The only proper purpose of a government

[OohPooPahDoo]

You got that part right, the government has all the power, and lobbyist know that. They therefore set out collecting money to attempt to influence that power in their favor.

I believe that falls under the right to petition government.

 

[Koios]

Ahhh, Righties. How's that hook feeling in your mouth?

Why don't you tell me when you get yours out of your oral cavity?

Have you the slightest grasp of where the regs are authored and the function they perform?

Probably much better than you.

Where: by lobbyists, very often, who merely pay lip-service to the notion of less regulation, since dumbfucks eat it up and do not see what in fact is going on. Works like a charm.

You got that part right, the government has all the power, and lobbyist know that. They therefore set out collecting money to attempt to influence that power in their favor.

Why: removes free-market forces which would increase competition and cause price-compression. Larger concerns, with not only the resources to lobby government to the tune of $10s of millions, but also the money to fund large "compliance departments," can preserve a near monopoly, or at least more monopolize their markets, insuring vastly greater profits. Take anyone who's going on and on about "free-markets" and bet me they aren't bending over backward trying to diminish free-market forces and monopolize their sector to the exent possible, in service of the larger players in their industry.

Feel free to show me where I have lobbied to create regulations that reduce competition.

Wait, I know, you weren't talking about me, you were talking about other people.

Guess what, those other people support regulations, I oppose them. Yet you define me as right wing because I oppose regulations, and you define people who support them as left wing, and then try to insist that the people who oppose regulations actually are working to restrict free markets.

In other words, open mouth, insert foot, swallow attached hip.

That feeling you are experiencing as you read this, the awareness that you just scored the game winning touchdown for the other team because you ran the wrong way.

Are you a lobbyist for Big Pharma?

 

[Koios]

You got that part right, the government has all the power, and lobbyist know that. They therefore set out collecting money to attempt to influence that power in their favor.

I believe that falls under the right to petition government.

Not entirely, IMO, but the Supremes are yet to bar it.

My point being: I doubt they're there wishing for a redress of their grievances. I think they're there trying to sneak in some language that'll be a fucking 100 fold windfall in tax savings and special credits, compared to the pittance they donate to re-elect coffers. Just guessing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the rights of people are summed up as protection against harm.

Only if you are an idiot.

Given that, government has failed at Columbine, Colorado, Newton, et al, and since 28 children have died since Newton from guns, it must follow that government must ban all guns. Otherwise how is it government will protect the children?

Given that you started with a false underlying premise, that is a logical conclusion.

Some will say everyone should be armed, if a definition of an uncivilized society existed, it would have to include a society in which people feared each other so much they were all armed. Of course I see that that simpleton Ayn Rand has managed the mind of the OP's thoughts. Rand ended up on government assistance, what a example huh. I guess altruism has many definitions when you are a simpleton.

Some would point out that is exactly what the framers of the Bill of Rights intended, which is why they were willing to include an exemption to the requirement for anyone that objected on religious grounds.

Whittaker Chambers 1957 Review of Ayn Rand

"... Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind, which finds this one natural to it, shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: " To the gas chambers — go!" The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the differences between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feel at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse." Whittaker Chambers 1957 Review of Ayn Rand

He, quite obviously, never encountered anything you wrote.

George Washington on government: "The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

Why do you keep posting quotes that say the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some of you idiots are actually championing getting rid of the FDA? LOL

I advocate doing away the Department of Education. As it is obvious that education is wasted on the majority of Americans.

I don't mean turn it over to the state level, or local. I mean totally do away with public schools and leave education up to the families.

It's obvious by listening to the average American opine about just about anything that they aren't learning anything anyway.

because clearly by abolishing the fda and doe there would no longer be safe drugs or schools . lol

of course there would be safe drugs without an FDA. There would also be many more unsafe drugs on the market.

Talk about a dishonest argument from you.

Prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

of course there would be safe drugs without an FDA. There would also be many more unsafe drugs on the market.

Talk about a dishonest argument from you.

Why would anyone take a drug known to be unsafe?

Without the FDA doing independent testing there is only way to know if a drug is unsafe.

I value human health more than you apparently.

The FDA does not conduct drug tests, they require drug makers to conduct their own tests. Total and complete failure to score.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

of course there would be safe drugs without an FDA. There would also be many more unsafe drugs on the market.

Talk about a dishonest argument from you.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacious and dishonest argument.

Drawing conclusions based on evidence is call the scientific method my friend, I suggest you learn it.

Or do you instead contend that just because other countries which don't have regulatory agencies in place have a tendency to be guinea pigs for medicines which turn out to be dangerous to humans doesn't mean the US would as well if the FDA were removed?

Yes, I'm sure if the FDA were dissolved tomorrow big pharma would get together and have a discussion along the lines of

"now guys, just because the FDA has been shuttered, let's not all act in the US the way we do in other countries that have no regulation, no sir let's prove we can do it right without the FDA"

fucking laughable.

I suppose you also believe that if the minimum wage and forty hour work week were taken off the books that no companies would offer lower wages nor would they force employees to work over 40 hours .


Does the FDA need to be streamlined ? Of course it does, I can't think of a government entity which doesn't need to be, but trusting pharmaceutical companies would do the right thing is beyond stupid.

I suspect you don't even really believe that, you just are here arguing for argument sakes thinking to yourself " oh boy oh boy advocating shutting down an entire government agency would just really make me look like a conservative"

no, it makes you look like an idiot.

The scientific method would involve repeatable experimentation that showed the same results. What experimental data do you have, that I can reproduce, that indicates that the absence of the FDA results in massive amounts of unsafe drugs?

None? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The First 150 years of the United States.

Yeah like the financial panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, and 1893; slavery; cholera; child labor; civil war; filth, disease and crime; Trail of Tears; poverty; .. those sure were "the good old days."


In fact, it worked so well and was so universally accepted and valued, no one ever tinkered with it or even wanted to change a thing ....

oh ... wait ....

I find many Libertarian-leaning people are often suffering from a rose-tinted, romantizied view of "the good old days."

so called libertarians are in fact anarchists, well almost they don't want any government unless it's telling YOU what to do. LOL

You prefer a government that does what you don't like?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ugh. Only someone who has never read Ayn Rand, or who has seven pounds of brain damage, would ever call her "a decent novelist".

She had a profound knack for repeating a theme over and over and over and over and over, for hundreds of pages at a time what could have been captured in five, like some kind of literary re-education camp. Not really surprising, considering her origins.

She wrote better than Melville, and he is supposed to be a great novelist.

Having never read Melville, and going by that measure, he must suck on toast.

Rand's purple prose is at once excessively florid and face-palmingly dreary.

Great themes...Had her antagonists perfectly nailed.....And an absolutely gawdawful writer.

Suck on toast would be high praise for Melville's writing. Get a free copy of Moby Dick from Amazon if you want to see just how bad a Great American Novel can actually be. Making that story boring takes a special talent for using 25 words to say something that only needs one. Fortunately, no one ever paid attention to the writing when they made it into a movie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong.

The purpose of a government is to provide the services that are deemed useful by the majority of voters.

That is what the democracy is about.

What if the majority decided we would be better off if we hung you in a cage in front of the Lincoln Memorial so that other statists could see how stupid it is to argue that the purpose of the government is to institute majority rule?

Our Bill of Rights would bar it from happening.

The idea is when most of the people choose who votes on our laws, it should, for the most part, mitigate it getting too fucking loopy. But since it might get loopy, as it did in 2010, praise babayjesus, the FF predicted it and gave us a bi-cam lege, high court, and an exec, to create reasonable protections against total nutjobs, i.e. Ron Paul, Teas, etc. turning us into a third world shithole.

Thus, we do not vote on federal policy. We elect folks we think will do a good job of it.

Good point, of only the guy that made the absurd claim that government's purpose is to provide the services that the majority wants understood that before he made his ridiculous post. Tell me something, is there a reason you chose to attempt to make me look stupid instead of calling out the real idiot in this thread? Is it because this sarcastic post was the only one I made that didn't make you look almost as dumb as ilia25?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You got that part right, the government has all the power, and lobbyist know that. They therefore set out collecting money to attempt to influence that power in their favor.

I believe that falls under the right to petition government.

Wow, what a genius.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ahhh, Righties. How's that hook feeling in your mouth?

Why don't you tell me when you get yours out of your oral cavity?



Probably much better than you.



You got that part right, the government has all the power, and lobbyist know that. They therefore set out collecting money to attempt to influence that power in their favor.

Why: removes free-market forces which would increase competition and cause price-compression. Larger concerns, with not only the resources to lobby government to the tune of $10s of millions, but also the money to fund large "compliance departments," can preserve a near monopoly, or at least more monopolize their markets, insuring vastly greater profits. Take anyone who's going on and on about "free-markets" and bet me they aren't bending over backward trying to diminish free-market forces and monopolize their sector to the exent possible, in service of the larger players in their industry.

Feel free to show me where I have lobbied to create regulations that reduce competition.

Wait, I know, you weren't talking about me, you were talking about other people.

Guess what, those other people support regulations, I oppose them. Yet you define me as right wing because I oppose regulations, and you define people who support them as left wing, and then try to insist that the people who oppose regulations actually are working to restrict free markets.

In other words, open mouth, insert foot, swallow attached hip.

That feeling you are experiencing as you read this, the awareness that you just scored the game winning touchdown for the other team because you ran the wrong way.

Are you a lobbyist for Big Pharma?

Are you seven dumber than I think you are?

 

[Koios]

What if the majority decided we would be better off if we hung you in a cage in front of the Lincoln Memorial so that other statists could see how stupid it is to argue that the purpose of the government is to institute majority rule?

Our Bill of Rights would bar it from happening.

The idea is when most of the people choose who votes on our laws, it should, for the most part, mitigate it getting too fucking loopy. But since it might get loopy, as it did in 2010, praise babayjesus, the FF predicted it and gave us a bi-cam lege, high court, and an exec, to create reasonable protections against total nutjobs, i.e. Ron Paul, Teas, etc. turning us into a third world shithole.

Thus, we do not vote on federal policy. We elect folks we think will do a good job of it.

Good point, of only the guy that made the absurd claim that government's purpose is to provide the services that the majority wants understood that before he made his ridiculous post. Tell me something, is there a reason you chose to attempt to make me look stupid instead of calling out the real idiot in this thread? Is it because this sarcastic post was the only one I made that didn't make you look almost as dumb as ilia25?

I was responding to the post and its entire context, but not your, per se. And I never try to make anyone look dumb on this site, since the Righties are doing the heavy lifting on that for themselves.

 

[Koios]

Why don't you tell me when you get yours out of your oral cavity?



Probably much better than you.



You got that part right, the government has all the power, and lobbyist know that. They therefore set out collecting money to attempt to influence that power in their favor.



Feel free to show me where I have lobbied to create regulations that reduce competition.

Wait, I know, you weren't talking about me, you were talking about other people.

Guess what, those other people support regulations, I oppose them. Yet you define me as right wing because I oppose regulations, and you define people who support them as left wing, and then try to insist that the people who oppose regulations actually are working to restrict free markets.

In other words, open mouth, insert foot, swallow attached hip.

That feeling you are experiencing as you read this, the awareness that you just scored the game winning touchdown for the other team because you ran the wrong way.

Are you a lobbyist for Big Pharma?

Are you seven dumber than I think you are?

Depends. How dumb do you think I am?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Our Bill of Rights would bar it from happening.

The idea is when most of the people choose who votes on our laws, it should, for the most part, mitigate it getting too fucking loopy. But since it might get loopy, as it did in 2010, praise babayjesus, the FF predicted it and gave us a bi-cam lege, high court, and an exec, to create reasonable protections against total nutjobs, i.e. Ron Paul, Teas, etc. turning us into a third world shithole.

Thus, we do not vote on federal policy. We elect folks we think will do a good job of it.

Good point, of only the guy that made the absurd claim that government's purpose is to provide the services that the majority wants understood that before he made his ridiculous post. Tell me something, is there a reason you chose to attempt to make me look stupid instead of calling out the real idiot in this thread? Is it because this sarcastic post was the only one I made that didn't make you look almost as dumb as ilia25?

I was responding to the post and its entire context, but not your, per se. And I never try to make anyone look dumb on this site, since the Righties are doing the heavy lifting on that for themselves.

The entire context of my post was sarcasm, yet you went on to talk about how we don't vote on federal policy. Want to try again?

 

[bripat9643]

Ugh. Only someone who has never read Ayn Rand, or who has seven pounds of brain damage, would ever call her "a decent novelist".

She had a profound knack for repeating a theme over and over and over and over and over, for hundreds of pages at a time what could have been captured in five, like some kind of literary re-education camp. Not really surprising, considering her origins.

She wrote better than Melville, and he is supposed to be a great novelist.

Having never read Melville, and going by that measure, he must suck on toast

Nope. Meville is excellent. You should read Moby Dick. You'll enjoy it.

 

[Koios]

Good point, of only the guy that made the absurd claim that government's purpose is to provide the services that the majority wants understood that before he made his ridiculous post. Tell me something, is there a reason you chose to attempt to make me look stupid instead of calling out the real idiot in this thread? Is it because this sarcastic post was the only one I made that didn't make you look almost as dumb as ilia25?

I was responding to the post and its entire context, but not your, per se. And I never try to make anyone look dumb on this site, since the Righties are doing the heavy lifting on that for themselves.

The entire context of my post was sarcasm, yet you went on to talk about how we don't vote on federal policy. Want to try again?

Sorry; missed it since I didn't back-read the entire conver. My bad. Point taken.

 

[Koios]

where'd you lift that from? on this board, you give links.

as a poitical theorist, ayn rand was a decent novelist.

but it's nonsense.

i guess that whole part of the constitution that guarantees RIGHTS and charges the government with the general welfare of its populace and gives it the right to govern commerce among the several states is a figment of our imagination.

randians are such putzes.

Ugh. Only someone who has never read Ayn Rand, or who has seven pounds of brain damage, would ever call her "a decent novelist".

She had a profound knack for repeating a theme over and over and over and over and over, for hundreds of pages at a time what could have been captured in five, like some kind of literary re-education camp. Not really surprising, considering her origins.

She wrote better than Melville, and he is supposed to be a great novelist.

Fountainhead, I'd agree; what's not to love about Roark, and talent trumping priviledge in a pure Hollywood ending. Loved it.

Shrugged, OMG, what a piece of shit. Gratuitious People's Republics of this and that. Lame characters you couldn't give a fuck about. And one unbelievable character, whose little retreat in the CO mountains, was a fucking commune for christsake. Mygod, Ayn, didn't you pick up on that irony? Who's John Galt? Beleive me; you don't wanna know. Total waste of paper and ink, that's so bad, she makes Dan Brown seem like a great novelist.

 

[bripat9643]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his"-Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand I guess hates the Constitution then, as it outlines far more purposes for government than merely protecting people from physical violence. Establishing a system or weights and measures, a post office, intellectual property rights, regulating commerce among the states - all establish powers for Congress in excess of merely protecting people from physical violence.

And I have to wonder - is the above a spoken or written quote? If its written she clearly doesn't re-read any of her own material. To first say the only role of government is to protect people from physical violence and to then say a proper role is also to protect contracts is contradictory, as I can think of numerous ways contracts can be violated without physical violence.

She never have claimed the document was perfect. She would have eliminated all the clauses you named except the one about intellectual property rights. She especially disliked the Interstate Commerce clause.