A republic is a government based on a Constitution which is a contract between the people and the government. That contract limits the power of the government and recognizes the inalienable rights of the individual. Government and laws by their very nature infringe on the rights of the people and as such are an impediment to freedom. The larger government grows, and the more laws it passes the more it infringes on the freedoms and liberty of the people. That is why no law should be passed unless it is absolutely necessary. The passage of any law, even if it is voted upon denies the rights of the people who vote against it. In the final analysis, we must ask ourselves why it is ethical to impose the will of the majority on the minority, and by what power is the will of the majority binding on the minority. What is the mechanism by which one man can dictate a rule or a law to another? Where does this power originate and what justifies it?
May I ask what your political ideology is? to begin answering that question one must ask why anyone enters a contract? answer: to guarantee the arrival of a necessity and to avoid disputes. so what are some of these necessities? answer: to the basic food, housing, security, clothing etc and to the complex right to individualism (freedom, privacy, etc) so the common man enters into this compact with whoever represents the government to ensure the aforementioned necessities, however one must ask what does the government get on their side? taxes, these must by their nature go towards ensuring the needs of the first part ie the people, Fame, not all representatives become famous mayors for example or undersecretaries, so what? it is my belief the second party ie the government gets power from this contract ie to make laws, represent it's citizens, and shape the course of the group. so who becomes the government? well that's the sticking point we say the people, but you and I are not in the government and we have ideals and beliefs that may not be represented by joe down the street so in order to assure ourselves of some form of representation to allow our needs to be met, we vote by the majority in selected groups, whether that be by geography, platform, or trade is up for debate. however because pf the inherent nature of the position no representative can possibly represent a large group of individuals because people in said demographic may hold diametrically opposed views ie: hard line conservative's and progressive liberals so no matter what someone at some time is not getting themselves represented. so we are left with the question where does one derive the authority necessary to make a decision and impose one minority's views on the other? the answer to this is the reason for the contract the physical needs still need to be met so the power the second party receives via the aforementioned contract (constitution) is the right to make a decision for the greater good of the group no matter the effects on the minorities involved. so we are left with groups who are surrendering their political influence to make sure that their need's are met in conditions in which they most possibly might not be otherwise. whether a man who needs to pander to the minorities who elected him can make the necessary decision is still up for debate, anyway that's my two cents Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraintAlexander Hamilton US Secretary of the Treasury, economist, and political theorist
It is fitting you quoted a Federalist who's agenda it was to establish a central bank in the image of the British one the country had just fought to separate it self from. The government apologists always use the illogical argument that the people need the services of government without any corroboration whatsoever. The Federal government of the United States was clearly constructed to keep its power restricted and to keep power concentrated as close to the people as was possible. Federalists who desired power and to exploit both the riches of the land and the hard work of the people used government as the tool to exploit both. They worked tirelessly to expand the powers of government far beyond the intent of the States and the people. You have still failed to identify the mechanism by which one or more men may pass a law which is morally binding on another. If two or more of your neighbors found themselves out of work and voted to help themselves to your possessions by way of making an association which was passed by a majority, would that be binding upon you?
I quoted Alexander Hamilton because he made sense on this topic the government needs to exist and without it there would be division on family lines maybe along individual lines there would be chaos and untold violence just look at the history of the human race with all its violence. let me take your example say there is a neighborhood of 20 people with no food, water, etc and because you had some they decided they would just take it so you need a third party to protect you (the guy down the street with a paranoid arsenal) why should he protect you? don't say human decency because people are inherently selfish, you need to give him something to get something. now say he has food and water what do you give him? decision making power is what you give him you sacrifice the right to make decisions for your self for his protection now advance to a republic your neighbors want your stuff but he is the government and can't just kill them so he needs to provide food water etc to everyone and if he can't do it the group elects someone else. so the morally binding part is that people would have to fend for themselves without him (and the others) so you agree not to break his rules in return for supplies housing clothing etc. if his rules are too strict you leave or remove him. in the end we all agree by being citizens to obey the laws and in return we get protected fed housed etc this agreement is bound by our basic instincts towards survival and if someone breaks the contract it's in everyones best interests to punish this person and preserve the contract upon which our civilization is based "The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that, and you have abandoned all."-thomas jefferson
Your logic is so convoluted I can see it is of no point to debate the issue with you. If you look at the history of the human race, it is always government that perpetuates violence. No good ever comes of government. It simply gives corrupt people the power to do evil on a much greater scale.
at first i believed you solely wanted an intellectual exorcise but now i believe you are one of those people who solely exist on your own biases especially in regards to people in authority so let me leave you with this when a women drives her kids into the ocean or when a sociopath walks into a theater and kills the moviegoers the government did not drive them to it people are violent and organization and order protect you from that. the government exists to make sure insane people like you can continue to spout off nonsense without wondering where your next meal is or who will attack your territory maybe if you lived in africa where warlords are chosen because of their brutality and go around killing thousands because they can and because of pre existing prjudices you will be able to accept that the government you are so afraid of is actually there to protect you anarchist idiot
You have the mindset of a peasant, and it is that which has kept you from achieving any degree of success in your life.
Too much freedom is bad. Do you want to live in a country where people do just whatever they feel like? It is through elections. In theory people in power are voted to govern others for a short period of time.
Laws can be extremely vague, broad, or open-ended, and can have effects very much unintended by those who made them. Some laws could even potentially be used by groups within the government to threaten democracy, and freedoms of the people. So while a degree of respect should be given to laws, laws passed by men cannot confer absolute rights.
Freedom is bad?????????? Man are you brainwashed! Time for you to go pray to your god the government.
That is sad, I feel deeply sorry for you, a peasant? where do you live 1640's England? how do you know i have never achieved success I probably am more successful then you who has a deep rooted irrational fear of an imaginary construct.
I see you capitalize Constitution, which means you refer to THE Constitution, not A constitution. Those "contacts" will not always be constructed as you portray. And, as for inalienable rights, there are none. In reality, they exist only as a hypothetical.
You are either free or you are not. There is no such thing a degrees of freedom, only degrees of tyranny. - - - Updated - - - If you believe you are a peasant without rights, then you are.
