What are the legitimate functions of government?

[Griff]

I have, in the past, argued for a strictly minimalist government. One of the few things I supported was national defense. Now that government has proven itself inadequate to the task of national defense, what can government be entrusted with? Am I reading too much L. Neil Smith?

How have they proven inadequate at self defense? You're still alive, aren't you?

I think the answer to your question is probably "Yes", from what you've posted so far. But I'll allow you to explain your thoughts a little better before I judge.

[Griff]

Yes, I am alive.

We have two major security issues that are front and center now. The 9 11 bombing and the anthrax scare.

Easy one first, its looking more and more likely that the anthrax was made in the USA by government labs. Problem created and eventually solved by government.

The messier one, why are we a target for Islamic extremists? Our foreign policy. Problem created by government, unfortunately probably irresolvable by our government. We still have a little problem in that most of the terrorists were Saudi nationals and we are allied with the oppressive regime there. No change in our relationship with Iraq, the sanctions are in place only the people suffer, not the regime. Israel still points American weapons at the Palestinians. Now we also have the added problem of the further dismantling of the Bill of Rights by der Office of Homeland Security.

I guess what I really wanted to know is, what other functions of government have value to people? I wrote the question intending to be provacative not to focus on the failure of national defense.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Griff

Easy one first, its looking more and more likely that the anthrax was made in the USA by government labs. Problem created and eventually solved by government.

And not even Ft. Marlene, which would have been my guess.

We still have a little problem in that most of the terrorists were Saudi nationals and we are allied with the oppressive regime there.

The oppressive regime there isn't allied with the terrorists -- nor are they opposed to that regime because the regime is too oppressive.
have value to people? I wrote the question intending to be provacative not to focus on the failure of national defense. [/b][/quote]

[Griff]

Correct, but would the Saudis actually hand over Al Queda members who get home?

[derek3000]

Government should only be around to protect our rights to life, liberty and property, as outlined in a minimal constitution containing objective laws. Anything else is too big.

The question then becomes "Where is the line drawn?"

Where does protecting "our rights to life, liberty and property" end and "overbearing government" begin? For example - is a trial of Microsoft too much? What about the RIAA, which as been called a "cartel" by the DoJ - their anti-piracy measures possibly infringing on rights - should the government step in? Who makes that decision?

[Griff]

I wouldn't authorize a govmint to intervene in either case. If the consumer is getting screwed a market without political barriers would provide other options. I would draw the line at coercion, if a business uses the power of government to hold market share it should be destroyed (by the consumer). Government intervention always leads to bullshit like the taxpayers of NY or PA buying stadia for for the poor baseball owners. To paraphrase Gandolf when offered the ring of power... I cannot take it, for I would be tempted use it for good, unfortunately power has its own purposes.

Gandalf.

I agree that taxpayers shouldn't pay for baseball stadiums and the like. So we see eye to eye on that. But what if the consumers are powerless to stop a corporation? Suppose Microsoft managed to get its operating system on to everything - they would, then, control everything. What then? Consumers stop buying their products? What if Microsoft started stealing money from consumers' bank accounts? What if the big dissenters were completely drained and their identity erased? No coersion, though, so it's all good?

[jaguar]

Well the principle of a *democratic* government is to express the will of the people..

Right. But now we're talking about principles and ideals, which, unfortunately, the world doesn't follow. I agree - ideally, the government should have as little to say in the day-to-day lives of its citizens as possible. However, with human nature and all that fun stuff, I'm not sure that's very plausible.

[jaguar]

Idealy?
Debateable.
Look at for instance Calssical Athenian Democracy. Over 6000 citivens had to be present at a meeting for any laws to be apssed, there would be debate, and either consensus would be reached or it owuld go to a vote, juries often had 200 or 500 memebers, a much more participatory decmoracy than our currant competitve eliteist model (As defined by Models of Deocracy - Stanford Press).
By wanting the government entirley out of your life you also lose a degree of control of it.

I think you're misreading what I wrote.

People should have control of the government - the government should not control every aspect of the citizens' life.

I don't need a law to tell me how to brush my teeth or tie my shoes. I don't need a law to tell me what I can and cannot do with things I have purchased - if I want to make a copy of my CD so the original basically sits as a "backup" and doesn't get scratched, then that's nobody else's business, and doing so should not mean that I am liable to arrest. Do I want a government to exist? Yes. Do I want it to do its job? Again, yes. However, I don't want its job to be "micromanage the population of the country". Not only is it a waste of my money (in taxpayer dollars), but it's restricting on personal freedoms as well. It's not something that we need.

[jaguar]

My point was that the more interactino yo uahve with government, hte larger role you are going to play in hwo it operates.
What a government is meant, and not menat to legislate is often set out in consitutional boundries. hte problem with a decocracy i tht is is menat to represent the majroity, no matter how stupid and selfish they happen to be....

I don't need a law to tell me how to brush my teeth or tie my shoes. I don't need a law to tell me what I can and cannot do with things I have purchased - if I want to make a copy of my CD so the original basically sits as a "backup" and doesn't get scratched, then that's nobody else's business, and doing so should not mean that I am liable to arrest.

Your example is a contraversial one, while i do agree with you woudl you prefer if governments didi not legislate copyright? It get murky.

[elSicomoro]

*looks at Jag's post*

Damnit jag! I told you to lay off the sauce for New Year's!

(post # 900)