Can someone tell me what Government does well?

[General of Darkness]

And I don't mean redistribution of wealth, stealing our freedoms, but what DO they do to help the average Amerikwan?

[Hitch]

Thought provoking question.

Well, they do provide a lot of jobs. That helps your average Amerikwan. They also are pretty good at keeping thugs, turds, and predators locked up in prison. That helps your average gun hating sheep who can't defend himself.

[mamboni]

<crickets chirping>

[osoab]

I got nothing.

[Shami-Amourae]

I could name a whole bunch of things, but they are in the negative context, like "They are good at being wasteful".

[Ponce]

I am with shamy on that, wastefull of money, wastefull of American lives, wastefull of the truth.......and now.....as per the Zionist I can't think of anything good about them..........WAIT A MINUTE......the American government and the Zionist are one and the same.....how long before we see their flag flying alogside ours?

V

[Rubberchicken]

Thought provoking question.

Well, they do provide a lot of jobs. That helps your average Amerikwan. They also are pretty good at keeping thugs, turds, and predators locked up in prison. That helps your average gun hating sheep who can't defend himself.

^^Mods please move this post to the joke forum.

What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It's not good at much else.

[Hitch]

^^Mods please move this post to the joke forum..

Half joke forum, if there was one.

Serious question though. What if .gov released every prisoner out into the public?

How would you feel about that? If you can defend your home 24 hours a day, without leaving for work, great. 99.9% of the population is not as fortunate.

I will never understand why people on this freedom loving forum, do NOT realize, there are people locked up....that would end your freedom forever, for a nothing, for a cheeseburger, or a few frn's in your pocket. People like this are locked up for a good reason.

This is something that our .gov is doing somewhat right, at least. Not "right", but not complete "wrongish", imo.

[horseshoe3]

Yes, there are bad people out there. For the most part they stay away from me and my area. Where I live, police response time is 20 minutes minimum. That's the same as having no police protection at all - and I do just fine thank you. If you think about it, you'll notice that the areas of high crime are also areas of highest police presence. Chicken or egg? Maybe some of both. But I will tell you that in rural areas, where there are no police, but a gun or two behind every door, the criminals stay away.

[General of Darkness]

Half joke forum, if there was one.

Serious question though. What if .gov released every prisoner out into the public?

How would you feel about that? If you can defend your home 24 hours a day, without leaving for work, great. 99.9% of the population is not as fortunate.

I will never understand why people on this freedom loving forum, do NOT realize, there are people locked up....that would end your freedom forever, for a nothing, for a cheeseburger, or a few frn's in your pocket. People like this are locked up for a good reason.

This is something that our .gov is doing somewhat right, at least. Not "right", but not complete "wrongish", imo.

What if, since you're doing that. What if, the government didn't give additional funds to negro, white trash, illegal alien whores money after their first child?

Back to your OP, while I don't carry on me, I do carry with me. While I do care about my life, there's not that much to smile about these days, and I know my patience is spent and those days of worrying about tomorrow are becoming far and few between . Maybe it's why this movie The Purge is coming out.

[Hitch]

Yes, there are bad people out there. For the most part they stay away from me and my area. Where I live, police response time is 20 minutes minimum. That's the same as having no police protection at all - and I do just fine thank you. If you think about it, you'll notice that the areas of high crime are also areas of highest police presence. Chicken or egg? Maybe some of both. But I will tell you that in rural areas, where there are no police, but a gun or two behind every door, the criminals stay away.

This close to the point I was trying to make. You do fine, I do fine, everyone on this forum does fine I'm sure. We've all got guns and know how to use them.

We are in a minority though. Most folks, at least here in CA, are media trained to view guns as evil and unnecessary. A lot of people don't have guns, don't have a way to protect themselves. My parents, whom I love dearly, are that way. They live in a safe middle/upper middle class neighborhood, and don't feel the need to arm themselves.

Anyway, I've seen first hand, with my own eyes, evil people and what they can do to the innocent. Nothing will change my mind on that. There's predators and they need to be stopped before they harm innocent people. The police currently do this unfortunate unthankful job. The prison keep these monsters from harming others.

Nothing is perfect, but in some cases, these things work out right and justified.

[Libertytree]

Blow shit up, kill, mismanage trillions of dollars and trash the Constitution.

[General of Darkness]

Blow shit up, kill, mismanage trillions of dollars and trash the Constitution.


TONY, come the fuck on, there has to be SOMETHING they do that's in the interests of the people.

[Serpo]

Hang on,still thinking ,I hate being rushed..................Ive got it.........NOTHING, they are all crooks and have taken over America.

[Serpo]

TONY, come the fuck on, there has to be SOMETHING they do that's in the interests of the people.


Sorry looks like they are basically a liability.................

[Hitch]

there has to be SOMETHING they do that's in the interests of the people.

Don't I get some credit for my answer? .Gov is great at thumping skulls, dragging turds and predators off to incarceration so Joe Sheep can watch American Idol in peace.

[Serpo]

Don't I get some credit for my answer? .Gov is great at thumping skulls, dragging turds and predators off to incarceration so Joe Sheep can watch American Idol in peace.

The General only wants good things ,which is a lot harder,,,,,,,,bad things they do.....too easy

[Libertytree]

TONY, come the fuck on, there has to be SOMETHING they do that's in the interests of the people.

You asked, I answered. You never put the caveat in there about it being in the interest of the people....entirely different question MARK.

If you had there would be no responses to this post.

[Hitch]

The General only wants good things ,which is a lot harder,,,,,,,,bad things they do.....too easy

Serpo, my answer was a good thing. Keeping predators from their prey, the prey being most of the sheep in our society.

[horseshoe3]

Serpo, my answer was a good thing. Keeping predators from their prey, the prey being most of the sheep in our society.

The question is, which class of predators is to be feared more?

[General of Darkness]

You asked, I answered. You never put the caveat in there about it being in the interest of the people....entirely different question MARK.

If you had there would be no responses to this post.

That's not fair I asked what do they do for the average Amerikwan, which is for everybody. I do however get your point. What do they do in the INTEREST of the people which is entirely different. Prior to even refocusing it, not even in at a granular level there isn't anything they do in the interest of the people and the people don't even see that.

We can't vote these fucks out, there are too many stupid that can vote. The only solution is??????

[VX1]

Don't I get some credit for my answer? .Gov is great at thumping skulls, dragging turds and predators off to incarceration so Joe Sheep can watch American Idol in peace.
Watch this carefully, Constable... this is what your government creates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

It's thumping the skulls of turds of it's own creation, and encouraging more. Dependancy is good business.

[Shami-Amourae]

The only solution is??????

I think Crypto-Anarchy is the closest solution we have. It doesn't eliminate the government (yet), but gives liberty minded people an alternative route around it. Bitcoin (and/or other Cryptocurrencies) can and will grow and it will allows us to buy/sell anonymously without the tax man being able to stick their claws all over it. 3D printing and CNC machining will/can give us the power to manufacture and make our own products (like guns) which get us around various bans/laws. This is an evolutionary process, but the idea of the movement is to create technologies that liberate individuals from the State, and make it so these technologies cant be stopped or shut down. People will get dumber and more collectivized as technology grows too since technolgy is a double edged sword that both enslaves and liberates. More people will be dependent on welfare type schemes so will be more obedient to the government since they will be afraid that will be turned off if they object. In this coming age I believe it will be an arms race in technology with those who want to enslave us with those who want to free us. I think the most revolutionary thing to do right now is to help develop and promote these technologies to liberate humanity than voting/politics since THEY already have a forced monopoly on that with the welfare control systems.

[VX1]

I think the government is fairly good at social engineering, really, a mastery of propaganda to build a collectivist's utopia. I mean, it's no good for us, but for the lazy, spineless and irresponsible people out there, the government has created them a heavenly place to thrive, previously unheard of in human history.

[General of Darkness]

I think Crypto-Anarchy is the closest solution we have. It doesn't eliminate the government (yet), but gives liberty minded people an alternative route around it. Bitcoin (and/or other Cryptocurrencies) can and will grow and it will allows us to buy/sell anonymously without the tax man being able to stick their claws all over it. 3D printing and CNC machining will/can give us the power to manufacture and make our own products (like guns) which get us around various bans/laws. This is an evolutionary process, but the idea of the movement is to create technologies that liberate individuals from the State, and make it so these technologies cant be stopped or shut down. People will get dumber and more collectivized as technology grows too since technolgy is a double edged sword that both enslaves and liberates. More people will be dependent on welfare type schemes so will be more obedient to the government since they will be afraid that will be turned off if they object. In this coming age I believe it will be an arms race in technology with those who want to enslave us with those who want to free us. I think the most revolutionary thing to do right now is to help develop and promote these technologies to liberate humanity than voting/politics since THEY already have a forced monopoly on that with the welfare control systems.

I really do appreciate what you're saying, and want to say it's possible but there is only one solution and they want that.

[Shami-Amourae]

I hope you guys someday check out the video game series Deus Ex though. I really think Atlas Shrugged applies to today, as what Deus Ex applies to the future, and final "destination" for humanity. The last frontier of control of the actual species: The mind and body. They want to control it all. We could also becoming completely free in this time and never need government ever again. We could also just wipe our entire species out. All covered.

The Elite will (and maybe already are) merging with machines. They will try to force us to do it too control us completely. Hopefully there are enough of us who try to use this new technology to liberate and strengthen the individual instead. That is the last frontier. It is the end page in the struggle for freedom or enslavement. Permanently.

[Sparky]

Do you mean any government, or the U.S. federal government?

The national park system is good. Most national memorials and tributes designed and built by the government are pretty good. The U.S. military is actually very good, both in terms of weaponry, training, and preparedness. The governments at most levels are pretty good with building highways and roads. The U.S. Army Corps of Civil Engineers does a good job with their engineering projects. The U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA provide good services.

The U.S. government is largely corrupt, inefficient/wasteful, manipulative, disingenuous, and self-serving. But setting aside the wastefulness and corruption, there are some good results.

P.S. I think the U.S. Postal Service is pretty good. I don't know why people give them so much shit.

[Hitch]

I think the government is fairly good at social engineering, really, a mastery of propaganda to build a collectivist's utopia. I mean, it's no good for us, but for the lazy, spineless and irresponsible people out there, the government has created them a heavenly place to thrive, previously unheard of in human history.

I think you summed it up quite well. Well said.

[iOWNme]

'Government' doesnt exist. 'Authority' doesnt exist. They are something people imagine to be real, but cannot be, and its easily provable:

1. A man can not delegate a Right he does not have to another man. (Where did Congress or your local city Mayor get the right to do ANYTHING that you dont have the Right to do as an individual?)
2. A man can not be morally obligated to do the wrong thing. (If a man thinks he should do A, but 'Government' commands him to do B, he can not be morally obligated to do the wrong thing-POOF! No more Legitimacy)
3. Morality can not be legislated. ('Law' either reflects man's objective morality- in which case it is redundant and irrelevant, or 'Law' conflicts with morality- in which case it is to be disobeyed and ignored.)


The problem is not 'the Government'. The problem is what the belief in it does to peoples minds.

[Horn]

I will never understand why people on this freedom loving forum, do NOT realize, there are people locked up....that would end your freedom forever, for a nothing, for a cheeseburger, or a few frn's in your pocket. People like this are locked up for a good reason.

Society would do better job at rendering a verdict on a killer than jail does.

They'd be hunted then dead.

[Horn]

Government only does transit roads bridges and dams well.

Well used to anyway, nowadays they just fake it.

[Hatha Sunahara]

What they do well is exploit us with fear and deceit. Think about why you pay taxes, or get licenses for anything. Or why your vote doesn't count. Or why you obey a myriad of insane laws. Why your land doesn't belong to you. Or your children. What they do well is make laws that violate us and protects them. You can see that clearly by who they DONT prosecute for egregious crimes. What they do well is protect the 1% --or the .0001% that own everything and pay no taxes.


Hatha

[iOWNme]

I find it ironic that there are members here who seriously think that this mythical beast called 'Government' does ANYTHING to benefit the people. I have seen multiple answer laid out here, but the underlying PRINCIPLES and IDEAS are rooted in EVIL: Where does 'Government' get the money to do ANYTHING that you guys have said they do well?

- Sparky said they do the National Parks well. WHERE DOES/DID THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUILD THESE PARKS? The 'Government' steals it from innocent non-violent people. And thats a 'good' thing?

- Hitcher said they lock up bad guys. WHERE DOES/DID THE MONEY COME FROM TO HOUSE AND FEED THESE CRIMINALS? The 'Government' steals it from innocent non-violent people. And thats a 'good' thing?


Both of these examples go against #3 of my previous post: You can not legislate morality. You can not turn a crime into a virtue by scribbling words on scraps of paper.


You can not have a legitimate Government, anymore than you can have a glass of dry water.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw4TQvbzLmk


The question in the OP is illogical, irrational and self-contradictory. It is the same as asking "Can someone tell me what Santa Clause does well"? (no offense to GoD) Santa Clause doesnt exist. The reason 'Christmas' seems to happen is because all of the individual people involved make it happen: Santa doesnt put up your tree, Santa doesnt wrap your presents, Santa doesnt hang your lights, etc. If you get a crappy present, do you blame Santa?

And just like 'Government', it is the individual people acting as 'authority' that command the 'enforcer class' to cause most of the theft, assault, rape, murder, that this world has seen. And then the people of the world blame Santa Clause- err- i mean 'Government' for all of the problems in which THEY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

Most people can not even fathom taking on the responsibility of being a human being: To judge Right from Wrong and ACT ACCORDINGLY.

[Shami-Amourae]

I find it ironic that there are members here who seriously think that this mythical beast called 'Government' does ANYTHING to benefit the people.

It benefits basically all ultra-rich people, bankers, large corporations, war profiteers, criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths, and pretty much every deadbeat "working" for/freeloading from the government.

Basically if you're an evil scum bag, a parasite, and/or a fucking retard, you should love the government

[palani]

You can not have a legitimate Government

Nonsense. You are taking the concept of organized government and applying it generally. All you appear to see is bad examples of applied government and you choose to make a gross rationalization that 'all government is BAD'.

Government can be said to be the current policy of the state. Government is not the state itself. Rather government might be said to be a roadmap of how the state operates, the published notice by which a state achieves its ends.

All states have a government. If they are lacking a government they quickly form one. I suppose it has to do with vision. If the state has no vision then someone steps in to the void and provides a vision which is either adapted or abandoned.

In its smallest element a state is one individual. That individual is free to provide his own government or he might choose to contract out the franchise. The government is then said to represent that state. Notice there is no land involved in any of this. A state is not land. It is either an individual or it might be a group of individuals (think Boy Scouts). A government might end up being bankrupt or it might be solvent. If bankrupt it ought to be abandoned so that a solvent government can step into the void.

Once bankrupt a government is the pawn of foreign entities. In its desire to become solvent it becomes the tool of aliens and no longer serves the needs of the state. In fact in this mode it actually becomes the enemy of the state and seems to take on an existence of its own. Because it is bankrupt it has no existence. It is irresponsible in bankruptcy and has no authority derived from the state. The state itself has no part of this bankruptcy. The state is neither solvent nor bankrupt. It just exists.

[horseshoe3]

The governments at most levels are pretty good with building highways and roads.

I beg to differ. They used to build good roads, but modern roads are little more than make work projects for cronies of those in power.

I have been able to compare 2 different highways in my area. The first was built in the 1920s. It is concrete slabs. It apparently was high quality concrete because it has lasted almost a century with no more maintenance than tarring the seams every few years It is still an excellent road.

The second road was paved in the 1970s. It is asphalt. The whole road gets recoated every 3-5 years and has large sections completely replaced at least once every every time a recoat is done. It is never more than a year after the work is completed that new potholes show up. The really sad thing is that this road is representative of most of the paved roads in the county.

If both of these roads were built new today, the good one would probably cost 50% more, but the bad one costs at least 20 times more when spread out over a century. They see approximately the same amount of traffic.

[iOWNme]

Everything you posted goes DIRECTLY against the 3 points i already laid out. Please go back and read them again, using objective morality and see what conclusion you come to. Im not asking you to follow my moral code. Im telling you that you dont even follow YOUR OWN MORAL CODE. Hence - contradictions and irrationality.


Nonsense. You are taking the concept of organized government and applying it generally. All you appear to see is bad examples of applied government and you choose to make a gross rationalization that 'all government is BAD'.

Did you even read my posts? How can something be bad THAT DOESNT EXIST? Is Santa bad?


Government can be said to be the current policy of the state. Government is not the state itself. Rather government might be said to be a roadmap of how the state operates, the published notice by which a state achieves its ends.

The STATE doesnt exist anymore than pixie dust or vampire goblins. Individual humans have been murdered, raped, stolen from and ENSLAVED in reality throughout history because of these 'fictional' ideas about 'the state' and 'society'.


All states have a government. If they are lacking a government they quickly form one. I suppose it has to do with vision. If the state has no vision then someone steps in to the void and provides a vision which is either adapted or abandoned.

Instead of rebutting what you wrote, should i just say it is 'nonsense'? LOL


In its smallest element a state is one individual. That individual is free to provide his own government or he might choose to contract out the franchise. The government is then said to represent that state. Notice there is no land involved in any of this. A state is not land. It is either an individual or it might be a group of individuals (think Boy Scouts). A government might end up being bankrupt or it might be solvent. If bankrupt it ought to be abandoned so that a solvent government can step into the void.

A man can not delegate a Right he does not have as an individual. If he is ONLY contracting with his own Rights, voluntarily, THEN HE ISNT GOVERNMENT because nobody would be forced to listen to him. And we all know 'Government' doesnt ask you, it commands you.


Once bankrupt a government is the pawn of foreign entities. In its desire to become solvent it becomes the tool of aliens and no longer serves the needs of the state. In fact in this mode it actually becomes the enemy of the state and seems to take on an existence of its own. Because it is bankrupt it has no existence. It is irresponsible in bankruptcy and has no authority derived from the state. The state itself has no part of this bankruptcy. The state is neither solvent nor bankrupt. It just exists.


Why cant you address the 3 underlying FACTS i posted? Unless you can show me:

1. - A man CAN delegate a Right he doesnt have as an individual, - (irrational and insane)
2. - A man CAN be morally obligated to do the wrong thing, - (irrational and insane)
3. - A man CAN legislate morality. - (irrational and insane)


....then your argument holds no water. I used rationality and principles to show you that the notion that there can EVER be a group of men who have the right to rule over others is IMPOSSIBLE. A man can NEVER be made into a rightful Master. A man can NEVER be made into a rightful Slave. To argue otherwise is irrational, insane, self-contradictory and ANTI-HUMAN.

To stay on topic, the ONLY thing that exist in reality are individual human beings - each morally responsible for his/her own actions. An individuals moral actions can not be altered by legislation. There are only people doing 'Right' and people doing 'Wrong'. It doesnt matter what costume they are wearing, it doesnt matter what psuedo-religious rituals and ceremonies they have held and it certainly doesnt matter how many of them agree. ANYTHING ELSE is imagined into existence.

[Shami-Amourae]

Okay, maybe the Hoover Dam was a good thing they did.

[iOWNme]

Okay, maybe the Hoover Dam was a good thing they did.

Where did 'they' get the money from to build it?

[VX1]

Okay, maybe the Hoover Dam was a good thing they did.

What was it, two years to build the Hoover Dam? Maybe four, if including all pre-design and engineering. In Tampa, adding a single lane to a existing 10 mile stretch of I-75 is an EIGHT YEAR project. I-75 through Georgia... continually under construction for perhaps generations now, just as horseshoe said. Is a government project like Hoover Dam possible anymore?

[madfranks]

but what DO they do to help the average Amerikwan?

Absolutely nothing, that could not be done better without their interference. And yes, this includes national defense, administration of law, and maintenance of roads and infrastructure. I suggest reading the small book "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy, he discusses exactly how a voluntary society free of government interference would provide such things.

[madfranks]

Okay, maybe the Hoover Dam was a good thing they did.

You have to consider what is seen, as well as what is not seen. The hoover dam was built at what cost? Who decided that the hoover dam was in the best interests of the people who were forced to fund it? What if there was an alternative to building the dam that would have provided a greater return or greater wealth for the people? What about the people who did not want to pay for it, but were forced to anyway? What would they have done with the money if they weren't forced to build it? As Sui Juris is saying, there is absolutely nothing the government can do legitimately, because the very basis for any and all government acts is coercion and force. Anything they do, yes including building a dam, could be done better by the free actions of people cooperating voluntarily.

[Shami-Amourae]

Where did 'they' get the money from to build it?

I know what you mean, but it's the first time they stole money and "gave" something back that was well worth the money stolen. It's given back more wealth than was initially stolen

[madfranks]

Don't I get some credit for my answer? .Gov is great at thumping skulls, dragging turds and predators off to incarceration so Joe Sheep can watch American Idol in peace.

No, you get no credit for this at all. A free and voluntary people is more than capable of providing for it's own security, they do not need government to do it for them. And I'm not talking just individuals, private police and security firms would do the job much better. Many people believe that if the government didn't provide security, well we'd simply have no security at all and we'd have criminals running wild while the rest of us are helpless to do anything. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that if the government didn't provide it, we wouldn't have it at all, because that's simply not true.

[madfranks]

I know what you mean, but it's the first time they stole money and "gave" something back that was well worth the money stolen. It's given back more wealth than was initially stolen

Say a few years ago I stole from you, took a few grand right out of you bank account against your will, then I invested it, made a fortune and gave you back your money plus some. Does that make the initial theft right?

[MNeagle]

someone has to say it: social security

[Shami-Amourae]

Say a few years ago I stole from you, took a few grand right out of you bank account against your will, then I invested it, made a fortune and gave you back your money plus some. Does that make the initial theft right?


I'm an (crypto)anarchist. I agree with everything you are saying. The question was if the government actually did a good job at something. I was trying to find SOMETHING. Please don't put me into the Statist position, since I'm not that way.

[palani]

Everything you posted goes DIRECTLY against the 3 points i already laid out. Please go back and read them again, using objective morality and see what conclusion you come to. Having read it once I see no need to read it again. You are stuck in a mode of viewing government as a MACRO element while I view it as the sum total of all MICRO elements. You view government as a FICTION and rail against it while I view it as a roadmap, a plan, a policy.

If it is FICTION then WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? If other people view government as real then is that YOUR problem to correct? You know you can't have it both ways. Government is either real and exists or is a fiction and can be ignored.






Im not asking you to follow my moral code. Im telling you that you dont even follow YOUR OWN MORAL CODE. Hence - contradictions and irrationality. I don't KNOW your moral code. I know you don't know MINE. So where are there contradictions and irrationality? Perhaps you want me to subscribe to YOUR government? If so then now is the time to GET REAL!!!




Did you even read my posts? How can something be bad THAT DOESNT EXIST? Is Santa bad? Bad policy can be adopted. A government can start out good and be corrupted (hence the term of the oath against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC). It can start out solvent and turn bankrupt. Happens all the time.




The STATE doesnt exist anymore than pixie dust or vampire goblins. Individual humans have been murdered, raped, stolen from and ENSLAVED in reality throughout history because of these 'fictional' ideas about 'the state' and 'society'. This really depends upon the description of 'STATE' doesn't it? Without definition I agree there is no STATE. With definition STATE suddenly gets promoted to reality.




Instead of rebutting what you wrote, should i just say it is 'nonsense'? LOL Taking the PUSSY PATH because you are lazy?




A man can not delegate a Right he does not have as an individual. If he is ONLY contracting with his own Rights, voluntarily, THEN HE ISNT GOVERNMENT because nobody would be forced to listen to him. And we all know 'Government' doesnt ask you, it commands you.

Remisus imperanti melius paretur. A man commanding not too strictly is best obeyed.





Why cant you address the 3 underlying FACTS i posted? Unless you can show me:

1. - A man CAN delegate a Right he doesnt have as an individual, - (irrational and insane)
2. - A man CAN be morally obligated to do the wrong thing, - (irrational and insane)
3. - A man CAN legislate morality. - (irrational and insane)

1. I might issue a quit claim deed on your house ... all I am saying is that any interest I have is being conveyed ... even if I have none.
2. Do you pay your bills with an IOU? Is this wrong? Are you morally obligated to pay your bills or do you rely upon the fictional credit of a fictional government to give the ILLUSION that you are paying your bills?
3. Was prohibition an attempt to legislate morality? Is the Equal Rights Amendment (currently stalled) an attempt to legislate morality?




....then your argument holds no water. I used rationality and principles to show you that the notion that there can EVER be a group of men who have the right to rule over others is IMPOSSIBLE. A man can NEVER be made into a rightful Master. A man can NEVER be made into a rightful Slave. To argue otherwise is irrational, insane, self-contradictory and ANTI-HUMAN. Governments legislate for their DOMESTIC constituents. If you don't want to be one of these then then don't proclaim yourself one. Personally I find the U.S. government is a foreign entity. The existing 'state' the promotes their government is also a foreign entity. I don't follow the statutes of either of these although I occasionally look in their statutes to see whether they display reason. I don't have a complaint against either government and, since I don't attack them, they seem to go out of their way to not attack me.



To stay on topic, the ONLY thing that exist in reality are individual human beings - each morally responsible for his/her own actions. An individuals moral actions can not be altered by legislation. There are only people doing 'Right' and people doing 'Wrong'. It doesnt matter what costume they are wearing, it doesnt matter what psuedo-religious rituals and ceremonies they have held and it certainly doesnt matter how many of them agree. ANYTHING ELSE is imagined into existence.
To a degree I agree with you. I do put people into a DE FACTO status when they are performing acts under the color of law. If I were domestic and subscribed to their term in office then they attain DE JURE status. I do find that I don't need to explain this to anyone who carries a TASER or a side arm unless it is by letter and out of range. The topic of DE FACTO status has had books written on the subject. You might try reading one once.

Your advice on the subject is likely to get yourself or others shot. Is there a moral then in this path?

[Sparky]

I find it ironic that there are members here who seriously think that this mythical beast called 'Government' does ANYTHING to benefit the people. I have seen multiple answer laid out here, but the underlying PRINCIPLES and IDEAS are rooted in EVIL: Where does 'Government' get the money to do ANYTHING that you guys have said they do well?

- Sparky said they do the National Parks well. WHERE DOES/DID THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUILD THESE PARKS? The 'Government' steals it from innocent non-violent people. And thats a 'good' thing?

- Hitcher said they lock up bad guys. WHERE DOES/DID THE MONEY COME FROM TO HOUSE AND FEED THESE CRIMINALS? The 'Government' steals it from innocent non-violent people. And thats a 'good' thing?


Both of these examples go against #3 of my previous post: You can not legislate morality. You can not turn a crime into a virtue by scribbling words on scraps of paper.


You can not have a legitimate Government, anymore than you can have a glass of dry water.

The original premise of this question does not deny that the government gets all its money from taxpayers. For that matter, we can also accept the fact that "the government" is something of an amorphous entity.

But since we generally agree that "the government" sucks, this discussion can only be useful by moving beyond that. I'm viewing "the government" as an entity that is able to act collectively on something for which the economy of scale would preclude investment by a group of private individuals, and would not provide a sufficient return on investment because much of the return is in the form of societal benefit rather than financial. These are the things for which the government has the opportunity to do some net good. So I think this discussion is about: 1) what are those things, and 2) are they done well? Answering the latter point also has two components: 1) Is the outcome good, and 3) was it done cost effectively.

So, if the government is defined as the body which acts collectively for the people, I think they have a legitimate role, they do some of it well in terms of results, they almost always do it in a financially wasteful manner, and they have expanded their role far beyond what is appropriate, which is a bi-product of self-service and corruption.

[Ponce]

Must of those conplaining about SS are the ones that knows that they will never get it ........and I don't blame you.......but, do blame the dices when you bet and you loose?.......... every thing would had come up roses if the government han't stolen what belonged to the people.........as you all know they are now cutting a big part of SS by different methods and reason's so that those recieving it will be a lot worse than what they were before.............I for one am very lucky to have made one of my famous plans for SS with my plan behind the plan.

V

[madfranks]

I'm viewing "the government" as an entity that is able to act collectively on something for which the economy of scale would preclude investment by a group of private individuals, and would not provide a sufficient return on investment because much of the return is in the form of societal benefit rather than financial.

I disagree with you on this. I view it this way: any project worth doing will have sufficient backing by private investment, no matter how large or small. And if there is not sufficient backing for any given project, that is the market telling you that this is not a viable project, and to look elsewhere for opportunities. Let's use the Hoover Dam as the example. It was created as a government make-work project, primarily to give people something to do and get a paycheck in return. The fact that some people benefited from the creation of the dam was secondary to the primary purpose of making people work. Maybe they got lucky on this one, providing something useful at the same time. If private industry would have proposed the Hoover Dam, they would have sought private investment to fund it, and the potential investors would analyze the project to ensure it's profitability. Let's say that demand for what the Dam could bring (electricity?) was not high enough to warrant the project, but say people wanted washing machines and fridges instead. Investors who would decide to invest in appliances instead would have earned a greater return, providing for the needs of the people better than the Dam could, and the population would be wealthier as a result.

[gunDriller]

fight fires - sometimes.

[Cebu_4_2]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Hoover-dam-contour-map.jpg

[gunDriller]

Rome Air Defense - pre defense contractor.

the US gov. used to do military development under its own roof.


now, it contracts to military contractors that are very heavily Jew-infested.

it is Bizarro world working at a place like that, that is so truth-challenged, and to get memo's about "Ethics training workshops".

like a vampire bat talking about the dangers of drinking blood. just totally ass-backwards.

[Sparky]

I disagree with you on this. I view it this way: any project worth doing will have sufficient backing by private investment, no matter how large or small. And if there is not sufficient backing for any given project, that is the market telling you that this is not a viable project, and to look elsewhere for opportunities. Let's use the Hoover Dam as the example. It was created as a government make-work project, primarily to give people something to do and get a paycheck in return. The fact that some people benefited from the creation of the dam was secondary to the primary purpose of making people work. Maybe they got lucky on this one, providing something useful at the same time. If private industry would have proposed the Hoover Dam, they would have sought private investment to fund it, and the potential investors would analyze the project to ensure it's profitability. Let's say that demand for what the Dam could bring (electricity?) was not high enough to warrant the project, but say people wanted washing machines and fridges instead. Investors who would decide to invest in appliances instead would have earned a greater return, providing for the needs of the people better than the Dam could, and the population would be wealthier as a result.

I understand your point, and Hoover Dam may be a bad example because it is a single project whose revenue/return is easily identified, i.e. production and sale of electricity. But what about something like the interstate highway system? There's something that the government got right, that I don't think would/could have happened privately.

[General of Darkness]

I understand your point, and Hoover Dam may be a bad example because it is a single project whose revenue/return is easily identified, i.e. production and sale of electricity. But what about something like the interstate highway system? There's something that the government got right, that I don't think would/could have happened privately.

Well it did kinda happen privately. It was funded by tax dollars and then contractors built the roads and it's sole purpose was to improve commerce so the state could increase tax revenues.

[Hitch]

fight fires - sometimes.

This is a good one, although 75% of firefighters are volunteers. The guys fighting the fires don't get paid by the .gov, however all the equipment is purchased through tax dollars, mostly city taxes.

[Sparky]

Well it did kinda happen privately. It was funded by tax dollars and then contractors built the roads and it's sole purpose was to improve commerce so the state could increase tax revenues.
This gets back to the discussion "who" the government is. Even the space program was dependent upon private contractors to design and build. That's why I was trying to simplify this to a discussion of whether we need "government" to coordinate enormous undertakings. It's really the coordination from one single body that is needed, moreso than the actual execution.

[madfranks]

I understand your point, and Hoover Dam may be a bad example because it is a single project whose revenue/return is easily identified, i.e. production and sale of electricity. But what about something like the interstate highway system? There's something that the government got right, that I don't think would/could have happened privately.

I would highly recommend to you Sparky, the book "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" by Walter Block, who spells out in great detail why the government is inept at managing road infrastructure and why private ownership of such roads and highways would be infinitely better off managed in private hands. Just for you:

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

[Spectrism]

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.


There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.

Ayn Rand

[osoab]

I understand your point, and Hoover Dam may be a bad example because it is a single project whose revenue/return is easily identified, i.e. production and sale of electricity. But what about something like the interstate highway system? There's something that the government got right, that I don't think would/could have happened privately.

One thing I see is failure to plan for expansion. Most of the existing interstates were not built with expansion in mind. What a waste of resources to redo it again just to expand.

There was a recent article that most of the Illinois motor fuel tax is used for very little road construction. Supposed to all go to road construction.
EDITORIAL: A Road Fund in name only (http://www.planning.org/news/daily/story.htm?story_id=185880729)

Don't forget taking roads built with publik funds and then turned into toll roads. And then look at Shitcago. They leased their publicly funded parking meter funds for a pittance.

Also remember, some if not a majority of these roads were put in areas that were beneficial to specific landowners. This is still happening today too.

I see road construction as another vote generating scheme. I built your road 20 years ago keep voting for me...

I only have ILL as a reference. Maybe Massachusetts is a rosy little area.

[Sparky]

I would highly recommend to you Sparky, the book "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" by Walter Block, who spells out in great detail why the government is inept at managing road infrastructure and why private ownership of such roads and highways would be infinitely better off managed in private hands. Just for you:

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

This book describes privatization of existing road infrastructure, which may well be a good idea. But that's different than a private entity being able to envision, design, and build out the entire massive interstate network in the first place. That logistically could not have happened because the ambitious scope was too large. The capital outlay would have been too high. And the authority to execute it was not there. It would have been too much of a risk.

In spite of any shortcomings it may have, I am still in awe of this accomplishment because of the grandness in scale. It's nearly 50,000 miles of highway, or roughly twice the circumference of the earth, laid out in a systematically spaced north-south/east-west grid overlaying 3 million square miles of U.S. land. This was a remarkable accomplishment, which addresses the question in the original post, regardless of whether or not a private entity could have done it better, or done it at all.

[madfranks]

This book describes privatization of existing road infrastructure, which may well be a good idea. But that's different than a private entity being able to envision, design, and build out the entire massive interstate network in the first place. That logistically could not have happened because the ambitious scope was too large. The capital outlay would have been too high. And the authority to execute it was not there. It would have been too much of a risk.

In spite of any shortcomings it may have, I am still in awe of this accomplishment because of the grandness in scale. It's nearly 50,000 miles of highway, or roughly twice the circumference of the earth, laid out in a systematically spaced north-south/east-west grid overlaying 3 million square miles of U.S. land. This was a remarkable accomplishment, which addresses the question in the original post, regardless of whether or not a private entity could have done it better, or done it at all.

You're right, in that private industry most likely wouldn't have done it all at once, but rather smaller, local road systems growing into larger city-wide systems, and then as the need developed, inter city and inter state systems.

[gunDriller]

all the immoral stuff -

Lying
Taxing
Killing innocent civilians
telling people how to think
Terrorizing people

etc.

the US gov. has tremendous skill in all the wrong places. they are a world master in control fraud (that's when fraud is committed by the people in charge.)

pretty damn good at implementing the Protocols.


so i guess the question is, "What honorable, useful thing does the government do well ?"

fight fires.

[steel_ag]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RD02ZItvCgsMMgI&v=2xDroV4Fz1A&feature=player_detailpage

[Hitch]

so i guess the question is, "What honorable, useful thing does the government do well ?"

fight fires.

I'm starting to think the only thing .gov does well is steal from the people.

Even fight fires? Who's the guy who rushes into the burning building? Joe Neighbor, the guy who volunteers his time because society says he's a hero, doing great things, etc. Yet, he's not paid, all the services are taxed anyway...I know, because I've been that guy.

Let's look at the 'big fires' we've been saved from in the big picture. The .dot com burst, let's put out that fire, by creating the housing bubble.. Oppsy, that bubble burst too. Big fire, let's save the day by bailing out the banks with tax payers on the hook.

Nobody is cheering for the taxpayer, as a big hero, for putting out that fire.

Now we've got the biggest bubble ever seen. The .gov Debt Bubble. When this one bursts, the whole world will shake, and who's the big hero fireman then?

[Hypertiger]

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."--George Washington.

“Be cautious in your words and carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity.”

I, George Washinton, of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God, and this Worshipful Lodge, erected to Him, and dedicated to the holy Sts. John, do hereby and hereon (Master presses his gavel on candidate's knuckles) most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal, any of the arts, parts, or points of the hidden mysteries of Ancient Free Masonry, which may have been, or hereafter shall be, at this time, or any future period, communicated to me, as such, to any person or persons whomsoever, except it be to a true and lawful brother Mason, or in a regularly constituted Lodge of Masons; nor unto him or them until, by strict trial, due examination, or lawful information, I shall have found him, or them, as lawfully entitled to the same as I am myself. I furthermore promise and swear that I will not print, paint, stamp, stain, cut, carve, mark, or engrave them, or cause the same to be done, on any thing movable or immovable, capable of receiving the least impression of a word, syllable, letter, or character, whereby the same may become legible or intelligible to any person under the canopy of heaven, and the secrets of Masonry thereby unlawfully obtained through my unworthiness.

All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to perform the same, without any mental reservation or secret evasion of mind whatever, binding

myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, 1 my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea, at low-water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my Entered Apprentice obligation. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations 1776

Governments of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are administration systems of the enterprise constructed and sustained by the bottom or employees at the demand of the top or owners of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise

[gunDriller]

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."--George Washington.

“Be cautious in your words and carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity.”


re our nation's founders - much, maybe most, of what they did to counter the king would be treated as "terrorism" by the US gov.