Government is evil by its very nature

A state is one system of governance, and states, because they initiate violence, are inherently evil. A system of governance in which no party may legally initiate aggression is not necessarily evil.

 

""Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine

I side with T. Paine.

There is a very great evil in organized, legal plunder carried out by suing laws against the citizens. This is where we find ourselves today."

I believe you misunderstand the Tom Paine quote. T.P. meant condition.

In my opinion your premise is flawed.
Government means force. Legitimacy or illegitimacy of that use of force is best determined by examining the agreements documented in the government's Constitution or charter. That which is agreed to is legitimate. All else is illegitimate.

 

I suggest you move to an island and live by yourself. You will enjoy all the freedoms you desire up until another person arrives. Perhaps you can work it out but there is a good chance that the stronger of the two might just get more of what they want than the weaker one. Then add another person, and another, pretty soon, you have 100 people, then 1000, then 1000000 and see what happens. I find posts like yours to be completely naive or just plain ignorant. We have governments for a reason and they have existed in every form of human history we know. All forms of government demand that the individual give up some personal power to another group in order to gain something in return. Whether that is security, food, shelter or the pursuit of happiness, it is a bargain enforced either by might, coercion, the law or some form of higher authority. It falls apart when enough people no longer accept that authority or decide to follow a different set of rules and create a new bargain. The process starts over again. I am not arguing that our government is right nor is it perfect. But it does provide me and mine with enough benefits and rights to keep me here. I would love to change it, it would be wonderful if we no longer had to endure the unbalanced power of small states and voting blocks. But I am not going to throw it all out just because I think so. You are free to leave or change it. But in order to change it, you are going to have to convince a lot of people. The Tea Party tried that one, didn't work out so well for them.

 

Of course many of these agencies make or try to make laws, statues and regulations on the basis of religious belief. Have you never heard of the "sanctity of life act".

Did you never hear of Prohibition. Did you not know that prostitution is illegal in all but one state. Did you not realize that Pot is still illegal in most states.

This is just one way that the constitution is trashed. There are many others.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations and rules. Your four examples are not compelling.

 

I am not the one who was making broad generalizations

We are not talking about parking tickets and various other laws, statues and regulations. We are talking about basic rights and freedoms that the founders included in the bill of rights.

Get your head out of the mud.

 

Yes, I understand that when TP says, "even in its best state", he means, "even in its best condition".

I'm saying that there's nothing inherently evil about governance, by which I mean a legal means of resolving disputes between parties in conflict. Only a state is inherently evil, because a state initiates aggression against it's people. (I am drawing a distinction between all systems of governance and states, which are one particular system of governance.)

 

Unless you can name a government which did both of those you are pi**ing in the wind. Just another liberal wanabe.

 

Government is the legal use of force, nothing more, nothing less. The legal use of force is not necessarily evil; however, it is the least worst way to defend against the first use of force.

To the extent that government is the first user of force, it is evil. To the extent that government uses force to oppose the first use of force, it is good.

Unfortunately, almost everything currently done by force of law should not be done by force at all and is therefore evil.
We have a moral responsibility to pick and choose which laws to obey because compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with evil.

 

It seems you have an agenda. Very well then.

 

Like I said, the people were prospering and the government was not. The purpose of a country is not for its government to prosper, it is for its people to prosper, if your have it the other way around it is tyranny.
When you have a real argument then chime in.

 

Of course I have an agenda. Don't you ?

What is the point of coming to a political debate site if one does not have an agenda ?

Do you have anymore meangless fallacious drivel to share in your thinly veiled attempt at demonization of the messenger because you do not like the message?

 

It is your post that is ignorant and naïve, not to mention full of logical fallacies. You assert that because government has existed historically that somehow it is beneficial. (Logical Fallacy) You assert that government can provide something to the population it does not already have, again (Logical Fallacy) Because government must take from the population, and then support itself before providing service, the population always receives less than what it is paying for.

Government also being populated by humans who are prone to corruption and the misuse of power will always act contrary to the interests of the public. Of course they will spew propaganda to deceive those who are too lazy or too stupid to think for themselves to tell them they are beneficial, but that is simply as stupid as believing the claims of a used car salesman. The question of government can be easily solved by mathematics, a science in which there is no propaganda.

Government always steals a certain amount from the public and uses its power to abuse the rights of the public, that fact is irrefutable, so therefore, the more government you have, the more of the publics money and freedoms will be stolen..... if you cannot follow that line of reasoning, then you are hopeless and need to devote much of your future to the topic of logic and rational thought.

 

Do I sense a bit of nastiness? Awesome.

I come to read and discuss. You are anti-religious. Big deal. Your four poor examples are not compelling.

 

Nonsense. Leftists love tyranny. My opinion is that most people are basically good and all organizations become evil. And this is why the leftists are desperate to get rid of the Constitution in have a dictator.

 

One of the ways anyone can completely and immediately invalidate their argument is the compare their best intentions to another's less-than-best intentions.

One of the first things one learns in the study of rhetoric (the effective use of logic) is to never compare 'apples to oranges'.

You are correct, people do not need government (the legal use of force) to survive. Government is not on par with air and water and the like. However, among large groups of people, government is the least worst way to oppose the first use of force.

You have combined hyperbole with your biased comparison to form an argument that amounts to nothing more than a self-aggrandizing fallacy.

 

That you figure someone is trying to help you by pointing out to you that you are engaging in Ad Hominem is being nasty is somewhat humorous.

Do you think attacking the messenger rather than discussing the message is helpful to a discussion ? So far this is all you have done.

OK so more name calling with no support for this claim. Oh Joy.

All I did was point out the fact laws are sometimes made or that folks often try to make laws on the basis of religious belief.

How does not wanting a Theocracy equate to being anti-religious? Many, if not most religious people do not want a theocracy?

Why are my examples poor ? poor examples of what ?

Not compelling to what end? What claim do you think the examples I gave were supposed to compel you to ?

How can you claim to want to "discuss " if your comments do not make any sense ?

 

I said a system of governance in which there is an accepted lawful mechanism for the resolution of disputes. I did not say government.

 

How does a country exist if it has no economy because of massive inflation and no defense because the Army will mutiny due to not being paid?

 

Despite all of this you still have nothing. You offered up four not-too-well thought up examples of how the nearly five hundred independent agencies, the Congress and now our lawless president base their laws, rules and regulations on religion. Based on your comments above even you are not sure why you offered them.

My comments are fine.

 

I did not claim that all laws and regulations are based on religion. You need to upgrade your reading comprehension and stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

Do not blame me for your ignorance.

 

Well big government is evil.

 

Your Red Herring shows me that you cannot defend your position.

 

You implied it. I am happy to accept your backtracking.

 

Are you 10 years old? What do you know of contract law? Nothing really. Do you understand the concept of 'implied contract"? I didn't think so.

You're just some child who thinks his personal freedom stands above all other considerations in life and as such, you are GOD/

So your "not legally possible" argument fails like the rest of your childish diatribe. If you want help,let me know, and I'll point you in the direction of valid knowledge. Until then, you're embarrassing.