The conspiracy of the necessity of government

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We're living under an oppressive over reaching government right now. I think we don't give people enough credit to do the right thing. Sure, there will always be people who take advantage of the system, people who abuse the system, people who take advantage of others.

We call them "politicians".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They may help out their immediate family and their friends, but without the government the law of the land becomes might makes right.

Okay, Big Brother, you act as though there never was a land before government. Interdependant local communities before large cities were called towns. They could only possibly exist because they were successful, directly supporting each other.

If mega corp shut down, people would have to restart their own small version of it. Local famers would be the new grocery store. No need for paper currency or banks, Gold is universally recognized. You don't have any Gold, what you got to trade? No barter goods, what can you do?

The original function of a constitutionally prescribed Limited Government is to provide for the common defense and support itself, not by taxing the people, but by charging tariffs on import and export of trade goods.

Solely.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DBCowboy

Probably true, because there's a fair number of people who do "those jobs" because they enjoy the work and not the paycheck.

The question then becomes who gives them the authority and ability to do their job without a government? We, the people? Sounds like government to me...

As absolute as I can sound about this subject, it is helpful to clarify that local services are not associated with the federal government at all... yet. That is the beast that can't be contained.

There is no reason to bundle things like fire departments into larger regulatory constructs than the local community. Such services can be completely private with no attenuation of their utility.

A smaller federal government would not reduce critical services or be harmful at all from anyone's perspective except the public sector unions.

I don't like local government either but, I can move to the town or state next door whenever it grows corrupt and abusive to its tax payers.

I just had to add that because it seems to be the first complaint I hear whenever cutting government is suggested. We may be coming for state and local bloat and graft soon afterward but, it is the further nationalization of services and their oversight that must first be opposed.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Retracting government overreach isn't the same as eliminating government. I'd say that the reason the government is so bloated is because there are people tugging from all corners of the country looking for the things that make them happy. Conservatives, liberals, and independents all alike are guilty of this. Everyone has a specific idea of what government should be and they all petition to shape it in that image.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr

Communism is great.

On paper.

"Communism" is still ruled from the top, they fool people into thinking their "government" is better than that other ideology Capitalism. The only difference being the propaganda which is "better", which you just played again.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My main theme was the necessity of government. You sound like me when someone tries to get me to quit smoking. I will use every justification I can to continue, even knowing that dependence on it is harmful in the long run.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They may help out their immediate family and their friends, but without the government the law of the land becomes might makes right.

Okay, big Brother,You act as though there never was a land before government. Interdependant local communities before large cities were called towns. They could only possibly exist because they were successful, directly supporting each other.

You act like you don't know your history. Warlords ALWAYS assume control over territory they can claim. Your naïve ideal of interdependent local communities only works as long as no one wants to assume control. All it takes is one overly greedy asshole and suddenly that "utopia" is ruined.

Plus, things aren't so simple anymore. We've come a LONG way technologically, intellectually, AND militarily. Things that worked before civilization existed aren't going to work now. To think so is idiotic, especially for the population of an entire country. Like I said, how is Somalia working out right now?

If mega corp shut down, people would have to restart their own small version of it. Local famers would be the new grocery store. No need for paper currency or banks, Gold is universally recognized.

And who currently has most of the gold exactly?

The original function of a constitutionally prescribed Limited Government is to provide for the common defense and support itself, not by taxing the people, but by charging tariffs on import and export of trade goods.

Solely.

Um... Your Constitutional history seems to be lacking. The ability to issue taxes and tariffs is EXPLICITLY defined in the Constitution. It's called the Taxing anTaxing and Spending Clause. Here's the actual text:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

a reply to: DBCowboy

Perhaps you are mistaken about me. I don't NEED government. I rely on government very little. I don't have a credit card. I pay with what I earn. I'm not on government assistance. I don't have a student loan. I'm ex-military. So don't talk to me about defending an unnecessary crutch. I'm just a realist and refuse to believe in the ideal of anarchy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My main theme was the necessity of government. You sound like me when someone tries to get me to quit smoking. I will use every justification I can to continue, even knowing that dependence on it is harmful in the long run.

How do thousands of small, independent communities contend with Russia, China or India on the world stage?

Who keeps these thousands of small, independent communities from constant and often bloody conflict with each other?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would like to believe that most don't want, or need wars or conflicts. We may not be the most peaceful species, but I have to believe that given the choice, most would embrace peace instead of war.

Well I think a middle way needs to be established. I would tend to agree that government creates a need to maintain it's authority. People do this in their jobs. You see people in positions that create situations which do little more than to prove to those who matter that they are needed to keep things flowing well, all the while creating inefficiencies and outright chaos.

The thing is, I don't think we're to a point where we can effectively decentralize authority back to the individual in whole. Not sure we'll ever fully be there; however I do think in many ways we are conditioned to believe the governments existence in it's current grasps is necessary when it only is so in a circular way. What I mean is that the conditioning is so strong, a few months without government wouldn't result in communities strengthening without a hell of a lot of chaos in the process. I think people fear having to be responsible and think for their own to such a degree they would create problems for each other in most communities. It's not that this is inherent within our species, rather that we keep transmitting beliefs and cues that don't have our best interest in mind.

So I can't think of it in a black and white sense of all or nothing, but rather hope for gradual changes over time to weaken the conditioning, strengthen the community, and lessen government involvement in affairs it has no business in.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

we could build a program to direct all taxation to go into education, infrastructure maintenance, health, no wars (imagine the cash cow from a massively reduced defense budget that focuses on domestic defense only?) and a myriad of other things - all without politicians even existing

hahaha...you have not thought this through....as ideal as your utopia sounds the very act of determining the allocation/programming the machine to direct those taxes is in essence a political act.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I think the first step in realizing you have an addiction is identifying it. Government has made us all dependent on it to one degree or another. Government shut downs don't intimidate me. I am not afraid of losing government.
But government drives the necessity of government. That's something we should all recognize. imho.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

How do thousands of small, independent communities contend with Russia, China or India on the world stage?

Who keeps these thousands of small, independent communities from constant and often bloody conflict with each other?

I'm of the opinion that decentralization of authority will gradually sweep the globe, so we'd not be dealing with another superpower at the point that smaller communities become a viable alternative to nations.

I have to work for a bit. Will check in later. I want to thank everyone for participating.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr

Communism is great.

On paper.

"Communism" is still ruled from the top, they fool people into thinking their "government" is better than that other ideology Capitalism. The only difference being the propaganda which is "better", which you just played again.

Please, tell me how communism works. I have no idea.

But you may need to stop dreaming about your magical land of unicorns and fairy dust where everybody gets along and does things "just because" for their neighbors and nobody is out to take advantage of others and come back to reality before we discuss communism.

Fantasy is fun!

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Gryphon66

How do thousands of small, independent communities contend with Russia, China or India on the world stage?

Who keeps these thousands of small, independent communities from constant and often bloody conflict with each other?

I'm of the opinion that decentralization of authority will gradually sweep the globe, so we'd not be dealing with another superpower at the point that smaller communities become a viable alternative to nations.

Interesting prediction ... but for the here and now reality ... how would the small communities survive in the world?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would like to believe that most don't want, or need wars or conflicts. We may not be the most peaceful species, but I have to believe that given the choice, most would embrace peace instead of war.

You and Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tze, and other enlightened souls; you are to be congratulated for that idealism.

I call it idealism because, sadly, I've never seen much evidence that they were right on the peaceful schtick.

But ... more directly, as the world is right now today ... how do your proposed thousands of small communities compete with a) each other peacefully and b) with the huge national powers like Russia, China, etc.?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Warlords ALWAYS assume control over territory they can claim. Your naïve ideal of interdependent local communities only works as long as no one wants to assume control. All it takes is one overly greedy asshole and suddenly that "utopia" is ruined.

Insults aside, thats what "provide for the common defense" in the Constitution means. To prevent the " greedy assholes" from gaining too much control.

Thats what common defense is supposed to mean, from enemies "within and without". Not the twisted government we have today that calls invading other countries (the greedy assholes) and calling that defending American Interests.

Thats the Bloated Department of Defense and the Defense Plant Realm we were warned about.

For others, check up on President Eisenhower's speech about The Military Industrial Complex.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Oh, I've thought it through alright and the very essence of the program is a "people rule" governing act - semantics aside, the english dictionary definition of political act is to effect the established social order, which can easily be achieved by reconstructing government to eliminate all levels of politicians (Federal, state and local) and limit governing power to local and state authorities on a rotational basis where all citizens share an equal percentage of the over-riding authority normally bestowed upon a politician thus empowering personal accountability of the individual to enhance the collective well-being.

So we all do our own jobs but we also log-in and do the job of politicians as well (that should consume about 3 minutes per day).

Personal accountability, continuous self improvement, enhancement of freedoms to live and let live whilst proactively contributing to society and do no harm to any other soul (save for self defense) = traits that lead to betterment of society as a whole.

We are all in this together and politicians are not - they are in it for themselves, and I have history as my testament and witness to their overwhelming uselessness and inability to enhance society and eliminate wars and poverty.