Turn on thread page Beta

The government is always our enemy watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Talking to some relatives, one raised the point that the government 'work for us, and are our servants'. I feel that if the past 12 years have taught us anything, it is that the government is not to be trusted, and it has to be reduced to what it is meant to do - uphold the rights of individuals, and nothing else.

    Anyone got any theories in favour or against my view?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Talking to some relatives, one raised the point that the government 'work for us, and are our servents'. I feel that if the past 12 years have taught us anything, it is that the government is not to be trusted, and it has to be reduced to what it is meant to do - uphold the rights of individuals, and nothing else.

    Anyone got any theories in favour or against my view?
    Let's take for granted the view that the current government is **** and not to be trusted. How would it follow from that that all (or all possible) governments are not to be trusted (this is your claim)? Invalid inference.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    a bit of government is always needed even in anarchism for example if u erase all institutions the police gone so every1 will have to protect themselves?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Let's take for granted the view that the current government is **** and not to be trusted. How would it follow from that that all (or all possible) governments are not to be trusted (this is your claim)? Invalid inference.
    It is so easy to abuse power, so therefore when a government has power over millions of citizens, that power must be severely limited.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x_muneeb_x)
    a bit of government is always needed even in anarchism for example if u erase all institutions the police gone so every1 will have to protect themselves?
    As I say, the government is only needed to protect and uphold citizens' rights. The police are an example of this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Talking to some relatives, one raised the point that the government 'work for us, and are our servents'. I feel that if the past 12 years have taught us anything, it is that the government is not to be trusted, and it has to be reduced to what it is meant to do - uphold the rights of individuals, and nothing else.

    Anyone got any theories in favour or against my view?
    With the amount they tax us of course the gov. are our enemy :p:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The best way to reduce the power of government is to "starve the beast." The less tax revenue the government has, the less oppressive it can be. It also helps to have an armed population as a check to government oppression.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The best way to reduce the power of government is to "starve the beast." The less tax revenue the government has, the less oppressive it can be. It also helps to have an armed population as a check to government oppression.
    I completely agree - the right to bear arms should be returned to British citizens.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    It is so easy to abuse power, so therefore when a government has power over millions of citizens, that power must be severely limited.
    The libertarian idea of solving government related problems like abuse of power by removing governments as much as possible always struck me as similar to the decidedly non libertarian idea of solving drug related problems by removing drug dealers:

    You create a power vacuum, which others are only too happy to fill for you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would direct members of this forum to read Murray Rothbard...
    Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian thinker who argues very convincingly for the complete abolition of government....
    I myself am a Minarchist Libertarian.


    For anyone who has not yet heard the news, the UK has a Libertarian Party as of Jan 2008.

    www.lpuk.org
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)
    The libertarian idea of solving government related problems like abuse of power by removing governments as much as possible always struck me as similar to the decidedly non libertarian idea of solving drug related problems by removing drug dealers:

    You create a power vacuum, which others are only too happy to fill for you

    To solve the drug "problem" you don't "remove drug dealers", you simply remove their monopolistic hold over the drug market by legalising drugs and introducing competition....
    drugs are not the problem, the problem is prohibition.


    By a similar approach, open the government up to competition and watch it collapse. Don't force people to pay for the NHS and watch what happens, expose the post office to further competition and watch it crumble.

    I would not myself abolish government, but shrink it to such a point where it matters not who is in charge.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    It is so easy to abuse power, so therefore when a government has power over millions of citizens, that power must be severely limited.
    I agree that government power must be limited. The alternative, I guess ... would be some sort of absolutism. You'll get no disagreement from me with the view that Louis XIV style absolutism is a poor form of government.

    But that's not what you're arguing, is it? If it's not what you're arguing (you're instead arguing for something like right-libertarianism or anarchism) then there's a collossal gap between your conclusion and your premises. If that is what you're arguing, then your conclusion is trivial, and nobody remotely serious about political philosophy will disagree with you.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    how very naive
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    I agree that government power must be limited. The alternative, I guess ... would be some sort of absolutism. You'll get no disagreement from me with the view that Louis XIV style absolutism is a poor form of government.

    But that's not what you're arguing, is it? If it's not what you're arguing (you're instead arguing for something like right-libertarianism or anarchism) then there's a collossal gap between your conclusion and your premises. If that is what you're arguing, then your conclusion is trivial, and nobody remotely serious about political philosophy will disagree with you.
    I think he is merely arguing about the degree, or scope of government power i.e. the degree of power the government has right now is too much, it should have a much more limited degree of power.

    I agree it is pretty trivial point though - simply a "Hi guys, I'm a libertarian" thread with very little content.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    libertarians are such annoying people... ron paul supporters are the worst
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    As I say, the government is only needed to protect and uphold citizens' rights. The police are an example of this.
    Is protecting people's rights itself necessarily a violation of rights? If so, then nobody should do it, including the government. If not, then a government that prevents anybody from protecting the rights of others is necessarily preventing them from doing something that doesn't necessarily violate the rights of others. It therefore execceds the bounds of a government who's only job is to protect and uphold citizen's rights (since preventing people protecting and upholding rights does not protect and uphold rights). But if a government does not prevent anybody from protecting and upholding people's rights then it ceases to be an institution with a monopoly over legitimate force, and so ceases to be a goverment.

    Therefore a government, by definition cannot be limited solely to protecting and upholding people's rights because it would cease to be a government if it was.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)
    The libertarian idea of solving government related problems like abuse of power by removing governments as much as possible always struck me as similar to the decidedly non libertarian idea of solving drug related problems by removing drug dealers:

    You create a power vacuum, which others are only too happy to fill for you
    That would presume that abolishing government entails abolishing any means of protecting or enforcing people's rights. Abolishing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, though, need mean no such thing: A monopoly on the legitimate use of force may exist if no institution prevents others from using legitimate force.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well at least under this system we don't have the police killing the other police with an ensuing war, unlike with private defence companies.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    Well at least under this system we don't have the police killing the other police with an ensuing war, unlike with private defence companies.
    Why would private defense companies attempt to 'kill each other'? Do you not believe that a sense of justice (strong enough to resolve and establish the current-place government) would be enough to avoid war between profit-driven companies?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aesop)
    Why would private defense companies attempt to 'kill each other'? Do you not believe that a sense of justice (strong enough to resolve and establish the current-place government) would be enough to avoid war between profit-driven companies?
    Say person A attacks person B. Person A is protected only by defence company Z and person B only protected by defence company Y. Both defence companies do not have a form of settling disputes with one another and not signed up to a court that will decide. Unless defence company A or B has relevant clauses when defence will not be provided war between the defence companies will arise.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.