Quantcast

Role of government: what should it be?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/15 17:18:46
You!
Add Photos & Videos

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 Constitution. It limits the 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...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/11 02:41:17
    Bozette
    +1
    You have repeatedly called me a "Right Wing Nut Job"...yet I have never defined myself by greed, I am, in fact, much more like Tesla...doing what I love and not getting the big bucks, because the job satisfaction is well worth it. I expend nothing for patriotism, except my time, and my ideology is directly in line with my rationality.

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/09 03:51:48
    Bozette
    +2
    Many are currently accepted into institutions of higher learning, not because they earned that right, but simply because of their color or race...would YOU be proud of that? Probably, but nevermind, that isn't my point. People who excel despite their shortcomings (perceived or real), work harder, take greater pride in and generally achieve more than others. There have been many who were poor, many of color, many of another nationality who excelled greatly in this country - and there are many doing so today -, not because they used those things to their advantage, but because they chose to suceed...and did.

    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.
  • FeedFwd... Bozette 2012/07/10 01:47:08
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +1
    Thank you for taking the time to draw a picture for him. I think it went over his head the first time I mentioned them. He seems to interested in impressing us with his Wikipedia skills and unwarranted, ignorant insults.
  • Lee FeedFwd... 2012/07/10 03:43:19 (edited)
    Lee
    Ah come on Feed . . . Do you have to snivel continuously?


    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
  • FeedFwd... Lee 2012/07/10 03:53:46
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +1
    Whatever.
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/10 03:40:28 (edited)
    Lee
    "Many are currently accepted into institutions of higher learning, not because they earned that right, but simply because" their Daddies have influence.

    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.

    ...

    "Many are currently accepted into institutions of higher learning, not because they earned that right, but simply because" their Daddies have influence.

    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.
    (more)
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/10 10:28:45
    Bozette
    I suppose there aren't/weren't any little rich kids on the left that benefited from daddy's money, power and prestige? LOL Plenty of examples there as well.
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/10 12:11:29 (edited)
    Lee
    Maybe there are. I don't know.

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/11 03:18:39
    Bozette
    +2
    I can't and have never tried to argue that GW isn't an example, but then again Al Gore is, and all of the Kennedys, and others...let's not forget about those in Hollywood, they get all the perks...because of daddy or mommy and didn't earn a single thing on their own. All those people, the vast majority of them are of your persuasion, think that they aren't "rich" enough to fall into what those of you who continually bitch about rich businessmen feel is "the elite"...sorry, people like Barbara Streisand and Michael Moore are that rich...yet feel they aren't...give me a F..,ing break!
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/11 03:25:04 (edited)
    Lee
    Al Gore is brilliant.

    And none of the Kennedy brothers were dumb A$$es.

    None of them benefited from Legacy admissions.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/11 03:46:18
    Bozette
    +2
    Al Gore is an ass...

    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
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/11 04:07:40 (edited)
    Lee
    Why do you think Al Gore is an ass?

    . . . 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.
  • Red Branch Lee 2012/07/11 17:24:42
    Red Branch
    +2
    I am sure she thinks algore is an ass because she has listened to him speak.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/14 01:51:51
    Bozette
    +1
    Hmmm...I don't know, perhaps because he pushed the whole global warming agenda while he - personally - used enough energy for...how many people???
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/14 02:28:53
    Lee
    Well . . . He's an important man . . and. he had to get the word out about global warming . . . and if it takes investment to create future gains, then I'm fine with it.

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/14 03:13:21
    Bozette
    +1
    Let's see, Al Gore, at absolutely no benefit to anyone else or the "cause" used a MASSIVE amount of electricity and created a MASSIVE carbon footprint...what a guy, eh???
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/14 03:17:42
    Lee
    lol . . . You seem a little overwrought this evening.

    Is everything OK?
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/17 12:43:05
    Bozette
    +1
    Not overwrought...disgusted that anyone would try to justify Mr. Gore's power usage is all...but thank you for asking.
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/17 14:38:22
    Lee
    Come on Bozette, Al Gore needs to use more energy than the rest of us do in order to ensure a more energy secure future, less environmental impact, and a reduction in global warming.

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/18 01:37:34
    Bozette
    +1
    Mr. Gore is using power that he should not be using for....what? Please...clarify this for me...why exactly, do I need to do anything here...the man is defying his own premise...seriously, you need to figure this out on your own.
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/18 14:05:06
    Lee
    . . . to advance the cause of environmentalism and stemming the ugly effects of climate change.

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/19 14:20:54
    Bozette
    +1
    Explain to me, please, just how, exactly, Gore's personal abode using 12 times the power of the average home in his area is ". . . to advance the cause of environmentalism and stemming the ugly effects of climate change",

    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...
  • Red Branch Lee 2012/07/11 17:23:59
    Red Branch
    +2
    Senator Ted 'the Swimmer' Kennedy ought not be compared with his brothers.
  • FeedFwd... Lee 2012/07/08 16:52:16
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +4
    ...Which is why the Bill of rights was adopted and became a condition of ratification by the states. The Bill of Rights specifically prohibits government from infringing on the rights of the individual states and the people. It guarantees nothing to the people except freedom from government interference!
  • Lee FeedFwd... 2012/07/08 17:29:13 (edited)
    Lee
    The Bill of Rights does not guarantee "freedom from govenment interference."

    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.
  • FeedFwd... Lee 2012/07/08 17:58:14 (edited)
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +5
    The government has plenty of power. It has arguably the strongest military in the world. That is why the Constitution was written to enumerate its specific powers and responsibilities and why the Bill of Rights became the first set of amendments to clarify some specific things the government may not do. Read them again and tell me what positive rights the people have from government (besides perhaps a right to a trial) and compare with what the government is prohibited from doing such as restraining public speech or unwarranted search and seizures or preventing gun ownership, etc. The government's powers were never intended to be unlimited. There is a difference between what the government can actually do and what it can lawfully do. It is up to the citizens and the states to make sure the government knows the difference.

    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.
  • Lee FeedFwd... 2012/07/08 18:14:38 (edited)
    Lee
    I never at any time suggested that the Constiution makes the power of the Federal Government "unlimited."

    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.
  • FeedFwd... Lee 2012/07/08 19:13:08
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +5
    You keep talking about factions, but as Madison observed, only factions that make up a majority and wish to impose their will on others are a real danger. If I am part of a faction, I assure you that 1) it is a minority position (consider how many electoral votes a libertarian running in one of the major parties (Ron Paul) or running under the banner of a 3rd party, LP or otherwise, has ever won) and 2) libertarians are about liberty, not imposing their will on others. Your posts make no sense in that context. Now if you are worried about republicans legislating what you may do in the privacy of your own home, then I actually support you. I am not of that faction and I don't believe the others you are debating are either.
  • Bozette FeedFwd... 2012/07/08 20:00:25
    Bozette
    +5
    You are correct. As a Libertarian, I stand for liberty and want neither the right nor the left imposing their will upon me through government regulation. As long as I am not infringing upon another's rights, I should be free to do as I please. I want the freedom to be responsible for my own actions. That includes both suffering the consequences if I make poor choices and reaping the rewards of good ones.
  • FeedFwd... Bozette 2012/07/08 20:08:55
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +5
    Unfortunately, troll or not, I think he is just a hater of anybody that doesn't toe the DNC party line. I have attempted to engage him and get him to have an honest discussion, it always comes back to how evil the right wing is. My expectations are pretty low. Still, I remain open to discussion, always willing to learn something new or enlightening.
  • Bozette FeedFwd... 2012/07/08 20:26:14
    Bozette
    +5
    He will continue to spew hatred. Unlike you, he can't seem to have an honest discussion without doing so. Anyone who isn't willing to listen and learn handicaps themselves.
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/08 21:45:39
    Lee
    Come on Bozette. Quit your sniveling. Dry up those big ol' Right Wing tears.

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/08 21:58:29
    Bozette
    +5
    Lee, Lee, Lee...you couldn't recognize an honest discussion if your life depended upon it. Trust me darlin', I cry no tears over you. :)
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/08 22:25:30
    Lee
    No . . .You don't cry over me.

    You just cry in general. I know how that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of your prejudices.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/08 23:11:58
    Bozette
    +3
    Don't cry "in general" any more than I do over you.

    What prejudices would those be?
  • Lee FeedFwd... 2012/07/08 21:42:47
    Lee
    If you're referring to me, I am a Moderate,

    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.
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/08 22:10:16
    Bozette
    +4
    Actually, if you check out the publications put out by your dear government, there are just as many left-wing "extremists" identified as possible terrorists as there are on the right.

    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.
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/09 00:48:37
    Lee
    Please let me see this list of extremists. I'm keenly interested.

    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'
  • Bozette Lee 2012/07/09 01:02:38
    Bozette
    +5
    http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint...
    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
  • Lee Bozette 2012/07/09 01:06:11
    Lee
    I wasn't talking about Flint MI.

    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.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/22 23:13:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals