The primary role of government?

budlover13

King Tut
How about neglect of children? Oh not so much that social services need to step in but just enough so the children don't get the attention from their pot smoking parents that they really need.
Some animals are cared for better than others. i personally think that kids today get TOO much attention.

Not saying there won't be kids that want to spend time with their parents who won't get to. Just saying that it is not my, or anyone else's, place to say how much "attention" your child needs. And in turn, the same applies to my child and i.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Still talking about what I presume is the United States Federal government as a monolithic "they". In fact, even today, "they" is us. In the very recent past a realtively small group of people got together and peacefully rebelled against what they considered a "they" government. Those Tea Party folk managed in a very few years to alter the makeup and attitude of our government to more closely align with their beliefs. Now I don't agree with most of what they want, I don't even think that their actions were totally without influence from other forces but the example is plain.

We can alter the direction our government heads and if that is so, then flawed as "they" are, we are still in charge.

Oh, and I seriously doubt that unless you have horrific problems with your taxes that you will ever pay 50 percent income tax. Your taxes have not gone up for some time now and it is likely that they will not for some time to come.
I am not part of "They". "They" have the highest prison population in the world. "They" have the biggest military backed empire in the world and hold the gun over anyone that doesn't like it. "They" arrest nearly a million people a year over a plant. "We" are not in charge of anything, when "we" don't even own ourselves, our labor or our homes.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Which means?
Government figureatively and literally "holds the gun" . In nearly every interaction people have with them, there is a "must do" and an "or else" involved. What happens if a person disobeys them? Out comes the gun....right?
 

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
Government figureatively and literally "holds the gun" . In nearly every interaction people have with them, there is a "must do" and an "or else" involved. What happens if a person disobeys them? Out comes the gun....right?
Oppression by force.
 

unohu69

Well-Known Member
fight your ADD for a few min huh....
Those that dont get it are exactly the ones its talking about...

[video=youtube;_5mZ5FBHg0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A[/video]
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Government figureatively and literally "holds the gun" . In nearly every interaction people have with them, there is a "must do" and an "or else" involved. What happens if a person disobeys them? Out comes the gun....right?

Seems a bit paranoid. I don't recall government ever pointing a gun to my head and demanding I do anything at all. Even selective service didn't point a gun at me and tell me to take up arms for my country. I have indeed been threatened with due process, but that in no way involves a fire arm.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
fight your ADD for a few min huh....
Those that dont get it are exactly the ones its talking about...

[video=youtube;_5mZ5FBHg0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A[/video]

Definitions. There is far too much to start refuting but this is based upon a set of defintitions. Eliminate drug laws and prostitution laws and this entire argument collapses.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Seems a bit paranoid. I don't recall government ever pointing a gun to my head and demanding I do anything at all. Even selective service didn't point a gun at me and tell me to take up arms for my country. I have indeed been threatened with due process, but that in no way involves a fire arm.

Okay let's follow this road to the end rather than stopping at the beginning.... For example, a peaceful person thinks they own themself, their property or the fruit of their labor, the situation and the resultant use of force applies in many instances.... In any of these scenarios, the continued insistence to be left alone results in what ?

Sometimes the gun is apparent and used right off the bat, other times they play games and send threatening letters etc, but the final stop is ALWAYS the gun for failing to submit.

The eventuality of the gun is NOT in question, it is only a matter of WHEN.

ONLY thru submission is their gun holstered, ONLY thru paying money or obeying what are often illogical and unconscionable laws can one AVOID the gun.

Your attempt at dismissing my statement as "paranoia" is irrelevant. Even if a person IS paranoid, they can be correct when applying observable logic can't they?

I will however submit you are in DENIAL, that the gun exists.

As far as a literal "gun" yes that does exist, but you have my permission to extrapolate the meaning in the post of the "gun" as the use of force, theft of property or incarceration et al.

The fact that there IS a selective service is another example of the government gun....yet you persist in thinking that what happens, because it is frequent and regular, (normal) that it is somehow acceptable and moral.

As far as taking up arms for your country, just because you aren't literally pulling the trigger, you ARE buying the bullets now aren't you?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Okay let's follow this road to the end rather than stopping at the beginning.... For example, a peaceful person thinks they own themself, their property or the fruit of their labor, the situation and the resultant use of force applies in many instances.... In any of these scenarios, the continued insistence to be left alone results in what ?

Sometimes the gun is apparent and used right off the bat, other times they play games and send threatening letters etc, but the final stop is ALWAYS the gun for failing to submit.

The eventuality of the gun is NOT in question, it is only a matter of WHEN.

ONLY thru submission is their gun holstered, ONLY thru paying money or obeying what are often illogical and unconscionable laws can one AVOID the gun.

Your attempt at dismissing my statement as "paranoia" is irrelevant. Even if a person IS paranoid, they can be correct when applying observable logic can't they?

I will however submit you are in DENIAL, that the gun exists.

As far as a literal "gun" yes that does exist, but you have my permission to extrapolate the meaning in the post of the "gun" as the use of force, theft of property or incarceration et al.

The fact that there IS a selective service is another example of the government gun....yet you persist in thinking that what happens, because it is frequent and regular, (normal) that it is somehow acceptable and moral.

As far as taking up arms for your country, just because you aren't literally pulling the trigger, you ARE buying the bullets now aren't you?


Your logic is that anyone who contributes in any way to anything that you may label as "force" is unacceptable. The flaw is that your interpreation of "force" is all encompassing.

Now, you may or may not have read that I did not pay this "gun weilding government" $40,000 before penalties and interest. No gun was pointed at my head, no hint of force whatsoever. Letters do not necessarily imply eventual force. My story is anecdotal I admit but it is an example of the sort of situation you claim always exists. You are talking directly about me here.

If you somehow managed not to make use of any portion of that which is provided to you by government then I could agree that somewhere along the line there was some theft but I rather doubt you can manage without any government at all.

Now in essence you and I agree but you seem to believe that I am the one in denial. All I ever see in your anti-government posts is how absolutely tyrannical the government is. I don't believe I have seen you point to the other, far more incidious, far more dangerous tyranny and I wonder who is really in denial.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Your logic is that anyone who contributes in any way to anything that you may label as "force" is unacceptable. The flaw is that your interpreation of "force" is all encompassing.

Now, you may or may not have read that I did not pay this "gun weilding government" $40,000 before penalties and interest. No gun was pointed at my head, no hint of force whatsoever. Letters do not necessarily imply eventual force. My story is anecdotal I admit but it is an example of the sort of situation you claim always exists. You are talking directly about me here.

If you somehow managed not to make use of any portion of that which is provided to you by government then I could agree that somewhere along the line there was some theft but I rather doubt you can manage without any government at all.

Now in essence you and I agree but you seem to believe that I am the one in denial. All I ever see in your anti-government posts is how absolutely tyrannical the government is. I don't believe I have seen you point to the other, far more incidious, far more dangerous tyranny and I wonder who is really in denial.
I've never advocated not paying for things a person uses and consensually contracts for. I am happy to pay for roads until a more equitable system is enacted. I am not happy to pay for bombs to be used against children, drug dogs to be used against my friends, empire building, or to be forced to pay for a school system that I have no use for etc. I volunteer to help people and believe charity is a good thing. Lots of people think charity means having somebody else do it or having somebody steal from one party and give it to another, I DON'T agree with that.

My interpretation of force ? Please check out the - Non initation of aggression principle. You could easily google this and find it.

I am a person that believes ALL initiation of force is morally wrong and that voluntary interactions are the best way. Conversely people are responsiblefor their actions and should be held accountable. I am not a pacifist, defensive force is acceptable and sometimes necessary.

I am not in denial. I am in acceptance that I and I alone OWN myself. You and YOU aolne own yourself. Policies that counter that are wrong, I won't abide by them.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I've never advocated not paying for things a person uses and consensually contracts for. I am happy to pay for roads until a more equitable system is enacted. I am not happy to pay for bombs to be used against children, drug dogs to be used against my friends, empire building, or to be forced to pay for a school system that I have no use for etc. I volunteer to help people and believe charity is a good thing. Lots of people think charity means having somebody else do it or having somebody steal from one party and give it to another, I DON'T agree with that.

My interpretation of force ? Please check out the - Non initation of aggression principle. You could easily google this and find it.

I am a person that believes ALL initiation of force is morally wrong and that voluntary interactions are the best way. Conversely people are responsiblefor their actions and should be held accountable. I am not a pacifist, defensive force is acceptable and sometimes necessary.

I am not in denial. I am in acceptance that I and I alone OWN myself. You and YOU aolne own yourself. Policies that counter that are wrong, I won't abide by them.
How do you personaly and consensually contract for the services of your government? how do you divide what you believe you do owe from what you believe you do not? Support for a society is broad based. As I have said, no one takes from you and gives to another, they take from you in order to promote order in a society. I really can't imagine your receiving an e-mail that askes your permission to use public funds in each instance "we found a child who's mother was a junky and overdosed, may we use some of your funds in order to house and feed the child?"

So far as your not being in denial, as I said, you have yet to mention the other tyranny and so long as you do not I submit that you are indeed in denial.

finally, I see that you do not ascribe to the concept of community. I know many who do not and almost to a person, they fail to comprehend that the individual is a portion of the whole, the whole being the group. Biologicaly we are pack animals, we do not do well on our own, we rely upon each other and have since the beginning of our time as homosapiens.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
I think the original intent of the government was to protect my rights and my property. In essence it was designed to protect me from you.

What it has evolved into is protecting me from myself. I'm fine without that, how do I make it stop?
This was nicely put. I'd add it's important in preventing monopoly formation as well IMO.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
How do you personaly and consensually contract for the services of your government? how do you divide what you believe you do owe from what you believe you do not? Support for a society is broad based. As I have said, no one takes from you and gives to another, they take from you in order to promote order in a society. I really can't imagine your receiving an e-mail that askes your permission to use public funds in each instance "we found a child who's mother was a junky and overdosed, may we use some of your funds in order to house and feed the child?"

So far as your not being in denial, as I said, you have yet to mention the other tyranny and so long as you do not I submit that you are indeed in denial.

finally, I see that you do not ascribe to the concept of community. I know many who do not and almost to a person, they fail to comprehend that the individual is a portion of the whole, the whole being the group. Biologicaly we are pack animals, we do not do well on our own, we rely upon each other and have since the beginning of our time as homosapiens.
Contracting for services by my government and dividing what is owed etc. ? That's a good question and one of the problems inherent to the business model of government. I'm NOT going to pay for people to arrest you for a plant or kill people that I don't know. Apparently you are willing to overlook those "services" and your role in paying for them?

The other tyranny ? Please tell me which tyranny you are referring to?

Concept of community ? I think a community based in the assurance that you are free to own youself, your property and the fruit of your labor, but not that of others rather than one based in group cognitive dissonance and theft is a good choice.


We are all individuals, perhaps you are a member of a herd blindly following a "leader" ? That is your right, the same as MY right not to be a member of that particular herd.


Have you read anything on the NON INITIATION OF AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE yet ? What did you think of this ?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Contracting for services by my government and dividing what is owed etc. ? That's a good question and one of the problems inherent to the business model of government. I'm NOT going to pay for people to arrest you for a plant or kill people that I don't know. Apparently you are willing to overlook those "services" and your role in paying for them?

The other tyranny ? Please tell me which tyranny you are referring to?

Concept of community ? I think a community based in the assurance that you are free to own youself, your property and the fruit of your labor, but not that of others rather than one based in group cognitive dissonance and theft is a good choice.


We are all individuals, perhaps you are a member of a herd blindly following a "leader" ? That is your right, the same as MY right not to be a member of that particular herd.


Have you read anything on the NON INITIATION OF AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE yet ? What did you think of this ?

I did look it up Rob, and thanks, it seems more like religion than anything else and I can't see it as being supremely operative in a forecful world - which is why it looks like religiosity more than a functional ideology.

I am unwilling to over look those services of placing people in jail for their posession or use of a plant (or even a powder). I am however, willing to see things in a longer perspective. Civil disobedience and societal and political pressure will eventually correct this behavior, all the while I judge that the majority of the money I contribute to this society goes to it's functionality and I believe I get my money's worth.

The other Tyranny? the tyranny of big business which is at least as dangerous and abusive as governmental tyranny.

No, biologicaly we are not all "individuals" any more than any pack is. There are alpha males and females, there are followers and leaders, there are individuals that perform a variety of functions so that the whole will survive and thrive. It is not the other way around, when self interest is dominant packs fail and ultimately the individual fails as well.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I did look it up Rob, and thanks, it seems more like religion than anything else and I can't see it as being supremely operative in a forecful world - which is why it looks like religiosity more than a functional ideology.

I am unwilling to over look those services of placing people in jail for their posession or use of a plant (or even a powder). I am however, willing to see things in a longer perspective. Civil disobedience and societal and political pressure will eventually correct this behavior, all the while I judge that the majority of the money I contribute to this society goes to it's functionality and I believe I get my money's worth.

The other Tyranny? the tyranny of big business which is at least as dangerous and abusive as governmental tyranny.

No, biologicaly we are not all "individuals" any more than any pack is. There are alpha males and females, there are followers and leaders, there are individuals that perform a variety of functions so that the whole will survive and thrive. It is not the other way around, when self interest is dominant packs fail and ultimately the individual fails as well.
The non intiation of aggression principle is not based in religious beliefs, it is based in logic and rational (not rationalized) self interest and aligning peoples interests. I think you might benefit from taking a closer look. Seriously, but of course that's your choice and should be.

Actually the majority of your money goes towards the warfare / welfare state. You really have avoided my question though, specifically Are YOU okay with paying for drug dogs, bombs etc. ? If you're not okay with this, why would you give money to perpetuate it ? The answer is obvious, "they" will hurt you if you don't. I think that proves my point of how "the system" works, no?

The longer perspective ? Hmm, do you mean like "spending your way out of debt" ?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The tyranny of big business ? Isn't a corporation a government construct ? They seem to be in bed together much of the time or as Orwell noted in Animal Farm at the end of his book it was hard to tell the pigs from the men or something like that. (been a long time since 8th grade)
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The non intiation of aggression principle is not based in religious beliefs, it is based in logic and rational (not rationalized) self interest and aligning peoples interests. I think you might benefit from taking a closer look. Seriously, but of course that's your choice and should be.

Actually the majority of your money goes towards the warfare / welfare state. You really have avoided my question though, specifically Are YOU okay with paying for drug dogs, bombs etc. ? If you're not okay with this, why would you give money to perpetuate it ? The answer is obvious, "they" will hurt you if you don't. I think that proves my point of how "the system" works, no?

The longer perspective ? Hmm, do you mean like "spending your way out of debt" ?


I have already said I am not ok with my money going to incarcerate people who posess plants or powders and I believe I was clear about that. Back to the zoo example I used before. I enjoy the zoo, I don't like the monkeys. The zoo charges 10 dollars admission, I don't insist that the zoo only take 8 dollars because of my particular disinterest in monkeys.

"earning your way out of debt" is the only way that works. Yes, longer perspectives.
 
Top