PDA

View Full Version : Necessary Functions of Federal Government?




DeadheadForPaul
11-12-2008, 04:50 PM
What do you consider to be necessary functions of the federal government? My list will probably be longer than most people's on this board, but I'm looking at it from a practical standpoint rather than a strict constitutional one

1.) National Defense: In an ideal world, there would be no need for a navy, air force, or army, but any nation which wants to survive in the 21st century must have all of the above. The important question is how those will be used (for defense or for global empire)

2.) Control of Diseases and Epidemics: Without state and federal government cooperating, we would still have many of the worst diseases from the past few centuries. Thankfully, identification, isolation, and vaccination have allow for the total eradication of small pox and other serious diseases. I consider infectious disease surveillance to be even more important than national security, in that infectious disease has caused far more deaths than all wars combined in the course of human history

3.) Interstate Transportation - could be more efficient, but necessary for economic reasons

UnReconstructed
11-12-2008, 04:56 PM
i think they should eat shit and die... but that's just me

Xenophage
11-12-2008, 04:56 PM
The Federal Government also has a role in preventing the States from infringing on basic rights. As much as I believe in local government, I believe even stronger in individual human rights. Federal Law should be very, very narrowly defined but it should still supersede State Law. The Bill of Rights, baby.

I agree with your points 1 and 2, and propose that they could be blended.

Point 3 I disagree with entirely. We used to have great interstate transportation with the best railroads in the world before the government got involved. Now look at 'em.

FindLiberty
11-12-2008, 05:07 PM
Constitution spells it all out. No additions or options, PLEASE!

(it does not mention FCC or HDTV cutover)

Don't forget "Sound Money"

virgil47
11-12-2008, 09:07 PM
It also does not mention the border patrol, the FBI or the CIA. Does that mean we should do away with these agencies? It also does not mention the DOT or the National Park Service. Should these be done away with? Again no mention of the FAA or the FCC plus many other useful agencies that we have come to expect to make our lives safer and easier. If it is not in the constitution should it be done away with? While I agree that the Federal Gov. has taken a great deal more authority for itself than the Constitution allows are all of these stolen powers bad for the U.S? If we as a society were still living in the 1700's I would say "do away with them all". However with the advent of modern warfare, transportation and communications perhaps some of these agencies should be kept. If that is so then who gets to determine which agencies get to remain and which agencies get the axe?Just food for thought folks.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-12-2008, 09:14 PM
It also does not mention the border patrol, the FBI or the CIA. Does that mean we should do away with these agencies?yes to the CIA

Printo
11-12-2008, 09:17 PM
National Defense & upholding the law of the land aka the Consitution. Thats it.

virgil47
11-12-2008, 09:20 PM
Printo, so you would do away with the FAA? The FCC? Who would insure it was safe to fly and who would insure the airways didn't get clogged with profanities and communist diatribes to the point that television and communications become possible?

FindLiberty
11-12-2008, 10:23 PM
Just food for thought folks.

Pay to play, privatize, or just say NO. I'm not willing to pay for your expectations.

torchbearer
11-12-2008, 10:27 PM
It also does not mention the border patrol, the FBI or the CIA. Does that mean we should do away with these agencies? It also does not mention the DOT or the National Park Service. Should these be done away with? Again no mention of the FAA or the FCC plus many other useful agencies that we have come to expect to make our lives safer and easier. If it is not in the constitution should it be done away with? While I agree that the Federal Gov. has taken a great deal more authority for itself than the Constitution allows are all of these stolen powers bad for the U.S? If we as a society were still living in the 1700's I would say "do away with them all". However with the advent of modern warfare, transportation and communications perhaps some of these agencies should be kept. If that is so then who gets to determine which agencies get to remain and which agencies get the axe?Just food for thought folks.

The constitution does not grant the federal government policing powers.
So any federal agency used to police the country is illegal.
Policing powers were left to the states.

eOs
11-13-2008, 12:37 AM
What do you consider to be necessary functions of the federal government? My list will probably be longer than most people's on this board, but I'm looking at it from a practical standpoint rather than a strict constitutional one

1.) National Defense: In an ideal world, there would be no need for a navy, air force, or army, but any nation which wants to survive in the 21st century must have all of the above. The important question is how those will be used (for defense or for global empire)

2.) Control of Diseases and Epidemics: Without state and federal government cooperating, we would still have many of the worst diseases from the past few centuries. Thankfully, identification, isolation, and vaccination have allow for the total eradication of small pox and other serious diseases. I consider infectious disease surveillance to be even more important than national security, in that infectious disease has caused far more deaths than all wars combined in the course of human history

3.) Interstate Transportation - could be more efficient, but necessary for economic reasons


Possibly the environment. Again, in an ideal world. Hold businesses and companies responsible for sustainable environmental policies. Although, unless you implement regulations on a global level, you're only hurting your own economic situation. This is the reason we aren't adhering to the Kyoto Porotocol..Because China isn't.

eOs
11-13-2008, 12:45 AM
The constitution does not grant the federal government policing powers.
So any federal agency used to police the country is illegal.
Policing powers were left to the states.

We'd be stomped into the ground without a consolidation of powers for defense. We're essentially dividing and conquering..oursevles

SeanEdwards
11-13-2008, 12:59 AM
Obviously a necessary function is forcing citizens to hand over their money and labor to well-connected but incompetent business executives.

John of Des Moines
11-13-2008, 05:39 AM
Point 3 I disagree with entirely. We used to have great interstate transportation with the best railroads in the world before the government got involved. Now look at 'em.

What was the federal government (and state governments as well) doing passing out land to railroads starting in the 1860's? The federal government has been in the transportation business since the adoption of the Constitution - something about having post roads. Then in the 1830's there was the argument about the national road and some canal and river building/work (iirc).

John of Des Moines
11-13-2008, 05:41 AM
Possibly the environment. Again, in an ideal world. Hold businesses and companies responsible for sustainable environmental policies. Although, unless you implement regulations on a global level, you're only hurting your own economic situation. This is the reason we aren't adhering to the Kyoto Porotocol..Because China isn't.

Private causes of action against the polluters in a Ron Paul world.

Truth Warrior
11-13-2008, 06:22 AM
FWIW, some thoughts from Ayn Rand:

Government
A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR09B), 107.


If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR09B), 109.


The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR08B), 183.

The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent *of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights *delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR09B), 110.


The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death.

“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR11B), 46.

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR09B), 109.


Copyright © 1986 by Harry Binswanger. Introduction copyright © 1986 by Leonard Peikoff. All rights reserved. For information address New American Library.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

torchbearer
11-13-2008, 09:27 AM
We'd be stomped into the ground without a consolidation of powers for defense. We're essentially dividing and conquering..oursevles

Having a national military to protect from foreign invasion is not the same as having a national police force.
Police forces are not used for defense, they are used to keep the people in line.
With a national police force, you will be stomped into the ground. LIterally.

sratiug
11-13-2008, 09:58 AM
It also does not mention the border patrol, the FBI or the CIA. Does that mean we should do away with these agencies? It also does not mention the DOT or the National Park Service. Should these be done away with? Again no mention of the FAA or the FCC plus many other useful agencies that we have come to expect to make our lives safer and easier. If it is not in the constitution should it be done away with? While I agree that the Federal Gov. has taken a great deal more authority for itself than the Constitution allows are all of these stolen powers bad for the U.S? If we as a society were still living in the 1700's I would say "do away with them all". However with the advent of modern warfare, transportation and communications perhaps some of these agencies should be kept. If that is so then who gets to determine which agencies get to remain and which agencies get the axe?Just food for thought folks.

Without the FAA, FBI and CIA we might have terrorists attacking us with planes... oh, that's right, we already did. So we need more FAA, FBI and CIA if we really want more terrorist attacks I suppose. The CIA and ridiculous military and corporate domination of foreign countries was the cause of 911.

The DOT just steals money from the states to give a little back, as does the DOE, no benefit. The FCC gives away valuable airwaves through corporatism to media companies that control our public debate. Not seeing the benefit... but do see a great disservice to America. Sex and violence are all over the TV.

heavenlyboy34
11-13-2008, 10:29 AM
What do you consider to be necessary functions of the federal government? My list will probably be longer than most people's on this board, but I'm looking at it from a practical standpoint rather than a strict constitutional one

1.) National Defense: In an ideal world, there would be no need for a navy, air force, or army, but any nation which wants to survive in the 21st century must have all of the above. The important question is how those will be used (for defense or for global empire)

2.) Control of Diseases and Epidemics: Without state and federal government cooperating, we would still have many of the worst diseases from the past few centuries. Thankfully, identification, isolation, and vaccination have allow for the total eradication of small pox and other serious diseases. I consider infectious disease surveillance to be even more important than national security, in that infectious disease has caused far more deaths than all wars combined in the course of human history

3.) Interstate Transportation - could be more efficient, but necessary for economic reasons

Read this-http://mises.org/story/2450 as well as this http://www.mises.org/store/Market-for-Liberty-P302C0.aspx?AFID=14 and tell me if your opinion remains the same.

Feenix566
11-13-2008, 10:43 AM
1. National Defense
2. Enforcing Human Rights
3. Environmental Regulation

Human rights include: free speech, right to bear arms, right to privacy, right to equal treatment under the law, and right to property ownership. The federal government's role in this can be restricted to the Supreme Court striking down state laws that violate these five rights.

Environmental regulation needs to be handled at the federal level because there are a lot of situations where states share natural resources such as rivers. You can't have New York dumping toxic waste into the Deleware river and expect New Jersey to drink it.

The only role that the federal Department of Transportation needs ot have is to set standards for road signs. This could be accomplished by one person. The federal DOT does not need to handle funding or planning of interstates. That can be handled by the States.

RonPaulNewbee
11-13-2008, 10:52 AM
I think we all kind of agree on the premise of constitutional government. The more difficult stage is in seeing a way forward. That's why this is a great thread: hash it out and come to some consensus. I believe what Ron Paul believes. However, the task is beyond monumental. How do we begin to reverse the damage? Where to do you start?

For instance, we had a bait and switch with the bailout recently. The $700 billion that was stolen from our kids: okay now it's NOT going to buy toxic assets? Paulsen is not going to give it back, so where should it be spent? This is the same amount as the cost of the Iraq War to date. What is the constitutional way to invest it? Top down, or bottom up?

These are the kinds of decisions we have in front of us, not somehow eliminating the Fed.