4 ms·

The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fa

The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpose of government as decided by the majority of the population, far exceeds protecting rights. > Are public schools better than private schools? Yes, they are far better than private school, for those who can't afford private schools. > Is the US postal system better than FedEx? Yes, it's far better than FedEx for those who live in place FedEx wouldn't and couldn't operate profitably because the postal system's aim isn't efficiency, it's coverage to "everyone" everywhere, something no market solution will offer because that's not a profitable mission. So it sounds to me like you don't understand the purpose of government and don't understand why government is necessary in such situations, because you can't think outside of your own self and realize that markets don't serve everyone.

Randgalt 10y ago
"The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Wrong, it's exactly the world I want to live in and the Constitution happens to agree, which is why we've amended it many a time, because the governed decided it was outdated. The notion that we should still be living by the dictates of men long dead is simply absurd, every generation has a right to decide for itself how its government works as it should, and as we have done.
  - Randgalt 10y ago
    So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.
    - X86BSD 10y ago
      This is not uncommon for those like the above poster that think the constitution is a "living document".
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        That isn't a matter of "thought", it's a matter of fact. The constitution defines itself as a living document through its amendment procedures.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Without the notion that the rules can and do change for each generation, we'd still have slaves, thankfully, we don't live under a set of rules that can never be changed. The will of the majority, and especially the super majority, is far better a thing to live under than the will of a handful of people from 238 years ago and any suggestion to the contrary is the definition of not thinking clearly.
      - Randgalt 10y ago
        "you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution" - oh really? Please open a US history book.
        deleted 10y ago

Randgalt 10y ago

"The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).

gnaritas 10y ago
Wrong, it's exactly the world I want to live in and the Constitution happens to agree, which is why we've amended it many a time, because the governed decided it was outdated. The notion that we should still be living by the dictates of men long dead is simply absurd, every generation has a right to decide for itself how its government works as it should, and as we have done.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.
  - X86BSD 10y ago
    This is not uncommon for those like the above poster that think the constitution is a "living document".
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      That isn't a matter of "thought", it's a matter of fact. The constitution defines itself as a living document through its amendment procedures.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Without the notion that the rules can and do change for each generation, we'd still have slaves, thankfully, we don't live under a set of rules that can never be changed. The will of the majority, and especially the super majority, is far better a thing to live under than the will of a handful of people from 238 years ago and any suggestion to the contrary is the definition of not thinking clearly.
    - Randgalt 10y ago
      "you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution" - oh really? Please open a US history book.
      - deleted 10y ago