• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The purpose of government

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

Governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights.

Period.

Notice the difference between "among these rights," meaning, these are some examples. This is not a definitive list. On the other hand, the purpose, not one of the purposes or among these purposes of government is to secure our rights. That's it.

Any law, then, that helps to secure our rights is a good law, any law that curtails liberty is a bad law. Pretty simple, it seems to me.
 
Governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights.

Period.

Notice the difference between "among these rights," meaning, these are some examples. This is not a definitive list. On the other hand, the purpose, not one of the purposes or among these purposes of government is to secure our rights. That's it.

Any law, then, that helps to secure our rights is a good law, any law that curtails liberty is a bad law. Pretty simple, it seems to me.

You would think it's simple, but some people don't agree with some of the rights we have.
 
Governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights.

Period.

Notice the difference between "among these rights," meaning, these are some examples. This is not a definitive list. On the other hand, the purpose, not one of the purposes or among these purposes of government is to secure our rights. That's it.

Any law, then, that helps to secure our rights is a good law, any law that curtails liberty is a bad law. Pretty simple, it seems to me.

Unfortunately you put into bold the part that has no real meaning. Truths that are self evident are merely claims that the person can find no good reason to sustain. All men are not created equal. the statement itself is a denial of the equality of women apart from being a false statement. There is no creator nor are rights unalienable they are consensual.

The part you should of put into bold that has any meaning is the last bit.
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.

They are not your lords and masters dispensing rights at their whim. They are your servants enacting laws that they were given by a mandate to do so by the people who elected them. And if the people vote for improved infrastructure such as a national health scheme, free schooling, child suopport etc. Then the government works to create such things. Which means there will always be some who whinge that their freedom is being supressed.

And using the DoC as a basis, really!! It has more in common with a dear john letter than any considered philosophical treatise.
 
Unfortunately you put into bold the part that has no real meaning. Truths that are self evident are merely claims that the person can find no good reason to sustain. All men are not created equal. the statement itself is a denial of the equality of women apart from being a false statement. There is no creator nor are rights unalienable they are consensual.

The part you should of put into bold that has any meaning is the last bit.


They are not your lords and masters dispensing rights at their whim. They are your servants enacting laws that they were given by a mandate to do so by the people who elected them. And if the people vote for improved infrastructure such as a national health scheme, free schooling, child suopport etc. Then the government works to create such things. Which means there will always be some who whinge that their freedom is being supressed.

And using the DoC as a basis, really!! It has more in common with a dear john letter than any considered philosophical treatise.

Not one word of this is an accurate interpretation of the Declaration. Not one.
 
Not one word of this is an accurate interpretation of the Declaration. Not one.

Of course it is. Please do tell me what fantasy you have of the Doc that you think it not an accurate interpretation.
 
Governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights.

Period.

Notice the difference between "among these rights," meaning, these are some examples. This is not a definitive list. On the other hand, the purpose, not one of the purposes or among these purposes of government is to secure our rights. That's it.

Any law, then, that helps to secure our rights is a good law, any law that curtails liberty is a bad law. Pretty simple, it seems to me.

The Constitution did not repeat those great words from the Declaration of Independence but alluded to them in the Preamble that stated the purpose of the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Thus it was the people assigning the responsibility to the central government to:

--form a more perfect union, or the power to pass whatever laws and regulation would be necessary for the various states to function as one nation. . .

--establish justice or the power to establish legal systems to interpret and enforce laws and settle disputes . . .

--insure domestic tranquility or the power to enforce necessary restraints to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other. . .

--provide for the common defense or to ensure that no enemy within or outside the nation would be able to prevail against us. . .

--promote the general welfare or establish currencies and means of monetary exchange, trade policies, and a environment in which all could prosper i.e. the general welfare of the population, not specific individuals, groups, constituencies, demographics, etc.

--secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity which alludes directly to the OP phrase from the Declaration of Independence that acknowledges the 'unalienable rights' that liberty does not violate.

In other words that was the purpose of the U.S. Constitution establishing a central government and the restrictions that the people intended to place on the authority assigned to that government.

So the OP is correct that the federal government's sole purpose was to create a nation in which people could exercise their unalienable rights with impunity so long as they did not violate the rights of others to do likewise.

It was the intention that such unalienable rights entitled people to organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and live as they chose to live and the central government would have no say over that so long as one state did not violate the rights of another.
 
Of course it is. Please do tell me what fantasy you have of the Doc that you think it not an accurate interpretation.

Everything you said was just plain wrong. That's the reality. You basically pulled all of it out of your backside.
 
Everything you said was just plain wrong. That's the reality. You basically pulled all of it out of your backside.

Either come up with some facts or stop farting about. You obviously have an opinion that the DoC was worth something more than a dear john letter. Can you actually discuss it or is this tantrum throwing your best shot?
 
Governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights.

Period.
Right on!

Oh, and to secure borders.
And enforce laws.
And maintain a military, to protect against internal and external threats.
And to provide courts, which provide peaceful resolution to conflicts between citizens.
And provide critical infrastructure.
And educate the public.
And to provide safety nets.
And to protect the land itself, particularly to provide stewardship of public lands for future generations.
And to regulate commerce.

I'm sure I've missed a few functions. But in short, the government also has a role in the provision and protection of common goods.

Of course, "unalienable rights" is kind of stupid, because any government actually does have the power to strip citizens of their rights. We can say they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that they can.

Plus, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people disagree with key points in the DoI. Right down to today, many do not regard all people as equal under the law. Jefferson himself obviously did not understand the scope of his own words, or outright violated them, by his own ownership of slaves. There isn't actually any reason in most religions to attribute rights to any divine act; that idea came from Enlightenment philosophers, not canonical religious texts. Lots of Jefferson's contemporaries did not believe that the Revolution was justified. Are we sure those positions are axiomatic...?

Last but not least, the DoI was not, in any way shape or form, intended to provide an exhaustive treatise on the nature of government. It was the colonials giving George III the middle finger. But hey, you said "Period" so conversation over, right? Right..... ;)
 
Governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights.

Period.

Notice the difference between "among these rights," meaning, these are some examples. This is not a definitive list. On the other hand, the purpose, not one of the purposes or among these purposes of government is to secure our rights. That's it.

Any law, then, that helps to secure our rights is a good law, any law that curtails liberty is a bad law. Pretty simple, it seems to me.

Wanna see what it's like to live in a democracy with small/limited government, low taxes, and relatively weak regulation? It's really easy - all you have to do is go to almost any third-world democracy. Having lived in one such place for a while, I became much more appreciative of life in a first-world democracy...because ALL first-world democracies (including America) have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation.

In other words, libertarianism sounds really nice, but (like its polar opposite of communism) in the real world, it doesn't work nearly so well as y'all think it should.
 
Wanna see what it's like to live in a democracy with small/limited government, low taxes, and relatively weak regulation? It's really easy - all you have to do is go to almost any third-world democracy. Having lived in one such place for a while, I became much more appreciative of life in a first-world democracy...because ALL first-world democracies (including America) have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation.

In other words, libertarianism sounds really nice, but (like its polar opposite of communism) in the real world, it doesn't work nearly so well as y'all think it should.

Libertarianism seems to be stuck in time, it advocates policies as though the Great Depression never existed.
 
Either come up with some facts or stop farting about. You obviously have an opinion that the DoC was worth something more than a dear john letter. Can you actually discuss it or is this tantrum throwing your best shot?

I have no interest or energy to educate you on American history and legal tradition, in which you don't even have a Google's worth of grounding. You're just wrong. That will remain so no matter what you say in response to this. Bye, now.
 
Wanna see what it's like to live in a democracy with small/limited government, low taxes, and relatively weak regulation? It's really easy - all you have to do is go to almost any third-world democracy.

Or, you could visit the United States before FDR, or the UK before WWII. Or most any other country in the Anglosphere of that time. As in, within the lifetime of people still with us.
 
Or, you could visit the United States before FDR, or the UK before WWII. Or most any other country in the Anglosphere of that time. As in, within the lifetime of people still with us.

Yes, by all means, go to the U.S. before FDR, so you could find out what life was like for the elderly before Social Security, and why "a chicken in every pot" was a winning political slogan.
 
Or, you could visit the United States before FDR, or the UK before WWII. Or most any other country in the Anglosphere of that time. As in, within the lifetime of people still with us.

Yeah, i suppose you think the Great Depression was a rousing success of small government.
 
Yes, by all means, go to the U.S. before FDR, so you could find out what life was like for the elderly before Social Security, and why "a chicken in every pot" was a winning political slogan.

And the UK, and Canada, and Australia, and most other places in the first world at the time. They bore zero resemblance to the cesspools you're describing.
 
Simple, but complicated. Because humans.
 
And the UK, and Canada, and Australia, and most other places in the first world at the time. They bore zero resemblance to the cesspools you're describing.

The key words in your reply are "at the time"...because the standards of living in first-world democracies at THAT time doesn't compare well to the standards of living in quite a few third-world democracies today.

All three of those nations chose to increase their levels of social services, the social safety nets that y'all so decry...and none of them - indeed, NONE of the first-world democracies outside America - are considering even for a moment going back to the way things were. They know that they have it far better now than they did before.

Again, go to a third-world democracy and live there for a while...and when you do so, go live among the people, away from the touristy areas, away from the rich areas (which is what I did), so you can learn four things:

(1) that in a third-world democracy, people are in many ways FREER than we are here in America - you can do pretty much what you want, wherever and however you want to do it, and as long as you're not actively harming someone else (and sometimes even if you are harming someone else), the local government will not care, and

(2) that because people are so much freer, because there's so much LESS government oversight, most people can avoid taxes if they want. They can avoid most or all of the little government-mandated fees that we see on our power and phone bills. They can smuggle pretty much whatever they want (I once avoided thousands of dollars' worth of import duties by paying the customs officer a relatively small bribe), and one can easily avoid jail time if one has money (I once paid off a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail), and that every cop you meet is open (and usually eager) to accept bribes (the local traffic cops worked on commission - they would actually receive a portion of the tickets they wrote...but since they would not receive the money for a couple months, they would happily take a much smaller bribe from the driver). You learn that in such places, such bribery and corruption is NORMAL, is EXPECTED. Why? Because the tax revenues are so low that the civil servants - including most law enforcement - are poorly paid...and that the bribes are necessary for them just to put food on the table. That's also why the roads, the power lines, and most other types of infrastructure are so dilapidated - the tax revenues are nowhere near enough to bring them up to first-world status. That's also why the houses are not built to code, why the dams are poorly maintained, why most cars on the road spew black exhaust (it was NORMAL for me to clean black soot out of my nostrils at the end of every day) - there's not enough tax revenue to even ensure the simple safety and health regulations that you and I take for granted in America, and

(3) third-world nations are dirty for a REASON. It's hard to get people who are dirt-poor, who worry every day about having something to eat, to worry about keeping their environs clean. There's not enough tax revenue to build and maintain sanitary infrastructure. Yes, there's sewers, but they're often very insufficient for the need. There's trash trucks...but far fewer than what's needed, and

(4) because there's no enforceable minimum wage, that wages are kept very, very low. Why? Because the competition is such that prices are slashed to the bone...and when businesses slash their prices so low, it's normal that the only way the owners can stay in business is by slashing their workers' wages. My son's fiancee (before they were married) worked at a place where the minimum wage was about five dollars a day...but she was paid two dollars a day. She couldn't do anything about it, either - if she complained, she would lose her job...and whoever she complained to could be easily bribed to look the other way. The minimum wage there is thus unenforceable...all because the tax revenue is so low that the civil servants need the bribes in order to put food on the table.

High taxes, sir, are the price of admission to life in a first-world nation. If you can't stand paying high taxes (and put up with the government and regulations that enable the nation to reliably collect that tax revenue), then go live in a third-world country since you're not willing to pay the price of admission to life here.
 
Last edited:
The key words in your reply are "at the time"...because the standards of living in first-world democracies at THAT time doesn't compare well to the standards of living in quite a few third-world democracies today.

All three of those nations chose to increase their levels of social services, the social safety nets that y'all so decry...and none of them - indeed, NONE of the first-world democracies outside America - are considering even for a moment going back to the way things were. They know that they have it far better now than they did before.

Again, go to a third-world democracy and live there for a while...and when you do so, go live among the people, away from the touristy areas, away from the rich areas (which is what I did), so you can learn three things:

(1) that in a third-world democracy, people are in many ways FREER than we are here in America - you can do pretty much what you want, wherever and however you want to do it, and as long as you're not actively harming someone else (and sometimes even if you are harming someone else), the local government will not care, and

(2) that because people are so much freer, because there's so much LESS government oversight, most people can avoid taxes if they want. They can avoid most or all of the little government-mandated fees that we see on our power and phone bills. They can smuggle pretty much whatever they want (I once avoided thousands of dollars' worth of import duties by paying the customs officer a relatively small bribe), and one can easily avoid jail time if one has money (I once paid off a judge to get my brother-in-law out of jail), and that every cop you meet is open (and usually eager) to accept bribes (the local traffic cops worked on commission - they would actually receive a portion of the tickets they wrote...but since they would not receive the money for a couple months, they would happily take a much smaller bribe from the driver). You learn that in such places, such bribery and corruption is NORMAL, is EXPECTED. Why? Because the tax revenues are so low that the civil servants - including most law enforcement - are poorly paid...and that the bribes are necessary for them just to put food on the table. That's also why the roads, the power lines, and most other types of infrastructure are so dilapidated - the tax revenues are nowhere near enough to bring them up to first-world status. That's also why the houses are not built to code, why the dams are poorly maintained, why most cars on the road spew black exhaust (it was NORMAL for me to clean black soot out of my nostrils at the end of every day) - there's not enough tax revenue to even ensure the simple safety and health regulations that you and I take for granted in America, and

(3) third-world nations are dirty for a REASON. It's hard to get people who are dirt-poor, who worry every day about having something to eat, to worry about keeping their environs clean. There's not enough tax revenue to build and maintain sanitary infrastructure. Yes, there's sewers, but they're often very insufficient for the need. There's trash trucks...but far fewer than what's needed.

High taxes, sir, are the price of admission to life in a first-world nation. If you can't stand paying high taxes (and put up with the government and regulations that enable the nation to reliably collect that tax revenue), then go live in a third-world country since you're not willing to pay the price of admission to life here.

This is a whole bunch of assuming the cause from the effect, not to mention assuming, without any actual proof, that it's the regulation and high taxation which is responsible for our increased standard of living today, rather than, say, technological advancement, political stability and predictability, and a level of entrepreneurship consistent with that seen throughout American history.

Crikey, you only have to go back to the 1950s for a relatively low level of regulation, taxation, and social spending. Everyone thought the '50s were awesome. Or so I'm told; I wasn't there.
 
This is a whole bunch of assuming the cause from the effect, not to mention assuming, without any actual proof, that it's the regulation and high taxation which is responsible for our increased standard of living today, rather than, say, technological advancement, political stability and predictability, and a level of entrepreneurship consistent with that seen throughout American history.

(1) technological advancement: thank NASA and the military and DARPA. Or are you really so ignorant that you don't realize that they were the driving forces behind computers, the internet, satellites, cell phone technology (thanks to RADM Grace Hopper), and our interstate highway system?

(2) political stability and predictability: Without the reliable and (relatively) trustworthy oversight enabled by tax revenue, our politicians would be every bit as "bribable" as third-world politicians are. Try bribing someone from the FBI sometime and you'll find out exactly what I mean by that.

(3) level of entrepreneurship: that's something America would NOT have if we didn't have the taxpayer-funded infrastructure that we have today - or haven't you noticed our nationwide (and fully taxpayer-funded) highway system? And then there's the internet (thanks to DARPA), and our nationwide communications systems (thanks to NASA), and the flow of oil on which we depended for decades (thanks to our military), and the much-higher level of education and literacy than we had before FDR (thanks to our public school system). Oh, and go ask the elderly if getting rid of Medicare would be a good idea.
 
(1) technological advancement: thank NASA and the military and DARPA. Or are you really so ignorant that you don't realize that they were the driving forces behind computers, the internet, satellites, cell phone technology (thanks to RADM Grace Hopper), and our interstate highway system?

So?

(2) political stability and predictability: Without the reliable and (relatively) trustworthy oversight enabled by tax revenue, our politicians would be every bit as "bribable" as third-world politicians are. Try bribing someone from the FBI sometime and you'll find out exactly what I mean by that.

Didn't know I was advocating zero taxation and no government services of any kind, including police, courts, and law enforcement. That's a new one to me.

I also didn't know that before FDR, there was no government, no taxation, no courts, no law enforcement, no infrastructure. Also a new one to me.

But all that must be the case, or your post makes no sense at all as a response to mine.


(3) level of entrepreneurship: that's something America would NOT have if we didn't have the taxpayer-funded infrastructure that we have today - or haven't you noticed our nationwide (and fully taxpayer-funded) highway system? And then there's the internet (thanks to DARPA), and our nationwide communications systems (thanks to NASA), and the flow of oil on which we depended for decades (thanks to our military), and the much-higher level of education and literacy than we had before FDR (thanks to our public school system). Oh, and go ask the elderly if getting rid of Medicare would be a good idea.

Oh, stop. Yes we would have it. And most of this stuff you're describing is within the proper scope of government -- a basic infrastructure, and the government protecting what private citizens choose to do.

You appear to one of those people who can't tell the difference between "low taxes, small government" and "anarchy." Until you can tell that difference, sir, there's really no point in further discussion.
 
This is a whole bunch of assuming the cause from the effect, not to mention assuming, without any actual proof, that it's the regulation and high taxation which is responsible for our increased standard of living today, rather than, say, technological advancement, political stability and predictability, and a level of entrepreneurship consistent with that seen throughout American history.

Crikey, you only have to go back to the 1950s for a relatively low level of regulation, taxation, and social spending. Everyone thought the '50s were awesome. Or so I'm told; I wasn't there.

You do realize that during the 1950's, the top level of taxation was 90%, right? Look it up.

And were the 1950's awesome? How about asking the blacks how life was then? And how about the LGBT's? And if local businesses poisoned your water or pumped sulfur into the air that ruined your crops with acid rain, what could you do about it? Nothing. And if you broke your leg but couldn't afford medical treatment, what could you do about it? Nothing - it wasn't until Reagan that all ER's were required to accept everyone without regard to ability to pay. In other words, be very careful what you wish for.

And when it comes to regulations, so often I hear libertarians gripe about regulations...but I almost never hear them say WHAT regulations are harmful.

Look, guy, what you SHOULD be looking at is the RESULTS. What are the nations TODAY which are the most successful when it comes to economies, security, safety, and personal rights? You know as well as I do that the answer is the first-world democracies, all of which are significantly socialized (including America). Libertarianism is arguing against the very systems that are providing the very best standards of living in human history.
 
So?



Didn't know I was advocating zero taxation and no government services of any kind, including police, courts, and law enforcement. That's a new one to me.

I also didn't know that before FDR, there was no government, no taxation, no courts, no law enforcement, no infrastructure. Also a new one to me.

But all that must be the case, or your post makes no sense at all as a response to mine.




Oh, stop. Yes we would have it. And most of this stuff you're describing is within the proper scope of government -- a basic infrastructure, and the government protecting what private citizens choose to do.

You appear to one of those people who can't tell the difference between "low taxes, small government" and "anarchy." Until you can tell that difference, sir, there's really no point in further discussion.

And you're not interested in learning about the world around you. Again, do yourself a favor and go live in a third-world democracy for a while. It's a real eye-opener...and you'd learn that "low taxes and small government" are indeed not anarchy, but they ARE a sure recipe for third-world status.

One of us has lived this and seen it first-hand. It ain't you.
 
You do realize that during the 1950's, the top level of taxation was 90%, right? Look it up.

Do you know what level of income that top marginal rate was on? Do you know what a marginal rate is, and why that's important?

Do you know how many people actually paid it?

Perhaps you should look THAT up.

And were the 1950's awesome? How about asking the blacks how life was then? And how about the LGBT's? And if local businesses poisoned your water or pumped sulfur into the air that ruined your crops with acid rain, what could you do about it? Nothing. And if you broke your leg but couldn't afford medical treatment, what could you do about it? Nothing - it wasn't until Reagan that all ER's were required to accept everyone without regard to ability to pay. In other words, be very careful what you wish for.

tenor.gif



Look, guy, what you SHOULD be looking at is the RESULTS. What are the nations TODAY which are the most successful when it comes to economies, security, safety, and personal rights? You know as well as I do that the answer is the first-world democracies, all of which are significantly socialized (including America). Libertarianism is arguing against the very systems that are providing the very best standards of living in human history.

Again, you are assuming, without actually establishing, that today's standard of living is a result of, and couldn't be possible without, high taxation and regulation.

Prove that without high taxes and high regulation we'd be now on the same level as that of a third-world ****hole today. Show it. Establish it. Us. The United States of America. Again, like above, until you can do that, there's not much point in arguing any further.
 
Back
Top Bottom