3 ms·

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer,

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. -- Tom Paine, Common Sense Gov't is at best a necessary evil - communism is unmitigated evil.

unalone 17y ago
Quoting a guy that lived over 200 years ago doesn't prove a point, though I like Paine quite a lot. Remember that he lived in a simpler, quieter society. Government is necessary to avoid a lot of sorrow. It gives us regulated foods and highways and it stops a lot of greedy people from doing bad things, while in theory allowing the people who're rich based on merit and talent to thrive without punishment. I think that government should be a choice on parts of the people - I'd like a few more anarchic societies in the world for people who don't want to deal with regulations and are fine with risking themselves for freedom - but civilization thrives under a good government.
billswift 17y ago
Good gov't huh? That's the one where 2 wolves and a lamb vote for what's for dinner? Democracy is the ultimate expression of might makes right, the only justification of voting is that since the majority can beat up the minority the minority better go along from the start. Can anyone here point me to ANY rational reason anyone should go along with a gov't other than to avoid being assaulted or worse?
- unalone 17y ago
  I kind of like the idea that my food's been inspected for poisons, my highways won't collapse on me, I won't be raped and killed when I go for a walk outside, and that companies don't have permission to turn into dictatorships. I like the last point a lot because I wasn't a fan of Internet Explorer and I'd have hated to have to use it. Petty reason to like antimonopoly practices, but hey, I'm free to be petty. Even the stuff the government fucks up on are fundamentally good ideas that I hope one day get revised. I like the philosophy that I get a say in who gets elected, though I wish we had instant runoff voting and caps on campaign expenditures. I like the idea of having free education, though the school system is awful. I also like that I have a right to avoid the government in favor of private practices in most cases.
  - billswift 17y ago
    The problem is that gov't FORCES everything on everybody; markets allow each to choose what is important to them. A really good example of the conflict is the current health care debates - if you want to see both sides in close argument, look at the comments on Megan McArdle's blog at The Atlantic. Megan claims to be a libertarian, but she's not much of one, I follow her blog mainly because of the interesting conflict in the comments. Also, I am serious about does anyone have any rational justification for gov't other than its ability to threaten.
    - unalone 17y ago
      I just gave you rational justification. I'd have thought clean water was justification enough for anybody.
  - dmm 17y ago
    The government doesn't inspect whether food is kosher but if a package of food has a kosher symbol on it I am fairly certain it is. Private organizations certify for kosherness and that seems to work pretty well. Why can't it work for food safety? EDIT: I would trust a private organization much more than the govt. in determining food safety because there can be competition amongst food safety certifiers and financial responsibility(I could sue them if food they said was safe, wasn't).
    - unalone 17y ago
      If food being kosher was a matter of sickness and health, I'd want to make sure there was a nationwide focus on it. Kosher is a small industry, and it's a religious industry, meaning that it's all relative anyway. If a Jewish man accidentally eats an unKosher meal, there's no harm to anything but his psyche, and chances are if he ate it by accident he wouldn't tell.
  - abefortas 17y ago
    Maybe he was arguing against democracy, not government? His point-- and it's one I think I agree with-- is that majority decision making really only differs from tyranny only numerically. The alternative, I suppose, would be voluntary governments, and decion making by consensus.

unalone 17y ago

Quoting a guy that lived over 200 years ago doesn't prove a point, though I like Paine quite a lot. Remember that he lived in a simpler, quieter society. Government is necessary to avoid a lot of sorrow. It gives us regulated foods and highways and it stops a lot of greedy people from doing bad things, while in theory allowing the people who're rich based on merit and talent to thrive without punishment. I think that government should be a choice on parts of the people - I'd like a few more anarchic societies in the world for people who don't want to deal with regulations and are fine with risking themselves for freedom - but civilization thrives under a good government.

billswift 17y ago

Good gov't huh? That's the one where 2 wolves and a lamb vote for what's for dinner? Democracy is the ultimate expression of might makes right, the only justification of voting is that since the majority can beat up the minority the minority better go along from the start. Can anyone here point me to ANY rational reason anyone should go along with a gov't other than to avoid being assaulted or worse?

unalone 17y ago
I kind of like the idea that my food's been inspected for poisons, my highways won't collapse on me, I won't be raped and killed when I go for a walk outside, and that companies don't have permission to turn into dictatorships. I like the last point a lot because I wasn't a fan of Internet Explorer and I'd have hated to have to use it. Petty reason to like antimonopoly practices, but hey, I'm free to be petty. Even the stuff the government fucks up on are fundamentally good ideas that I hope one day get revised. I like the philosophy that I get a say in who gets elected, though I wish we had instant runoff voting and caps on campaign expenditures. I like the idea of having free education, though the school system is awful. I also like that I have a right to avoid the government in favor of private practices in most cases.
- billswift 17y ago
  The problem is that gov't FORCES everything on everybody; markets allow each to choose what is important to them. A really good example of the conflict is the current health care debates - if you want to see both sides in close argument, look at the comments on Megan McArdle's blog at The Atlantic. Megan claims to be a libertarian, but she's not much of one, I follow her blog mainly because of the interesting conflict in the comments. Also, I am serious about does anyone have any rational justification for gov't other than its ability to threaten.
  - unalone 17y ago
    I just gave you rational justification. I'd have thought clean water was justification enough for anybody.
- dmm 17y ago
  The government doesn't inspect whether food is kosher but if a package of food has a kosher symbol on it I am fairly certain it is. Private organizations certify for kosherness and that seems to work pretty well. Why can't it work for food safety? EDIT: I would trust a private organization much more than the govt. in determining food safety because there can be competition amongst food safety certifiers and financial responsibility(I could sue them if food they said was safe, wasn't).
  - unalone 17y ago
    If food being kosher was a matter of sickness and health, I'd want to make sure there was a nationwide focus on it. Kosher is a small industry, and it's a religious industry, meaning that it's all relative anyway. If a Jewish man accidentally eats an unKosher meal, there's no harm to anything but his psyche, and chances are if he ate it by accident he wouldn't tell.
- abefortas 17y ago
  Maybe he was arguing against democracy, not government? His point-- and it's one I think I agree with-- is that majority decision making really only differs from tyranny only numerically. The alternative, I suppose, would be voluntary governments, and decion making by consensus.