Thread: The purpose of government

Originally Posted by Bruno

Speaking as someone who actually lives in a partially socialist country:
What the US is going to has nothing to do with socialism.

Apparently Hillary Clinton has ideas that can be considered socialist, as do a few others (guess who I am rooting for ) but that seems like a minor point, except it is not 'the American way'

~3000 died in the 911 attacks, and it changed the soul of a nation.
The US government is playing fast and loose with virtually every part of the constitution, with the excuse of terrorism squashing all opposition.
What worries me is that people don't seem to mind.
Instead everyone seems to think that those 3000 deaths were somehow more special than the 10s of thousands that die each year in traffic accidents caused by bad roads and unsafe conditions, and somehow those 3000 deaths are used to whitewash every violation of the constitution.

In the current presidential race, there is noone who dares go in the opposite direction. Instead, politicians talk about patriotism, but noone seems to ask 'Well if you are so patriotic, then why don't you live by the constitution? '

2 years ago, Turkey wanted my government to extradite a woman who was accused of being a terrorist, but there were no legal grounds to do so. So they left her under normal allowed surveillance, and she went into hiding. (And our government really doesn't want to know where she went). The minister of Justice explained that our constitution and our laws did not let us do more.
At that moment I was proud, because imo a constitution is as close to holy as the law of men can be.

Trust me. Socialism is NOT going to be the major problem you think it is. It is being used as a distraction in order to move your attention away from the real pain points.

EDIT: to prevent some misconceptions: I generally Like Americans, and I like America (or I wouldn't have married over there) but the American government and foreign policies really annoy me.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

My thoughts are somewhat similar to Bruno's (but then you expect me to be like that living in a "socialist" country don't you?) But a little less strongly about it.

My bothers with the american government are simply that they seem to live on extremes. I know that socialism is deemed the extreme evil (actually it's communism but lately less and less americans seem to understand the difference between those two.) but I'm someone that doesn't agree with extremes in ANY form of government.

Extreme socialism is wrong, extreme Communism is wrong...and (GASP ) so is extreme capitalism.

I think any government that takes care of it's citizens must have a little bit of socialism. I think even a little bit of (NOOOOOOOOOOO, don't say it!!!) communism should be ok. And offcourse I don't mind some capitalism in the mix either.

It's when people start claiming that either one is "THE ONE" (I know Kung Fu) that I start getting shivers and want to run the other way. It's the reason that it's so difficult for people to discuss politics....because politics seem to have crossed over into the realm of religion where anyone who has a different opinion than you will go to hell.

So I say....bring it on....a little moderation never harmed anyone and will never harm the US either.

As for the constitutioin of the states. I believe that it's an inspired document. That being said though I also believe that it's being trod on hand and foot at the moment.

From what I understand about the Patriot Act for instance I think it's a big and a (but I might be misunderstanding it)

Anyway. I'm not saying that my country is better....I don't think it is. We've got plenty of problems here, just different ones.

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?

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?

Pack mentality --- sovereign self-determining countries and people is so old -school ---so yesterday ---- haven't you heard of the new progressive way --- come on man get on the bandwagon ---- come on man "how dare you actually be a human being and link for yourself" --- we know what's best for you and haven't you heard of "it's one Earth --- one people ---one giant utopian concept" ---- who cares what you have to give up, it's all worth it in the end.

Originally Posted by JMS

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?

I'm not sure the world wants the US to be more socialistic or less independent. I think what some countries wish is that the US government might be less gung ho on making unilateral decisions on things that have a global dimension. After all, we all gotta get along.

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 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 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?

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 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.

I guess I'm still not clear is it the federal or the local governments we are talking? Clearly it's about US.

There are few governments that do not collect taxes and it seems quite unlikely that the US federal government can 'protect the freedoms of the citizens' by getting funded through charitable donations.

However I don't think that the constitution was ever intended to be the only document governing the federal government. It is a framework that sets the basics, but the elected government officials are the ones who decide what the role of the government actually is. The way it's set by the constitution your freedom affecting the way government works is the freedom to vote those officials.

So, the fact that the government does what it does is just a reflection on what the majority (in the loose sense of the word) of the voting population wants.

I think the system that was set up is reasonably good, but I don't think anybody will disagree that it's not perfect. The people that came up with this framework are long dead, and the society is quite different now than back then (women and blacks have the right to vote), so the government is also quite different.

The point is that the original constitution is not good enough. So far there are 27 amendments, 18th and 21st of which establish and repeal the prohibition, 13th is the abolition of slavery - were the slaves not people with the same self evident rights/freedoms before that?

But again are all current federal government programs all bad? We may not be able to make this postings if the US government hadn't collected money at the point of the gun from US citizens and developed DARPAnet and then released it to the public. If the federal government didn't spend some of the money it collects at the point on the gun to give it away as forced charity to students the US will not have the technological position it has right now. And if you think that the businesses can do or will do the innovations from government funded research on their own if only the government just left them the money, you can't be more wrong.

BTW my country has gone through 3 or 4 completely different constitutions over the last 130 years. And some of them were apparently quite good, yet only the current reflects the current society.