Switch Theme:

The pros and cons of myriad systems of governance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




This thread is exactly what it says on the tin. We started a debate on republics in the warhammer 40k universe, which of course spiraled into a debate on which government system is best in real life. Mod politely asked to attend so that no flame wars erupt. Keep the conversation civil (I know I'm not always the best example of this )
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




WA, USA

The pros and cons of governance are very much based on the context in which it is being set. After all, size, scale and capacity for communication all significantly drive what works best for any given system.

 Ouze wrote:

Afterward, Curran killed a guy in the parking lot with a trident.
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

An absolute monarchy with myself as the monarch would be best, IMHO.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 feeder wrote:
An absolute monarchy with myself as the monarch would be best, IMHO.


Agreed. I trust myself completely to be a benevolent dictator

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Illinois

Best for whom? Seems like someone always gets screwed in every system.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Best for whom? Seems like someone always gets screwed in every system.


Utopian Communism, as described in Thomas More's book, "Utopia" didn't screw over anybody.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think the key problem with almost all systems is their vulnerability to corruption. Communism, for example, will forever be tarnished by the terrible corruption that took root at every level in the USSR. If you can find safeguards against corruption and misuse of power, then I think most systems can be somewhat viable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/09 02:23:20


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Smacks wrote:
I think the key problem with almost all systems is their vulnerability to corruption. Communism, for example, will forever be tarnished by the terrible corruption that took root at every level in the USSR. If you can find safeguards against corruption and misuse of power, then I think most systems can be somewhat viable.


Personally, I think there's also something to be said about HOW a system comes into power. The Bolsheviks used violence and a "revolution" to take power and change governance. Yet we know that Marx, Engels and other early Communist theorists were heavily influenced by More's Utopia. Their basic premise was of a thought exercise of "how would a society go from being the way we are now, to this Utopian ideal?"

As history shows us, they got it wrong. It cannot come about through violent overthrow, because that in itself created the power structure and system in which favored people got ahead in life.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Smacks wrote:
I think the key problem with almost all systems is their vulnerability to corruption. Communism, for example, will forever be tarnished by the terrible corruption that took root at every level in the USSR. If you can find safeguards against corruption and misuse of power, then I think most systems can be somewhat viable.


Personally, I think there's also something to be said about HOW a system comes into power. The Bolsheviks used violence and a "revolution" to take power and change governance. Yet we know that Marx, Engels and other early Communist theorists were heavily influenced by More's Utopia. Their basic premise was of a thought exercise of "how would a society go from being the way we are now, to this Utopian ideal?"

As history shows us, they got it wrong. It cannot come about through violent overthrow, because that in itself created the power structure and system in which favored people got ahead in life.
I couldn't agree with you more, and that's a very good point. Governments that seize power in the type of volatile political environment that follows a revolution or war, are often only hanging onto that power by their fingernails. The constant fear of being ousted themselves leads to a preoccupation with consolidating power, controlling information, and eliminating political rivals, which is a recipe for tyranny.

In the USSR, high positions were given to those who were loyal and agreeable, rather than those who were competent, which meant no one ever criticized the system, even when constructive criticism and feedback would have been beneficial.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 04:43:54


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

It's not really that simple. Ireland isn't an incomprehensible mess. It's doing pretty good. The English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta came about as a result of wars against unpopular kings. Of course, that good ol' American Revolution. The reality is that violent overthrow is no less or no more likely to succeed in establishing a good system of governance than any other means.

War is the continuation of politics through other means. The theory holds to revolutionary wars as well. Violent overthrow is a tool. The HOW isn't what decides what comes after. The Who, What, and Where does. We might have had a very different USSR had Lenin not gotten so sick when he did, and Stalin not so masterfully manipulated the situation. Ethnic, cultural, and geographic histories matter, as does what the "revolution" is supposed to achieve and who is supporting it.

   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 LordofHats wrote:
It's not really that simple. Ireland isn't an incomprehensible mess. It's doing pretty good. The English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta came about as a result of wars against unpopular kings. Of course, that good ol' American Revolution. The reality is that violent overthrow is no less or no more likely to succeed in establishing a good system of governance than any other means.

War is the continuation of politics through other means. The theory holds to revolutionary wars as well. Violent overthrow is a tool. The HOW isn't what decides what comes after. The Who, What, and Where does. We might have had a very different USSR had Lenin not gotten so sick when he did, and Stalin not so masterfully manipulated the situation. Ethnic, cultural, and geographic histories matter, as does what the "revolution" is supposed to achieve and who is supporting it.

I wonder if any Americans would care to hear the "other side of the story" on the subject of the "good ol' American Revolution"?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think Ensis Ferrae was also referring to the circumstances in general (who, where, when, etc...), not just violent/non-violent. I don't think anyone here is so naive that they think it could be boiled down to something so simple. The important part to take away, which I think we all agree on, is that the circumstances matter just as much as the philosophy.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 SolarCross wrote:

I wonder if any Americans would care to hear the "other side of the story" on the subject of the "good ol' American Revolution"?


I think we can avoid getting into all that. It's sufficient to say that it is an example of a "violent overthrow" that produced a viable and prosperous state, as opposed to say the political instability of post-Revolutionary France, the paranoid egomania of the USSR, or the chaotic mess that is the Balklans. Whether or not the Revolution was right, wrong, justified, glorified in the aftermath, or whatever else is a completely different thread.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 05:31:23


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 LordofHats wrote:
It's sufficient to say that it is an example of a "violent overthrow" that produced a viable and prosperous state.
I think it's a slightly awkward example, because the colonists didn't "overthrow" the crown, so much as declared independence. George Washington already held elected office before the war, so one could argue that power was truncated more than it was transferred, with much of the status quo remaining intact. Obviously, that makes a big difference to the stability of the new state. It's a very different situation to the French and Russian revolutions, where they basically murdered their aristocracy and created a vast power vacuum.

Also, there has been a civil war since then. Just because a state eventually ends up prosperous, it doesn't say much about the revolutionary government. France is also very prosperous now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/09 06:50:06


 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






A kingdom ruled by king arthur.
Seriously Uk, get on that.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Smacks wrote:
Obviously, that makes a big difference to the stability of the new state. It's a very different situation to the French and Russian revolutions, where they basically murdered their aristocracy and created a vast power vacuum.


And China pretty much went through the same process for a a thousand years, once every other century or so... On average.

I think the big difference is does the violence that created the new status quo carry over into said status quo? After the revolution and Civil War, Russia didn't become a peaceful place. The fog of war never really lifted. It simply turned inward, as if the state itself was incapable of existing without having someone to fight, whether they be Whites or traitors to the party. France bounced from one flailing government to another for a good hundred years (with a fair amount of violent "lets kill our political enemies in between). I think the extermination of existing power structures is a big part of why they happened, but compare to post-Bakumatsu Japan. The Bakumatsu effectively terminated the political power of the Samurai (though it didn't wipe them out) and, things settled down relatively speaking.

I'm just saying it really is all to complicated to say "violence doesn't solve anything" which I guess isn't really what anyone was saying at all, so I guess that's just me missing what people are saying XD

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 06:59:50


   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 curran12 wrote:
The pros and cons of governance are very much based on the context in which it is being set. After all, size, scale and capacity for communication all significantly drive what works best for any given system.


Good point. And culture is very important as well. I read a great Orwell essay in which he talks about Dickens. As is always the case with Orwell it touches on a million other things over the course of the essay. Dickens gave little interest to systems, wicked things happen because people are wicked. He contrasted this to Marx, who saw the wicked things that people did as the outcome of systemic failings.

"....how can you improve human nature until you have changed the system? The other, what is the use of changing the system before you have improved human nature? They appeal to different individuals, and they probably show a tendency to alternate in point of time. The moralist and the revolutionary are constantly undermining one another. Marx exploded a hundred tons of dynamite beneath the moralist position, and we are still living in the echo of that tremendous crash. But already, somewhere or other, the sappers are at work and fresh dynamite is being tamped in place to blow Marx at the moon. Then Marx, or somebody like him, will come back with yet more dynamite, and so the process continues, to an end we cannot yet foresee. The central problem — how to prevent power from being abused — remains unsolved. Dickens, who had not the vision to see that private property is an obstructive nuisance, had the vision to see that. ‘If men would behave decently the world would be decent’ is not such a platitude as it sounds."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Smacks wrote:
As history shows us, they got it wrong. It cannot come about through violent overthrow, because that in itself created the power structure and system in which favored people got ahead in life.
I couldn't agree with you more, and that's a very good point. Governments that seize power in the type of volatile political environment that follows a revolution or war, are often only hanging onto that power by their fingernails. The constant fear of being ousted themselves leads to a preoccupation with consolidating power, controlling information, and eliminating political rivals, which is a recipe for tyranny.



I think one of the big lessons is that economic growth doesn't fix everthing, but it certainly makes a lot of other problems go away. It is easier to settle squabbles over who gets what when the overall wealth is expanding, like it was in the US, than to fight over a fairly static (even declining) wealth, as was the case in France.

I don't think that's a complete answer, but it is certainly a contributing factor.


In the USSR, high positions were given to those who were loyal and agreeable, rather than those who were competent, which meant no one ever criticized the system, even when constructive criticism and feedback would have been beneficial.


The USSR is kind of weird, because in terms of stability it actually went pretty well. Lenin's managed to get through a horrifically bloody and chaotic civil war without any internal threat to his power base. Stalin was similarly secure in his leadership, despite walking the country in to one of the great military disasters of history and committing a massive number of atrocities on his own people.

Not saying the USSR was anything other than a disaster, in terms of human rights and economics it was a catastrophe. But it was incredibly stable, and that's kind of weird, all things considered.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 07:17:56


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 sebster wrote:
Not saying the USSR was anything other than a disaster, in terms of human rights and economics it was a catastrophe. But it was incredibly stable, and that's kind of weird, all things considered.
I think from the time Stalin took charge, it was kept stable through quite heavy handed oppression, rather than because it was a viable system. If you've already murdered and imprisoned all your political enemies, then I guess you're probably good for a few decades...
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Smacks wrote:
I think from the time Stalin took charge, it was kept stable through quite heavy handed oppression, rather than because it was a viable system. If you've already murdered and imprisoned all your political enemies, then I guess you're probably good for a few decades...


Except it was stable before Stalin, and the persecution he inflicted could be seen as likely to be destabilizing - generally when a leader starts wiping out people because he doesn't know he can trust then he hasn't got long to go. And then probably even weirder it was stable after Stalin.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

I would posit that the formal structure of the government matters less than the general qualities of the people involved. The problems in government are largely inherent to the actors involved, not the systems constructed. All human organizational structures represent nothing more than the aggregate of the individuals involved. Interestingly, they seem to behave much like the organic beings involved- they are born, grow, peak, decline, and die. They also "live" with other organizations and are both preceded and succeeded by them.

Given that human organizations are directly reflective of human behavior, you cannot ever have a "perfect" or eternal government anymore than a person can be perfect or immortal. The best that can be done is optimize the positive aspects of governance while minimizing the negative.

The discussion of violence is interesting. I do not believe there is any way to separate governance and force, however, as authority rests in being the "top dog". If a government cannot or will not exert force, it will not be able to maintain order. Historically, governance is an uncomfortable balancing act between granting sufficient force to protect the members of a state, but not so much to allow tyranny and theft to dominate. Results have been varied....

-James
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Smacks wrote:
I think the key problem with almost all systems is their vulnerability to corruption. Communism, for example, will forever be tarnished by the terrible corruption that took root at every level in the USSR. If you can find safeguards against corruption and misuse of power, then I think most systems can be somewhat viable.


Sadly, I don't think there are any safeguards. Safeguards rely on those enforcing them to be above things like bribery, tribalism...in short, it requires people to be above human.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Illinois

I remember my Constitutional Law professor talking about the differences between parliamentary systems and our representative democracy. It explained a lot of the legislative deadlock and crap that gets put into bills to get them to pass.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I'll take the robot Mind governance of The Culture for $200 Alex.

Nothing says "its cool" like a post scarcity economy.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

The strength and weakness of various forms of government is the people involved

the more people involved the more inherently stable it is, but the worse it is at actually making real changes as getting enough people to want change is hard

It's no surprise when a major war erupts most democratic governments get a lot less democratic just to get stuff done

but the do provide plenty of checks and balances, and are probably the best long term solution to keep things decent for at least a majority of people,

On the other hand the various dictatorships, theocracys and monarchys stick lots of power in the hands of one (or a few) people, which is great if the dear leader is a brilliant man with the good of his people in mind, with near absolute control change can be pushed through fast.....

but oops most people are not brilliant or selfless they want adulation and luxury and monuments and girls (or boys) and so on....

and even if bob the improbable does a brilliant job there a sucession to worry about where either any decent candidate were pre-killed (potential competition is scary) leaving duds who'll run the whole thing into the ground,

or there are multiple candidates who think they deserve the job (and the girls or boys) leading to at best a power struggle or at worst civil war

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Best for whom? Seems like someone always gets screwed in every system.


Utopian Communism, as described in Thomas More's book, "Utopia" didn't screw over anybody.





Too bad that that the key word here is "utopian".



Communism, as envisioned by Marx, Engels, etc is an impossibility. Human nature won't allow for such a collective society to work.


The closest things to "good" government in history were the Roman Republic, and the American Republic after the Constitution was ratified by all 13 Colonies. But even they weren't perfect, and Human nature eventually reared it's ugly head and ruined both of them.

Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Given that More's Utopia is still debated to this day whether it was satire, or political theory or just a whimsical thought project.

The word Utopia in fact means "no where" or "no place"... as in, it doesn't exist.

I have seen the arguments that Marx and Engels' Communism books were also thought projects, as well as political and economic theory works, and were taking the ideas presented in More's book, and attempting to figure out "how" people would get to that point.

Sure, they got things wrong, but I would posit that they weren't as wrong as you think. The Nez Perce and many other Native American tribes were in fact, communist societies until being pigeon-holed by the US Government. They seemed to work just fine, until faced with the diseases brought, as well as the racist attitudes and land grabbiness of the white settlers.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Given that More's Utopia is still debated to this day whether it was satire, or political theory or just a whimsical thought project.

The word Utopia in fact means "no where" or "no place"... as in, it doesn't exist.

I have seen the arguments that Marx and Engels' Communism books were also thought projects, as well as political and economic theory works, and were taking the ideas presented in More's book, and attempting to figure out "how" people would get to that point.

Sure, they got things wrong, but I would posit that they weren't as wrong as you think. The Nez Perce and many other Native American tribes were in fact, communist societies until being pigeon-holed by the US Government. They seemed to work just fine, until faced with the diseases brought, as well as the racist attitudes and land grabbiness of the white settlers.




It certainly worked for the American Indians, no debate there. But one has to take into account the relatively small size of tribal entities, which is an excellent example of how communal government can work for smaller (yet civilized, which many of the American Indians tribes were) social units. But I've always had doubts it could work for modern nation-states, because of what I mentioned about Human nature earlier.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 02:02:59


Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 oldravenman3025 wrote:

It certainly worked for the American Indians, no debate there. But one has to take into account the relatively small size of tribal entities, which is an excellent example of how communal government can work for smaller (yet civilized, which many of the American Indians tribes were) social units. But I've always had my doubts it could work for modern nation-states.



I'm probably talking out my arse here.... but it seems that many Scandinavian countries are headed that way. Obviously they aren't there yet, but we can see that they have voted in strong social welfare programs, and generally do things to try and bring people up to a at least a level playing field (not that everyone has exactly the same thing). It would seem to me that if people want to see "Utopian Communism" the way to do it is through democratic incrementalism, not revolution. We can see that their economies are fairly strong. They don't go up as fast as the US, but they also don't crash as hard as the US's does.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 jmurph wrote:
I would posit that the formal structure of the government matters less than the general qualities of the people involved. The problems in government are largely inherent to the actors involved, not the systems constructed. All human organizational structures represent nothing more than the aggregate of the individuals involved. Interestingly, they seem to behave much like the organic beings involved- they are born, grow, peak, decline, and die. They also "live" with other organizations and are both preceded and succeeded by them.


I agree that individual actors matter a lot. As does culture, governance relies on unwritten rules of expected conduct as much as anything else.

But the system itself also matters. Consider, for instance, if the US had something similar to a parliamentary system instead of its current system. Under a parliamentary system the head of state wouldn't be decided by a seperate vote, but by whichever party held a majority in the House of Representatives. So if the Demublicans won 218 seats in the House of Reps, their leader would be head of the House of Reps and the President. And it's also near impossible to filibuster, the end result of which is that if you have 51 senate seats then anything and everything can get through.

There's not much point debating which system is best (everyone is always more comfortable with their own system)... but it isn't hard to see how the system itself in the US applies tighter controls on change, at the expense of making it easier for a minority to block reform. Meanwhile the parliamentary system allows government to act more freely, at the expense of a narrow majority being able to act with little control for the duration of its term.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Given that More's Utopia is still debated to this day whether it was satire, or political theory or just a whimsical thought project.

The word Utopia in fact means "no where" or "no place"... as in, it doesn't exist.

I have seen the arguments that Marx and Engels' Communism books were also thought projects, as well as political and economic theory works, and were taking the ideas presented in More's book, and attempting to figure out "how" people would get to that point.

Sure, they got things wrong, but I would posit that they weren't as wrong as you think. The Nez Perce and many other Native American tribes were in fact, communist societies until being pigeon-holed by the US Government. They seemed to work just fine, until faced with the diseases brought, as well as the racist attitudes and land grabbiness of the white settlers.




It certainly worked for the American Indians, no debate there. But one has to take into account the relatively small size of tribal entities, which is an excellent example of how communal government can work for smaller (yet civilized, which many of the American Indians tribes were) social units. But I've always had doubts it could work for modern nation-states, because of what I mentioned about Human nature earlier.


^This, to a T. The thing one must remember is that we are tribal animals. We have a maximum number of people we consider our "Equal", people who we would die for, people's who's lives we consider interchangable (indeed, more important) than our very own. Mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, roommates, and coworkers may all fit here. The maximum number of people in this group is about forty people. Forty is the number most armies use for a platoon, for obvious reasons.

Furthermore, another 80 people may inhabit an area in your social sphere which you can empathize with. You are willing to risk considerable financial or social instability for these people, because you are capable of putting yourself in their shoes and able to imagine yourself in their position. This brings you to a grand total of 120 people you care about. Most sociologists round this number to 150, and this is what's known as "Dunbar's number."

Beyond this? Well, beyond this, we only care about others in a most abstract sense. When we see a disaster on Television, for example, we don't jump from our chair and say "I need to get over there and do everything I can to help!" The vast majority of us are content with praying for them around the kitchen table, perhaps donating some money to a number on a screen...but that's it. This is because we do not conceptualize these people as human. They are merely faceless entities halfway around the world in a pitiable situation. This is why losing mom is a tragedy, seeing a city being bombed to dust is just a statistic. This is not theory, or any mere hypothesis, this is scientific fact which anybody may choose to look up under sociology should they wish. You don't care about the city in China. It's not your fault that you don't care, but it's an undeniable fact that you don't. Our brains are incapable of it.

This is why I don't generally place any faith in governments. They do not care about you. It's not their fault that they don't care, they are merely human like the rest of us. But what does that say about their solutions to our problems? Perhaps Obama might be willing to sit through a ten minute meeting on the state of the Economy, but it's nowhere near as important to him as Michelle's dinner speech, as Natasha's school assignments, as Maya's disease/condition/what-have-you.

This is why I trust my friends and families to help me with my problems more than any government. My sister and brother both have a deeply vested interest in where I'm going with my life, what I'm doing, how my health is. But a government, if it deigns my problems worth solving at all, will only seek the quickest, most aesthetically pleasing solution, never bothering to check if I am actually better off or if it actually made the problem worse. So long as everything appears to be better, they won't question too much (So long, of course, as they get to claim credit come the reelection cycle).

For instance, if you told any government that your house was in disrepair, their first solution would be to simply apply a new coat of paint. They won't bother fixing the leaky roof, exterminating the termites in the timbers, unclogging the toilet, changing the faucet or scrubbing away the mold. Why? Easy. A new coat of paint will make everything appear to be better with a minimum of effort. Because, remember, to them, you are the faceless peon in China, halfway across the world. What are you really, in their day-to-day lives? You do not say hello to them every morning, you do not congratulate them for that excellent shot they made in their latest golf game, you do not deliver their dinner or walk their dog for them. They don't care about you, and are utterly incapable of doing so, for they have never met you. Therefore, their "Solutions" to your problems will be only seen as an inconvenience in their day-to-day lives. They want to spend the absolute bare minimum of time to address your problem, then get back to teaching their kid how to do arithmetic, get back to the golf game, get back to that nice relaxing spa or the love session with their wife. It's not their fault that they don't care. But it's undeniable that they don't.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/10 05:10:04


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: