Proper role of government..

[Voted4Reagan]

Proper Role of Government....

Do the Will of the People...

Not the Will of partisan Hacks

[Kathianne]

Proper Role of Government....

Do the Will of the People...

Not the Will of partisan Hacks

The 'Will of the People' could bring problems, thus the safeguards such as electoral college.

Simple rule: The least level of government, only when necessary.

Examples:

Declaring War: Federal
Making Treaties: Federal
Securing Borders: Federal
National Defense: Federal
Currency: Federal
FAA: Federal
FBI: Federal
Interstate Commerce: Federal
SEC: Federal
Highway System: If building interstate, Federal. Once built, states maintain and pay for

That in my opinion comes pretty close to examples of where I think the federal government has jurisdiction.

States:
Intrastate Commerce
Intrastate roads-crossing municipal lines
Intrastate infrastucture
Intrastate policing and other civil services
Civil Law
Voting and Election rules
School Standards Minimums and Certification

Municipalities and Counties:
Schools standards in line with state requirements
Property taxes
Traffic
Intramunicipal roads and other services

Obviously not all inclusive and I'm certainly biased coming from a major metro suburban area. Our water is from Lake Michigan, a county away. My county pays millions for the water, my town pays it's share of the millions. While my 'street' is within one city, major thoroughfares are not.

Very different than rural areas, where the municipalities roads may be 10 or 15, but most routes are across tens of municipalities and several counties.

It's a complicated set of 'rural', 'suburban', near city suburban, and urban.

The sociologist in me wants to go on and on, but I'll see if anyone else is interested.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The government, under the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, has the duty to safeguard an individuals rights by whatever means necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights of citizens, and any others that the states award should be backed up by the full faith of the State in protecting those rights by whatever means necessary and exist to make sure that they are protected. That is one of the many luxuries in living in one of the most free societies, in the United States, and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with other's happiness and the enjoying of their rights as well.
Much of the answer given to this question of government's role will be dependent on which type of thinker is asking it. History has taught us that bad things are usually not far off when government does not take an active role in ensuring and protecting rights for individuals. When government goes silent in this capacity, some of the worst crimes are perpetrated. You can find much in historical record of what happens when individual rights are not acknowledged by a social or political order and what happens as a result.
Why endure the task of maintaining a government at all if the original purpose has been denied or so greatly changed!??-Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, am I to understand that your convictions are empty?

As little fj disappears into the distance, leaving more honest questions far behind, his voice is fading as he hurls the last of the diversions over his shoulder.....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As little fj disappears into the distance, leaving more honest questions far behind, his voice is fading as he hurls the last of the diversions over his shoulder.....

---Tyr

[aboutime]

The government, under the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, has the duty to safeguard an individuals rights by whatever means necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights of citizens, and any others that the states award should be backed up by the full faith of the State in protecting those rights by whatever means necessary and exist to make sure that they are protected. That is one of the many luxuries in living in one of the most free societies, in the United States, and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with other's happiness and the enjoying of their rights as well.
Much of the answer given to this question of government's role will be dependent on which type of thinker is asking it. History has taught us that bad things are usually not far off when government does not take an active role in ensuring and protecting rights for individuals. When government goes silent in this capacity, some of the worst crimes are perpetrated. You can find much in historical record of what happens when individual rights are not acknowledged by a social or political order and what happens as a result.
Why endure the task of maintaining a government at all if the original purpose has been denied or so greatly changed!??-Tyr

I think...RIGHT NOW, would be the most appropriate time to let Mister Obama, Mister Holder, Mister Reid, and the Wicked Witch of San Fran know....That Constitution exists, and millions of Americans are going to make those people mentioned above...FULLY AWARE of that document, when November arrives.
Funny thing is. It will probably be THE FIRST TIME any of those listed above. Ever heard of that Document...other than to Ignore it.

[Kathianne]

The government, under the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, has the duty to safeguard an individuals rights by whatever means necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights of citizens, and any others that the states award should be backed up by the full faith of the State in protecting those rights by whatever means necessary and exist to make sure that they are protected. That is one of the many luxuries in living in one of the most free societies, in the United States, and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with other's happiness and the enjoying of their rights as well.
Much of the answer given to this question of government's role will be dependent on which type of thinker is asking it. History has taught us that bad things are usually not far off when government does not take an active role in ensuring and protecting rights for individuals. When government goes silent in this capacity, some of the worst crimes are perpetrated. You can find much in historical record of what happens when individual rights are not acknowledged by a social or political order and what happens as a result.
Why endure the task of maintaining a government at all if the original purpose has been denied or so greatly changed!??-Tyr

However, by the Constitution we are a federation, not just a republic. At each level the republic is replicated.

[fj1200]

As little fj disappears into the distance, leaving more honest questions far behind, his voice is fading as he hurls the last of the diversions over his shoulder.....

How typical of you to leave open questions and run away. Two honest posts is about all that you have in you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

However, by the Constitution we are a federation, not just a republic. At each level the republic is replicated.

The replication was to insure the primary basis that it is the individual's rights that must be protected before all others. If individual freedom is severely curtailed then collective freedom shall be curtailed as well. As you well know a pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule, the majority being the "mob". Each person's rights and freedoms being the primary focus rules out mob rule. A JUST SYSTEM OF LAWS WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS ITS PRIMARY FOCUS PROTECTS THE GROUP BY DEFAULT WITH RELATIVELY MINOR ADJUSTMENTS. What we've had is a move away from individual rights in the name of group rights, this allows for the desired distortion which aids in taking power from the citizens by piecemeal legislation and Executive order etc.--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Things The Government Should Not Do

A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provided for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far, but no farther?" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives? We shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that "... though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people." (P.P.N.S., p.345) We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350)

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities - all with the other fellow's money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad to say that we are now at the height of the plunder stage! Trillions owed and many hundreds of billions simply "disappeared' with very little interest and/or almost no outcry about the plundering. Yes, let's just pretend that it is all business as usual in the new progressive mantra of borrowing trillions to spend. As if that is not an globalist/liberal/socialist agenda that has a specific goal in mind!-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Governement Cannot Create Wealth

Students of history know that no governement in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:

Quote:
"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.' We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.' In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."

The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world's products and possessions in the short span of 160 years. The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man himself." The last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book - which I commend to all - reads:

"No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours." (Charles Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)


The Basic Error Of Marxism

According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.


The Real Cause Of American Prosperity

Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:

Quote:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
Quote:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Republic is already gone. Obama has seen to that! A full 75% of all federal government actions, policies, agencies and programs are unconstitutional, we take over private business to reward political supporters and unions, and we have a fawning attitude towards anybody that speaks gentle lies and pretends to share our dreams of a prosperous future for our children.. Our taxes are beyond the dreams of Alladin's treasure, we have over 200 pages of law/regulations added to the book every single day of the year and we have one of the most controlled and locked down markets in the “free” world. We thrive on fear, thrills , cake and gladiator games while our education level as a whole is miserably poor compared to how educated we were when education was not a liberal ran indoctrination program.. Most people are amoral and most political leaders are pragmatists.

I believe that we’re currently dead as a Republic. What we are now and what we are becoming God only knows.
Very likely that we have this one chance to reverse the insanity or else we shall fall as surely as water is wet!
Do we pullback from Executive orders, appointed czars and end runs around Congress or do we beg for more of the same corruption , misery and treason!?? November folks, November will be the time of salvation or doom. We are very near a great crossroads and its our choice to stand with the Republic as it was founded or go with the socialist riftraft that seek to destroy our culture and nation?
I know which course I'll take and it puts our current dictator out the door with a swift kick to his sorry ass on the way out. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^^^^^^^ Post too much cold, hard , naked truth here and it's almost always ignored. So typical of how the nation reacts as well and the major reason that our Republic is facing this crisis now . Agree or disagree but such indifference is like a cancer IMHO..
FAILURE TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE THREAT HAS NEVER BEEN A WINNING METHOD RATHER JUST A LAZY AND SOMETIMES A COWARDLY ONE IMHO....A method greatly promoted by this nation's enemies...-Tyr

[fj1200]

Post too much cold, hard , naked truth...

Is that what you call it?

The Republic is already gone. Obama has seen to that!

Seems like opinion to me considering that BO has barely been president and much of what you whine about predates him by decades. Not to say, of course, that's he's not a blithering fool.

[tailfins]

It depends on how fallen the society is. When landlords commonly think a security deposit is a "lease administration fee", rentals need to be tightly regulated. When car repair shops commonly run up a four figure bill on a car needing no repairs, car repairs need to be tightly regulated. A society that mostly is unethical doesn't deserve freedom. Pre-Castro Cuba had nearly degraded to a "modern" Sodom and Gomorrah in the 1950s. I at least entertain the idea that it deserved Castro. Maybe they have learned their lesson in 50+ years. Our country is defined how each of us live our everyday lives. The politics reflect the society, not the other way around. Socialism, Communism or even Stalinism is appropriate for a nation that completely loses its sense of right and wrong.