The "proper" role of government

[DriftingSand]

Rand was a nutter, who died living on Social Security and using Medicare. And the Proper role of government is whatever we damn well say it is.

Let me guess ... your proper form of government would resemble a Socialist dictatorship. And you say Rand was a "nutter?"

My proper form of government would be what works for the vast majority of people. That changes just as the world does.

Study up on Rand and you'll find out that she really was a nut. It's her life, and it's documented. She never got over her self-centered childhood, her obsession with heroes from the movies, or what the Communists did to her father's businesses. Between that and her inability to make friends as a child, because she was so focused on herself, she became who she was and then tried to call her worldview the only moral one. Nutter.

There are some truths that are self-evident and that NEVER change. I believe that some government is necessary but I would be totally opposed to a top-heavy, dictatorship no matter what the century or the circumstances. I will always treasure my freedom, liberty, and ability to make decisions for myself and family without government intervention. Some law and regulation is good. Without it we would have anarchy which generally turns into a mob-ocracy. I'm not so "needy" as to need a huge government thinking for me. I also like the idea that I can keep what I work for and give to others in need as my conscience guides me. I'm not fond of giving to the charities of a government's choice.

 

[Little-Acorn]

My own personal favorite text in the Declaration of Independence is (paraphrased):

All men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.

In other words, government's purpose is to protect our rights. And if government abuses them instead, throwing out that government isn't just a good idea, it is the LAW.

You should see how much the big-government pushers go ballistic, scream and yell, and turn back flips at the notion that normal people are REQUIRED BY LAW to kick their butts out of the government. The spectacle provides hours of entertainment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

My own personal favorite text in the Declaration of Independence is (paraphrased):

All men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.

In other words, government's purpose is to protect our rights. And if government abuses them instead, throwing out that government isn't just a good idea, it is the LAW.

You should see how much the bog-government pushers go ballistic, scream and yell, and turn back flips at the notion that normal people are REQUIRED BY LAW to kick their butts out of the government. The spectacle provides hours of entertainment.

Both sides can argue that the other side are the abusers and that they have a legal obligation to kick them out of our government. And both sides do - from time to time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They said no such thing, moron. Read the Declaration of Independence. Does it say government can do whatever it wants?

The Declaration? That's history, literally. The Constitution is still alive and well however. It says the government can do what it says, and we get to say what that is. Is that what you meant?

The Constitution contains a very short list of things government is allowed to do. The only way we get to change that list is by Amending the document.

Meaning we can say what the government is and does. TY.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They said no such thing, moron. Read the Declaration of Independence. Does it say government can do whatever it wants?

The Declaration? That's history, literally.

Nice try... but the DOI is the law.

The DOI is nothing but a historical document. It has no legal standing at all, and it was created before we were even a country. The Constitution being ratified is what made us into a nation currently. It has standing in court but not the DOI. It's dead Jim but the Constitution lives on...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. Once it comes into existence, all governments will grow until they consume all of society. That's the record of all government, including ours.

What would you prefer then, anarchy, or forming a new government every few decades?

Both are very bad for Capitalism BTW. The first one it can't even exist in.

I prefer no government.

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

The Errors of Classical Liberalism

As widespread as the classical liberal view is regarding the necessity of the institution of a state as the provider of law and order, several rather elementary economic and moral arguments show this view to be entirely misguided.

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

However, this is only the mildest of errors. Government is not just like any other monopoly such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces low quality products at high prices. Government is unique among all other agencies in that it produces not only goods but also bads. Indeed, it must produce bads in order to produce anything that might be considered a good.

As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law.

Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes — the government employees — regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, "producing" ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent's goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation's wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be.

In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives.

I prefer something Hans Hermann Hoppe calls "the private law society." You can learn how it works by reading the article referenced above.

Noted. Always knew you lived in Fantasyland.

 

[Erand7899]

Rand was a nutter, who died living on Social Security and using Medicare. And the Proper role of government is whatever we damn well say it is.

That kind of depends on who "we" is. If "we" is at least two thirds of the American public, you have a point. If not, then you are obligated to follow the role established by the last two thirds majority.

In addition, when "we" desire to redefine the proper role of government, then "we" need to follow the established procedure for altering that role. And, that does not mean getting more activist, liberal judges on the courts.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rand was a nutter, who died living on Social Security and using Medicare. And the Proper role of government is whatever we damn well say it is.

That kind of depends on who "we" is. If "we" is at least two thirds of the American public, you have a point. If not, then you are obligated to follow the role established by the last two thirds majority.

In addition, when "we" desire to redefine the proper role of government, then "we" need to follow the established procedure for altering that role. And, that does not mean getting more activist, liberal judges on the courts.

It's not a majority of the people. Do read up. And, the people of the U.S. can have the Constitution thrown out and start all over again. It's in, wait for it, the Constitution, which means that we can define what is the proper role for our government.

 

[bripat9643]

It says "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

I'm pretty sure they didn't mean dead people.

The role of government evolves along with the people.

If it doesn't it dies.

You can talk about what things ought to be and what is right ... but different people have different ideas. Right now, you are a minority.

Hmmmm . . . no, actually the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that. The scumbag tyrant Abraham Lincoln said it.

Just one more example of a libturd proving that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Note that the guy who opposes limited government quotes a tyrant to support his position.

The role of government "evolves" only because of socialist scumbags like you continually trying to subvert it. The Founding Fathers never intended it to "evolve" into the empire of subjects that you obviously favor.

You're right that different people have different ideas. Some people have right ideas, and other people have wrong ideas. Your ideas are wrong, no matter how popular you think they may be.

Ummm no - it's in the declaration of indepence too:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Your belief that the two statements are equivalent is beyond ludicrous. Jefferson would have spit on a tyrant like Lincoln. Jefferson despised everything Lincoln believed in.

Note: A racist, neo-conservative tries to demonize Lincoln.

Is this where I pretend to be shocked?

Liberal Dictionary:
========================================
Racist - anyone winning an argument with a liberal.

A lot of liberal turds in this forum have accused me of being racist, but when asked to produce some evidence they always run away.

The fact that Lincoln was a despicable tyrant. Not even his supporters will deny that he did the following:

• Suspended Habeas corpus illegally.
• Mass arrest of tens of thousands political dissenters.
• Shut down hundreds of opposition news papers and imprisoned their owners and editors without a trial.
• Deported a member of Congress simply because he disagreed with Lincoln.
• Jailed the entire state legislature of Maryland and the governor without any charges or a trial.
• Ordered his troops to murder, rape and loot American citizens and destroy their private property.
• Worked tirelessly on figuring out how to deport every last black person, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves. Lincoln was hard at work diligently counting up transport ships and communicating with foreign governments about purchasing land from them for all the deported black people up to three days before his death

The founders designed a system that can evolve and adapt - that's why it is still around today.

The only way it was intended to "evolve and adapt" is through the Amendment process. The Founders never intended the Supreme Court to change the meaning of the document beyond recognition by "interpreting" it into virtual oblivion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hmmmm . . . no, actually the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that. The scumbag tyrant Abraham Lincoln said it.

Just one more example of a libturd proving that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Note that the guy who opposes limited government quotes a tyrant to support his position.

The role of government "evolves" only because of socialist scumbags like you continually trying to subvert it. The Founding Fathers never intended it to "evolve" into the empire of subjects that you obviously favor.

You're right that different people have different ideas. Some people have right ideas, and other people have wrong ideas. Your ideas are wrong, no matter how popular you think they may be.

Ummm no - it's in the declaration of indepence too:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Your belief that the two statements are equivalent is beyond ludicrous. Jefferson would have spit on a tyrant like Lincoln. Jefferson despised everything Lincoln believed in.

Note: A racist, neo-conservative tries to demonize Lincoln.

Is this where I pretend to be shocked?

Liberal Dictionary:
========================================
Racist - anyone winning an argument with a liberal.

A lot of liberal turds in this forum have accused me of being racist, but when asked to produce some evidence they always run away.

The fact that Lincoln was a despicable tyrant. Not even his supporters will deny that he did the following:

• Suspended Habeas corpus illegally.
• Mass arrest of tens of thousands political dissenters.
• Shut down hundreds of opposition news papers and imprisoned their owners and editors without a trial.
• Deported a member of Congress simply because he disagreed with Lincoln.
• Jailed the entire state legislature of Maryland and the governor without any charges or a trial.
• Ordered his troops to murder, rape and loot American citizens and destroy their private property.
• Worked tirelessly on figuring out how to deport every last black person, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves. Lincoln was hard at work diligently counting up transport ships and communicating with foreign governments about purchasing land from them for all the deported black people up to three days before his death

The founders designed a system that can evolve and adapt - that's why it is still around today.

The only way it was intended to "evolve and adapt" is through the Amendment process. The Founders never intended the Supreme Court to change the meaning of the document beyond recognition by "interpreting" it into virtual oblivion.

I enjoy the way you get progressively more vulgar, vitriolic, and apoplectic as your argument disintegrates.

Lincoln was (imho) our second greatest president. Behind only Washington.

But none of that changes the fact that the proper role of government will not be decided by a radical fringe minority (no matter how loud they scream and curse). It will be decided by what the people demand. It can't survive any other way.

 

[Erand7899]

It's the same as the Founders of this Nation. I'm okay with that...

They said no such thing, moron. Read the Declaration of Independence. Does it say government can do whatever it wants?

It says "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

I'm pretty sure they didn't mean dead people.

The role of government evolves along with the people.

If it doesn't it dies.

You can talk about what things ought to be and what is right ... but different people have different ideas. Right now, you are a minority.

They also did not mean mob rule. When a vast majority of Americans, at least two thirds of them, want change, then change is justified. Otherwise it is referred to as tyranny of the majority. And, we have seen a lot of that lately.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They said no such thing, moron. Read the Declaration of Independence. Does it say government can do whatever it wants?

It says "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

I'm pretty sure they didn't mean dead people.

The role of government evolves along with the people.

If it doesn't it dies.

You can talk about what things ought to be and what is right ... but different people have different ideas. Right now, you are a minority.

They also did not mean mob rule. When a vast majority of Americans, at least two thirds of them, want change, then change is justified. Otherwise it is referred to as tyranny of the majority. And, we have seen a lot of that lately.

Tyranny of the majority means true Democracy, AKA Mob Rule. Look it up.

It means when 51% of the people think you have no rights, you no longer have any rights.

 

[Erand7899]

Rand was a nutter, who died living on Social Security and using Medicare. And the Proper role of government is whatever we damn well say it is.

That kind of depends on who "we" is. If "we" is at least two thirds of the American public, you have a point. If not, then you are obligated to follow the role established by the last two thirds majority.

In addition, when "we" desire to redefine the proper role of government, then "we" need to follow the established procedure for altering that role. And, that does not mean getting more activist, liberal judges on the courts.

It's not a majority of the people. Do read up. And, the people of the U.S. can have the Constitution thrown out and start all over again. It's in, wait for it, the Constitution, which means that we can define what is the proper role for our government.

Whats not a majority of the people? The people of the United States are not just some mass that thinks alike, and follows some loon into oblivion. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows "we" to define what the proper role of government is, unless "we" can get the super majority to agree to it.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That kind of depends on who "we" is. If "we" is at least two thirds of the American public, you have a point. If not, then you are obligated to follow the role established by the last two thirds majority.

In addition, when "we" desire to redefine the proper role of government, then "we" need to follow the established procedure for altering that role. And, that does not mean getting more activist, liberal judges on the courts.

It's not a majority of the people. Do read up. And, the people of the U.S. can have the Constitution thrown out and start all over again. It's in, wait for it, the Constitution, which means that we can define what is the proper role for our government.

Whats not a majority of the people? The people of the United States are not just some mass that thinks alike, and follows some loon into oblivion. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows "we" to define what the proper role of government is, unless "we" can get the super majority to agree to it.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Those are not the People, those are the People the People elect.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You should see how much the big-government pushers go ballistic, scream and yell, and turn back flips at the notion that normal people are REQUIRED BY LAW to kick their butts out of the government. The spectacle provides hours of entertainment.

The DOI is nothing but a historical document. It has no legal standing at all, and it was created before we were even a country.

See?

Can I call 'em, or what?

Of course, these people cannot point to any law that repealed the DOI.

But that doesn't stop them from screaming in horror at the idea that it actually is a law, with current legal standing.

And that the idea of government existing only to protect our rights, is a legal requirement.

And what really scares them, is that the DOI contains language saying that if government engages in a long series of abuses of our rights, it's our right and our DUTY to change that government... OR EVEN DISSOLVE IT.

The leftist fanatics hate the DOI the way vampires hate sunlight. And so they try the usual leftist tactics against it: Try to pretend it doesn't exist, and try to fool as many people as they can, into believing them instead of it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

They said no such thing, moron. Read the Declaration of Independence. Does it say government can do whatever it wants?

It says "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

I'm pretty sure they didn't mean dead people.

The role of government evolves along with the people.

If it doesn't it dies.

You can talk about what things ought to be and what is right ... but different people have different ideas. Right now, you are a minority.

They also did not mean mob rule. When a vast majority of Americans, at least two thirds of them, want change, then change is justified. Otherwise it is referred to as tyranny of the majority. And, we have seen a lot of that lately.

The two-thirds threshold is for the Constitution. Not for all laws.

But the alternative is revolution.
If you crap on the majority to the benefit of the minority, you will get a revolution. That's the real world - we've seen it happen too many times throughout history to deny it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The two-thirds threshold is for the Constitution. Not for all laws.

Actually it's three-quarters. The two-thirds threshold for the Constitution, is just to propose changes. It takes three-quarters to lock them in and make them law.

And those three-quarters, must be as far from the seat of the central government as possible. Congress has NO say in whether its proposals actually become law; and the President of the U.S. has no voice in ANY of the steps required to amend the Constitution.

And that's why the leftist fanatics never try to amend the Constitution to implement their socialist changes. They know well, that 2/3 of Congress is VERY unlikely to agree with them, and 3/4 of the states would sooner tar and feather them than make their ideology part of the Law of the Land. So they go around telling people instead, that the courts can take existing laws and simply "interpret" them (that's liberal-speak for "lie about them") to mean something completely different from what they originally meant.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And that's why the leftist fanatics never try to amend the Constitution to implement their socialist changes.

That's why women still can't vote ...

 

[Little-Acorn]

And that's why the leftist fanatics never try to amend the Constitution to implement their socialist changes.

That's why women still can't vote ...

Nice sarcasm.

Women voting, is "socialist"?

 

[nodoginnafight]

And that's why the leftist fanatics never try to amend the Constitution to implement their socialist changes.

That's why women still can't vote ...

Nice sarcasm.

Women voting, is "socialist"?

Those advocating women's suffrage were the "leftist fanatics" of their day