The only proper purpose of a government

[eflatminor]

I'll say it again, Rand was an absolutist. The SS program is either purely good, or purely evil. There's no middle ground if one embraces an absolutist approach. And she maintained an absolutist criticism of SS right up to the day that she started collecting SS. It was only then that she created her post hoc excuse, which is exactly what her "reimbursement" babble was. If Rand was to stay true to her lifelong positions, then she could not ever accept SS benefits, regardless of having ever paid money into it. Doing so was a violation of her absolutist philosophy.

You can say it as many times as you like. Doesn't make it so.

And I call bullshit for criticizing her for taking SS. She, like the rest of us, are FORCED into that ridiculous Ponzi scheme. Taking some of that stolen money back violates nothing she advocated.

This is akin to criticizing those that stand against the government monopoly on affordable education by pointing out many of us went to a public grade school. As tough we're supposed to go without any education just to make a point? Ridiculous.

 

[Oddball]

I'll say it again, Rand was an absolutist. The SS program is either purely good, or purely evil. There's no middle ground if one embraces an absolutist approach. And she maintained an absolutist criticism of SS right up to the day that she started collecting SS. It was only then that she created her post hoc excuse, which is exactly what her "reimbursement" babble was. If Rand was to stay true to her lifelong positions, then she could not ever accept SS benefits, regardless of having ever paid money into it. Doing so was a violation of her absolutist philosophy.

You can say it as many times as you like. Doesn't make it so.

And I call bullshit for criticizing her for taking SS. She, like the rest of us, are FORCED into that ridiculous Ponzi scheme. Taking some of that stolen money back violates nothing she advocated.

This is akin to criticizing those that stand against the government monopoly on affordable education by pointing out many of us went to a public grade school. As tough we're supposed to go without any education just to make a point? Ridiculous.

As though we, as minor children, had any choice in the mater!

 

[Oddball]

What evidence do you have that the FDA improved food quality or drug safety? One thing is certain, the FDA has vastly reduced the number of life-saving drugs available on the market. Thousands of people have died waiting for the FDA to approve numerous life-saving drugs.

Yeah, I've heard that meme many times. Libertarians like to conjure up the image of the fat heart disease patient who died while waiting for the miracle cure which the FDA was holding up. But they can never provide the number of drugs which are denied by the FDA as being too dangerous for human consumption, and thus saving countless lives.

Hmmm...

The FDA can't provide that figure either. Remember, the FDA approved thalidomide. The justification for the FDA is the idea that corporations can make big profits by injuring or killing their customers. Any drug company that produced drugs that killed or injured a large number of people would quickly find itself out of business. There are hoards of ambulance chasing attorneys out there looking for any case they can file against a giant drug company. Many fortunes have been made that way. The idea that the FDA has prevented any significant deaths or injuries from dangerous drugs doesn't pass the laugh test.

It's even worse than that....For decades, the bureaucratic buttpipes at the FDA knew that a chewed aspirin was a safe and effective short-term remedy for AMI patients, but prohibited aspirin manufacturers from printing indications for use in those instances and also prohibited EMS personnel from administering aspirin to their AMI patients, without the direct authorization of the attending ER doc....Those rules were only changed in the late '90s.

The FDA has literally killed people who would otherwise be alive, with their dictatorial mindset.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People in our legislatures assembled decide what is correct, not a bunch of loonies who think the corporate rape of Cuba and the oppression of 65% of its people in 1958 were good things.

You guys are morons.

Ayn Rand was an idiot, her followers idiot clones.

That's hilarious coming from a senile moron.

Why don't you go back to the thread where you are defending the Communist government of Cuba, and quit annoying the adults in this thread.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The founders would keep on sailing if they saw this current form of government.

Then again, the founders were traitors and terrorists.

According to gubmint school revisionist history.

 

[Koios]

The founders would keep on sailing if they saw this current form of government.

Then again, the founders were traitors and terrorists.

According to gubmint school revisionist history.

Also King George and the House of Lords, albeit the House of Commons had many American Colonies sympathizers, who felt strongly that war with England's own people was misguided.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Then again, the founders were traitors and terrorists.

According to gubmint school revisionist history.

Also King George and the House of Lords, albeit the House of Commons had many American Colonies sympathizers, who felt strongly that war with England's own people was misguided.

Yeah, about 30 percent. 30 percent indifferent, 30 percent for the revolution.

 

[g5000]

Ever heard of Underwriters Labratories? We accept government intervention into every aspect of life because they have wheedled their way in inch by inch and it seems the norm to us now. This is why liberals accept and expect a nanny state. They've come to believe it is the norm, an actual role of government and now come to expect it. Imagine if companies employeed people to do what the government has taken over and done quite poorly?

Underwriters Laboratories is a favorite meme of Libertarians. Yet they seem to be ignorant of the fact that the government uses UL as a regulatory standard. UL and Uncle Sam are in bed together!

UL is an example, not any sort of proposed catch-all of a solution.

There are lots of other free market organizations that certify people doing certain things, USHPA, USPA, PADI, PSIA all serve as examples of such.

You fools are advocating a return to the days of the utterly corrupt guild system which was guilty of the very things of which you accuse the federal regulatory system.

 

[bripat9643]

Underwriters Laboratories is a favorite meme of Libertarians. Yet they seem to be ignorant of the fact that the government uses UL as a regulatory standard. UL and Uncle Sam are in bed together!

UL is an example, not any sort of proposed catch-all of a solution.

There are lots of other free market organizations that certify people doing certain things, USHPA, USPA, PADI, PSIA all serve as examples of such.

You fools are advocating a return to the days of the utterly corrupt guild system which was guilty of the very things of which you accuse the federal regulatory system.

No one is proposing that. The guilds were similar to unions. They could force people to follow their dictates. The organizations listed above don't have any authorization to compel anyone to do anything. They are purely sources of information.

 

[Oddball]

Underwriters Laboratories is a favorite meme of Libertarians. Yet they seem to be ignorant of the fact that the government uses UL as a regulatory standard. UL and Uncle Sam are in bed together!

UL is an example, not any sort of proposed catch-all of a solution.

There are lots of other free market organizations that certify people doing certain things, USHPA, USPA, PADI, PSIA all serve as examples of such.

You fools are advocating a return to the days of the utterly corrupt guild system which was guilty of the very things of which you accuse the federal regulatory system.

Bullpuckey.

All of those outfits serve as voluntary organizations, providers of uniform certification standards and are conduits of insurance and other benefits for their members, who are completely free to join their ranks or not....In the case of PADI, there are even competitors in that field.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

"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

The proper purpose of our government is to provide us a Republican form of government, and to protect the respective states from invasion.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't you think you've humiliated yourself enough, Fakey?

We the People in our legislatures assembled decide what is correct, not a bunch of loonies who think the corporate rape of Cuba and the oppression of 65% of its people in 1958 were good things.

You guys are morons.

 

[ilia25]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights.."-Ayn Rand

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.

 

[bripat9643]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights.."-Ayn Rand

Wrong.

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

Nope. Providing services is the purpose of private enterprise.

That is what the democracy is about.

That's what's wrong with democracy.

 

[Oddball]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights.."-Ayn Rand

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.

We're supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, comrade.

From the Army training manual, circa 1928:

Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

 

[ilia25]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights.."-Ayn Rand

Wrong.

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

Nope. Providing services is the purpose of private enterprise.

Wrong. Anything the government does or could possibly do is a service. If a government can't provide a service, then there could be no government.

That is what the democracy is about.

That's what's wrong with democracy.

Yup, right-wingers are scared of democracy. Most of them are country people living in fear of those urban hordes coming to take away their property.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong.

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

Nope. Providing services is the purpose of private enterprise.

Wrong. Anything the government does or could possibly do is a service. If a government can't provide a service, then there could be no government.

The only "service" the federal gubmint was chartered to perform was to protect our rights to freedom of voluntary exchange, right to travel freely and enforce national sovereignty...It was not chartered to offer the "service" of taking from one group of people in order to feather the nests of those who did nothing to earn those resources.

That is what the democracy is about.

That's what's wrong with democracy.

Yup, right-wingers are scared of democracy. Most of them are country people living in fear of those urban hordes coming to take away their property.

What were afraid of is self-righteous communistic mob rulers like you.

 

[ilia25]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights.."-Ayn Rand

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.

We're supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, comrade.

From the Army training manual, circa 1928

Really? Army training manual?

Democracy does not have to be direct. Almost all democratic countries now are representative democracies.

And republic is one of two forms of representative democracy (the other one is constitutional monarchy, although the distinction is technical).

 

[Oddball]

Communist China and quasi-communist Russia have democratic legislative assemblies, too.

Seems to me the difference between democracy and the American republic of 1787 are different in far more than "technical" terms.

 

[ilia25]

Nope. Providing services is the purpose of private enterprise.

Wrong. Anything the government does or could possibly do is a service. If a government can't provide a service, then there could be no government.

The only "service" the federal gubmint was chartered to perform was to protect our rights to freedom

As much as you want it so, it isn't. Democratically elected government does what the majority wants -- always was and always will be.

I'm not surprised that you are very much opposed to that idea, but you don't have a choice.

Not in this country.