PDA

View Full Version : Is Government REALLY always so bad?




DeadheadForPaul
12-05-2008, 05:32 PM
I've noticed that many in the freedom movement take their anti-government positions to an extreme level.

My question is: Have governments never improved society? Should they never interfere with any aspect of our lives?

Here are a few "good" acts of government

1.) Vaccinations - I know a minority of people out there oppose mandated vaccinations, but these policies have totally eliminated or virtually eliminated many of the worst diseases in history. It is extremely rare for any individual to contract a disease from the vaccine, and contrary to rumor, there is no proven link between vaccination and autism. The CDC is one of the few federal agencies which benefit the individual and society at the same time. I consider the CDC to be working for our national defense since diseases, plagues, etc. have killed more people than all of the wars combined

2.) Integration of schools - Not forced-busing but rather just allowing anyone to attend their nearest school

3.) Waste management and sanitation - Some may say "oh, well I can take care of my own off-the-grid sanitation" or "private industry could do this more efficiently. Both may be true, but historically, governments had to take care of these problems in urban areas because individuals and businesses failed to do so

I'm open to hearing any disagreement with my points (I'm sure there will be some)

Kotin
12-05-2008, 05:46 PM
wow are you serious!?

I dont even know when to start and unfortunately I am far too lazy to type down an adequate response..

1.vaccines contain mercury in them(you do the math) and forcing ppl to take them is complete BS Vaccines cause autism and a whole host of other problems. you are flat WRONG there.


waste management? must be desperate to find "good" things about the government.. HA! private industry would own up on the current system..

if there was a couple rats in my bed, either I could go and get a deadly ass snake to eat them, or I could gt rid of them myself.

DeadheadForPaul
12-05-2008, 05:51 PM
wow are you serious!?

I dont even know when to start and unfortunately I am far too lazy to type down an adequate response..

1.vaccines contain mercury in them(you do the math) and forcing ppl to take them is complete BS Vaccines cause autism and a whole host of other problems. you are flat WRONG there.

.

I've never read a legitimate study that suggests a casual relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in children.

Xenophage
12-05-2008, 05:56 PM
Deadhead,

The answer is no, Government does not have to be bad, nor is it *always* bad. I'm sure you will get other answers on here from the anarchist wing of our movement.

I believe government is essential to civilization, because I believe human rights are essential to civilization, which means: The right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of your own happiness. Those are the essential human rights, and the essential function of government is to protect those rights, not to infringe upon them.

Therefore I suppose a legal system to punish criminals and a military to protect us from outside aggressors. Beyond that I see a very limited role for government to play, if any, in our lives. To invite the government to meddle in our affairs at all is to invite the government to infringe upon our rights, and I believe those rights to be sacred. I do not condone *minor* infringements on property rights, or *minor* infringements on liberty for any reason.

To take the vaccination example: If I do not wish to be vaccinated for something, who has the right to force it upon me? Maybe the vaccination is perfectly safe and I would be irrational not to accept it, but it should still be my choice. Those people who feel the vaccination a rational choice for themselves should be free to accept it from whatever source is offering it. Isn't it fair play that the people who are at risk of contracting a disease are the ones that chose to take that risk?

Forcing someone's well-being on themselves is to take the notion that you know what's best for them, and furthermore: that you own them. I do not hold slaves, and I do not wish to be held as a slave.

Austin
12-05-2008, 05:57 PM
I've noticed that many in the freedom movement take their anti-government positions to an extreme level.

My question is: Have governments never improved society? Should they never interfere with any aspect of our lives?

Here are a few "good" acts of government

1.) Vaccinations - I know a minority of people out there oppose mandated vaccinations, but these policies have totally eliminated or virtually eliminated many of the worst diseases in history. It is extremely rare for any individual to contract a disease from the vaccine, and contrary to rumor, there is no proven link between vaccination and autism. The CDC is one of the few federal agencies which benefit the individual and society at the same time. I consider the CDC to be working for our national defense since diseases, plagues, etc. have killed more people than all of the wars combined

2.) Integration of schools - Not forced-busing but rather just allowing anyone to attend their nearest school

3.) Waste management and sanitation - Some may say "oh, well I can take care of my own off-the-grid sanitation" or "private industry could do this more efficiently. Both may be true, but historically, governments had to take care of these problems in urban areas because individuals and businesses failed to do so

I'm open to hearing any disagreement with my points (I'm sure there will be some)

I know I'm using an appeal to ignorance here, but I'll say it anyway. We don't know how many deaths and new diseases these vaccines have caused either. We also don't know the result of the government's intervention has caused on the big pharmaceutical companies...

Haha, this is going to turn into a slippery slope so I'm going to stop now.

I'll just say that anything the government can do, we can do better. We being the private sector, of course.

Xenophage
12-05-2008, 06:04 PM
I'd like to add that, regarding your waste management example, I do believe in sewers, and I do believe in user fees. In other words, I'm perfectly OK with city governments managing waste removal, sewers, water, etc. and having it paid for by property owners in the city that are connected to the grid.

Forcing people to connect to the grid is out of the question. However, sending a person to court, or possibly jail, for dumping their garbage on their neighbor's street or letting their sewage run into the sidewalk sounds like a good idea! If they can find some means of waste removal on their own terms that doesn't pollute the people around them, then they ought to be able to do so.... if, for some reason, they really want to.

dannno
12-05-2008, 06:06 PM
I've never read a legitimate study that suggests a casual relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in children.


Recent studies have confirmed the association between the use of thimerosal and autism has moved from "biologically plausible" to a "biological certainty" (Boyd Haley). Recent work by Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and Experimental Biology and Medicine have shown strong epidemiological evidence for a causal relationship between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children.

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

Xenophage
12-05-2008, 06:07 PM
Integration of schools - I don't believe in public education, first of all. Not in any form whatsoever. Separation of state and school is the most important separation of state from anything else, imho. That said, if an individual or group of individuals owns a school it is their sacred right to say who gets to go there and who doesn't.

AJ Antimony
12-05-2008, 06:09 PM
No, government is not always bad. The reason you see so much government hatred on here is that when we say "government" most of the time we are referring strictly to the federal government.

It turns out, as government gets more local, it gets more efficient. This is why stuff like waste management is always adequately taken care of by the government. It's not a state thing or a federal thing, it's a CITY thing. If for example the sanitation commissioner decides to waste money and provide an unsatisfactory service, then all it takes is a walk to his house to dump all your garbage on his lawn to turn him around.

DC is different. If you get screwed with higher taxes, well the people that did it live in other states. It's much harder and costly to find them and yell at them. This is how they get away with wasting money and making stupid decisions.

However, one thing the federal government gets right is the Post Office. Not because they've had smart postmater generals, but because the post office has to compete with companies like FedEX. The competition produces quality government results just like competition with the Soviets produced an impressive NASA decades ago.

Michigan11
12-05-2008, 06:10 PM
I've never read a legitimate study that suggests a casual relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in children.

It's true, I just began hearing about this a couple of years ago and was stunned. This last year, someone I know came across a doctor that studied in Poland, that actually discovered this themself.

My sister in law, who works in a hospital just talked about this as well, and never talked openly about it before either. Scarry shit.

Truth Warrior
12-05-2008, 06:14 PM
Probably not to the other barbarians that understand and support them and their force, coercion, violent tyrannical actions. :rolleyes:

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Probably not to the other barbarians that understand and support them and their force, coercion, violent tyrannical actions. :rolleyes:

+1

gls
12-05-2008, 06:25 PM
We don't need government for anything, but especially not "waste management". It is an extremely lucrative private industry.

malkusm
12-05-2008, 06:25 PM
Deadhead,

The answer is no, Government does not have to be bad, nor is it *always* bad. I'm sure you will get other answers on here from the anarchist wing of our movement.

I believe government is essential to civilization, because I believe human rights are essential to civilization, which means: The right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of your own happiness. Those are the essential human rights, and the essential function of government is to protect those rights, not to infringe upon them.

Therefore I suppose a legal system to punish criminals and a military to protect us from outside aggressors. Beyond that I see a very limited role for government to play, if any, in our lives. To invite the government to meddle in our affairs at all is to invite the government to infringe upon our rights, and I believe those rights to be sacred. I do not condone *minor* infringements on property rights, or *minor* infringements on liberty for any reason.

To take the vaccination example: If I do not wish to be vaccinated for something, who has the right to force it upon me? Maybe the vaccination is perfectly safe and I would be irrational not to accept it, but it should still be my choice. Those people who feel the vaccination a rational choice for themselves should be free to accept it from whatever source is offering it. Isn't it fair play that the people who are at risk of contracting a disease are the ones that chose to take that risk?

Forcing someone's well-being on themselves is to take the notion that you know what's best for them, and furthermore: that you own them. I do not hold slaves, and I do not wish to be held as a slave.

This, and your subsequent post in this thread, puts you on my +1 list of more reasonable posters here :D

luaPnoR
12-05-2008, 06:27 PM
However, one thing the federal government gets right is the Post Office. Not because they've had smart postmater generals, but because the post office has to compete with companies like FedEX.

If the government actually allowed other companies to deliver mail to mailboxes, USPS would be forced out of business very quickly. They are hemorrhaging money enough as it is.

wd4freedom
12-05-2008, 06:31 PM
All forms of government throughout the history of man have eventually used some aspect of violence to ensure and maintain power (even our own). This is the primal nature of man that has never changed, rhetoric aside.

What is supposedly different about our republic is that the systems established by our Constitution are meant to allow "battles for power" and transfers of power to occur in a peaceful manner as opposed to war and subjugation of the masses.

In the end whether through our system or any other power system, at their core is a constant and unmitigated quest for power that if not contained will end in violence until the next regime proceeds through its historical cycle of control.

Every record of man's brief history has a governmental force conquering peoples through violence.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
12-05-2008, 06:33 PM
Yes, government is always, always, ALWAYS inherently bad, because it constitutes (A) a corporate monopoly that destroys healthy competition, (B) an unjustified display of force, and (C) the notion that one person or group of people knows what's best for all

StateofTrance
12-05-2008, 06:49 PM
A really really small, smart, non-intrusive government is needed.

Otherwise the moment all the ISPs ban Alex Jones' website, you will start begging for govt. to intervene to take actions against whatever "bias." Oh no, your free market will come up with a new ISP..yeah sure..a new ISP for Alex Jones fans. Keep dreaming.

Andrew-Austin
12-05-2008, 07:01 PM
Always? Perhaps not. But its incredibly difficult these days to imagine government doing anything right... Signs of the times I guess.

mport1
12-05-2008, 07:08 PM
I've noticed that many in the freedom movement take their anti-government positions to an extreme level.

My question is: Have governments never improved society? Should they never interfere with any aspect of our lives?

Governments have never had any beneficial effects on society, and no, they should never interfere with any aspect of our lives. They should not exist. The initiation of force is never the right answer to solving the problems we face.

AutoDas
12-05-2008, 07:21 PM
A really really small, smart, non-intrusive government is needed.

Otherwise the moment all the ISPs ban Alex Jones' website, you will start begging for govt. to intervene to take actions against whatever "bias." Oh no, your free market will come up with a new ISP..yeah sure..a new ISP for Alex Jones fans. Keep dreaming.

You're the one dreaming about ISPs blocking websites. Local Governments grant these ISPs a "natural" monopoly.

Conza88
12-05-2008, 07:33 PM
I've noticed that many in the freedom movement take their anti-government positions to an extreme level.

My question is: Have governments never improved society? Should they never interfere with any aspect of our lives?

Here are a few "good" acts of government

1.) Vaccinations - I know a minority of people out there oppose mandated vaccinations, but these policies have totally eliminated or virtually eliminated many of the worst diseases in history. It is extremely rare for any individual to contract a disease from the vaccine, and contrary to rumor, there is no proven link between vaccination and autism. The CDC is one of the few federal agencies which benefit the individual and society at the same time. I consider the CDC to be working for our national defense since diseases, plagues, etc. have killed more people than all of the wars combined

2.) Integration of schools - Not forced-busing but rather just allowing anyone to attend their nearest school

3.) Waste management and sanitation - Some may say "oh, well I can take care of my own off-the-grid sanitation" or "private industry could do this more efficiently. Both may be true, but historically, governments had to take care of these problems in urban areas because individuals and businesses failed to do so

I'm open to hearing any disagreement with my points (I'm sure there will be some)

http://bailoutstats.ytmnd.com/

I'm sorry.... were you saying something? :rolleyes:

What is government? = Force & coercion.

Is force ever used for good? possibly... in the defence of private property rights and contracts. But then the market does that BETTER, and it LIMITS itself to that function. The government does not and cannot.

Has the U.S government done any good in the last 100 years?

Absolutely not. It is irrefutable. And if it did - it was an accident, and they quickly corrected their mistake. ;)

BuddyRey
12-05-2008, 07:50 PM
Government is only wrong because force is wrong. Government is force. If government was voluntary, that would be okay, BUT, if government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all! :eek::D

TastyWheat
12-05-2008, 08:48 PM
It's not about what works and what doesn't work, it's about principle. All day lawmakers have been arguing over whether an auto bailout would be good or bad for the economy, never questioning whether the action was right or wrong. Governments can, theoretically speaking, make good decisions, but I think you would agree most are bad and they widely affect all Americans.

In short, the less decisions they make for us, the better.

RCA
12-05-2008, 09:09 PM
Government is neither good nor bad. The people who control the government (We the People) have the parental responsibility to ensure that government behaves the way we want it to.

mport1
12-05-2008, 09:48 PM
Government is only wrong because force is wrong. Government is force. If government was voluntary, that would be okay, BUT, if government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all! :eek::D

+1