The purpose of government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Legally owned property is yours, you have the rights to do with it as you see fit, as long as that does not interfere with another's property.

---

Until the guvermint come along and says, you did not pay your taxes and now it all belongs to us.....and if you don't get, your ass ain't even gonna belong to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

yes, but you are still talking about power, and the differences between various governments in the past and present, USA and the world over, has been how that power has been used or not used (or has been limited)

---

Yes, I am talking about how different governments have treated property rights past and present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Is it being used to protect your personal property, to keep you safe at night, or it is being used to drag people off to extermination at concentration camps? It is a question of freedom vs. control, of rights to do something v. the power to prevent you from doing something.

---

Exactly my point. I suppose I could have said it better from the begining. I was sort of getting at the differences between good and bad governments/laws. In my mind the difference comes from who controls property. Oppressive governments tend to believe that they control property where free governments tend to believe that individuals own property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Even the Declaration of Independence was about power over rights, and the abuse of same:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

---

What are the "certain unalienable Rights" that were being destructed by the government of England? "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", or as was said in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (the inspiration of most of the Declaration of Independence), "life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety". All of which when boiled down means property rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

1) Start a thread asking for an opinion, without offering your own.
2) Wait for opinions to roll in.

---

I stated that was my purpose from the begining, just wanting to see what others would come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

3) Dismiss those opinions as being wrong.

---

I'll agree, perhaps I was overly harsh, or badly worded my response. I don't mean to completely dismiss the opinions. Just to say that at the core they all boil down to the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

You wonder why I didn't bother contributing? I could see it coming a mile off.

---

I don't wonder why you didn't contribute. I couldn't care less if you contribute or not. It's a free forum. No one is forcing participation here. You could see it coming a mile off because I told you exactly what I was doing in my first post where I said that I was going to reserve my opinion for later on. Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Until the guvermint come along and says, you did not pay your taxes and now it all belongs to us.....and if you don't get, your ass ain't even gonna belong to you

---

I would suggest that that is the point where a government transforms from a government to tyranny, and perhaps it may be time for a revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I would suggest that that is the point where a government transforms from a government to tyranny, and perhaps it may be time for a revolution.

---

been happening for years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

been happening for years

---

"The Emperor wears no clothes, but doesn't like to be told so"...

Yes, people should be aware by now of the excessive bureaucracy and corruption that has existed for many years within their country's government, but most people seem to be too ignorant, docile, apathetic, and blinded by material possessions to speak up and take action against their government, which oftentimes appears to be more like a tyranny masquerading as a democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Legally owned property is yours, you have the rights to do with it as you see fit, as long as that does not interfere with another's property.

---

So are you saying that the reason for the existence of government, or its purpose, is to step in to protect personal property rights only when an individual interferes with anothers property?

If so that is a far too narrow definition of government IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

No corporations are corporations, and therefore not governments. Same with your football club, it's a club not a government.

---

Government n.
1. - The act of governing
2. - The system by which a nation, state, community or entity is governed
3. - A body pr persons governing a nation state or community
- OED 2.

The Board of a Corporation and the Executive Committee of my Football Club, are both charged with the act of governing, both operate under a system for doing so (usually spelled out by a Constitution or Memorandum of Association or equivalent), and they're both a body of persons, just like the executive of a nation.
Therefore they satisfy the very dictionary definition of a government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Aren't your thoughts, conscience, religion and speach your posessions?

---

I do believe I included the words "intangible property". Did you not read this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What is power without something to control?

---

People and policies are things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

The US Constitution is all about limiting the ability of the government (particularly the Federal Government) to control private property.

---

No it isn't.
The US Constitution is about forming "a more perfect Union", establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

A preamble is a statement of purpose which explains what a document is for. Not once does the preamble mention anything about limiting the ability of the government nor the control of private property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So are you saying that the reason for the existence of government, or its purpose, is to step in to protect personal property rights only when an individual interferes with anothers property?

---

That is what I'm saying a government should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

If so that is a far too narrow definition of government IMHO.

---

Why? What else should a government be involved in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Government n.
1. - The act of governing
2. - The system by which a nation, state, community or entity is governed
3. - A body pr persons governing a nation state or community
- OED 2.

The Board of a Corporation and the Executive Committee of my Football Club, are both charged with the act of governing, both operate under a system for doing so (usually spelled out by a Constitution or Memorandum of Association or equivalent), and they're both a body of persons, just like the executive of a nation.
Therefore they satisfy the very dictionary definition of a government.

---

If you really want to continue to push that coroporations and your football club are governments, fine, let's go down that road. What is the purpose of a corporation? I suggest its purpose is to maximize profit (property) for its share holders. A football club's purpose is to ensure that each team competes fairly, or in other words doesn't steal another teams points (property).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I do believe I included the words "intangible property". Did you not read this?

---

Yes, I read that. But you were asking a question "whether or not you want to include intangible property in this really blows open a much broader range of issues." I was simply answering that question with a question of my own. Granted that may not be the best thing to do, but I was trying to illustrate a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

People and policies are things.

---

Ok. But how do you control people? What is the aim of a policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No it isn't.
The US Constitution is about forming "a more perfect Union", establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

A preamble is a statement of purpose which explains what a document is for. Not once does the preamble mention anything about limiting the ability of the government nor the control of private property.

---

Rollo, I honestly believe you are smarter than that. Read the entire document. Read what the writers said about what they were writing. Think about what the aims of "a more perfect Union" are. What does "providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty" do? Is not the aim of all those goals to protect the property of the citizens? Without common defence, foreign entities can come and take property. Without general welfare, the amount/value of property will inevitably decline. Without the Blessings of Liberty, you will not be free to enhance or gain more property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That is what I'm saying a government should be.



Why? What else should a government be involved in?

---

OK, just for a laugh, here we go :)

What about Law and Order outside of your property for a start.

And lets look at civil responsibilities such as education. Should this just be for those that can afford it?

What about prisons. Should they be the responsibility of the individual.

Just for a laugh, tell us how society outside of your property should function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

OK, just for a laugh, here we go :)

What about Law and Order outside of your property for a start.

---

Law and Order outside of my property is still someone's property. So it would still apply. Government should protect all property equally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

And lets look at civil responsibilities such as education. Should this just be for those that can afford it?

---

Education can help increase the wealth of nations, so if the people decide that pooling their wealth (property) to educate their children is a good idea, go for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

What about prisons. Should they be the responsibility of the individual.

---

Obviously if you are in prision it is because you have violated someone's rights. Therefore that fits squarely within the government's responsibilty of protecting property rights (punishment of violations is a way of protection).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

Just for a laugh, tell us how society outside of your property should function.

---

It's not just about MY property. It is about ALL personal property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No it isn't.
The US Constitution is about forming "a more perfect Union", establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

A preamble is a statement of purpose which explains what a document is for. Not once does the preamble mention anything about limiting the ability of the government nor the control of private property.

---

fairly correct as to the orginal body....but the amendments are where one finds the limitations, and having been added in, these amendments are now a part of the constitution

I would suggest a compromise, that government is power over life, liberty and property in numerous elements, variations, and applications, be it organized, semi-organized or disorganized, democratic or dictatorship, royalty or whatever ......

be it power used to be protecting your personal property, the king's property, some blood sucking dictator's, or taking your property from you for the benefit of someone else or the government (been going in the USA since before the Revolution and continued on for the last 230 years or so--sorry Chuck), yadadadayadda----or protecting you from things that go bump in the middle of the night, keeping you in good health or not, giving a good education or not, executing you or not,...........or whatever

And one should not confuse this power as being limited to the terms of the subjective belief of the individual as to how it should be used or not used, as this seems to be Chuck's point of view (and one that I do basically agree with in terms of what a government SHOULD be doing with its powers) but if you are seeking a generic, one size fits all, what is the essence of the thing called government, it is power over life, liberty and property......

and that is the reason governments exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Law and Order outside of my property is still someone's property. So it would still apply. Government should protect all property equally.



Education can help increase the wealth of nations, so if the people decide that pooling their wealth (property) to educate their children is a good idea, go for it.



Obviously if you are in prision it is because you have violated someone's rights. Therefore that fits squarely within the government's responsibilty of protecting property rights (punishment of violations is a way of protection).



It's not just about MY property. It is about ALL personal property.

---

So in your book, a pedophile is entitled to accesses child porn online from another country because it's nothing to do with your government because it's not your peoples property being violated. Then we have the fact that the pedo owns the computer and is on his property so can do whatever he wants and the government must protect him.

Or we have that recent murder where a jogger murdered those 2 lads because he thought he was about to be mugged. In your world, those lads could have bought the street and shot the jogger for trespass and the state would support them.

Do you mind if I don't visit your planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

So in your book, a pedophile is entitled to accesses child porn online from another country because it's nothing to do with your government because it's not your peoples property being violated. Then we have the fact that the pedo owns the computer and is on his property so can do whatever he wants and the government must protect him.

Or we have that recent murder where a jogger murdered those 2 lads because he thought he was about to be mugged. In your world, those lads could have bought the street and shot the jogger for trespass and the state would support them.

Do you mind if I don't visit your planet.

---

there you go with your subjective definitions.....but that is not the essential nature.
Example, in some countries, that shooting was NOT murder, but in others it might be.....how a country chooses to implement laws is not a part of the government definition.
The what can vary all over the place....while pedos have become somewhat limited as to what they can do legally in our "modern times", there are some countries even now, and certainly in our distant past, where it was practicized openly
without any interfernce from government

Chuck the point of your thread was this:
What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?

Nothing you have said defends your opinion.
Others have made their points far better, with far more logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

fairly correct as to the orginal body....but the amendments are where one finds the limitations, and having been added in, these amendments are now a part of the constitution

---

The amendments have a different function.
The amendments make changes to the exsiting document but the preamble is the opening statement of the purpose of the document. Since the preamble has never been changed, then its purpose as written has also never changed. The US Constitution in 2010 is still a document which defines and limits the powers of the US Government, just as it did in 1789.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

So in your book, a pedophile is entitled to accesses child porn online from another country because it's nothing to do with your government because it's not your peoples property being violated. Then we have the fact that the pedo owns the computer and is on his property so can do whatever he wants and the government must protect him.

Or we have that recent murder where a jogger murdered those 2 lads because he thought he was about to be mugged. In your world, those lads could have bought the street and shot the jogger for trespass and the state would support them.

Do you mind if I don't visit your planet.

---

On what planet have I said anything like that? Perhaps you would like to visit Earth, the planet upon which we are having this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Chuck the point of your thread was this:
What is the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of government?

---

Bob, perhaps I could have worded the original question a bit differently. How about "What should be the core, foundation, bed-rock, guiding purpose of good government"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Nothing you have said defends your opinion.
Others have made their points far better, with far more logic.

---

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

---

I don't think you need to justify yourself any further than that, really. We may disagree, but such is inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

---

No it does not as governments have and can take property so property rights have nothing to do with why government/s exist, especially as more than a few people over the years have no property.
Are saying they have no rights or right to protest?

If I do not pay property taxes, I will have no property; therefore your point is void, unless you say governments reason for existence is to take from others in which case their is no reason for it to exist.

I agree if you are trying to say what you said, you should change the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

No it does not as governments have and can take property so property rights have nothing to do with why government/s exist, especially as more than a few people over the years have no property.
Are saying they have no rights or right to protest?

If I do not pay property taxes, I will have no property; therefore your point is void, unless you say governments reason for existence is to take from others in which case their is no reason for it to exist.

I agree if you are trying to say what you said, you should change the question.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I don't see how others have made points any better than I have. Others have made points, valid points. But if you deconstruct them to the core it all comes down to property rights. And specifically how governments choose to define those rights and how it chooses to control them.

---

Property almost always implies things (either tangible or intangible) which can be bought or sold. People themselves have more than things which can be bought and sold. The right to vote, citizenship, who can run for office etc. are all things which don't fall under the realms of mere "property".

Besides which, aren't property rights just a subset of the total rights of an individual?

A right itself is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. That implies authority either conferred by nature, god(s) (incl. all religious positions here - this is a far bigger argument and beyond the scope of this thread), or by an entity which has been legally empowered with authority to act.
Governments definitely are empowered to have a say in who has a right to vote, who is eligible citizenship, and who can run for office etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Property almost always implies things (either tangible or intangible) which can be bought or sold. People themselves have more than things which can be bought and sold. The right to vote, citizenship, who can run for office etc. are all things which don't fall under the realms of mere "property".

---

Which is exactly why I took the view that the reference to 'property' was wider-ranging than items that can be bought and sold (indeed, even citizenship — while a very nebulous concept indeed — is connected with the ownership of land), though I agree that there are other factors at play.

Citizenship isn't connected with the ownership of land though. You don't need to own anything to have the citizenship of a nation conferred on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Citizenship isn't connected with the ownership of land though. You don't need to own anything to have the citizenship of a nation conferred on you.

---

But the nation does.

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

The will of the people is nominally the basis of the authority of government.* In real terms we are seeing that played out on the streets of Cairo.

*Also Article 21 of the UDHR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?.