Thread: The purpose of government

Gugi,
IMHO the biggest problem with our Federal Government today is that they won't even bother to amend the Constitution to enact Healthcare for all. They work around it all the time; with impunity.

Originally Posted by DEwey

Gugi,
IMHO the biggest problem with our Federal Government today is that they won't even bother to amend the Constitution to enact Healthcare for all. They work around it all the time; with impunity.

And you call yourself a libertarian!

Originally Posted by JMS

Interesting, It seems that America bashing is somewhat acceptable and if someone doesn't like it , well, I guess they just get their panties in a bunch far too easily, but let me talk critical of Socialism and all of it's kissing cousins and boy do you have a fit!
I am curious about something though, why is it so important to other countries that we ( the USA ) be more socialistic in nature and less independent?

Hey, that's not fair. I wasn't bashing america. All I said is that things shouldn't be taken to extremes. Be nice now

kiss kiss

Originally Posted by JMS

Are you trying to be insulting? I don't remember reading anywhere anyone trying to tell you what the constitution says.

No, I'm not and you know (or I would hope you do) that the last thing I will try to do is be insulting.
I'll include my statement (in blue) and the responce to it (in red) so that the context is clear.

However I don't think that the constitution was ever intended to be the only document governing the federal government.
You know, that is exactly what it is.

I had already said that it is a guiding principle only, and since it's not to be changed often it has to be general in order to serve its role.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the red, but it seems like a disagreement with the blue. You guys agree with the blue, don't you? If the red is agreement with the blue, please tell me and correct my understanding of English.

Whether the purpose of the constitution is to limit the government, or to expand it is a matter of semantics. Since it creates a government which did not existed before, it is an expansion. Of course it is a type government which is to respect certain rights/freedoms of the individuals, but my reading to that is, 'unlike the governments like we see around the world today'. I find it quite a stretch and twist of the history to interpret this like 'chains the government from encroaching into areas unintended by the founders'. Yes it does that, too, but not in the spirit that it is ascribed to it.

Most civilized countries' constitutions nowadays have essentially the same principles, yet each society chooses to do things in a particular way.
My point was that americans today ought to be free to set up their society and government the way they like it, and not the way somebody thinks was the intention of the founders.

Perhaps, the constitution ought to be amended beyond the government providing for 'the general welfare of US' and not use this as a catch all for all government programs. I don't know - it's not my country, I'm a guest here and I only make observations.
In any case the fact that there is no libertarian politician with the slightest chance to becoming a president tells me that the US society does not want and will not be libertarian anytime soon. And you can not twist the constitution to make it happen.

It's interesting that the Constitution was not acceptable until the Bill of Rights was attached to it. The 10 Rights were deemed necessary to guarantee that we all have the tools necessary to maintain Constitutional authority. When I joined the service you swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Not the government; nor any leader in government.

The Patriot Act, the "Real ID Act of 2005", complete disregard for the Geneva Convention (isn't the U.S. a signatory?), all of those and much more have shredded the Constitution. Rights continue to be chipped away little by little. You don't have to steal a car all at once. Steal a single part every week or so for 20 years. Maybe no one will notice.

One of my favorite quotes:
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When governments fear the people there is liberty."

Right now you can't even board a plane with any container having more than 3 ounces of fluid in it. The funny part is that a body is a container. Ain't blood a fluid?

steeling one part at the time reminds me of a joke from former communist countries:

they ask this lady where she works and she says 'in a factory'. 'what do you produce?' 'well we're producing sewing machines, but i keep taking parts and anyway i try to assemble myself a sewing machine i can't do it - it always comes out AK47'.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Right now you can't even board a plane with any container having more than 3 ounces of fluid in it. The funny part is that a body is a container. Ain't blood a fluid?

it's worse than that - you can't have a container larger than 3oz. I was made to throw away 75% full very expensive cologne, because it was in a 3.3oz (100ml) glass bottle. To keep it I'd have had to go back to the checking and find a way to check it (I guess check the shoulder bag I carried with me), and then wait for another hour to get past security. Of course the TSA regulations have gotten into effect the previous week, and they were taped in several copies on the table of the inspection. I was told that it's my responsibility to find them and familiarize myself with them before leaving home, but I still wish they'd have put one copy where the 1hr line started. Most people would read them because they are bored standing in line. It might have simplified the job of the inspectors and saved the frustration of the passengers. Perhaps that's just government inefficiency and if the security inspections were contracted it may start working the way we think it ought to...

Originally Posted by jockeys

1) if you are paying more taxes, your healthcare isn't free, now is it?
2) i have all of those things you mentioned (minus the kids part, don't have any) the only difference is i get billed for them. i really don't have a problem paying for services i use. the difference is i CHOOSE to buy them, rather than having the gov't force me to
3) if you want to pay the gov't to hold your hand and nanny you, fine, but does that mean EVERYONE should get that choice chosen for them? i'd rather take care of myself when i can, pay someone else to when i can't, and have the gov't stay the heck away.

Well, in that case nothing in life is free right? So what are we saying here?

What I meant was to draw a comparison between the excellent state healthcare I get which I get irrespective of whether it's a cold or triple bypass surgery (and I don't pay more tax depending on treatment) and medical insurance which varies depending on how much of a risk I pose to the insurers. There's no concept of risk with the NHS unlike a commercial business like an insurer which will always try to wriggle out of any claim you make. It has to make a profit after all. With state healthcare the driving force is not profit, the driving force is your individual welfare.

But I digress. My own personal opinion is those very valid points above (namely I'll choose what services I want, government keep their beaks out of it) is a very individualistic stance. You see, I might not be in a position to help friends and family financially if they require some big medical outlay. They'll just die I guess. But I'm OK Jack, because I choose what to spend my money on. With a state healthcare system funded through taxes my kith and kin are also looked after equally well.

I guess that's why I believe in the state.

Originally Posted by majurey

Well, in that case nothing in life is free right? So what are we saying here?

What I meant was to draw a comparison between the excellent state healthcare I get which I get irrespective of whether it's a cold or triple bypass surgery (and I don't pay more tax depending on treatment) and medical insurance which varies depending on how much of a risk I pose to the insurers. There's no concept of risk with the NHS unlike a commercial business like an insurer which will always try to wriggle out of any claim you make. It has to make a profit after all. With state healthcare the driving force is not profit, the driving force is your individual welfare.

of course there is risk. but since everyone pays the same it is averaged out over all the participants. basically, you screw the healthy by healing the sick at their expense.

But I digress. My own personal opinion is those very valid points above (namely I'll choose what services I want, government keep their beaks out of it) is a very individualistic stance. i'm an individualistic kinda guy. You see, I might not be in a position to help friends and family financially if they require some big medical outlay. that's their responsibility. if you want to help them, that's noble and good, but it's arguable whether it's your responsibility They'll just die I guess. But I'm OK Jack, because I choose what to spend my money on. With a state healthcare system funded through taxes my kith and kin are also looked after equally well.

I guess that's why I believe in the state.

after having spent my life watching how efficient the gov't is at doing ANYTHING (that is, not at all) i have to say i trust myself to shop for healthcare better than gov't. since i buy private healthcare, i'm confident that i'm getting a good bargain. if it was state run, it would definitely cost more, it most likely wouldn't be as good, and i wouldn't have the option to choose something else. that's one of the main problems with state run healthcare, it takes the choice out of the hands of the citizen and legislates a choice for them. and i'm not even going to get into how that violates all sorts of free market principles (a state monopoly on healthcare)

Originally Posted by Jimbo

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.
taking money from unwilling donors and redistributing it inefficiently is NOT protecting liberty.
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.
not willingly. if i could elect a gov't that wasn't as big and bloated, you can best your last nickel i'm go out and stump for them. nowadays the only "choice" i get is to pick a lot of meaningless physical features of the socialist weasel who steals my money to increase the marketshare of the "company" he or she works for.
James.

yeah, apparently i'm bitter and disillusioned, huh?

that's their responsibility. if you want to help them, that's noble and good, but it's arguable whether it's your responsibility

I do understand your view, I just don't share it.

In terms of screwing the healthy by healing the sick at their expense, well... I guess if you subscribe to the view that everyone has the same capability or same opportunity to succeed financially, then they can look after themselves. I'll look after me, you look after you, and things'll work out just fine.

But I just don't believe that everyone does have the same opportunities. I don't see myself as being screwed when my neighbour goes for major invasive surgery which results in his being able to continue to support his family whereas I only got a few antibitotics from my GP last time I had something wrong. Me and my neighbour paid roughly the same in tax, so he's got one up on me, right? Nah. The guy deserves all the treatment he needs as far as I'm concerned, and I'm proud to be part of a state system that does this. After all, tomorrow it might be me or mine.

But no system is perfect. There's always gonna be some a$$hole(s) who want to screw the system. And yes, that is something I don't like but am willing to put up with for the greater good. What I CAN do about it is vote --for the party who I think is going to be able to minimise the abuse of state aid and therefore maximise the value to honest taxpayers.

I do get what you're saying. I work hard for what I earn, and if I want to spend it on healthcare or on another custom Livi, it should be up to me to decide where the funds go. I do think it's quite a hard view of life, and life is hard enough without us making it even more so for each other. I just naively believe that the state (and I'm not talking US, UK, Chinese or whatever, just the state as a concept), I believe the state is the most efficient way of distributing help to those who need it.

In the same way, I think it's why many people also give to charity. After all, the money you give charity isn't really controlled by you -- you don't decide whether it's this family or that family that gets a goat, damn they probably aren't even getting a goat. Or a well. Or medicines. The charity collects and distributes on our behalf.