The purpose of government

[BDunnell]

The powers conferred to a national government are not because it owns land. They are given to the nation of virtue of legal operation.

But one's citizenship is inextricably linked to territorial matters, which are, in a broad sense, related to a form of 'ownership' of property. In no way am I suggesting that this is the sole function of government, nor am I addressing the topic in anything other than a very broad sense.

[Bob Riebe]

In this instance, I take what chuck34 is referring to as meaning property in the widest sense, to include territory, which in itself takes in a whole manner of other functions of government relating to security and the like.

I thought of what you are saying and for the most part agree with your stance, but that actually take away the property part and reduces it to personal rights, or the the right of the one to own, not to own, to function, not to function, etc. within the rules as set by the society.
Whether one wants to call it as such, or not, such rules are governing rules and therefore in the basic sense the/a government.

Property is not the base but merely a part of the equation.

[BDunnell]

I thought of what you are saying and for the most part agree with your stance, but that actually take away the property part and reduces it to personal rights, or the the right of the one to own, not to own, to function, not to function, etc. within the rules as set by the society.
Whether one wants to call it as such, or not, such rules are governing rules and therefore in the basic sense the/a government.

Property is not the base but merely a part of the equation.

Equally, I see little or nothing to disagree with there.

[chuck34]

I thought of what you are saying and for the most part agree with your stance, but that actually take away the property part and reduces it to personal rights, or the the right of the one to own, not to own, to function, not to function, etc. within the rules as set by the society.
Whether one wants to call it as such, or not, such rules are governing rules and therefore in the basic sense the/a government.

You own you personal rights, they are your possessions. You own your vote, no one can force you to vote the way you want (at least in a "good" government). You own your citizenship in the sence that you legally reside within territorial boundaries, you own your life, therefore you own your citizenship. How you function is directly related to ownership. Basically if you only interact with things you own, then governments should not be involved.

Property is not the base but merely a part of the equation.

I really believe that when broken down, property is the base of it all.

[chuck34]

But one's citizenship is inextricably linked to territorial matters, which are, in a broad sense, related to a form of 'ownership' of property. In no way am I suggesting that this is the sole function of government, nor am I addressing the topic in anything other than a very broad sense.

I am addressing things in a very broad sense. Perhaps I'm being too philosophical on the subject? I'm trying to see how people understand governments and their functions in a philosophical sence. Perhaps that's too "out there" for an internet discussions? Perhaps we need concrete answers to concrete problems, we can't think in the abstract?

[Bob Riebe]

You own you personal rights, they are your possessions. You own your vote, no one can force you to vote the way you want (at least in a "good" government). You own your citizenship in the sence that you legally reside within territorial boundaries, you own your life, therefore you own your citizenship. How you function is directly related to ownership. Basically if you only interact with things you own, then governments should not be involved.



I really believe that when broken down, property is the base of it all.

Chuck you are grasping at straws here, mainly because of a poor choice of words.
In a grammatical sense you are correct, but if you want to use an abstract, to break things down to the absolute minimum to convey a message, of all the words, and primary meanings, in todays grammatical usage, you chose poorly.

At the same time there really are no such thing as rights except as given by what ever authority one deals with, or creates.
They are not as much property, as in owned, as a given gift that can be taken away.

[Retro Formula 1]

You own you personal rights, they are your possessions. You own your vote, no one can force you to vote the way you want (at least in a "good" government). You own your citizenship in the sence that you legally reside within territorial boundaries, you own your life, therefore you own your citizenship. How you function is directly related to ownership. Basically if you only interact with things you own, then governments should not be involved.



I really believe that when broken down, property is the base of it all.

So, basically you start off telling everyone they are wrong, come up with some cock and bull about property and then spin your answer to fit what everyone else said all along.

This thread is dead.

[chuck34]

Yep, I guess trying to think outside the box about things just doesn't work around here. Sorry, won't try that again. Just stick with concrete things that we can bicker about forever without looking at things differently. Oh well.

[Bob Riebe]

Yep, I guess trying to think outside the box about things just doesn't work around here. Sorry, won't try that again. Just stick with concrete things that we can bicker about forever without looking at things differently. Oh well.

There is no out-side the box, life is fact and fiction, truth and lies. The ephemeral wisps of alternate think are just that- ephemeral- based on what, wannabe denial of reality?.