What is the proper role of government?
I have been reading and thinking a lot on this lately.
If one person has "authority" over another, they will always be corruptible. I don't believe any man has the right to another's production.
I believe in voluntarist principles and therefore a society without rulers. A society only needs one key principle: mutual consent to mutual benefit.
If one person has "authority" over another, they will always be corruptible. I don't believe any man has the right to another's production.
I believe in voluntarist principles and therefore a society without rulers. A society only needs one key principle: mutual consent to mutual benefit.
To me, 'government' is synonymous with 'the state'. The state is an organization that has the following properties:
- monopolist by force
- authority to use force at its discretion
- authority to make laws
- operates within its proclaimed borders/domain/geographical area
All of the above properties are abominable violation of the non-aggression principle/voluntarism.
- one is not allowed to impose a monopoly by force
- force may not be used unless for defense
- laws cannot be decreed, they exist by logic
- enforcement of borders of public/unowned land is aggression
If you truly adhere to voluntarism then you must denounce statism.
Taking responsibility for your own existence is the only decision. When you outsource your responsibility (and therefore your voice) to a government, you lose.
No rulers.
1. Enforce contracts
2. Secure the border
3. Fix potholes
At most
Establish Justice
Insure domestic Tranquility
Provide for the common Defense
Promote the general Welfare
Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Can a philosophical preamble be iterated that past transgressions be preempted by such declaration?
Is the entire educational process of anything above provide for informed consent to participate?
The welfare of the people is the alibi of tyrants. A Camus.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2018/10...
The wording isn't "promote" the general welfare, but is "provide" within the phrase: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
The argument put forth is the phrase specifically refers to the "United States" and not to individual states or individual people. If this argument is true, then the gigantic charity known as the "welfare state", where benefits are bestowed upon states or citizens, run by the government is unconstitutional.
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity
or evil; the enjoyment cf health
and the common blessings of life ; prosperity
; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity
; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity.
or the ordinary blessings of society
and civil government; applied lo states.
This is why I use this reference and Black's 4th or 6th for Constitutional Interpretation. General and Promote have very similar, yet dissimilar context of definition than today's "dictionary".
I spend at least two hours a day learning the "ropes". This is definitely easier to learn with decades of business, contract and general life experience than starting out as a college undergrad. I'm not easily programmed with contemporary beliefs in law.
When President Trump said he was giving the country back to The People .... draining the swamp .... is the first step. Re-convening an organic Congress, that was disbanded in 1861, is the next step. This second step requires We The People to awaken and take knowledgeable actions toward this re-establishment.
This is the reason for my studies. As an oath-sworn Serviceman, never relieved of oath, it is my sworn Duty.
There is government, just not much of it.
For human societies of more than about three people, government is essential. Not because it enables aims/ideals, but because it will arise by itself, inevitably from human nature of ambition and aggression.
You may deeply believe in voluntarist principles and in not having rulers, but your beliefs will not stop others from ruling/exploiting you if your power is weak. However attractive libertarianism may appear, it will always fail, quickly.
The proper role of government is to prevent that as well as to provide the mechanisms that prevent it from exceeding its proper role.
It is highly illogical to propose that a non-voluntarist organization is a solution to non-voluntary actions against you. That's like saying in order to be free you need to become a slave. What kind of fucked up reasoning is this?
Of course my power is weak. Everyone specializes in their area of expertise. If you need defense and you don't have the skills, hire a professional! There is no need to become a slave of a monopolist security service provider.
The libertarian confusion is to believe in limited government. I have never seen such strong delusions as ones that libertarians possess. The conflict that exists in their reasoning is irreconcilable. The only resolution is to abandon the idea of government altogether.
Now I am called a Statist. Oh my!
If you condone a government to rule over a population, who watches the watchers?
In any arrangement of human society, it is impossible to avoid the use of force over another.
That is what Ayn Rand discovered by analysis, and why she was not a Libertarian but instead invented Objectivism.
The bully will attack, you give in or resist with force. Then the bully gets allies, attacks are continuous, you must destroy the bully to survive.
In the past these groupings were called tribes with rulers being chiefs or barons, it started small then with success they called themselves governments. To stop attacks you need countervailing power.
The same (?) folks tried to build a concrete boat. It sank in the Hudson River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concret...
Ayn Rand's position regarding Libertarians was that of a spiteful diva to a charismatic supporting actor.
So the libertarian concrete boat would need Coast Guard inspection. True libertarians apparently feel they don't need no help from no government. The boat was put together by true amateurs, in the worst sense of the word. Apparently there were voids in the concrete hull. Their plan was to sail from port to port, avoiding all nasty authorities. They didn't account for King Neptune's tax collectors.
Rachel and Ebenezer: https://oceannavigator.com/november-d...
Hudson derelicts: https://www.riverkeeper.org/blogs/boa...
... or do Libertarians believe there is a place for Government where the clearly evident, monotonic optimization of Capitalism finds a local minima and must be set free?
I think more people died from steam boilers exploding, prior to establishing the ASME boiler codes. Get the stamp from the non-government agency...
Ohio used to have an exemption for steam boilers that were in antique farm equipment. No inspection required. Here's the unfortunate result in which five people died: https://www.dli.mn.gov/workers/boiler...
I mostly do my own residential wiring, but it's always to the NFPA code, and my work always passes inspection.
On the other hand, I have been a victim of someone who wanted to use regulations against me, reporting me for keeping my horses poorly. It turns out that there was a crook who would observe one elderly horse at a farm doing poorly, have her tamed inspector condemn all the horses, and then come in as a "saviour" and take the horses and sell them for meat. Didn't get our horses.
We gave up on one part of our farm operation after having been told we would need to put five-foot high chain link around our 100 acres and establish a guard and sign-in for visitors. That small part of our operations was grossing $3000 a year. How much would that fence cost? Would we ever pay off the investment in the fence? Maybe $12 per linear foot of fence, not thinking about gates? 15,000 feet? That'll be $180,000. Pay it off from the $3000 per year? 60 years.
Government protecting people is a hilarious notion. See: FDA.