jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (32 posts)

Would we be better off without a government?

  1. oldhorse profile image78
    oldhorseposted 4 years ago

    Many conservatives seem to feel that government is a bad thing.  I personally don't agree, but maybe  some of you really want to live in a world where the strongest and best armed can take what they want, without repercussions.  If you are one of those, please speak up.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Those poorly educated, FOX News freaks need to move somewhere like  Somalia.

      1. profile image59
        whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why so angry it isn't good for you.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not angry at all. There's a laundry list of things wrong with our Federal Government (and the stupid s**t they're doing i.e. still giving oil companies subsities when they're making billions in profits), too many to list regarding to the individual state governments. We have two parties that don't get along, with that, nothing gets done an if it does it's half ass. Look at Obamacare as an example. The United States is the only industrialized country (that comes to mind) where the average citizen worries about medical bills. It's the typical American way to want, want and want but don't want to pay for it. But that's nothing new, we started a revolution against the British over it.

          1. Sapper profile image72
            Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly, our health care is one of the biggest F ups our government has made. We are 38th for quality of health care, but 1st in cost, and for cost we are almost twice what number 2 is. Obamacare is bad, but 90% of the people don't understand why it's bad. It's like putting a band-aid on a gun shot, and that's what happens when the government allows health care to become a business.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image79
              Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Obama care, based on Romneycare, is a start but needs lots of work. But wouldn't it be easier to skip all the BS and go universal healthcare? The government pays over 75% of the hospital bills (medicare and medicaid) anyway.

              1. Sapper profile image72
                Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Still just a band-aid. The real problem is the cost of healthcare, and more indirectly, the cost of education. Regulating either one of those would do more for our country than any healthcare plan ever could. I'm all for capitalism, but there are a few things that people shouldn't profit on.

          2. profile image59
            whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oil companies do not receive subsidies, there is no loophole in the tax law that pays a company to send jobs out of the country and NO there is no gun show loopholes! Just more lies perpetrated by the left to a very, very misinformed constituency!


            http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/o … clarified/
            "Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with “subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending."

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How old are you oldhorse?  you know very well that if men were angels we would not need government and laws and religion, but we ain't...so we do!  it is limited government that is required, so that we have a certain amount of freedom.
      Gosh!

    3. Sapper profile image72
      Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Our current government is doing more harm than good and needs to be disbanded. However, and this is the nicest way I could possible put this, the average person is just too stupid to not have someone telling them what they should and shouldn't do.

      If it were up to me, I would disband the government, rip up the constitution, and start over fresh. That's the most efficient way to have a document that actually relevant to this century. I would get rid of political parties. They do more harm then good. Tradition alone is not a good enough excuse to keep around a system that plain doesn't work.

      Since I'm already on a rant, I'm going to use this as a segue to a somewhat related topic, defense spending. Let me start this off by saying my wife is currently in the military, I served in 2 different branches, my entire dads side of the family served, and a good 90% of my friends either are currently serving or have in the past. With that being said, we spend way too much on it. We have, without a doubt, the most powerful military in the world, and what do we get for our troubles? We are uneducated and unhealthy. It's time for us to **** or get off the pot. As I see it we have 2 options, and trust me when I say either would be fine with me. Either actually use our military to start invading some countries to improve our quality of life, or pull everyone back, strip it down to what we actually need to defend our country, and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems instead of playing big brother. I know, how selfish of me, but I have a problem with spending billions of dollars on a group of people because they were unlucky to be born in a crappy country, and too weak to defend their own freedoms while we have a huge homeless problem back home, which is one of many, that we could eradicate with the money instead. A homeless population which, coincidentally, a significant population consists of veterans who spent a portion of their life fixing someone else's problems.

      I will end my way to long rant with this: I think everyone, on their 18th birthday, should serve 4 years in the military. If you want to stay in and qualify, more power to you, if not, get on with your life. No real reason for that, at least not a good one, but still.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh sure, rip it the f up. Listen I do not know much, but I know when I feel a bunch of hot hot air. So hot the flames are licking the statues in the white house. And why? cuz yer a little fed up with what is currently going on? Drink a tall glass of lemonade before you come in the forums and act like a ferocious dragon!  Better yet, get a copy of the Federalist Papers and try to comprehend and contemplate what those wise and great hearted men tried to bring forth not that long ago in the whole scheme of history.   Take your flaming fingers and create hell somewhere else.

        1. Sapper profile image72
          Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm going to assume from your small wall of ignorance that you haven't even read the Constitution. Not only was population density a very small fraction of what it is now, it was written during a time when a vast majority of the population couldn't read or write and most had no way of communicating with anyone outside of their community. Between the internet and people being able to, you know, read, most of it is no longer relevant.

          Not only that, but there is a section on dealing with pirates on the high seas. I know, pirates are still a huge problem, but I'm pretty sure that no longer needs an active policy.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What exactly isn't relevant in the Constitution?

            The part protecting free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and petition, freedom to be secure in life and property, requiring due process before actions are taken against citizens, etc?

            Where does the Constitution mention pirates?

            1. Sapper profile image72
              Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are confusing the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. They are two related, but very different documents.

              Constitution

              Bill of Rights

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Bill of Rights is the name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They are very much a part of the Constitution.

                Why don't you answer my questions? Which parts of the Constitution are no longer applicable? Where does the Constitution mention pirates?

                1. Sapper profile image72
                  Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you would read any of my other replies, I've already answered that. And since reading is obviously a problem for you:

                  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

                  Article 1, Section 8

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You haven't really answered it, you just made vague assertions that it's out of date.

                    Let me clarify, do you have a problem with our policies regarding pirates, or do you actually have a problem with our founding documents saying that our government has the right to deal with problems on water?

                    Cause you're making it sound like we shouldn't have a government that protects citizens if they happen to be on a boat, and that's kind of strange.

      2. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I totally and whole heartedly agree with all but one thing. Let's get out of the invading business with our military. Bring them home and shore up our defences is the more prudent direction I think.

        Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only solution.

        1. Sapper profile image72
          Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There are a lot more problems with congress then just that. The current system worked great when population density was lower, people were illiterate, and communication across distances was difficult. Now, however, it's a system that doesn't work. For starters, if you look at the country as a whole, each member of congress represents about 600,000 people. Even in the smallest states, each one is representing 200,000 people. No matter how good they are, it's impossible for one person to accurately speak for that many. Not only that, but with the internet it's not needed. To make things worse, at least a majority of them say what needs to be said to get elected, then do whatever they want, regardless of what the people want.

          I was going to point out the many more problems, but then it will just turn into another huge rant, so I'll leave it at that.

    4. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is the central government that needs to be limited to bare essentials.  State, county, city government should handle the issues within their borders.  At least in the U.S. where the essence of the sovereign still reigns supreme!

      The entity with the well being of the individual most in mind is the individual him/herself.  The closer that power is to the individual, the better will be all.

    5. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Somalia is great, paradise on earth, I suggest a move for the libertarians, see how long it takes them to figure out why it's the poorest nation on earth.

      1. innersmiff profile image77
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This tired "why don't you move to Somalia?" argument needs to die already . . .

        Since statelessness arrived in Somalia in 1991, life expectancy, the number of physicians, infants with low birth rates, infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, access to sanitation, access to health facilities, poverty, radio ownership, telephone ownership, TV ownership and measles fatality rates have all improved considerably.

        But compared to what exactly? The countless thriving, prosperous and peaceful countries elsewhere in Africa? Most of these statistics are bigger improvements than has been seen with Somalia's neighbouring statist nations, with the added bonus of having greater freedom of expression and association.

        The only reason nobody moves to Somalia (nobody from the West at least - hundreds of thousands of Somalian refugees in Ethiopia returned to Somalia after the state collapsed. Voting with their feet perhaps?) is because the west is more economically developed - isn't this why socialists won't move to certain South American countries? Libertarians and anarchists are not utopians. They do not expect sunshine and rainbows as soon as the government disappears - they simply believe that a society free of aggression provides the best environment for long-term prosperity and peace. And this wasn't a state of anarchy out of choice, but of a failed coup d'etat. Going from a totalitarian militaristic socialist dictatorship to anarchy in an extremely short amount of time can never be a smooth transition. But despite all of the grave problems in Somalia, the statistics here favour statelessness there, over statism.

    6. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm conservative, and of course we need a government!
      We just don't need the current people who are controlling the government to be in power.

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Our current government is by no means doing more harm than good.  Thus speaks someone who has never been to a land that has no effective government and so no rule of law.

    1. Sapper profile image72
      Sapperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I know it was long, but if you are going to comment, at least read it.

  3. Greekgeek profile image97
    Greekgeekposted 4 years ago

    Would I want to live in a world with no recourse if someone hit my car?
    With no car, because government did not support and maintain vital infrastructure (countries without organized government have small local dirt and gravel roads, not really car friendly roads, and fuel is harder to come by.)
    No internet?
    No reliable fire protection?
    No help dealing with neighborhood rapists, people preying on children, the mafia, organized crime?
    No recourse when a power plant starts dumping toxic chemicals into my drinking water or seizing and razing my property because I haven't bribed the right person to prove it's mine (as jsut happened to an entire town, Sochi, for the 2014 Olympics)?

    We look at what happens to women, children, and anyone in countries with dysfunctionsl governments... And they are third world countries. They are wretched.

    I find it pretty appalling that anyone who cares about America wants to destroy America by destroying the government. I'm not much for flag waving and rah rah rah, but being anti-government is, literally, anti-American. For all its current flaws  and partisan gridlock and out-of-touch elected officials, it IS a representational democracy, and we voted these clowns in to represent us. I refuse to believe that tyranny or anarchy is better than an elected government.

    1. innersmiff profile image77
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Would I want to live in a world with no recourse if someone hit my car?"
      No, that is why private courts and insurance companies arise to meet that demand.

      "No internet?"
      No, that is why internet companies arise to meet that demand.

      "No reliable fire protection?"
      No, that is why fire protection companies arise to meet that demand.

      "No help dealing with neighborhood rapists, people preying on children, the mafia, organized crime?"
      No, that is why private courts and police forces arise to meet that demand.

      "No recourse when a power plant starts dumping toxic chemicals into my drinking water or seizing and razing my property because I haven't bribed the right person to prove it's mine (as jsut happened to an entire town, Sochi, for the 2014 Olympics)?"
      The Olympics is a part-government funded and government enforced event and would not exist in its current form in an anarchistic society. Any sports event would have to raise funds to buy the land legally and not use force. Private courts can deal with disputes, but government courts dealing government-run entities is just a conflict of interest.

      "We look at what happens to women, children, and anyone in countries with dysfunctionsl governments... And they are third world countries. They are wretched."
      No Libertarian wishes for a dysfunctional government. They wish for as little government as possible, if not, no government at all.

      "I find it pretty appalling that anyone who cares about America wants to destroy America by destroying the government. I'm not much for flag waving and rah rah rah, but being anti-government is, literally, anti-American."
      That's good, because I'm not 'American' anyway. I am a sovereign human being that just happens to reside in a piece of land that is called by some other individuals "the United Kingdom". I am against the 'American ' government as it is an institution of mass violence and destruction, but I am not against any individual who calls himself or herself 'American'.

      "For all its current flaws  and partisan gridlock and out-of-touch elected officials, it IS a representational democracy, and we voted these clowns in to represent us."
      The particular individual who happens to be President is voted in by the majority of those who happen to vote, which makes up no more than 24% of the entire population. None of those people agree with every thing the government does, and crucially, none of them consented to the notion of their government ruling over them when they were born. This does not, in any way shape or form legitimise the state.

      "I refuse to believe that tyranny or anarchy is better than an elected government."
      Clearly.

  4. innersmiff profile image77
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Anarchists did not cause the holocaust, the soviet gulags, the firebombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, the crusades or 9/11. The burden of proof, then, must lie on the statist, not the anarchist.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago

    "Without a government"? Don't be silly. Nearly every culture of every age and every region has had a government, and those who didn't (hunter-gatherers, nomads) still had a familial government.

    1. innersmiff profile image77
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The government is defined by its monopoly of violence. Other hierarchal structures, familial or otherwise, that do not claim a monopoly on violence do not meet the description of government.

 
working