I’m particularly interested in answers from people on the left.
What are the legitimate functions of government?
If you’re interested in my opinion, I’d urge you to read this short essay by Frederic Bastiat:
http://www.bastiat.org/en/government.html
If you have the time you might be interested in Bastiat’s The Law
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Anything a government can do without initiating force(i.e. while playing by the same rules everyone else has to) is a legitimate function.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Anything a government can do without initiating force(i.e. while playing by the same rules everyone else has to) is a legitimate function.[/quote]
That could conceivably cover just about anything including redistributing wealth, nationalising industry, gun confiscation, suppression of free speech, banning political parties, curfews etc. I thought you were a libertarian? I would’ve guessed your answer would be the same as mine: protection of life, private property and individual liberty - and with those in mind laws regulating and defining such things as contracts, agency relationships etc.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Anything a government can do without initiating force(i.e. while playing by the same rules everyone else has to) is a legitimate function.[/quote]
That could conceivably cover just about anything [/quote]
Are you sure about that?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Anything a government can do without initiating force(i.e. while playing by the same rules everyone else has to) is a legitimate function.[/quote]
That could conceivably cover just about anything [/quote]
Are you sure about that?[/quote]
Yes. If a wealth redistribution scheme is carried out with the consent of the majority - whether via a plebiscite or via the authority they have vested in their elected representatives then it cannot be reasonably argued that “force” is used, even though not everyone agrees with the scheme. If you are trying to argue that everyone would have to agree then basically you’re arguing that government has no legitimate function whatsoever.
This made do a little research and after re-reading the Constitution, a few things jumped out at me specifically in the Preamble and Art 1 Section 8 where it talks about “promoting General Welfare”. This led to some more research and reading and I came across the following web page: http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
And what particularly jumped out at me was the following passage: The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to ?promote the general welfare.? What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the ?general welfare? by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy ?life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,? rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
First of all, I wanted to ask those of you on this fine forum if you felt this is an accurate representation of what the Founding Fathers “meant” (is there a source for that?), and if so, why the hell didn’t they more clearly express it? I mean LOOK at us now… It’s the total opposite of that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes. If a wealth redistribution scheme is carried out with the consent of the majority - whether via a plebiscite or via the authority they have vested in their elected representatives then it cannot be reasonably argued that “force” is used, even though not everyone agrees with the scheme. If you are trying to argue that everyone would have to agree then basically you’re arguing that government has no legitimate function whatsoever.
[/quote]
So if five people are in a room, three appoint a fourth to take the fifth’s money, the fourth tells the fifth that he can either hand over his money or the first three will decide whether or not he should be held in a cage in the next room, and the fifth decides to hand over his money, force has not been used? If the fifth instead decides not to hand over his money, and the fifth pulls out a gun and shoots him before taking his money, has force been used? What if there are now four people in a room, another vote is held and three vote to allow the shooter to take the fourth’s money, and the fourth immediately agrees to hand over his money? Has force been used, or has the shooter just achieved political legitimacy?
[quote]
So if five people are in a room.[/quote]
Wait a minute, is the room’s door open or closed ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
So if five people are in a room.[/quote]
Wait a minute, is the room’s door open or closed ? [/quote]
It’s open and each pays rent. However, one can not live in the hallway forever, and other shooters have already achieved political legitimacy in each of the other rooms of the house.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Anything a government can do without initiating force(i.e. while playing by the same rules everyone else has to) is a legitimate function.[/quote]
That could conceivably cover just about anything [/quote]
Are you sure about that?[/quote]
Yes. If a wealth redistribution scheme is carried out with the consent of the majority - whether via a plebiscite or via the authority they have vested in their elected representatives then it cannot be reasonably argued that “force” is used, even though not everyone agrees with the scheme. If you are trying to argue that everyone would have to agree then basically you’re arguing that government has no legitimate function whatsoever.
[/quote]
Ya…
And when 20 whites agree to lynch a black man you cannot seriously argue that force was used…
Cuz might makes right, wisdom of crowds and whatnot…
But dont worry, I can.
I am like a Bizarro SM.
Which, seeing it in writing, might be a bit redundant.
Because, if only one man was harmed, force was used.
And this is all libertarians are asking for, the acknowledgement that there is a gun in the room .
But, we never get that far, because people will bitch and moan and dodge and twist before they acknowledge a simple fact, their ideas rely on at least threathening other people.
Not necessarily unwarrantd threats, not necessarily excessive, but I think the gun in the room raises a few issues, like, why is it there, do we need it, if so, when, who should wield it, who should be entrusted with it and how, you want to use it to outlaw light bulbs and plastic bags you fucking maniac !?!
[quote]orion wrote:
And this is all libertarians are asking for, the acknowledgement that there is a gun in the room . [/quote]
But sexmachine IS a libertarian! I know, because he said it!
[quote]orion wrote:
Because, if only one man was harmed, force was used.
And this is all libertarians are asking for, the acknowledgement that there is a gun in the room .
But, we never get that far, because people will bitch and moan and dodge and twist before they acknowledge a simple fact, their ideas rely on at least threathening other people.
Not necessarily unwarrantd threats, not necessarily excessive, but I think the gun in the room raises a few issues, like, why is it there, do we need it, if so, when, who should wield it, who should be entrusted with it and how, you want to use it to outlaw light bulbs and plastic bags you fucking maniac !?![/quote]
Wouldn’t this mean that the entire concept of democracy and republican government depend on the threat of force?
(Btw, I actually agree with the above question completely, but it comes more from the fact that I believe force to be omnipresent and never avoidable. Even the act of your mother asking you to pick up the mail comes with an unspoken threat of force.)
[quote]magick wrote:
Wouldn’t this mean that the entire concept of democracy and republican government depend on the threat of force?
(Btw, I actually agree with the above question completely, but it comes more from the fact that I believe force to be omnipresent and never avoidable. Even the act of your mother asking you to pick up the mail comes with an unspoken threat of force.)[/quote]
Democracy and republican government are nothing but the socialization of the risk of rule. Restore the monarchy! Give the people one ruler to blame for problems and let that ruler face the consequences of his failures(beheading, etc.); don’t let that ruler shift the blame onto 51% of the population via an election in which there is only one choice-to be ruled.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Because, if only one man was harmed, force was used.
And this is all libertarians are asking for, the acknowledgement that there is a gun in the room .
But, we never get that far, because people will bitch and moan and dodge and twist before they acknowledge a simple fact, their ideas rely on at least threathening other people.
Not necessarily unwarrantd threats, not necessarily excessive, but I think the gun in the room raises a few issues, like, why is it there, do we need it, if so, when, who should wield it, who should be entrusted with it and how, you want to use it to outlaw light bulbs and plastic bags you fucking maniac !?![/quote]
Wouldn’t this mean that the entire concept of democracy and republican government depend on the threat of force?
(Btw, I actually agree with the above question completely, but it comes more from the fact that I believe force to be omnipresent and never avoidable. Even the act of your mother asking you to pick up the mail comes with an unspoken threat of force.)[/quote]
Well, if force is unavoidable, should we not at least try to define when and how the use of force is appropriate?
Just because it has its place in human relationships and organizations does not mean that we can simply pretend that it does not exist or that we have to tolerate it in all areas of human interactions.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Because, if only one man was harmed, force was used.
And this is all libertarians are asking for, the acknowledgement that there is a gun in the room .
But, we never get that far, because people will bitch and moan and dodge and twist before they acknowledge a simple fact, their ideas rely on at least threathening other people.
Not necessarily unwarrantd threats, not necessarily excessive, but I think the gun in the room raises a few issues, like, why is it there, do we need it, if so, when, who should wield it, who should be entrusted with it and how, you want to use it to outlaw light bulbs and plastic bags you fucking maniac !?![/quote]
Wouldn’t this mean that the entire concept of democracy and republican government depend on the threat of force?
(Btw, I actually agree with the above question completely, but it comes more from the fact that I believe force to be omnipresent and never avoidable. Even the act of your mother asking you to pick up the mail comes with an unspoken threat of force.)[/quote]
Well, if force is unavoidable, should we not at least try to define when and how the use of force is appropriate?
Just because it has its place in human relationships and organizations does not mean that we can simply pretend that it does not exist or that we have to tolerate it in all areas of human interactions. [/quote]
Well, I guess I’ll trot out the company line.
The use of force is only appropriate when used to prevent someone from forcibly interfering with the rights of another.
Unfortunately, our rights tend to “overlap” quite a bit. My right to swing my arms around in a punching motion end at the tip of your nose. In that scenario, the cut-off point is clear. It’s the tip of your nose, something tangible that can be seen and is clearcut; either my fist is touching your nose or it’s not.
But in reality, where that stopping point is can be pretty ambiguous. We can’t even agree upon what rights are unalienable and what aren’t. “Liberty” is a pretty vague term when put into practical use. Am I free to walk down the street naked with a raging boner? Does anyone have the right to be free from looking at horrific sites like that?
It seems to me that the role of the government is more akin to the head referee at an NFL game. He interprets the rules and calls it the way he sees it. If there is some sort of dispute, he gets together with the other refs and they hash things out, even if it means looking at the play over and over again.
Of course, the rules are spelled out much more clearly in the NFL rulebook than they are in the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that we have certain rights which are to be free from curtailment. But “liberty” is ambiguous enough to have caused some problems over the years. The role of government is to throw the flag and assess the penalty, but it is also to call the game fairly and evenly for both sides. I’m not so sure that the use of force is implemented the same way today. It seems to me that when the legal system (which is sort of like the challenge system in football) works much better for those with a lot of money to spend on their defense, it isn’t a whole lot different from allowing teams who can afford to pay the refs’ salary to have many more challenge flags at their disposal than the poorer teams.
So the role of the government is simply to use force to prevent the violation of rights at the “overlap” point, ensure that the legal system works effectively and equally for everyone (which is different from ensuring equal ACCESS to the system), and make sure that everyone plays by the rules, without being the entity that makes up the rules.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes. If a wealth redistribution scheme is carried out with the consent of the majority - whether via a plebiscite or via the authority they have vested in their elected representatives then it cannot be reasonably argued that “force” is used, even though not everyone agrees with the scheme. If you are trying to argue that everyone would have to agree then basically you’re arguing that government has no legitimate function whatsoever.
[/quote]
So if five people are in a room, three appoint a fourth to take the fifth’s money, the fourth tells the fifth that he can either hand over his money or the first three will decide whether or not he should be held in a cage in the next room, and the fifth decides to hand over his money, force has not been used? If the fifth instead decides not to hand over his money, and the fifth pulls out a gun and shoots him before taking his money, has force been used? What if there are now four people in a room, another vote is held and three vote to allow the shooter to take the fourth’s money, and the fourth immediately agrees to hand over his money? Has force been used, or has the shooter just achieved political legitimacy?[/quote]
Your story starts with five guys in a room. What are they doing in the room? How did they get there? That’s social contract theory. Outside the room the four strongest guys would just cave in the fifth guy’s head and take his money then turn on each other. Recognising that this is an unpleasant way to live the five guys decide to enter a room together.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Anything a government can do without initiating force(i.e. while playing by the same rules everyone else has to) is a legitimate function.[/quote]
That could conceivably cover just about anything [/quote]
Are you sure about that?[/quote]
Yes. If a wealth redistribution scheme is carried out with the consent of the majority - whether via a plebiscite or via the authority they have vested in their elected representatives then it cannot be reasonably argued that “force” is used, even though not everyone agrees with the scheme. If you are trying to argue that everyone would have to agree then basically you’re arguing that government has no legitimate function whatsoever.
[/quote]
Ya…
And when 20 whites agree to lynch a black man you cannot seriously argue that force was used…
Cuz might makes right, wisdom of crowds and whatnot…[/quote]
Whether or not “force” is used is really not an important question. If you want to describe it as force, then fine. Obviously lynching someone is not a legitimate function of government as it breaches the natural rights of the victim. Private property rights and life are pretty easy to determine. Individual liberty is more uncertain.
[quote]orion wrote:
And this is all libertarians are asking for, the acknowledgement that there is a gun in the room .
[/quote]
I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. But I think you are in denial. How does a society protect private property rights without a gun in the room? Further, has does it do so without majoritarian consent and placing the gun in the hands of representatives with vested authority? This is social contract theory. If you want to reject all forms of majoritarianism and only accept an individual’s right to the gun, then how do you prevent individuals from joining together(majoritarianism) against others?
Example: five anarchists are in a room and each has a gun. Three anarchists decide to point their guns at the other two and rob them. These three anarchists have now become socialists.