Who Invited You, Government?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I think I'll start by declaring a short purpose of government, relatively vague, so we we can all agree on it: a system used to control a society by setting laws and principles upon the society.

Ok, the basic idea of government is to control the people; I mean, we're human and we screw up, so we need to control ourselves, it makes sense. It gives us security, diplomacy, and an efficient way to make decisions for our nation (not of late).

So we need government to tell us when we've committed murder and when we can recieve marriage benefits; however, the real question is what do we need government to control in our lives? Do we need government to tell us when we're married? No, that's up to us, since there is no control involved and one couple's marriage does not impact another couple. What about abortion? Again, this has nothing to do with control of the people, and since it's impossible to determine when life begins, we cannot make a law on abortions, and the government should have no say, therefore allowing people to do as they wish.

I guess the bottom line is that government is supposed to make laws to secure ourselves, not to adhere to a specific group's complaints. If we cannot agree, even as a majority, what constitutes as life or what constitutes as a marriage, then we cannot make laws on it, therefore allowing the people to do as they wish, without government interaction.

The government controls us in that it protects us, it should not be controlling our ideals, that is the job of the constitution.

[SteveA]

I agree with your basic view.

Another way of looking at government is similar to any other service people might desire, like a telephone, security, car repair etc.

The primary difference these other services and government, is that we don't tolerate force being used by these other services. We grant government a unique priveledge in using force, simply because we expect government to deal with people who don't restrain themselves to working peacefully with others.

I think government should be limited to providing those services it was designed to deal with - forceful deterance of violent/non-peaceful interactions between people. If we had to start over and find some form of government people would be willing to invest themselves in, would it likely include things like Social Security, where your resources are taken and saved by government for you? Whether or not one person desires to have government save money for them doesn't seem to give that person any right to speak for someone else in this. I agree marriage is similar. Government should only be deterring criminal actions, not rewriting marriage agreements between people or telling people who they can or can't marry.

Consider if we found some isolated people in the U.S. that grew up in such remote circumstances that they knew virtually nothing about the U.S. government. It would seem to me that any laws implying they should be all hauled off to prison for things like not paying property taxes, or not "contributing" to Medicare etc. would seem bogus, IMO.

I know it's wishful thinking but I'd love to see a serious overhaul of (at least the federal) government and get it back to the basics. It would do a lot of good to rehtink the intent of the whole thing and see if there isn't something that more people could be supportive of. I believe a system that simply protected people, when they desired help, instead of ruling over them would be much better.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: SteveA I agree with your basic view. Another way of looking at government is similar to any other service people might desire, like a telephone, security, car repair etc. The primary difference these other services and government, is that we don't tolerate force being used by these other services. We grant government a unique priveledge in using force, simply because we expect government to deal with people who don't restrain themselves to working peacefully with others. I think government should be limited to providing those services it was designed to deal with - forceful deterance of violent/non-peaceful interactions between people. If we had to start over and find some form of government people would be willing to invest themselves in, would it likely include things like Social Security, where your resources are taken and saved by government for you? Whether or not one person desires to have government save money for them doesn't seem to give that person any right to speak for someone else in this. I agree marriage is similar. Government should only be deterring criminal actions, not rewriting marriage agreements between people or telling people who they can or can't marry. Consider if we found some isolated people in the U.S. that grew up in such remote circumstances that they knew virtually nothing about the U.S. government. It would seem to me that any laws implying they should be all hauled off to prison for things like not paying property taxes, or not "contributing" to Medicare etc. would seem bogus, IMO. I know it's wishful thinking but I'd love to see a serious overhaul of (at least the federal) government and get it back to the basics. It would do a lot of good to rehtink the intent of the whole thing and see if there isn't something that more people could be supportive of. I believe a system that simply protected people, when they desired help, instead of ruling over them would be much better.

Take a look at your points in this post:

• forceful deterance of violent/non-peaceful interactions between people - this almost makes sense - however; it would require more reliance on the government funded Dial-A-Prayer better known as 911.
  It also opens the door to taking away the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.
• Whether or not one person desires to have government save money for them doesn't seem to give that person any right to speak for someone else in this. - WHEN has government EVER SAVED?
  If they were doing what they were supposed to have done - we would not have a Medicare and Social Security crisis!
  Baby Boomers would have had those accounts nicely filled up!
• doesn't seem to give that person any right to speak for someone else in this. I agree marriage is similar. - This type of comment tends to refer to GAY RIGHTS - where are the rights for those who see those rights as being something kids do NOT need to be taught? It is all about SCREW MY RIGHTS to raise my children with focus and goals that are not tarnished with lewd acceptance to behavior that is being publicly pranced in open society.
• I'd love to see a serious overhaul of (at least the federal) government - YES! I agree 100%!

Three things that need to be done (in my opinion):

1. We need to STOP Lobbyists from supporting politician advertising that lies to Americans who vote for them - WE vote for politicians to represent us not the lobbyists.
2. Then there is the Amendment Game in the Senate and Congress that tack on special interest actions to get these otherwise useful bills past.
3. I do think the government needs to create some sort of a regulation like advertisers have (truth in advertising) for themselves and the News Media.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Slanted Facts Politically Regulated Freedom is Political Control it is NOT FREEDOM! Lobbyists fund political advertising to get you to hire their chosen puppet act. Which puppet act is at your party?

That is a pretty nice signature you have there.


A rather unique way of articulating a question that needs to be addressed much more often then it is. (Particularly in the public forum.)


I'm giving it two thumbs up. (Three if I had them.)

[SteveA]

forceful deterance of violent/non-peaceful interactions between people - this almost makes sense - however; it would require more reliance on the government funded Dial-A-Prayer better known as 911. It also opens the door to taking away the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.

I don't see this as being true. Bearing arms in itself isn't violent or non-peaceful. If someone were to raid someone else and take these arms, that attempt at disarmament in itself would be ab aggressive act.

Also, I did state that force can be tolerated in deterance of violence or other non-peaceful interactions between people (for example, theft). That implies people would have an ability to use force, which could easily be seen as including 2nd Amendment rights.

I see it as primarily an issue of deterring initiations of aggression. Two people could be carrying rifles and there's nothing wrong with that unless one person decides to take a shot at the other.

Whether or not one person desires to have government save money for them doesn't seem to give that person any right to speak for someone else in this. - WHEN has government EVER SAVED? If they were doing what they were supposed to have done - we would not have a Medicare and Social Security crisis! Baby Boomers would have had those accounts nicely filled up!

True, the money isn't even saved, and government representatives have even said as much. The money is taken and spent and they simply take more or print up more as desired. People running a private bank like that would end up in prison.

doesn't seem to give that person any right to speak for someone else in this. I agree marriage is similar. - This type of comment tends to refer to GAY RIGHTS - where are the rights for those who see those rights as being something kids do NOT need to be taught? It is all about SCREW MY RIGHTS to raise my children with focus and goals that are not tarnished with lewd acceptance to behavior that is being publicly pranced in open society.

You're making assumptions I never stated. What we currently have is a STRAIGHT legal priveledge situation. A 60 year old man and woman could get married with legal benefits, yet a 60 year old male/male "couple" would be denied this.

Don't misunderstand me. I know exactly what marriage is about, and it happens to be 90% or more NOT be about legal priveledges. Legal marriage isn't the same thing as a private marriage. Government shouldn't be in the business of marriage from how I see things. You could remove legal marriage and still be able to deal with legal issues around private marriages without the extra fluff.

The problem is that people are pushing for gay couples to have the same legal benefits that straight couples have. The mistake is that neither should have any special legal benefits simply for filing a piece of paper. The laws should simply regard individual issues that might need to be addressed (for example - what commitment has each parent made toward supporting their children, what premarital arrangements were made that might need to be enforced, or does the citizenship status of someone need to be modified in recognition of a personal relationship?)

Marriage should be a private/social/religious institution and not something with a definition and legal requirements imposed by legislators. If t would be easy enough for people who wanted to have something relatively standardized for a marriage contract sign something like a rental agreement for an apartment. The terms would be relatively straightforward and shouldn't be up to legislative whim and volumes of family law books to define.

I'd love to see a serious overhaul of (at least the federal) government - YES! I agree 100%! Three things that need to be done (in my opinion): We need to STOP Lobbyists from supporting politician advertising that lies to Americans who vote for them - WE vote for politicians to represent us not the lobbyists. Then there is the Amendment Game in the Senate and Congress that tack on special interest actions to get these otherwise useful bills past. I do think the government needs to create some sort of a regulation like advertisers have (truth in advertising) for themselves and the News Media.

Sounds like some good ideas. Simply finding a way to actually get the federal government to truly amend the constitution (which includes getting the approval of state legislators) before assuming it has new powers would be a great thing as well. It requires a very large majority of governmental bodies, including state legislators to add new powers to the federal government, yet it continues to grow despite having never amended the constitution in longer than I can remember.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Milton Bradley That is a pretty nice signature you have there. A rather unique way of articulating a question that needs to be addressed much more often then it is. (Particularly in the public forum.) I'm giving it two thumbs up. (Three if I had them.)

Thank you!

There are too many things in politics that need questioning - and my hide is thick enough to present as many as I can!