0
8

[–] Rottcodd 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I think that the quality of the infrastructure should be one of the primary measures of the quality of a nation's government, and arguably THE primary measure. It's probably the most basic and straightforward service a government is expected to provide, and any government that does a lousy job of it is self-evidently a lousy government.

0
2

[–] forgetmyname 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

A lousy government is exactly what one would expect from a lousy population.

0
0

[–] Rottcodd ago 

I would say that you have chicken and egg exactly reversed.

A lousy government benefits from a population that's shallow, ignorant and driven by emotion, since such people are much more easily manipulated than people who are deep, knowledgeable and reasonable. So a lousy government that wishes to remain in place and remain lousy has a vested interest in creating a population that's shallow, ignorant and driven by emotion, and that's exactly what they do.

It's not an accident that, for instance, the American public education system has been co-opted by the federal government, which has put regulations in place that effectively require schools to invest all of their time and resources into teaching students what to think rather than how to think. That's a specific policy intended to ensure the establishment of a population that's as shallow, ignorant and emotive as possible.

And yes - once the trend toward a shallow, ignorant and emotive population is established, that does indeed generate even more lousy government (and shallow, ignorant and emotive children), so it becomes a sort of self-sustaining circle (or more to the point, a downward spiral), so there is some legitimacy to reversing the cause and effect. But I think it's obvious that, ultimately, it's the government that's driving the process, as evidenced by the resistance it meets from the population and the efforts it goes to in order to overcome that resistance. If the cause and effect were the other way around, the government would simply be swept along in a veritable stampede toward lousiness.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] TheJackofAss 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Genius.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] forgetmyname ago 

socialism or starve

1
1

[–] NeedMoarGuitars 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

From the 1940s through the 1970s America invested in big projects: the GI bill, massive hydroelectric dams, an interstate system, regional airports, a space program, etc. Beginning in 1980 we stopped investing so we could give corporations and wealthy people tax breaks. The theory was that money for all the good things and jobs would "trickle down" from the top. That never happened because it was all a Ponzi scheme.

Instead jobs and whole sections of our economy were sent overseas and what was left crumbled. Now third world countries have high speed trains, new bridges, and state of the art airports. We primarily have what earlier generations saw fit to build and fund ... and we sit and wait for that big money to start trickling down.

1
-1

[–] CatNamedJava 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Fucking Reagan

0
1

[–] fuck_communism 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The writer of that article has obviously never been to a third world country.

0
0

[–] Diogenes_The_Cynic ago 

That might be the most awful website ever. Pop-ups, conspiratard ads, and links disguised as articles. Nothing about it was good.

0
1

[–] theletterd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The solution here to give the Saudis a billion in aid /s