Is the Purpose of Government to Implement Social Change? (controversial, independence, solutions)

[GalileoSmith]

Originally Posted by clb10

Or is the purpose of government to protect liberty?

Quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The purpose of government is to enable the people..."



So does this mean that Jefferson would be happy with today's federal government?

I'll do the shocking thing (for this website) and not mention liberals or conservatives either negatively or positively.

The purpose of government can very with who you ask. There is no wrong answer. However, almost always will be included the formation of some sort of protective resolution against foreign powers. Other common government functions are the formation of some basic infrastructure such as roads, implementing laws, and employing individuals to enforce those laws.

There you go.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

Ironically, it is the very same constitution written by those founding fathers which has afforded the most freedom and protection to blacks.

Yep, like 3/5 of a person is better than 0/5 of a person.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by clb10

Or is the purpose of government to protect liberty?

Quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The purpose of government is to enable the people..."



So does this mean that Jefferson would be happy with today's federal government?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes social change results in increased liberty. Liberty is a 'state of being', so to speak, and social change is one potential method of reaching that state. Sometimes, social change moves us away from liberty, perhaps towards security, or some other goal.

That said, government's role is to interpret and implement the will of the people. Liberty is one of the primary goals of "the people", but it is not the only one. Things like police and fire, for example, restrict our liberties by making us pay taxes. We're exchanging a little bit of liberty for a lot of security.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Frankly, I could care less what a slave owner who believed in the inherent inferiority of African people; who was an agronomic anti-industrialist would think 200 years after his death.

/thread.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

And that was a common accepted belief back then and a worldwide belief even by the slave traders in Africa.

You cannot and should not judge history using today's standards.

Then you shouldn't be trying to use his 18th century logic (the quote the OP provided) in a 21st century society.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

And that was a common accepted belief back then and a worldwide belief even by the slave traders in Africa.

You cannot and should not judge history using today's standards.

There goes the idea of "taking this nation to its founding principles".

[Chicago60614]

If leaders with a list of things they want to enact are elected by the majority - than yes, of course they should enact those items.

[clb10]

Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler

Perhaps you'd care to show me where I said I disliked him?

Unlike you, I guess, an individual can display hypocrisy without drawing my contempt.

You took a comparative comment I made regarding you holding up Jefferson while railing against hypocrisy. I simply called you on it. But you keep searching the stands for that homerun ball to throw back, mmmmkay? If you're nice I'll sign it for you...

I'm still waiting for you to address the question instead of displaying your hatred of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps the question is too difficult for you to understand?

[doctrain]

Hitler thought so.

[Kirdik]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

If, and only if, you are black, I could understand your sentiment. Based on your name, I assume you are. If your namesake was alive today it would be interesting to hear his thoughts.

It would, wouldn't it? He was murdered by a Democrat by the way.