Indeed, when we have a situation where military personnel are provided entitlements that should be made available to everyone... because the military and para-military law enforcement organizations exhibit variations of a "preserve and protect the people" motto; it is a basic right that the people should be able to enjoy the same fruits of their own labors as a distinct quality of being preserved and protected... and not used as a "let them eat cake" expression to repeal protestations against government-practiced standards of inequality unacceptable to an observed respect for Democracy. Part of one's "service" should be to ensure that the public is not taken advantage of. By providing entitlements to military personnel that the public is denied of and must sacrifice a democratic sense of equality to; what we see is a modernized version of having to "Quarter troops" in our own homes without recourse to this imposed law... and was amongst other contentions used in the 1776 pre-American Declaration of Independence... even though conservative voices wanted the people to remain with the status quo government (and its offenses against the people).
In other words, by having to provide military troops with entitlements that the public does not similarly receive, this is a modernized form of the old Monarchial "Quartering Troops" requirement forced on the public and listed as a complaint on the Declaration of Independence by those in Colonial America who catalogued numerous governing abuses... a list of which is ongoingly being compiled today, against a so-called "Representative"-styled government that does not in fact represent the people. The people are forced, by way of taxes to provision (Quarter) troops in their sustenance, but is not being reciprocated... and no degree of using a "protecting democracy, freedom" etc., rationalization... provides for the justification that the public can not likewise be given similar life-sustaining "Quartering" elements.
See the frontspiece of this website for a list of military entitlements the public is forced to pay for but not enabled to receive because such an action would be alternatively defined in a negative way for the public, but wholly positive for those in the Military (thus describing a double-standard):Cenocracy.org
It is particularly disconcerting to note that America's so-called brand of Democracy is so weak that it must rely on the protection of a military designed by the practiced functionality of a Socialist-Communism. For example, none of the leaders are voted on by the population of soldiers in the ranks... just as ordinary citizens are not permitted to vote on most issues involving their lives. If Democracy is so right and so strong an ideology, it would not need to be protected by anything but its own supposed virtuous standards. Such standards do not exist because an Actual Democracy is not being practiced... only a lie, an illusion... a delusion promoted by a level of disrespect against the public; being in present day form equal to the Tyrannous state described in the Independence Declaration; and thus once again defining a form of governance unfit for a free people whose fullest expression of liberty is denied them by subjugations of persistent deceit.
The governing structures of the world are the problem because they are based on philosophical traditions which need to be updated. They are ad hoc, patchwork hit -and- miss applications of addressing one -or- another perceived problem that very often is but a symptom of a larger issue. Take for example the above sub-title reference to a growing dependency on Big government. This is a wide-spread misinterpretation of Government's role in terms of its presence in our lives... that, due to the social circumstances and colonial players at the time who thought they were part of the (over-) valued British Gentry, became erroneously defined at the inception of the formative American government. While the forefathers of America were saying the words "Republic" and "Democracy" as alternative participants in which to choose as that which would define the type of government to be practiced; the definitions of these terms have been mangled and transformed into varying explications. For example, from the wordweb dictionary, as a "Republic"... this means:
As a model of presumed practicality and logic from the minds of those who had lived with the perspective that they were equal to the British Gentry in their own right, the "body of citizens" was intended to mean a selected few who saw things as a select few should... because just like the British aristocracy, this American aristocratic-leaning counter-part, felt they were the common person's betters. They didn't want women, blacks, Native Americans or non-land owning people to participate in elections which might cause them to lose their economic-centered power to those who might want to do what they do... which was to be disproportionately self-serving. They wanted limited government because it suited the interests of a few who were frequently tied to some business enterprise, though a position in government could be used as a means of manipulating social conditions favorable to themselves. Though it may have been called a Republic, it functioned more as a Corporatocracy, Oligarchy, or Plutocratic Aristocracy.
Except for Switzerland which attempts to practice an enhanced form of Democracy (defined as a "Peoples Rule"), all governments of the world apparently practice there own brand of limited government, though the size of a government is frequently a proportion based on the size of the population. Saying that America's government is too large and that this is the problem, is based on an incorrect logic... particularly when it is thought that the government practices a Democracy as defined by the Of, By, For All The People expression which, when used by Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, omitted the word "all" that had been used in a sermon by the Abolitionist preacher Theodore Parker.
With respect to the word "Democracy", from the wordweb dictionary, we find that there are actually three different definitions being used by this source:
Three enumerated comments to the above definitions:
1a) No government is run strictly by the Will of the People via a process of national debate and referendum from which all issues of governance are decided. Nor do "Representatives" actually represent their constituents, since the constituents are rarely asked to collectively debate and voice their opinion that is then used as the opinion of the Representative. Representatives voice their own opinion of what they think the public wants... though they may vote on legislation which favors one or more who have contributed to their campaign. None of the blatantly disgusting actions of graft are adequately covered by any law to protect the public from corruption.
2b) A "body of citizens" is an alternative form of speculative "Representation" that may further isolate the public by choosing those who represent their selective opinions, and not the collective Will of The People.
3c) This is another "Representative" model that could assume an entitlement of having a correct opinion on all perceptions, and not just those pertaining to managerial forms of governing maintenance.
Not only do the above definitions fail to display the actual practice of a Democracy ever having taken place, but that the organizational formula of implementation is not provided, because none have ever existed. Arguments to the contrary about the existence of a Democracy are typically by those who favor limited government as the best model of a Democracy, and do not readily interpret the definition of an Actual Democracy in terms of a collective participation of the public in discussing and voting on all issues... from which the law of the land is to be derived. Each of the above definitions portray ideas of limited government... and is no doubt linked to a tribal or clan mindset in which the many were represented by a dominant few or single leader. In other words, the present structure and functioning of governments is a representative image of a brutish past trying to create the semblance of cohesive ordering for the good of everyone. Perhaps the usage of a developmental chart will provide a visual illustration to make this idea more easily identifiable by those whose minds work with pictorial images better than they do with words alone:
When a government is too small, and issues mount due to numerical increases in population requiring additional staff to accommodate increased requests for assistance; this accumulation in staff... particularly when it can not deal effectively and efficiently with requests for social assistance caused by deprivations arising from poor policies based on an antiquated social philosophy unable to encompass information derived from a larger field of relevant social subject matter— perceptions abound that the government is too big... when in fact it is the limited scope of an increased population which causes a misinterpretation. It is not that the government is too big to effectively and efficiently address mounting social problems caused by the exigences of an increasing population coupled with an economic policy aligned by a mismanaged resource base... it is that the government is too small. The definition of democracy must change in order that it constitutes a practice of governance whereby all of us are enfranchised participants.
When the deficiencies of a governing system are in the control of those not wanting to sacrifice their personal social philosophies derived from traditions, they attempt some manner of refuge in a conservative appeal to the population by rendering a slogan such "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country", as a concealment to the fact that social issues can not be properly addressed by using the traditional models of governance. Such slogans readily identify those who cling to traditions which make the solution to a problem wholly unavailable to those in leadership positions that can not, and will not think outside the common enclosures of practiced government... because they don't know how to. Such conservative slogans help them to conceal their own inadequacies for the tasks which confront them. Instead of empowering the people to collectively tackle the tasks confronting the whole nation, the arrogance of those in leadership prefer to resort to increasing the limitations of government by expecting the citizenry to sacrifice more and more so that the status quo of governance can be maintained, no matter how much or what kinds of sacrifice must be made.
A conservative, anti-full Democracy agenda promotes an antagonism to the development of a purposive orientation, so as to prevent the coordinated efforts of a Black force from bringing about corrective changes in the governing structure, and not simply this -or- that legislation which can be altered by a later legislative body... or this -or- that elected official used by unseen actors as a means of placating an electoral body into thinking actual change has occurred; when only the superficially arranged social staging has. However, using the Pullman strike of the late 1800's as an example, even with coordinated efforts of protestors, the government very often seeks to intervene as a disruptive intercessor towards corrective change, and instead marshals one or another force to prevent alteration of the status quo. As such, even if both blacks and whites coordinate a massive national protest to alter the governing structure towards the practice of an Actual Democracy, such protestors must be prepared to enlist new tactics for acquiring the appropriations that are needed by the collective public during this day and age as well as the future.
If we take to heart the "Of, By, For The People" phrase supposedly used by Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg Address, we might assume this means a definition that can be derived from the "people rule" translation of the ancient Greek source for the word "Democracy". (Britannica Source: The term is derived from the Greek de-mokratia-, which was coined from de-mos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.) Please note that the usage/practice of "Democracy" was implemented in "city-states", thus denoting small populations. Only Switzerland of the present age has attempted to apply a working model of an Actual Democracy with a large population.
Whereas Americans (and so many others the world over) have the facade of a Democracy being practiced, no one is practicing an Actual Democracy, and as far as history goes, it seems no one has... particularly with respect to a large population. Not only do we not have a good definition for the purpose of applying it to a governing structure, we do not think in terms of the type of governing structure that is needed in order for an Actual Democracy to be practiced. In other words, there is no ready-made blue-print for us to look at... and thus we of today are in a position much as were the early colonists who were trying to establish a form of government that would keep the New Nation from experiencing the same pitfalls previous governments had and were revolted against. Then again, the problem of practicing an Actual Democracy is necessarily problematic when we resort to attempts of comparison with prevailing and past government formulas and those whose assumed leadership vision strives to implement but a variation of the same old ideas with new names or relegated to the control of some department. Specifically, since the public has not had the opportunity to actually function as a Democracy in this sense... giving people the means to actually vote in policy changes— may lead to a situation similar to that in which someone wins a large lottery. An increased ability to discuss and vote on issues that will then become the law of the land, can be very much like receiving a windfall of money. While some may be frugal and wise, others go broke. However, there appears to be enough of us to prevent the adverse effects of a few from causing the rest to follow suit into the abyss of dysfunctionality caused by a bankruptcy of spirit that is frequently attached to some financial accessibility.
In a true "Of, By, For The People" Democracy in which the populace makes governing policy, many of the current problems caused by the current structural governance arrangement will be negated, though they may try to crop up and creep into the population via re-definition and re-labeling... in order to try to regain some footing of influence. Such a democracy, in which the present formula of limited government (influenced by external organizations) becomes overwhelmed by the larger influence of a governing citizenry, can be the more effective if the public adopts an alternative sociological philosophy involving the economics of fairly redistributing resources according to a realistic appreciation of resource sustainability versus population growth and the level of living standard desired by the whole to have. This can not be done if there is a dominant "me, my, mine" orientation that current social strategies attempt to capitalize on by defining as "ours", though the "ours" is similarly defined in an ego-centric way by those enabled to grant themselves some personal entitlement of exclusion to others— by some specious principle of granting the provisional idea of access... but obfuscating or obstructing that access in a myriad of ways so as to prevent acquisition unless some model of labyrinthine policy structure is traversed... which transforms the person into a replicated facsimile of the identity used by those who advance such policies.
Though it may make one feel good about themselves while offering a compliment regarding the participation in an event as a particularly salient point in time and place that marks a major moment in history; far too often such moments are based on an over-evaluation wrought by ego-centricity. Taking oneself too seriously, or offering oneself (or a participating group) as a prospective cornerstone in a social movement can act as a deterrent to assessing comments as mere conjectures from which more insightful perceptions of a personified truth evaluation presents itself as an original idea that leads to a sociological innovation. Applying a title to oneself is a like-minded act of entitlement... that may be a point of contention one uses to buttress their argument against a particular business, political or religious leader who exercises the right to an entitlement based on their assigned title which they would claim gives them the greater authority, like a preacher claiming their word is that of (a) God, and is thus the supreme authority... like a room full of religious leaders might adduce for their separate and collective opinions.
By referring to oneself as a Minister, Dr., associated with this or that organization, event, etc., as do many activist Blacks (and Whites); they are practicing their own variation of entitlement application, that frequently becomes used as a tool, weapon, or source of crowd dispensed drug meant to cause an invoked inebriation and a zombie-like following... if not adoration... no matter what nonsense is conveyed at a rally. You become so impressed with yourselves that you overlook the reality that the only accomplishment made is to impress yourselves that others think as you do... and thus congratulate yourselves on how well impressed you have managed to make yourselves believe you've accomplished more than this. It is a mirror whose knowledge of the world is lacking in breadth and depth. Metaphorically, if it is not the mirror used by the Wicked step mother in the story of Snow White, or that used in Carnival fun houses to create exaggerated distortions, then it is the reflection of Narcissus seen in a pool of water and used as an image denoting the self-love rampant amongst the Homosexual Community, where "love" is defined by their same-sex orientation.
Snow White's Step Mother
Assigning oneself an entitlement based on some perceived self-defined importance that may be equally shared with others who practice the same type of assumption... can make everyone in a group feel better about themselves, even if it actually represents little more than some personalized (individual and/or group) gratification. For example, it is like the News Media assigning itself the position of being the primary testator to endow itself as being the foremost executor of the Second Amendment's Freedom of Speech provision. Yet in this self-applied entitlement comes with it the self-applied abuse which frequents this employment sector, but is not subject to any anti-trust regulation because neither the philosophy of law or governance has the perceptive intellectual acumen to formulate the necessary public safe-guards against a self-endowed Representative of "truth", as they seek to define it.
The News Media, like so many in sociology and political science, are constrained by the periodicities of a relativistic capitalism that act as a consuming repetition in their thinking. Instead of using the repetition to accelerate a momentum of inquiry and analysis from which to free themselves from the imposed gravity of governance which burdens them with tiring historical refrains, they are spun into a like-minded black hole and can neither see nor imagine a lighted existence beyond their superficially perceived social constraints frequently assigned with some defined personal exceptionalism. They thus become self-centered, ethno-centered, or some variation of centricity that denies otherwise considerations.
Whether one speaks in admiration of a document such as the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights or one's assumed heritage; they both reflect a type of self-absorption that claims current problems (with one's race, culture, society, government or nation) are the result of something having been lost from a former, more perfect situation; and that it is necessary to return to a more idyllic state by adopting one or more actions believed to be the route this can be accomplished... like practicing a former custom... even though no matter how well an old person practices the behavior of a former youthful age, they can never regain the actual age. But attempting to regain something though lost by reverting to the usage of something former, is not a perspective taking the whole of humanity into its purview. The perspective being espoused in the Runaway Slave movie, does not take into account All Black Peoples Everywhere. It does not take into account all societies. It does not take into account all of humanity. It is particularly self-centered... with its spokes-people vying for some acknowledge representative leadership position within the Black (or assumed "colored") race(s) of Americans.
Likewise, sitting around a table and suggesting that those present may somehow reflect the key originators of some ill-defined massive social movement is a rather humorous anecdotal reference to a practiced "me-ism" so very characteristic of humans everywhere... particularly those seeking some personalized identity in a presumed leadership position. Yet, with respect to the indulgences of American Blacks, many African blacks having come to America do not identify with the orientation of American blacks... because they neither experienced first hand the trials and tribulations, nor have grown up in a family setting where such trials and tribulations may have been spoon-fed by an intensity and frequency culminating in an embraced cultural identity. Needless to say, but the "color" of one's skin is no guarantee that the same world-view is adhered to.
It's no doubt that several good points of sociological interest were manifest in the film. Yet, one is hard-pressed to come away from it thinking that some definitive answer for sociological reform had been illustrated. Yes, there were valid points of introduction, and it is noted that the film was intended as an exploration... but it necessarily showed that those protesting for change are in many respects... part of the problem as well. Figuratively speaking, they are in the aforementioned Black hole, just as are many Whites, Asians and Native Americans. None of the speakers offered a Blue Print... or a chalk board sketch to alleviate a perceived problem beyond a descriptive reference to an observed situation that someone thought needed to be addressed to mitigate the occurrence, without giving an indication of whether the observation actually represented a problem or a symptom of a larger circumstance... needing to be articulated but was absent from any attempt to do so. The perceived problems were not particularly itemized beyond some sociologically rendered anecdote, nor formulaically-driven as one might do for the calculus of a problem... because both the complexity and solution elude them. They are necessarily addressing symptoms that reoccur decade after decade, and do not appreciate the symptoms are actions of sociological decay responding to environmental decays. While the human herd is running towards a cliff in response to a lightning storm, Earthquake tremors, and resource depletion; a few horses have gotten tired of the stampede... but nonetheless follow in its wake in their own time and manner as are the interviewed speakers.
In terms of practicality in the present sense of economics, if we think to pin-point a representative model for application to address one or more social problems (symptoms), we necessarily direct our attention to the need for a source of funding. If it is government funding, it very often comes attached to requirements for achieving goals within the scope of manageability by the government, and does not invite the opportunity for restructuring the government beyond the territorial limits of its practiced ideology (because they are defined by cultural standards as a forbidden zone... like that denoted in the movie The Planet of the Apes)... much less making its superiors appear to be as worthless as some of us think many of them are... beyond a mere maintenance mechanic with routine cataloging duties... and who derive personal satisfaction from the expressed mediocrity that they want everyone to believe requires some extraordinary or specialized ability to deal effectively with.
Whereas we say there are this -and- that social problems which may be the result of too big of a government whose "help" we need to curtail; yet we invariably look to the government for assistance... even to assist us with self-sufficiency... yet be entitled to claim that We The People did it all on our own. It's the same sort of hypocrisy we see in a government's foreign policies for economic relativity. On the one hand its external policy is to make other nations economically dependent so as to insure the promise of a particular resource without worrying about competition; and then on the other hand adopting an internal policy of welfare dependency but require the citizenry to seek self-sufficiency and independence... whereby short-comings or failures in policies variously administered by different local government entities (whose administrators are paid high salaries); can be blamed on the individual themselves, even though a protracted dependency on the government promoted disincentives for a self-sufficiency that the government expects everyone to have, and can therefore blame if they don't achieve it! It's like blaming a person for not saving themselves from a lynch mob with the government allocated pocket knife they were given to cut themselves down from a hangman's noose. Similarly, in a like-minded type of scenario, the government gives the "colored" person a time-dependent bus ticket to get out of town in order to avoid a lynch mob, but the bus station is closed and is for Whites only anyway.
Governments typically are designed as robotic-like automatons, and not with flexibility... because flexibility left in the hands of some humans produce disastrously uneven results... because individuals do not routinely share the same moral or cultural values. Those setting up the routines by which a government is to run, attempt to strip away discriminatory practices, but often leave us with policies that do not function in the capacity of a higher standard. Whereas many people might be ideally served by a given government practice, there are those whose sensibilities of mind and spirity function at a level needing a standard consistent with their non-standard abilities. When a government comes to practice policy standards more fitting for an antiquated populace as the present ones do, it necessarily expects the populace to be regulated according to adopted standards, and not standards adopted to the reality of flexible human capacity as part of its evolutionary design and accompanying creative tonality. Such a government wants growth of the nation to be sacrificed to conformity... a conformity developed and defined by those whose uppermost standard of personal achievement is a mediocrity that the general population does not want to be confined to. They want a government whose policies provides the promise of permitting the possibility of superior achievement for themselves, the Nation, and humanity. When such a government, as the present one, creates a continuum of governance that denies them hope, the people have little choice but to revolt... particularly when there is no other avenue for them to make corrective social governing changes.