Do you believe living in the US means you consent to be governed?

[AlbqOwl]

So what is the problem?

Because I believe we are destroying the very concepts that gave us that great nation. Consenting to a social contract for the mutual benefit of all is one thing. But that is not the same thing as consenting to be governed.

The Founders gave us a nation in which the people would not be subject to a monarch or dictator or pope or any other authoritarian government. The government was allowed certain limited powers necessary to form a nation and secure the rights of the people, and then intended for the people to govern themselves. Year by year we have allowed that concept to be destroyed by not resisting an ever more far reaching, expensive, authoritarian, meddling, and demanding government.

 

[William Rea]

Because I believe we are destroying the very concepts that gave us that great nation. Consenting to a social contract for the mutual benefit of all is one thing. But that is not the same thing as consenting to be governed.

The Founders gave us a nation in which the people would not be subject to a monarch or dictator or pope or any other authoritarian government. The government was allowed certain limited powers necessary to form a nation and secure the rights of the people, and then intended for the people to govern themselves. Year by year we have allowed that concept to be destroyed by not resisting an ever more far reaching, expensive, authoritarian, meddling, and demanding government.

I might be missing something here, you still have elections at all levels of government in the USA don't you?

 

[zyzygy]

Because I believe we are destroying the very concepts that gave us that great nation. Consenting to a social contract for the mutual benefit of all is one thing. But that is not the same thing as consenting to be governed.

The Founders gave us a nation in which the people would not be subject to a monarch or dictator or pope or any other authoritarian government. The government was allowed certain limited powers necessary to form a nation and secure the rights of the people, and then intended for the people to govern themselves. Year by year we have allowed that concept to be destroyed by not resisting an ever more far reaching, expensive, authoritarian, meddling, and demanding government.

Some people were saying the same thing back in the 1920's.

 

[zyzygy]

I might be missing something here, you still have elections at all levels of government in the USA don't you?

I don't believe that the place has turned into another North Korea. If it's so bad over there then why do thousands try to enter the country illegally?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I might be missing something here, you still have elections at all levels of government in the USA don't you?

Yes, but we have allowed the Permanent Political Class to interject big government into so many aspects of our lives that they have managed to develop a permanent underclass dependent on that government. Once somebody is receiving a benefit from government, he or she may have all the right values and attitudes and understanding of what liberty is, but it is really hard for him/her to vote in a way s/he could lose that benefit. And now that more than half the people are receiving some kind of benefit, the Permanent Political Class has secured its ability to stay in their lucrative elective or appointed positions where they increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth without restrictions.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Some people were saying the same thing back in the 1920's.

Perhaps. But in the 1920's nobody expected the government to provide for them because it never had. So they were doing for themselves. The more government does for people, the less incentive they have to do for themselves.

 

[William Rea]

Yes, but we have allowed the Permanent Political Class to interject big government into so many aspects of our lives that they have managed to develop a permanent underclass dependent on that government. Once somebody is receiving a benefit from government, he or she may have all the right values and attitudes and understanding of what liberty is, but it is really hard for him/her to vote in a way s/he could lose that benefit. And now that more than half the people are receiving some kind of benefit, the Permanent Political Class has secured its ability to stay in their lucrative elective or appointed positions where they increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth without restrictions.

I know what you mean; These plebs that don't have the ability to operate at a higher mental level like us are just sheeple aren't they? I reckon the political class are shape shifting illuminati lizard people as well.

 

[zyzygy]

Perhaps. But in the 1920's nobody expected the government to provide for them because it never had. So they were doing for themselves. The more government does for people, the less incentive they have to do for themselves.

Great Depression: American Social Policy - Social Welfare History Project

 

[AlbqOwl]

I know what you mean; These plebs that don't have the ability to operate at a higher mental level like us are just sheeple aren't they? I reckon the political class are shape shifting illuminati lizard people as well.

The political class believes government is the solution for most societal problems. The Permanent Political Class in Washington I do believe look to their own self-serving interests first and only throw the people enough bones to keep them voting for them.

But I don't have so negative judgment of the people as you suggest. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to act on one's convictions against one's own self interest. So even the honest, industrious, intelligent, well educated person has to weigh whether it is worth it to give up a benefit he is receiving without some hope of it making a positive difference overall.

 

[zyzygy]

The political class believes government is the solution for most societal problems. The Permanent Political Class in Washington I do believe look to their own self-serving interests first and only throw the people enough bones to keep them voting for them.

But I don't have so negative judgment of the people as you suggest. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to act on one's convictions against one's own self interest. So even the honest, industrious, intelligent, well educated person has to weigh whether it is worth it to give up a benefit he is receiving without some hope of it making a positive difference overall.

What kind of benefits are you talking about? I receive a benefit from the Belgian government because leukemia means that I cannot work. Should I give up the benefit and become homeless and starve?

 

[AlbqOwl]

What kind of benefits are you talking about? I receive a benefit from the Belgian government because leukemia means that I cannot work. Should I give up the benefit and become homeless and starve?

It doesn't matter what kind of benefit. I haven't suggested anybody become homeless and starve. Nor have I engaged in any kind of hyperbole like that. I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing left out and nothing embellished.

 

[RGacky3]

There is already a thread on the front page of this forum where you can have that debate. All I will say to it is that the claim people own anything beyond themselves at birth is a claim lacking all merit.

The claim People own any part of nature outside of the consent of others affected by that claim is lacking all merit.

Which thread is that btw?

 

[zyzygy]

It doesn't matter what kind of benefit. I haven't suggested anybody become homeless and starve. Nor have I engaged in any kind of hyperbole like that. I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing left out and nothing embellished.

What should be done about the situation that you say exists?

 

[William Rea]

What kind of benefits are you talking about? I receive a benefit from the Belgian government because leukemia means that I cannot work. Should I give up the benefit and become homeless and starve?

Yes. You scrounger

 

[zyzygy]

Yes. You scrounger

I worked in shifts for 30 years and paid into the system. I'm getting my money back now

 

[AlbqOwl]

What should be done about the situation that you say exists?

In my opinion we should be developing an economy and society in which people expect to do for themselves rather than have government do for them.

 

[zyzygy]

In my opinion we should be developing an economy and society in which people expect to do for themselves rather than have government do for them.

How are "we" going to do that?

 

[AlbqOwl]

How are "we" going to do that?

We do that by slowly and carefully, so that people have time to adjust, dismantling the federal bureaucracy and return all functions to the states other than those constitutionally mandated for the federal government.

 

[William Rea]

We do that by slowly and carefully, so that people have time to adjust, dismantling the federal bureaucracy and return all functions to the states other than those constitutionally mandated for the federal government.

How does a transition to State Government from Federal Government change the relationship? As far as I can tell it is still government with a social contract regardless of what colour it is?

 

[Andalublue]

In my opinion we should be developing an economy and society in which people expect to do for themselves rather than have government do for them.

Where does that leave people with no possibility of 'doing for themselves'?

 

[zyzygy]

We do that by slowly and carefully, so that people have time to adjust, dismantling the federal bureaucracy and return all functions to the states other than those constitutionally mandated for the federal government.

You never actually say how any of this would be done. How would you start the process? By the normal means of staring a political party and persuading people to vote for your manifesto?

 

[AlbqOwl]

How does a transition to State Government from Federal Government change the relationship? As far as I can tell it is still government with a social contract regardless of what colour it is?

It is up to the people how much authority they assign to government at any level. And the more local the government, the less opportunity and less likelihood there is to violate the social contract. Your local volunteer fire department or your local church congregation has a government of sorts--rules of the road as it were--but these are determined by those involved in those organizations. Social contract is mutual agreement of organization for the mutual benefit of all. The further away from the people and the less oversight and control they have of assigned authority, the more opportunity for those in authority to do things to please themselves and the less emphasis will be on mutual benefit for all.

Each state is its own little laboratory of trial and error, but it is far less likely to implement laws, rules, regulation to which the people strenuously object than is the federal government far more removed from the people. And if the state screws something up, it doesn't screw up the other 49 states. When the local community gets it wrong, it doesn't affect everybody else in the state or country. When the federal government screws up, it affects everybody.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Where does that leave people with no possibility of 'doing for themselves'?

Such people are at the mercy of their family, friends, or others as it has always been since the beginning of humankind. A moral society takes care of the most helpless among them. But it does not do so by making the less helpless dependent on that society.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You never actually say how any of this would be done. How would you start the process? By the normal means of staring a political party and persuading people to vote for your manifesto?

You do it in the same way that we got into this insane mess we have created. One law at a time, slowly and carefully reversing the process just as we created it.

 

[Andalublue]

Such people are at the mercy of their family, friends, or others as it has always been since the beginning of humankind.

And if they have no one on whom they can depend...go homeless and starve, right? You realise that people have gone homeless and starved since the beginning of mankind, don't you? Nowadays, more than ever given the nature of our individualised, atomised society, there are legions of people with no family ties or friendship circles to call on.

The only reason they don't starve now, in modern western society, is because we the people have decided that that is unacceptable and have put welfare programmes in place to ensure that it doesn't happen. Would you take those away as some social experiment to see if they are no longer necessary? I'm guessing yes.