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

Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 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


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thus from specific limits imposed to cage the beast, another unlimited monopoly of force is created.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure how you could have overlooked that last part ;-)

    The court has twisted and "found" rights and prohibitions that do not exist. The SCOTUS was never envisioned as being the Last word, only another power to balance against the other two. Marbry v Madison changed it all - biggest power shift in US history. Now, the SCOTUS can write any law they like (as above), make us buy anything they want (O'care), spy on us (Patriot Act) whenever they want without a warrant, etc., etc., etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You know, flanap, I'm sure, that the Israelites asked God to give them a king. I believe they were desirous of a government similar to that of the Canaanites, instead of the judges they had at the time. As I understand it, God warned them of what exactly to expect from a king, but in the end gave in to them. They had to find out for themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am tempted to wonder how the Supreme Court justifies this ruling, in so far as any determining factor for a Court ruling is that it must be fair and just for all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If actions speak stronger then words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property , without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.

    Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that refer to religion: the establishment clause2 and the free exercise clause3. Today much is said about the establishment clause but there is very little mention of the free exercise clause.

    At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation", is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God. The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."

    While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the "Separation of Church and State" which is not in the Constitution. Their faulty reasoning is that Praying Establishes a State Religion, but in fact, this is really Citizens Freely Practicing their Religious faith in God. The Government would be establishing a State Religion if it forced all the children to pray to a God of one type of Religion or Denomination that they did not believe in. However, Prayer in School was always voluntary and students were free not to be a part of school prayers. Ruling that students can not Pray in School violates the Constitution of the United States by interfering with the Free Practice of Religion. Thus the Supreme Court rulings on School Prayer and Bible Reading are illegal as they violate the Constitution. Thus when the Supreme Court forbids students from praying before a football game asking God to protect the players in the game, the Court is exercising the very tyranny of the minority that our Forefathers tried to stop. The Highest Court in the land has failed to Safe-Guard the Peoples Right to Worship without Government Interference.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by radical 10 years, 2 months ago
    Until 1957 there was no single document to promote the morality, as well as the practicality, of capitalism: Atlas
    Shrugged.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by jchristyatty 10 years, 2 months ago
    I always considered the only ligitimate purpose of government was the protection of individual rights....period.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 10 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I generally interpret that to mean that religion and government shall not act together to oppress the people. The exact wording, I believe, is something like this: Congress shall make no act respecting an establishment of religion. Establishment, of course, in its most abstract meaning, as a vehicle for pursuing one's duty to God.
    How you got to the SOLE interpretation that government shall not establish a state religion is beyond my powers of comprehension.
    But most emphatically, religion must NOT impose itself on government! Man has spent millenia attempting to deduce this one simple fact: religions allied with government is tyranny of the mind!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct.
    Paul had to stand on the Cointhian Church's proverbial necks in order to bring them past their carnality.
    That's what I mean by out-of-context.
    In the realm of the Spirit, it is the pure-of-heart who lead.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, that's totally backwards - today we have the most intellectual in the military, those that have some intellect are the laborers, and the intellectually barren are the politicians!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 10 years, 2 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 | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo