|
Query. Why does a government exist? To protect people. Why do people need protection? Because they may come to harm. What would harm them? Other people. Why would other people harm them? Barring mental illnesses, the only rational reason to risk yourself against another is that you believe there is a possible gain that is worth the risk.
Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance, is the reason for the existence of government. Or, the protection of private property is the inherent purpose of government.
To undermine this principle is to undermine the most cursory and basic function of government, and any government engaging in actions contrary to this principle are in violation of the terms of their own necessity, and thus no longer have a reason to be allowed to exist.
This is my personal philosophy regarding government. I would like to know your own personal takes, what you see as potential flaws in my thinking, and then discuss.
Think of it as a mental exercise. I would like to keep partisan rhetoric out of the equation and try and remain in the realm of philosophy regarding governance. What are the base reasons for government, and why are YOU right? Or why am I right?
 
|
|
|
I think the purpose of government is to enforce contracts. Education is necessary too since illiterate people cannot make contracts. Basic laws are also necessary to prevent societally disruptive externalities from resulting from contracts.
|
I LOVE that video. I remember when I saw it for the first time it was like something finally clicked. Also, just as an aside, I've always appreciated and agreed with your stances in political threads. Thanks for representing the philosophy of individual liberty so well!
On February 04 2011 03:11 Gummy wrote:
I think the purpose of government is to enforce contracts. Education is necessary too since illiterate people cannot make contracts. Basic laws are also necessary to prevent societally disruptive externalities from resulting from contracts.
The question then becomes, why do people form contracts, and why do they need to be enforced?
I'd say voluntary exchange that results in the benefit of both parties and private property rights, what's your take? To me a contract is an extension of private property.
That is to say, what is contained IN the contract, and what the contract involves are private property as owned and exchanged by the parties involved.
|
is this a homework? origins/purpose of governments have been discussed thoroughly by many canons of politics and philosophy that i don't understand why you go to a gaming site to solicit their personal interpretation of the problem. unless you're planning to start a new government of your own?
moreover, your argument is flawed. governments were never only about protecting people (which you further, again erroneously, conclude as the protection of private properties). if i engage your query, it is only to say that the more relevant question to ask instead is "why governments are the way they are". nonetheless, i really do not see what you intend to achieve with this. it just seems blatantly arbitrary and pretentious.
|
In the pure philosophy of American Government, the government exists to ensure liberty. Foreign and Domestic enemies may plot to deprive sovereign citizens of their liberty. Government's first and foremost goal is the protect that sovereign liberty of each individual.
|
Thank you for sharing this.
|
Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P
The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified.
So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for.
|
On February 04 2011 04:27 gongryong wrote:
is this a homework? origins/purpose of governments have been discussed thoroughly by many canons of politics and philosophy that i don't understand why you go to a gaming site to solicit their personal interpretation of the problem. unless you're planning to start a new government of your own?
moreover, your argument is flawed. governments were never only about protecting people (which you further, again erroneously, conclude as the protection of private properties). if i engage your query, it is only to say that the more relevant question to ask instead is "why governments are the way they are". nonetheless, i really do not see what you intend to achieve with this. it just seems blatantly arbitrary and pretentious.
No, this is a genuine philosophical question I had that I wanted the opinion of the TL community on.
You claim my argument is flawed, and then proceed to neglect to inform me WHY, which is part of what I asked for. Congratulations.
TL has never been just "a gaming site", this is a perfectly valid thread like many others that have come before it that were just for the sake of discussion because the TL community tends to be fairly intelligent.
Lastly calling this "blatantly arbitrary and pretentious"? Really? There's this phrase...the pot calling the kettle black...you should check it out. If you're going to be a jackass about posting, don't do it. Or would that be too "blatantly arbitrary and pretentious" an askance? O_o?
|
I really don't think that the sole purpose of having a government is protection. Sure, it's part of it, but having a centralized figure also helps to have projects which may not be undertaken by entrepreneurs on a good scale, like seemingly futile experiments which sometimes don't directly result in anything "sellable" and invariably run a deficit. I'm thinking about some forms of science and space exploration, for instance. Naturally, anarchists disagree but they also don't understand reality.
I think that democracy and relatively well-run government seriously helped our society develop and become what it is - and hopefully it will get better.
I'd keep writing but I have to go. Will check back later.
|
On February 04 2011 04:35 GeneralStan wrote:
In the pure philosophy of American Government, the government exists to ensure liberty. Foreign and Domestic enemies may plot to deprive sovereign citizens of their liberty. Government's first and foremost goal is the protect that sovereign liberty of each individual.
But "liberty" is non-quantifiable. It's intangible. How do you protect something that is so intrinsically abstract? Opinions on liberty will differ, but does that mean what you're ensured as a right is only as superfluous as what your neighbor is willing to vote you? If so, it's not much to go on.
|
My opinion?
Government exists because long ago in humanity's history, you had farmers and you had hunter/ gatherers. Eventually the hunger/gatherers came to the realization, probably in a situation of desperation, that the farmers were much stable and well off than they were, but at the same time - they were much less skilled in the arts of violence. So the hunters attacked the farmers, taking the products of their labor for themselves. Only this created more problems for the hunters, because you can only steal from a dead farmer once. Eventually the hunters came to the realization that instead of just killing the farmers and taking their wealth, they could live with them, occupy their villages, and force the farmers to give them a portion of their products - allowing the hunters to have a perpetual income, instead of a one time grab. This of course led to other "responsibilities", because the hunters would then have to defend the farmers from other groups of hunters. So while taking a portion of their product, they also became the farmers protector. Over time this evolved into the governments we see today.
|
Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers.
|
On February 04 2011 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers.
I've read Republic, Wealth of Nations, The Prince and The Republic.
I'm not really looking for an "answer" per say, more so just a discussion with some philosophically minded folks on TL. I realize that finding a suitable answer to something like this is a time consuming endeavor, and I'm already doing what I can, but just some live dialogue can often be more stimulating than a book because it requires a degree of mental dexterity as well as having a good answer.
|
Hungary11305 Posts
I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans.
|
One thing to consider is, I don't think there is any example of a population where the majority has in say as to what type of government they have. Though there is some level of acceptance because generally if a majority of the population rebels the government probably will not last - this doesn't mean they are happy with the government though, because rebellion is putting your own life at risk, it just means that the ills of government are viewed as less than the ills of rebellion. The government is always or almost always a small group of people that take control, say they're in charge, and have some level of manpower to instill fear and/or obedience in the people.
|
On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote:
I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans.
What do you mean by serving the purpose to get it out of humans?
|
My philosophy of what a government should be is taking the wisest, brightest, most motivated, most capable people in the country and letting them decide how we should as a group act, because they are superior to the common man and will prevent the common man's idiocy from getting in the way of his life's betterment.
Government should:
educate
create infrastructure
protect
encourage
inform
advance technology
heal
|
On February 04 2011 07:08 sc4k wrote:
My philosophy of what a government should be is taking the wisest, brightest, most motivated, most capable people in the country and letting them decide how we should as a group act, because they are superior to the common man and will prevent the common man's idiocy from getting in the way of his life's betterment.
Government should:
educate
create infrastructure
protect
encourage
inform
advance technology
heal
It seems like a nice thought, but I don't think it holds up. First, how are you going to find these people? Second, no one will ever agree on who these people are. This is basically what politics already is, and I think it's clear that it's not working that well. Everyone votes for who they think is best, but no one agrees on who they think is best, then you're left with choosing the lesser of two evils and all that bullshit.
|
On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote:
I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans.
That was actually precisely my point. Sadism is an unnatural and overt extension of aggression. I'm saying that the only reason for aggression to occur is because of a perceived gain, or "advantage" as you put it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
