Purpose of government.

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

The biggest difference now is the far right doesn't recognize that Wall Street has done more to damage this country than any Al Queda cell tucked away in Buffalo, New York or the mountains of Pakistan. They buy into the bullshit that we actually have some sort of a free market system in play when it's been hijacked by a plutocracy that knows how to stay out of the 24/7 news cycle. And of course Obama is a communist/Marxist/Muslim when actually he's a coffee-colored George W. Bush.

 

[Richard-H]

The purpose of government:

"to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

 

[FA_Q2]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

I can't answer the OP question because it makes an erroneous dichotomy. I understand that you acknoledge there is more to this than the two provided points BUT both those statements assume that the purpose of government lies in controlling behavior and that is not the purpose of government. Frankly, I am supprised that you, in particular, framed the thread in such a matter. For myself, the sole purpose of the government is to protect our rights. How this is accomplished might include actions covered in those two statements but they are not the purpose of government. That is an EXTREMELY important distinction as it changes the entire concept of what is acceptable for government to do.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Publius1787]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

The biggest difference now is the far right doesn't recognize that Wall Street has done more to damage this country than any Al Queda cell tucked away in Buffalo, New York or the mountains of Pakistan. They buy into the bullshit that we actually have some sort of a free market system in play when it's been hijacked by a plutocracy that knows how to stay out of the 24/7 news cycle. And of course Obama is a communist/Marxist/Muslim when actually he's a coffee-colored George W. Bush.

If that is the case you can thank the New Deal, the Great Society, and Obamacare for expanding the constitutional role of government to such extremes that you cannot operate a successful large scale business without hiring a lobbyist. Indeed, if congress simply stuck to the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 then you would eliminate the necessity of lobbying the federal government for most objects over night. Hey, you asked for big government and you got it. Don't go blaming conservatives. The bigger a government gets the more corporate influence prevails! Make no mistake about it. This is the bed Democrats made for us. Now sleep in it!

 

[Yurt]

your premise is flawed as it involves many ideals and morals. good and bad. seriously?

you want a poll on good and bad? that question has been asked for thousands of years. and you expect it to be answered by a poll on the internet?

the government should be about protecting its people. at its core, that is what government is. without that, you have no government.

 

[Kosh]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

The biggest difference now is the far right doesn't recognize that Wall Street has done more to damage this country than any Al Queda cell tucked away in Buffalo, New York or the mountains of Pakistan. They buy into the bullshit that we actually have some sort of a free market system in play when it's been hijacked by a plutocracy that knows how to stay out of the 24/7 news cycle. And of course Obama is a communist/Marxist/Muslim when actually he's a coffee-colored George W. Bush.

And the far left has done more damage to this country than any foreign terrorist group or wall street.

 

[Kosh]

The purpose of the US government is to ratify treaties, deal with foreign nations and protect and defend the US with a Constitutional sanctioned military.

The far left wants to do way with the constitution and make the rules up as they go along, especially if it means that you become subjugated and enslaved to the government.

 

[Vox]

it's neither, but if the only option is between the two, obviously it is discouragement.

 

[dblack]

your premise is flawed as it involves many ideals and morals. good and bad. seriously?

you want a poll on good and bad? that question has been asked for thousands of years. and you expect it to be answered by a poll on the internet?

the government should be about protecting its people. at its core, that is what government is. without that, you have no government.

Good grief, people. I thought I threw out enough caveats to make it clear that I'm not asking for a comprehensive definition. I'm simply highlighting differing perspectives that I've been noticing recently. Some people subscribe to the idea that government is there to more or less create society, or at least push it toward some ideal. I've always preferred a government that simply protects us from miscreants and otherwise leaves us free to pursue our own visions of the "good life".

I've heard people argue for both views, and I'm just trying to get a handle on how some of you here see it.

 

[regent]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

The biggest difference now is the far right doesn't recognize that Wall Street has done more to damage this country than any Al Queda cell tucked away in Buffalo, New York or the mountains of Pakistan. They buy into the bullshit that we actually have some sort of a free market system in play when it's been hijacked by a plutocracy that knows how to stay out of the 24/7 news cycle. And of course Obama is a communist/Marxist/Muslim when actually he's a coffee-colored George W. Bush.

If that is the case you can thank the New Deal, the Great Society, and Obamacare for expanding the constitutional role of government to such extremes that you cannot operate a successful large scale business without hiring a lobbyist. Indeed, if congress simply stuck to the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 then you would eliminate the necessity of lobbying the federal government for most objects over night. Hey, you asked for big government and you got it. Don't go blaming conservatives. The bigger a government gets the more corporate influence prevails! Make no mistake about it. This is the bed Democrats made for us. Now sleep in it!

Seems the first lobbyists were hired by the Revolutionary war veterans to get benefits, but not too worry, probably liberals.

 

[Publius1787]

The biggest difference now is the far right doesn't recognize that Wall Street has done more to damage this country than any Al Queda cell tucked away in Buffalo, New York or the mountains of Pakistan. They buy into the bullshit that we actually have some sort of a free market system in play when it's been hijacked by a plutocracy that knows how to stay out of the 24/7 news cycle. And of course Obama is a communist/Marxist/Muslim when actually he's a coffee-colored George W. Bush.

If that is the case you can thank the New Deal, the Great Society, and Obamacare for expanding the constitutional role of government to such extremes that you cannot operate a successful large scale business without hiring a lobbyist. Indeed, if congress simply stuck to the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 then you would eliminate the necessity of lobbying the federal government for most objects over night. Hey, you asked for big government and you got it. Don't go blaming conservatives. The bigger a government gets the more corporate influence prevails! Make no mistake about it. This is the bed Democrats made for us. Now sleep in it!

Seems the first lobbyists were hired by the Revolutionary war veterans to get benefits, but not too worry, probably liberals.

I never made the claim that you could do away with lobbying and corporate influence. I did make the claim that when the government grows, so does corporate influence and lobbying. No one can debate this fact to be otherwise.

 

[FA_Q2]

your premise is flawed as it involves many ideals and morals. good and bad. seriously?

you want a poll on good and bad? that question has been asked for thousands of years. and you expect it to be answered by a poll on the internet?

the government should be about protecting its people. at its core, that is what government is. without that, you have no government.

Good grief, people. I thought I threw out enough caveats to make it clear that I'm not asking for a comprehensive definition. I'm simply highlighting differing perspectives that I've been noticing recently. Some people subscribe to the idea that government is there to more or less create society, or at least push it toward some ideal. I've always preferred a government that simply protects us from miscreants and otherwise leaves us free to pursue our own visions of the "good life".

I've heard people argue for both views, and I'm just trying to get a handle on how some of you here see it.

Sure but, again, your statements require an admission that the governments purpose involves encouraging or punishing behavior that it deems should be encouraged/punished. The crux of that is some of us don't think that government should do either and that makes your question impossible to answer in the context that you laid out.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dblack]

your premise is flawed as it involves many ideals and morals. good and bad. seriously?

you want a poll on good and bad? that question has been asked for thousands of years. and you expect it to be answered by a poll on the internet?

the government should be about protecting its people. at its core, that is what government is. without that, you have no government.

Good grief, people. I thought I threw out enough caveats to make it clear that I'm not asking for a comprehensive definition. I'm simply highlighting differing perspectives that I've been noticing recently. Some people subscribe to the idea that government is there to more or less create society, or at least push it toward some ideal. I've always preferred a government that simply protects us from miscreants and otherwise leaves us free to pursue our own visions of the "good life".

I've heard people argue for both views, and I'm just trying to get a handle on how some of you here see it.

Sure but, again, your statements require an admission that the governments purpose involves encouraging or punishing behavior that it deems should be encouraged/punished. The crux of that is some of us don't think that government should do either and that makes your question impossible to answer in the context that you laid out.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

Well, that's fair. But, really? You don't think government should do either? What should it do? I don't recall you being an anarchist.

 

[norwegen]

I know, I know, "it's not that simple", but if you had to go with one of these statements, which are you more comfortable with?

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, whether it is a foreign predator or a domestic one, i.e. Al Queda and Wall Street. Americans need protection from the hostile infiltration and possible loss of life by the first and the hostile monopolization of our economy by the second.

We need protection from our govt.

That's because protecting the rights of the people is not a function of government. It's a function of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.

Government would not protect individual rights. It would violate them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Good grief, people. I thought I threw out enough caveats to make it clear that I'm not asking for a comprehensive definition. I'm simply highlighting differing perspectives that I've been noticing recently. Some people subscribe to the idea that government is there to more or less create society, or at least push it toward some ideal. I've always preferred a government that simply protects us from miscreants and otherwise leaves us free to pursue our own visions of the "good life".

I've heard people argue for both views, and I'm just trying to get a handle on how some of you here see it.

Sure but, again, your statements require an admission that the governments purpose involves encouraging or punishing behavior that it deems should be encouraged/punished. The crux of that is some of us don't think that government should do either and that makes your question impossible to answer in the context that you laid out.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

Well, that's fair. But, really? You don't think government should do either? What should it do? I don't recall you being an anarchist.

Read my first response a few posts back. I thought I explained it but if not I will reiterate my point.

BTW, you are correct, I am not an anarchist.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dblack]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

I can't answer the OP question because it makes an erroneous dichotomy. I understand that you acknoledge there is more to this than the two provided points BUT both those statements assume that the purpose of government lies in controlling behavior and that is not the purpose of government. Frankly, I am supprised that you, in particular, framed the thread in such a matter. For myself, the sole purpose of the government is to protect our rights. How this is accomplished might include actions covered in those two statements but they are not the purpose of government. That is an EXTREMELY important distinction as it changes the entire concept of what is acceptable for government to do.

Ahh... i missed this on the first pass. Thanks for pointing it out.

Ok, so to clarify, I'm not trying to inject any assumptions or supply a specific purpose of government here. In my view, the only valid purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, which arguably, involves controlling behavior. But that's not the point of the poll.

Maybe the the thread title was ill-conceived, because all I really wanted to poll was our preference for government that simply tries to block wrongdoing, as opposed to government that tries to force us to do 'right'. I suppose you could view those as two sides of the same coin, but I see a substantive difference. In one case, we'd have a government that steps in only to prevent harm, whereas the other view implies a government that proactively tries to push people to do things it deems beneficial. As people have wildly different definitions of 'beneficial', and relatively more consistent definitions of harm, I find the former approach more sane.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know, I know, "it's not that simple", but if you had to go with one of these statements, which are you more comfortable with?

Government has one purpose, to control people. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said it best.

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neither.

Yeah... Ultimately, I agree with you. But I'm trying to draw a line here. If you had to pick one, which makes more sense? It's occurred to me recently that people really do come at it from different angles. Some of us want government that protects us from harm, but otherwise leaves us to live life how we want. Others see government as a tool to build a virtuous and successful community. I'm trying to get a handle on how prevalent these two leanings are.

Do you have a preference?

Who am I to say what is right, or wrong, for other people? Why should anyone be able to define that for anyone? Given that I object to the entire concept of people defining right and wrong why on earth would I chose the purpose for doing it?

 

[dblack]

Neither.

Yeah... Ultimately, I agree with you. But I'm trying to draw a line here. If you had to pick one, which makes more sense? It's occurred to me recently that people really do come at it from different angles. Some of us want government that protects us from harm, but otherwise leaves us to live life how we want. Others see government as a tool to build a virtuous and successful community. I'm trying to get a handle on how prevalent these two leanings are.

Do you have a preference?

Who am I to say what is right, or wrong, for other people? Why should anyone be able to define that for anyone? Given that I object to the entire concept of people defining right and wrong why on earth would I chose the purpose for doing it?

Would you characterize violating someone else's rights - by murdering them, for example - as 'wrong'?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wanted to talk about this because it seems like something that doesn't necessarily divide along party lines. Both attitudes are common in both major parties, and sometimes it seems to me a more important difference than the usual liberal/conservative split.

The biggest difference now is the far right doesn't recognize that Wall Street has done more to damage this country than any Al Queda cell tucked away in Buffalo, New York or the mountains of Pakistan. They buy into the bullshit that we actually have some sort of a free market system in play when it's been hijacked by a plutocracy that knows how to stay out of the 24/7 news cycle. And of course Obama is a communist/Marxist/Muslim when actually he's a coffee-colored George W. Bush.

If I explained to you what, exactly caused everything you are complaining about, and proved to you that it has nothing to do with any of the things you think it does, would you admit you are wrong?