We need government

[doubtingmerle]

To all of you who want to cut back the federal government; to all who voted for a President who thought it would be easy to just dismantle much of government and bring on prosperity; to all who see serious government as the problem, please watch this clip.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1400076040047238

We need government.

 

[AlexDTX]

I am currently reading a book by Eric Metaxes entitled with the famous phrase of Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government do we have. He answered, we have a republic, "If You Can Keep It."

The debate between conservatives and liberals is not do we need government, but how big the government should be. Metaxes argues in his book that a small government envisioned by the founders of the constitution was dependent upon a moral and virtuous people who exercised self control. If people live honestly then the need of government is for disaster relief and other such things. The reason we don't have a small government is because Americans today are amoral and lack self control.

 

[Halbhh]

To all of you who want to cut back the federal government; to all who voted for a President who thought it would be easy to just dismantle much of government and bring on prosperity; to all who see serious government as the problem, please watch this clip.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1400076040047238

We need government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....."

The most central function of government always is the first also -- the safety of people in their lives and possessions, thus the military and the police and courts are the initial functions of any government.

We are more secure if we have free public schooling for example, because without it we would have more criminals through people turning to theft to survive.

Pollution threatens us through cancers and other forms of early disease. Natural epidemics threaten us. Natural disasters that overwhelm large regions. Financial fraud. The list goes on and on.

Against a wide variety of threats, human and natural, we institute government in order to secure a general safety for the population in our lives and possessions.

There is no liberty for long unless there is government to secure it.

Some people do not self-govern.

 

[Eryk]

Government became essential when human communities grew to a few hundred people, to manage projects for the common good and to protect the rights of private property owners. It's not a Right or Left issue. It's civilization. It's the reality that every person exists in some sort of society with shared rules and the leadership to enforce them.

Radical Right and Left wing fantasies of stateless societies have no application in the real world, except to destroy civilization. Utopia is not what comes next after our institutions are destroyed. We cannot reform our institutions if the political discussion is taken over by hecklers, vandals and arsonists.

I hope everyone who voted for Trump will understand that no one beats Washington or the global economy. The vain boasting and childish name-calling of one man is not going to build anything. We've never elected a President less interested in policy and statecraft and qualified people will have to fix the damage.

 

[Douger]

The government does many things that the citizenry couldn't do without the institutions of government. Some of those things are good and necessary, other things are harmful and should be stopped.

Weather Service - good
Deporting mothers and fathers of American children - bad
FEMA - good
Sending TOW missles to insurgents - bad
Making treaties with foreign powers - good
Breaking treaties with foreign powers - bad
Running the electoral system - good
Running a for profit prison system - bad

As John Kerry once famously spoke, "Depends".

 

[iluvatar5150]

Metaxes argues in his book that a small government envisioned by the founders of the constitution was dependent upon a moral and virtuous people who exercised self control. If people live honestly then the need of government is for disaster relief and other such things. The reason we don't have a small government is because Americans today are amoral and lack self control.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. There was nothing more inherently moral about society back then. This was an era when one race of people sought to own another, when duels were fought over trivial insults and wars were waged over blind greed. Murder rates in the colonies were higher than they are in the US today. The per capita death rate from war and murder is lower now than at practically any point in human history. If you're talking sexual morality, then that sort of puritanical view was popular among some waves of English immigrants (namely, those in the northern colonies), but much less so among those who settled in Virginia and particularly Appalachia.

Our society today is much larger and vastly more complicated than it was 250 years ago. As such, we need a government that is similarly larger and more complicated.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'm guessing that if this conversation does go on we're going to see some audacious uses of the Motte and Bailey technique.

i.e.

"Surely you know that you need government, since no private entity would be able to effectively deal with a large scale disaster."

then down the line:

"How can you possibly say that there are any unnecessary government agencies or regulations. You just agreed that we need government!"

 

[variant]

I'm guessing that if this conversation does go on we're going to see some audacious uses of the Motte and Bailey technique.

i.e.

"Surely you know that you need government, since no private entity would be able to effectively deal with a large scale disaster."

then down the line:

"How can you possibly say that there are any unnecessary government agencies or regulations. You just agreed that we need government!"

The folks who run broadly against government routinely propose cuts to things like flooding infrastructure spending and FEMA when where not currently facing real disasters.

Republicans have routinely put people against the mission of their government agency in charge of them and the last mistake with FEMA was made by Bush by putting someone with no real experience in disaster management in charge of it.

The main argument is with people who are against government solutions period.

They are well represented.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

In the last election, the bulk of GOP voters showed that they weren't really interested in rolling back the power of the federal government. A good many of the ones who did ended up voting for Gary Johnson...

 

[iluvatar5150]

I would argue that they were more moral insofar as they believed in moral truth and rejected moral relativism. The rejection of truth and feels before reals weakens societies.

They may not have preached moral relativism, but they certainly practiced it.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It's amazing to me that of all the people who posted about government and claim to be Christians, not one pointed to God's Word and what He says about government. For me, as a Christian, God's Word (not the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or any other man-written document) is the PRIME authority on what government is and why we have it. All others fall in line UNDER God's Word.

Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

It's all right there in black and white, clear as crystal.

It's amazing further to me how many claim to be Christians and go directly against God's Word by resisting His Authority in government as described in the above passage. That would be the libertarians and anarchists. Those ideologies are diametrically opposed to God's Word and I don't see how someone can be a Christian and against God-ordained government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot that you were alive then and know better.

I was as alive back then as Metaxas. Ya know, we do have historical records and these people called historians who study those records. By and large, government has a pacifying/civilizing effect on people. Murder rates in the wild west were higher before governments were established; murder rates were higher in Europe in the early 2nd millennium AD before governments were established; murder rates in primitive hunter-gatherer tribes are higher than they are in societies with stronger governments; fewer wars (with lower death rates) are happening now than practically ever before; etc.

I note that you didn't bother to counter any of the points I raised. I'd love to know what standard Metaxas uses to compare our relative levels of morality. Because as far as I can figure, the only way in which the colonists might have been more moral than us today is that they paid more lip service to Christianity, which, as a Christian myself, strikes me as an exceptionally shallow definition of "morality."

 

[ArmenianJohn]

No tribute, custom, fear, or honor is due the USG: a "rogue nation" and populist revolution attended by one third of the colonists and forced on all. To this day, it is a populist, anti-Christ government of the loudest and proudest - a government of warmongers and power worshipers, far exceeding the scope of Rome or Byzantium in depravity.

Do pretend lecture from the moral heights of a genetic fallacy, how "ebul" Caesar Nero was toward Christians, when our own neros have systematically murdered millions more for their own selfish gain, demonstrating a sociopath's hatred of life and liberty on an institutional scale. Rome had their Pax Romana; the USG have been the belligerents of war 221 years.

Mind providing evidence he was, before slandering a dead man who can't speak for himself? The idea is older and greater than the man singing, and are you any better than the wife beater, oh sinner?

Thanks for your reply but without anything Biblical to back up your opinion it really has no weight for me because I'm a Christian. Just because you have a distaste for government doesn't mean that God's Word becomes null and void.

If you have a Christian perspective on government I'd love to hear it, otherwise, no thanks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm guessing that if this conversation does go on we're going to see some audacious uses of the Motte and Bailey technique.

i.e.

"Surely you know that you need government, since no private entity would be able to effectively deal with a large scale disaster."

then down the line:

"How can you possibly say that there are any unnecessary government agencies or regulations. You just agreed that we need government!"

Can you explain to me why you resort to the slippery slope fallacy? Is it because you have no valid arguments to use?

It is widely regarded as a logical fallacy to assume that something is a slippery slope, that once one makes one logical conclusion, that he will be forced to follow that conclusion to illogical extremes.

If you would view the short video in the OP, it has nothing to do with the view that all regulations and agencies are good. Nothing. You just made that up and attacked that straw man, rather than address what was actually on the video.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The debate between conservatives and liberals is not do we need government, but how big the government should be.

If you would read the OP, you see it has nothing to do with conservatives wanting no government. The OP deals with those who voted for Trump with the idea that he would dismantle much of government and bring on prosperity. Trump has certainly set out as a bull in the china shop to dismantle government. His education secretary wants to cut back public education; his EPA directory wants to end climate protections; his attorney general shows no interest in protecting the downtrodden; he appointed an energy secretary who tried to say he wanted to eliminate the department, but oops, he forgot what the department was called. That is not a commitment to real government. It is a commitment to tearing it apart. That is what the OP is about.

 

[Mare Liberum]

Thanks for your reply but without anything Biblical to back up your opinion it really has no weight for me because I'm a Christian. Just because you have a distaste for government doesn't mean that God's Word becomes null and void.

If you have a Christian perspective on government I'd love to hear it, otherwise, no thanks.

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1Sam.8

Refusing God and his prophet, "We the People" elected a popular king - a crown from the gutter - to be a nation and not a people; to be judged by evil men, and battle enemies instead of sin. They followed a government based on strength and appearance, rather than faithfulness to God; and God gave the people over to their carnality and to invasion. And when God sent Heaven's King, "We the People" murdered him. I'm no kool-aid drinking pawn of An-archs, because I know my Monarch.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In the last election, the bulk of GOP voters showed that they weren't really interested in rolling back the power of the federal government. A good many of the ones who did ended up voting for Gary Johnson...

Not the ones I spoke to. They are glad that Trump is rolling back environmental protections. They are glad he is cutting funding to organizations like the National Weather Service. They are fine with shrinking FEMA. Those are the people that the video in the OP addresses.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1Sam.8

Refusing God and his prophet, "We the People" elected a popular king - a crown from the gutter - to be a nation and not a people; to be judged by evil men, and battle enemies instead of sin. They followed a government based on strength and appearance, rather than faithfulness to God; and God gave the people over to their carnality and to invasion. And when God sent Heaven's King, "We the People" murdered him. I'm no kool-aid drinking pawn of An-archs, because I know my Monarch.

A king? Who wants a king? I prefer a democracy.

You seem to be suggesting a theocracy, but how would that work? Since everybody seems to have a different idea on what God wants, it seems that running the country by each doing what "God wants" is anarchy. For how would you stop the person who says God wants him to kill gay people or Muslims?

 

[AlexDTX]

I was as alive back then as Metaxas. Ya know, we do have historical records and these people called historians who study those records. By and large, government has a pacifying/civilizing effect on people. Murder rates in the wild west were higher before governments were established; murder rates were higher in Europe in the early 2nd millennium AD before governments were established; murder rates in primitive hunter-gatherer tribes are higher than they are in societies with stronger governments; fewer wars (with lower death rates) are happening now than practically ever before; etc.

I note that you didn't bother to counter any of the points I raised. I'd love to know what standard Metaxas uses to compare our relative levels of morality. Because as far as I can figure, the only way in which the colonists might have been more moral than us today is that they paid more lip service to Christianity, which, as a Christian myself, strikes me as an exceptionally shallow definition of "morality."

Because I really have no interest in this argument. I find it interesting that you use the name of God in Tolkien's epic, Lord of the Rings and Silmarilion, as your name. Tolkien was a strong Catholic with a deep faith in Christ who was also instrumental in leading this fellow Inkling, CS Lewis to Christ. Yet you indicate that you follow an "other religion". What you may admire in his work is the very Christian principles that underlie his writing.

Furthermore, unless you are reading the actual documents any history we read is biased by the historian, and you can find any bias that you desire.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're playing yourself. Governments, from before King Narmer till today, are instituted for society's privileged elite pursuant their own Life, Liberty, and Happiness. If anybody benefits, its only by association to this elite and by accident.

I disagree.

Social security has kept many from starving.

Medicare has given healthcare to those who otherwise could not get it.

The National Weather Service has been very valuable in tracking hurricanes and other storms.

Homestead Acts have given much farmland to ordinary people for next to nothing.

Government has done a lot for ordinary people. See Government is Good - A Day in Your Life .