Purpose Of Government?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

The recent discussion concerning the account of a blogger who claimed to be arrested for not showing ID raises the issue of people fighting trivial battles.

| [i]Arrested For Not Showing License
| http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1709306[/i]

A lot of the responses are of the nature that the guy was a dick and should be punished for it.

It seems that society values commerce and prosperity more so than it values individuals demanding strict adherence to their rights.

So, what is the purpose of government? How is it supposed to use it’s authority? Perhaps more significantly, how do we go about measuring and rewarding governmental success?

2

Main purposes of government:

  1. Defend private property rights.

  2. Defend people from having harm done against their persons by aggressors.

  3. Enforce the border, defend against foreign aggression and promote national interests in foreign relations. (This is more a national government role than a state government role).

  4. Provide a dispute resolution system - particularly used for enforcement of private contracts.

3

Supply & demand & Majority rules. Protect the consumer, not control him. Those who give power are at fault here; that would be the average citizen. Just a matter of time & limits before they push back.

The real question is …what is the purpose of the people? We know the purpose of the Gov’t. The problem is they don’t serve it. They’re self-serving just like your average citizen. If they weren’t, then John Edwards would move some homeless into his 28,000 square foot mansion, he has plenty of room.

The people are the one who need to regulate what gov’t can do, and who gets in. The problem is people are now too individualized to assemble.

Not enough protesting!

Too many self-serving millionaires that hold power(the ruling elite).

Not enough people who actually care about the consumer/citizen, are in power …just alot of people looking out for their own. Can you blame them? No! Blame yourself for not fighting for what is right. To watch crime and do nothing about it, is the same as commiting a crime. In the end, we’re all criminals.

merlin

4

What about the rights of the store to not get ripped off?

What about the expectation of the employee to be treated in a civil manner to a reasonable request?

Doesn’t the government have a responsibility to them and not just to fulfil the whim of every jackass that comes along?

5

The problem is that the whole debate is being elevated to a level it doesn’t deserve.

It’s not about a store trying to impose it’s authority on its customers; it’s about an employee being rather tactless while trying to follow store procedures. Said clumsy procedures not being about violating people’s rights, but about reducing theft and being able to remain competetive and in business at all.

It’s not about some guy fighting for his right to privacy; it’s about some idiot who decides to make a “principled” stand and meeting other idiots who also decided to make their stands that day.

It’s not about government or police oppressing the little guy; it’s about a cop who probably didn’t care what he had to make up to make an asshole’s life miserable. Cops aren’t purely objective law-applying robots; they’re human like anyone else. Piss one off and see who makes who more miserable that day…

The only victims in the whole thing are the guy’s poor kids who had to sit through the whole spectacle and got to learn that their dad would rather put them through all that crap instead of letting a clerk look at a receipt and inside his bag. I’m sure they’ll be damn proud one day.

6

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Main purposes of government:

  1. Defend private property rights.

  2. Defend people from having harm done against their persons by aggressors.

  3. Enforce the border, defend against foreign aggression and promote national interests in foreign relations. (This is more a national government role than a state government role).

  4. Provide a dispute resolution system - particularly used for enforcement of private contracts.

[/quote]
Bingo!

This is all government can do. I would say that #2 fits into #1 as an individual’s life is also their property by definition.

7

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What about the rights of the store to not get ripped off?

What about the expectation of the employee to be treated in a civil manner to a reasonable request?

Doesn’t the government have a responsibility to them and not just to fulfil the whim of every jackass that comes along?
[/quote]
No, provided all actions are voluntary and not coerced the government has no business stepping in between actors in the market–unless it is to enforce a contract or to uphold an individual’s property rights.

In a voluntary system employees can leave and find new work at their own will. The government cannot (it should not) regulate interpersonal behavior between employer and employees unless one parties rights have been violated; if I have beef with my employer it is on me to resolve it.

If the government can step into the work place to tell other employees how to act then they could also regulate who gets to do what jobs to keep such behavior from happening–and that is not a legitimate function of the government.

8

[quote]pookie wrote:
The problem is that the whole debate is being elevated to a level it doesn’t deserve. . . .
[/quote]

Great post.

Dude, copy and paste it into the “guy arrested for not showing his licence” thread.

The idea of the store = government is like a page from the Chavez-Communist thread.

9

[quote]vroom wrote:

1- So, what is the purpose of government?

2- How is it supposed to use it’s authority?

3- Perhaps more significantly, how do we go about measuring and rewarding governmental success?[/quote]

1- Loaded question depending on who the viewer is …the governed or the governing. Purpose has no meaning unless its individualized. The ACTUAL purpose is its organizing principle in its war powers and its ability to manipulate the public …not to protect them(to protect themselves). The illusion is you are protected, when the reality is to self-protect, and decieve those who need protection.

The underlying purpose is to create validity in the laws it creates for its consumers based on popular opinion or unpopular opinion; we can’t even elect our own president(this is just what is perceived as actual, the only thing actual is the perception), so much for validity of laws when the government breaks its own laws and serves no penalty. In reality there is no purpose. Purpose is supposed, but never actualized.

2- However it wants to. Unless there is an overthrow of the system, or a threat to overthrow …then the abuse of authority can succeed. Manipulation of power is the key to a successful gov’t. Without it, the people have the power. Without frauds, there can be no real attempt to abuse its power and serve alterior motives with the most amount of deception as possible. (Funny how millionaires represent the poor …that’s like letting a cheerleader represent your football team in reverse). The wise eye see’s what’s really represented …DECEPTION!

3- Success can’t be measured because: for every successful consumer …there is a failure to reach liberty on those unsuccessful. Every man for himself is a success for those who made it, how about those left behind and walked all over to propel those successful foward? How does this relate on the success scale? Who gets what points? How do you measure pros vs cons? Does one millionaire negate 100 homeless or 1,000 homeless? Does one illegal/immoral abortion equal one saved birth. How do you compare failures to successes? How about the cost of every man put to death when he was innocent, does it equal putting those to death that were guilty …and that’s if you believe in an eye for an eye?

merlin

10

Just a hint, if I was trying to discuss the specific issue of the guy being arrested I wouldn’t have created a new thread. Reading the other thread some larger issues were brought to light…

–

Anyway, I am concerned at the idea that government exists primarily to secure property rights. This sounds like a very commercial or financial purpose.

Don’t citizens have rights that are not financial or commercial in nature?

11

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Main purposes of government:

  1. Defend private property rights.

  2. Defend people from having harm done against their persons by aggressors.

  3. Enforce the border, defend against foreign aggression and promote national interests in foreign relations. (This is more a national government role than a state government role).

  4. Provide a dispute resolution system - particularly used for enforcement of private contracts.

[/quote]

Reality check!

  1. Provide for those that cannot provide for themselves

  2. Promote an environment that ensures it’s perpetuation

I’m just playing devils’ advocate here.

12

[quote]vroom wrote:
…

Anyway, I am concerned at the idea that government exists primarily to secure property rights. This sounds like a very commercial or financial purpose.

Don’t citizens have rights that are not financial or commercial in nature?[/quote]

Yes. But if the government sticks to its basic purposes, then citizens have a lot fewer worries about government taking those rights away.

In the U.S., the Constitution limits how the government can use its powers and protects certain enumerated individual freedoms against government action – but the purpose of government can’t be to protect citizens’ freedoms from the government, can it?

13

[quote]kroby wrote:

Reality check!

  1. Provide for those that cannot provide for themselves

  2. Promote an environment that ensures it’s perpetuation

I’m just playing devils’ advocate here.[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree with this - I think the question should be qualified with a “depends on what level of government you are talking about” clause.

My answer will differ depending on the level.

14

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
In the U.S., the Constitution limits how the government can use its powers and protects certain enumerated individual freedoms against government action – but the purpose of government can’t be to protect citizens’ freedoms from the government, can it?[/quote]

Honestly, that sounds like job #1 to me. That’s why the damned things are ensconced in the founding documents.

I’d argue that the primary job of every country that prides itself on freedom is to ensure that it provides each and every freedom that it promises.

When the government falls down, then it’s up to us to stand up for them, isn’t it?

After that, I’d consider the government the steward of all the natural resources and so forth. This is where rules and regulations come from concerning use of these resources in a sustainable manner to the benefit of the populace and future generations.

Businesses is like life in that it will thrive in the conditions that it finds. Heck, we’ve even given corporation many of the legal rights of citizens in terms of making them a recognized entity though they are property themselves. However, I don’t recall flowery promises to corporations and profits in the constitution.

Please note, I’m not arguing for or against any particular policies or programs. I’m also not arguing whether policies and programs should be at state or federal levels.

15

[quote]vroom wrote:
Businesses is like life in that it will thrive in the conditions that it finds. Heck, we’ve even given corporation many of the legal rights of citizens in terms of making them a recognized entity though they are property themselves. However, I don’t recall flowery promises to corporations and profits in the constitution.
[/quote]

How is a corporation property?

What kind of flowery promises are made to corps outside the constitution? What kind of flowery promises are made to profits outside the constitution?

16

[quote]kroby wrote:
5) Provide for those that cannot provide for themselves

  1. Promote an environment that ensures it’s perpetuation

I’m just playing devils’ advocate here.[/quote]

Some kind of social safety nets are probably necessary (some would say a necessary evil) to maintain a peaceful society. You don’t want someone who loses his job to suddenly be forced to turn to crime to feed his family. Similarly, someone who gets sick should be able to get care even if he is temporarily unable to pay for it.

What levels of welfare and health care a population is ready to provide to it’s members is up for debate (and votes), but I think that trying to have a lawful and orderly society without those elements is doomed to failure. Or you’ll eventually end up with a police state that protects a rich elite from the have-nothing masses.

17

[quote]rainjack wrote:
How is a corporation property?
[/quote]

Hmm, are you asking how or are you referring to fact that government has defined rules and regulations concerning corporations?

I’m sure you’ve heard of shares…

18

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Main purposes of government:

  1. Defend private property rights.

  2. Defend people from having harm done against their persons by aggressors.

  3. Enforce the border, defend against foreign aggression and promote national interests in foreign relations. (This is more a national government role than a state government role).

  4. Provide a dispute resolution system - particularly used for enforcement of private contracts.

[/quote]

Yaaaay! Abso-and-fucking-lutely!!!

19

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
In the U.S., the Constitution limits how the government can use its powers and protects certain enumerated individual freedoms against government action – but the purpose of government can’t be to protect citizens’ freedoms from the government, can it?

vroom wrote:
Honestly, that sounds like job #1 to me. That’s why the damned things are ensconced in the founding documents.

I’d argue that the primary job of every country that prides itself on freedom is to ensure that it provides each and every freedom that it promises.

When the government falls down, then it’s up to us to stand up for them, isn’t it?[/quote]

I disagree, but I think it’s more for semantics. Spending money is accounted for in the founding documents, but it’s not the purpose of the government to spend money. Collecting taxes is accounted for in the founding documents, but it’s not the purpose of the government to collect taxes. I have a hard time with the idea that the purpose of having a government is to protect people from the government.

I think there are highly desirable specific limitations on the power of the government, which are put in place for that purpose - but they aren’t part of the government’s raison de etre.

[quote]vroom wrote:
After that, I’d consider the government the steward of all the natural resources and so forth. This is where rules and regulations come from concerning use of these resources in a sustainable manner to the benefit of the populace and future generations.[/quote]

Enforcing private property rights is the best way for the government to be the steward of natural resources - especially if it accounts for harmful externalities. Strong private property rights are the best guard against the tragedy of the commons.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Businesses is like life in that it will thrive in the conditions that it finds. Heck, we’ve even given corporation many of the legal rights of citizens in terms of making them a recognized entity though they are property themselves. However, I don’t recall flowery promises to corporations and profits in the constitution.[/quote]

You’re right – there aren’t promises of profits.

Just a promise that what is yours won’t be stolen by others (or by the government in the name of others). The other piece is providing the law and order necessary for maintaining the marketplace. None of that guarantees profits. The risk – and the rewards – are borne by the shareholders or the individual businesspeople.

20

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What about the rights of the store to not get ripped off?

What about the expectation of the employee to be treated in a civil manner to a reasonable request?

Doesn’t the government have a responsibility to them and not just to fulfil the whim of every jackass that comes along?

No, provided all actions are voluntary and not coerced the government has no business stepping in between actors in the market–unless it is to enforce a contract or to uphold an individual’s property rights.

In a voluntary system employees can leave and find new work at their own will. The government cannot (it should not) regulate interpersonal behavior between employer and employees unless one parties rights have been violated; if I have beef with my employer it is on me to resolve it.

If the government can step into the work place to tell other employees how to act then they could also regulate who gets to do what jobs to keep such behavior from happening–and that is not a legitimate function of the government.[/quote]

The incident in question was not all voluntary. It involved a dispute. Without government intervention the store may have had to take matters in it’s own hands and forcibly searched the guy.