Whatever you wish government to do, you should be willing to force with a gun

[Oftencold]

The "Health Care" debate has reminded me of something that I think most people forget. That is, Government is ultimately little more than a refined thug.

Every single thing that you would have a the Governed do for you, for someone else, on your behalf or in your name is backed up in the end not by law, philosophy, elegant speech, or an appeal to your better nature. It is enforced with a gun.

This includes taxes, welfare, public education, public transpiration, public health care, free speech, hate speech laws, environmental regulation, broadcast regulation, import regulation, export regulation, zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and fishing restrictions.

In the end all acts of Government are enforced because it can send someone to you with a firearm and compel you into jail, into compliance or into your grave. The wise individual will never lose sight of this in their political considerations. The nefarious individual certainly will not.

I submit that no one therefore should be willing to support any Government action with which they personally would not be willing to force there neighbor to comply at gunpoint, ultimately using deadly force. Any other stance is simply cowardice.

I suppose this is one of the many reasons that I favor solutions to social issues that rely on persuasion, such as private charities over almost any Governmental initiative.

 

[Joe1991]

Good, now pay your taxes or I'll shoot. :catapult:

 

[Oftencold]

Good, now pay your taxes or I'll shoot. :catapult:

As I said, nefarious individuals never forget the fact I outlined.

But you do illustrate my point. Taxes are indeed enforced by bullets. In a more honest, and enlightened civilization, we would call this robbery.

 

[celticlord]

As Heinlein said most presciently:

In a mature society, "civil servant" is semantically equal to "civil master."

Reagan had a good take on it as well:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Although my personal favorite will always be Thoreau:

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe— "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.

No matter how well-intentioned people are in their pursuit of new government programs, the inevitable truth is that government will always be far more a problem than a solution. The less we have of government the better off we will be.

 

[Joe1991]

So what do you propose?

Anarchy? some lord of the flies fantasy where you live on an Island ran by the biggest and strongest?
... who will be holding the gun then?

We as a society vote in reps that carry out the way govt is run.
You can protest, but you need to respect the will of the voters.

Otherwise, you are free to leave.

 

[celticlord]

So what do you propose?

Anarchy? some lord of the flies fantasy where you live on an Island ran by the biggest and strongest?

What you fail to realize is that, in more ways than one, we live in such circumstance already. Such is the nature of "majority rule".

We as a society vote in reps that carry out the way govt is run.
You can protest, but you need to respect the will of the voters.

Government needs to respect the rights of all men, and to confine itself to the boundaries drawn by the Constitution. The will of the people means all the people, not just 50% + 1 of the voters.

Otherwise, you are free to leave.

The knee jerk reaction of the arrogant majority, right up there with Dear Leader's "I won" and Queen Nancy's "We won, we wrote the bill" in terms of fecklessness and foolishness.

All you are doing is proving Oftencold right: government is thuggery in dark suits.

 

[Oftencold]

So what do you propose?

Anarchy? some lord of the flies fantasy where you live on an Island ran by the biggest and strongest?
... who will be holding the gun then?

We as a society vote in reps that carry out the way govt is run.
You can protest, but you need to respect the will of the voters.

Otherwise, you are free to leave.

So Joe, you wouldn't or wouldn't be willing to point a gun at me to force my compliance with say, some "Health Care" or other Government scheme?

Personally, I suspect that you'd not have the bispheroidal magnitude to do so, but would accept a faceless surrogate doing so.

 

[Goshin]

Walter E. Williams has written some great stuff on this issue, I highly recommend reading his commentaries.

While I hate to quote Mao Tse Tung, he was right when he said "political power grows from the barrel of a gun." All law and government is ultimately naked force, therefore we should take great care what we make law.

Parking violations are an example. If you accumulate too many unpaid parking tickets, you will be issued a summons to to court. Ignore the summons, and a bench warrant will be issued. Eventually a couple of beefy Deputies or other local LEOs will be dispatched to your house to collect you and take you in. If you resist, they will use force; if you resist too successfully they will kill you. Stupid? Sure...but not impossible, and now someone is dead for being a parking-ticket-scofflaw and carrying his resistance a bit too far.

 

[Joe1991]

What you fail to realize is that, in more ways than one, we live in such circumstance already. Such is the nature of "majority rule".

Please. In our democratic republic, you get to vote on things, sometimes you lose.
...get over it.

So Joe, you wouldn't or wouldn't be willing to point a gun at me to force my compliance with say, some "Health Care" or other Government scheme?

Personally, I suspect that you'd not have the bispheroidal magnitude to do so, but would accept a faceless surrogate doing so.

The "gun to your head" was your exaggerated fallacy, I'm sure like every other law you'll abide and likely benefit from it. If not you're free to protest to your representaives, and if enough people agree with your position it can be overturned or adjusted.

...ain't this country great? :usflag2:

 

[celticlord]

Please. In our democratic republic, you get to vote on things, sometimes you lose.
...get over it.

You do realize that you just invalidated challenges to things like Proposition 8, "separate but equal", anti-miscegenation laws, and the whole of the Civil Rights movement? Every one of those protest movements was done by a minority--and you would have such minorities just "get over" injustice?

Yes, people vote, sometimes they lose...and sometimes they are right even when they lose. 50% + 1 is no guarantee of moral supremacy.

 

[Joe1991]

Please. In our democratic republic, you get to vote on things, sometimes you lose.
...get over it.

You do realize that you just invalidated challenges to things like Proposition 8, "separate but equal", anti-miscegenation laws, and the whole of the Civil Rights movement? Every one of those protest movements was done by a minority--and you would have such minorities just "get over" injustice?

Yes, people vote, sometimes they lose...and sometimes they are right even when they lose. 50% + 1 is no guarantee of moral supremacy.

No, I apologize if my keeping my answers short left something unclear. To me, "democratic republic" means we govern democratically, unless something infringes on the individual's rights. Certainly the courts have a huge part to play in helping to ensure our rights and freedoms.

 

[celticlord]

No, I apologize if my keeping my answers short left something unclear. To me, "democratic republic" means we govern democratically, unless something infringes on the individual's rights. Certainly the courts have a huge part to play in helping to ensure our rights and freedoms.

Ah...so the majority is always right, except when you figure they are wrong.

Got it.

 

[Oftencold]

Please. In our democratic republic, you get to vote on things, sometimes you lose.
...get over it.



The "gun to your head" was your exaggerated fallacy, I'm sure like every other law you'll abide and likely benefit from it. If not you're free to protest to your representaives, and if enough people agree with your position it can be overturned or adjusted.

...ain't this country great? :usflag2:

I will repeat the point, using simple language just for you.

If I chose to disobey a Government law or regulation, someone with a gun will eventually show up to enforce the Government's will, even if it takes the form of enforcing a civic penalty.

This is the nature of Government, and why it should be used sparingly.

If you wish to keep disputing this, I leave you to it.

 

[SgtNeo]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

So pick up your guns and lets reclaim United States of America.

 

[Oftencold]

No, I apologize if my keeping my answers short left something unclear. To me, "democratic republic" means we govern democratically, unless something infringes on the individual's rights. Certainly the courts have a huge part to play in helping to ensure our rights and freedoms.

By the way Joe, how to do the courts enforce their rulings?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We live not as individuals, but as citizens within a society. That requires a measure of common purpose and compliance with social mores, and who people who cannot or will not abide by that absolutely must be compelled to do so, regardless of the amount of force it eventually requires.

So yes, I will rob you at gun point to pay for a sound healthcare system. I will beat you down in the street for selling drugs or sex to passersby, I will burn your house down if you don't build it and keep it clean and safe, and if you try to undermine the security and vitality of my people, I'll ****ing kill you.

Because, no matter how much you liberals-- and you're all liberals-- like to claim otherwise, anything short of this leads to anarchy. Anarchy leads to weakness. And weakness leads to death.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The "Health Care" debate has reminded me of something that I think most people forget. That is, Government is ultimately little more than a refined thug.

Every single thing that you would have a the Governed do for you, for someone else, on your behalf or in your name is backed up in the end not by law, philosophy, elegant speech, or an appeal to your better nature. It is enforced with a gun.

This includes taxes, welfare, public education, public transpiration, public health care, free speech, hate speech laws, environmental regulation, broadcast regulation, import regulation, export regulation, zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and fishing restrictions.

In the end all acts of Government are enforced because it can send someone to you with a firearm and compel you into jail, into compliance or into your grave. The wise individual will never lose sight of this in their political considerations. The nefarious individual certainly will not.

I submit that no one therefore should be willing to support any Government action with which they personally would not be willing to force there neighbor to comply at gunpoint, ultimately using deadly force. Any other stance is simply cowardice.

I suppose this is one of the many reasons that I favor solutions to social issues that rely on persuasion, such as private charities over almost any Governmental initiative.

EVERY action has consequences, whether the government enacts it or it is enacted from another source, or whether it is natural consequences. Your comments do not take that into account, and instead seem to paint the picture that without government, no one would be forced to do anything. That is a complete fallacy.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

We live not as individuals, but as citizens within a society. That requires a measure of common purpose and compliance with social mores, and who people who cannot or will not abide by that absolutely must be compelled to do so, regardless of the amount of force it eventually requires.

So yes, I will rob you at gun point to pay for a sound healthcare system. I will beat you down in the street for selling drugs or sex to passersby, I will burn your house down if you don't build it and keep it clean and safe, and if you try to undermine the security and vitality of my people, I'll ****ing kill you.

Because, no matter how much you liberals-- and you're all liberals-- like to claim otherwise, anything short of this leads to anarchy. Anarchy leads to weakness. And weakness leads to death.

This is were we usually part ways on our beliefs.
I believe that, without interference, weakness will drop off on its own leaving the stronger.

 

[Panache]

I would use a gun to keep you from killing, stealing from, or defrauding me or the people I care about. That is all I would ask government to do.

 

[Oftencold]

This is were we usually part ways on our beliefs.
I believe that, without interference, weakness will drop off on its own leaving the stronger.

Well the problem there is that the truly strong are almost always compassionate to one degree or another.

So they partake of the weakness of others to some degree.

 

[Oftencold]

I would use a gun to keep you from killing, stealing from, or defrauding me or the people I care about. That is all I would ask government to do.

Then you must also empower Government to levy taxes, maintain some sort of police force, and by extension manitan a bureaucracy.

I notce too that you did not include national defense, or is that implied?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well the problem there is that the truly strong are almost always compassionate to one degree or another.

So they partake of the weakness of others to some degree.

It depends on what kind of compassion your talking about.
If it serves as a temporary method of dealing with an individuals short coming , sure.
If it is a sustained compensation for a long term problem is isn't compassion anymore.

 

[Panache]

We live not as individuals, but as citizens within a society. That requires a measure of common purpose and compliance with social mores, and who people who cannot or will not abide by that absolutely must be compelled to do so, regardless of the amount of force it eventually requires.

So yes, I will rob you at gun point to pay for a sound healthcare system. I will beat you down in the street for selling drugs or sex to passersby, I will burn your house down if you don't build it and keep it clean and safe, and if you try to undermine the security and vitality of my people, I'll ****ing kill you.

Because, no matter how much you liberals-- and you're all liberals-- like to claim otherwise, anything short of this leads to anarchy. Anarchy leads to weakness. And weakness leads to death.

No, life leads to death. Death is inevitable for both the weak and the strong. You are wrong about it leading to anarchy. Anarchy is both impossible and inescapable, since everything that is is contained within anarchy, and a consequence of anarchy is an unequal distribution of power, leading to hierarchy.

In other words, when there is anarchy, the person with the gun can rob someone without one, to pay for healthcare, or wars, or whatever simply because he has the power to do so, being the one with the gun and all. Without a governing force to prevent him from doing so, his power is all the authority needed. That is the nature of anarchy.

Of course when he wields that power to control others, he is now governing them, and being that there is government and order now, he perceives that there is no longer anarchy. But really anarchy is all there is, and he is just a guy with a gun, bossing people around until a guy with a bigger gun shows up.

The authority of the government is not magical. It is derived solely from it's power to enforce. If anyone gains a greater power to enforce, then their authority will be equally legitimate, being derived from the same source.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well the problem there is that the truly strong are almost always compassionate to one degree or another.

So they partake of the weakness of others to some degree.

It depends on what kind of compassion your talking about.
If it serves as a temporary method of dealing with an individuals short coming , sure.
If it is a sustained compensation for a long term problem is isn't compassion anymore.

But people tend to confuse it for compassion, when it is instead a means of washing their hands (and conscience) of the problem. This leads to the problem Oftencold seems to be talking about... the strong allowing themselves to be burdened and dragged down by the weak, instead of either lifting them up to stand on their own feet or leaving them to die.

That is the problem with much of modern society, and especially modern progressivism. They confuse helping people, and thus helping all of society, with enabling them... specifically, enabling them to survive and reproduce without approaching the problem of their fundamental unfitness.

 

[Panache]

Then you must also empower Government to levy taxes.

Nope. People who want to be protected can pay whatever is required to be protected. Then the government makes sure everyone knows that they are protected. Those who don't want to be protected don't have to pay, and the government can make sure that everyone knows they aren't protected.

maintain some sort of police force, and by extension manitan a bureaucracy.

The police force would be necessary to do the protecting thing. Bureaucracy might be inevitable, but should be kept to a minimum.

I notice too that you did not include national defense, or is that implied?

I included protection from being killed or stolen from. If a foreign government tries to kill me or steal my house, I expect to be protected from them.