Thread: The purpose of government

Originally Posted by JMS

Apparently your my kind of thinker after all!

heh, as long as we're not talking about anger management

Originally Posted by jockeys

heh, as long as we're not talking about anger management

My thoughts exactly!

Originally Posted by jockeys

Read some Milton Friedman. There is a good case being made that the creation of the Federal Reserve was directly responsible for the Great Depression.

And to whoever said Social Security was a positive side-effect, I can't disagree more. Social(ist) Security is WAY less efficient than privately investing, it sickens me that Uncle Sam thinks he should take my money and invest it for me. If that gov't can't trust me to be wise enough to handle my own retirement finances, why the HELL should I trust the gov't at all?

So I did read that somewhere ---- can't always trust my brain, sometimes I will wish things to be a certain way and make it so .

Any Thomas Sowell fans here? --- maybe he pointed this out in one of his articles.

Justin

The bottom line for me is an acknowledgment that charity is good. I believe in charity. Charity, however, is not a Government Program; it is voluntary. I believe that government forced charity is wrong. International aid - I don't think that is government's place. Their place is to guard the borders and keep us free to do the best for our families with our abilities. Funny, the quote about those who will not work will not eat. That should sound reasonable - EXCEPT that he meant that those who would not work for the government would not eat. That's an entirely different statement. Also, if he does not produce, he should seek charity from those who voluntarily donate their excess - not ask the government to take it from producers at the point of a gun to give it to anyone else. Again, I remind you that I believe in charity and compassion by reason and choice. I don't believe that forced charity is any more moral than theft.
Wirebeard, I totally agree with you that the hand of government is involved in myriad places that it does not belong (not sure that you feel it doesn't belong, but I know you're saying that most Americans don't have a clue. I assure you that I do have a clue. Admittedly, I may very well disagree with a large majority of the population!)

Originally Posted by DEwey

Again, I remind you that I believe in charity and compassion by reason and choice. I don't believe that forced charity is any more moral than theft.

I agree. When folks ask me why the more fortunate shouldn't pay more taxes since "they can afford it" I can't help but to wonder if muggers should be punished less severely for mugging the rich than the poor?

I, too, advocate an end to government "charity." Don't view it as taking away from the needy, view it as better enabling the more fortunate to help those around them!

I keep going back to Mark's first post which interprets part of the Declaration of Independence - the bit that says Governments are instituted among men (and presumably women) to protect or uphold inalienable rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I agree with that - I mean, who wouldn't? But the devil's in the detail, as with anything.

As an example, why isn't it in the spirit of the Declaration for Government to perform charity? And how's it going to do that without spending money? And where's it meant to get money from?

As always, I got no answers, just questions...

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

why isn't it in the spirit of the Declaration for Government to perform charity?

Charity is an individual choice. If the gov't takes money from unwilling "donors," it isn't charity, it's theft.

Essentially, if you are forcing someone to act charitably, IT AIN'T CHARITY, it's coercion. Charity HAS to be something an individual chooses.

If I rob you at gunpoint and then give the money to the Salvation Army, does that make it ok?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I keep going back to Mark's first post which interprets part of the Declaration of Independence - the bit that says Governments are instituted among men (and presumably women) to protect or uphold inalienable rights including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I agree with that - I mean, who wouldn't? But the devil's in the detail, as with anything.

As an example, why isn't it in the spirit of the Declaration for Government to perform charity? And how's it going to do that without spending money? And where's it meant to get money from?

As always, I got no answers, just questions...

James.

That's because your smarter than the rest of us (or at least me).

Justin

Originally Posted by jockeys

Charity is an individual choice. If the gov't takes money from unwilling "donors," it isn't charity, it's theft.

Essentially, if you are forcing someone to act charitably, IT AIN'T CHARITY, it's coercion. Charity HAS to be something an individual chooses.

If I rob you at gunpoint and then give the money to the Salvation Army, does that make it ok?

But to protect life and liberty (and the pursuit of happiness) is the reason why your founding fathers thought Government was necessary. Certain forms of charity go to the very heart of all three of those inalienable rights.

Every time you elect any Government, you are willingly, and with full understanding, allowing them to levy taxes against you to enable them to perform their function.

James.

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

That's because your smarter than the rest of us (or at least me).

Justin

I haven't got a clue, Justin. Just bumbling my way through mate, as usual...

James.