Government is evil by its very nature

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by jdog, Feb 11, 2015.

  1. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Their actions remain illegal. Being able to get away with a crime doesn't make it legal.

    And the fact remains that it is legal for the state to put you in jail, and it is not legal for a corporation to do so.
     
  2. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exhibit one as you call it is a logical fallacy ( argumentum ad populum ) so therefore nullified as being nonsense.
    Exhibit two is also nonsense in that the US has a government for and by the PAC and the corporations whom own government by way of a systematic form of bribery.

    The corporations and special interests then reinforce their influence on government by actually writing and amending law by way of powerful lobbyists.

    Furthermore, a person has the right to live where they have been born and the fact that they live in a general geography in no way shape or form implies consent to governed by anyone. To say otherwise shows a complete ignorance of contractual law.
     
  3. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And then there is that whole "Constitution" thing...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Hmmm, this one believes the choices are either anarchy or tyranny. He chooses tyranny. Many of us choose a Constitutionally limited government.
     
  4. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No. It is actually crystal clear. It always has been. Those who prefer legal plunder and authoritarian statism can be relied upon to believe it is unclear.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lest we forget that was another quotation from the times. "Government in it's best state is a necessary evil" and the reason government is "necessary" is because people can be far more evil that government if left unrestrained by government. The "least" government that is acceptable is one that prevents as much of the evil from people as possible without becoming tyrannical.

    A government that fails to protect the individual from the evils of other people is not the "best government" but instead is one of the worst possible government imaginable. Only marginally worse than that is a government that sides with evil people.
     
  6. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please refrain from misquoting a great man like Thomas Paine and then doing it out of context. For clarification lets look at the entire paragraph.

    "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

    Furthermore, your statement that people can be far more evil than government is nonsensical. People cannot be more evil than government when government is comprised of people.

    In addition, government can paradoxically be more evil than people because government empowers people in ways they otherwise would not be empowered, and as we all know power corrupts.
     
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you proposing a government run by something other than people?
    Why would you concentrate power in people who "can be far more evil"?
     
  8. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where was the general welfare in the Militia Act of 1792? All men were forced by the government to buy a good and women benefitted from that without having to spend anything.
     
  9. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    From memory, aren't about 1/4th (or maybe even more) of the enumerated powers about defense? If you will recall, defense is another authorized reason for collecting taxes.
     
  10. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Keep the quote above in mind while we examine who it is that government is “helping”. First off, you need a little lesson in economics. We will start by learning about the Henry George theorem.


    So when government spends money on a new road, a bridge, a football stadium, public library, school, etc., etc., that spending makes nearby land more productive or more desirable. That government spending “helps” landowners charge more rent or sell their land at higher profits. In many communities even a large part of welfare spending is pocketed by landowners … the more welfare available the higher the rents will be levied. Landowners pocket the value created by government spending. Government is “helping” rich landowners and driving much of the rest of the population into poverty in the process.
     
  11. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With the exception of the stadium local governments would be promoting the general welfare by building such things.
     
  12. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No they wouldn't. They would only make landowners richer. If government improves the roadway leading to McDonald's restaurant, do the employees get an immediate raise in pay? NO! But the individual who owns the land under that restaurant will be immediately richer because his location is more desirable.

    I'm not just making this up … it is a know fact of economics … you are just ignorant of the facts of economics.
     
  13. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought general welfare had to equally apply to all citizens and couldn't benefit some citizens at the expense of others?
     
  14. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "With the exception of the stadium local governments would be promoting the general welfare by building such things."
    LOL. If I told you what I believe I would be banned.

    - - - Updated - - -

    If you plan to raise taxes to do things that promote the general welfare you cannot take wealth from me to give it to you. That would be specific, instead of general, welfare. I suppose waiting for me to clarify point by point is far easier for you than reading what the framers wrote.
     
  15. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spoken like a true liberal.
     
  16. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I believe that I am right and you are wrong. I won't report you … tell me what you think. Do you think you know more about economics than Joseph Stiglitz? He is among at least eight -8- Nobel prize winning economists who support replacing other taxes with land value taxation. Are you smarter than Albert Einstein? Henry Ford? Thomas Jefferson? Milton Friedman? Benjamin Franklin? Winston Churchill? Because all of those supported taxing land before taxing anything else. I think you are just scared.
     
  17. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I cannot respond any longer as I wish.

    Rather than find people who, in hundreds, or perhaps thousands of pages of written notes may have written something you approve of maybe, just maybe you should look to the document the colonists actually ratified.

    Perhaps I aim too high.
     
  18. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Do you mean something like what was written in the original Constitution of the United States?

    Even the founding fathers supported land value taxation. Land value taxation was supposed to be the sole source of federal government revenue as per the original Constitution of the United States.
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I paraphrased Paine's full intent I did not deviate from it.

    As Paine notes without government we would suffer miseries (that are caused by evil people) and the purpose of government is to prevent these people from committing those acts. Government is necessary to prevent these evil acts by others in society that would cause us harm. Yes, governments can exceed this role and responsibility and also cause the same evil acts that impose misery upon us and then indeed it becomes as tyrannical as some people in society would become sans government.

    Once again Paine does establish a role and purpose of government that establishes what the minimum level of government should be. Government cannot allow people unlimited "liberty" to harm others in society for if it does then it serves no purpose at all. The role of government is to prevent the miseries we would suffer under a society without government.

    Government "in it's best state" limits our "Freedom to Exercise" our "Inalienable (natural) Rights" as a person based upon compelling arguments that to not do so would cause us greater harm but in doing so it should always limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights to the least extent possible necessary to address the compelling argument.

    For example we all share nature in common (Locke - Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 5) and none of us have a "right" to dispoil nature and government has a role and responsibility to prevent individuals from doing so (i.e. impose environmental regulations). A person (or group of people) that pollutes the environment is violating the rights of all other people in society and government has a responsibility to prevent that based upon the compelling arguments of the "rights of the person" living in society. Every person has a right to their support and comfort based upon their labor and no man has a right to the labor of another person (Locke - Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 5) and if an employer does not ensure that they provide for the "support and comfort" of their employees then they violate the "right of property" of the employee and the government has a role and responsibility to intervene.

    The key always remains the "compelling argument" and the necessity for government interventionism is based upon the compelling argument.

    Does government exceed the necessities required by the compelling argument in some cases? Absolutely!!

    For example there is no necessity for capital punishment based upon a compelling argument. Even the most heinous of individuals that would commit crimes against others in society can be prevented from doing so by incarceration. None of us, as individuals, have the right to commit premeditated murder and we cannot authorize our government to do so based upon any logical or compelling argument. Capital punishment is an act of revenge and nothing more.

    There is a balance when we address government where both too little and too much government are equally failures. Too little government results in individuals causing us "miseries" while too much government results in government causing us "miseries" and that is what Thomas Paine was addressing. A government that "governs least" falls below the minimum necessary requirements for government as it fails to protect us from others in society.

    On a final note we don't "all know" that power corrupts as that is not an absolute. Power can corrupt but it doesn't have to. There are too many historical cases where individuals held absolute power (i.e. the power of life and death) but were not corrupt in their actions. Power does provide a means of corruption but it always depends upon who wields the power.
     
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point, just explained in my previous post, is that society sans government is tyrannical. There is a minimum level of government necessary to protect us from the evils that people would commit against us if we had no government. In the phrase "government that governs least, governs best" it fails to acknowledge that too little government can be just as bad as too much government. A government that provides no protections at all is arguably the "least" government possible but it would not be a good government.
     
  21. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless the movement of wealth results in economic action which benefits everyone.
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Benefits everyone according to whose opinion exactly?
     
  23. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes. Let's start there.

    "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State.."

    Well, not quite. No one was taxed on the value of their land. The taxes were proportioned to the states based on the value of the land. Rhode Island would not carry the same dollar tax load as New York. Do you see the difference?
     
  24. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Those who are eager to implement tyranny will find a way to twist their actions from something bad into something acceptable by pretense and through outright lies. Taking a dollar from me in order to give 55 cents to you (the government has to take its cut) can never be for promoting the general welfare. Taking a dollar from all of us to bridge a river many of us will cross does promote the general welfare even if you end up wit 55 cents due to your labor in creating the bridge.
     
  25. misterveritis

    misterveritis Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,862
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If a government improved a roadway that led to a privately owned business that would not constitute promoting the general welfare. Improving a road through a part of town where the private business happens to exist does promote the general welfare as many people will use the road to travel. It does not matter of some of them use the road to get to a particular business.

    Keep going. I love to stretch after breakfast and before going to work.
     

Share This Page