Agree or disagree?

[☭proletarian☭]

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

Your thoughts?

 

[rightwinger]

I think that is a run-on sentence

 

[Care4all]

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

Your thoughts?

Does it not depend on the type of government? Can we say yay or nay to that statement without knowing the form of government>?

 

[Christopher]

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure I see where you are going with this. Are you talking about whether I agree that it could define any government in particular? I believe the government should be limited in its powers as the US constitution has established and that more of the people's will should be handled within communities, at local levels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My thoughts?

If there isn't a better way to say whatever it is that quote is trying to say, then English as a language is a dismal failure.

 

[Christopher]

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

Your thoughts?

Does it not depend on the type of government? Can we say yay or nay to that statement without knowing the form of government>?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[boedicca]

It sounds like typical bureaucratese without any underlying values.

 

[California Girl]

I think that is a run-on sentence

I hate those.


Look Bfgrn, I can put quote at the end of my posts too!

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. ~Thomas Jefferson

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Hell has frozen, I agree with RW. That statement was soooooo long I forgot what the beginning said.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The last part of the sentence makes me smell a rat. I can see it floating in the air.

I don't think so.

I see government as a compact between people to protect life, property and liberty from those would take them away from us. It is not outside the people, and it is not a process. It is not a way for the majority to extract stuff from the minority. It is a form of mutual obligation very limited in scope.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people is what he meant.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

Your thoughts?

Does it not depend on the type of government? Can we say yay or nay to that statement without knowing the form of government>?

The key phrase here is 'in a just society'. I would contend that the above must be true in any just society, since I fail to see how a society can be just if the People do not govern themselves.

Is not self-governance (in whatever particular form might serve the People) a necessary aspect of a just nation?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

My thoughts?

If there isn't a better way to say whatever it is that quote is trying to say, then English as a language is a dismal failure.

Maybe you'll have an easier time if the concept is put to music

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTlFTKyp_28]YouTube - Bad Religion - You are the Government lyrics[/ame]

you are the government !
you are jurisprudence !
you are the volition !
you are jurisdiction !
​

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It sounds like typical bureaucratese without any underlying values.

How is saying the government, in a just society, is the People 'typical bureaucratese without any underlying values'?


'Of the people, by the people, for the people.'- the people who founded this nation agreed. Are you saying they were 'typical bureaucrats without any underlying values'?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Hell has frozen, I agree with RW. That statement was soooooo long I forgot what the beginning said.

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

 

[Article 15]

I'm all for mirroring our judicial and legislative branches after the "fair and unfair" segment that often concludes the Nickelodeon game show Double Dare.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm all for mirroring our judicial and legislative branches after the "fair and unfair" segment that often concludes the Nickelodeon game show Double Dare.

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

 

[Ragnar]

The government, in a just society, is nothing more than the People and the Laws and Procedures they institute to carry out their will in accordance with principles and justice, including persons elected to represent the People and agencies charged and entrusted with carrying out specific tasks in accordance with the necessary division of labour.

Sounds like a less succinct description of a more "pure" Democracy one might describe as "Tyranny of the Majority". A problem well understood by Aristotle down to Tocqueville and on to Ayn Rand and beyond.

A long winded obtuse justification for the goofy idea of "Social Justice"? As opposed to the boring old hum-drum justice of the non-PC crowd I mean. The tyranny free individual justice of equality before the law.

I don't know. It's too convoluted. Maybe if someone less far removed from grade school than I could diagram that sentence it would help us all?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I have never advocated large-scale direct democracy.


I support representative systems for all but the smallest populations. Perhaps you missed 'including persons elected to represent the People'.

 

[Ragnar]

I have never advocated large-scale direct democracy.


I support representative systems for all but the smallest populations. Perhaps you missed 'including persons elected to represent the People'.

Well the quote with which we are asked to "agree or disagree" and to share our thoughts on, is so broad it can subsume any number of styles of government or even wide ideological variations. It lacks defined terms and is sometimes self-contridictory. I just don't think it's possible to discuss rationaly unless it's broken down some and defined more clearly.