of that was taken up with American History. So, what's so hard to understand?

I definitely think the Pauper's Oath should be reinstated (if your existence is funded entirely by taxpayer dollars, you don't get to vote until you get off the dole!) and there should be some other minimum requirement beyond having a heartbeat and a body core temperature of somewhere around 37*C, but one step at a time, no?

(Those interested in an alternate system would do well to read The Curious Republic of Gondour, by Mark Twain.)

5-90

[goodburbon]

Are you rich enough to pay for a presidential campaign all alone? You're certainly qualified. The problem could be resolved with mandatory equal media representation for all candidates. i don't think that just because someone is poor, they are not capable of making wise public decisions. Remove the donation end of things, and requisition some public media time.

[8Mud]

The only problem with that is that every decision an elected official makes affects Someones pocketbook. No one would ever run for or accept appointment to a position that would bankrupt them just for being there. But I wholeheartedly agree that some form of accountability beyond elections is necessary, since it is possible for people like Ted Kennedy and Ray Nagin to get re-elected. These people I have cited because they show no interest in the well being of the body politic, but only their own agendas. I also think that those ignorant of the process should not be allowed to vote.

but I digress.

That's kind of the idea, instead of the, get elected and steal all you can, before you get brought up on ethics viloations (often way past too late) crowd. Government might get tweaked to draw in people motivated by other things than money. I don't really think being rich or even well to do, is a qualification for providing good governement. Legislation might be passed to actually improve things, instead of enriching the companies that make the largest political donations. We might end up with engineers or other trades people as representitives, instead of the big money crowd.
Realistically, if you were to sue the government, you would be financing your own case on both sides. If a government elected official or employee is found at fault, they should pay the legal fees out of there own pockets.
Thoroughly thought out policies, designed to benenfit the population in general, instead of the elite, is the goal IMO.

[CRASH]

I pledge to use the phrase "hath shewn" in a post in the next 30 days.

[5-90]

Are you rich enough to pay for a presidential campaign all alone? You're certainly qualified. The problem could be resolved with mandatory equal media representation for all candidates. i don't think that just because someone is poor, they are not capable of making wise public decisions. Remove the donation end of things, and requisition some public media time.

Which illustrates my point - that, and considering that not all the "dregs of society" are broke. Some have money, and they usually get elected.

Since politics is essentially a money game, we end up with chimps and shrubs who just have enough "spreadin' around money" to burn on the campaign. True campaign reform/campaign finance reform is only possible if the idea of funding a campaign is taken entirely out of the equation, and we return to consideration of "public service" rather than "public office."

I haven't given the topic much serious thought in a couple of years, but I may feel another monograph coming on... I'm going to have to write all these, and post them somewhere for people to read, I think.

5-90

[jml1911a1]

The responsibility of gov't is to protect the rights of the People, as listed in the Constitution. That's 75% of it.

The rest is roads and "providing for the common defense." (NOT a standing army, thank you very much. The Swiss have it right.)

That's it. If it isn't specifically in the Constitution, the gov't has no right to do it.

[Ralph]

I just scanned over this thread and did not see any mention of natural law. Natural law is what one can say has been granted by God (for want of better words) to all people. The most important example of natural law is the right of self protection. If you are in danger, you have the right to protect yourself. This is not granted by any government. You are born with this right. If one does not have the means to exercise this right, this right is negated. In this day and age, for most people, a firearm is their means of self defense.

[5-90]

Quite - but I am not talking about "natural rights" or "divine rights" - I've limited this discussion to items under the purview of a manmade government.

I see NO reason whatever that any government should be allowed to manage, mitigate, or modify divinely granted rights, but that's fuel for another discussion. Please limit your responses to the question at hand... :angel:

5-90

[SCW]

I am also inclined to think we're never far from the Second American Civil War - but it won't be over the rights of the States to secede from the Union this time...

5-90

I hear this more and more from an increasingly diverse group of people. I'm a civil engineer dealing with water, and may in the water industries think water will spark it. Many of my friends in the lower economic classes think it will be more racial, upper economic groups are mixed between racial and economic factors, and a few of us uber-conservatives are in the "all of the above and the gov't too" boat.

Nothing else to say, I just think it's interesting that the idea is gaining popularity, I'm not sure I like it, but I'm also not sure anything less will fix much of the problems. Opps, my tinfoil hat has a wrinkle....

[Phager]

In this day and age, for most people, a firearm is their means of self defense.

This is my mode of self defense, at least at home
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g70/Phager76/Scimitar2.jpg

And to add to the discussion. I personally feel that this country has been following a steady path of self-destruction for many years now. We've had many of our personal liberties taken from us in recent years. Double standards have become common place, an example of this would be the plight of smokers (Warning: Very biased view point here). In many areas smoking has been outlawed in all public places, and in parts of CA there's been city ordinances prohibiting smoking within 100 (or more) feet of any doorway. I know this because I was terminated from a job in which I was the only person on duty for 6 hrs of the day, when I went for a smoke break I stood in the parking lot within sight of the store (Probably 30-35' away). For this, I got fired:bs: . And now there are ads being run with not so thinly vieled profanity being run during prime time, all in the name of being "edgy". I tend to agree that there is a civil war brewing, although I have to wonder about the effectiveness, given the completely apathetic attitude exhibited by many people.

Just my two cents
Pat

Edit: Put in a better pic of my scimitar :D

[8Mud]

I think if there is a revolt, it will be a tax revolt. People are bound to wake up sometime and realize just how much they pay out in taxes of one sort or another and decide they aren't getting there monies worth. The burocracy seems kind of bloated, like a tick ready to explode.
People may get tired of paying for there own oppression. You refuse to pay taxes because you disagree with the direction of the governement. The governement you pay for, sends a Policeman that you pay for, to take you before a court that you pay for, to put you in a jail you pay for, because you won't pay more or what they decided was your fair share of there burocracy.
Governmental; to rule, state, control, restrain, or sway.
Extort; to obtain by threats or oppresive, unjust, force.
Government is concidered necessary, while extortion iis concidered criminal. The line between the two is fairly fine.
The more I think about the whole process, the more attractive an independant entity to police government, seems like a preferable alternative to rebelion. The checks and balance system seems broke and needs some fine tuning, if not a complete overhall.

[Ralph]

Quite - but I am not talking about "natural rights" or "divine rights" - I've limited this discussion to items under the purview of a manmade government.

I see NO reason whatever that any government should be allowed to manage, mitigate, or modify divinely granted rights, but that's fuel for another discussion. Please limit your responses to the question at hand... :angel:

5-90
The government can't and won't take the responsibility of individual protection. The only way for a government to "protect" the individuals in it's "care" would be to assign a policeman to each individual. That is called a police state. If we are to live in a country where the government is supposed to be by, for and of the people, it is the people's responsibility to protect the government and themselves. Not the other way around.

[5-90]

This is my mode of self defense, at least at home
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g70/Phager76/Scimitar2.jpg

And to add to the discussion. I personally feel that this country has been following a steady path of self-destruction for many years now. We've had many of our personal liberties taken from us in recent years. Double standards have become common place, an example of this would be the plight of smokers (Warning: Very biased view point here). In many areas smoking has been outlawed in all public places, and in parts of CA there's been city ordinances prohibiting smoking within 100 (or more) feet of any doorway. I know this because I was terminated from a job in which I was the only person on duty for 6 hrs of the day, when I went for a smoke break I stood in the parking lot within sight of the store (Probably 30-35' away). For this, I got fired:bs: . And now there are ads being run with not so thinly vieled profanity being run during prime time, all in the name of being "edgy". I tend to agree that there is a civil war brewing, although I have to wonder about the effectiveness, given the completely apathetic attitude exhibited by many people.

Just my two cents
Pat

Edit: Put in a better pic of my scimitar :D


"Niccers" - the new oppressed. I don't smoke cigarettes anymore, I quit when I was getting lumped in with the other smokers who littered the area with their detritus, and I got tired of it quickly (I never lost field discipline with butts.)

I still carry my pipe most places, it's well-used, and it shows. I don't stuff and light it very often (and usually at home,) but I'll chew on it in public places as a protest. Blacks were told to sit in the back of the bus - smokers have been thrown off the bus entirely!

I like the scimitar at home, I tend to collect sharp, pointy things myself. I will usually have a Benchmade Rescue Hook, a Gerber Applegate-Fairbairn mid-size folder, and my old Gerber Multi-Plier 600DET on me once I put my pants on. When asked, "Do you always carry a knife?" my reply is something like, "No, usually two or three."

Extras? I've also got a Gerber Applegate-Fairbairn full-size folder, a Benchmade/Emerson CQC7B (left hand,) an M7 (?) bayonet (sheathed,) and a Navy Mk3 Mod 0 dive knive (also sheathed) both in my truck - for nasty situations, I've also got a 3-foot crowbar and a camp axe (I also carry them for other reasons - they have come in handy sometimes.)

Since the Republic of California does not allow the carry of firearms for personal defence, I have to resort to other means. I have also used the odd wall or sidewalk to defend myself as well - I'm not picky. Being limited by fiat causes one to be creative...

5-90

[5-90]

The government can't and won't take the responsibility of individual protection. The only way for a government to "protect" the individuals in it's "care" would be to assign a policeman to each individual. That is called a police state. If we are to live in a country where the government is supposed to be by, for and of the people, it is the people's responsibility to protect the government and themselves. Not the other way around.


"The crux of the biscuit/is the apostrophe."

Ralph, you've hit upon the core of the matter - do we really want to live in a police state? It's what we're heading toward if the whole "gun control" thing is taken to its logical conclusion...

Considering that we'd have to have a minimum of five guardians per "free" individual, one can only wonder what we'd be heading toward. I don't like it - I haven't fully considered the idea, but I certainly don't like it...

5-90

[Fergie]

Sheepdogs Unite!

[karstic]

Sheepdogs Unite!

WOOF!!!

[Ralph]

do we really want to live in a police state? It's what we're heading toward if the whole "gun control" thing is taken to its logical conclusion...
5-90
I believe that every move we make where we allow the government to take away our ability to make decisions for ourselves brings us closer to a police state. Freedom means that you have the the freedom to choose for yourself what you feel is best for you. Not to let someone else dictate what they think is best for you. Freedom requires responsibility as you are responsible for making your own decisions. It also entails risk as you may make the wrong decisions. That risk is what scares people into believing that they should put all their decision making into the hands of the government.

[Boatwrench]

The only thing that keeps us from becoming a police state are well armed citizens.

I live in San Francisco, I am liberal and being active military I was exempt from the ban. We are suppose to protect the Constitution, not the individual citizens.

One thing being overlooked was this ban was on the ballot at an opportune time, one where there was expected to be low turnout.

Tom

[goodburbon]

One thing being overlooked was this ban was on the ballot at an opportune time, one where there was expected to be low turnout.

Tom

it is manipulations like these that go a long way to thwart the will of the people. They postponed elections in New Orleans until they could locate enough of the poor welfare recipients to re-lelect Nagin.....NEWSFLASH those people aren't coming back to New Orleans, they don't want to work and can't afford to move. Why on earth would a city make a conscious effort to re-import poverty.....for power.

[5-90]

I believe that every move we make where we allow the government to take away our ability to make decisions for ourselves brings us closer to a police state. Freedom means that you have the the freedom to choose for yourself what you feel is best for you. Not to let someone else dictate what they think is best for you. Freedom requires responsibility as you are responsible for making your own decisions. It also entails risk as you may make the wrong decisions. That risk is what scares people into believing that they should put all their decision making into the hands of the government.

And you've just hit upon another core issue, and the reason (I think) for the "dumbing down" of education - why create more free thinkers?

Where are you? Next time I come through there, we should link up for drinks and smokes, and have a tape recorder going. Sounds like it would be a good conversation...

5-90

[8Mud]

it is manipulations like these that go a long way to thwart the will of the people. They postponed elections in New Orleans until they could locate enough of the poor welfare recipients to re-lelect Nagin.....NEWSFLASH those people aren't coming back to New Orleans, they don't want to work and can't afford to move. Why on earth would a city make a conscious effort to re-import poverty.....for power.
Darned, some of the thoughts brought up here are right to the point, relavent and intelligent.
Jerrymanduring (SP?), is one of those grey areas that political parties use to bolster there base.
I wasn't too keen on a new burocracy to watch the burocrancy idea myself, I just brought it up as a possibilty.
Instead of rebellion or increasing burocracy, maybe civil control of the districts could be used as a factor in the checks and ballances thing. It would likely be a new burocracy (hopefully outside of the governemnt, at least for awhile, hopefully a long while), but relatively small. I really don't think, elections or the process, belongs in the courts. Or in any other branch of governemnt actually.
It would require some thought as to the processes, but a formula could be figured out to make the districts more responsive to the population, in a braod brush stroke kind of way.
I see no real reason way a distircts borders have to connect. I see no reason why voting couldn't be bundled with another necessary registration process, drivers licsense, *National ID card renewal* taxes or whatever, as a nudge towards participation. I see no reason why voting couldn't be stretched out for weeks instead of a day or days. The count takes weeks anyway on many occasions. There are many mechinations that could be implemented to make governement more (truly) representitive. And at the same time lessen the impact of those who are activists (or noisy minorites).
Governement seems way to skewed to the activist agenda (do something, anything, even if it is wrong or unnecessary). And make a governement that reflects the wishes of the passive. If you look at the numbers, the population less the manic, is tilted towards the passive. The passive are much less likely to participate or be activists. To take the thought one step farther, the passive are in all likelyhood the disenfranchised majority. When I say passive, I'm using a typical bell curve of behavior. 63% of the popülation is somewhat neurotic and have there ups and downs. 50% are more down than up, 1 in 6 are generally full speed ahead and damn the torpedos types.
Governement seems skewed to be controlled by the sometimes to mostly manic types.