' The job of the Government is to keep greed in check '

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, July 14, 2008 20:30
VIEWED: 2736
PAGE 1 of 1

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 12, 2008 6:25 PM

How many of you agree w/ that statement ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:17 PM

keep the compulsion to want things in check or the result of greed in check?

either way I don't know how many people think that is government's role. You're coming at it from the wrong side.

Of course in our country, the government's job that our elected officials hate so much, is to protect the Constitution.

the reason we have a Constitution as it is written is because we wanted certain rights, to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because some of our forefathers thought it would be wise and just to give us all more hands-on control of our own lives, through government.

So the job of government now should be to benefit the greatest cross-section of its population...whether that manifests in direct material benefits or in enrichment of self-identity.

Nowhere does this check greed, unless the very equity of it starts to pull people up into a more thoughtful, considerate place where material wealth takes a back seat to personal responsibility about desegrigation,improved handicap access, etc.

Instead, what government does do, when we stay invovled on a large scale, and when we vote our self-interest, is to cancel out other, more powerful (and as they tend to benefit the few at the cost of the many), more detrimental self-intersts.

I got no problem with self-interst. But what I want to keep alive in this country is that opportunity isn't a possibility, it is a probability. The more everything gets sucked to the top, the less entrepreneurship is possible because of abuses of patent laws, undercutting by massive stores, crack legal teams that can sue competitors for mind-boggling things like saying you don't have growth hormones in your milk,

the more everything gets consolidated into less and less megacorporations, the less skilled labor is needed, the more jobs are outsourced, the more goods are imported, the less capital we have in fighting for a decent wage, the less money we have to buy those ultra cheap products, which, lo, are starting to not be so ultra cheap...go figure.

If people truly voted their own greed, their own self-inerest, we'd actually be in better shape now than we are, problem is most of us are uninformed as to the issues, uninformed as to the impact of policies of our candidates on our own selves....so we get people like Bush, and then we get all this.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:12 PM

Like hell.

The Gov's job a, SMALL set of EXTREMELY limited duties and responsibilities, it clearly outlined in the Constitution - not that the rampant monster borne from that original concept gives a shit, however.

That bein said, it ain't the Gov's job to PROTECT the greedy against the retaliation of folks they may have wronged along the path to "success", regardless of the "legality" of their gripe or method, either.

The Gov don't BELONG in it, and I state that as a FACT since 1906 they have come in on the side of the greedy every single time, so let's not get any Conservative Faery Tales about how the poor corps have the Gov holding them down - when those corps have historically had the full assistance of the Gov in beating down, harrassing and even murdering activists and unionists who would be the logical check and balance against rampant exploitive greed, if the Gov did not stand WITH the corps against them.

Ain't the fucking job of the Government to protect the greedy from those they fucked over neither - so quid pro mutherfuckin quo here!

I don't want em involved in such things either way, but they ARE, and sure as HELL not keepin greed in check, but rather the opposite and only the historically ignorant would ever even pretend otherwise.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

MIIKE

Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:16 PM

i always thought the job of the gouvernment was to carry out the will of the people who elected them in to power but then im just naive

im just going out,i may be some time

ANTHONYT

Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:26 PM

Hello,

I feel the job of the government is to guarantee basic, equal rights. Not so much to take care of me, nor guide my morality nor shield me from the consequences of my foolish actions...

Rather, government exists to make sure my property rights are upheld, and that I'm not killed, maimed, or otherwise abused by my fellow man.

Beyond that, I have no real desires or expectations.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIGHTEOUS9

Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:12 PM

Frem, is the like hell for auraptors post or mine,

and if for mine could you clarify what you are disagreeing with,

thanks

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:43 PM

From times past, no. As in, there was enough competition to make capitalism work.

Today, yes and no.

No, because it's impossible to keep people from attempting scams, etc and getting away with it some time. So, the laws in this regard shouldn't really change much except to keep up with new ways to screw people.

Yes, because international conglomerates have effectively made competition non-existent. Which makes capitalism in its current state completely broken.

So, it's not really a question of should it, but rather how.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:55 PM

The "like hell" comment was directed at the entire concept.

Morality is a very relative thing, and every time some pack of morons tries to use the Gov as a weapon to enforce THEIR morality upon others, disaster surely results.

Temperance Movement/Prohibition.
War on (some) Drugs.
Abstinence.
Anti smoking and related legislation.

Gov ain't got no business in morality.

As for the rest of that post, our countries history is rife with corporate robber barons exploiting and abusing their workers, and then when said workers took issue with it, calling in the guns of the US Armed Forces to "restore order" (i.e. suppress folk with a legit gripe) and as such, I place the Gov *firmly* in the camp of actively advocating and protecting such behavior.

Which is the opposite extreme from the Conservative shills and their "how dare the Gov prevent me from exploiting, polluting, or scamming!" sad-ass sob stories which always seem to be base fiction on the merest bit of real investigation.

That bein said, the Gov should NOT be in it at either extreme, as morality is a personal business, highly individual and subjective, and any attempt to enforce it rides very damn close to the line separating church and state, if not outright crossing it.

Just look into some of the horrific abuses of the "faith-based initiatives" for Gov finance of specific religions and moralities, as well as tax breaks only for recognized "official" (and thus, de-facto sponsored) belief systems, if you wanna see why I got such a gripe about it.

The Gov has ZERO place in defining, enforcing, or even advocating any form of morality whatsoever.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:52 AM

The job of Government is to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KHYRON

Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Sounds good.

I'm a little surprised that people are debating this. Don't we all agree that the job of a government is to get in a man's way?

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:35 PM

Frem,

legislation against say....murder, could be called legislating morality. There is no intrinsic truth that murder is bad...it is a moral judgement. Or do you see that as a property rights issue?

I suppose you could argue that nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights legislates morality because every law seems to have a more pragmatic, neccesary quality for the health of the state and the balance of power that needs to remain in effect in order for a democracy to endure,

but by extension, what laws couldn't we apply that same measure to? Hell, it could be argued that laws against drug use are pragmatic,and for the overall health, stability and sanity of the voting public at large. It would be a bullshit argument to a great degree, or at least I would disagree with it, but I just wonder what law can be taken purely as a legislation of morality.

Laws detailing hiring practices, forcing integration, forcing fair wages for women in the same jobs as men, etc. These could be morality laws, or they could be laws enacted to ensure that power in this nation is balanced more equally throughout the population, a strength to democracy.

I guess indecency laws are legislating morality, but even then I suppose that we could argue health reasons for some of those standards.

I got nothing for prostitution. That's a morality law if I ever saw one...but wait...so is setting the legal age for marriage at 18 and creating pedofelia laws for adults who have sex with children. This is a societal moral standard. Centruies ago, Girls used to be married off at far earlier ages. It was not thought wrong. Some kooks today don't think that would be wrong. What about laws like this?

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:43 PM

All laws reflect societal ethics. Laws are simply epxressions of how a society thinks people "should" behave. Often, there is more than one set of laws... a set for each "class".

I don't think Frem is arguing the basis of law. I think Frem is saying that because laws are codified morality he would like to see FEWER laws overall, and leave the morality to the individual. The rationale behind his thinking is that governments (and laws) are too often co-opted by the wealthy and are used to formalize/ secure the advantage of the controlling class.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:16 PM

fair enough,

and I have no disagreement with him there, except that I don't think his endgame changes the tapestry much.

If we just institute the barest bone laws like he suggests, like say, preventing murder or assault, then the same people will continue to reap the benefits.

Frem,

you suggest that we don't have to let the greedy corporations slide, that we can go after them with pitchforks and torches when they abuse us, and in that way we'll be able to keep them in check, but they'll still have the cops on their side, to protect them against that sort of thing, because in this pared down world, that's one of the few laws that would still be government enforced, I assume.

What truly, in this vision would promote a better balance of power? The corporations would have even more fredom to do what they wanted, and they would still have the strength of the state to protect them at the end of the day. So long as they are making a profit they can do whatever the hell they want.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:24 PM

Yeah, that's the basic crux.

The Gov should not, should never, decide morality - that is for the people to decide, however, there needs to be some level of protection from one group forcing a morality on others, which is, as stated, always disastrous.

My take on it is simple - if it directly harms no one, or no one BUT YOU, it ain't no one else's business.

Pretty simple application of the non-agression principle there, and as stated, a minimalist approach is far better than what we have now, so many useless, unenforceable laws that you cannot live a normal life a single day without violating maybe a score of them or so.

That is pretty ridiculous, innit ?

As for Corporations, Righteous... umm, point of fact is, that it IS that way now, they get a free pass due to corporate personhood, AND they get police protection.

One suggestion (this is tenative, and hasn't been really researched yet, so keep that in mind) would be to simply remove both, UTTERLY.

Remove all responsibility for local and state police concerning a corporations property - if they desire the power, let em deal with the responsibility.

Sure, if INDIVIDUALS feel threatened or in danger, they can call upon the police to protect THEM - but the corporations PROPERTY is on it's own.

No police, no fire dept, no "free security" or disaster relief, etc.

UNLESS, they surrender corporate personhood.

That might balance the odds some, I dunno, it just popped into my head while thinkin on this post.

Here's the thing, and my essential point though, corps have gotten a free ride for a long time, allowed to abuse or exploit workers with impunity, and then when workers did take issue, called upon the forces of the State to enforce their interests - not ONCE have the forces of the State ever stepped in to protect the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

And if they had, just imagine how things might have gone different, say if the Army had acted in defense of the workers and their kids that Carnegies men were machinegunning, perhaps ?

Seriously, read through the history thoroughly and you'll understand why I've zero respect or sympathy for them, especially corporations that amount to generational dynasties, and their involvement in pro-fascist(gov-corp mussolini type) politics up to and including the business plot.

A Union can fight a corp, a Union can NOT fight a corp and the combined forces of the entire US Military and Police forces - which is what they would have to DO since Gov is clearly on one side of the issue.

So it amounts to either throw a full on revolution/civil war, or resort to terrorism and sabotage, neither of which has worked here very well historically...

Or somehow change the equation and correct this imbalance of power.

Removing Gov's full and overwhelming support of corps against the folks they have wronged is a needed step in that process - even "Free Market" folks will, if pressed, admit this, cause Gov-Corps are the least competitive, most exploitive, and most ruinous things to free trade there is.

Just look at Amtrack for a perfect example, you'd think that with our current fuel crunch and other difficulties, we'd by now have a modern high speed rail system, but what we got is an antiquated, dangerous relic from a bygone era that is massively overpriced and inefficient because there IS no competition thanks to Gov sponsorship.

Anyhow, the whole concept of the Gov being a check against greed set me off when the concept is so damn laughable in the fact of 150 years of actively, intensively, deliberately SPONSORING greed.

And let's not even "go there" about no-bid contracts and the Military-Industrial complex.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, July 14, 2008 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How many of you agree w/ that statement ?

That sounds like a liberal trying to redefine the government's role to stopping free enterprise, which is a principle the country was founded upon.

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 14, 2008 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Sounds good.

I'm a little surprised that people are debating this. Don't we all agree that the job of a government is to get in a man's way?

------------------------------

Ding! Ding! Ding!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 14, 2008 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How many of you agree w/ that statement ?

That sounds like a liberal trying to redefine the government's role to stopping free enterprise, which is a principle the country was founded upon.

Actually, I heard this from a caller on a talk radio program. The caller, I assume was a socialist, because there had been a socialist on as guest earlier on the show. The caller said some other equally crazy stuff, but I wanted to be sure that I remembered this quote , specifically, and see what others thought.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Monday, July 14, 2008 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Yeah, that's the basic crux.

The Gov should not, should never, decide morality - that is for the people to decide, however, there needs to be some level of protection from one group forcing a morality on others, which is, as stated, always disastrous.

My take on it is simple - if it directly harms no one, or no one BUT YOU, it ain't no one else's business.

Pretty simple application of the non-agression principle there, and as stated, a minimalist approach is far better than what we have now, so many useless, unenforceable laws that you cannot live a normal life a single day without violating maybe a score of them or so.

That is pretty ridiculous, innit ?

As for Corporations, Righteous... umm, point of fact is, that it IS that way now, they get a free pass due to corporate personhood, AND they get police protection.

One suggestion (this is tenative, and hasn't been really researched yet, so keep that in mind) would be to simply remove both, UTTERLY.

Remove all responsibility for local and state police concerning a corporations property - if they desire the power, let em deal with the responsibility.

Sure, if INDIVIDUALS feel threatened or in danger, they can call upon the police to protect THEM - but the corporations PROPERTY is on it's own.

No police, no fire dept, no "free security" or disaster relief, etc.

UNLESS, they surrender corporate personhood.

That might balance the odds some, I dunno, it just popped into my head while thinkin on this post.

Here's the thing, and my essential point though, corps have gotten a free ride for a long time, allowed to abuse or exploit workers with impunity, and then when workers did take issue, called upon the forces of the State to enforce their interests - not ONCE have the forces of the State ever stepped in to protect the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

And if they had, just imagine how things might have gone different, say if the Army had acted in defense of the workers and their kids that Carnegies men were machinegunning, perhaps ?

Seriously, read through the history thoroughly and you'll understand why I've zero respect or sympathy for them, especially corporations that amount to generational dynasties, and their involvement in pro-fascist(gov-corp mussolini type) politics up to and including the business plot.

A Union can fight a corp, a Union can NOT fight a corp and the combined forces of the entire US Military and Police forces - which is what they would have to DO since Gov is clearly on one side of the issue.

So it amounts to either throw a full on revolution/civil war, or resort to terrorism and sabotage, neither of which has worked here very well historically...

Or somehow change the equation and correct this imbalance of power.

Removing Gov's full and overwhelming support of corps against the folks they have wronged is a needed step in that process - even "Free Market" folks will, if pressed, admit this, cause Gov-Corps are the least competitive, most exploitive, and most ruinous things to free trade there is.

Just look at Amtrack for a perfect example, you'd think that with our current fuel crunch and other difficulties, we'd by now have a modern high speed rail system, but what we got is an antiquated, dangerous relic from a bygone era that is massively overpriced and inefficient because there IS no competition thanks to Gov sponsorship.

Anyhow, the whole concept of the Gov being a check against greed set me off when the concept is so damn laughable in the fact of 150 years of actively, intensively, deliberately SPONSORING greed.

And let's not even "go there" about no-bid contracts and the Military-Industrial complex.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Hello,

Frem, I am concerned that this principle would simply give a corporation even more power than previous. Please do not encourage corporations to provide their own police forces. I d

HERO

Monday, July 14, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How many of you agree w/ that statement ?

Lets ask assorted Founders:

US- We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

UN- WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

India- WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN
SOCIALIST[1] SECULAR[1] DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY
ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Canada (short and sweet)- Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Fiji- This one is too long. Basically a history of Fiji.

Iran (long, but basically it says the purpose of their govt is to oppress women, kill the innocent, and grow long beards)- The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran advances the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society based on Islamic principles and norms, which represent an honest aspiration of the Islamic Ummah. This aspiration was exemplified by the nature of the great Islamic Revolution of Iran, and by the course of the Muslim people's struggle, from its beginning until victory, as reflected in the decisive and forceful calls raised by all segments of the populations. Now, at the threshold of this great victory, our nation, with all its beings, seeks its fulfillment.
The basic characteristic of this revolution, which distinguishes it from other movements that have taken place in Iran during the past hundred years, is its ideological and Islamic nature. After experiencing the anti-despotic constitutional movement and the anti-colonialist movement centered on the nationalization of the oil industry, the Muslim people of Iran learned from this costly experience that the obvious and fundamental reason for the failure of those movements was their lack of an ideological basis. Although the Islamic line of thought and the direction provided by militant religious leaders played an essential role in the recent movements, nonetheless, the struggles waged in the course o