Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly, the OP did say that and I came back and said exactly this:
It's post number 3 on the first page.
Essentially, I disagreed with the OP who said any government was bad by saying (in just those three words) that I want a limited government.
It was nvxplorer who took issue that I made such a statement because I didn't define "limited government" clearly enough.
Just go to the first page and see for yourself.
Then what is a "limited government" and how can one measure how limited a government is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
No, because they did not limit you to the book you chose.
Limiting everything else about the book makes it government controlling the book. You are using a bad example because your basically saying this dictatorship lets you read any book you want on one day, so that magically makes it limited when every other aspect of the book is controlled by the government.
So how much government is the right amount of government? And how do you measure what is the right amount of government? You don't want to have a government so limited that it becomes useless.
To secure and protect my freedom and liberties.
Protect the nation from foreign invasion and harm.
The only 2 things the federal government was suppose to do.
Everything else was left to the individual states(Nations that joined the union)
Government is a good thing when weighed against the alternative.
Would you like to live in chaos, where roaming mobs came and stole your food, your clothes, your assets? Where they took what they want by force?
Every society puts in place a form of government. If you live among a group of people, those people will institute a system to protect the group, to resolve differences, to expedite trade among themselves and with other groups, to teach children their culture and values.
Certainly governments pose problems. We don't like dictators. We don't like restrictions. But when you live with other people, a little give and take is required, and people don't always agree on what that give and take should be.
You are speaking completely, in logical fallacies. You equate government with civilization and mutual cooperation when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Government is not civilized nor does it stand for cooperation. It stands for force and thievery.
It is as George Washington said it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
In its current form, it has become tyrannical and acts against the interests of the people.
Why should I move anywhere? Because you say so? No I will continue to live where I please and to expose government criminals for what they are.
Good for you! That is a logical and acceptable answer!
Certainly if you live in San Diego you are enjoying living in a place with one of the best climates in the world, surrounded by natural beauty and lovely architecture. If I lived there I wouldn't want to move either.
"Exposing government criminals for what they are" will not be a very effective or productive activity I fear. To most people you will just sound like a crank. A change in society requires work ... hard work. When people are dissatisfied by their government they do something to change it - either by reforming it or even revolution. I do not know how old you are, but it seems to me that for something like 230 years we have had a government meeting in Washington and running the country. Laws, rights, responsibilities and society has changed over the years, but government is still there. I am sure there are others in this country that would like to overthrow the government.
It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can think government on any level is a good thing.
At best, government is something that you hold your nose and tolerate.
There is a very good reason for this, people and I mean all people are corruptible.
The big difference between government corruption and individual corruption is the ability of government to expand corruption to a much higher level by way of force.
The government uses force to usurp peoples freedom and steal their money. They do this mostly under the guise of providing some sort of benefit to the people.
Governments number one task is to constantly fail. It is through failure that it not only perpetuates itself, but provides the reason for its constant growth and need for infringement into every aspect of the peoples lives. It is their constant failure that justifies the never ending public debt and tax increases. Every war begats another war, every social program encourages an ever growing sense of entitlement. Every law creates a reason to arrest people and to point to ever increasing crime.
It is truly insanity, and the people not only condone it, they constantly volunteer to give more of their freedoms and more of their money believing the lies that they are going to get something for free.
Of course it was the governments public education that molded their minds and their morals to believe the way they do, and to perpetuate the system which enslaves them.
The individual corruption brings about the government corruption. If people want a moral and ethical government, raise one. A government education can't touch that.
As for as people feeling entitled only the wealthy have the means to do that. The poor if they are lucky will get the scraps from the rich man's table.
Every war begats another war? Man is the only animal on the planet that can devise its own extinction. That is the insanity of it all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.