How is poverty best eliminated?

Where is the option that poverty will never be eliminated?

AlbqOwl said:

How do you determine that so many are spam votes? And why are non registered members of a forum able to vote in a poll?

Click to expand...

click on the numbers-you will see the names of those who voted all other votes are non members or dishonest members who logged out and voted more than once

brothern said:

A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.

The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.

Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.

Click to expand...

as a libertarian, what is your solution

brothern said:

A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.

The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.

Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.

Click to expand...

William Bradford wrote in "Of Plymouth Colony"--a not-all-that-popular account of history--stating how the first colonists were organized on a communal farm. Everybody would work for the colony and everybody would share and share alike in the produce. But for two and a half years there was massive starvation and want because even back then nobody was willing to work and be the sucker when others worked less and received as much. So before the entire colony was wiped out, Bradford saw the error of that plan and reorganized the colonists so that each family was given its own plot of land to work and would keep whatever they grew there. Within one season the farms were flourishing and each family produced more than it needed so that it had produce to trade with their neighbors and with the Indians and were able to celebrate their new prosperity in that iconic first Thanksgiving.

There is an important lesson to be learned from this story.

TurtleDude said:

click on the numbers-you will see the names of those who voted all other votes are non members or dishonest members who logged out and voted more than once

Click to expand...

Ah, okay. I didn't realize it was a public poll. I am more encouraged. Thanks.

brothern said:

A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.

The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.

Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.

Click to expand...

Poverty is not necessarily a lack of money. Poverty, as it is generally understood, is the lack of food, clothing, shelter and necessities of life. If you have all the money in the world and have not sufficient food, clothing, or shelter to sustain your life and have no way to obtain these, you are poorer than the church mouse who has all that he needs. When personal liberty, free markets, and freedom from coercion promotes the production of food, clothing, shelter--necessities of life--then much more poverty will be eliminated than can ever happen by taking from those who earned what they have and giving it to those who did not earn it.

Stop all foreign aid, eliminate all forms of welfare and unemployment insurance, make pensions illegal, apply free-market principles to drugs and medical care and, six months later, make slavery legal. You'll eliminate poverty in one generation.

AlbqOwl said:

William Bradford wrote in "Of Plymouth Colony"--a not-all-that-popular account of history--stating how the first colonists were organized on a communal farm. Everybody would work for the colony and everybody would share and share alike in the produce. But for two and a half years there was massive starvation and want because even back then nobody was willing to work and be the sucker when others worked less and received as much. So before the entire colony was wiped out, Bradford saw the error of that plan and reorganized the colonists so that each family was given its own plot of land to work and would keep whatever they grew there. Within one season the farms were flourishing and each family produced more than it needed so that it had produce to trade with their neighbors and with the Indians and were able to celebrate their new prosperity in that iconic first Thanksgiving.

There is an important lesson to be learned from this story.

Click to expand...

That's a great story. However what is the actual evidence there? Such as, for example, a rigorous and systematic study to measure the quantified effectiveness of the colonies' different economic structures and its broader impact on each households’ behavior? Willy Bradford would have never in his dreams been able to produce such evidence-based arguments. So how can we actually trust his conclusions, when they very well could be based on faulty premises like tradition, anecdotes, conventional wisdom or confirmation biases?

Obviously that's not an argument for communal agrarianism, but it is an argument for doing what is actually proven. Show the evidence. If communal agrarianism had produced the best results beyond whatever Bradford had against it, why not do it?

Second -- I'm not sure what communal farming has to do with eliminating poverty.

TurtleDude said:

as a libertarian, what is your solution

Click to expand...

Pragmatism. As in, do you know how the extreme poverty Millennium Development Goal is being solved right now?

Countries are implementing safety net programs ("welfare") and putting in place directed programs like conditional cash transfers, where impoverished families are receiving money from the government or NGOs. These programs aren't a panacea for poverty, but they've been shown to be effective by both tackling the lack of wealth (giving money) and the conditions that prevent wealth accumulation (on the condition of regular school attendance).

Take a read: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf

brothern said:

Pragmatism. As in, do you know how the extreme poverty Millennium Development Goal is being solved right now?

Countries are implementing safety net programs ("welfare") and putting in place directed programs like conditional cash transfers, where impoverished families are receiving money from the government or NGOs. These programs aren't a panacea for poverty, but they've been shown to be effective by both tackling the lack of wealth (giving money) and the conditions that prevent wealth accumulation (on the condition of regular school attendance).

Take a read: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf

Click to expand...

I think one of the most important steps is to discourage as strongly as possible-irresponsible people from having children. far too many people have children they are unable and/or unable to properly care for and current welfare programs encourage this activity

brothern said:

A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.

The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.

Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.

Click to expand...

Greetings, brothern. :2wave:

There are more whites living in poverty in this country than any other group, blacks included. To assume that it is a racial thing which only affects blacks is incorrect, since it is probably more accurate to state that since there are more whites than blacks in this country, it is statistically more likely that the percentage of whites living in poverty is greater than any other group, which happens to be true.

Secondly, how could anyone ensure that everyone has wealth? If that were possible, it would have been done long ago. There are only five ways that I can think of to have wealth 1) earn it by working and investing wisely; 2) inherit it; 3) steal it; 4) come up with a new product that everyone wants or needs, ie become an entrepreneur and/or an inventor, or 5) win the lottery. Of the five, the first choice is most likely for the majority of people, no matter what color you are, which means you do not drop out of school, and you go on to college to get a higher education - or you go to school to learn a trade like plumber, electrician, etc, or you are skilled enough to become sports star. It is being responsible for your own life choices - nothing more.

US Conservative said:

What works best to eliminate poverty?

Click to expand...

Some thoughts...

1) I don't think poverty can ever be "eliminated". Primarily because, to some degree, it's a relative measure. For example, if we say below $20K/yr is poverty, when everybody reaches $20K/yr the new threshold will be $40K/yr. There will always be people who do better than other people, and not necessarily through any fault of their own.

2) Piggy-backing on #1, for some people it will be through fault of their own. They simply don't want to put forth the effort to do better. They're satisfied with what they have.

3) For the most part rising above poverty is an individual task. Leave people alone and let them do it. Government *can* help, but only in a limited sense, and certainly not to the degree of alleged help we see our government(s) doing now.

AlbqOwl said:

Poverty is not necessarily a lack of money. Poverty, as it is generally understood, is the lack of food, clothing, shelter and necessities of life. If you have all the money in the world and have not sufficient food, clothing, or shelter to sustain your life and have no way to obtain these, you are poorer than the church mouse who has all that he needs.

Click to expand...

Money is a store of wealth and facilitates trade. Meaning that in a sense it is one in the same as food, clothing and shelter.

If you're in a situation where money is not readily convertible into sufficient food, clothing or shelter; that's much more of a structural problem than it is a problem of poverty.

AlbqOwl said:

When personal liberty, free markets, and freedom from coercion promotes the production of food, clothing, shelter--necessities of life--then much more poverty will be eliminated than can ever happen by taking from those who earned what they have and giving it to those who did not earn it.

Click to expand...

Developed countries are already free and we still have poverty within them. So unless we can get to 120% freedom, I skeptical of believing that much more poverty will be eliminated by tooting lofty principles.

polgara said:

Greetings, brothern. :2wave: There are more whites living in poverty in this country than any other group, blacks included. To assume that it is a racial thing which only affects blacks is incorrect, since it is probably more accurate to state that since there are more whites than blacks in this country, it is statistically more likely that the percentage of whites living in poverty is greater than any other group, which happens to be true.

Click to expand...

Hi polgara. I'm not sure I've made a point on race yet.

polgara said:

Secondly, how could anyone ensure that everyone has wealth? If that were possible, it would have been done long ago. There are only five ways that I can think of to have wealth 1) earn it by working and investing wisely; 2) inherit it; 3) steal it; 4) come up with a new product that everyone wants or needs, ie become an entrepreneur and/or an inventor, or 5) win the lottery. Of the five, the first choice is most likely for the majority of people, no matter what color you are, which means you do not drop out of school, and you go on to college to get a higher education - or you go to school to learn a trade like plumber, electrician, etc, or you are skilled enough to become sports star. It is being responsible for your own life choices - nothing more.

Click to expand...

Encouraging a fairer distribution of wealth, while ensuring that economic incentives and personal liberties are not compromised. We're already heading in that direction: most countries have progressive income taxes, social safety net programs and other economic protections in place like labor laws. It's just unfortunate that the world has had a plethora of historical problems that have influenced today's standing.

So, for an example, this problem with our decreasing real wages. Over the past decade or two, the real wage (or the "inflation-adjusted") wage of many professions has decreased. Meaning that when you adjust for inflation your typical HR professional made MORE money in 1990 than a comparable HR professional did in 2010. And that's because at the macro level companies have been very effective at convincing mid-level and low-level employees to take cuts to their paycheck. How that's going to be solved is yet to be seen.

brothern said:

A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.

The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.

Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.

Click to expand...

"everyone has wealth' - I equate that to a fully employed populace, that'd be full time employment, each contributing the maximum value possible in each of their roles to net the greatest compensation that the role that's being filled, i.e. everyone making as much money as they possibly can.

Too bad that's it's little more than just a pipe dream. There are far too many people who'd much rather turn to crime or game the system, or are satisfied with the existence possible by just sitting and having their hand out.

brothern said:

That's a great story. However what is the actual evidence there? Such as, for example, a rigorous and systematic study to measure the quantified effectiveness of the colonies' different economic structures and its broader impact on each households’ behavior? Willy Bradford would have never in his dreams been able to produce such evidence-based arguments. So how can we actually trust his conclusions, when they very well could be based on faulty premises like tradition, anecdotes, conventional wisdom or confirmation biases?

Obviously that's not an argument for communal agrarianism, but it is an argument for doing what is actually proven. Show the evidence. If communal agrarianism had produced the best results beyond whatever Bradford had against it, why not do it?

Second -- I'm not sure what communal farming has to do with eliminating poverty.


Pragmatism. As in, do you know how the extreme poverty Millennium Development Goal is being solved right now?

Countries are implementing safety net programs ("welfare") and putting in place directed programs like conditional cash transfers, where impoverished families are receiving money from the government or NGOs. These programs aren't a panacea for poverty, but they've been shown to be effective by both tackling the lack of wealth (giving money) and the conditions that prevent wealth accumulation (on the condition of regular school attendance).

Take a read: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf

Click to expand...

If you didn't learn how to eliminate poverty from the story, then I can't help you understand. But we have seen this story repeated again and again. China's economy was stalled and regressing until its leadership adopted a new policy of allowing its people to keep much more of what they earned and to prosper according to the effort they put in. It is still far far from being the United States, but we have witnessed a booming Chinese economy purely because the people are allowed to profit from their labor.

We have seen the profit motive taken away in other countries--think Iron Curtain--with the result of flailing economies and far more poverty.

I know that many think everything would be much more perfect if the wealth was just more equally distributed, but this theory can be supported by very little in history and human experience.

Seeing that people who want a job have a job.

Navy Pride said:

Seeing that people who want a job have a job.

Click to expand...

And go with the Biblical principle of "He who will not work, let him not eat."

Actually it is not the job of government to provide a job for everybody who wants a job. The only way the government can do that is to draw resources from the economy in order to pay somebody for work that did not have to get done. It should be the role of government to oversee the infrastructure and oversee business-friendly policy and regulation that needs to be in place for all to effectively start up, grow, and prosper in their various private enterprises. That is how an energetic economy is created and that in turn produces jobs for those who want them. Full employment in the private sector prospers everybody, encourages entrepreneurship, increases wages and benefits, and benefits all.

AlbqOwl said:

And go with the Biblical principle of "He who will not work, let him not eat."

Actually it is not the job of government to provide a job for everybody who wants a job. The only way the government can do that is to draw resources from the economy in order to pay somebody for work that did not have to get done. It should be the role of government to oversee the infrastructure and oversee business-friendly policy and regulation that needs to be in place for all to effectively start up, grow, and prosper in their various private enterprises. That is how an energetic economy is created and that in turn produces jobs for those who want them. Full employment in the private sector prospers everybody, encourages entrepreneurship, increases wages and benefits, and benefits all.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Just that so many seem to believe that government that is the be all and do all for jobs, when in fact it most certainly is not. The private sector.

And then they further don't seem to appreciate how much blood, sweat and tears goes into the business, and how uncertainty pretty much freezes business into a state of making no decisions, or at least very conservative decisions, neither of which typically grows the business.

eohrnberger said:

Indeed. Just that so many seem to believe that government that is the be all and do all for jobs, when in fact it most certainly is not. The private sector.

And then they further don't seem to appreciate how much blood, sweat and tears goes into the business, and how uncertainty pretty much freezes business into a state of making no decisions, or at least very conservative decisions, neither of which typically grows the business.

Click to expand...

As a small business owner, I, with a clear conscience, can say that I absolutely built that. As can every other entrepreneur who took a idea to fill a need and started up a business. Or those who borrowed or risked pretty much everything they had to buy and grow an existing business. A relatively small percentage of the population has the vision, temperament, skill sets, and/or comfort in risk taking to do that, and the rest are more comfortable with security in a steady pay check and benefits when they sell their labor, creativity, work ethic, and skill set to the highest bidder for those assets. Both are honorable and necessary in order for a vigorous economy to exist.

The government serves best who follows the growing economy and provides the laws and regulation necessary to help it grow. The government doesn't build the infrastructure--the people do that as it is needed and with the money they earn by their own efforts--the government is charged to oversee and coordinate the effort. So when our fearless leader presumes to tell us that 'we didn't build that' he is speaking as one who has never owned or managed a business and one who has never held a paying job in the private sector. We did build that--each and every one of us--by getting ourselves out of bed in the morning and going to work to provide for our own needs and wants and thereby benefitting the whole.

The only way for the poor to become unpoor is to make a place in the economy for them to join in and provide for their own needs. When government hand outs look more inviting than does getting themselves out of bed in the morning and working to provide for their own needs, the government encourages and advances what we call poverty much more than it alleviates it. And the more the poor are encouraged to remain poor, the less opportunity there will be for them to become unpoor.

AlbqOwl said:

As a small business owner, I, with a clear conscience, can say that I absolutely built that. As can every other entrepreneur who took a idea to fill a need and started up a business. Or those who borrowed or risked pretty much everything they had to buy and grow an existing business. A relatively small percentage of the population has the vision, temperament, skill sets, and/or comfort in risk taking to do that, and the rest are more comfortable with security in a steady pay check and benefits when they sell their labor, creativity, work ethic, and skill set to the highest bidder for those assets. Both are honorable and necessary in order for a vigorous economy to exist.

The government serves best who follows the growing economy and provides the laws and regulation necessary to help it grow. The government doesn't build the infrastructure--the people do that as it is needed and with the money they earn by their own efforts--the government is charged to oversee and coordinate the effort. So when our fearless leader presumes to tell us that 'we didn't build that' he is speaking as one who has never owned or managed a business and one who has never held a paying job in the private sector. We did build that--each and every one of us--by getting ourselves out of bed in the morning and going to work to provide for our own needs and wants and thereby benefitting the whole.

The only way for the poor to become unpoor is to make a place in the economy for them to join in and provide for their own needs. When government hand outs look more inviting than does getting themselves out of bed in the morning and working to provide for their own needs, the government encourages and advances what we call poverty much more than it alleviates it.

Click to expand...

You built it...but not by yourself. The taxpayers helped you build it by paying for the education of your employees, by paying for the police and fire protection that are crucial to your business, by paying for the roads and sidewalks that provide access to your business, by paying for all the myriad pieces of infrastructure that your business couldn't do without.

When Obama said "you didn't build it", he meant "you didn't build it by yourself". And you didn't.

Glen Contrarian said:

You built it...but not by yourself. The taxpayers helped you build it by paying for the education of your employees, by paying for the police and fire protection that are crucial to your business, by paying for the roads and sidewalks that provide access to your business, by paying for all the myriad pieces of infrastructure that your business couldn't do without.

When Obama said "you didn't build it", he meant "you didn't build it by yourself". And you didn't.

Click to expand...

He meant the business owner can't take any credit for it and the business owner owes his success to government. He has made that crystal clear in all the history we have with him. And it is pure malarkey and evidence of how out of touch he is with reality in what makes an economy work.

Yes, the social contract allows us all to be more efficient, effective, and practical than we can do by each person providing all his own infrastructure. But each and every one of us who work in the private sector make those taxes possible, make those schools possible, who wanted those roads and sidewalks and street lights and VOTED for the bonds that made them possible. If we had not been willing to take the risks, to contribute our vision and abilities and skill sets to provide for ourselves, then there would have been far less resources for those schools or roads or sidewalks. We would exist and do what we have to do to survive without government. Government cannot exist without us.

AlbqOwl said:

He meant the business owner can't take any credit for it and the business owner owes his success to government. He has made that crystal clear in all the history we have with him. And it is pure malarkey and evidence of how out of touch he is with reality in what makes an economy work.

Yes, the social contract allows us all to be more efficient, effective, and practical than we can do by each person providing all his own infrastructure. But each and every one of us who work in the private sector make those taxes possible, make those schools possible, who wanted those roads and sidewalks and street lights and VOTED for the bonds that made them possible. If we had not been willing to take the risks, to contribute our vision and abilities and skill sets to provide for ourselves, then there would have been far less resources for those schools or roads or sidewalks. We would exist and do what we have to do to survive without government. Government cannot exist without us.

Click to expand...

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

Yea...Get em Albq :roll:

AlbqOwl said:

He meant the business owner can't take any credit for it and the business owner owes his success to government. He has made that crystal clear in all the history we have with him. And it is pure malarkey and evidence of how out of touch he is with reality in what makes an economy work.

Yes, the social contract allows us all to be more efficient, effective, and practical than we can do by each person providing all his own infrastructure. But each and every one of us who work in the private sector make those taxes possible, make those schools possible, who wanted those roads and sidewalks and street lights and VOTED for the bonds that made them possible. If we had not been willing to take the risks, to contribute our vision and abilities and skill sets to provide for ourselves, then there would have been far less resources for those schools or roads or sidewalks. We would exist and do what we have to do to survive without government. Government cannot exist without us.

Click to expand...

And your whole second paragraph is a wonderful example of the old saying, "one hand washes the other". Yes, you can survive without government, but that's what you would be doing: "surviving"...and that's about it. Yes, government cannot exist without the people...but the people as a whole cannot truly prosper without some form of government. Again, one hand washes the other.

That's also why I've said many times that high taxes are the price of admission to a first-world nation. If you want the benefits and privileges of living in a first-world nation, then you've got to be willing to pay the taxes and follow the laws and regulations that enable that first-world nation to reach and maintain the status of a first-world nation.

To FruityFact and GlenContrarian,

Nobody suggests that the social contract doesn't benefit all. Of course it does. Just as each of us looking to our own self interests benefits all. But good government follows society, enterprise, and commerce. It does not create it.

Here is how it works:

A farmer or rancher stakes out a claim on an undeveloped tract of land. The central government, formed by the people for the benefit of the people, establishes the rules by which the claim can be staked out and secures the farmer/rancher's right to hold and have that land.

So the farmer/rancher builds his house and barn from timber he cuts or sod he forms into mud walls. He plows the ground to grow food. He builds his corrals to contain livestock. He digs his own well or utilizes whatever surface water is available on his property. His wagon beats down the natural foliage to create a road of sorts when he needs to go elsewhere to buy or barter for supplies or equipment. He is wholly self contained and wholly free, beholden to nobody and beneficiary of the fruit of his own labor.

Then another family moves in on other land in the area and then another and then another until there is a sizable group of families. Some enterprising person sees a market in this increasing population and puts in a general store that buys and sells produce from the neighboring farms and offers goods, supplies, tools, and equipment on faith that the farmers and ranchers will buy from him instead of making the long trip to the nearest city. Somebody else puts in a blacksmith and repair shop. Somebody else a cafe. And so on until a town is springing up amidst all those previously unrelated farms and ranches. And when the business grows so that employees are needed, those employees build houses to live in and work for the proprietors in the town instead of on the land. When all the new septic systems begin to threaten the water supply, it makes sense for everybody to join together to form a water coop, then electrical coop, a common sewer system. To be able to get fire insurance, they form a volunteer fire department and hire somebody to provide security for their properties. And eventually it makes sense to build a school that all will share and elect a mayor and have a city clerk who can provide useful paper work and record keeping they once had to travel long distances to get. And the people vote to build roads and street lights and sidewalks that they will share and contribute their taxes to maintain.

Every step of the way, everybody is looking to his/her own interests but by cooperating with each other, they benefit themselves and everybody else.

So yes, each of us can look to our parents, role models, great teachers, the guy who took a chance on us and gave us our first job, etc. etc. etc. as all part of who and what we are. And each and every one of us in some way has benefitted somebody else. To say that we are beholden to government for who and what we are is simply absurd. Government is and should be beholden to each and every one of us for its very existence.

AlbqOwl said:

So yes, each of us can look to our parents, role models, great teachers, the guy who took a chance on us and gave us our first job, etc. etc. etc. as all part of who and what we are. And each and every one of us in some way has benefitted somebody else. To say that we are beholden to government for who and what we are is simply absurd. Government is and should be beholden to each and every one of us for its very existence.

Click to expand...

And, in fact, they are. If all of the people stop supporting the government, the government stops existing, you cannot have a government if none of the people pay it any heed. However, so long as the people do, in general, support the government, they do not rise up to overthrow it or elect people to go to Washington to change it, then the government has a significant amount of power, at the behest of the people. The people have the power. If they choose not to exercise it, it remains the fault of the people, not the government.

And in your example, if a big powerful group comes to town and says "we have more guns and more power than you do, therefore we're just taking all of your land", of course you have to rely on the government and the power that the government wields, to save the day. After all, they're the ones who recorded your ownership of the land and your right to work it, they're the one with the military or the law enforcement agents who can come and tell that big powerful group what to go do with itself. Individuals do not have that ability, it is only through the collective decision of society and it's legal arm, the government, that the peace can be kept and wrongs, as described above, can be righted. There's got to be a balance between anarchy, which doesn't work, and totalitarianism, which doesn't work.