What is a country? What is the role and purpose?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pursuitoftruth, May 2, 2012.

  1. Pursuitoftruth
    Offline

    Pursuitoftruth Rookie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    7
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Okay, so I've been thinking about this for awhile, and its a question that I think forms other arguments in politics.

    Do people exist to serve the government, or do governments exist solely to set the best stage for people to live in?

    In older terms I think that it could be phrased:
    Do people exist to serve the king, or does the king exist to serve the people?

    IMHO, when we get too political, too concentrated on the world stage, we stop viewing people as the goal, and instead view them as a resource. I think to a certain extent with the exposure that we know get to governments as individual entities competing against each other we loose sight of this simple fact.

    I think in some ways that the founders understood this argument and clearly came down on the side of the government's purpose being to provide a fair, stable, secure setting in which people have the opportunity to flourish, not to operate as an important entity in and of itself.

    Think about some of the quotes in modern history.
    The founders said that governments are instituted by man to protect certain rights.
    Kennedy asked what you can do for your country.
    The founders said that economic freedom was important because of the effect on the individual.
    Now we say economic freedom is important because it's the way to "jump start" the economy.
    The founders understood that taxes had a negative quality regardless of their effect on us all, because of the effect on the individual.
    Now we only argue about how much taxes will hurt the economy vs. spending help, without acknowledging the effect they may have on the individual.

    Anyhow, I'm curious to hear what people think about this. I don't think it's a left vs. right issue, but rather a language issue. I think this mentality permeates every aspect of our understanding of government, from the military, to domestic policy, to fiscal policy.
     
  2. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,155
    Thanks Received:
    10,167
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,728






    I think all your question are moot. The American citizen is being defauded by government.




    IRS loophole costing taxpayers billions | Video | Fox News
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    borders - language - culture
     
  4. Pursuitoftruth
    Offline

    Pursuitoftruth Rookie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    7
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
     
  5. Pursuitoftruth
    Offline

    Pursuitoftruth Rookie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    7
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Willowtree- Even if this is true, how does that make my question moot?
    Infidel- Can you explain?
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,805
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,960
    If you believe in the concept of a republic, then sovereignty is the key.



    From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

    1. Jean Bodin, French jurist (16th century), one of the first to address sovereignty, understood the King of France as an independent political authority, meaning that he did not owe allegiance to either the Holy Roman Emperor, or to the Pope. Government, he postulated, must be strong enough to protect people’s rights, yet restrained enough not to do more than that.


    2. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

    a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

    b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.


    3. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

    a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

    b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

    c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

    d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.


    Today, all too many of our 'leaders' are globalist, one-worlder's, who are only too happy to turn our sovereignty over to the United Nations.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I thought it was more like robbed blind. :cool:
     
  8. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    The EU came into its own under an American nuclear, then an American defense umbrella. That is about to end. They will be ok as long as the world their alliance occupies has peaceful intent.

    Both Russia and China, and of late Iran have a problem with that; IE leaving others to their own devices. Russia has hegemony over its former Soviet Republics, and China over the entire China Sea, and increasingly the Pacific; Iran over the Muslim world.

    Statehood in the beginning, whether the City State, the alliance of city states, the empire (Rome) was about defending the common sovereignty extended to defrensible, practical limits.
     
  9. initforme
    Offline

    initforme VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,519
    Thanks Received:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +1,345
    "Statehood in the beginning, whether the City State, the alliance of city states, the empire (Rome) was about defending the common sovereignty extended to defrensible, practical limits."

    So why then invade iraq. Get out of afghanistan. Defensible, PRACTICAL limits. Talk about two wastes of time.
     
  10. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    You need to educate youself on history and geo-politics; not my job.

    [also you might educate yourself on how to do a proper quote of a post you are referencing]
     

Share This Page