|
|
Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
Posted:
Dec 23, 2012 2:22 PM
|
|
In reply to my message
"Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7942744
in which I outlined the immense collective power that the people of a
democracy have,
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:45 AM, GS Chandy <gs_chandy@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>
>> And when we look at the power of the people
>> collectively, we see
>> immense power to change the societal situation.
>>
> I agree. But the actual power that's available (when the people are using conventional prose) is minimal...
>
But the actual power that people have to change things is in so many
fantastically important instances really in the power to vote and vote
for the people who are actually proposing the governmental action that
would change things that government can change for the better,
especially those things that only government can change for the
better.
These would be such things as a government turning its back on the
homeless people over which is governs - as well so many that are not
homeless, letting them suffer and die from lack of proper food, proper
shelter, and proper medical care. As I proved again and again, only
government has the financial capability to stop all this needless
suffering and death caused by lack of proper food, proper shelter, and
proper medical care.
There is only one reason why a government would turn its back on the
people over which it governs - for whatever reason, a sufficient
percentage of voters have not voted for and/or do not continue to vote
for the right people or parties running for office.
Which is why people like myself speak our minds, to educate people as
to what is actually happening - most people who vote still don't
actually know that most homeless people in 41 states are denied
Medicaid and Food Stamps because of there being a sufficiently large
number of Republicans running things in these 41 states.
Once everyone were to know what they presently don't know about the
Republican Party especially throughout the history of the 20th
century, then perhaps a sufficient percentage of voters would stop
voting for Republicans.
Case in point as to the good that happens when there are sufficiently
low percentages of Republicans running things: With only one
exception, the very early 20th century on anti-monopoly legislation,
only in two time frames in US 20th century history has the US
government passed laws giving us major progress in terms of laws
helping and protecting workers, consumers, the non-rich entrepreneurs
and world-be-entrepreneurs, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, civil
rights, the environment, and any other such area.
These two times frames were the periods of at least 8 years each after
the very major Democratic landslides of the 1932 election won by
Franklin Roosevelt and the 1964 election won by Lyndon Johnson, in
each case with very large increases in Democratic lawmakers, while
there were still sufficiently large percentages of Democratic
lawmakers and a president willing to at least not veto the
legislation. (I say this last part since some progress happened during
the Eisenhower and Nixon years, where these non-conservative
Republican presidents at least did not stand in the way of the
collective will of the large Democratic majorities.)
Except for anti-monopoly legislation of the very early 20th century,
every last major landmark federal law of the 20th century one can
think of that helps or protects so many people such as:
- - workers (such as the 40 hour work week and overtime pay and all
other major landmark federal labor law);
- - consumers (many laws and protections via the Food and Drug
Administration to protect the food supply and via other agencies to
detect and stop the spread of infectious diseases and other such law);
- - the non-rich entrepreneurs and world-be-entrepreneurs (the right
banking laws in the 1930s for the non-rich entrepreneurs and
world-be-entrepreneurs caused an explosion of Mom-and-Pop capitalism,
resulting in 1977 a percentage of the US population owning a
legitimate business twice as large as now, this low percentage a
result of the killing of these banking laws starting with the
conservative Republican Ronald Reagan);
- - the poor (Medicaid and Food Stamps);
- - the disabled (Social Security);
- -the elderly (Social Security and Medicare);
- - civil rights, all those discriminated against (all that civil rights
legislation including most especially with respect to voting, the
Voting Rights Act);
- - the environment (the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and so much more);
- - and any other such area.
Every last one of these good laws that has been killed or reduced in
power has been killed or reduced so only in times when sufficiently
large numbers of Republicans had governmental power.
I am and have been talking only about things that only government can
change for the better - which are a very large number of things, many
of which I've been talking about, including things of an economic
nature.
And one final point: Dumping on the power to vote is to dump on the
graves of every last person who ever died for the power to vote, to
free the people from dictatorship. (This includes all those graves of
those who died in unsuccessful attempts to free the people from
dictatorship.)
|
|
