The primary role of government?

canndo said:
Provide orderly sucession, indemnify citizens against threat, provide common currency, provide infrastructure, define and secure borders, provide means to foreseeable consequences for actions, institute laws that reflect public sentiment ongoingly - in short - order.
Click to expand...

Don't forget indoctrinate people and get them to kill others to "protect" the homeland.
 
Rob Roy said:
Don't forget indoctrinate people and get them to kill others to "protect" the homeland.
Click to expand...


That is a nasty part of the concept of order. It is possible that a government convince its citizens that maintaining order necessitates the total destruction of a group of people.
 
canndo said:
That is a nasty part of the concept of order. It is possible that a government convince its citizens that maintaining order necessitates the total destruction of a group of people.
Click to expand...

...the whole while destroying the people it claims it is protecting.
 
Moses Mobetta said:
...the whole while destroying the people it claims it is protecting.
Click to expand...

No, it would be better if they could be assessed as "trying" to destroy those people, they don't try, it is done either in their name as you say, or it is done without understanding.

"sufficient ineptitutde in government is indistinguishable from conspiracy. " Or Hanlons Razer.
 
canndo said:
Ah what snake oil it is - ask any American if they have the "right to free choice" and then ask them what that means - they see it as "the right to purchase".
Click to expand...

The right to free choice means you and you alone control your body, the fruit of your labor and your justly acquired property and are responsible for your actions and respect and abide by the choices of others as long as their choices are not the initiation of force.

One of the rights people have is to freely conduct commerce with WILLING participants or NOT to participate in commerce if they are so inclined.
 
canndo said:
That is a nasty part of the concept of order. It is possible that a government convince its citizens that maintaining order necessitates the total destruction of a group of people.
Click to expand...

Order that includes "the nasty part" is NOT order that has its' source in a solid moral construct. It is domination and uses the same rationalizations as slave holders.
 
Rob Roy said:
Order that includes "the nasty part" is NOT order that has its' source in a solid moral construct. It is domination and uses the same rationalizations as slave holders.
Click to expand...



the use of force is often necessary in the interest of order.
 
canndo said:
the use of force is often necessary in the interest of order.
Click to expand...

The INITATION of force or the threat of it is at the core of the government business model. Ensuring that a "real victim" is restituted is noble, ensuring that victimless crimes are prosecuted is tyrannical.
 
Rob Roy said:
The INITATION of force or the threat of it is at the core of the government business model. Ensuring that a "real victim" is restituted is noble, ensuring that victimless crimes are prosecuted is tyrannical.
Click to expand...

What would you have government do Rob roy?
 
budlover13 said:
Once it's determined that there is no victim (like, uuuhhhhh, smoking cannabis maybe?) there is no crime TO prosecute.
Click to expand...

the argument is that there is a victim (not mine) Society as a whole, of course the loss of productivity (although those studies are all tained with the "drugs and alcohol" reference. Most of us don't think we are harming anyone else with our penchant but many believe we are.
 
canndo said:
the argument is that there is a victim (not mine) Society as a whole, of course the loss of productivity (although those studies are all tained with the "drugs and alcohol" reference. Most of us don't think we are harming anyone else with our penchant but many believe we are.
Click to expand...

"Society" as a victim holds no water in my opinion. i want a name or group of names that can specifically prove harm.
 
budlover13 said:
"Society" as a victim holds no water in my opinion. i want a name or group of names that can specifically prove harm.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top