Government is evil by its very nature

With the exception of the editorial paragraph on the death penalty, the above post is right on the money.

Hear here.

 

My old poli-sci teacher told us...."Politics is not a spectrum...it's a loop. If you move far enough to the Left......or far enough to the Right....you end up with Anarchists."

What's interesting is while the left-wing Anarchists, the Starbucks haters with the "circled As" on their shabby T-shirts are a tiny fraction out there.....pushed by hyperbolic rhetoric on Rightwing Media (especially talk radio).....there is a significantly LARGE minority of the Right who are now Anarchists.

Oh, they deny it...."libertarians"..."Constitutional conservatives"....but ask one sometime, to tell you FIVE things they WANT the Federal Government to do. Except for maybe the militarists and Hawks, who'll name Orwell's "War is Peace".....they usually can't. Even if they try "Protect my rights under the Bill of Rights"....you can usually trip them up by asking "How? By what means?"

 

And if I never use that bridge nor interact with anyone who does, how is that General welfare?

 

In John Locke's arguments for the "natural right of property" in his Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 5 he establishes that all "men" are entitled to harvest the excesses of nature to provide for the "support and comfort" of themselves and their families. No one has a right to any property greater than their needs to provide for the support and comfort of their household and no person has a right of property related to the labor of another person. In all cases where the wealth of nature is to be harvested the harvest is limited because "enough, and as good" must remain for all other people.

By way of analogy no individual can harvest the forests if they don't leave enough forest free for all other individuals to harvest without destroying the forest. To harvest the forest while denying other individuals their free rights as a person to also harvest the forest would be a violation of the natural right of property of the person.

In another analogy the "farmer and the rancher" cannot "own land" that prevents the nomad from securing a living from the land. There must be "enough, and as good" land remaining for the nomad to freely roam and provide for their "support and comfort" off of the land.

In point of fact our property laws in the United States are not based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" but instead are based upon "statutory ownership established by title" that was created under the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings that John Locke argued against.

Our statutory laws of property in the United States are unquestionably the worst violation of the Rights of the Person that exists in America today.


http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

 

Who defines support and comfort?

 

Actually, you are right. Government can benefit society as a whole by way of building public infrastructure despite the fact that it grossly over pays for such infrastructure and government contracts are notoriously based on graft and corruption.

Unfortunately, . the amount of the tax money stolen by government that is returned to the public by way of infrastructure is so minuscule in terms of the overall budget that it is inconsequential. About 3% of the federal budget is returned to benefit the tax payers in the form of infrastructure.

Every evil entity does some good, even Hitler and Stalin had public works they could use as propaganda to show that they "cared" about the people.
That does nothing to change the fact that overall all governments are evil and do far more harm than good.

 

Yes you did deviate from it. The elimination of the word "but" changes the interpretation of the entire sentence as you intended it to do, and you have been called out on it.

Secondly you attempt to reinterpret the entire meaning of Paine's words in that the paragraph is not a justification of government, but a warning that government is fully capable of instituting misery on its people to an equal or greater extent than having no government at all.

You then go forward to confuse the issue of natural and inalienable rights. A government cannot limit an inalienable right because something which is inalienable cannot be be limited nor taken away, that is the very definition of inalienable.

Lastly, yes we do know that power always corrupts. In fact there have been scientific studies to prove the fact, the famous Stanford Experiment being one of them.

Government does not and in fact cannot protect us from the evils of people, it may be able to provide certain services which require the pooling of resources, but it is absolutely powerless to protect us. Anyone who believes government protects them in any way, shape, or form is living in a fools paradise.

 

The typographical omission of the word "but" due to memory was not an intentional act and did not change the paraphased meaning of the sentence.

While the "natural/inalienable" rights of the person are not granted by government or by other people they can be violated by both government and other people. Natural/Inalienable Rights are not Inviolable Rights and many seem to not understand the difference.

In a "necessary" government, that Paine's arguments address, the Natural/Inalienable Rights of the Person are not violated but the "Freedom to Exercise" those Rights by necessitiy may require restriction. Many confuse the Freedom to Exercise a Right" with the actual "Natural/Inalienable Right" itself and they are not the same.

For example we have a "Natural/Inalienable Right of Thought" and generally speaking we have the "Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought" through expression (i.e. Freedom of Speech) but there are cases, based upon compelling arguments, when that Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought through Speech is pragmatically limited. We are prohibited by law from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater because history has shown it will cause panic resulting in injury and death. It is a pragmatic limitation upon "Freedom of Speech" that does not in anyway disparage the Natural/Inalienable Right of Thought of the person.

Paine warned against two things. He warned of the dangers that exist without government as well as the dangers that can exist because of excessive government. "Necessary" government is a balance between the two extremes.

Anyone that doesn't believe government protects us is a fool. By way of example:

A serial rapist is captured, prosecuted, and convicted and sentenced to incarceration. While incarcerated that individual cannot commit acts of rape against those in society and we're protected from their acts. Incarceration does not violate the "Right of Liberty" of the convicted rapist but does severely limit the "Freedom to Exercise" the "Right of Liberty" of the rapist. The form of incarceration should limit the "Freedom to Exercise" the "Right of Liberty" to the least extent necessary to prevent the rapist from committing more rapes. For example solitary confinement cannot be typically rationalized for a serial rapist (unless they begin raping other inmates) and they should be afforded as much freedom as possible within the confines of incarceration.

On the flip side capital punishment cannot be rationalized because it does violate the Right to Life and is unnessesary for the protection of society from even the most heinous of criminals.

When it comes to power corrupting I'm going to present an argument presented by an unknown (to me) author.

http://www.quora.com/Does-power-always-corrupt

It isn't the power that corrupts but instead the selection process that allows those that are corrupt to assume power. Many have historically pointed out that those that should be in political office are the same people that would not seek to be in political office. The philosopher, not interested in power, does not become the politician. The politician is the person that wants to impose their will, their opinion, and their authority upon others and that is inherently corrupt. The more power they give themselves the more corrupt they become.

Fundamentally we're putting the wrong people, the corrupt people, in positions of power and that results in the corruption. It isn't the power that corrupts but instead it's the people that misuse the power for their corrupt purposes. If we change our "selection process" of those we put into power then the power will not result in corruption but that is, of course, a pragmatic problem for us.

 

I have watched good, decent, honest, ethical people move into positions where they were quickly corrupted. Some positions, some professions are corrupting. Politics is probably the worst but I've seen the same thing happen in other places.

This is why our Constitution put the burden on the people to control the government and it's why the government has managed to change it so they control the people. If people try to control the government now they incur it's wrath and suffer for it.

 

The definition of "is", is to be. The definition of "is but" is only. Is "to be" the same meaning as "only"? Possibly in the progressive mind....

Now, an inalienable right is not changed in any way shape or form because it is violated. The government or other entity which has violated the inalienable right has simply committed an act of aggression upon the person to whom the right was violated.

Your example of yelling fire in a theater, while a favorite of the liberals is fatally flawed in that we most certainly can yell fire in a theater, the caveat being that it is actually on fire. It is not the freedom of speech that is the issue, it is the intention to create panic. It is simply a metaphor that is misused in order to justify a logical fallacy or otherwise known as a lie.

Your example of the rapist is also fundamentally flawed. The fact that the rape happened to begin with is proof in itself that the government was incapable of protection. The only true protection the individual has is self protection.

To say that the government is protecting us by imprisoning people is another stretch that is based on assumption. Even if this were true, the "protection" is temporary at best, because the liberal elements in society want the prisoners released in short order. That is assuming that the people who are in prison are the people who committed the crimes in the first place which in many cases is doubtful due to the incompetency and corruption of the criminal justice system.

In the final analysis, the only true protection any citizen has, is their ability to protect themselves, which is ensured by the force multiplication of the firearm.

Of course the liberals would love to act in concert with the government to deprive us of that right and to perpetuate the lie that government can protect us.