What Government REALLY Is

[LetThereBe]

Human rights exist regardless of whether they are recognized by the government; they are logical concepts that arise from group preservation, they are not mystical qualities granted by a god or gods. The government doesn't decide what rights a human being has. They can choose to recognize or not recognize those rights, however.

If they don't recognize those rights then "having them" is meaningless. What difference does it make if I "have" the right to free speech but can be arrested or executed for speaking openly about democracy? What difference does it make if I "have" the right to property, but am powerless to stop someone from seizing it?

[BlackSheep]

The government defines what rights it (and "we") have. You have certain rights in the US that people in China do not have. With amendments to the Constitution you would no longer have those rights.
If you are talking about some fundamental, God-given right... well those are meaningless unless they are respected.

Most of the time rights are violated by governments not by removing them, but by ignoring them.

[Senor Hoint]

If they don't recognize those rights then "having them" is meaningless.

Such a statement is only appropriate for someone who has no hope of improving the human condition.

[Cephus]

Government has no right to violate the rights of anyone, no matter how many people may want it to. Obviously governments can and do violate the rights of people all the time, but that doesn't mean they have the right to do so. People do things they have no right to do all the time, like murder and steal.

Rights derive solely from the people in any particular society. If the people decide that people have a right to murder and steal, then they do.

[seyorni]

I agree that government in the US was intended to be a citizen's mutual assistance assembly for the purpose of promoting "the general welfare," and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It has, however, been hijacked by special interests. The monied classes have convinced the masses that government is some sort of malevolent other; that we need leaders, and that letting our affairs be managed by corporations is a safer, cheaper, more open and reasonable alternative to meeting together to manage our own affairs.

[Senor Hoint]

Rights derive solely from the people in any particular society. If the people decide that people have a right to murder and steal, then they do.

If you don't want to be stolen from, you concede there is no right to steal. So, yes, if the people in a society decide they don't care if they get robbed, then you could argue the society would have a right to steal. But is that very realistic? No. No one wants to get stolen from. No one wants to be killed. This is more or less universal across all societies and all cultures...and if you don't want to be murdered, you must logically concede that there is no right to murder.

Whether governments recognize this logical principle is irrelevant to the fact that it exists.

[BlackSheep]

I agree that government in the US was intended to be a citizen's mutual assistance assembly for the purpose of promoting "the general welfare," and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It has, however, been hijacked by special interests. The monied classes have convinced the masses that government is some sort of malevolent other; that we need leaders, and that letting our affairs be managed by corporations is a safer, cheaper, more open and reasonable alternative to meeting together to manage our own affairs.

By special interests are you referring only to "monied classes"?

[Thanatos]

If you don't want to be stolen from, you concede there is no right to steal. So, yes, if the people in a society decide they don't care if they get robbed, then you could argue the society would have a right to steal. But is that very realistic? No. No one wants to get stolen from. No one wants to be killed. This is more or less universal across all societies and all cultures...and if you don't want to be murdered, you must logically concede that there is no right to murder.

Whether governments recognize this logical principle is irrelevant to the fact that it exists.

I've had anarcho-capitalists tell me they think police departments should be abolished because they can defend themselves. I heard it most directly from an angry young man who claimed to be majoring in everything related to guerrilla warfare so he could do better when things fell apart in the United States. He'd carve out his turf and everyone would treat him nice because he and his friends were so good and so well-armed. Like, he couldn't conceive that anyone could ever manage to hurt him.

Some people seem to be craving the adrenaline rush of a brutal, pointless, constant fight for survival. I tell them they should go to Somalia and they try to convince me it's an Earthly paradise with hardly any violence at all.

The point is, that's not really universal. Your concept of rights is only universal for peace-loving liberals who are aware of their own mortality and the futility of competition.

[Senor Hoint]

The point is, that's not really universal.

Its recognition is hardly universal. But the concepts are universal. They are a logical consequence of the nature of humanity's dependence on cooperation.

[GiveMeABreak]

Elements within the populace may freely disagree with this as a course of action, and advocate change. But that change needs to come at the hands of lawful, democratic processes. Convince your neighbor, your friends, your family that your position is correct. Don't try to tell me that government has no "right" to do whatever we want it do, because it does.

Oh I'm glad the Founding Fathers didn't think that way. After all what they did was illegal and there was not vote to revolt against England. A government can go too far and it is the right of the people to rise up and overthrow it then.

Therefore I would suggest that the government is more then just the people and what they want.

[Apeman81]

Government, in a civil society, is the agreement among the individuals that make up the collective to cede some of their rights in order to peaceably live together.

This occurs at the village/tribe/group level as well as the nation level. People establish rules to live by and punishments for breaking them.
The "government" can be a village elder, shaman, or a bureaucracy. In either case, the people give "the government" power over some of their freedoms.

Power corrupts. "the government" is no exception to this rule. Government seeks to gain a growing amount of control over the people. "The government", by its nature, seeks growth and influence. It does not matter if the intent is benevolent or not, this holds true.

"the people" is what allows or restrains the growth or government. The power is theirs to release or hold. Personally, i wish to limit "the government" to only those powers granted it by our constitution. No other power should be given it except through the amendment process.

What government REALLY is is control of a society.

"The government" is the body we allow to wield that control. That body must be itself controlled by the collective lest it grow to beyond our wishes.

[seyorni]

By special interests are you referring only to "monied classes"?

All classes have their special interests, but it's usually the monied classes that have the resources and influence to realise them.