Not a Perfect Government, but a Better GovernmentEssay Preview: Not a Perfect Government, but a Better GovernmentReport this essayNot A Perfect Government, But A Better GovernmentI am here today to share with you all, the current state of our government and how it is flawed and defective. First off, I’d like to say that all of you have great experience and knowledge already about our democracy and how it has worked pretty well over the years. As a child we were taught that democracy was the most effective form of government, on the other hand Communism was always shamed and has suffered from large-scale public condemnation. Seeing this, I have devoted my time into researching the different forms of government and really got to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each form. As I came across the concept of communism, I realized that it wasn’t such a bad idea.
We live in a democracy and the process of trying to define and improve it is complex. People go around trying to define the current state of the government. There are many different forms of government that people choose. I decided to explore some of the various forms of government that the public likes very much. Of course, what I also love about the process of trying to improve one government is that it has become increasingly difficult to determine which of the main institutions is best for people, and which one should be relied upon to serve the community. It doesn’t make sense for public officials and the politicians to try to define their own government, as this would hurt those who are actually elected. Also, there is a certain degree of separation and distrust between official and public officials.
I’ve come across a number of government-driven groups recently, including one in Texas. This is in part because government is a form of social organization that is the “laboratory” that produces goods, services, or material. In reality the “laboratory” itself is very informal, and a lot of people don’t take any responsibility for it. At least you can imagine how this works. A new organization called the Center for the Study of Social Conflict took up the study of public officials recently at the University of Texas and gave a presentation. They pointed out two problems with the process of creating and disseminating a new group or system. The first is that the state is not always sure they want enough support, or funding, from the people to serve them. The new organization wants to create a more “open and honest” administration, and some of that support comes from the state. The second problem appears to be this much more general level of distrust: many of the organizations which have been created by the state for research and research purposes want to keep the government on their side. I hope this provides some insight into how their own internal politics play out in practice.
I have noticed that there is an increasing amount of fear that things are going to get really bad soon. There are a number of groups which have been formed to serve people in crisis situations which include people living abroad, people with mental health problems, and people with mental illness and substance use issues. People are sometimes so frightened that it takes the government to do something about it. I’m not saying there is no fear of something bad coming in 2018, but when your government or your government itself doesn’t get it right, it seems like people are not making a moral judgment on the situation. It seems to me that most such organizations are not afraid to get involved. At the same time, it seems to me that fear is the biggest issue facing every major US government organization. Especially when you don’t get to know anything about them until it’s too late.
Many people seem to confuse government with capitalism and want to use it to their advantage or their own advantage. As someone who has attended many government meetings, one of the great things about the experience is that you can always make a point of seeing the situation unfold before you start asking questions. I find it fascinating that many government meetings are so well organized that anyone can sit around chatting about their issues, or ask any of the people in the room, and the group will happily do their job. If people don’t have to deal with the problems we experience from government, the meetings can give us pause and maybe even motivate us to think about it a bit.
We live in a democracy and the process of trying to define and improve it is complex. People go around trying to define the current state of the government. There are many different forms of government that people choose. I decided to explore some of the various forms of government that the public likes very much. Of course, what I also love about the process of trying to improve one government is that it has become increasingly difficult to determine which of the main institutions is best for people, and which one should be relied upon to serve the community. It doesn’t make sense for public officials and the politicians to try to define their own government, as this would hurt those who are actually elected. Also, there is a certain degree of separation and distrust between official and public officials.
I’ve come across a number of government-driven groups recently, including one in Texas. This is in part because government is a form of social organization that is the “laboratory” that produces goods, services, or material. In reality the “laboratory” itself is very informal, and a lot of people don’t take any responsibility for it. At least you can imagine how this works. A new organization called the Center for the Study of Social Conflict took up the study of public officials recently at the University of Texas and gave a presentation. They pointed out two problems with the process of creating and disseminating a new group or system. The first is that the state is not always sure they want enough support, or funding, from the people to serve them. The new organization wants to create a more “open and honest” administration, and some of that support comes from the state. The second problem appears to be this much more general level of distrust: many of the organizations which have been created by the state for research and research purposes want to keep the government on their side. I hope this provides some insight into how their own internal politics play out in practice.
I have noticed that there is an increasing amount of fear that things are going to get really bad soon. There are a number of groups which have been formed to serve people in crisis situations which include people living abroad, people with mental health problems, and people with mental illness and substance use issues. People are sometimes so frightened that it takes the government to do something about it. I’m not saying there is no fear of something bad coming in 2018, but when your government or your government itself doesn’t get it right, it seems like people are not making a moral judgment on the situation. It seems to me that most such organizations are not afraid to get involved. At the same time, it seems to me that fear is the biggest issue facing every major US government organization. Especially when you don’t get to know anything about them until it’s too late.
Many people seem to confuse government with capitalism and want to use it to their advantage or their own advantage. As someone who has attended many government meetings, one of the great things about the experience is that you can always make a point of seeing the situation unfold before you start asking questions. I find it fascinating that many government meetings are so well organized that anyone can sit around chatting about their issues, or ask any of the people in the room, and the group will happily do their job. If people don’t have to deal with the problems we experience from government, the meetings can give us pause and maybe even motivate us to think about it a bit.
Then you have to ask yourself, “why have a few countries continued to maintain this political system?” Well, in a Communist based government “all people are treated equal” everyone is treated equally regardless of education, and financial stability. In the eyes of the government, you would all be the same. In a communist system, all people are entitled to a job. Since the government controls and owns the means of production, they can provide jobs for at least the majority of the people, like a pack of wolves hunting together for their share of food.
However, some may argue that capitalism is a better system than communism, since it is based off of human nature. If we set up an economic system based on humanity’s greed, then why not set up a legal system based on humanity’s murderous, and destructive nature. If human nature is basically flawed, then how can we not expect an economic system based on human nature to be flawed as well? Yes, Communism has been attempted and it failed, but same goes for democracy. Corruption entered into the Greek political system and brought the democratic city-states crashing down, But we didn’t give up on democracy, we simply had to figure out what went wrong, fix it, and try it again. Same goes for Communism.
Works Cited“Benefits of Communism.” Benefits Of. N.p., 06 Sept. 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.Trotskyite, By. “Its Not Easy Being Red.” Its Not Easy Being Red.