Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why must the government provide a means. The Constitution says nothing about food.If I may continue the discussion...
If the earth is private property (capitalism requires as much), then it follows there must be government otherwise Darwinian principles take over. I can't imagine anyone wishing for Darwinian principles (e.g. might makes right) to control society as opposed to human planning and intelligence (unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).
Assuming we will not dismantle governments anytime soon, either we can have Darwin, a monopoly, or a form of public government. We currently live in a monopoly government where the business class, a highly class conscious group, are aware they participate in "investment politics." In other words, they fund campaigns to construct policy in their favor. This is nothing new but is reaching unprecedented levels compared to the last few decades.
If government is to exist (it does and will indefinitely as opposed to Darwinian policy), then it should serve the general population, not just a minority or monopoly. In order to serve this population, the absolute first and prime issue is ensuring access to food and water without which the population ceases. I am not saying the government must deliver food to every person each morning. There is a crucial difference: gov't must provide a means, not the end. Whether that's providing private property for self-sufficiency or ensuring an adequate supply of jobs to meet the demand for earning one's access to adequate sustenance. That isn't asking very much since any jobs available should be designed to contribute positively to society's functioning and advancement.
I would challenge that supposition. You assume that the government must provide such access because the people cannot do so for themselves otherwise there would be no point point be. I, personally, find that is the fundamental flaw with most peoples concept of government they are looking for it to provide them something and I would challenge that as the purpose of government.If I may continue the discussion...
If the earth is private property (capitalism requires as much), then it follows there must be government otherwise Darwinian principles take over. I can't imagine anyone wishing for Darwinian principles (e.g. might makes right) to control society as opposed to human planning and intelligence (unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).
Assuming we will not dismantle governments anytime soon, either we can have Darwin, a monopoly, or a form of public government. We currently live in a monopoly government where the business class, a highly class conscious group, are aware they participate in "investment politics." In other words, they fund campaigns to construct policy in their favor. This is nothing new but is reaching unprecedented levels compared to the last few decades.
If government is to exist (it does and will indefinitely as opposed to Darwinian policy), then it should serve the general population, not just a minority or monopoly. In order to serve this population, the absolute first and prime issue is ensuring access to food and water without which the population ceases. I am not saying the government must deliver food to every person each morning. There is a crucial difference: gov't must provide a means, not the end. Whether that's providing private property for self-sufficiency or ensuring an adequate supply of jobs to meet the demand for earning one's access to adequate sustenance. That isn't asking very much since any jobs available should be designed to contribute positively to society's functioning and advancement.
Why must the government provide a means. The Constitution says nothing about food.
I would challenge that supposition. You assume that the government must provide such access because the people cannot do so for themselves otherwise there would be no point point be. I, personally, find that is the fundamental flaw with most peoples concept of government – they are looking for it to provide them something and I would challenge that as the purpose of government.
The purpose for government, if we truly want to be free, is nothing more than to protect our natural rights. Simple really though much much harder to implement. That should be the core of all government. It does not preclude something like a safety net or public works project but it does preclude those things from being the primary purpose of government. I think that what we have done to government today has essentially transformed core purpose of government to protect our rights to be a government whose core purpose is to provide for us. I think that the corrupting influence that cases is self even dent.
What the government provides, the government may take away. When the governments sole purpose is to ‘care’ for you or provide for you then you end up without any rights at all.
(unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).
The role of government is to ensure men don't take advantage of their fellow man. To ensure men don't kill each other (something they fail at miserably). If all governments worked for peace and one global nation, think about the problems that could be solved!
Resources could be allocated fairly.
Wars could be ceased.
Scientists could all pool their researches towards common goals like cheap, efficient renewable fuels, or effective space travel.
Developing nation could be developed faster.
Industry could spread at a faster rate.
If one area is struggling, the world can help to stop the decline.
Disease could be all but eradicated.
Mankind could promote understanding as a whole.
People all over could have equal rights.
Starvation could be eliminated.
Etc.
Off topic, but, if all governments worked like they should, that is the world we would live in.
The purpose of government is to give free shit to slackers who in turn will vote Democratic.
Preamble to the Constitution. It's a short paragraph. "Establish justice, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Notice it doesn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare" as generations of democrat politicians have interpreted it.
Preamble to the Constitution. It's a short paragraph. "Establish justice, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Notice it doesn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare" as generations of democrat politicians have interpreted it.
The preamble is the purpose for the writing of the Constitution, the preamble does not bestow any power on government.
The jobs market is controlled by an inefficient market. The supply of jobs are far lower than the demand. This means the price of labor is driven down, way down. Working conditions can be abhorrent but must be tolerated if one wishes to continue eating 3 meals a day. This is a tragedy that so many wish they could participate in society but too few opportunities exist for the bottom 40%. So the unemployment rate in America does not consider long-term unemployment and those who simply give up in frustration. If these rates were calculated, unemployment might be around 20%. Hence I argue the gov't should step in given it's massive resources to make the market efficient again. Efficient with respect to generating a healthy society, of course, not one with dismal inequality.
America's CEO to avg. worker pay is 354 times higher as calculated in 2012. WTF! In most countries it tends to be around 100-150.
The only way to justify this sort of institutional mistreatment of humans is to define those in poverty and near poverty as getting what they deserve as if they are lesser humans, akin to chimps more than the average person. The term exploitation is a euphemism. I won't stand for such nonsense! ALL humans are born roughly the same (with a few outliers) but the elites have created institutions that prevent much of humanity from expressing their talents and pursuing their interests. Instead, they must compete fiercely in the job market where sometimes 1000s of applications are for 1 job. Fucking sick!
The jobs market is controlled by an inefficient market. The supply of jobs are far lower than the demand. This means the price of labor is driven down, way down. Working conditions can be abhorrent but must be tolerated if one wishes to continue eating 3 meals a day. This is a tragedy that so many wish they could participate in society but too few opportunities exist for the bottom 40%. So the unemployment rate in America does not consider long-term unemployment and those who simply give up in frustration. If these rates were calculated, unemployment might be around 20%. Hence I argue the gov't should step in given it's massive resources to make the market efficient again. Efficient with respect to generating a healthy society, of course, not one with dismal inequality.
America's CEO to avg. worker pay is 354 times higher as calculated in 2012. WTF! In most countries it tends to be around 100-150.
The only way to justify this sort of institutional mistreatment of humans is to define those in poverty and near poverty as getting what they deserve as if they are lesser humans, akin to chimps more than the average person. The term exploitation is a euphemism. I won't stand for such nonsense! ALL humans are born roughly the same (with a few outliers) but the elites have created institutions that prevent much of humanity from expressing their talents and pursuing their interests. Instead, they must compete fiercely in the job market where sometimes 1000s of applications are for 1 job. Fucking sick!
