Thread: The purpose of government

I may comment later but I think the following text will stand on its own without my support!
Someone PMed this to me some time ago and I don't remember who, but I saved it.
I will say that I believe that all governments should adopt these ideas!

Please feel free to openly agree or disagree, just becareful about poking each other in the eye!

So without further ado:


The Real Meaning of Independence
By Sen. Mark Hillman
07-01-2003
As we observe the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence this Fourth of
July, we should consider the unique form of government for which our Founding
Fathers chose to risk 'their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor' against the
militarily-superior British.
The definitive passage in the Declaration reads: "We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
In these 57 words, the Founders established that:
– Our rights, better understood as "freedoms," are given to us by a power higher
than government. No matter what you believe about creation or evolution, you must
acknowledge that government did not give us life.
– Government's legitimate purpose is to protect the rights of the people. Just as
government did not give us life, it did not give us our rights, either.
– Government's powers are limited to only those given to it by the people.
"The whole point was to show how government might arise legitimately, not to
assume its existence," writes constitutional scholar Roger Pilon in The Purpose
and Limits of Government published (Adobe Acrobat PDF) by Cato Institute.
Pilon's insights are particularly useful because, as a libertarian, he does not
advance a religious conservative agenda. Yet he acknowledges that the Founders'
common view of "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" provide the cornerstone for
all that follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident....
The signers of the Declaration didn't negotiate and compromise to define truth.
They agreed that certain fundamental truths were obvious. For example:
...That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness...
In that each of us exists because of the same creative process, the rights to which
each of us are entitled are necessarily equal. Such rights are best understood as freedoms from interference, either by government or by other people which, of
course, implies that others are entitled to be free from our interference.
Freedom encompasses not simply the opportunity to make choices but the
responsibility for those choices. Freedom does not mean that because my choice
seems "superior" I can bend others to my will, nor does it mean that when I make
an irresponsible choice I can restrict the freedom of others to impose
consequences.
...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed.
Once the Founders established a broad universe of rights, they discussed
government, the sole purpose of which is to protect those rights. Again it is
imperative to understand "rights" as freedoms – not as an entitlement taken at the
expense of another1s rights.
When government legitimately protects our freedom, it simply does that which we
have a right to do ourselves. By contrast, government does not act legitimately if it
secures my rights by taking the life, liberty or property of someone else.
Occasionally, the rights of two people may conflict; neither can fully exercise
freedom without adversely affecting the other. The Founders concluded that in
these circumstances, the boundaries between competing rights ought to be drawn
by the people whom government serves. However, the consent doctrine does not
empower majority rule to deny unalienable freedoms to the minority.
Sadly, this concept of vast individual freedoms and occasional areas of
government power bears little resemblance to our federal government today, which
is why it is so vitally important that our young people learn about the foundation of
our government before electing someone to lead it.
Sen. Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, represents 12 counties on the Eastern Plains.

Since I've spent 8 years of my life in the military, serving in one ground war and 6 deployments spanning over 30 countries and 4 continents... I feel I have the right to openly speak my mind on this particular subject...

and I know this is probably going to bruise someone's feelings here...

but in my opinion, the U.S. Government, in all it's current infinite and infallible wisdom, falls severely short of these noble ideals. Our government has become "big buisness", and the population continues to fall into an ignorant and lazy existence, enabling a government that allows them their kind of lifestyle.

Wake up sheeple... this country is in trouble. The voice of the people has become weak and much diminished as of very late.

Yes, the U.S. government seems to be walking headlong into Socialism with all its inane feel good policies, but its true purpose is to destroy the foundation on which this country was built!
Thanks for posting SmooveRN!

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.

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.

The purpose of government is to increase its own marketshare, evidently.

Originally Posted by jockeys

The purpose of government is to increase its own marketshare, evidently.

Tell that to the Swiss.

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.

That's right because we are not going to allow it. F socialism or any collectivist mentality --- right up the bung hole. We don't need to trust you ---- Bruno, Belgium has a long way to go in the affairs of democratic rule before we trust it or any of its citizens. I think it is funny how a person raised under a socialist government would say "trust me" -- it is fitting and totally unAmerican --- which traditionally taught "trust yourself and your own will and your own abilities ---- don't trust people who say "trust me".

Justin

Originally Posted by jockeys

The purpose of government is to increase its own marketshare, evidently.

I don't think it is the purpose of government, but it is the result of government unless it is bound by the restraints of the Constitution and those restraints are constantly monitored and respected.
The spirit of America has always been freedom from government interference into your personal lives except where it must interfere to protect the rights of others.
The rationale behind Socialism (which is expressed in America as the Democrat Party) is that Government provides rights and that government can ensure equality of outcome. This is a very dangerous idea. The Founders clearly believed that the rights of the individual were paramount and were a natural expectation that could not legally be infringed upon by the government without a it being a crime against the citizenry. Obviously, we have drifted far away from that core belief.
On the other hand, the Republicans believe that our Constitutional rights extend not only to our own citizens but to all people of the world. This is true only insomuch as all people naturally HAVE these rights and that it is a crime when their governments do not recognize their rights as they should. Sorry, but this DOES NOT justify our entangling alliances and interferences around the globe. We should be a shining city on the hill - an example to all and a beacon of hope in a dark unjust world. Not a shining city on a hill with a huge army that is actively running down said hill to conquer all bad guys in the name of justice and liberation. We have a history of remaining neutral in world affairs. Abandoning that principle has cost plenty in blood and treasure - not to mention good will.

Originally Posted by DEwey

The rationale behind Socialism (which is expressed in America as the Democrat Party) is that Government provides rights and that government can ensure equality of outcome. This is a very dangerous idea.

Both parties are guilty of that. Don't listen to what they say; look at what they do. A case in point is "No Child Left Behind."
When politicians say they're for small government, what they mean is "You can pollute all you want, but we're still going to wiretap your phone."

Norm