Follow up - What is the single purpose of government...
The single word for the purpose of government turned into a fun discussion with many ideas and good thoughts. Thanks to all who participated. I decided to re-post in hopes that it would make it easier for all to see where I was going. It is my hope that I am not breaking a gulch rule.
I believe you can apply the word “control” to everything that government deals with at every level of government known to man. Government is not necessary to make things move because that will happen without force. I’m not advocating for more control and IMHO we have been run over with control. I’m just saying that there is no need for government except for the purpose of control.
That being said, I believe this country became so incredibly prosperous because our founder limited our governments control over the people. Unfortunately since our founding, government does what it is naturally inclined to do. It grows and consumes power.
Would love to hear more thoughts & comments
I believe you can apply the word “control” to everything that government deals with at every level of government known to man. Government is not necessary to make things move because that will happen without force. I’m not advocating for more control and IMHO we have been run over with control. I’m just saying that there is no need for government except for the purpose of control.
That being said, I believe this country became so incredibly prosperous because our founder limited our governments control over the people. Unfortunately since our founding, government does what it is naturally inclined to do. It grows and consumes power.
Would love to hear more thoughts & comments
I don't believe the concept originated from the bottom up, with the common people saying, "We really need someone to rule over us, and tell us what to do even to the point of demanding our life, and take as much of our money and property as they want." I think government had to start with a group of malevolent looters, who thought of a method and excuse to gain and maintain power over others. And their purpose in creating government was to have control of the masses. That's my opinion.
That should be a starter for thinking about government.
"Divide and conquer" is one of their favorite techniques for controlling the masses, along with providing them "bread and circuses." And once they have control, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want; control basically equals ownership.
When the individual gives up the right to defend and prevent, it's all over. Rather, the government's only role is to retaliate when rights have been violated such that the individual can't adequately stop the violation or in attacks against the country.
Yes I see what's coming, but would it have actually led to this point had the individual responsibility of the 2nd been enforced in some manner?
In the case of the US, the founders expressed intent for government was to protect individuals natural rights which included the rights of individual self defense. The government was to enforce those rights and laws were retributive in nature, not preventive other than fear of retribution.
The 10 Amendments (whittled down from a starting list of 100 (?)) added were the only prevention outlined and were directed against the government and were assuredly intended to not let the government have control over the citizen.
I just don't see control as a purpose of the Declaration or the Constitution. The rights of control were recognized as unalienable to the individual as their natural right.
The elements of criminal charges for crime against persons and property, and for suit for damages against persons and property have long been established and were well and commonly understood at the time of the founding.
I know 'where you are coming from' and I reject that as the legitimate purpose of government which is why I didn't contribute to your 1st post on this topic.
I will recognize that a very predictable and almost natural proclivity of those that seek or even find themselves in what they consider as esteemed positions of what they perceive as power will immediately and continually attempt and work to increase to the level of control, and then more control, but I consider that result to be a non-legitimate purpose of government.
I need to chew on this a little bit and I'll try to get back to you sometime later tomorrow.
I will try this for an explanation. See if this makes more sense and if not we can keep discussing. I don't think personally we are very different because I believe in our unalienable natural rights too.
When I am talking about control, I am not talking about controlling an individual like our government is doing now. What I am saying is the only purpose for a government to be instituted is to exert control over specific things. For example, I expect the government to protect my unalienable natural rights, all of them. This means that I am giving them my permission to exert control over the forces that my try to take those rights away. If there were no one that would try to take those rights away, there would be no need to have government to exert that force or control. Therefore governments purpose is control not of the individual, which I despise but of the force that would take away my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
I hope this helps you see my analogy of this subject. If not I certainly welcome more discussion because I personally feel this is a worthy conversation.
I chose Law. It defines how government should defend and protect us. Properly constructed, it limits government to the rule of law in the protection of our individual rights.
In today's government it is all about control. Sad but true.
Cheers
George Washington
"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
It seems to represent the morals of the people required to support a dictator.
In our current society, control seems entirely necessary since the phenomenon of civilized citizens seems to be slipping away rapidly.
The proper purpose of government is "serve". The reality that results, unless you plan very carefully, is "control".
I will try this for an explanation. See if this makes more sense and if not we can keep discussing. I don't think personally we are very different because I believe in our unalienable natural rights too.
When I am talking about control, I am not talking about controlling an individual like our government is doing now. What I am saying is the only purpose for a government to be instituted is to exert control over specific things. For example, I expect the government to protect my unalienable natural rights, all of them. This means that I am giving them my permission to exert control over the forces that my try to take those rights away. If there were no one that would try to take those rights away, there would be no need to have government to exert that force or control. Therefore governments purpose is control not of the individual, which I despise but of the force that would take away my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
I hope this helps you see my analogy of this subject. If not I certainly welcome more discussion because I personally feel this is a worthy conversation.
I'm trying to start a thread, as we speak, on private property and human nature, in philosophy. What do you think?
my mistake;;; pardon me, please. -- j
"should be" leads to defense, IMHO....... -- j
Shrugged.
(Rhetorical question;^)
I enjoy certain privileges of western civilization, or the many are: an uncorrupt police force, modern fire prevention, and a transparent method of management. These are things, that if I had to perform them, would be performed in a method to provide the best available product for trade or exchange....this is one reason we have 'government'...to administrate these services for us in exchange for a fee called a tax.
This reminds me of "Game of Thrones" where many of the characters do what ever is necessary for the greater good of the realm.
None have the Objectivist virtues, although Daenerys Targaryen is close, except she wants to rule the realm.
Well, I am wondering, have things not changed?
Anyway, I thought "defense of the realm" was a pretty good objective of government!
Would that the Prez could understand this as well.
Franklin, of course, warned a female friend, when she asked exactly what king of government our constitution had founded: A republic, madam, if you can keep it.
As for me, I've always claimed, words are not the reality, the map is not the territory, and the information is not the thing. And, of course, subjective experience is not objective reality.
One criterion of the "object" might be Jefferson's plaintive, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly, it is not government's purpose to ensure your happiness, only your pursuit of it.
The problem comes when the laws that the government can enforce reduce our liberties and freedom to unacceptable levels. We are discussing right now in my country a law that will reduce the freedom of most parents to choose the school for their children (it is not US). And this is among other reforms equally against liberty.
What do we wish to control?
The use of force in retaliation against those who initiated its use. And the occasional application of force to make whole someone who has lost something through breach of contract, or fraud.
Rand held that control of force-in-retaliation was preferable either to:
1. An escalation of retaliation with no control, or
2. Total forbearance from retaliation.
The former alternative would lead first to long-standing violent feuds, and then to a free-for-all, total warfare of all against all. But the latter would let malefactors steal, rob, assail, or kill with impunity.
And either alternative would make a nation-state vulnerable to outside invasion--the former through disunity, the latter through failure to resist.
The Gulch succeeds in AS, only because membership in it is by invitation only. Everyone is on the same page. Thus a Committee of Safety, and a retired judge who offers his services as an arbiter, suffice to make the society both safe and just.
By the way: the "Gulch rule" the original poster mentioned is probably the custom of never giving anything away free. John Galt mentions this to Dagny by way of explaining why he will rent Midas Mulligan's automobile for twenty-five gold-standard cents a day.
Load more comments...