Role of government: what should it be?
|
|
|||||
|
113 votes
|
|
73% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
29 votes
|
|
19% | |||
It’s official: when we choose a President this fall, we will also
choose a theory on the role of government. The putative President and
the Mayor of New York both said it this week. Voters need to hear and
understand exactly what they said and what this means.
What Obama and Bloomberg said
Yesterday, Barack H. Obama traveled to Cleveland, Ohio. He gave a
rambling and almost petulant speech in this historic “battleground”
State. Mostly he said, “It’s all Bush’s fault,” or something amounting
to that. (Maybe he had read this Gallup Poll. Katie Pavlich has some other numbers that should set that record straight.)
But Obama said one thing worth hearing. The New York Times had two reporters on the ground to hear it:
Your vote will finally determine the path that we take as a nation — not just tomorrow, but for years to come.
In other words, Obama said that you will vote for more than a
President (or to be technical, Presidential Electors). You will vote for
a role of government. You will vote whether government will be your
nanny or your monitor and arbiter.
If you doubt that, Mayor Mike Bloomberg should remove that doubt.
Last week he made a rule that no convenience store, movie candy counter,
etc., could sell you a drink larger than 16 ounces. Soft drink bottlers
then took out a full page ad in the Times showing Bloomberg as “The Nanny.” (Or maybe as the title character in the Robin Williams movie Mrs. Doubtfire.)
What’s next? Limits on the width of a pizza slice, size of a hamburger or amount of cream cheese on your bagel?
Actually, popcorn and milkshakes are next. But Bloomberg brazenly said that he was only doing his job!
If [the role of government] isn’t to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don’t know what [that role] is.
The mayor then contradicted himself. He told his TV host that he
didn’t mean to tell people what to do. But he and his Board of Health
are doing just that!
Excuse me, Mr. (putative) President. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Obama is half right, and Bloomberg is totally wrong.
The proper role of government
The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States
To “improve the health and [long life] of its citizens” (and lawful residents) is not the role of government. The Framers of the Constitution
never saw it that way. Nor is the role of government to guarantee you
an income, no matter what Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven said 56 years ago.
The role of government is to manage force. This role derives from a basic social principle: so long as humans live together, no one may start using force against another. But humans will
start using force, unless some other humans stop them, or deal with
them when they do. That is the proper role of government. That is why we
have government.
But the Progressive movement began with a new view of the role of government. They
first said that government must “improve the health and [long life]” of
those who live under it. And they didn’t stay with the Democratic
Party, or even start there. The first Progressive President was Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican.
So what does the role of government break down to? Three things:
Police
Military
Law courts
And that's it.
But what say you? Is Mayor Bloomberg right to say that the role of government is to "improve" your life, whether you think it could stand improving (and in that way) or not? Or do you believe, as I do, that your life is your own, and government's job is not to interfere with it, but instead to stop others from interfering?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/15...
Top Opinion
-
Kimmel 2012/06/15 18:21:43To protect your rights from wrongful use of force.
That was Tesla's choice...personally, I would rather live poor and do what I love than live greatly doing what I hate. I give kudos to people that do so. Doing what one loves is sooooo much more satisfying.
There will always be those who play the game, who get a free ride, a pass, play the system, know somebody...it is exactly those people who give the ones who do it on their own the greatest satisfaction. They excelled despite all odds...there are many in our history that we should be thankful didn't say, "They've got it made, I shouldn't try, I'll never have a chance..." Is it fair? Hell no! Is life fair? Hell no! I always wanted to be a singer...only problem is, I can't carry a tune. I know people who always wanted to be a BB player...but were even shorter than me, wanted to be a musician...but couldn't pick out a single note, wanted to be a scientist...but weren't quite smart enough...life ain't fair...what you do with what you have tells the tale of the person you are.
Is the wife making your life hell again?
Well just tap into that Right Wing Hive Mind . . . Where you're a smart, important, and highly sought after political pundit.
lol
GW Bush is an excellent example of that kind of affirmative action. (So, by the way, is the Romney clan.)
GW was admitted to Yale as a Legacy candidate, and certainly not on the basis of merit.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPO...
Later, of course, GW was all up in arms about the unfairness of affirmative action for minorities.
Why are Right Wing Nut Jobs so hypocritical ?
Does anyone know?
BTW, Legacy Applicants are still widely accepted and even sought out. After all, their Daddies are potentially big contributors.
" . . . would YOU be proud of that?"
Hell no, Not me. But then again, I'm not a phony A$$ Right Wing Nut Job who feels ENTITLED to a privileged existence.
I'm no piece of sh*t Mitt Romney, nor do I want to be.
The fact is that these extremely wealthy beneficiaries of legacy admissions form life long Political and Business networks. Thus, Republican politicians and high power businessmen who never merited getting into those Ivy League colleges also do not merit their current highly placed political and business positions. If it seems that Right Wing leadership is stupid, that's because Right Wing Leadership IS in fact stupid.
...
GW Bush is an excellent example of that kind of affirmative action. (So, by the way, is the Romney clan.)
GW was admitted to Yale as a Legacy candidate, and certainly not on the basis of merit.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPO...
Later, of course, GW was all up in arms about the unfairness of affirmative action for minorities.
Why are Right Wing Nut Jobs so hypocritical ?
Does anyone know?
BTW, Legacy Applicants are still widely accepted and even sought out. After all, their Daddies are potentially big contributors.
" . . . would YOU be proud of that?"
Hell no, Not me. But then again, I'm not a phony A$$ Right Wing Nut Job who feels ENTITLED to a privileged existence.
I'm no piece of sh*t Mitt Romney, nor do I want to be.
The fact is that these extremely wealthy beneficiaries of legacy admissions form life long Political and Business networks. Thus, Republican politicians and high power businessmen who never merited getting into those Ivy League colleges also do not merit their current highly placed political and business positions. If it seems that Right Wing leadership is stupid, that's because Right Wing Leadership IS in fact stupid.
"There will always be those who play the game, who get a free ride, a pass, play the system, know somebody.."
No sh*t, and they become Republican corporate CEO's, Senators, Presidential Candidates, and sometimes (God Forbid) President of the United States.
Who is an example of that?
The most notable beneficiaries of legacy admissions have been the dumb and irresponsible kids of rich Republican Daddies.
GW is a sterling example.
And none of the Kennedy brothers were dumb A$$es.
None of them benefited from Legacy admissions.
I'll give Jack credit, as it is due and a modicum to RFK, beyond that, they are products of their father, who didn't care about anyone but him and his.
LOLOL...of course not. Not one brat from the Hollywood set ever benefited from their parents...right. LOL
. . . because you buy into RW propaganda?
See? You are a RWNJ after all.
Yeah . . . Hollywood brats . . . Like Ronald Reagan . . . they do suck . . . . I'll agree with you on that one.
If a small amount of greenhouse gasses go into the atmosphere in the course of curbing future huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, I'm fine with it.
Is everything OK?
Think of it as an investment.
. . .The same way the US invests in a military . . .
We invest in a military, in a greater effort to avoid a devastating war.
Gore uses energy, which of course contributes to global warming, in an effort to avoid massive global warming.
That's how investments work. That's how capitalism works.
An investor invests money, thus creating debt for himself, in order to create much more wealth for himself.
The energy that Gore uses is an investment in this country's future.
He's not defying his own premise any more then a capitalist defies his own quest for profit when he makes an investment.
A Capitalist wants positive cash flow, and yet an investment consists of negative cash flow initially. It's only later that the investment pays off with revenues that exceed expenses, profit.
Gore's situation is similar. Sure he used energy and contributed a bit to global warming in spreading the word, but if it results in a massive reduction in greenhouse gasses, then his investment is paying off.
If you can't understand that, then you might as well just give up thinking.
Being a Right Wing Nut Job isn't about thinking anyway. It's about feeling.
While I am no fan of GW - you cannot seem to understand the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican - his home is clearly more environmentally friendly, by far, than Mr. Gore's.
http://www.snopes.com/politic...
The Federal Government has plenty of Constitutional powers and the ability to coeerce your nasty Right Wing A$$ into following Federal law . . .OR go to Fedearal Prison.
And I don't really give a damn if you like it or not.
I'm sick of traitorous anti-Americans Right Wing Scum trying to dictate to the rest of America.
Frankly, I don't much care for your ideas and I could certainly care less about how you feel about mine. But since you brought it up, I would say there is plenty of evidence to indicate that Patriotic, God-fearing, anti-statist Americans, myself included, are sick of traitorous, statist scum trying to morph America into some imaginary utopia that will inevitably end badly, probably mirroring the final scene in Orwell's Animal Farm.
Yes, the Constitution limits power.
It limits the power of the Federal Government. It limits the power of states, And it limits the power of dangerous factions to impose their idiocy upon the rest of us.
You and your kind would be laughably funny if weren't for the clear and imminent danger you present to America and the world.
America's vast Right Wing is a cancer upon this nation that needs to be either surgcially removed or rendered inert.
It'll be all right.
You just need to pull your head out and see the light.
And I'm all for honest discussions.
It's just that I place absolutely no creedence in nonsensical Right Wing BS.
. . . Honest.
You just cry in general. I know how that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of your prejudices.
What prejudices would those be?
And yes, I very much dislike Extremists and extremism.
And the fact is, Extremists are concentrated heavily on the Right side of the politcal spectrum.
From what I can tell, most Libertarians on Soda Head have everything in common with other Extremist Right Wingers except for the fact that you tolerate so-called victimlesss crimes and you want to avoid war.
So maybe you and Bozette are war doves who like to smoke dope and engage in prostitution. Otherwise you're pretty much Republican hardliners . . .Completely out of touch with reality.
I understand you don't believe in taxation.
Without taxing to collect revenue, how in the world do you expect this nation to pay down its debt?
See what I mean . . . You are completely out of touch with reality.
Now that I've been so enlightening . . . I hope you've been able to learn from it.
The primary difference between both those on the right and left with those who identify as Libertarian is that we do not advocate forcing our will upon others...the rest of you do, just in different areas of our lives. Wanting everyone to have the freedom to make their own choices neither makes us potheads or prostitutes.
There are different types of taxes, and while some are legitimate, others are not. We wouldn't have the debt we have to pay down were it not for the Federal Reserve Act, which allows private bankers to do what the Constitution gives our government to power to do and they charge us interest for doing so, thus making them rich while needlessly impoverishing the nation and its citizens.
I wonder why the political mass muderers who kill in the name of Nationalism see themselves as advocates of Right Wing policies. How nice of you to allow them to "make their own choices." . . . Not so great for the people they murder though, is it?
How ever the debt came to be, the fact remains that we have a huge amount of it, and the fact remains that only tax revenue can pay it down, and the fact remains that you Libertarians despise the idea of taxing . . . which brings us to the fact that you Libertarians have absolutely no realistic suggestions for dealing with the debt.
You live in a suburb of Right Wing Nut La La Land . . . a little more upscale and your delusions are perhaps a little more grand than those of the typical Right Winger . . . but pretty much the same nevertheless, and your non-policies would prove a disaster if you even attempted to implement them in the Real World.
In other words . . . You got nuthin'
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/...
The freedom to make one's own choices ends where it infringes upon the rights of another...as I have previously stated.
It is not simply a matter of how the debt came to be, but of compounding it. Let's fix the problem that started it, pay off what is there and not make the same mistake again.
I live in Flint, Michigan...how grand and upscale it is! LMAO
I was talking about your abode in Right Wing La La Land . . . A land of fantasy
. . . where taxes don't exist . . . and your ideology actually works.