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

[Pursuitoftruth]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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




IRS loophole costing taxpayers billions | Video | Fox News

 

[The Infidel]

borders - language - culture

 

[Pursuitoftruth]

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


It's more a theoretical question than one about our current government. It's about what should be, not what is.

 

[Pursuitoftruth]

Willowtree- Even if this is true, how does that make my question moot?
Infidel- Can you explain?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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




IRS loophole costing taxpayers billions | Video | Fox News

I thought it was more like robbed blind.

 

[American Horse]

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.

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.

 

[initforme]

"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.

 

[American Horse]

"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.

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]

 

[initforme]

"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] "

I did. Thats why I stand by my statement....read it closely....WASTE OF TIME.