The purpose of government

[chuck34]

I know this is probably going to start a big fight. But let's try to keep it civil, ok?

I have been thinking that pretty much every disagreement/argument about some new government program or whatever can really be traced back to what people believe to be the foundational purpose of government. So I just want to do a quick poll type of thing to see what you all think.

What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?


I'll with-hold my opinion for a while, just to see what comes up before I get blasted. :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton

[Eki]

Maintaining law and order, leveling the playing field and keeping the game fair. Providing and taking care of infrastructure and basic needs for everyone. What you get extra on top of that is up to each individual and his/her abilities.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Maintaining law and order, leveling the playing field and keeping the game fair. Providing and taking care of infrastructure and basic needs for everyone. What you get extra on top of that is up to each individual and his/her abilities.

Wow, I actually do agree with this. I'm only afraid Eki and I will disagree about the details, i.e. what exactly the "level playing field", "fair game" and "basic needs" mean.

I would also add that the government should ideally represent the unity of the nation, but that function has been abused oh so many times.

[BDunnell]

Maintaining law and order, leveling the playing field and keeping the game fair. Providing and taking care of infrastructure and basic needs for everyone. What you get extra on top of that is up to each individual and his/her abilities.

I have nothing to add to this.

[Tazio]

Agreeing with the above definition, I believe that mankind can only exist harmoniously at the Clan level. I believe that it is instinctual and anything larger than that entity will have major failings.
It is only fair that I qualify that statement by admitting I am an Anarchist.

[Eki]

Clan level? That's what they do in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doesn't look very harmonious to me. Unless you mean living within a clan and not co-existence of different clans.

[Tazio]

Unless you mean living within a clan and not co-existence of different clans.

:s ailor: Yep.

[schmenke]

I...What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government? ...

To tax my beer.
:dozey:

[glauistean]

Yes, there was such harmonious agreement between the Blackfeet,Crow, Choctaw,Apache (Mescalero and Chirichao), Sioux (Lakota and Dakota, albeit the same)Cherokee, Shawnee and on it goes.

But, as Eki inferred there was a very structured government within these few of the most well known tribes.

The Nez Percz did not even have a supreme leader until ordered to by Washington which culminated in extinction. Prior to that time they lived in harmony with one another and it was the person who dwelt punishment on himself/herself for any wrongs.

[billiaml]

Maintaining law and order, leveling the playing field and keeping the game fair. Providing and taking care of infrastructure and basic needs for everyone. What you get extra on top of that is up to each individual and his/her abilities.

I agree about taking care of the infrastructure but, from what I've seen, people tend to benefit more from working together to provide for their own -- and each others -- basic needs than depending on the government for that.

[billiaml]

To tax my beer.
:dozey:

And most of the other things we buy. And most of the money we earn.

[Eki]

I agree about taking care of the infrastructure but, from what I've seen, people tend to benefit more from working together to provide for their own -- and each others -- basic needs than depending on the government for that.

The way I see it, the government is a representative of people (tax-payers) working together. The government gets people to work together in an organized manner, which they wouldn't otherwise do. The government works as a conductor of a symphony orchestra.

[Roamy]

1. enforce the constitution
2. maintain law and order
3. work for your constituents
4. maintain safety and the welfare.

Of the 4 above our current government fails in all categories - so it is pointless to add any more.

[Eki]

"Leveling the playing field" is essentially taking from some to give to others. That's not government, that's theft.
That's one way of looking at it, but IMO it's not worse than nepotism, corruption and ruthless exploitation of others that would happen otherwise if not kept in control.

[DexDexter]

You only got part of it right. I've bolded it.

Government is also there to provide a basic infrastructure for society. Fire protection, weather forecasting, and a reasonably fair marketplace for the exchange of goods and services. Things that individuals are unlikely to be able to accomplish on their own. It does so by taxing all so that all may directly benefit. As for the rest of your response, define "basic needs". "Leveling the playing field" is essentially taking from some to give to others. That's not government, that's theft.

No it's not. If you're rich, you should pay more taxes, that way the society gets more income and can help the poor members of the society which in turn will benefit the ones with money.

[chuck34]

Think simpler, one thing that guides all the rest of the stuff. In my mind there is one principal that should guide EVERYTHING a government does.

[Rollo]

What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?


I can sum it up in once sentence.

The purpose of government is the maintenance of power.

Nations, Supra-national organisations, companies, clubs, families, totalitarian regiemes, all rely on that one statement even though their aims differ wildly and differently.

[Bob Riebe]

I know this is probably going to start a big fight. But let's try to keep it civil, ok?

I have been thinking that pretty much every disagreement/argument about some new government program or whatever can really be traced back to what people believe to be the foundational purpose of government. So I just want to do a quick poll type of thing to see what you all think.

What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?


I'll with-hold my opinion for a while, just to see what comes up before I get blasted. :D
Which government?

The United States is just that, united states, each with its own form of government and there are definite differences is said same governments.

That said, Ezra Benson gave a good answer to this question, here is part of it.

The Source Of Governmental Power

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: "WE THE PEOPLE... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51)
Natural Rights

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is propAnd what is property but and extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p.6)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attach and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right." (The Law, p. 6)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neitake his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
"For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
The Proper Function Of Government

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No mted by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.
The Powers Of A Proper Government

It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective functions such as:

(1) The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.

(2) The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.

My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution:
"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Art. 1, Sec. 35)

An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violl to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so? Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which

I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my behalf. I realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police - the government - to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law. Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary - yes, even putting the lawbreaker to death or putting him in jail - to overcome such resistance. These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results. As John Locke explained many years ago:
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, 'a liberty for every man to do what he lists.' For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within erty within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 57: P>P>N>S., p.101)

I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything. As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" (The Red Carpet, p.142) It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.

[Bob Riebe]

No it's not. If you're rich, you should pay more taxes, that way the society gets more income and can help the poor members of the society which in turn will benefit the ones with money.
Why should they, some here would say it is there- right - to do with their own as they please.

Society gets nothing, only the chosen get a hand-out. That is what religious organizations had the lead in until governent screwed it up.
People gladly gave to charities but once the feds started taking it and giving to their chosen few, many people said to hell with it, I am not going to give once and have it taken from me once.

[Bob Riebe]

That's one way of looking at it, but IMO it's not worse than nepotism, corruption and ruthless exploitation of others.
That is how many governments seem to operate, so what is your point?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Maintaining law and order, leveling the playing field and keeping the game fair. Providing and taking care of infrastructure and basic needs for everyone. What you get extra on top of that is up to each individual and his/her abilities.

I agree with the very basic premises here. Defining all that is where the fight starts!

I think to an extent Government should protect society from outside forces, and regulate and help the needy. Provide infrastructure within reason....

Where we fight is how much of all this we do...but at some point, there is a tipping point. Tax too much to help too many with too much, and you lose society and you lose your best and brightest often. The fact is, the ability make a living and make money is what motivates most people. You tax people too much, and even the most liberal and open minded will object and take their money elsewhere. Anyone who saw the Beatles taking their money offshore in the 60's saw that...and I would hardly put Paul McCartney or John Lennon on a list of right wing anti government types.

Notice how U2 took their business dealings to the Netherlands to avoid Irish taxes.

No, we all agree we need some form of government, but what makes us different is what we expect from it, and what we think it can do...

[Rollo]

Why does government necessarily come to mean that of nations? Companies have government, as do loads of other organisations. My football club has its own constitution and even that has rules about its governance.

Before you even ask the question of how power is used, what it should be used on and whom should wield it, you need to define what government is; that is the solidification of "rule of authority". The further you get away from what government actually is, the further you are away from defining its purpose.

[chuck34]

Well I'm getting a lot of what I expected. Loads of "high minded" opinions on how government should do this, and how they should do that. But no one has seriously address the question I've asked. What is the reason to have a government? What is at it's core?

The reason for government is really very simple. It is to protect personal property rights. That's all. The very core of all laws should always be looking at ways to protect personal property.

Clearly that is not the case anymore with most governments. And honestly I believe that is the cause for much of the unrest/protests/etc. in this country (the US) and around the world. And I include the left and the right, it's just that the two sides are looking at things a bit differently. The left somehow thinks that corporations or "the rich" have somehow stolen what is rightfully that of "the working man", and they want governments to redistribute, through punitive taxes, what they believe is their's. The right believes that (in most cases, there are some cases of outright theft) corporations and "the rich" have worked hard to get where they are, that they have honestly earned all they have, and just want governments to leave them alone to continue on oporating in the free market.

I know most of you will probably think that I'm being too simplistic. But I ask you to take a step back and think about things honestly for a minute. Isn't that really what most arguments boil down to, who has a right to what property?

[Rollo]

Well I'm getting a lot of what I expected. Loads of "high minded" opinions on how government should do this, and how they should do that. But no one has seriously address the question I've asked. What is the reason to have a government? What is at it's core?

I believe I addressed it in one sentence:


The purpose of government is the maintenance of power.


Nothing more and nothing less.


The reason for government is really very simple. It is to protect personal property rights. That's all. The very core of all laws should always be looking at ways to protect personal property.

You can't very well tell me that Robert Mugabe, the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, the board of General Electric, or even my local football club, are/were even the slightest bit concerned about personal property rights or protecting personal property. Yet all are concerned with government of sorts.

To Govern by definition is to "rule with authority; conduct the affairs of a country or organisation"(OED2). Government is concerned with the act of governing.
Everything else might be a consquence but is actually irrelevant to the question you've asked.


Isn't that really what most arguments boil down to, who has a right to what property?

The question of property rights itself is a consequence of the operation of power. See above.

[chuck34]

I believe I addressed it in one sentence:
Nothing more and nothing less.

Maintenance of power is a perversion of property rights. Those who let power go to their heads, believe that all property is theirs, to do with as they see fit.


You can't very well tell me that Robert Mugabe, the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, the board of General Electric, or even my local football club, are/were even the slightest bit concerned about personal property rights or protecting personal property. Yet all are concerned with government of sorts.

I very well can tell you that. I don't know a lot about Mugabe, but I believe his motivation is to hold all the property. Krushchev, Lennin, Stalin and the other Soviets all thought that property had been stolen from the people by the evil capitalist system. So they imposed their idea of giving everyone their property at the point of a gun. If you didn't agree with their ideas of who should own property, you got the gun.

GE and your football club are not governments. They have systems of rules, but are not governments.


To Govern by definition is to "rule with authority; conduct the affairs of a country or organisation"(OED2). Government is concerned with the act of governing.
Everything else might be a consquence but is actually irrelevant to the question you've asked.

Never use a word to define it. "Government is concerned with the act of governing" is nonsence. "rule with authority; conduct the affairs of a country or organisation" Is a good start. But to what end? Who gives them the authority to conduct what affairs? Government is a contract that people enter into where-by they agree to give up limited amounts of freedom such that the greater freedom (property rights) can be protected.



The question of property rights itself is a consequence of the operation of power. See above.

Property rights are the basis of the power. See above.

[Rollo]

Property Rights are not the basis of power.

"Power" in the philosophical sense is the ability of an entity to control either its circumstances or its environment and/or the circumstances or the environment of other entities.

Issues such as the rights freedom of thought, conscience, religion and free speech also fall under the ability of governments to exert control, but whether or not you want to include intangible property in this really blows open a much broader range of issues.


GE and your football club are not governments. They have systems of rules, but are not governments.

Why do you think that the act of governance limited to national or provincial governments? Doesn't Corporate Governance fall under your definition of government? If not, why not?

[ICWS]

Here's my opinion of what the purposes of government should be, in a basic and vague sense:

At the federal level, the purpose of government is to be responsible for infrastructure, military, foreign policy, and scientific research.

At the local and state level, the purpose of government is to be empowered to make their own laws. The way in which local and state governments make laws should be influenced by their populations' behaviors and beliefs (culture).

[Rollo]

From the US Constitution:

Article One: Legislative Power
Article Two: Executive Power
Article Three: Judicial Power
Article Four: States' Powers and Limits
Article Six: Federal Power

Five of the seven Articles of the US Constitution explicity deal with power, who controls it and what they can and can't do with it. In fact "property rights" in the tangible sense are only even briefly touched on in the Fifth Amendment. If the vast bulk of the very document which defines the operation of a government, deals with the subject of power and its application, then doesn't that suggest something?
What is the US Constitution mainly concerned with if it isn't power?

[markabilly]

I believe I addressed it in one sentence:


Nothing more and nothing less.



You can't very well tell me that Robert Mugabe, the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, the board of General Electric, or even my local football club, are/were even the slightest bit concerned about personal property rights or protecting personal property. Yet all are concerned with government of sorts.

To Govern by definition is to "rule with authority; conduct the affairs of a country or organisation"(OED2). Government is concerned with the act of governing.
Everything else might be a consquence but is actually irrelevant to the question you've asked.



The question of property rights itself is a consequence of the operation of power. See above.

As much as I hate to agree with you, you do have an excellent point.
As to who has the power and how that is used is where the differences lie......One could say the honorable Chairman Mao was right when he said, "all power comes out of the barrell of a gun".......or when madison wrote the second amendment, or when Lenin said "power to the people" and so on and so on....or when the good king of england said, "off with his head and forfeit all his possesions to the Crown...."

[Eki]

That is how many governments seem to operate, so what is your point?

My point is that governments should operate as I said, not as many governments do.

[Eki]

Why should they, some here would say it is there- right - to do with their own as they please.

Society gets nothing, only the chosen get a hand-out. That is what religious organizations had the lead in until governent screwed it up.
People gladly gave to charities but once the feds started taking it and giving to their chosen few, many people said to hell with it, I am not going to give once and have it taken from me once.
Those same people here think it doesn't matter how you became to own what you own. For them it's OK, even if their wealth came from slave trade or Nazi gold confiscated from Jews.

[Retro Formula 1]

In my opinion, and I'm talking about the UK here, I believe the following two definitions apply.

1 - The People.

The people of the UK want their elected Government to protect and respect their rights. This may be the right to live in a peaceful society, the right to healthcare, the right to a fair and stable economy, the right to basic welfare for those that need it.

2 - The Government (and opposition).

The Government's role is to maintain power and prevent the opposition from taking power. There are some idiological people within Government that have the intention of representing their constituents but ultimatly, the collective Government will do whatever it must to increase power.

We need a Government but it's impossible to have the Government we need.

[chuck34]

Property Rights are not the basis of power.

What is power without something to control?


"Power" in the philosophical sense is the ability of an entity to control either its circumstances or its environment and/or the circumstances or the environment of other entities.

Control is the ability to dictate when, how, why things happen. That means that someone has the power over a posession.


Issues such as the rights freedom of thought, conscience, religion and free speech also fall under the ability of governments to exert control, but whether or not you want to include intangible property in this really blows open a much broader range of issues.

Aren't your thoughts, conscience, religion and speach your posessions?


Why do you think that the act of governance limited to national or provincial governments? Doesn't Corporate Governance fall under your definition of government? If not, why not?

No corporations are corporations, and therefore not governments. Same with your football club, it's a club not a government.

[chuck34]

From the US Constitution:

Article One: Legislative Power
Article Two: Executive Power
Article Three: Judicial Power
Article Four: States' Powers and Limits
Article Six: Federal Power

Five of the seven Articles of the US Constitution explicity deal with power, who controls it and what they can and can't do with it. In fact "property rights" in the tangible sense are only even briefly touched on in the Fifth Amendment. If the vast bulk of the very document which defines the operation of a government, deals with the subject of power and its application, then doesn't that suggest something?
What is the US Constitution mainly concerned with if it isn't power?

You state that the articles are about power. Yes, you are correct. But the powers to do what? The powers the legislature/executive/judicial/etc. has to control your property.

The US Constitution is all about limiting the ability of the government (particularly the Federal Government) to control private property.

[DexDexter]

That is very poorly thought out. You're assuming some sort of graduated tax I believe. If that's the case it's just wrong. An even tax rate is the only reasonably fair tax. If I make more than you I pay more on a one to one ratio. Graduated taxes want the better off person to not only to pay more but to pay it at an ever increasing rate. That is theft plain and simple.

A flat tax is the only form of an income tax that even pretends to be fair.

Poorly thought out? Look at Finland and statistics in virtually every field. We have a graduated tax and our society is more equal than most. Partly because we pay taxes based on income, we have the world's best education system, working health care, no slums etc etc... and what is very important, the gap between the poor and the rich is smaller than in most countries. When you have that, you avoid all sorts of problems which affect the well-off as well.



Why should they, some here would say it is there- right - to do with their own as they please.

Society gets nothing, only the chosen get a hand-out. That is what religious organizations had the lead in until governent screwed it up.
People gladly gave to charities but once the feds started taking it and giving to their chosen few, many people said to hell with it, I am not going to give once and have it taken from me once.

When the chosen get a hand-out, the society avoids all sorts of problems. You know, I gladly pay more taxes so that the poorest don't have to suffer from lack of quality education or health care, for example.

[ArrowsFA1]

The reason for government is really very simple. It is to protect personal property rights.
Could you define what those property rights are?

[markabilly]

What is power without something to control?



Control is the ability to dictate when, how, why things happen. That means that someone has the power over a posession.



Aren't your thoughts, conscience, religion and speach your posessions?



No corporations are corporations, and therefore not governments. Same with your football club, it's a club not a government.


You state that the articles are about power. Yes, you are correct. But the powers to do what? The powers the legislature/executive/judicial/etc. has to control your property.

The US Constitution is all about limiting the ability of the government (particularly the Federal Government) to control private property.

yes, but you are still talking about power, and the differences between various governments in the past and present, USA and the world over, has been how that power has been used or not used (or has been limited)


Is it being used to protect your personal property, to keep you safe at night, or it is being used to drag people off to extermination at concentration camps? It is a question of freedom vs. control, of rights to do something v. the power to prevent you from doing something.

Even the Declaration of Independence was about power over rights, and the abuse of same:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

[Dave B]

Well I'm getting a lot of what I expected. Loads of "high minded" opinions on how government should do this, and how they should do that. But no one has seriously address the question I've asked. What is the reason to have a government? What is at it's core?

The reason for government is really very simple. It is to protect personal property rights. That's all. The very core of all laws should always be looking at ways to protect personal property.


1) Start a thread asking for an opinion, without offering your own.
2) Wait for opinions to roll in.
3) Dismiss those opinions as being wrong.

Blinding.

You wonder why I didn't bother contributing? I could see it coming a mile off.

[chuck34]

Could you define what those property rights are?

Legally owned property is yours, you have the rights to do with it as you see fit, as long as that does not interfere with another's property.

[markabilly]

Legally owned property is yours, you have the rights to do with it as you see fit, as long as that does not interfere with another's property.

Until the guvermint come along and says, you did not pay your taxes and now it all belongs to us.....and if you don't get, your ass ain't even gonna belong to you

[chuck34]

yes, but you are still talking about power, and the differences between various governments in the past and present, USA and the world over, has been how that power has been used or not used (or has been limited)

Yes, I am talking about how different governments have treated property rights past and present.


Is it being used to protect your personal property, to keep you safe at night, or it is being used to drag people off to extermination at concentration camps? It is a question of freedom vs. control, of rights to do something v. the power to prevent you from doing something.

Exactly my point. I suppose I could have said it better from the begining. I was sort of getting at the differences between good and bad governments/laws. In my mind the difference comes from who controls property. Oppressive governments tend to believe that they control property where free governments tend to believe that individuals own property.


Even the Declaration of Independence was about power over rights, and the abuse of same:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

What are the "certain unalienable Rights" that were being destructed by the government of England? "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", or as was said in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (the inspiration of most of the Declaration of Independence), "life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety". All of which when boiled down means property rights.

[chuck34]

1) Start a thread asking for an opinion, without offering your own.
2) Wait for opinions to roll in.

I stated that was my purpose from the begining, just wanting to see what others would come up with.


3) Dismiss those opinions as being wrong.

I'll agree, perhaps I was overly harsh, or badly worded my response. I don't mean to completely dismiss the opinions. Just to say that at the core they all boil down to the same thing.



You wonder why I didn't bother contributing? I could see it coming a mile off.

I don't wonder why you didn't contribute. I couldn't care less if you contribute or not. It's a free forum. No one is forcing participation here. You could see it coming a mile off because I told you exactly what I was doing in my first post where I said that I was going to reserve my opinion for later on. Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

[chuck34]

Until the guvermint come along and says, you did not pay your taxes and now it all belongs to us.....and if you don't get, your ass ain't even gonna belong to you

I would suggest that that is the point where a government transforms from a government to tyranny, and perhaps it may be time for a revolution.

[markabilly]

I would suggest that that is the point where a government transforms from a government to tyranny, and perhaps it may be time for a revolution.

been happening for years

[ICWS]

been happening for years

"The Emperor wears no clothes, but doesn't like to be told so"...

Yes, people should be aware by now of the excessive bureaucracy and corruption that has existed for many years within their country's government, but most people seem to be too ignorant, docile, apathetic, and blinded by material possessions to speak up and take action against their government, which oftentimes appears to be more like a tyranny masquerading as a democracy.

[ArrowsFA1]

Legally owned property is yours, you have the rights to do with it as you see fit, as long as that does not interfere with another's property.
So are you saying that the reason for the existence of government, or its purpose, is to step in to protect personal property rights only when an individual interferes with anothers property?

If so that is a far too narrow definition of government IMHO.

[Rollo]

No corporations are corporations, and therefore not governments. Same with your football club, it's a club not a government.

Government n.
1. - The act of governing
2. - The system by which a nation, state, community or entity is governed
3. - A body pr persons governing a nation state or community
- OED 2.

The Board of a Corporation and the Executive Committee of my Football Club, are both charged with the act of governing, both operate under a system for doing so (usually spelled out by a Constitution or Memorandum of Association or equivalent), and they're both a body of persons, just like the executive of a nation.
Therefore they satisfy the very dictionary definition of a government.


Aren't your thoughts, conscience, religion and speach your posessions?
I do believe I included the words "intangible property". Did you not read this?


What is power without something to control?
People and policies are things.

[Rollo]

The US Constitution is all about limiting the ability of the government (particularly the Federal Government) to control private property.

No it isn't.
The US Constitution is about forming "a more perfect Union", establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

A preamble is a statement of purpose which explains what a document is for. Not once does the preamble mention anything about limiting the ability of the government nor the control of private property.

[chuck34]

So are you saying that the reason for the existence of government, or its purpose, is to step in to protect personal property rights only when an individual interferes with anothers property?

That is what I'm saying a government should be.


If so that is a far too narrow definition of government IMHO.

Why? What else should a government be involved in?

[chuck34]

Government n.
1. - The act of governing
2. - The system by which a nation, state, community or entity is governed
3. - A body pr persons governing a nation state or community
- OED 2.

The Board of a Corporation and the Executive Committee of my Football Club, are both charged with the act of governing, both operate under a system for doing so (usually spelled out by a Constitution or Memorandum of Association or equivalent), and they're both a body of persons, just like the executive of a nation.
Therefore they satisfy the very dictionary definition of a government.

If you really want to continue to push that coroporations and your football club are governments, fine, let's go down that road. What is the purpose of a corporation? I suggest its purpose is to maximize profit (property) for its share holders. A football club's purpose is to ensure that each team competes fairly, or in other words doesn't steal another teams points (property).


I do believe I included the words "intangible property". Did you not read this?

Yes, I read that. But you were asking a question "whether or not you want to include intangible property in this really blows open a much broader range of issues." I was simply answering that question with a question of my own. Granted that may not be the best thing to do, but I was trying to illustrate a point.


People and policies are things.

Ok. But how do you control people? What is the aim of a policy?

[chuck34]

No it isn't.
The US Constitution is about forming "a more perfect Union", establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

A preamble is a statement of purpose which explains what a document is for. Not once does the preamble mention anything about limiting the ability of the government nor the control of private property.

Rollo, I honestly believe you are smarter than that. Read the entire document. Read what the writers said about what they were writing. Think about what the aims of "a more perfect Union" are. What does "providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty" do? Is not the aim of all those goals to protect the property of the citizens? Without common defence, foreign entities can come and take property. Without general welfare, the amount/value of property will inevitably decline. Without the Blessings of Liberty, you will not be free to enhance or gain more property.

[Retro Formula 1]

That is what I'm saying a government should be.



Why? What else should a government be involved in?

OK, just for a laugh, here we go :)

What about Law and Order outside of your property for a start.

And lets look at civil responsibilities such as education. Should this just be for those that can afford it?

What about prisons. Should they be the responsibility of the individual.

Just for a laugh, tell us how society outside of your property should function.

[chuck34]

OK, just for a laugh, here we go :)

What about Law and Order outside of your property for a start.

Law and Order outside of my property is still someone's property. So it would still apply. Government should protect all property equally.


And lets look at civil responsibilities such as education. Should this just be for those that can afford it?

Education can help increase the wealth of nations, so if the people decide that pooling their wealth (property) to educate their children is a good idea, go for it.


What about prisons. Should they be the responsibility of the individual.

Obviously if you are in prision it is because you have violated someone's rights. Therefore that fits squarely within the government's responsibilty of protecting property rights (punishment of violations is a way of protection).


Just for a laugh, tell us how society outside of your property should function.

It's not just about MY property. It is about ALL personal property.

[markabilly]

No it isn't.
The US Constitution is about forming "a more perfect Union", establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

A preamble is a statement of purpose which explains what a document is for. Not once does the preamble mention anything about limiting the ability of the government nor the control of private property.

fairly correct as to the orginal body....but the amendments are where one finds the limitations, and having been added in, these amendments are now a part of the constitution

[markabilly]

I would suggest a compromise, that government is power over life, liberty and property in numerous elements, variations, and applications, be it organized, semi-organized or disorganized, democratic or dictatorship, royalty or whatever ......

be it power used to be protecting your personal property, the king's property, some blood sucking dictator's, or taking your property from you for the benefit of someone else or the government (been going in the USA since before the Revolution and continued on for the last 230 years or so--sorry Chuck), yadadadayadda----or protecting you from things that go bump in the middle of the night, keeping you in good health or not, giving a good education or not, executing you or not,...........or whatever

And one should not confuse this power as being limited to the terms of the subjective belief of the individual as to how it should be used or not used, as this seems to be Chuck's point of view (and one that I do basically agree with in terms of what a government SHOULD be doing with its powers) but if you are seeking a generic, one size fits all, what is the essence of the thing called government, it is power over life, liberty and property......

and that is the reason governments exist

[Retro Formula 1]

Law and Order outside of my property is still someone's property. So it would still apply. Government should protect all property equally.



Education can help increase the wealth of nations, so if the people decide that pooling their wealth (property) to educate their children is a good idea, go for it.



Obviously if you are in prision it is because you have violated someone's rights. Therefore that fits squarely within the government's responsibilty of protecting property rights (punishment of violations is a way of protection).



It's not just about MY property. It is about ALL personal property.


So in your book, a pedophile is entitled to accesses child porn online from another country because it's nothing to do with your government because it's not your peoples property being violated. Then we have the fact that the pedo owns the computer and is on his property so can do whatever he wants and the government must protect him.

Or we have that recent murder where a jogger murdered those 2 lads because he thought he was about to be mugged. In your world, those lads could have bought the street and shot the jogger for trespass and the state would support them.

Do you mind if I don't visit your planet.

[markabilly]

So in your book, a pedophile is entitled to accesses child porn online from another country because it's nothing to do with your government because it's not your peoples property being violated. Then we have the fact that the pedo owns the computer and is on his property so can do whatever he wants and the government must protect him.

Or we have that recent murder where a jogger murdered those 2 lads because he thought he was about to be mugged. In your world, those lads could have bought the street and shot the jogger for trespass and the state would support them.

Do you mind if I don't visit your planet.

there you go with your subjective definitions.....but that is not the essential nature.
Example, in some countries, that shooting was NOT murder, but in others it might be.....how a country chooses to implement laws is not a part of the government definition.
The what can vary all over the place....while pedos have become somewhat limited as to what they can do legally in our "modern times", there are some countries even now, and certainly in our distant past, where it was practicized openly
without any interfernce from government

[Bob Riebe]

Chuck the point of your thread was this:
What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?

Nothing you have said defends your opinion.
Others have made their points far better, with far more logic.

[Rollo]

fairly correct as to the orginal body....but the amendments are where one finds the limitations, and having been added in, these amendments are now a part of the constitution

The amendments have a different function.
The amendments make changes to the exsiting document but the preamble is the opening statement of the purpose of the document. Since the preamble has never been changed, then its purpose as written has also never changed. The US Constitution in 2010 is still a document which defines and limits the powers of the US Government, just as it did in 1789.

[chuck34]

So in your book, a pedophile is entitled to accesses child porn online from another country because it's nothing to do with your government because it's not your peoples property being violated. Then we have the fact that the pedo owns the computer and is on his property so can do whatever he wants and the government must protect him.

Or we have that recent murder where a jogger murdered those 2 lads because he thought he was about to be mugged. In your world, those lads could have bought the street and shot the jogger for trespass and the state would support them.

Do you mind if I don't visit your planet.

On what planet have I said anything like that? Perhaps you would like to visit Earth, the planet upon which we are having this discussion.

[chuck34]

Chuck the point of your thread was this:
What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?

Bob, perhaps I could have worded the original question a bit differently. How about "What should be the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of good government"?


Nothing you have said defends your opinion.
Others have made their points far better, with far more logic.

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

[BDunnell]

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

I don't think you need to justify yourself any further than that, really. We may disagree, but such is inevitable.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.
No it does not as governments have and can take property so property rights have nothing to do with why government/s exist, especially as more than a few people over the years have no property.
Are saying they have no rights or right to protest?

If I do not pay property taxes, I will have no property; therefore your point is void, unless you say governments reason for existence is to take from others in which case their is no reason for it to exist.

I agree if you are trying to say what you said, you should change the question.

[BDunnell]

No it does not as governments have and can take property so property rights have nothing to do with why government/s exist, especially as more than a few people over the years have no property.
Are saying they have no rights or right to protest?

If I do not pay property taxes, I will have no property; therefore your point is void, unless you say governments reason for existence is to take from others in which case their is no reason for it to exist.

I agree if you are trying to say what you said, you should change the question.

In this instance, I take what chuck34 is referring to as meaning property in the widest sense, to include territory, which in itself takes in a whole manner of other functions of government relating to security and the like.

[Rollo]

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

Property almost always implies things (either tangible or intangible) which can be bought or sold. People themselves have more than things which can be bought and sold. The right to vote, citizenship, who can run for office etc. are all things which don't fall under the realms of mere "property".

Besides which, aren't property rights just a subset of the total rights of an individual?

A right itself is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. That implies authority either conferred by nature, god(s) (incl. all religious positions here - this is a far bigger argument and beyond the scope of this thread), or by an entity which has been legally empowered with authority to act.
Governments definitely are empowered to have a say in who has a right to vote, who is eligible citizenship, and who can run for office etc.

[BDunnell]

Property almost always implies things (either tangible or intangible) which can be bought or sold. People themselves have more than things which can be bought and sold. The right to vote, citizenship, who can run for office etc. are all things which don't fall under the realms of mere "property".

Which is exactly why I took the view that the reference to 'property' was wider-ranging than items that can be bought and sold (indeed, even citizenship — while a very nebulous concept indeed — is connected with the ownership of land), though I agree that there are other factors at play.

[Rollo]

Citizenship isn't connected with the ownership of land though. You don't need to own anything to have the citizenship of a nation conferred on you.

[BDunnell]

Citizenship isn't connected with the ownership of land though. You don't need to own anything to have the citizenship of a nation conferred on you.

But the nation does.

[Rollo]

The powers conferred to a national government are not because it owns land. They are given to the nation of virtue of legal operation.

The will of the people is nominally the basis of the authority of government.* In real terms we are seeing that played out on the streets of Cairo.

*Also Article 21 of the UDHR.

[BDunnell]

The powers conferred to a national government are not because it owns land. They are given to the nation of virtue of legal operation.

But one's citizenship is inextricably linked to territorial matters, which are, in a broad sense, related to a form of 'ownership' of property. In no way am I suggesting that this is the sole function of government, nor am I addressing the topic in anything other than a very broad sense.

[Bob Riebe]

In this instance, I take what chuck34 is referring to as meaning property in the widest sense, to include territory, which in itself takes in a whole manner of other functions of government relating to security and the like.

I thought of what you are saying and for the most part agree with your stance, but that actually take away the property part and reduces it to personal rights, or the the right of the one to own, not to own, to function, not to function, etc. within the rules as set by the society.
Whether one wants to call it as such, or not, such rules are governing rules and therefore in the basic sense the/a government.

Property is not the base but merely a part of the equation.

[BDunnell]

I thought of what you are saying and for the most part agree with your stance, but that actually take away the property part and reduces it to personal rights, or the the right of the one to own, not to own, to function, not to function, etc. within the rules as set by the society.
Whether one wants to call it as such, or not, such rules are governing rules and therefore in the basic sense the/a government.

Property is not the base but merely a part of the equation.

Equally, I see little or nothing to disagree with there.

[chuck34]

I thought of what you are saying and for the most part agree with your stance, but that actually take away the property part and reduces it to personal rights, or the the right of the one to own, not to own, to function, not to function, etc. within the rules as set by the society.
Whether one wants to call it as such, or not, such rules are governing rules and therefore in the basic sense the/a government.

You own you personal rights, they are your possessions. You own your vote, no one can force you to vote the way you want (at least in a "good" government). You own your citizenship in the sence that you legally reside within territorial boundaries, you own your life, therefore you own your citizenship. How you function is directly related to ownership. Basically if you only interact with things you own, then governments should not be involved.


Property is not the base but merely a part of the equation.

I really believe that when broken down, property is the base of it all.

[chuck34]

But one's citizenship is inextricably linked to territorial matters, which are, in a broad sense, related to a form of 'ownership' of property. In no way am I suggesting that this is the sole function of government, nor am I addressing the topic in anything other than a very broad sense.

I am addressing things in a very broad sense. Perhaps I'm being too philosophical on the subject? I'm trying to see how people understand governments and their functions in a philosophical sence. Perhaps that's too "out there" for an internet discussions? Perhaps we need concrete answers to concrete problems, we can't think in the abstract?

[Bob Riebe]

You own you personal rights, they are your possessions. You own your vote, no one can force you to vote the way you want (at least in a "good" government). You own your citizenship in the sence that you legally reside within territorial boundaries, you own your life, therefore you own your citizenship. How you function is directly related to ownership. Basically if you only interact with things you own, then governments should not be involved.



I really believe that when broken down, property is the base of it all. Chuck you are grasping at straws here, mainly because of a poor choice of words.
In a grammatical sense you are correct, but if you want to use an abstract, to break things down to the absolute minimum to convey a message, of all the words, and primary meanings, in todays grammatical usage, you chose poorly.

At the same time there really are no such thing as rights except as given by what ever authority one deals with, or creates.
They are not as much property, as in owned, as a given gift that can be taken away.

[Retro Formula 1]

You own you personal rights, they are your possessions. You own your vote, no one can force you to vote the way you want (at least in a "good" government). You own your citizenship in the sence that you legally reside within territorial boundaries, you own your life, therefore you own your citizenship. How you function is directly related to ownership. Basically if you only interact with things you own, then governments should not be involved.



I really believe that when broken down, property is the base of it all.

So, basically you start off telling everyone they are wrong, come up with some cock and bull about property and then spin your answer to fit what everyone else said all along.

This thread is dead.

[chuck34]

Yep, I guess trying to think outside the box about things just doesn't work around here. Sorry, won't try that again. Just stick with concrete things that we can bicker about forever without looking at things differently. Oh well.

[Bob Riebe]

Yep, I guess trying to think outside the box about things just doesn't work around here. Sorry, won't try that again. Just stick with concrete things that we can bicker about forever without looking at things differently. Oh well.

There is no out-side the box, life is fact and fiction, truth and lies. The ephemeral wisps of alternate think are just that- ephemeral- based on what, wannabe denial of reality?.