Follow up - What is the single purpose of government...

Posted by edweaver 9 years, 7 months ago to Politics
123 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The single word for the purpose of government turned into a fun discussion with many ideas and good thoughts. Thanks to all who participated. I decided to re-post in hopes that it would make it easier for all to see where I was going. It is my hope that I am not breaking a gulch rule.

I believe you can apply the word “control” to everything that government deals with at every level of government known to man. Government is not necessary to make things move because that will happen without force. I’m not advocating for more control and IMHO we have been run over with control. I’m just saying that there is no need for government except for the purpose of control.

That being said, I believe this country became so incredibly prosperous because our founder limited our governments control over the people. Unfortunately since our founding, government does what it is naturally inclined to do. It grows and consumes power.

Would love to hear more thoughts & comments


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 7 months ago
    "Control" - yep, that was my guess. Although I voted for "Supercalifragilisticexpealidoceous" because it is also something that makes little sense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      That got my vote too! :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 7 months ago
        I voted for the word "Order". While some "control" is required to maintain order, please remember the question was , "What is the purpose...", not how is Government used. Purpose is very different.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 7 months ago
          I also said "control," and I think the key is to ask, Who starts a government? Whose idea was it? Who benefits from continuing it?

          I don't believe the concept originated from the bottom up, with the common people saying, "We really need someone to rule over us, and tell us what to do even to the point of demanding our life, and take as much of our money and property as they want." I think government had to start with a group of malevolent looters, who thought of a method and excuse to gain and maintain power over others. And their purpose in creating government was to have control of the masses. That's my opinion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
            Your question "Who starts a government?" can best be looked at in terms of anthropology. Beginning with the clan, then the tribe, and on up the ladder, as man became more willing to live in larger groups, there was always a need as well as a desire to have certain people, the wiser men, dispense justice and provide leadership for the protection of their people. In the hunter-gatherers, this was usually the patriarch, the "father" of the family.
            That should be a starter for thinking about government.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 7 months ago
              Yes, I was envisioning how leadership arose and functioned in early societies. But I think the key difference between those early arrangements and what we have today is that they started out voluntary. At some point, the rulers decided they would rule and *control* those under them with no consent needed beyond what is assumed and nominal. I think the roots of government were voluntary associations, but became something much different over time, serving the purpose of a few to control the rest of us.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 9 years, 7 months ago
                Often persuasion is enough. What constitutes credible threat? Think potential whistleblowers watching the Snowden case carefully. Think a speech given by a "leader" where possible future actions may significantly affect you if you do not take action a certain way. Bond issues are not voted in and local governments reduce fire and police forces first, shut down garbage collection, street lights. All are highly visible acts to persuade you to re-consider your actions. people accept more government following periods of chaos. Often the governing body is responsible for the chaos in the first place. They persuade you to not cooperate, but compete against other groups for your property rights. Eventually, groups break into small enough groups that they feel impotent, weak. IT's easy to tell them what to do now.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 7 months ago
                  Yes, I think those are all good examples of people in government using their positions of power to control the people they allegedly serve, in order to increase their budgets and power, and have even greater control.

                  "Divide and conquer" is one of their favorite techniques for controlling the masses, along with providing them "bread and circuses." And once they have control, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want; control basically equals ownership.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
    I thought you would say control, but government's proper responsibility is to defend the individual liberties of its citizens. No one will ever CONTROL me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      I agree, I don't want to be controlled. That is why I am not even close to satisfied with our current government. My analogy is that in order to protect my individual liberties I give my government permission to control others who would if given the opportunity, take away my liberty. Unfortunately when government control becomes abusive so goes our liberty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
        ed; But that's the problem with government. Once you give the government permission to control others, they will then come up with excuses to control you in the name of prevention of some safety or danger, but nonetheless intended to control you.

        When the individual gives up the right to defend and prevent, it's all over. Rather, the government's only role is to retaliate when rights have been violated such that the individual can't adequately stop the violation or in attacks against the country.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
          Unfortunately the minute a government is established so is the right to control. IMHO that is the sole reason governments never last more than a few hundred years without major turmoil. See what's coming??
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
            Even though that's not the intent? Our founders gave the 2nd Amendment and the rule against a standing army for the reason of maintaining the right of defense and prevention at the individual level. Where and when did we give that up or was it taken from us and has that led to the position we're in today in which the entire concept of the 2nd is threatened?

            Yes I see what's coming, but would it have actually led to this point had the individual responsibility of the 2nd been enforced in some manner?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
              Please clarify what you mean by, "even though that's not the intent"? What is that's?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
                "that's" is a government of control.

                In the case of the US, the founders expressed intent for government was to protect individuals natural rights which included the rights of individual self defense. The government was to enforce those rights and laws were retributive in nature, not preventive other than fear of retribution.

                The 10 Amendments (whittled down from a starting list of 100 (?)) added were the only prevention outlined and were directed against the government and were assuredly intended to not let the government have control over the citizen.

                I just don't see control as a purpose of the Declaration or the Constitution. The rights of control were recognized as unalienable to the individual as their natural right.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
                  I think you will get where I am coming from if you review all the comments I have placed in this discussion but I will just ask, how does the government do the things you are saying.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
                    Through the application of retributive force through police forces on filing of charges or citizen complaint and then through the courts upon demonstration of probable cause, i.e. that person attempted to or did cause my person harm and/or that person attempted or did cause damage or loss of my property and there exists sufficient proof to likely find that person guilty of such for a criminal charge, or the complaint is sufficient if correct that the plaintiff is likely to or could prevail for a civil suit.

                    The elements of criminal charges for crime against persons and property, and for suit for damages against persons and property have long been established and were well and commonly understood at the time of the founding.

                    I know 'where you are coming from' and I reject that as the legitimate purpose of government which is why I didn't contribute to your 1st post on this topic.

                    I will recognize that a very predictable and almost natural proclivity of those that seek or even find themselves in what they consider as esteemed positions of what they perceive as power will immediately and continually attempt and work to increase to the level of control, and then more control, but I consider that result to be a non-legitimate purpose of government.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
                      I still don't understand what you are get at. And I am not really just talking about American government. It is the purpose of government I general. And I contend that there is only a need for government when some constrain needs to be applied. Constrain or control, same thing to me.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
                        Ed; I kind of think that we're approaching your question from two entirely different perspectives. For myself, I approach the institution of government from that of the individual (an Objectivist individual with unalienable natural rights) and it seems that you're approaching it from that of the governance, either desired by a community of non-objectivist or by some that wish to govern.

                        I need to chew on this a little bit and I'll try to get back to you sometime later tomorrow.

                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
                          I think you may be right but this helps me to see what angle you are looking at this from. I think you are looking at this like I would if it was about how I want government to run personally.

                          I will try this for an explanation. See if this makes more sense and if not we can keep discussing. I don't think personally we are very different because I believe in our unalienable natural rights too.

                          When I am talking about control, I am not talking about controlling an individual like our government is doing now. What I am saying is the only purpose for a government to be instituted is to exert control over specific things. For example, I expect the government to protect my unalienable natural rights, all of them. This means that I am giving them my permission to exert control over the forces that my try to take those rights away. If there were no one that would try to take those rights away, there would be no need to have government to exert that force or control. Therefore governments purpose is control not of the individual, which I despise but of the force that would take away my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
                          I hope this helps you see my analogy of this subject. If not I certainly welcome more discussion because I personally feel this is a worthy conversation.

                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 7 months ago
    "Breaking a Gulch rule". We have rules? I tried hard to come up with one word Ed but I kept trying to think of something positive. Control fits and I wish it didn't.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Bobhummel 9 years, 7 months ago
      Concur RR. I have the desire to look for the original intention of the founding of this nation. The individual as the sovereign. The sole purpose of the government was to protect the rights of the citizen.
      In today's government it is all about control. Sad but true.
      Cheers
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      Control in government is not a negative nor a problem until government oversteps. If government only used control to protect individual rights which includes the right to all property there would be no problem with control. We are a long was from that control in America. It is no wonder we are going to pieces.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 9 years, 7 months ago
    Thanks for the opportunity to respond and explain.

    The proper purpose of government is "serve". The reality that results, unless you plan very carefully, is "control".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
    Gulchers, I don't understand the use of the word "control" here. Whenever I hear that word, I get my dander up!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      What part do you not understand?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
        Control and its relation to government. (I'm taking you seriously)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
          I did not mean to insinuate that you were not taking me seriously so if I did I apologize. I was wanting to understand exactly what you were thinking so that I knew how to respond. I am going to reply the same as I did above in a reply to Zenphamy in hope that what I am trying co convey make more sense. In no way I am saying that government control is a good thing. I am simply saying when they touch anything, they are adding a level of control. To me that is the reason government needs to be very limited because too much control is stifling. Below is my comment from above.

          I will try this for an explanation. See if this makes more sense and if not we can keep discussing. I don't think personally we are very different because I believe in our unalienable natural rights too.

          When I am talking about control, I am not talking about controlling an individual like our government is doing now. What I am saying is the only purpose for a government to be instituted is to exert control over specific things. For example, I expect the government to protect my unalienable natural rights, all of them. This means that I am giving them my permission to exert control over the forces that my try to take those rights away. If there were no one that would try to take those rights away, there would be no need to have government to exert that force or control. Therefore governments purpose is control not of the individual, which I despise but of the force that would take away my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
          I hope this helps you see my analogy of this subject. If not I certainly welcome more discussion because I personally feel this is a worthy conversation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
            Yes, we probably are very much the same. Just I would not use the word or concept of "control" as it pertains to governent. I also distinguish between statesmanship and governance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
            Perhaps we should start a new thread on the role of government, not a one word polemic on its purpose...
            I'm trying to start a thread, as we speak, on private property and human nature, in philosophy. What do you think?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by radical 9 years, 7 months ago
    Until 1957 there was no single document to promote the morality, as well as the practicality, of capitalism: Atlas
    Shrugged.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      Funny thing is I think capitalism took care of itself until government started meddling in it. Atlas simply pointed out where we were headed. Oh how correct Ayn was.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 7 months ago
        Which came first government meddling in business or uncompetitive business using government to meddle in business?
        (Rhetorical question;^)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
          Good question! I suspect it was a government official finding a way to make money by force. Then people lobbying government to include them into that action. But I have nothing to back that up.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
          When market regulations aren't working, that is, when market forces are not able to provide fair, just and fair market values, then possible some gov't administration may be able to compensate. Keep in mind, that isn't necessarily the "central government". Our founders made sure, relying on Montesquieu's theory that the small extent of government diminishes the weight of sovereignty, that local and state governments can provide remedies as well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dougblack 9 years, 7 months ago
    Without a stable government providing "protection" for its citizens nothing else is possible. Just look at the current events in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan to name a few.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by malonejr 9 years, 7 months ago
    Responsibility:
    I enjoy certain privileges of western civilization, or the many are: an uncorrupt police force, modern fire prevention, and a transparent method of management. These are things, that if I had to perform them, would be performed in a method to provide the best available product for trade or exchange....this is one reason we have 'government'...to administrate these services for us in exchange for a fee called a tax.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      For the government to be responsible for something they must be in control of it. And while currently the government is responsible for the things you have listed, I would contend that private business could do many of them and do it better and for less cost. Have you had a fire lately? In our area, the volunteer fire departments are charging large sums of money when you have a fire and local governments are paying annually to contract for the fire service. They are becoming a monopoly just like government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lolaroja 9 years, 7 months ago
    folks, you are straying far from the goal of these posts: we were asked for a single word for the purpose of government... what part of single word don't people get?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
      Words are nothing without the meaning behind them. And there is nothing that says the poster has to be right. ;)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
        And with that you are correct. This poster was simply trying to start a dialog and get people to think about something that has been on my mind for some time. I get to see others ideas to see if I have missed something. There has been so many comments that I cannot keep up to them all which is awesome. But I do still think there is but one purpose for government and it is not to keep things moving. We see how that works out. LOL
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 7 months ago
    It would be difficult to wrap into a single word, but at a minimum government needs to provide for the common defense of its constituents, provide a form of criminal and civil justice, and establish a common currency for the economy, or you are forever stuck in a barter system.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
    I wanted to also point out, in the context of mankind's continuing intellectual and spiritual evolution, as it revolves around justice, that the Anglo Saxon Chronicles stipulates a "wehrgelt" (I believe that is how it is spelled), a fine on someone who injures another: the monetary amount depending on the extent of the injury. The pragmatic part of this rule or law, was to prevent the extensive blood feuds that would otherwise take place, with the added effect that yound men would be saved for the protection of the realm.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 9 years, 7 months ago
      "protection of the realm"
      This reminds me of "Game of Thrones" where many of the characters do what ever is necessary for the greater good of the realm.
      None have the Objectivist virtues, although Daenerys Targaryen is close, except she wants to rule the realm.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
        Hmmm... only my comment was about events actually taking place about 7 or 800 years ago.
        Well, I am wondering, have things not changed?
        Anyway, I thought "defense of the realm" was a pretty good objective of government!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
      Speaking of the protection of the realm, at one point in Scottish history, about 1300 or 1400, the king outlawed all golf playing, saying the young men must spend their time practising archery, in order to defend the realm!
      Would that the Prez could understand this as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 9 years, 7 months ago
    Control is a misconception of Government as a Demagogue is to Democracy, a Tyran to Monarchy and an Oligarchy to Aristocracy. Government is not all bad and much needed for many things, Anarchy isn´t all about "destruction" either. We´ve got to learn to be careful with interpretations and bad examples, they´re not "all there" and "all true". I believe that a "Righteaus Government" is possible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      I agree that a righteous government is possible and think our founders set up a pretty good one that has gotten out of control because they are exerting too much "control". :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by illucio 9 years, 7 months ago
        Righteous, thanx for the spell check. True, government is unavoidable. Anarchy is utopic, there shall always be leaders and peons in any organization. Even Nature has it´s system of government, take the food chain for instance. Wolves, Lions and Dolphins, Blue Sharks and Whales organize and dominate their domains. They predate and protect, as in a human unit (such as family, residence or neighborhood, school or office).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
    Throughout history the most powerful gathered the productive people around them and offered protection in exchange for products and wealth. It became what we call taxation. This is what gave control to what was to become the "nobility." Power backed up the control and inspired loyalty. The American Experiment was the first time that the power of control was put into the hands of persons by the consent of the people. Almost overnight, the country became the freest most powerful in the world. But instead of learning the lesson from such a clear and obvious example, humanity is once again sliding into the rule by power without consent. If it keeps up, be prepared for a return of the Dark Ages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
      Perhaps we are learning in what area's America's form of democracy has failed. Jefferson cautioned that he foresaw that the executive branch could one day overshadow or overwhelm the other branches--simply because too much power would accrue to that branch in times of war or emergencies.
      Franklin, of course, warned a female friend, when she asked exactly what king of government our constitution had founded: A republic, madam, if you can keep it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
        The problem, it seems to me is not the idea of a Republic but the ethics of the persons running it. Our educations and attitudes (present company excluded) have devolved into what can be illustrated by "It's true because I said so." Even if we can kick out the present regime, if the people in power don't understand the meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nothing in the long run will change.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
          Talking about words, for the Obamaites, words are the reality. If they say it, and someone believes it, then it must be true.
          As for me, I've always claimed, words are not the reality, the map is not the territory, and the information is not the thing. And, of course, subjective experience is not objective reality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
            Never was "actions speak louder than words" more true. I have a friend originally from Russia who with his accent puts it quite to the point. He says, "Don't say -- do!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 7 months ago
    The US was the nation that it was because there was a culture and ethos of liberty, property rights, and justice. Those things have been subverted over time such that the current culture and ethos is one of oppression, wealth distribution (instead of wealth creation), and social justice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 7 months ago
    Let us consider this: Is the object we seek government itself; or is government the means by which we can acquire the "object".
    One criterion of the "object" might be Jefferson's plaintive, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly, it is not government's purpose to ensure your happiness, only your pursuit of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 7 months ago
    Control doesn't seem like a principled purpose to me -- it sounds more like a function or action. "Control what?" Would be the next question I'd like you to clarify about a government's proper role. Although I assumed you meant proper role. If you really meant purpose then it depends on the type of men running it. An institution as such doesn't create its own purpose -- human beings do. And many people have different purposes in mind when they run a government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      The word purpose is my translation for "why do we have a government". There may be many functions of government. Protecting personal property rights being on one them. If we did not need that protection there would be no need for government therefore the only purpose of government it to establish a control that an individual cannot establish. From my perspective this applies to everything government does or we would just handle it individually. The reason we are having so many problems is because the government has taken control of some much more than is required or necessary. Hope that helps clarify my position.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Fish 9 years, 7 months ago
    The question was what the purpose of government is. I chose "enforcement" as the single word.

    The problem comes when the laws that the government can enforce reduce our liberties and freedom to unacceptable levels. We are discussing right now in my country a law that will reduce the freedom of most parents to choose the school for their children (it is not US). And this is among other reforms equally against liberty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 7 months ago
    Control, or the "security" of rights, is the real purpose of government.

    What do we wish to control?

    The use of force in retaliation against those who initiated its use. And the occasional application of force to make whole someone who has lost something through breach of contract, or fraud.

    Rand held that control of force-in-retaliation was preferable either to:

    1. An escalation of retaliation with no control, or

    2. Total forbearance from retaliation.

    The former alternative would lead first to long-standing violent feuds, and then to a free-for-all, total warfare of all against all. But the latter would let malefactors steal, rob, assail, or kill with impunity.

    And either alternative would make a nation-state vulnerable to outside invasion--the former through disunity, the latter through failure to resist.

    The Gulch succeeds in AS, only because membership in it is by invitation only. Everyone is on the same page. Thus a Committee of Safety, and a retired judge who offers his services as an arbiter, suffice to make the society both safe and just.

    By the way: the "Gulch rule" the original poster mentioned is probably the custom of never giving anything away free. John Galt mentions this to Dagny by way of explaining why he will rent Midas Mulligan's automobile for twenty-five gold-standard cents a day.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo