Real World Event Discussions

Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 1 of 36

Friday, May 8, 2009 6:06 PM

moved from the "end of free content" thread...

One of things libertarians fret about a lot is the idea the proper role of government. We believe that government should be a tool of last resort when solving our problems. So we want to limit government to a small set of necessary services. Thus the notion of constitutionally limited government.

I don't recall socialism or socialists ever setting out any concept of clear limits on government power. Obviously, that makes libertarians very nervous. The one thing that socialists are clear about is that government should be used to redistribute wealth. From one point of view, if the state lays claim to the fruits of our labor, other "rights" become a moot point.

So, what I'd like to do here is invite the socialists (or those who lean in that direction) among us to explain what they see as proper limits on government power. Are there any? What would you consider off-limits for the state, and more importantly, why?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 6:22 PM

Government should either help a citizen on his life travels, or simply stay out of the way. Sadly, it tends to do neither. Then tries to look like it is.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 6:54 PM

I think I look at this a little differently: building in effective feedback loops to make sure that no single entity- government, industry, religion, or anthing else- gains ascendancy. Because power concentrates unless actively redistributed.

First of all, I would reform how our specific government itself is constituted. On the observation that concentrated decision-making tends to have a power advantage over distributed decision-making I would eliminate the Executive Branch and the office of the President. In terms of how the various government agencies would be directed, I would have them report to a self-elected board. Each board would have to report to Congress to argue its effectiveness and for its budget.

Election advertising should be provided freely to each candidate, and if anyone can think of any other measures to eliminate the role of money in elections, please propose them!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 7:00 PM

Apologies for the hardass-itude, but that doesn't answer my questions. Are there limits?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RUE
Friday, May 8, 2009 7:04 PM

I think in the proposed system where NO ONE gets to aggregate power, power is implied to rest mostly in the people. And the limits are whatever the people want. That's how I read it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 7:05 PM

Yes. There should be limits on government (and corporate) interference in your civil rights: privacy, free speech, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of association, freedom from prosecution, right to vote, equal protection under the law etc.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 7:05 PM

So, rue, it's fair to characterize your answer as no limits - pure majority rules?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes. There should be limits on government (and corporate) interference in your civil rights: privacy, free speech, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of association, freedom from prosecution, right to vote, equal protection under the law etc.



So, the Bill of Rights, minus the ninth and tenth amendments?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 7:23 PM

Not sure what the ninth does but at a gloss it sounds OK. But I would prolly revise the tenth. One of the things I find strange is that the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply all citizens under all circumstances. Some are re-enumerated in State Constitutions. Some apply to everyone, some are limited to Federal jurisdictions or to entities which receive Federal grants, or excluded where private institutions are involved. I've seen peeps bounced from Federal to State court and back again, trying to find the right jurisdiction.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 8, 2009 7:27 PM

I would also revise the second to remove the reference to a "well-regulated" militia and clarify that this is a right to "bear arms". I don't find it a particularly important right, but I think confusion should be eliminated.

Also, I would eliminate the death penalty, which seems to me to be a stellar example of a violation of the very first right, which is the right to life.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME