• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Thoughts on the purpose of government

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, exactly. Spying on the people of the USA? We allow that, why again? And it's so easy to depend on the largess of the federal government, whether it is an individual or an industry, we forget that largess comes with controls, and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more powerful.
Click to expand...

Right. The trouble is - WE allow this stuff and the government nor the corp is afraid of us anymore they way they were in the '30s and the '60s. It's become the other way around becasue of lazyness in my view.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it was a dumb move regardless of who decided to make it.

How is the war on drugs like the FBI going after public enemy #1?
Click to expand...

It is a Bipartisan Effort, our WOD. Keeps the budget bloated and impresses the gullible. ;)
 
Dittohead not! said:
From the Declaration of Independence:



"Among these:" This is not a definitive list, but simply a few examples, however....



Not "among these" purposes of government, this is the purpose of government, period.


--

and we need to be careful what "just powers" we allow government to have. The government, protector of liberty, has the potential for becoming its biggest enemy.



When the government becomes destructive, not if the government becomes destructive.

Has the government become destructive of its own and only purpose for existing at all? If so, then it's time to abolish it and start over.

Or, maybe we can get by with simply staging a revolution at the ballot box and starting over with the same institutions, but different people.

What do you think?

Or, is liberty already secure?
Click to expand...

The purpose of government should be to protect the people and the things they own. Anything contrary to that is, in my opinion, an illegitimate function of government and tantamount to thuggery.
 
Paleocon said:
As opposed to saying that the purpose of government is to make men free, which is complete nonsense to anyone with knowledge of history.

Nice strawman, BTW.
Click to expand...

Others have their opinions, but in my opinion the purpose of gov't is to protect the person and property of the citizen. Not to make them good.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, I see that you can't cite the relevant language.
Click to expand...

Why cite what has already been cited so many times before?

SCOTUS ruled states cannot secede, not sure what else you need. Keep beating the dead horse with this should-be-dead thread though.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Why cite what has already been cited so many times before?

SCOTUS ruled states cannot secede, not sure what else you need. Keep beating the dead horse with this should-be-dead thread though.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I'm talking about the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving. If you contend there is, please cite the language.
 
Dittohead not! said:
From the Declaration of Independence:



"Among these:" This is not a definitive list, but simply a few examples, however....



Not "among these" purposes of government, this is the purpose of government, period.


--

and we need to be careful what "just powers" we allow government to have. The government, protector of liberty, has the potential for becoming its biggest enemy.



When the government becomes destructive, not if the government becomes destructive.

Has the government become destructive of its own and only purpose for existing at all? If so, then it's time to abolish it and start over.

Or, maybe we can get by with simply staging a revolution at the ballot box and starting over with the same institutions, but different people.

What do you think?

Or, is liberty already secure?
Click to expand...

The Decl of Independence and the Constitution are not to be read in isolation. They have been interpreted and added to through the years.

For example, do you really believe that only men have inalienable rights? Or do you also think women do? The Decl of Indepenence was referring only to white men. Do you think it should have been expanded to include Asians and blacks and other races?

If you believe we have inalienable rights, that includes the right to vote, right? So doesn't it follow that we citizens should not have to pay money to get our inalienable rights? Because that means, of course, ifyou don't have the money, then you don't have those rights, which is in direct conflict with what was granted in the founding documents.

Our system is complicated. You can't take a sentence here and there out of context, and without interpretation by learned people, and expect to come up with a legal, just interpretation of our rights. To think so shows you don't understand our government.
 
JumpinJack said:
You can't take a sentence here and there out of context, and without interpretation by learned people, and expect to come up with a legal, just interpretation of our rights. To think so shows you don't understand our government.
Click to expand...

Yet the SCOTUS does this on a routine basis anymore and now even the President is jumping on the bandwagon.
The only thing these people are "learned" in is circumvention.
 
JumpinJack said:
The Decl of Independence and the Constitution are not to be read in isolation. They have been interpreted and added to through the years.

For example, do you really believe that only men have inalienable rights? Or do you also think women do? The Decl of Indepenence was referring only to white men. Do you think it should have been expanded to include Asians and blacks and other races?

If you believe we have inalienable rights, that includes the right to vote, right? So doesn't it follow that we citizens should not have to pay money to get our inalienable rights? Because that means, of course, ifyou don't have the money, then you don't have those rights, which is in direct conflict with what was granted in the founding documents.

Our system is complicated. You can't take a sentence here and there out of context, and without interpretation by learned people, and expect to come up with a legal, just interpretation of our rights. To think so shows you don't understand our government.
Click to expand...

Of course it's been added on, and yes, originally "all men" meant white men with property.
Does that mean that the purpose of government is no longer to preserve our liberty? What other purpose might it serve, then?
 
Federalist said:
I'm not talking about SCOTUS. I'm talking about the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving. If you contend there is, please cite the language.
Click to expand...

The highest level of authority in terms of interpreting the constitution is SCOTUS.

SCOTUS says no, you deal with it.

See how the USA works?

SCOTUS can of course change their opinion later on, but in over a century they have yet to do so.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Unrepresented said:
Let's prove it wrong by trying it first.
Click to expand...

That'll work. Lets put another couple or 10 or 100 million on the government teat. Pay for it by taking more money from those who earned it. Then if it doesn't work out in 5 years or so. We write a 1 line bill recindng the first bill.

Nobody, particuarily the takers, would be pissed at that.
 
I think we got things backward. My ideal federal government would be funded by the states, not by taxes on the population. The states should be the taxing authority, not the federal government. The federal government should basically answer to the states rather than vice versa. I think with that we probably would have a fairly simple government made of up a defense department to protect the states from external threats, a state department to simplify dealing and treating with other countries, a justice department to deal with interstate disputes and a treasury department to provide a common currency. There might be other services the states would want to buy from the federal government for reasons of efficiency and simplicity. It could hurt to have 50 states with all the funding keeping an eye on things. The states should handle everything else since they are closer to the people.
 
Last edited:
Federalist said:
So you are agreeing with me that the constitution contains no language forbidding states from seceding.
Click to expand...

According to SCOTUS who is the supreme interpreter of the constitution, secession is not allowed.

I'm not agreeing with you.

You're nothing in terms of authority on interpreting the constitution ok? SCOTUS is.
 
Luftwaffe said:
According to SCOTUS who is the supreme interpreter of the constitution, secession is not allowed.

I'm not agreeing with you.

You're nothing in terms of authority on interpreting the constitution ok? SCOTUS is.
Click to expand...

I made no claims regarding the scotus.

I have stated that the constitution contains no language forbidding states from seceding. If you disagree, then please point to such language. Otherwise, I don't know why you're replying.
 
JumpinJack said:
For example, do you really believe that only men have inalienable rights? Or do you also think women do? The Decl of Indepenence was referring only to white men. Do you think it should have been expanded to include Asians and blacks and other races?
Click to expand...

The word 'men' in the DOI is gender neutral and refers to all humans. In fact, the word 'men' was originally gender neutral, so when you look at old documents written by white men and they use the word 'men' they were referring to all humans.

If you believe we have inalienable rights, that includes the right to vote, right? So doesn't it follow that we citizens should not have to pay money to get our inalienable rights? Because that means, of course, ifyou don't have the money, then you don't have those rights, which is in direct conflict with what was granted in the founding documents.
Click to expand...

It's a misconception that the US Constitution gives the people the right to vote. What it actually does it bar the government from restricting people from voting for certain reasons.
 
jet57 said:
That's not really any different than the FBI going after public enemy number one. And it was Reagan that started the war on drugs in the '80s. I've always thought it as dumb move myself and proved nothing.
Click to expand...

Ah...no. The war on drugs started in the early twentieth century. The whole war on this and war on that rhetoric is just a way to drum up support for your cause, nothing more.
 
Henrin said:
Ah...no. The war on drugs started in the early twentieth century. The whole war on this and war on that rhetoric is just a way to drum up support for your cause, nothing more.
Click to expand...

It was not a "war on drugs" the way Reagan started it. As for why; I agree completely.
 
Federalist said:
I made no claims regarding the scotus.

I have stated that the constitution contains no language forbidding states from seceding. If you disagree, then please point to such language. Otherwise, I don't know why you're replying.
Click to expand...

If you don't want me to reply then don't quote me.
 
Luftwaffe said:
If you don't want me to reply then don't quote me.
Click to expand...

I don't care whether or not you reply. But I still hold that the constitution contains no language forbidding states from seceding, and you have not shown any such language.
 
Federalist said:
I don't care whether or not you reply. But I still hold that the constitution contains no language forbidding states from seceding, and you have not shown any such language.
Click to expand...

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

"The constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the union."

"Texas was always part of the union despite joining the confederate states."

Your opinion means nothing.

Nothing. It means this much in terms of authority :monkey:2rofll::hitsfan::blowup:
 
Luftwaffe said:
Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

"The constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the union."

"Texas was always part of the union despite joining the confederate states."

Your opinion means nothing.

Nothing. It means this much in terms of authority :monkey:2rofll::hitsfan::blowup:
Click to expand...

that does not refute his correct claim that the USC contains no such language
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom