Great reply.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -Declaration of Independence 1776

Most of it did make it into the Declaration of Independence, and much of it came from Locke's Two Treatises of Government.

The two should be read side by side. Indeed, the whole middle (grievances) section of the Declaration was an attempt to show the world that our situation at the time met Locke's tests and so gave us the right of revolution.

I agree. I take the good stuff, and ignore the bad. Maybe he just needed more education in the subject.

That "balanced environment" is what the Founders attempted to put in place with the Constitution, and it was almost immediately hobbled by the Twelfth Amendment. In the end, the only thing that can constrain one from using force is someone else saying "no". And that takes moral courage that few have.

Government starts out protecting people, but degenerates quickly into a tool used by the rich, powerful, and morally corrupt people to enslave the other people.

Truthfully, I don't any of us would survive, let alone thrive in the absence of government.

Presently? No, I can't think of one. There have been some in the past. Not perfect, but pretty good. England under Oliver Cromwell after the English civil war comes to mind. But the same pattern always prevails...some ambitious characters come along and want more power than they've got.

I am beginning to see a pattern here in Dean's posts. And I commiserate with many of the sentiments.

While I truly do not disagree with the statements that government is based upon force to carry out it's objectives, I would ask this question: Is it truly impossible for an organized society to control its chosen form of government to carry out a rational and agreed upon objective?

I understand Dean's points of objection that government is force. But I also understand and am in line with George Washington's observation that government is a force akin to fire that is an essential thing of great use, but if out of control is dangerous.

I think at this point that Dean is obliged to weigh in on this matter with a solution other than government that would define the best principles of human interaction.