The primary role of government?

[Rob Roy]

Provide orderly sucession, indemnify citizens against threat, provide common currency, provide infrastructure, define and secure borders, provide means to foreseeable consequences for actions, institute laws that reflect public sentiment ongoingly - in short - order.

Don't forget indoctrinate people and get them to kill others to "protect" the homeland.

 

[canndo]

Don't forget indoctrinate people and get them to kill others to "protect" the homeland.

That is a nasty part of the concept of order. It is possible that a government convince its citizens that maintaining order necessitates the total destruction of a group of people.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

That is a nasty part of the concept of order. It is possible that a government convince its citizens that maintaining order necessitates the total destruction of a group of people.

...the whole while destroying the people it claims it is protecting.

 

[canndo]

...the whole while destroying the people it claims it is protecting.

No, it would be better if they could be assessed as "trying" to destroy those people, they don't try, it is done either in their name as you say, or it is done without understanding.

"sufficient ineptitutde in government is indistinguishable from conspiracy. " Or Hanlons Razer.

 

[Rob Roy]

Ah what snake oil it is - ask any American if they have the "right to free choice" and then ask them what that means - they see it as "the right to purchase".

The right to free choice means you and you alone control your body, the fruit of your labor and your justly acquired property and are responsible for your actions and respect and abide by the choices of others as long as their choices are not the initiation of force.

One of the rights people have is to freely conduct commerce with WILLING participants or NOT to participate in commerce if they are so inclined.

 

[Rob Roy]

That is a nasty part of the concept of order. It is possible that a government convince its citizens that maintaining order necessitates the total destruction of a group of people.

Order that includes "the nasty part" is NOT order that has its' source in a solid moral construct. It is domination and uses the same rationalizations as slave holders.

 

[canndo]

Order that includes "the nasty part" is NOT order that has its' source in a solid moral construct. It is domination and uses the same rationalizations as slave holders.

the use of force is often necessary in the interest of order.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

the use of force is often necessary in the interest of order.

But often times abused

 

[donmagicjuan]

if we dont vote will they all go away?

 

[Rob Roy]

the use of force is often necessary in the interest of order.

The INITATION of force or the threat of it is at the core of the government business model. Ensuring that a "real victim" is restituted is noble, ensuring that victimless crimes are prosecuted is tyrannical.

 

[canndo]

The INITATION of force or the threat of it is at the core of the government business model. Ensuring that a "real victim" is restituted is noble, ensuring that victimless crimes are prosecuted is tyrannical.

What would you have government do Rob roy?

 

[budlover13]

What would you have government do Rob roy?

Not prosecute victimless "crimes"? Or better yet, make them not crimes at all?

 

[cannabineer]

What would you have government do, rob Roy to pay Siegfried?

Could not resist. cn

 

[Rob Roy]

What would you have government do Rob roy?

Put down the gun.

 

[canndo]

Not prosecute victimless "crimes"? Or better yet, make them not crimes at all?

How, exactly would you pull that one off?

 

[canndo]

Put down the gun.

Which means?

 

[budlover13]

How, exactly would you pull that one off?

Once it's determined that there is no victim (like, uuuhhhhh, smoking cannabis maybe?) there is no crime TO prosecute.

 

[canndo]

Once it's determined that there is no victim (like, uuuhhhhh, smoking cannabis maybe?) there is no crime TO prosecute.

the argument is that there is a victim (not mine) Society as a whole, of course the loss of productivity (although those studies are all tained with the "drugs and alcohol" reference. Most of us don't think we are harming anyone else with our penchant but many believe we are.

 

[budlover13]

the argument is that there is a victim (not mine) Society as a whole, of course the loss of productivity (although those studies are all tained with the "drugs and alcohol" reference. Most of us don't think we are harming anyone else with our penchant but many believe we are.

"Society" as a victim holds no water in my opinion. i want a name or group of names that can specifically prove harm.

 

[canndo]

"Society" as a victim holds no water in my opinion. i want a name or group of names that can specifically prove harm.

How about neglect of children? Oh not so much that social services need to step in but just enough so the children don't get the attention from their pot smoking parents that they really need.