13
   

What is the essential role of government.

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 07:07 pm
@Fido,
You are quite the queen.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 07:15 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Even the followers of raiding barbarians choose their government, or at least get rid of the one they've got if it pisses them off enough. I guess I'm looking for a one paragrapher on what even prehistoric peoples felt was the essential role of their 'government' to see if it extrapolates across all of human society at any time.
Look for it in Moragan's Ancient Society... All original governments were gentile, that is, they grew naturally out of the family organization... Democracy is always defensive... Even in Frankish Europe, it took the introduction of the spur to make wealth the qualification for government... When all were foot soldiers and cavelry was not good for much, democracy was essential, since people voted with their feet and their honor... They were never anywhere they did not want to be, never fighting for any cause they did not support...
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 07:27 pm
@Fido,
Quite possibly I'm in reductionist fantasy land. Thanks for the tip on the reference, I'm assuming you mean Lewis H. Morgan?

I find it a little disturbing that the full text is available from Marxist.org!

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/morgan-lewis/ancient-society/index.htm

Why wouldn't it be on Project Gutenberg?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 07:37 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quite possibly I'm in reductionist fantasy land. Thanks for the tip on the reference, I'm assuming you mean Lewis H. Morgan?

I find it a little disturbing that the full text is available from Marxist.org!

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/morgan-lewis/ancient-society/index.htm

Why wouldn't it be on Project Gutenberg?
What ever his conclusions it is hard to dispute the facts... If you want to know about Greek and Roman tribal organization there is the place... Plus he was adopted into the Senaca, and was a real authority on the Six Nation Iroquois... Consider Engles book on the family and Private Property, And I do not have the correct title before me...
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 07:38 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Even the followers of raiding barbarians choose their government, or at least get rid of the one they've got if it pisses them off enough. I guess I'm looking for a one paragrapher on what even prehistoric peoples felt was the essential role of their 'government' to see if it extrapolates across all of human society at any time.

I think I am looking for the same hinge. I'm pretty sure that in todays complicated modern society the one parra definition is not suitable.
Rogers post about security comes closest.
Security comes in different forms. Economic security and security against violence are two. On the face of it the US government has been failing for many years to provide these perhaps because it is so caught up in providing world wide security. The US is not alone in this regard.

Thomas' post describes closely the feelings I have for a modern westen government role but perhaps not for the 3rd world or those still living in a fuedal society. I'll read it again though.

I cant make any sense out of any of Fido's remarks despite making a concerted attempt to try to understand.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:10 pm
@dadpad,
dadpad wrote:

hingehead wrote:

Even the followers of raiding barbarians choose their government, or at least get rid of the one they've got if it pisses them off enough. I guess I'm looking for a one paragrapher on what even prehistoric peoples felt was the essential role of their 'government' to see if it extrapolates across all of human society at any time.

I think I am looking for the same hinge. I'm pretty sure that in todays complicated modern society the one parra definition is not suitable.
Rogers post about security comes closest.
Security comes in different forms. Economic security and security against violence are two. On the face of it the US government has been failing for many years to provide these perhaps because it is so caught up in providing world wide security. The US is not alone in this regard.

Thomas' post describes closely the feelings I have for a modern westen government role but perhaps not for the 3rd world or those still living in a fuedal society. I'll read it again though.

I cant make any sense out of any of Fido's remarks despite making a concerted attempt to try to understand.

How much more simple can it get for you... The preamble of the constitution states its purpose, no part of which has been reached, that are no less good and worthy goals of government for that fact.... We are so used to government watching like a bystander trying not to look at the violence done to this people, and the demoralization that comes of our being denied justice... Justice is a goal of the constitution... If it is not reached by our form of government, then revolution is in order...It is simple... Read the Declaration of Independence... Those people were conscious of forms and the purpose government was meant to serve... They understood the reluctance of people to change forms when one of the purposes of our social forms is to resist change... Yet, it sometimes becomes necessary in the course of human affairs... In fact, all human history is the story of changing forms...
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:21 am
@Fido,
Aristotle says almost at the beginning of Politics, that good is the goal of government, because that is the goal of all human activity, my paraphrase...

Ah, but I am not so sure. I might replace 'good' with survival.

Do humans not group together for safety first and once reaching a feeling of security keep outside influences at bay?

We like to speak of 'good' as a motive, but it seems rare to me.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:45 am
Fido,

I am concerned. You are beginning to make sense to me.

I believe one of our current problems as a Federal Govt is the vast differences in our definition of good. Our many regions have such different problems and societies.

It seems to me that our Federal Govt sucks off an enormous resource for what it returns to the regions. Our national defense is what, 50% of our budget? What do we get for that? 50 year old interstate system? What has our federal govt done since the interstate system was built to promote commerce? TSA ?

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 04:54 am
@IRFRANK,
ACtually, the Interstate system was originally conceived as a corridor for national defense and to mobilize our armed services to different segments that could be threatened and to evacuate the people to somewhere else.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 05:26 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Aristotle says almost at the beginning of Politics, that good is the goal of government, because that is the goal of all human activity, my paraphrase...

Ah, but I am not so sure. I might replace 'good' with survival.

Do humans not group together for safety first and once reaching a feeling of security keep outside influences at bay?

We like to speak of 'good' as a motive, but it seems rare to me.
Yes; Survival is the reason for being of all our forms, social and physical and moral.... Yet, if this is true, why have no people learned to build an infinite social form, one that could adapt and be adaptable to changing situations, and resist the sort of self serving changes that destroy all forms??? The best and most conscious attempt was the U.S. Constitution... But no one can prevent people from taking a little cut off the form, turning what should be a public good to a private gain... Social Forms are made to last, to resist change, and people use them for personal gain and destroy their social value... Look at our Constitution as a social form... Some of the changes that have proved destructive to the intent of the constitution have never been voted on by the people... Others that the people voted for that were corrective were turned against them... Even the flaws of the constitution that bore fruit in our great Civil War resulted in even greater property rights as the price of general civil rights...The best proof that the government as a form is not working is the great numbers of organizations formed to achieve the same goals as the government has set for itself...

I will not join a party or union or organization to do what I pay taxes to my government to do... It should follow its preamble... The goals are good, the means are a failure because it has been changed to benefit individuals rather than the entire people... It always happens, and it has happened here, and it is time to change the whole thing...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 05:29 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Fido,

I am concerned. You are beginning to make sense to me.

I believe one of our current problems as a Federal Govt is the vast differences in our definition of good. Our many regions have such different problems and societies.

It seems to me that our Federal Govt sucks off an enormous resource for what it returns to the regions. Our national defense is what, 50% of our budget? What do we get for that? 50 year old interstate system? What has our federal govt done since the interstate system was built to promote commerce? TSA ?



To allow states to compete with each other to entice industry into their areas has resulted in a vast wasteland and a marrooned work force... Sure, I would like to go to a place where fresh infrastructure and labor laws favored the capitalists if I were a capitalist... Why is the whole of our government geared to serve this minority??? With think of it as an ideological good, but it does not bear scrutiny.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 06:11 am
@dadpad,
dadpad wrote:



I believe at this time that the role of a government is equitable redistribution of wealth.



You are dead wrong in believing this should ever be the role of government.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 07:30 am
@Fido,
I agree Fido, but the minority has done an outstanding job of selling the 'good' of capitalism to the majority, so they can serve it's needs to improve the life of the minority. Reagan's trickle down theory and it's adherents, even after such proof of failure, is a prime example. There are much worse examples of socialism's poor treatment of the masses. Arrogance and greed of those in power is the real problem. If we are fortunate enough to get a beneficent leader, he/she is replaced by a tyrant soon enough.

Man's motives primarily are individual and family security, even beyond what is necessary. All the rest is just talk, intended to lead the masses in the chosen direction. Even religion, man's one invention that is supposedly based on good deeds to our fellow man, only leads to supplication and accumulation of wealth. The leaders safe and secure in their temples.

Maybe it is nature and our own drive to exist that continuously puts the powerful at the top and allows them to maintain our plight.

Maybe the economic system doesn't matter, maybe we are meant to serve the queen.

Palin in 2012
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 08:57 am
I stiil believe economics is part of the picture for an effective government. The ideal for government is to provide some type of structure for interaction among citizens and that would include commerce.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 09:24 am
@dadpad,
dadpad wrote:
Thomas' post describes closely the feelings I have for a modern westen government role but perhaps not for the 3rd world or those still living in a fuedal society. I'll read it again though.

There's no doubt the individual items on my list would be different if we were talking about a Third-World country. There are two reasons for that. First, the governments in those countries operate under different constraints. Second, the people in those countries have different priorities. They need different kinds of public goods provided, different kinds of monopolies curbed, different kinds of pollution controlled---"pollution" broadly interpreted---and different kinds of information disclosed on different subjects.

But my overall maxim for those governments would still be the same: "Maximize the wealth of your nation, as best your imperfect machinery can."
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:32 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

dadpad wrote:



I believe at this time that the role of a government is equitable redistribution of wealth.



You are dead wrong in believing this should ever be the role of government.

No; but the common wealth should be returned to the commonwealth... Nothing is free and clear, and property even in private hands has to support the population, and pay for its own defense... Now clearly the rich have enough money if they have money to lend the government, and money to buy the affections of politicians... The poor who have no money must put their lives on the line for what the rich will not even pay taxes for, and since it is the government that stands behind their title, and is the original holder of all the property, and the defender of property rights it ought to collect money for the protection and privilages they extend... Because property right are not qualitative, but quantitative, so that those with more property have more protection for their property, and because it makes them unequal to people with only civil rights, it is inevitable that those with the most property can end up with more, and finally all the property, so by its nature property give one the advantage over another that is unfair, and contrary to the notion of rights....

If it were truly possible for rights to make one more than the equal of another, eventually that right would result in complete inequality and complete loss of rights for the less strong and less than equal... In this fashion, because of an inequality of rights, and a prejudice on the part of the law, and the courts in favor of property -that the rich are always getting richer and the poor become always poorer...

There is nothing in property right to guarantee that civil rights will be respected, and there is the certainty that they will not... If it is thought that property ownership was a good thing for society, and society puts part of the commonwealth in private hands it should be with an eye toward a certain good... That good cannot be shown...

If personal civil rights were protected, then the property a person owned would receive the respect accorded to the person who owned it... For property to receive special protection it must be taken from civil rights... Yet the property owner has all the civil rights and more than the one without property... On that stage of rights each are equal, and their rights cancel each other out, but the extra protection of property makes property owners more than equal, and that inequality has told time and again so that now civil rights are a pawn, meaningless in regard to property...... It is a property right by which wealth can dominate election campaegns... Every effective tool of organised labor has be taken on the basis of property rights... The protection from unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to individuals, but only to property... Should it not be the other way around, where the people are presumed to have rights and property must prove its value and good intentions to have protection???
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:40 pm
Fido just barfed up something rotten.
Take him to the vet for a green injection.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:43 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

I agree Fido, but the minority has done an outstanding job of selling the 'good' of capitalism to the majority, so they can serve it's needs to improve the life of the minority. Reagan's trickle down theory and it's adherents, even after such proof of failure, is a prime example. There are much worse examples of socialism's poor treatment of the masses. Arrogance and greed of those in power is the real problem. If we are fortunate enough to get a beneficent leader, he/she is replaced by a tyrant soon enough.

Man's motives primarily are individual and family security, even beyond what is necessary. All the rest is just talk, intended to lead the masses in the chosen direction. Even religion, man's one invention that is supposedly based on good deeds to our fellow man, only leads to supplication and accumulation of wealth. The leaders safe and secure in their temples.

Maybe it is nature and our own drive to exist that continuously puts the powerful at the top and allows them to maintain our plight.

Maybe the economic system doesn't matter, maybe we are meant to serve the queen.

Palin in 2012
I am not suggesting any ideology as a cure... People ought to have the forms they choose, but there is no specific protection for the free enterprise system in the constitution, which is an ideology as well...If people are given an opportunity to choose with the facts laid out, I trust them to decide for themselves... The people are all complaining, but they are led to beleive it is their neighbors who are the cause of their pain... IN fact, capital is the cause, because it feeds greed and destroys civil rights... If the people had the understanding of Jefferson and those who advanced the declaration of independence, they would realize it is their right to change their form when it does not work, and ours clearly does not work... There is no reason violence should be necessary to effect social change, but the right always responds with violence... It was the South, in a premature defense of property rights, which seen in it true light, as contrary to civil rights that started the civil war... It was not necessary, but criminals defend their crime...
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:46 pm
The left is known for its random acts of violence against the poor and non-white Americans.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 03:47 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

I stiil believe economics is part of the picture for an effective government. The ideal for government is to provide some type of structure for interaction among citizens and that would include commerce.

If the government defends justice, commerce will take care of itself... It is excess in the pursuit of advantage that is the cause of injustice... Take the advantage... Tell people to pile away their wealth built on injustice and the government will rake it in over time, and make it a part of the commonwealth...What will you have then to hand to the children you now commit crimes for??? Will you give your children your honor and rights as a citizen, or a heritage of crime that will certainly make their lives more uncertain??? A just society can exist forever, but an unjust society is doomed...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 09:39:51