Note:
I would like to thank DHodges for inspiring this topic as follows:
"I think it is possible for a government to be benign" DHodges
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 0&start=75
"I think it is possible for a government to be benign" DHodges
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 0&start=75
Right now, U.S. governments consume about ~50% of the U.S. GDP."Benign tumors may not metastisize, but they can and often do grow quite large" broke
"... the United States is increasingly socialistic under the Democrats & Republicans. The Democrats are essentially left wing socialists. The Republicans are right wing socialists. How do you define socialism? More money to government, more power to government, more bureaucrats, and more regulations, and on and on ... .
The federal government spends 25% of the Gross National Product. State, county, and local government spend another 22%. That's 47% of the Gross National Product of this country being spent by the government bureaucrats primarily on themselves. That leaves 53% in your pockets. You're the people who earn it. 47% vs 53%; how can we get your 53% up to 90%? One and only one way, we must reduce the 47% the government spends, down to 10%. That is the only way it can be done. Individual Liberty is diametrically opposed to governmental power." Marrou
There is the practical question of whether it can be done. States don't go down without a fight. Once gone, it would take constant vigilance to stop a new state from arising - which I don't think is much different from the vigilance needed to keep a minimal state minimal.Toban wrote:Why not abolish the State altogether?
A legitimate government does not disarm its citizens. A free man has the right to be armed. A man who does not have that right is not a free man; he is a subject (he is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign.) This is one of the dividing lines between a legitimate government and a tyranny.I can't see any reason to give one group of people (the government) all the guns and then let them tell everyone else what to do.
There were anarchists long before Socco & Vanzetti were executed."It seems that hardly anybody considers a stateless society." Toban
The first part of your suggestion sounds like a whole new can of worms.sear wrote:Do you think the U.S. government might be rendered more benign if the Constitution were amended to prohibit itself from enforcing laws against victimless crimes, and impose strict humanitarian protocols limiting the use of coercive force at home and abroad?
Just about any conduct by or between consenting adults, including recreational drug usage*, sexual prostitution, gambling, etc."What is "victimless"?" broke
I imagine it's reciprocal. If Drug War increased it, then perhaps ending Drug War will decrease it."In 1960 in this country [U.S.] there were only 4,000,000 people in the entire nation who had ever used an illicit drug at any time in their life. By 1990 we had 80,000,000 people in this country who had used illicit drugs at any time in their life, and the numbers who became hard core, frequent users were proportional and commensurate." DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine
Drug War makes common sense a lot less common."The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of [their own] folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
Me too."What I deeply resent, sear, is the almost unfathomable use of tax dollars for military spending." broke
But!"There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military." Gen. Horner
In the 18th Century U.S. federal government was our servant."It would never pass ..." broke
What makes you think other people are as sensible as you are?sear wrote:The law is a stupid reason to not abuse drugs. The more sensible reason to not abuse drugs is it's bad for you.
Let me butt back in briefly to answer that if I may. If government is not necessary to protect person A from person A, does that imply it (government) is also unnecessary to protect person B from person C? How about protection from other people? Person A might clear the ice from the sidewalk in front of his house, but drive like an orangutan. Person B may drive just fine but not keep his German Shepherd on a leash. Person C could be single mom who keeps the dog fenced in, but her two young teenage sons are truants from school more days than not. It doesn't matter which social norm you choose: if you can assign a score to each person that reflects that person's ability to abide by the norm, you'll find your Gaussian distribution, more or less, every single time. Which I'm sure you know. If we call the stricter norms "laws," don't imagine that if you removed those laws, the Gaussian curve would stay put. It might even not remain Gaussian-like, with one max. Human nature being what it is, though, it probably would - it would just flatten out and pool down by the lower (worse) scores. Hey, DH, you may need that handgun after all, and a sturdy pair of shit-kickers besides, just to keep your feet dry.DHodges wrote:Unidian, from your point of view, protecting people from themselves is a legitimate function of government?
Of course it is. What really puzzles me is how we (meaning Americans in particular) reached the point where this is considered a legitimate and thoughtful question. It certainly wouldn't have been in 1958, and this is one area where, in my view, we have regressed rather than gone forward.Unidian, from your point of view, protecting people from themselves is a legitimate function of government?
I am trying to understand your view, here. It seems to me that you are willing to grant government a certain moral authority that you would not grant to individual citizens. I mean, I do not feel I would be justified in breaking into my neighbor's house to stop him from doing something I consider harmful (to himself) or immoral.Unidian wrote:Of course it is. What really puzzles me is how we (meaning Americans in particular) reached the point where this is considered a legitimate and thoughtful question. It certainly wouldn't have been in 1958, and this is one area where, in my view, we have regressed rather than gone forward.Unidian, from your point of view, protecting people from themselves is a legitimate function of government?
I don't."What makes you think other people are as sensible as you are?" broke
If the government has to tell us:"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of [their own] folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
"In 1960 in this country [U.S.] there were only 4,000,000 people in the entire nation who had ever used an illicit drug at any time in their life. By 1990 we had 80,000,000 people in this country who had used illicit drugs at any time in their life, and the numbers who became hard core, frequent users were proportional and commensurate." DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine
When they were given the choice, they seemed to choose wisely, according to Constantine."What makes you think other people are as sensible as you are?" broke
Perhaps."A benign government would, as the US government did all thru the 20th century, decide who is competent to manage their own affairs, and who because of youth, senility, or mental dysfunction, could not, and needed more intensive case management." day
Perhaps you had in mind here a "benevolent" government rather than a "benign" government."A benign government would, as the US government did all thru the 20th century, decide who is competent to manage their own affairs, and who because of youth, senility, or mental dysfunction, could not, and needed more intensive case management." day
Perhaps it is inherent in the hature of government. How about some quotes on the topic?sear wrote:However, for whatever reason, it seems the norm is for governments on Earth to be either dictatorial, exploitively corrupt, or incompetent.
Why are there so few (if ever any) simple, libertarian States?
George Washington wrote:Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Lord Acton wrote:The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Henry Ward Beecher wrote:The worst thing in this world, next to anarchy, is government.
Milton Friedman wrote: The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.
Barry Goldwater wrote: A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
Thomas Paine wrote: Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Fred Woodworth wrote: Government is an unnecessary evil. Human beings, when accustomed to taking responsibility for their own behavior, can cooperate on a basis of mutual trust and helpfulness.
P. J. O'Rourke wrote: Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Jonathan Swift wrote: For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.
________________________________________________________Fred Woodworth wrote: If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.
Adolf Hitler wrote: By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Adolf Hitler wrote:How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
Adolf Hitler wrote:The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
Benito Mussolini wrote:All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Benito Mussolini wrote:The truth is that men are tired of liberty.
Benito Mussolini wrote: Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Mao Zedong wrote:To read too many books is harmful.
Mao Zedong wrote:War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.
"hature""Perhaps it is inherent in the hature of government." DH
Thanks DH."How about some quotes on the topic?" DH