Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Government of, by and for the people.

Comments

Return To Article
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 16, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" yes, and you voted for one of the biggest liars in history and keep telling us that his lies are not lies.

    Who is worse, the liar or the person who defends the lies of the liar?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 15, 2014 7:42 p.m.

    Emerger

    Magna, Salt Lake, UT

    In my opinion, we still have a government "of the people" because “We the People”, collectively speaking, are the ones who voted for the corrupt politicians. They didn’t elect themselves; we sent them there to represent us!

    =======

    And how many times have you watched a Politician SAY one thing to get elected,
    and the DO the complete and polar opposite once elections are over?

    THAT is called --
    Say anything to get elected -by the people -
    but the Devil will call right after to collect his soul!

    They are all sold to the highest bidder,
    and the Bidder is their new Master Mahan.

  • Emerger Magna, Salt Lake, UT
    July 15, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    I believe that most of the comments that have been made have missed the real point of this discussion. Rather than stating the true CAUSE of the problem, most of the comments have stated only SYMPTOMS of the actual underlying problem, which is how we vote.

    In my opinion, we still have a government "of the people" because “We the People”, collectively speaking, are the ones who voted for the corrupt politicians. They didn’t elect themselves; we sent them there to represent us! Unless and until the people of this nation start voting for people who will serve us with honesty and integrity, we will continue to find ourselves burdened with a corrupt and evil government.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 15, 2014 5:33 p.m.

    Good letter today, short and to the point. Judges have taken government and freedom away from the people. They often rule and make rules that have nothing to do with constitutional principles. Since the gay promoters have determined that is what this letter is about lets get into it. Some arbitrary theory about equal treatment is the claim that gay promoters and their sympathizers go on about. That's a joke. We have dozens of issues where there is not equal treatment, what makes the gay crowd so special? Over a hundred years ago, polygamists were denied equal treatment.
    Sorry no sympathy for the crybabies who wish to limit freedom of speech. Corruption and paying off candidates existed long before the free speech ruling. Both sides do it. Special parties, junkets, and money contributed to candidates campaigns have little to do with the Citizens United ruling. Those situations have existed for decades.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 15, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    Redshirt, Ultra Bob and Tyler made my point so I won't repeat what they just said. Let me just make one point.

    I just finished reading a New York Times article about a group of reform minded Republicans. After finishing the article there were two things clear. One, is that reform simply means they want a Repbulican party that actually suggests policies rather than just saying NO. Regardless of how you cut it and slice it that is the policy of the current Repbulican party. Two is that all of their policies have as a basis unlimited belief in the virtue of the "free market".

    Regardless of your belief in markets, you will not change my life experiences that includes living around the world, working at and with executive level poistions of major corps., and an advance degree in econonmics, that tells me unfettered markets tend to monopolies, and economic tyranny of the masses.

    Regulated markets can produce wealth and justice.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    to Redshirt

    I don't disagree w/ today's 12:54p post. It IMO has more to do w/ who actually works in Gov't. Odds are it a bunch of well meaning idealists. When they get disillusioned, all bets are and ethics tend to break down as well.

    I agree w/ your post at 1:50 p today. Its a shame we have gotten away from Jefferson's vision.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 15, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    Atlas Smashed
    Santa Monica, CA
    Government corruption has little to do with size.

    It has everything to do with dirty money.

    Sadly, many today call dirty money a form of free speech.

    Shame on those who do that! Shame on those activist Supreme Court judges who declared bribery a form of free speech!

    3:29 p.m. July 15, 2014

    ===========

    Amen and Amen!
    Agreed, You beat me to it!

    It doesn't matter if it's a one sheriff town,
    or
    One World Government.

    You can BUY anything in this world, with money!

    It's horrible that the SCOTUS legalized it,
    Sadder still when Book of Mormon reading/believeing Latter-Day Saints support and condone it!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    RedBird asks " How corrupt could a corporation be if government was small and focused on defending the people, enforcing contracts, and upholding the law"?

    If the government focused on defending the people would it be from all enemies foreign and domestic? Would domestic enemies include all sorts of violent criminals, cheaters, fraud, etc.?

    Would upholding the law apply to all laws, regulations and rules? Even those which protect people from unscrupulous businessmen?

    The corporations that I have worked for stay just inside the law. If you remove the enforcement of the law, there would be no limit to the corporate corruption.

    The United Nations is a weak world government, it cannot prevent the corruption between nations. If the US government becomes weak and unable to control our states, America will mirror the world.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" you are missing the key component. The power of government does not have to do with how many people are part of it. The power of government is about what they can and cannot do to you. Some of the most corrupt governments have few people running them. But, all of those corrupt governments have limitless or nearly limitless power over their people.

    Think North Korea or Cuba. Both are very corrupt, and have few in charge, but they have immense power over the people.

    Try and think about this again, but in place of number of people in government think about how much power those people in government have over your life.

    To "Ultra Bob" I will kindly disagree with you. Lets compare two business, one is a private business, the other is government run. Lets compare Comcast Internet to the Utopia project. Comcast built their service using private money, and expand only as the market allows. Utopia connections cost just as much, but the company keeps getting reorganized and is now looking to tax everybody to pay for the system.

    Now tell me, which is more corrupt, the business or the government entity?

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    "And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." (Mosiah 29:27)

    Now substitute "corporations" for "people" in the above passage (SCOTUS says they are equivalent), and see if you wouldn't conclude that this land is ripe for some well-earned great destruction.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 15, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “How corrupt could a corporation be if government was small… ?”

    You mean if government wasn’t there to regulate pollution, safety, product quality, stop monopolies, and generally protect consumers from the countless ways corporations try and shaft them?

    Should we try it and see?

    Oh wait, we did that… it was called the Gilded Age. Can you imagine what our environment would look like today had we allowed that laissez faire model to continue all the way into the 21st century?

    And regarding your comment on the LDS Church Obama article (since I’m out of comments there), I see you’re just going to double down on the right-wing spin.

    You’re confusing the timeline of events with the facts surrounding those events. Let me say it again – the ACA had NOTHING to do with the annual budget process! What the House did would be analogous to 80’s Dems telling Reagan “we’ll fund the government but only if you agree to restore some tax rates the last Congress reduced (ya know, by vote).”

    We have never governed by these hostage tactics, but by all means enjoy your kool-aid.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    RedShirt is right. Government has the ability to decide who gets to be rich. Thus government is subject to every kind of kind of influence, both proper and improper.

    The fallacy in the conservative argument is that limiting government doesn't make the bad people go away, it actually gives them more opportunities to work their evil.

    Example, the government grades wheat by how much foreign material is mixed in with the crop. Really clean wheat sells for a higher price than dirty wheat and makes better bread. If you take away the governments ability to apply grades to the wheat, the farmers would be lax about growing their wheat. The same thing applies to almost everything consumed.

    The unscrupulous people who would bribe and corrupt our government are the people who would make, sell, and disguise the lack of quality in their product.

  • Atlas Smashed Santa Monica, CA
    July 15, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    Government corruption has little to do with size.

    It has everything to do with dirty money.

    Sadly, many today call dirty money a form of free speech.

    Shame on those who do that! Shame on those activist Supreme Court judges who declared bribery a form of free speech!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 15, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    "If the government is limited in its power, then the ability to corrupt government is also limited. "

    By that logic, countries run by a king would not be corrupt. Logic = fail.

    Power corrupts. Our elected officials wield much power.

    What bothers me most is that in our government, the corruption is legal.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" and my point is made.

    What do you think. If a government's powers were very limited, how corrupt could it ever be? Now, if a government had nearly limitless powers, how corrupt could it be?

    How corrupt could a corporation be if government was small and focused on defending the people, enforcing contracts, and upholding the law?

    Think about those points long and hard, then get back to us and let us know what you think. Now, DO NOT stray from the issue, which is the more power government has the more corrupt is gets.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 15, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Redshirt: your position only makes sense if government is the only source of corruption in the world. Unfortunalely that is not true.

    "As government gains power, it becomes more and more corrupt."

    Unfortunately as anything gains power it can trend to corruption. Clearly economic power breeds massive corruption and evel along with any good it may do. Thus government is the only force big enough to conuter economic corruption and civil corruption.

    It's a dance not a march.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 15, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    "and judges who go against the will of the people."

    Who in th world think it's a judges duty to rule on "with the will of the people"

    A judges duty is to rule on the legality and constitutionality of a law.

    Ridiculous.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    What is really funny about the liberals here is that they can't put 1 and 1 together.

    Lets look at why governments get corrupted.

    They do so because the government wields great power, and can influence business and society. The larger government is, the more power there is to gain through bribery and deceit.

    If the government is limited in its power, then the ability to corrupt government is also limited. Now, as the power of government is expanded, the ease and ability to corrupt that government increases. People will find a way to use that power for the personal gain.

    Now, liberals see the corruption, and figure that the problem isn't that there is too much power for sale. They figure that they just don't have the right people in power or else that there isn't enough power given to the government. As government gains power, it becomes more and more corrupt.

    Now, the liberals probably won't believe me, but lets just take a look at the NSA. It started out as a small organization looking at intelligence reports. We have given them more power over us, and they are now corrupt. See the correlation?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 15, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    @VIDAR
    What if at the next presidential election; we voted all current representatives out?
    Sweep the house clean, and start with new people. I realize it would take a couple elections due to the senate elections being off year.
    But, in two years we could have all new people.
    But it will never happen. Not when people are more interested in TV, or other recreations, than in what happens in their country.

    I respect your opinion.

    I might add it seems we are willing to stick with our guy no matter how crazy he acts/votes.

    The problem seems to always be with the other guy representing the other party.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 15, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Yeah our first lady wants to ban the word "Bossy". What a free country we live in.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    July 15, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    I think it is important to remember that citizens still have the greatest power over the system, and that is the vote.
    Voter apathy is most to blame for the current problems in our system.
    If everyone voted, and made our representatives more accountable, it would improve our system.
    What if at the next presidential election; we voted all current representatives out?
    Sweep the house clean, and start with new people. I realize it would take a couple elections due to the senate elections being off year.
    But, in two years we could have all new people.
    But it will never happen. Not when people are more interested in TV, or other recreations, than in what happens in their country.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    Ah, Russ, those judges going against the "will of the people" are just trying to protect the freedom of the people you don't like and whom you would deny freedom to.

    Personally, (if I believed) I'd thank God for those judges.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    The sad truth is that we have never had government of the people, by the people, for the people and will not until the people are able to control their government. The only way people have in controlling their government is the vote, and the political republicans of all parties have put too many roadblocks to the public vote.

    The political republicans, not to be confused with the republican party, are those who insist on America being a republic and not allowing democracy to exist. A typical political republican would be a person who has installed himself is a position of power and wealth and would limit or prevent any change that would threaten his position.

    All adult and otherwise independent Americans should be encouraged, even mandated, to participate in selecting their government and its policies. All at government expense with strict prohibition of participation of the influence of any entity other than individual American persons.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    "Rather we have bureaucrats, special interest groups and judges who go against the will of the people". Indeed, we have a state vehemently trying to usurp the rights of the people and judges giving religious rights to corporations at the expense of citizens.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    Work to put limits on or reform the campaign finance system. Ban gifts, trips, etc. by lobbying groups, regardless of the amount. Overturn Supreme Court decisions giving corporations special rights to influence elections and the dialogue. Let's have public financing of elections. These reforms will be a good place to start. Work for this, dear letter writer, and what you pine for will start to return. The problem we face has been led by conservatives, beginning with their assault on McCain-Feingold and the Citizens United. Conservatives have led the charge on the erosion of our system. Are you willing to even acknowledge that?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    "Corporations are people, my friend."

    - Mitt Romney

    And you act surprised when we the people aren't represented?

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    Government of, by, and for the people takes on a whole different meaning when you read "people" as including corporations. Somehow I don't think that's what Lincoln meant.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    We no longer have a republic, we have an oligarchy. I lay the blame for that at the feet of conservatives who think that corporations deserve Bill of Rights protections, but that women, the poor, children, and the elderly do not.

    As for judges, "the will of the people," only works well when there are judges who know and apply the constitution to prevent democracy from becoming mob rule.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Will someone get me my violin? Sorry Russ, but you donated your government to the corporate world in the 1980's and haven't looked back. I'm looking to incorporate in order to have the same rights as Hobby Lobby. All the perks with none of the liability.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    WE have government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, that is the real problem.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    Russ needs to study American history. We are a Republic where the majority does not always rule. The recent laws that have been overturned by many educated and knowledgeable judges has shown me that this country still believes in rights for all citizens, not just an uneducated majority.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 15, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    Let us just reiterate the logic problem of this comment.

    We are not a pure democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

    As the LTE is no doubt aware (when it suits their purposes), we have a document that enumerates the form and substance of the government. Laws may not be written that violate this document.

    This dog whistle call of "people's rights" being violated by the negation of a referendum in Utah is an angry cry by a misled mentality. The vote of the people of Utah to ban same sex marriage (for that is indeed what prompted this screed) violated the US Constitution in various ways.

    Unless, or until, we decide that the Judiciary is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of law, this is the way things work. If you don't like it, submit a constitutional amendment and work to get it passed.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 15, 2014 6:16 a.m.

    "Rather we have bureaucrats, special interest groups and judges who go against the will of the people."

    Lets look at why that is.

    Bureaucrats are paid (bribed that is) to protect the interests of those who pay them.
    Special Interest groups pay bureaucrats to, well, er, protect their special interest.

    Judges, hopefully are tied to the rule of law and the constitution and should not be focused on "the will of the people".

    So, Russ, unless you are for restricting corporate, union and other special interest money that taints how our bureaucrats govern, how will things change?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:56 a.m.

    What can you expect when you legalize bribery as "free speech"?

    Why public financed elections hasn't gained more traction in this country is beyond me. It appears as if we're content with special interest groups buying off our "representatives."

    Like your Swallows, Shurtleffs, Lockharts, Nixons, Cheneys, and Bushs? Like being punished for being middle-class and not born into the 1 percent, like Mitt? Like RMP attacking you for going green? Keep the system the same and keep voting the same way.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:54 a.m.

    1. 6 years of Sour Grapes.
    President Obama won TWICE!
    Majority, get it?

    2. I'm not happy Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Rob Bishop represent "me",
    but you won't see guys like me writing letters to the editor, or whining about it daily for 37 years.

    3. FYI -- President Obama has a 54% approval rating,
    Congress has a 9% approval rating.
    Go figure.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:24 a.m.

    "Rather we have bureaucrats, special interest groups and judges who go against the will of the people."

    My first question is: the will of what people? My second question is: are bureaucrats, special interest groups, and judges the only people moving against their will?

    "The people" are the aggregate of individuals. These individuals want a wide variety of things. Some want better paying jobs. Some want a job. Some want same sex marriage. Some want to prevent same sex marriage. Individuals want a wide variety of things. In this they are opposed by judges or supported by judges depending on their views. Those who want better paying jobs or jobs in general are opposed by corporations who have invested in China instead of the United States. So the writer needs to include corporations in his list of opponents.

    Some individuals want self-regulating capitalism. Others want some degree of socialism. There are supporters and opponents of each.

    Has anything "perished" to use Lincoln's language? We still have traditional marriage. We still have jobs, but of a deteriorating quality. We still have a middle class, but it is under stress, as is the environment. The writer should broaden his focus.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 15, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    Translation: Conservative males no longer get to dictate everything and gay marriage will soon be legal.

    Wah.